Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Below minimums in medevac

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Below minimums in medevac

    Well, in fact not medevac, but transporting an ablated hart.

    "The minimum visibility for landing in Cordoba is 800 meters. It was 50 When we landed," said the pilot to describe the complexity of the maneuver. They arrived on time, and the heart could be implanted into the patient waiting for it. "We feel very happy. We always do when a mission is completed, even more one like this. The most important thing is to save a life."
    Opinions?

    http://www.clarin.com/sociedad/Aterr...133886867.html (in Spanish)

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

  • #2
    I can't read the article (I can barely cope with English let alone other languages :P), but if they landed below minimums without having overriding aircraft reasons (like having no fuel) then they are silly.

    Comment


    • #3
      sorry, i have to disagree MCM. and my reasoning is somewhat contradictory.

      this was essentially a life flight in my estimation. that is to say, the purpose of the flight was to save a life, albeit one perhaps not in imminent danger. however, given that suitable donor organs are not available on supermarket shelves or from amazon for that matter, it is quite possible that the recipient would have died if the heart didn't reach the destination timely.

      i was a paramedic for over 15 years. and as Brian can confirm, one of the things they drill into your head is that your safety and that of your partner is paramount--above even the life of the patient. however, in my 15+ years, my partners and i risked our lives countless times to save people, as did many of our co-workers.

      i don't consider myself heroic--i was doing my job. but i think there is a fair amount of heroism (and yes, thrill-seeking, adrenaline junkieism etc etc) in a good percentage of folks that work in lifesaving fields.

      perhaps busting minimums is an asinine maneuver at times, such as with get-there-itis. this crew had a purpose and a valid one in my book.

      hats off and kudos to them!

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree completely with TeeVee. A medevac pilot will always try to complete his mission and will do so by busting minimums if he can present a good case for doing so. Such a case will be built on clinical need to save life balanced against the risks involved. If we the medics are prepared to take those risks then so be it.
        I'm assuming that this was a fixed wing flight and that the aircraft was equipped to make the 50 metre visibility landing. Life would have been easier had it been a helicopter equipped with the military style FLIR, night vision equipment etc. that medevac choppers have these days. My local service has recently started night flights with an MD902. The visual enhancement equipment supplied is simply astonishing in its clarity, especially the 5th generation night vision goggles being used. From their Redhill base next to Gatwick Airport in the UK they can clearly see traffic over the French coast.
        If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by MCM View Post
          I can't read the article (I can barely cope with English let alone other languages :P), but if they landed below minimums without having overriding aircraft reasons (like having no fuel) then they are silly.
          Try this:


          (Google translation, not perfect but enough to guess what it says).

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #6
            Brian - thats the point. They have the equipment and training us mere mortals don't even get near.

            If the aircraft was equipped and approved to operate to 50m visibility, then fine - but I highly doubt that was the case.

            To intentionally bust minimums is a LOAD OF CRAP. For ANY pilot, under ANY planned circumstances. The point is that those minimums, for medivac pilots, may well be well below those that a normal operator's risk assessment would allow. It may be considered a high risk operation. But it would be one that has been pre-planned, and considered.

            They are still operating to planned minimums.

            To go outside of those is endangering the lives of not only those that are engaged in the operation, but those on the ground too. It is 'cowboy' behaviour, and is completely unprofessional.

            Some of the things medivac guys do down here is absolutely amazing. Operate in weather when I wouldn't even leave the house to 'airports' that are more like a dirt track with no lighting. And you know what? I've never, ever, heard of them operating outside the manual. Maybe they do and keep it quiet - but I doubt it. I'll bet your local rescue crew is exactly the same Brian. They'll push the limits - but they know their approved envelope well and operate within it.

            Comment


            • #7
              All I will say is that I have in the past witnessed the envelope being stretched somewhat !
              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

              Comment


              • #8
                Sorry Brian, I have to agree with MCM here 100%. Had they splattered the aircraft on the side of the runway and skidded into a housing project, they would have lost themselves, the heart and innocent people sleeping in their beds as well. Minimums are minimums and unless there is an actual emergency they should be strictly adhered to.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  Minimums are minimums and unless there is an actual emergency they should be strictly adhered to.
                  Well, some (not necessarily me) might argue that there was an actual emergency indeed.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                    i was a paramedic for over 15 years. and as Brian can confirm, one of the things they drill into your head is that your safety and that of your partner is paramount--above even the life of the patient. however, in my 15+ years, my partners and i risked our lives countless times to save people, as did many of our co-workers.
                    That doesn't necessarily make it acceptable. A dead paramedic is unlikely to do his patient any good. Granted, it appears you and your coworkers got away with it more than once, but...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The two in question here are not paramedics, they are pilots. Granted they were carrying a very important cargo that was a time critical parcel. But again as I said in my above post, landing below minimums was a calculated risk. O.K. they got away with it but they violated the rules to due so. Landing with 50m visibility, (164 feet) is a CAT 3B approach, and from flying Lears for over 6000 hours in years past, they are NOT CAT 2 let alone CAT 3 equipped. I do them in the 74 and it is a hair raising experience every time.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Here's the alternate version:

                        Originally posted by Final Report
                        The investigation finds that the Lear touched down successfully before colliding with the chartered 747 crossing the active runway, killing the occupants of the Lear and all 320 nuns, orphans and puppies aboard the 747. The 747 pilots apparently mistook the runway for the parallel taxiway due in part to poor visibility. Contributing to the crash, the Lear was carrying a human heart needed urgently by a medivac crew on the ground and this likely influenced the pilot decision to continue below stated minimums. The investigation also revealed that the flight crew had repeatedly violated landing minimums on the past for reasons of urgency and that this had become an 'acceptable risk' exception to legal operations and an admirable 'heroic' behavior within the culture of the company.

                        Recommendations: Stronger emphasis must be placed upon the absolute inviolability of safe minimum restrictions as well as better education as to why these rules exist. Furthermore, the phenomena of task-orientation among pilots must be overcome through such supplemental training.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          The two in question here are not paramedics, they are pilots. Granted they were carrying a very important cargo that was a time critical parcel. But again as I said in my above post, landing below minimums was a calculated risk. O.K. they got away with it but they violated the rules to due so. Landing with 50m visibility, (164 feet) is a CAT 3B approach, and from flying Lears for over 6000 hours in years past, they are NOT CAT 2 let alone CAT 3 equipped. I do them in the 74 and it is a hair raising experience every time.
                          Actually, I think that the 50m is a bragging exaggeration.
                          Apparently 50m was the reported visibility but apparently a "window" opnenned in the fog as they approached.

                          The airport is not autoland rated, and I bet that neither the plane or the pilots are either. I don't think that it's possible at all to pull this trick by hand-landing the plane. 50m visibility means that you see your "aiming point" when you are just 8 feet above the runway. How do you flare in such a scenario?

                          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ok, let's be mean.

                            You are a corporate pilot. Aboard your plane are you, the FO and the CEO of the company.

                            The CEO gets badly ill, complaining about chest, left shoulder and left arm pain and difficulty to breath, and then slumps on the floor.

                            You judge that he is suffering a hart attack and that he needs immediate medical intervention to have any chance to save his life. You can land in 10 minutes in an airport that is below IFR minimums, or divert to the nearest airport above minimums which is 1 hour away.

                            Is that an emergency worth taking the risk of landing below minimums in the nearer airport?

                            Now change your FO and CO for your wife and your kid, and it's your kid the one slumping on the floor.

                            Now change your wife and kid for someone else's wife and kid. And don't be so asshole to say that your kid deserves it but someone else's kid doesn't.

                            Now put that kid at stake, not on the plane but in an hospital with his life depending on the hart that you have aboard arriving on-time.

                            I don't have a position here. But it's a tough call.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Evan View Post
                              Here's the alternate version:
                              Also a contributing factor was the meteorite that had impacted on a lake 1 NM away of the airport 10 minutes before the landing lifting a big cloud of steam that generated the fog.

                              Come on, so you have:

                              - An ablated hart and a person in hospital that will die if he doesn't receive it in the next few minutes.
                              - An airport in very poor visibility.
                              - Said airport being the only one where the medevac plane can land to deliver the hart on time.
                              - A 747 full of persons taxiing around said airport despite the poor visibility that would prevent any operation (where is this 747 coming from and going to, if it didn't just land and it's not going to take off?)
                              - The 747 pilots that mistake the runway for the taxiway.
                              - The medevac plane that lands in exactly that runway of exactly that airport at exactly that time.
                              - And with the 747 strategically positioned on a zone of the runway as to cause a high-speed collision.

                              There is a point where the risk turns from "not reasonable" to "reasonable".

                              I don't know if the risk that this crew take was reasonable or not, but the risk to impact a 747 full of people that was mistakenly taxiing on the runway had a low enough probability as to make it acceptable.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X