Below minimums in medevac

[BoeingBobby]

Here's the alternate version:

My point exactly! And well said Evan!!

[Gabriel]

My point exactly! And well said Evan!!

What? I didn't expect that from you.

The Evan's alternate version could happen to you legally landing in CAT III B. If there is an airplane or any other vehicle mistakenly on the runway when they think they are in a taxiway...

In fact, runway intrusion accidents don't even need bad visibility. The accident could have happened in perfectly CAVU daylight weather. The intruding plane mistakenly crossed the active when he thought he was crossing the taxiway.

I don't know if what they did is legal, ethical or in any other way acceptable or not. But they were in an ILS landing in a controlled and radar-equipped airport. I really don't think that there was any unreasonable risk to make harm to anybody other than themselves.

[BoeingBobby]

What? I didn't expect that from you.

The Evan's alternate version could happen to you legally landing in CAT III B. If there is an airplane or any other vehicle mistakenly on the runway when they think they are in a taxiway...

In fact, runway intrusion accidents don't even need bad visibility. The accident could have happened in perfectly CAVU daylight weather. The intruding plane mistakenly crossed the active when he thought he was crossing the taxiway.

I don't know if what they did is legal, ethical or in any other way acceptable or not. But they were in an ILS landing in a controlled and radar-equipped airport. I really don't think that there was any unreasonable risk to make harm to anybody other than themselves.

Gabriel, I think you need to reread Evans post. It is a bit tongue and cheek, but a possible scenario of what could have happened. Yes runway incursions do happen, but they are MISTAKES. Remember, humans do that from time to time. If we have done a CAT 3B landing we will then use the SMGCS 10-9 page for the taxi in. In the 747-8 we have a GPS generated moving map in the PFD and that makes it a whole lot easier.

Again in reference to my earlier post, yes they made it in while busting minimums. Because they made it with no problems and got the heart to the patient they are looked upon as heroes. Had they landed short of, or skidded off the side of the runway and killed themselves, wasted the viable organ and killed a few innocent people on the ground, there would be much different headlines. And as Even pointed out in his hypothetical story, I am willing to bet that this is not the first time or the last time they have done this.

[Gabriel]

BB, just to clarify, I meant someone else mistakenly being in the runway while you perform a perfectly legal and mistake-free CAT III B landing.

What I meant is that if there is a collision with an airplane landing in low visibility conditions and another one on the active when he was not cleared to be there, the accident would still happen whether the landing was below minimums or not.

And again, I think that the chances that they have killed somebody but themselves are really very small and I'm not factoring that into the risk analysis.

Especially in that airport:
The only RWY with ILS is RWY 18 (in this photo, you would be approaching from the right), which is 3200m long (some 10,000ft).
As you can see, very little risk of an incursion, an overrun, or anything else that will kill someone outside the plane (since the final approach path and the side of the runways are open fields).

[MCM]

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.

Yes, it is a tough call. When your own family is involved, you make decisions that your normally rational mind wouldn't, which is why family members are kept out of the process!

Actually, the decision is relatively easy. In passenger flying we have sick passengers reasonably often, some of them get very sick. Some die. And I will never land below minimums for any of them. Why? Because my job is to ensure the safety of all the passengers, crew and the aircraft. The minimums have been set for a reason, by risk assessments done in the calm light of day, not by a pilot, under significant stress, with incomplete information, on approach.

The chances of a runway incursion at a non-low vis airport are significantly higher. Low Vis approved airports have procedures and systems in place to reduce the risk of incursions. That doesn't necessarily make it likely, but it is a higher chance.

Carrying a time critical organ is NOT an emergency. Under ANY circumstances. It is a PRE-PLANNED exercise, with very high importance. As I have said before, for this reason it would be reasonable for the medivac operator to be allowed to accept a higher risk scenario - thats what most medivac does. They may allow approaches to lower minimums than the rest of us can use. They may allow lower fuel loads, higher take off weights, flight on single engine etc. But it is all PRE PLANNED and considered.

Their minimums are adjusted accordingly. To go below those is irresponsible.

And to back up what BoeingBobby has said - Cat IIIB is intimidating enough. 50m visibility is below even CAT IIIB minimums in a lot of cases. And thats in a fully approved aircraft. To go trying to hand fly in those conditions is just madness.

[Evan]

Come on...

Ok, the 747 had just landed and was told to hold short of the runway crossing taxiing in but mistook it in the fog. We both know this happens.

My point though isn't that this specific scenario is possible. It's that there is a solid reason for visibility minima and some are not so obvious but have been considered by the pointy heads who established the rules. My scenario is just one possible consequence but as BoeingBobby pointed out, there are all the other reasons too. Now, yes, in a CATIII B you could also collide with that a/c, but this kind of risk taking only adds to that threat and you aren't even CATIII B rated.

But my larger point is that I think this is—or at least can become—established behavior if it is permitted at all, and sooner or later....

The pilot practically brags about busting minimums here. Yes, he saved a life, but it could have gone the other way where the patient and a number of others lose their lives.

It's a bit like an ambulance driver running full throttle through busy city intersections because the patient is on the verge of dying. Reckless.

As long as that aircraft can hold or divert, I think this is a fine place for black and white thinking.

[Gabriel]

Let's be mean again.

You have a very sick passenger, one that will probably die if you don't land in a nearby airport that is perfect except that you can't legally land there (under normal circumstances, declaring "emergency" turn legal a lot of things) because it doesn't meet the firefighting rating required for the type of airplane that you are flying.

I have been in doubt until now. But in this case, I would definitively land and hope that the firefighting service will not be needed.

So what rules can be bent to save the someone's life? It seems to be a judgement call rather than a black-and-white criteria.

[Gabriel]

Ok, the 747 had just landed and was told to hold short of the runway crossing taxiing in but mistook it in the fog. We both know this happens.

My point though isn't that this specific scenario is possible. It's that there is a solid reason for visibility minima and some are not so obvious but have been considered by the pointy heads who established the rules. My scenario is just one possible consequence but as BoeingBobby pointed out, there are all the other reasons too. Now, yes, in a CATIII B you could also collide with that a/c, but this kind of risk taking only adds to that threat and you aren't even CATIII B rated.

Again, in this specific case the chances of killing somene else but the two flight crew were minimal. There is nothing but ground to hit thousands of meters around the touchdown zone. Maybe that was part of the pilot's judgement process and he would not have done the same thing had he been landing in Congonhas.

And again, I very much doubt that the actual visibility was 50m. Simply because you can't hand-land a plane in that condition and I'm assuming (and I think it's a very fair assumption) that the system (airport-plane-crew) was not capable of autoland.

But my larger point is that I think this is—or at least can become—established behavior if it is permitted at all, and sooner or later....

The pilot practically brags about busting minimums here.

With that, I agree.

Yes, he saved a life, but it could have gone the other way where the patient and a number of others lose their lives.

It's a bit like an ambulance driver running full throttle through busy city intersections because the patient is on the verge of dying. Reckless.

With that, I don't, because again I think that they put nobody else's lives at risk but their own ones. Not even the patient's one. For the patient, having the plane crash or divert would have had the same result: Struck in an hospital without a hart to be implanted.

As long as that aircraft can hold or divert, I think this is a fine place for black and white thinking.

Maybe, but with an approach like MCM says, where this risk assessment was done in advance and the envelope for this mission was defined accordingly.

[MCM]

You have a very sick passenger, one that will probably die if you don't land in a nearby airport that is perfect except that you can't legally land there (under normal circumstances, declaring "emergency" turn legal a lot of things) because it doesn't meet the firefighting rating required for the type of airplane that you are flying.

I have been in doubt until now. But in this case, I would definitively land and hope that the firefighting service will not be needed.

So what rules can be bent to save the someone's life? It seems to be a judgement call rather than a black-and-white criteria.

In airline flying, again its actually fairly clear. The airline will have airports approved for the operation of the aircraft, and airports that are not.

FWIW, my airline does not consider a medical emergency to meet the definition of an aircraft emergency, and as such you can only divert to an approved airport. That is because the risk assessment has been done in a calm office, while not faced with teary relatives and panicked passengers, and it has been decided that the risk to aircraft, passengers and crew by diverting to a non-approved airport is unacceptable, even when faced with a seriously sick passenger.

That is airline flying - which is of course different to private jet and general aviation flying.

[Evan]

\
With that, I don't, because again I think that they put nobody else's lives at risk but their own ones. Not even the patient's one.

I admit I am less concerned about this than if they had pax aboard, but I think the risk of a ground collision that might involve lives on the ground is still present there. As is the chance that they strike a wing trying to compensate at 8ft and veer off into a structure or touch down long, hit the localizer on go around and end up in someone's living room a mile away.

And it's just that slippery slope that is my main concern. If the pilots are not sanctioned for this, but are instead portrayed as heroic, it sends a message.

Aside: when conducting a CATIII B approach, does the tower take added precautions with ground operations?

[BoeingBobby]

Aside: when conducting a CATIII B approach, does the tower take added precautions with ground operations?

Yes Evan, When CAT2 or CAT3 approaches are being conducted, all aircraft on the taxiway for the arriving runway in use are held at the "CAT2" holding line which is further away from the runway than the normal hold short line. This insures that there will be no interference of the ILS signals from them. Also clearance for a CAT2 or CAT3 approach assumes that all ground equipment required for the approach is operating normally.

[3WE]

...Minimums are minimums and unless there is an actual emergency they should be strictly adhered to.

This is not a personal attack- but there's that black and white thinking that makes one a good, safe pilot.

And not unlike the "thunderstorm thread"- there's plenty of reasons why it might be safe.

It's always tough to reconcile a gray-area world with black and white decisions.

I was recently intrigued by the UPS crash at Birmingham AL.

One pilot I know described the terrain for the particular runway as kind of scary and stated that he would not want to fly that approach at night nor in ***hard IMC***.

AND we come to learn that a number of airlines prohibit the approach in their ops manual and after the UPS crash MORE airlines prohibited the approach.

The counter argument- THE APPROACH USES THE SAME GENERAL TERPS SAFETY BUFFERS AS ALL OTHER APPROACHES SO IF YOU FLY IT WITH ANY SORT OF COMPETENCE YOU WILL HIT NOTHING.

I apologize for shouting- but this is a very clear example of two different "black and white" scenarios that don't acknowledge the very real gray area that exists- between a legal approach with official safety buffers and an airlines ops manual.

***and yeah, cue the discussion that there isn't hard and gentle IMC...the weather is either IMC or it's not.***

[Gabriel]

I admit I am less concerned about this than if they had pax aboard, but I think the risk of a ground collision that might involve lives on the ground is still present there. As is the chance that they strike a wing trying to compensate at 8ft and veer off into a structure or touch down long, hit the localizer on go around and end up in someone's living room a mile away.

Okay, a risk is always present. But how relevant is this risk.
Touch down long and hit the locallizer with a Lear on a 10000+ ft runway?
Veer off into a structure? Please copy/paste this in Google Earth or Maps and tell me what structure you have in mid: 31 17 58 S, 64 12 30 W (thats the coordinate of the touchdown zone).
And a 747 being there by mistake is as impossible as it gets!!!

Again, I think that there was no significant risk of killing anybody else but the two pilots. Does this makes it acceptable? No. Not by itself at least.

And it's just that slippery slope that is my main concern. If the pilots are not sanctioned for this, but are instead portrayed as heroic, it sends a message.

With that I agree, and that's what prompted me to post this story here.

Aside: when conducting a CATIII B approach, does the tower take added precautions with ground operations?

Nothing that would prevent a 747 packed with poor and hungry refugees being sitting in the middle of the runway by mistake, when the pilot thinks and informs ATC that he is safely holding on the taxiway, and neither the landing pilot nor the tower can see them due to the fog.

[AJ]

Having flown aeromedical earlier in my career I can say that the organisation would have fired me in a heartbeat (excuse the pun) if I had deliberately violated any part of our approved operation, including busting minimas.

That being said there is a disclaimer in our regulations for a 'mercy flight'. The PIC had to determine the need and never jeopardise the safety of the aircraft and crew.

The airstrips I would operate to were often dirt, flares for lighting and no navaid so it was a slightly riskier operation to start with!

[BoeingBobby]

And a 747 being there by mistake is as impossible as it gets!!!

Sorry Gabriel, I have been in there twice. it is an alternate for us when we go into B.A.