Medical helicopter crash in STL
- Thread starter NomadicMedic
- Start date
CANMAN
Forum Asst. Chief
- 805
- 425
- 63
triemal his point is there is old statistical data, which I believe is over 4 years old now, which compared single engine vs. dual engine aircraft crashes and found it to be like 51% vs. 49% so no real statistical backing to prove that they are indeed safer, and thats what he's saying.
My point is the data is old, there has been a huge surge not only in the number of bases and single engine aircraft that have turned up over the past few years unfortunately, but also ALOT of programs who maybe had a dual engine aircraft switching to a single. It seems like, based off looking at the recent (within 3- 4 year timespan) that almost every crash has involved a single engine aircraft, and IN MY OPINION a lot of them have been due to getting into weather scenarios which a single engine aircraft isn't rated for, however a dual engine aircraft might have a better/different outcome based off pilot training in recovery from those situations and features like dual autopilots etc, as I described earlier.
So yes he is saying there is nothing to prove they are safer, and I am saying let's utilize common sense here and look at the recent trends, accidents, causes, and then say would the same situation/crash happened in a twin. For some of the scenarios it wouldn't make a difference, but it is my absolute belief that a twin engine IFR rated aircraft could have prevents some of the recent incidents.
In talking to a friend and co-worker this morning about the most recent crash (today's crash involving a single engine A-Star) he put it perfectly by saying "it's 99% about IMC/IFR abilities and often only 1% mechanical, however I would rather have 2 engines and never need the safety margin it then have 1 on the day you do".
European HEMS models laugh at us when it comes to crash rates and statistics, you know why, because they are all in dual engine platforms capable of IFR flight, with two pilots, and every safety system available.
My point is the data is old, there has been a huge surge not only in the number of bases and single engine aircraft that have turned up over the past few years unfortunately, but also ALOT of programs who maybe had a dual engine aircraft switching to a single. It seems like, based off looking at the recent (within 3- 4 year timespan) that almost every crash has involved a single engine aircraft, and IN MY OPINION a lot of them have been due to getting into weather scenarios which a single engine aircraft isn't rated for, however a dual engine aircraft might have a better/different outcome based off pilot training in recovery from those situations and features like dual autopilots etc, as I described earlier.
So yes he is saying there is nothing to prove they are safer, and I am saying let's utilize common sense here and look at the recent trends, accidents, causes, and then say would the same situation/crash happened in a twin. For some of the scenarios it wouldn't make a difference, but it is my absolute belief that a twin engine IFR rated aircraft could have prevents some of the recent incidents.
In talking to a friend and co-worker this morning about the most recent crash (today's crash involving a single engine A-Star) he put it perfectly by saying "it's 99% about IMC/IFR abilities and often only 1% mechanical, however I would rather have 2 engines and never need the safety margin it then have 1 on the day you do".
European HEMS models laugh at us when it comes to crash rates and statistics, you know why, because they are all in dual engine platforms capable of IFR flight, with two pilots, and every safety system available.
SeeNoMore
Old and Crappy
- 483
- 109
- 43
I am inclined to agree with Remi. To be sure everyone has the right to hold and state personal preferences. I think we also need to keep good data at the forefront of any debates on HEMS safety. My understanding is that there is no statistical correlation between twin engine aircraft and fewer accidents (when relevant factors are accounted for). If twin engines are safer, that is important information. But we can't use it effectively unless it is backed up by good science. That is just the way the world works. More generally, no matter which airframe you find yourself in I think safety is largely influenced by the quality of maintenance, the experience and skill level of pilots, a commitment on the part of the program to side with Pilots / Crews who make good decisions regarding weather, a program that is open to hearing concerns and criticisms. I fly with a program that uses both single and twin engine aircraft just for perspective. But just to be clear I am not trying to say you don't have the right to express your beliefs, I just don't think evidence based on personal experience or opinion is very compelling.
Angel
Paramedic
- 1,201
- 307
- 83
Some people just like to argue....