PHI filed bankruptcy

[Bell206]

Their main problem is the death of shelf properties.

I think "was the death" is more appropriate. Shortly after the current owner bought the company in 2001 he steered away from the shelf as the major oil companies were. RLC, Westwind, and other helicopter operaters started picking up the shelf work PHI and others were not renewing.

But when Black Elk and Energy XXI looked to renergize the shelf by drilling deeper in existing fields they elected to pay PHI's much higher rates. But by then the "normal" shelf work aircraft were being phased out.

By 2009, PHI was set to go deepwater only, then the Horizon spill happened. Long story short, given the opportunity they would go deepwater only as their fleet is geared toward that and fits the original plan. It was the reason they were the launch customer for the S-92 and the probable launch customer for the Bell 525. However, the price of oil needs to increase before that happens.

 

[Bell206]

When that happens, some of these programs will shed their twin for singles to improve profit margins.

FYI: there have been several IFR STCs for the 407 out for a number of years. But the added weight, fuel load, and EMS equipment interfaces didn't give it much of a usefull load EMS wise. I think AMC owns one of these STCs and they couldn't make it work. While Bell hasn't published any hard numbers yet on fheir kit, it will be interesting how it works out. However, until they tweek Part 27 it will be hard to get a really usefull IFR SE rotorcraft, in my opinion.

 

[Velocity173]

FYI: there have been several IFR STCs for the 407 out for a number of years. But the added weight, fuel load, and EMS equipment interfaces didn't give it much of a usefull load EMS wise. I think AMC owns one of these STCs and they couldn't make it work. While Bell hasn't published any hard numbers yet on fheir kit, it will be interesting how it works out. However, until they tweek Part 27 it will be hard to get a really usefull IFR SE rotorcraft, in my opinion.

Based on the article, I think that’s their plan. As Part 27 stands, it won’t work for EMS. That’s why there’s like a half a dozen 407s in the US that have the STCs. Not sure why the Navy cares if the get FAA approval though. Navy and Army have been operating 206s IFR outside of Part 27 criteria for decades.

 

[Bell206]

Not sure why the Navy cares if the get FAA approval though.

My understanding its "military politics" and the move to more advanced off-the-shelf airframes like the UH-72 as most current aircraft in the inventory are a big jump from the the 57. Will be interesting to see if the 407gx has a chance.

 

[Velocity173]

My understanding its "military politics" and the move to more advanced off-the-shelf airframes like the UH-72 as most current aircraft in the inventory are a big jump from the the 57. Will be interesting to see if the 407gx has a chance.

Yep. Another reason for the Army was to save money...so they say. Apparently all the TH-67s were coming due for major maintenance and they wanted to offload them. Not sure I buy that. They were already locked into their contract with Airbus for around 350 LUHs and the Guard wasn’t utilizing theirs, so it was logical to send them to Rucker. I don’t think it was very smart of the Army to order a non combat deployable aircraft in the first place though.

The real conflict comes with going all dual engine training and no more autos to the ground. Lot of old pilots are fired up about not teaching the basics. Personally, I’d like to see them stay SE so the students can get a feel for hands on flight an autos to the ground, but with an all twin fleet (minus AH/MH-6) perhaps it’s not necessary.

 

[weilke]

I turned the quotes upside down, it makes more logical sense that way.

It's not just ambulance rates increasing. All hospital costs have increased exponentially.

It really hasn't. In the US, average cost for a hospitalization in 2000 was around $7500, average cost now is about $10,500 (inflation adjusted). Note that this is actually paid cost, not the 'funny money' charges hospitals submit to the insurers. This number seems low, but keep in mind that with the average length of stay around 4.5 days, many hospitalizations only last a day or two.

Of course a lot of the increase in cost is due to flight volume decreasing. With so many bases being added everywhere, 25 flights a month has become the norm, instead of 60+. The fixed costs remain the same, aircraft, hangar, pilot/crew salaries. Less flights mean less payers to divide that fixed cost. Combine that with poor reimbursement rates and now there are even less payers to split up those fixed costs

I suspect that this is the dominant factor. Based on AAMS data, there are now 960 medevac bases with 1100 aircraft, in 2002 there were 472 bases with 500 or so airframes. What happened in 2002 is that medicare significantly increased the reimbursement rate, and with MC being one of the larges payors, this fueled a significant increase in the size of the industry. Then in 2014, the medicare rate was capped and what we are watching now is the industry trying to raise revenues to cover the larger installed base in an environment of stagnant or decreasing reimbursement.

Well a lot has changed in EMS over the last 10-20 years that increased the cost, but a lot of it was for the better. Look at the equipment we are flying now. There are a lot of twin SPIFR aircraft. Even the singles are 407's, ASTARS, EC130s. (Almost) no one flys 206s anymore. These twins and bigger singles are way more expensive to buy and maintain. Training has gotten better, more advanced, and more expensive. Pilot and Medcrew pay has increased. Something no one thinks about is the cost of a positive safety culture. How much does each WX turn down cost when it might have been possible to scud run it. This is a good change, but it comes at a cost. WX minimums and repercussions were different back then.

Over the past 20 years, the percentage of single engine helos has increased. Most of that is probably accounted for by the growh of Air Evac Lifeteam. It would seem intuitive that twin engine IFR operations should be safer, as I understand the data so far does not support that. For one, there is no instrument approach to 'Hwy 10 at County 18' and many rural hospitals, so there is always going to be a fair amount of VFR flying day or night. Then even during IFR operations, bad things can still happen to good people.

 

[Direct C51]

It would seem intuitive that twin engine IFR operations should be safer, as I understand the data so far does not support that. For one, there is no instrument approach to 'Hwy 10 at County 18' and many rural hospitals, so there is always going to be a fair amount of VFR flying day or night. Then even during IFR operations, bad things can still happen to good people.

This is absolutely without a doubt WRONG! I will call out anyone who tries to claim this. The data is out there, and it does not show this to be true at all. I keep an unofficial record of all fatal HAA accidents since 2000. There might be some missing due to the categorizing of the flight by the NTSB. My records show 37 fatal HAA crashes since 2000.

11 Due to VFR to IMC
8 additional Night CFIT in VFR or MFVR

Guess how many of those were in an IFR aircraft? The answer is just 2. The accident pilot in one of them "had accumulated 44 hours of simulated instrument time and 1 hour of actual instrument time" according to the factual report. The accident aircraft was seen by first respondents flying down the highway at 10-20 feet in dense freezing fog and icing conditions. It is unclear whether he was at an IFR program or was signed off to fly IFR, but the aircraft BO-105 was IFR equipped.

In the other VFR to IMC fatal HAA crash in an IFR aircraft at an IFR base, the pilot had not completed an IFR proficiency flight with his current company and was therefore restricted to VFR only.

So as you can see, there has essentially been ZERO VFR to IMC fatal accidents involving a current and qualified HAA SPIFR pilot flying a SPIFR aircraft. Some of this might be because SPIFR pilots generally have a better grasp on weather than the non-SPIFR pilot and therefore don't encounter VFR to IMC as often. Another is the aircraft and pilots are just more capable of handling the VFR to IMC situation. The final reason is that the SPIFR pilots don't have to scud run in MVFR conditions because they can go IFR, which is much safer.

Again, my data might not be complete, but it is quite conclusive. Having done both, I am a huge advocate for SPIFR HAA programs and I know it is the safer way to operate.

 

[Direct C51]

It really hasn't. In the US, average cost for a hospitalization in 2000 was around $7500, average cost now is about $10,500 (inflation adjusted). Note that this is actually paid cost, not the 'funny money' charges hospitals submit to the insurers. This number seems low, but keep in mind that with the average length of stay around 4.5 days, many hospitalizations only last a day or two.

I don't even know where you are getting your data. Are you talking about how much the patient is charged after insurance? That means nothing. Someone has to pay the actual cost charged, whether that is the insurance company, or the patient. U.S. Healthcare costs were $1.36 trillion in 2000. In 2017 it was $3.49 trillion. That is a huge increase!

 

[IK04]

The real conflict comes with going all dual engine training and no more autos to the ground. Lot of old pilots are fired up about not teaching the basics. Personally, I’d like to see them stay SE so the students can get a feel for hands on flight an autos to the ground, but with an all twin fleet (minus AH/MH-6) perhaps it’s not necessary.

I never flew the TH-67, but in the UH-1, we did low-level autos (100 feet/100 knots) to touchdown under PVS-5 full face NVG's with one tube focused on the N1 gauge, to make sure the engine was still running.

In the CH-47 AQC, I flew B-Models and spent most of every period doing touchdown autos with both engines beeped offline...

I feel sorry for everyone who qualified in helicopters and never did touchdown autos. It was always a requirement for civil qualification.

Now the TH-55/Hughes 269, that was pure fun to fly and autos were fun!

 

[Velocity173]

I never flew the TH-67, but in the UH-1, we did low-level autos (100 feet/100 knots) to touchdown under PVS-5 full face NVG's with one tube focused on the N1 gauge, to make sure the engine was still running.

In the CH-47 AQC, I flew B-Models and spent most of every period doing touchdown autos with both engines beeped offline...

I feel sorry for everyone who qualified in helicopters and never did touchdown autos. It was always a requirement for civil qualification.

Now the TH-55/Hughes 269, that was pure fun to fly and autos were fun!

Yeah we did 100/100 autos in the 58 also. Dual engine touchdown autos are currently prohibited. At some point during the years, Army leadership decided that the risk of doing touchdown autos in dual engine helos wasn’t worth the training benefits.

Wish I could’ve flown the TH-55. I believe it was all manual throttle back then. A real solo too. Not 2 students and call it a “solo” like today.

 

[retpd2001]

Maybe post the question on the PHI facebook group i mentioned above. He supposedly wrote several songs sitting in those trailers in MCY also. The page starts out with: PHI's faces....( I think.)

Im not a Facebook guy, is it a public page? I am unable to look at Facebook.

 

[Doc Holliday]

(Almost) no one flys 206s anymore.

That "almost" doesn't account for the 130+ 206's that AE flies. Wouldn't that be around 10 to 12% of the active EMS fleet?

 

[Bell206]

is it a public page?

No clue. Don't speak facebook either. A friend shows it to me. I'll ask him.

 

[Piperonca]

Found various things KK on Facebook, but no indication Kris served in Vietnam or the PHI song - maybe someone else can. One bio says he left the Army in 1965 so that could explain the timeline. Accomplished man, for sure. They don't give away the Ranger Tab in Crackerjack boxes.

 

[Direct C51]

That "almost" doesn't account for the 130+ 206's that AE flies. Wouldn't that be around 10 to 12% of the active EMS fleet?

I think the number is a little under that now days, but you are right. I said it a little tongue in cheek, because of the stigma AEL has in the industry. They don't call it Scare Evac for nothing. They are the only ones still flying 206s, which is why I said "almost" no one. Remember at one point EMS was nearly 100% 206s.

 

[weilke]

This is absolutely without a doubt WRONG! I will call out anyone who tries to claim this. The data is out there, and it does not show this to be true at all.

If the data is out there, it hasn't been collected and published. If you have a study or report you can point to, feel free to do so.

I keep an unofficial record of all fatal HAA accidents since 2000. There might be some missing due to the categorizing of the flight by the NTSB. My records show 37 fatal HAA crashes since 2000.

11 Due to VFR to IMC
8 additional Night CFIT in VFR or MFVR

Guess how many of those were in an IFR aircraft? The answer is just 2. The accident pilot in one of them "had accumulated 44 hours of simulated instrument time and 1 hour of actual instrument time" according to the factual report. The accident aircraft was seen by first respondents flying down the highway at 10-20 feet in dense freezing fog and icing conditions. It is unclear whether he was at an IFR program or was signed off to fly IFR, but the aircraft BO-105 was IFR equipped.

In the other VFR to IMC fatal HAA crash in an IFR aircraft at an IFR base, the pilot had not completed an IFR proficiency flight with his current company and was therefore restricted to VFR only.

So as you can see, there has essentially been ZERO VFR to IMC fatal accidents involving a current and qualified HAA SPIFR pilot flying a SPIFR aircraft. Some of this might be because SPIFR pilots generally have a better grasp on weather than the non-SPIFR pilot and therefore don't encounter VFR to IMC as often. Another is the aircraft and pilots are just more capable of handling the VFR to IMC situation. The final reason is that the SPIFR pilots don't have to scud run in MVFR conditions because they can go IFR, which is much safer.

Again, my data might not be complete, but it is quite conclusive. Having done both, I am a huge advocate for SPIFR HAA programs and I know it is the safer way to operate.

Right out of memory, without digging too deep into the database, I can give you two additional accidents by IFR operators (one public, one part 135):
- MD Trooper 2 was an instrument current pilot in a IFR equipped twin helo on a pop-up instrument clearance who hit the trees short of the runway (NTSB AAR0907)
- North Memorial was an instrument current pilot in a IFR equipped helicopter on a IFR flight plan that crashed during a go-around (NTSB CEN16FA372)

Sure, if you limit your analysis the way you do and eliminate data the way you do, you can say that 'no IFR certified helicopter has crashed in a VFR into IMC crash'. But that's a different question from 'are IFR operators using twin engine helicopters safer than VFR or VFR+NVG operators'. If there was was hard data to proove that (as in x.x incidents/100k hrs), I would like to see it.
The reason it is difficult to show that improvement is that there are
A. many other causes for accidents in the HAA business that are not affected by the IFR/VFR split
B. By necessity, IFR operators will still operate the majority of their HAA flights as VFR flights (scene flights, small hospitals without IAP and AWOS).

I work for a level I trauma center in a sparsely populated state. Outside of the 'local' trauma, most of our customers come as fixed wing or rotor-wing inter-hospital transfers from outlying facilities. Before that, I worked for one of these small rural hospitals and I am involved in EMS from the fire department end. How to do all this safely is something I am quite interested in.

 

[weilke]

I don't even know where you are getting your data. Are you talking about how much the patient is charged after insurance? That means nothing. Someone has to pay the actual cost charged, whether that is the insurance company, or the patient. U.S. Healthcare costs were $1.36 trillion in 2000. In 2017 it was $3.49 trillion. That is a huge increase!

This is data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (H-CUP) by the Agency for Healthcare Quality Research (AHQR). More specifically, this is from the 'National Inpatient Sample' (NIS) which is an all-payer database on hospitalization data that samples about 20% of all hospital discharges in the US. What they record as 'cost' is based on the allowable charges for the different payors.

Yes, the cost of hospital stays has increased at a rate that exceeds inflation. The data does not support the argument that hospitalization cost has 'increased exponentially'.

The actual data also doesn't support that the hospitals make enough money that they should just be able to pay the inflated charges from the HAA providers. Not everyone flown to the hospital is going to leave after a cardiac cath and a triple bypass. Often enough, HAA admissions get discharged within a day or two.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I think the number is a little under that now days, but you are right. I said it a little tongue in cheek, because of the stigma AEL has in the industry. They don't call it Scare Evac for nothing. They are the only ones still flying 206s, which is why I said "almost" no one. Remember at one point EMS was nearly 100% 206s.

Actually that number is correct. And to add, all of their 206's (L models) are equipped with Chelton autopilots and Garmin flatscreen devices (G500, G600) with back up instrumentation. Their training program has a Level 7 FSTD of the 206L with the same cockpit setup, and they train recurrent and quarterly in the sim.

Hardly a "Scare Evac". I believe their record over the past few years bares that out.

 

[David Herzfeld]

A lot of these offshore service companies in the GOM are in the same boat so to speak. I have a small pension with one of the crew boat companies that went through bankruptcy a couple years ago. My pension is still intact but all the shareholders equity gets blown up. Ironically back in the 90’s there was talk that we would either merge or acquire PHI.

 

[Maxnr]

Won’t be long before the 407 is approved for SIFR also. When that happens, some of these programs will shed their twin for singles to improve profit margins.

I don't know what SIFR is. Special IFR or Single engine IFR? Single pilot?
A few facts in passing. Turbine engines are seven times more reliable than recips. The RRoyce on the 407 is a mature, dependable engine. The FAA and insurance companies demand dual generators and dual autopilots for RW IFR. Part 91 will get away with single pilot, but not 135.
The USN TH-57C instrument trainer has among other things, an autopilot. The TH-57A primary trainer does not. Both are your basic Bell "two by six."
Army Aviators with a special inst rating are/were authorized zero/zero departures. More challenging than a 0/0 autorotation. Autorotation is the most stable phase of flight. Some old Sikorsky recips would do it hands off.
I hope PHI comes through OK. They had some legendary pilots. Mention the name "Chief" and his 212 to an old timer.

 

[Direct C51]

Sure, if you limit your analysis the way you do and eliminate data the way you do, you can say that 'no IFR certified helicopter has crashed in a VFR into IMC crash'. But that's a different question from 'are IFR operators using twin engine helicopters safer than VFR or VFR+NVG operators'. If there was was hard data to proove that (as in x.x incidents/100k hrs), I would like to see it.
The reason it is difficult to show that improvement is that there are
A. many other causes for accidents in the HAA business that are not affected by the IFR/VFR split
B. By necessity, IFR operators will still operate the majority of their HAA flights as VFR flights (scene flights, small hospitals without IAP).

I'm not eliminating any data to prove some sort of agenda. I chose an objective, specific data set. Your two crashes don't fit in to the criteria I use for my database. The first one is a public aircraft. I include only Part 135 operators. The second was not a fatal crash. If we include public aircraft and non-fatal crashes, then there are probably going to be the same ratio of VFR only crashes that I see in fatal crashes.

If the data is out there, it hasn't been collected and published. If you have a study or report you can point to, feel free to do so.

I don't know why you are so passionately arguing for VFR singles. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter whether the flight starts out as IFR of VFR, having the training and capability to fly SPIFR is what makes the difference. Having the ability to go IFR instead of scud running in MVFR is what saves lives. I don't need a published study from someone with an agenda. I have a database of all fatal HAA crashes since 2000 and the data is right there. The NTSB is my published study. Beyond that, I have done both. I have flown VFR HAA singles in MVFR in the mountains, at night, in legal weather. I have also flown HAA SPIFR twins. I have first hand experience, I know what is safer. Here I'll break it down for you since you don't want to do the work:

• 37 Fatal civil HAA crashes since 2000 with factual reports available
• 11 VFR to IMC
• 8 CFIT, all at night, without goggles
• 3 Mechanical
• 2 Midair
• 2 Collission with obstacles low level
• 2 LTE
• 2 Pilot error (hydraulic test procedure & inadvertantly disabled FADECs)
• 2 Low level aggressive maneuvering
• 2 Loss of control on landing / SWP
• 1 In flight breakup
• 1 Fuel exhaustion
• 1 Bird Strike

Again, only two of the VFR to IMC or CFIT crashes were in IFR certified aircraft, yet neither pilot was SPIFR current and qualified. The only fatal HAA accident since 2000 in an IFR aircraft with a current and qualified SPIFR pilot was the Duke Life Flight crash caused by mechanical/pilot error in dealing with the emergency.

You can keep making up whatever you want, there are the facts.

 

[weilke]

Actually that number is correct. And to add, all of their 206's (L models) are equipped with Chelton autopilots and Garmin flatscreen devices (G500, G600) with back up instrumentation. Their training program has a Level 7 FSTD of the 206L with the same cockpit setup, and they train recurrent and quarterly in the sim.

Hardly a "Scare Evac". I believe their record over the past few years bares that out.

Ragging on AEL in the HAA community is the same as coffee drinkers ragging on Starbucks. Kernel of truth, lots of opinion.

 

[Velocity173]

I'm not eliminating any data to prove some sort of agenda. I chose an objective, specific data set. Your two crashes don't fit in to the criteria I use for my database. The first one is a public aircraft. I include only Part 135 operators. The second was not a fatal crash. If we include public aircraft and non-fatal crashes, then there are probably going to be the same ratio of VFR only crashes that I see in fatal crashes.



I don't know why you are so passionately arguing for VFR singles. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter whether the flight starts out as IFR of VFR, having the training and capability to fly SPIFR is what makes the difference. Having the ability to go IFR instead of scud running in MVFR is what saves lives. I don't need a published study from someone with an agenda. I have a database of all fatal HAA crashes since 2000 and the data is right there. The NTSB is my published study. Beyond that, I have done both. I have flown VFR HAA singles in MVFR in the mountains, at night, in legal weather. I have also flown HAA SPIFR twins. I have first hand experience, I know what is safer. Here I'll break it down for you since you don't want to do the work:

• 37 Fatal civil HAA crashes since 2000 with factual reports available
• 11 VFR to IMC
• 8 CFIT, all at night, without goggles
• 3 Mechanical
• 2 Midair
• 2 Collission with obstacles low level
• 2 LTE
• 2 Pilot error (hydraulic test procedure & inadvertantly disabled FADECs)
• 2 Low level aggressive maneuvering
• 2 Loss of control on landing / SWP
• 1 In flight breakup
• 1 Fuel exhaustion
• 1 Bird Strike

Again, only two of the VFR to IMC or CFIT crashes were in IFR certified aircraft, yet neither pilot was SPIFR current and qualified. The only fatal HAA accident since 2000 in an IFR aircraft with a current and qualified SPIFR pilot was the Duke Life Flight crash caused by mechanical/pilot error in dealing with the emergency.

You can keep making up whatever you want, there are the facts.

Yeah but you can’t paint the VFR community with a broad brush. You’ve got plenty of guys in VFR programs with more IFR experience than the guys in ME SPIFR. Our 407 is better equipped than our 135s in our program. No SVT and no WAAS for them. But because of some BS FAA Part 27 regs, it can’t be flown IFR. I can fly an IAP easier in our 407 than a dual pilot UH-60.

Yes, some of it has to do with younger more inexperienced guys going out MVFR at night but you could have the same problem with a IFR twin scud running also. Just because it’s IFR certified doesn’t mean it can land on a road IFR. Heck, good luck getting those guys off their butts just to do a routine IAP to a hospital.

 

[Velocity173]

I don't know what SIFR is. Special IFR or Single engine IFR? Single pilot?
A few facts in passing. Turbine engines are seven times more reliable than recips. The RRoyce on the 407 is a mature, dependable engine. The FAA and insurance companies demand dual generators and dual autopilots for RW IFR. Part 91 will get away with single pilot, but not 135.
The USN TH-57C instrument trainer has among other things, an autopilot. The TH-57A primary trainer does not. Both are your basic Bell "two by six."
Army Aviators with a special inst rating are/were authorized zero/zero departures. More challenging than a 0/0 autorotation. Autorotation is the most stable phase of flight. Some old Sikorsky recips would do it hands off.
I hope PHI comes through OK. They had some legendary pilots. Mention the name "Chief" and his 212 to an old timer.

Oops. Add a P to that. Single Pilot Instrument Flight Rules.

There’s no “special inst rating” for Army Aviators. If the pilot making the ITO has at least 50 hours of actual weather time, they can depart in 0/0...with no auto pilot.

 

[Direct C51]

Yeah but you can’t paint the VFR community with a broad brush. You’ve got plenty of guys in VFR programs with more IFR experience than the guys in ME SPIFR. Our 407 is better equipped than our 135s in our program. No SVT and no WAAS for them. But because of some BS FAA Part 27 regs, it can’t be flown IFR. I can fly an IAP easier in our 407 than a dual pilot UH-60.

My point isn't about the lack of skill of the VFR SE pilots, it is about the aircraft capability and training. I'm not advocating for 100% HAA SPIFR fleets because I know that isn't feasible in our current HAA structure. But anyone who says SPIFR isn't safer is either trying to save money, or not being honest with themselves. It doesn't matter whether you can fly an IAP in the 407 better than the 135. The crash doesn't happen while flying the IAP. The crash happens because you are scud running in MVFR/IFR.

Yes, some of it has to do with younger more inexperienced guys going out MVFR at night but you could have the same problem with a IFR twin scud running also. Just because it’s IFR certified doesn’t mean it can land on a road IFR. Heck, good luck getting those guys off their butts just to do a routine IAP to a hospital.

Sure scud running in the SPIFR twin can happen. But the data shows that either it happens less, or it doesn't lead to fatal crashes. I have been at both VFR and SPIFR bases. I can tell you in my experience, the need to scud run is way less at the SPIFR base. Beyond that, generally the SPIFR pilot in a SPIFR aircraft is more capable of handling the VFR to IMC if it happens. Now before you get all worked up defending YOUR ability to handle IIMC, I'm talking about the average VFR SE pilot who does 1 IIMC event a year vs the SPIFR pilot doing 2 full 297s a year. Not to mention CAMTS and most company hiring requirements for VFR only pilots require a lot less IMC experience than for SPIFR bases. Also, not all SE VFR HAA aircraft have autopilots, hell some don't even have force trim.

 

[weilke]

I don't know why you are so passionately arguing for VFR singles. You just don't get it. It doesn't matter whether the flight starts out as IFR of VFR, having the training and capability to fly SPIFR is what makes the difference. Having the ability to go IFR instead of scud running in MVFR is what saves lives.

I am not 'passionately arguing for VFR singles'. I work for a company that is a twin engine IFR shop and I believe that that is the way to go. However, that is simply my opinion and previously when challenged by advocates for single pilot VFR+NVG operations, I could not find data to support my opinion that a twin engine IFR operation is overall safer.

I don't need a published study from someone with an agenda. I have a database of all fatal HAA crashes since 2000 and the data is right there. The NTSB is my published study. Beyond that, I have done both. I have flown VFR HAA singles in MVFR in the mountains, at night, in legal weather. I have also flown HAA SPIFR twins. I have first hand experience, I know what is safer. Here I'll break it down for you since you don't want to do the work:

• 37 Fatal civil HAA crashes since 2000 with factual reports available
• 11 VFR to IMC
• 8 CFIT, all at night, without goggles
• 3 Mechanical
• 2 Midair
• 2 Collission with obstacles low level
• 2 LTE
• 2 Pilot error (hydraulic test procedure & inadvertantly disabled FADECs)
• 2 Low level aggressive maneuvering
• 2 Loss of control on landing / SWP
• 1 In flight breakup
• 1 Fuel exhaustion
• 1 Bird Strike

Your data supports my point that VFR into IMC is NOT the dominant cause for HAA accidents and as such any improvements in safety from moving VFR to IFR certification are going to be modest.
In addition to having the paperwork to fly IFR, there has to be a company culture that accepts a couple of additional minutes of turbine time on a leg even if the reimbursed mileage for the trip remains the same. If pilots feel pressure to keep trips VFR to save the company money, all the paperwork in a folder on the shelf wont make a difference.

Again, only two of the VFR to IMC or CFIT crashes were in IFR certified aircraft, yet neither pilot was SPIFR current and qualified. The only fatal HAA accident since 2000 in an IFR aircraft with a current and qualified SPIFR pilot was the Duke Life Flight crash caused by mechanical/pilot error in dealing with the emergency.

You can keep making up whatever you want, there are the facts.

That's the 'data' you get after you eliminate 99% of your data universe and just look at the one question you want to answer. Why would you want to drop a public operator from your analysis ? Makes no difference to a dead patient whether the pilot wore a gun when they went down. Why would you exclude the Duke flight ? It was an IFR operator, and the ship went down.



I am all for going to an all IFR all twin business model for HAA. Use the existing useage data to eliminate about 1/2 of the bases in operation right now to both control cost and improve safety of the industry. Sounds easy, right ?

 

[Direct C51]

Your data supports my point that VFR into IMC is NOT the dominant cause for HAA accidents and as such any improvements in safety from moving VFR to IFR certification are going to be modest.
In addition to having the paperwork to fly IFR, there has to be a company culture that accepts a couple of additional minutes of turbine time on a leg even if the reimbursed mileage for the trip remains the same. If pilots feel pressure to keep trips VFR to save the company money, all the paperwork in a folder on the shelf wont make a difference.

That's the 'data' you get after you eliminate 99% of your data universe and just look at the one question you want to answer. Why would you want to drop a public operator from your analysis ? Makes no difference to a dead patient whether the pilot wore a gun when they went down. Why would you exclude the Duke flight ? It was an IFR operator, and the ship went down.

I am all for going to an all IFR all twin business model for HAA. Use the existing useage data to eliminate about 1/2 of the bases in operation right now to both control cost and improve safety of the industry. Sounds easy, right ?

Ugghh, just read what I wrote. I didn't exclude the Duke flight. It is 1 of the 3 "mechanical" fatal crashes. You are ridiculous saying I am eliminating 99% of the data. Are you trying to say part 135 operators only make up 1% and public operators make up 99%? I just don't know how to get it through to you. I don't think you realize this isn't some selected database to prove my point. It is a database of ALL fatal part 135 HAA crashes since 2000. The fact that it proves my point is secondary.

You can believe the guys trying to sell you their VFR singles, or you can research the NTSB database yourself. You think 30% of the fatal crashes represents an insignificant or "modest" amount of crashes? I bet the families of the 37 dead pilots, crew, and patients don't think so. Yes, it is the "dominant" cause. Not one other cause represents more fatal crashes than VFR to IMC. What do you consider the "dominant" cause?

What company is pressuring SPIFR pilots to fly VFR in questionable weather to "save turbine time"? I'm sure I'm not the only one who wants to know this.

Here is another fact for you guys saying "there is no approach to highway XXX". Not one single fatal VFR to IMC crash was enroute to pickup a patient on a scene call. Not one! 4 flights were enroute to the hospital from scene calls. 2 were enroute to the hospital with the patient during IFTs. 2 were enroute to the hospital to pickup the patient for an IFT. 3 were return to base after patient dropoff. There goes your argument that the VFR to IMC fatal crashes are happening because pilots are trying to fly to the scene.

 

[Bell206]

Found various things KK on Facebook... the PHI song

The name of the PHI FB group is: PHI's faces...the people behind the company.

I was told it is a public group but need to join before post. Was also told there have been references to KKs PHI days with some pics and there are people on there who remember those days. Good luck.

 

[Velocity173]

My point isn't about the lack of skill of the VFR SE pilots, it is about the aircraft capability and training. I'm not advocating for 100% HAA SPIFR fleets because I know that isn't feasible in our current HAA structure. But anyone who says SPIFR isn't safer is either trying to save money, or not being honest with themselves. It doesn't matter whether you can fly an IAP in the 407 better than the 135. The crash doesn't happen while flying the IAP. The crash happens because you are scud running in MVFR/IFR.



Sure scud running in the SPIFR twin can happen. But the data shows that either it happens less, or it doesn't lead to fatal crashes. I have been at both VFR and SPIFR bases. I can tell you in my experience, the need to scud run is way less at the SPIFR base. Beyond that, generally the SPIFR pilot in a SPIFR aircraft is more capable of handling the VFR to IMC if it happens. Now before you get all worked up defending YOUR ability to handle IIMC, I'm talking about the average VFR SE pilot who does 1 IIMC event a year vs the SPIFR pilot doing 2 full 297s a year. Not to mention CAMTS and most company hiring requirements for VFR only pilots require a lot less IMC experience than for SPIFR bases. Also, not all SE VFR HAA aircraft have autopilots, hell some don't even have force trim.

Yes, and I’m saying the capability of a lot of VFRs is on par with the IFRs. And again, I’ll take my 407 as equipped over our 135s. The 500 display alone with SVT makes for a safer aircraft not to mention I can do LPVs and they can’t. Combine that with pilots at some VFR bases that have twice the hours (and instrument) over the SPIFR programs and it’s a wash. One more check ride a year doesn’t make an Yoda at flying instruments.

How many times have we seen fully equipped ME IFR aircraft in the Army crash while scud running? Black Hawks had the worst safety record when I was in and they have far more IFR experience than OH-58 pilots. Theoretically it should be their safest aircraft but it’s far from it.

I’m not doubting that the ME statistically has less accidents but In order to get any real data supporting ME over SE, you’d have to compare the numbers of each in the community and hours flown. What you’ll see is overall, MEs are marginally safer. It’s not and night and day comparison.

Yes there VFR programs around the country that have a few pilots that I would not want to be a patient in the back of their aircraft in IIMC without an AP? But there also a few IFR programs I wouldn’t want to be in the back of their aircraft IIMC without an AP either. Since all of our VFRs have an AP, I’ll take either airframe.

It would be nice if we were SPIFR across the board but it’s definitely not economically feasible and it’s not crucial to safe HAA operations. Not worth the small bump in pay for me either but I digress.

 

[Direct C51]

Yes, and I’m saying the capability of a lot of VFRs is on par with the IFRs. And again, I’ll take my 407 as equipped over our 135s. The 500 display alone with SVT makes for a safer aircraft not to mention I can do LPVs and they can’t. Combine that with pilots at some VFR bases that have twice the hours (and instrument) over the SPIFR programs and it’s a wash. One more check ride a year doesn’t make an Yoda at flying instruments.

So "some" (in reality very few) VFR aircraft are better equipped than SPIFR aircraft, and "some" VFR pilots have more hours than SPIFR pilots, and all of a sudden it's a wash? It isn't just 1 more checkride a year. It is 2 complete 297s and the training that goes along with them, vs 1 VFR IIMC training event a year. I'm not questioning YOUR skill, but I feel you are letting ego get involved here. Again, I'm saying the aviator is a very small part of this equation. I think the major factors are the option to go IFR vs scud running and how equipped the aircraft is for IMC.

How many times have we seen fully equipped ME IFR aircraft in the Army crash while scud running? Black Hawks had the worst safety record when I was in and they have far more IFR experience than OH-58 pilots. Theoretically it should be their safest aircraft but it’s far from it.

Army vs HAA. This argument is irrelevant.

I’m not doubting that the ME statistically has less accidents but In order to get any real data supporting ME over SE, you’d have to compare the numbers of each in the community and hours flown. What you’ll see is overall, MEs are marginally safer. It’s not and night and day comparison.

Let's not change this to ME vs SE. We are talking SPIFR vs VFR SE, and specifically VFR to IMC. Marginally safer? Let's see, we have a 0% VFR to IMC fatal crash rate for current and qualified SPIFR pilots in HAA Part 135 SPIFR aircraft vs 11 non SPIFR pilot/aircraft. I have substantiated my claims with empirical data. Let's see how you came up with "marginally safer".

It would be nice if we were SPIFR across the board but it’s definitely not economically feasible and it’s not crucial to safe HAA operations. Not worth the small bump in pay for me either but I digress.

You are correct, it isn't feasible. But it is safer. Who can honestly sit here and argue that they don't think having another tool, another option, isn't safer? It isn't just the operators not wanting to pay for it, a lot of the pilots aren't willing to put in the work to become proficient SPIFR pilots and take 2 checkrides a year. And this isn't directed at you specifically, despite your comment about the pay bump not being worth it. The comfort I get by having the option to fly IFR instead of scud running is worth much more than the extra money to me.

 

[Velocity173]

So "some" (in reality very few) VFR aircraft are better equipped than SPIFR aircraft, and "some" VFR pilots have more hours than SPIFR pilots, and all of a sudden it's a wash? It isn't just 1 more checkride a year. It is 2 complete 297s and the training that goes along with them, vs 1 VFR IIMC training event a year. I'm not questioning YOUR skill, but I feel you are letting ego get involved here. Again, I'm saying the aviator is a very small part of this equation. I think the major factors are the option to go IFR vs scud running and how equipped the aircraft is for IMC.



Army vs HAA. This argument is irrelevant.



Let's not change this to ME vs SE. We are talking SPIFR vs VFR SE, and specifically VFR to IMC. Marginally safer? Let's see, we have a 0% VFR to IMC fatal crash rate for current and qualified SPIFR pilots in HAA Part 135 SPIFR aircraft vs 11 non SPIFR pilot/aircraft. I have substantiated my claims with empirical data. Let's see how you came up with "marginally safer".



You are correct, it isn't feasible. But it is safer. Who can honestly sit here and argue that they don't think having another tool, another option, isn't safer? It isn't just the operators not wanting to pay for it, a lot of the pilots aren't willing to put in the work to become proficient SPIFR pilots and take 2 checkrides a year. And this isn't directed at you specifically, despite your comment about the pay bump not being worth it. The comfort I get by having the option to fly IFR instead of scud running is worth much more than the extra money to me.

And again, how many VFR programs vs IFR programs are out there? How many total hours flown in those programs? That’s how you get meaningful data. We don’t even know how many of those so called IIMC accidents were actually IIMC or just trying to avoid IMC? What type of equipment did these VFRs have? Even with all that data, you have to know that particular bases safety culture. We just can’t say, well they crashed more than us so that makes us a lot safer.

We’re getting off the original point I was trying to make any way. You mentioned the specific aircraft and not training. Basically insinuating that SEs are dangerous. So the tens, hundreds of thousands of hours flown, if not millions that the Army used in TH-67s with only one fatal and no instrument related crashes. Have they just been lucky?

You seriously wouldn’t flying an aircraft this well equipped during IFR?

http://interactive.rotorandwing.com/bell-407-gxi-stepping-it-up-again/

 

[Direct C51]

And again, how many VFR programs vs IFR programs are out there? How many total hours flown in those programs? That’s how you get meaningful data. We don’t even know how many of those so called IIMC accidents were actually IIMC or just trying to avoid IMC. We just can’t say, well they crashed more than us so that makes us a lot safer.

First off, stop making this personal. It isn't a you vs me, us vs them. It is HAA SPIFR vs HAA SE VFR as a whole. Emotions are getting in the way of hard evidence and reason. I understand what you are saying about crashes per flight hour, but when you have zero SPIFR crashes due to VFR to IMC, you can't exactly say how many crashes per flight hour there are. All I can say is there have been none. SPIFR isn't a new thing. There have been a lot of SPIFR programs flying a lot of hours since 2000. I don't know the total number of hours or sorties flown by HAA VFR SE since 2000, nor do I know the number of hours or sorties flown by HAA SPIFR since 2000. But here is the thing, neither do you. So you are trying to say my partial lack of data makes my claims invalid, yet your claims are based on zero data whatsoever.

We’re getting off the original point I was trying to make any way. You mentioned the specific aircraft and not training. Basically insinuating that SEs are dangerous. So the tens, hundreds of thousands of hours flown, if not millions that the Army used in TH-67s with only one fatal and no instrument related crashes. Have they just been lucky?

Although similar, this HAA SPIFR vs VFR SE topic was in direct response to weilke saying

It would seem intuitive that twin engine IFR operations should be safer, as I understand the data so far does not support that. For one, there is no instrument approach to 'Hwy 10 at County 18'

This is a slightly different argument than ME vs SE SPIFR and the SPIFR 407.

You seriously wouldn’t flying an aircraft this well equipped during IFR?

Nope. If my operator wants me to fly SPIFR, they can pay for a second engine and a more substantial aircraft. I have a lot of time in the GX with the Garmin G100Hs. I know the capabilities. I assume they are going to add a standby attitude indicator for IFR certified 407s? It's moot anyhow. I will be very surprised if any US HAA operater ever uses the 407 SPIFR. I will be happy to admit I was wrong if it ever happens, but I'm not worried.

 

[Velocity173]

First off, stop making this personal. It isn't a you vs me, us vs them. It is HAA SPIFR vs HAA SE VFR as a whole. Emotions are getting in the way of hard evidence and reason. I understand what you are saying about crashes per flight hour, but when you have zero SPIFR crashes due to VFR to IMC, you can't exactly say how many crashes per flight hour there are. All I can say is there have been none. SPIFR isn't a new thing. There have been a lot of SPIFR programs flying a lot of hours since 2000. I don't know the total number of hours or sorties flown by HAA VFR SE since 2000, nor do I know the number of hours or sorties flown by HAA SPIFR since 2000. But here is the thing, neither do you. So you are trying to say my partial lack of data makes my claims invalid, yet your claims are based on zero data whatsoever.



Although similar, this HAA SPIFR vs VFR SE topic was in direct response to weilke saying
This is a slightly different argument than ME vs SE SPIFR and the SPIFR 407.



Nope. If my operator wants me to fly SPIFR, they can pay for a second engine and a more substantial aircraft. I have a lot of time in the GX with the Garmin G100Hs. I know the capabilities. I assume they are going to add a standby attitude indicator for IFR certified 407s? It's moot anyhow. I will be very surprised if any US HAA operater ever uses the 407 SPIFR. I will be happy to admit I was wrong if it ever happens, but I'm not worried.

Lol! I’m not making it personal man. As a safety dude, I just don’t look at the reports I get and say X airframe had more accidents than Y airframe, that makes that airframe less safe.

My question all along pertained to the GXI and you answered it. Don’t agree but oh well.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Oh, excuse me..............didn't realize I just stumbled into the justhelicopters forum...............

 

[Direct C51]

Lol! I’m not making it personal man. As a safety dude, I just don’t look at the reports I get and say X airframe had more accidents than Y airframe, that makes that airframe less safe.

If you have the information of hours/sorties flown in 135 HAA VFR SE vs SPIFR, or a path to finding that data, please let me know. I would love to have it. Otherwise, I am using the data available to us.

Let's flip the argument here. You and weilke keep saying it is a marginal or negligible safety difference. Can you substantiate that? Where are you getting that information from? Data, reports, anything? Let's see it. So far you guys have shown not one bit of data. A lack of data does not make my claim untrue. The HAA operators are putting out this information in order to sell their VFR SE programs, again without any real data. So here is your chance, instead of trying to discredit my data, and I challenge anyone, let me see any real data supporting the claim that HAA SPIFR is not more safe than VFR SE particularly when it comes to VFR in to IMC.

Here is some more data for you guys. Only 1 of the 37 fatal HAA crashes since 2000 were in an IFR aircraft with a current and qualified SPIFR pilot. The Duke crash. That is 2.7% of the crashes. What percentage of total HAA hours/sorties do SPIFR programs fly? Just another data point, I'm not trying to draw any conclusion here. I think using just the VFR to IMC crashes (and possibly CFIT too) is much more telling in the difference between VFR and SPIFR.

Oh, excuse me..............didn't realize I just stumbled into the justhelicopters forum...............

This thread is about 10,000x more productive than any JH post. Haha

 

[Velocity173]

Oh, excuse me..............didn't realize I just stumbled into the justhelicopters forum...............

Please...those guys are cut throat over there! I look in from time to time but I won’t deal with flat out personal insults. Not worth my time.

 

[Velocity173]

If you have the information of hours/sorties flown in 135 HAA VFR SE vs SPIFR, or a path to finding that data, please let me know. I would love to have it. Otherwise, I am using the data available to us.

Let's flip the argument here. You and weilke keep saying it is a marginal or negligible safety difference. Can you substantiate that? Where are you getting that information from? Data, reports, anything? Let's see it. So far you guys have shown not one bit of data. A lack of data does not make my claim untrue. The HAA operators are putting out this information in order to sell their VFR SE programs, again without any real data. So here is your chance, instead of trying to discredit my data, and I challenge anyone, let me see any real data supporting the claim that HAA SPIFR is not more safe than VFR SE particularly when it comes to VFR in to IMC.

This thread is about 10,000x more productive than any JH post. Haha

It’s not an exact science and because of that, you can’t just say X aircraft is safer than Y because of total accidents. Your 11 IIMC fatalities will never be determined simply because of just SE or pilot experience because we just don’t know what went on during those accidents. Just like I can’t say the UH-60 is the most dangerous aircraft in the Army just based on number of accidents. While statistically it might have the worst record, doesn’t mean it’s the aircraft’s fault.

As I said, I agree it’s safer. Does that mean the alternate (SE aircraft) is unsafe? Nope. And if it isn’t unsafe, then there’s nothing wrong with saving some $ with the alternative. If it were, than I never would have flown TH-67s in IFR. The Navy isn’t operating haphazardly by buying a decked out GXI IFR platform anymore than buying a decked out T-6 IFR platform.

In a perfect world they’d give me a IFR, dual engine, coaxial pusher, that does 250 kts from scene to hospital. But, we live in a world of fiscal constraints. If course by the time all that happens, everything will be automated and they won’t need my services anyway.

Heck, it’s a crime that all HAA programs aren’t dual pilot!

(Just so I don’t get fired) My opinions don’t represent the opinions of AMGH or their subsidiaries in anyway.

 

[Direct C51]

Heck, it’s a crime that all HAA programs aren’t dual pilot!

indeed. I don't care if it's safer (although I don't have info saying it is). My sanity is worth any difference in safety.

As I said, I agree it’s safer. Does that mean the alternate (SE aircraft) is unsafe? Nope. And if it isn’t unsafe, then there’s nothing wrong with saving some $ with the alternative.

This presents a good point. What is safe anyhow? Certainly no helicopter operations will ever be safe in the true sense of the word. There is no safe or unsafe. There is only more safe, and less safe. Each of us has to determine where on that spectrum we are comfortable. That might not always coincide with where our employers determine where on that spectrum they are comfortable having us operate. The good news is, this isn't the Army, we all have a choice of what is acceptably safe to us. To me HAA SE VFR is acceptably safe, I did it for 4 years after all. HAA SPIFR is further down towards the more safe side of the spectrum, and I like being there.

 

[Velocity173]

indeed. I don't care if it's safer (although I don't have info saying it is). My sanity is worth any difference in safety.

If you read Randy Mains (HAA guru) stuff, he says an all IFR, twin, dual pilot program would be 80 % safer than SE VFR.

 

[weilke]

Ugghh, just read what I wrote. I didn't exclude the Duke flight. It is 1 of the 3 "mechanical" fatal crashes. You are ridiculous saying I am eliminating 99% of the data. Are you trying to say part 135 operators only make up 1% and public operators make up 99%?

No. You limit your analysis to one question on whether there are VFR into IMC accidents. Those weather conditions only make up a part of all HAA operations. You have to look at the entire system.

You can believe the guys trying to sell you their VFR singles, or you can research the NTSB database yourself. You think 30% of the fatal crashes represents an insignificant or "modest" amount of crashes? I bet the families of the 37 dead pilots, crew, and patients don't think so. Yes, it is the "dominant" cause. Not one other cause represents more fatal crashes than VFR to IMC. What do you consider the "dominant" cause?

More crew and pax have died from causes not related to weather decisions.

Here is another fact for you guys saying "there is no approach to highway XXX". Not one single fatal VFR to IMC crash was enroute to pickup a patient on a scene call. Not one! 4 flights were enroute to the hospital from scene calls. 2 were enroute to the hospital with the patient during IFTs. 2 were enroute to the hospital to pickup the patient for an IFT. 3 were return to base after patient dropoff. There goes your argument that the VFR to IMC fatal crashes are happening because pilots are trying to fly to the scene.

All that tells us is that pilots are better at declining a flight before the rotor starts turning than after. Your data supports the idea that once the patient is on board, pilots often feel pressure (internal or external) to complete the mission.
What you do here is called a 'straw man' argument. I never argued that pilots are crashing trying to fly to the scene. My argument is that for scene flights, there is a very limited role for IFR flight. So even if you have everything in place for a safe IFR operation, it will only affect a very narrow part of the operation.