HEMS Mountain
Operations
TGL 43
HSST WP-06/08.10
OST 07-3
Slide 2
Situation
It had been suggested that the existing requirements
for HEMS Mountain operations did not take into
consideration the limitations imposed by the lack of
One Engine Inoperative (OEI) performance that
apparently exists when twin-engine helicopters are
operated at altitudes up to and above 8,000ft.
It had also been suggested that some singles can fly
up to these altitudes and still have sufficient reserves
of performance to conduct HEMS.
OST 07-3
Slide 3
Situation
• It was thought that Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d)
might have be amended to permit single-engine
helicopters to conduct HEMS in mountainous areas i.e. in a hostile environment - where the flights have to
be operated to HEMS Operating Sites above an
altitude of 5,000ft.
• HSST WP-06/08.0 was developed to review the
relevance of the suggestions and to propose a
suitable amendment.
• Following discussion of the original paper, an
additional amendment to the performance rules (WP07/03.4) was proposed, accepted by OST and
forwarded to EASA in May 07.
OST 07-3
Slide 4
Situation
• A follow-up paper was requested by the HSST to
clarify the remaining issues and conclusions were
offered to interested parties.
• The paper was rewritten with its scope widened to
consider HEMS Mountain operations in the High
Alps.
• This has resulted in a final set of conclusions and
recommendations which might have been
transposed into a proposed ACJ but for the current
regulatory framework.
• The TGL route for more rapid publication was
suggested by JAA-T LO and accepted by the HSST.
OST 07-3
Slide 5
Background Issues
The existing JAR-OPS 3 HEMS requirements do
not take into consideration the limitations that
could exist for All Engine Operating (AEO)
Hover Out of Ground Effect (HOGE), and One
Engine Inoperative (OEI) performance, when
twin-engine helicopters are operated at
altitudes up to 16,000ft – particularly with
temperatures in excess of ISA
OST 07-3
Slide 6
Background Issues
The requirements do not take into consideration
the effect on HEMS response time when the
number of potential casualties is subject to
exceptional conditions that result from an influx of
a large, and transient, population engaged in
recreational activities such as winter sports.
OST 07-3
Slide 7
Background Issues
The requirements do not take into consideration
techniques and equipment currently used for the
insertion and extraction of personnel in the mountain
rescue environment.
Because of the nature of mountain operations,
landing is not always possible at HEMS/rescue sites;
it is therefore necessary to have available a means of
access/recovery utilising Human External Cargo
(HEC) provisions.
HEC is undertaken by hoist, long haul or short haul
(the last two using fixed ropes attached to the cargo
hook(s) – suitably approved for that purpose).
OST 07-3
Slide 8
Background Issues
• Some reliance is placed on interpretation of Note in
Appendix 1 to 3.005(d)
• “The Authority is empowered to decide which operation is
a HEMS operation in the sense of this Appendix”
• This can lead to different interpretations
• At least one State facing a challenge on requiring
compliance with this Appendix
• Guidance was needed to alleviate concerns (and to
avoid a potential legal challenge)
• Regulatory change timing precludes providing
guidance inside JAR-OPS 3
OST 07-3
Slide 9
Draft TGL 43
The proposed TGL will provide guidance for
affected Authorities to determine the conditions
under which some HEMS mountain operations,
conducted by an AOC holder, might be taken
outside the scope of CAT regulation whilst
retaining the level of safety necessary for such
operations by the appropriate assessment and
management of risk.
OST 07-3
Slide 10
Information
•
HEMS operating site: A site selected by the
commander during a HEMS flight for HHO, landing and
take-off.
• Because this is the primary pick up site related to an incident
or accident, its use can never be pre-planned and therefore
attracts alleviations from operating procedures and
performance rules - when appropriate
OST 07-3
Slide 11
Information
Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d)
Helicopters conducting operations to/from a HEMS
operating site located in a hostile environment shall as
far as possible be operated in Performance Class 2.
accordance with Subpart G (Performance Class 1).
The commander shall make every reasonable effort to
minimise the period during which there would be
danger to helicopter occupants and persons on the
surface in the event of failure of a power unit
Performance Class 3 operations shall not be
conducted over a hostile environment
OST 07-3
Slide 12
TGL Composition
• The TGL is extensive and contains:
• Discussion
• Analysis
• Conclusions
• Recommendations
• Consideration was made to shorten the paper but then
aspects of the subject might not be fully addressed
• TGL is therefore complete with all references and detail
to enable an Authority to determine the conditions
under which an Operator might be granted an Approval
OST 07-3
Slide 13
TGL - Main Conclusions
• Some aspects of mountain rescue cannot be
conducted under the existing requirements of the
HEMS appendix
• Provision should be made to permit a contingency plan
for evacuation of a casualty when operations to/from
the HEMS Operating Site at high altitudes are beyond
the capability of a twin-engine helicopter operating in
PC2
• Provision should be made to permit a contingency plan
to come into effect when the number of missions
exceeds the (agreed) normal operational capacity
OST 07-3
Slide 14
TGL - Main Conclusions
• Clarification that for mountain rescue involving more
than one helicopter, the one which, as part of its
mission, is performing the act of inserting, or
extracting, the mountain specialist(s) is not considered
to be operating in CAT
• Clarification that mountain rescue involving a
helicopter using a Personal Carrying Device System
(PCDS) in a Fixed Line Flyaway is not considered to be
CAT
• The Authority should ensure that adequate equipment, meeting
the requirements of CS 27/29 in respect of HEC, together with
procedures in the OM, provides a JAR-OPS 3 equivalent safety
for crew members and casualty
OST 07-3
Slide 15
TGL – Main Recommendations
• An AOC holder with a HEMS Approval should be
alleviated from the requirement to conduct specific
phases of operations under the (full) requirements of
CAT
• Such alleviation should be permitted to an AOC holder
only when in compliance with a risk assessed
contingency plan submitted to, and accepted by, the
Authority
• Specific phases of operation should not be regarded as
being operations in CAT and therefore should not be
required to be conducted under the requirements of
JAR-OPS 3
OST 07-3
Slide 16
Consultation
• Considerable consultation has been conducted within
the HSST and in the HEMS organisations (EHA/EHAC)
together with several of the affected mountain
operators
•
OST 07-3
they are in support of the this guidance material
Slide 17
Summary and Final Assessment
The TGL will provide guidance for Authorities and
Operators (on the intent of the ‘note’) so that they
might develop suitable procedures to address the
special conditions experienced by HEMS operators
in high mountain areas which were not intended, or
expected, to be covered under the basic tenets of
JAR-OPS 3 Appendix 1 to 3.005(d)
It is recommended that the TGL be approved for
publication as soon as possible to give the
information some provenance and so that use may
be made of it by those concerned
OST 07-3
Slide 18