thrilsekr Posted January 27, 2009 Report Share Posted January 27, 2009 Feb 3-6, 2009 http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/Hearing-HEMS/He...nnouncement.htm and http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2006/SIR0601.pdf It will be interesting to see what comes of all this.Just started to dig in to the pdf. Pretty interesting so far. Isn't learning great? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MN Heli Flyer Posted February 7, 2009 Report Share Posted February 7, 2009 I noticed the FAA has added this information to their web site on February 2, 2009. http://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=57845. It looks like it is related to the this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave7373 Posted February 13, 2009 Report Share Posted February 13, 2009 What came out of that EMS NTSB hearing? has anyone seen a summary of reccomendations or something like that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomer Pylot Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Your guvmint don't move that fast, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHelicopterPilot Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 We are getting a revised Ops Spec already, A021 I think it is. It will now require us to identify the highest obstruction within several miles of our route of flight. Then it goes on to say that for night flights we must then fly 500' above said obstruction height. For day it would be 300'. This is even if you are not going to fly right over said obstruction but several miles away from it. Was to be in place on the 21st. However, been pushed back a little while more details can be worked out. This brings up a whole new set of problems. My company is working with our POI to come to middle ground. JD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOATFIXERGUY Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Well that's gonna make you weather minimums interesting. Dispatch calls in an op and you reply, "We have ceiling, but there's a pole 10 miles in the opposite direction...sorry, we don't have minimum separation clearance..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gomer Pylot Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 AO21 was already in the works before the hearing. It has no lateral separation requirements, as proposed. Individual POIs might put them in company ops specs, but the overall one has none, at least for now. With no lateral separation stated, things become ambiguous. Do you have to take into consideration every obstacle in the US, or just miss by a foot? As usual, the feds seem to be clueless. I've never met a FSDO person who knew anything about what (s)he was doing. They're jumping through their collective anal orifices to get something, anything, done after the Chicago area accident. It's not like helicopters hit towers every week or so. They do fly into the ground in poor weather pretty often, but I don't see increased regulation of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Coaster Posted February 14, 2009 Report Share Posted February 14, 2009 Sounds similar to what we have in Canada and it works pretty well. Unless taking off/landing/we have to be...Built up areas: 1000' over the highest obstacle within a radius of 2000' of the aircraftAreas not built up: 500' above the highest obstacle within 500' of the aircraft.Non Populous areas: 500' AGL so long as no hazzard is created Exemptions can be made for certain operations of course, and it's far easier to flight plan than it sounds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Murphy Posted February 16, 2009 Report Share Posted February 16, 2009 We are getting a revised Ops Spec already, A021 I think it is. It will now require us to identify the highest obstruction within several miles of our route of flight. Then it goes on to say that for night flights we must then fly 500' above said obstruction height. For day it would be 300'. This is even if you are not going to fly right over said obstruction but several miles away from it. Was to be in place on the 21st. However, been pushed back a little while more details can be worked out. This brings up a whole new set of problems. My company is working with our POI to come to middle ground. JD This is an 8900.56 notice effective 2/22/2009. Don't think the POI has any wiggle room since the numbers are imbedded in the notice and compliance is mandatory. At least the goggles give you some relief. Check out Navaware...pretty slick program and very affordable that should really help with this type of planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDHelicopterPilot Posted February 17, 2009 Report Share Posted February 17, 2009 This is an 8900.56 notice effective 2/22/2009. Don't think the POI has any wiggle room since the numbers are imbedded in the notice and compliance is mandatory. At least the goggles give you some relief. Check out Navaware...pretty slick program and very affordable that should really help with this type of planning. Mike, don't know if you remember but we met very briefly when I landed in Imperial County. Thanks for your help! I'll check out the Navaware. It's fairly easy to look at the chart to see the highest elevation/obstruction along the route. Thanks! JD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.