Skycare runway overrun Deer Lake May 19 2023

[NotDirty!]

Does Skycare still get paid if they miss and go home?

If you have an axe to grind, man (or woman) up and start a new thread rather than piggy backing on this one. Your tone reeks of past grievances and it’s unrelated to this thread.

TPC

The company still gets paid by Ornge. Which I believe was the question. Whether or not the crew gets paid I cannot answer.

[NotDirty!]

I wonder if any Ornge crews weather checked this call first? Investigation should start with medcom.

Why? What would be the outcome of that?
Either they didn't refuse the call, in which case it's irrelevant. Or they did refuse a call first. And then what, are we going to stop all flights because one crew in the province turned it down before?

It’s relevant as it’s a not so big secret that after Ornge refuses a call that Medcom shops around for another op to fill the mission. They aren’t supposed to but I’ve seen it happen first hand.

(My medevac days are well in the past so things have hopefully changed since then)

TPC

I know their policy is supposed to be that they cannot ask another carrier if one has turned a trip down for weather, until some time has elapsed. I did have one night when I called in after landing to drop off a patient, to have the dispatcher tell me “I’m not supposed to ask, because someone already turned it down for weather, but since you’re already on the ground there, can you take a patient outbound”. To be clear it was because of the (GFA forecast) weather in YWP that the other crew declined, but as I had landed there (admittedly it was close to minimums), and YXL was fine, I accepted.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

SP 19/05/2023 07:44->
SPECI CZSJ 190744Z AUTO 24002KT 1SM BR CLR 01/01 A3000 RMK VIS VRB 3/4-3 ICE PAST HR SLP178=
SP 19/05/2023 07:30->
SPECI CZSJ 190730Z AUTO 23003KT 210V290 1/2SM FG CLR 01/01 A3000 RMK ICE MISG SLP176=
SP 19/05/2023 07:16->
SPECI CZSJ 190716Z AUTO 28003KT 1/8SM FG FEW002 00/00 A3000 RMK ICE SLP178=
SP 19/05/2023 07:14->
SPECI CZSJ 190714Z AUTO 29004KT 1/8SM FG FEW002 00/00 A3000 RMK SLP179=
SP 19/05/2023 07:12->
SPECI CZSJ 190712Z AUTO 29004KT 1/8SM FZFG SCT002 M00/M00 A3000 RMK SLP179=
SP 19/05/2023 07:11->
SPECI CZSJ 190711Z AUTO 29004KT 1/8SM FG SCT002 00/00 A3000 RMK SLP179=
SP 19/05/2023 07:06->
SPECI CZSJ 190706Z AUTO 30004KT 1/8SM FZFG SCT002 M00/M00 A3000 RMK SLP179=
SA 19/05/2023 07:00->
METAR CZSJ 190700Z AUTO 29003KT 1/4SM FG BKN002 00/00 A3000 RMK SLP176=
SP 19/05/2023 06:57->
SPECI CZSJ 190657Z AUTO 30003KT 1/4SM FZFG BKN002 M00/M00 A3000 RMK SLP179=
SP 19/05/2023 06:44->
SPECI CZSJ 190644Z AUTO VRB02KT 3/8SM FG BKN002 00/00 A2999 RMK SLP174=
SP 19/05/2023 06:42->
SPECI CZSJ 190642Z AUTO VRB02KT 1/2SM FG BKN002 00/00 A2999 RMK SLP176=
SP 19/05/2023 06:18->
SPECI CZSJ 190618Z AUTO 00000KT 1SM BR FEW002 01/01 A2999 RMK SLP174=
SA 19/05/2023 06:00->
METAR CZSJ 190600Z AUTO 30003KT 3/4SM BR CLR 01/01 A2998 RMK SLP170=
SP 19/05/2023 05:47->
SPECI CZSJ 190547Z AUTO 29004KT 1/2SM FG CLR 01/01 A2999 RMK SLP174=
SP 19/05/2023 05:33->
SPECI CZSJ 190533Z AUTO 30004KT 3/8SM FG CLR 01/01 A2998 RMK SLP172=
SA 19/05/2023 05:00->
METAR CZSJ 190500Z AUTO 30004KT 1/2SM FG CLR 01/01 A2997 RMK SLP167

[digits_]

It’s relevant as it’s a not so big secret that after Ornge refuses a call that Medcom shops around for another op to fill the mission. They aren’t supposed to but I’ve seen it happen first hand.

(My medevac days are well in the past so things have hopefully changed since then)

TPC

I understand that it might happen, but I don't see this as a relevant cause for an accident. A passenger asking you to fly in unsafe conditions should result in a "no". Not in an investigation as to why the passenger asked you to fly.

Agreed. But where did you get a sniff of a a pax/patient asking any questions? My prior experiences, most passengers (all of them) never asked any questions… anyone else who did (accompanying family members) were politely heard out and usually dismissed.

Sorry, I used some unclear wording. I was responding to the insinuation that medcom should be the starting point of the investigation. You can think of medcom as the customer. If a charter plane would crash because a customer really wanted to make it to their destination, it would never be used as a valid cause for an accident. That's why I don't think the 'blame medcom' or 'start the investigation there' is a valid avenue.

[2112]

I understand that it might happen, but I don't see this as a relevant cause for an accident. A passenger asking you to fly in unsafe conditions should result in a "no". Not in an investigation as to why the passenger asked you to fly.

Agreed. But where did you get a sniff of a a pax/patient asking any questions? My prior experiences, most passengers (all of them) never asked any questions… anyone else who did (accompanying family members) were politely heard out and usually dismissed.

Sorry, I used some unclear wording. I was responding to the insinuation that medcom should be the starting point of the investigation. You can think of medcom as the customer. If a charter plane would crash because a customer really wanted to make it to their destination, it would never be used as a valid cause for an accident. That's why I don't think the 'blame medcom' or 'start the investigation there' is a valid avenue.

While I see your point, in Ontario the Medcom AKA Ornge OCC assigns flight assignments to medevac assets whether they be Ornge in house or Standing Agreement carriers. I have first hand experience as well with regards to the OCC shopping around calls that Ornge dedicated crews have declined for weather and assigning then to companies with a more 'git er done' approach. Take away what you will from this accident but if you know you know.

[digits_]

Agreed. But where did you get a sniff of a a pax/patient asking any questions? My prior experiences, most passengers (all of them) never asked any questions… anyone else who did (accompanying family members) were politely heard out and usually dismissed.

Sorry, I used some unclear wording. I was responding to the insinuation that medcom should be the starting point of the investigation. You can think of medcom as the customer. If a charter plane would crash because a customer really wanted to make it to their destination, it would never be used as a valid cause for an accident. That's why I don't think the 'blame medcom' or 'start the investigation there' is a valid avenue.

While I see your point, in Ontario the Medcom AKA Ornge OCC assigns flight assignments to medevac assets whether they be Ornge in house or Standing Agreement carriers. I have first hand experience as well with regards to the OCC shopping around calls that Ornge dedicated crews have declined for weather and assigning then to companies with a more 'git er done' approach. Take away what you will from this accident but if you know you know.

But how's that different from a construction company calling around to the more adventurous charter companies to get their crews in that night, despite blizzards and freezing rain?

Would anyone here even think about asking TC or TSB to start the investigation with the construction company?

[2112]

Sorry, I used some unclear wording. I was responding to the insinuation that medcom should be the starting point of the investigation. You can think of medcom as the customer. If a charter plane would crash because a customer really wanted to make it to their destination, it would never be used as a valid cause for an accident. That's why I don't think the 'blame medcom' or 'start the investigation there' is a valid avenue.

While I see your point, in Ontario the Medcom AKA Ornge OCC assigns flight assignments to medevac assets whether they be Ornge in house or Standing Agreement carriers. I have first hand experience as well with regards to the OCC shopping around calls that Ornge dedicated crews have declined for weather and assigning then to companies with a more 'git er done' approach. Take away what you will from this accident but if you know you know.

But how's that different from a construction company calling around to the more adventurous charter companies to get their crews in that night, despite blizzards and freezing rain?

Would anyone here even think about asking TC or TSB to start the investigation with the construction company?

The construction company isn't usually a publicly funded entity though is it? Not directly anyways.

[digits_]

While I see your point, in Ontario the Medcom AKA Ornge OCC assigns flight assignments to medevac assets whether they be Ornge in house or Standing Agreement carriers. I have first hand experience as well with regards to the OCC shopping around calls that Ornge dedicated crews have declined for weather and assigning then to companies with a more 'git er done' approach. Take away what you will from this accident but if you know you know.

But how's that different from a construction company calling around to the more adventurous charter companies to get their crews in that night, despite blizzards and freezing rain?

Would anyone here even think about asking TC or TSB to start the investigation with the construction company?

The construction company isn't usually a publicly funded entity though is it? Not directly anyways.

Why does that matter? How does that affect the decision of the crew to (not) fly?

[2112]

It shouldn't That's the issue.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

You both have a point.

If a company had a flight to do and pilot A said no the weathers not good, I'm not going. Pilot B says, I'll just do the flight, and ends up crashing with weather being a factor, the TSB is going to go to dispatch and ask, is it a company norm for other pilots to take flights over when the other pilot turns it down? It's a logical starting point to understand the decision making, but has no bearing on the outcome. That's on the PIC which usually stems from company culture.

[digits_]

You both have a point.

If a company had a flight to do and pilot A said no the weathers not good, I'm not going. Pilot B says, I'll just do the flight, and ends up crashing with weather being a factor, the TSB is going to go to dispatch and ask, is it a company norm for other pilots to take flights over when the other pilot turns it down? It's a logical starting point to understand the decision making, but has no bearing on the outcome. That's on the PIC which usually stems from company culture.

We are talking about different companies. Pilot A and B from your example work for different companies in this discussion.

[DHC3Rwannafly]

Yes, but Medcom is the common dispatch between the two. The scenario is the same. 2 different companies asked to complete the same flight by the same person (dispatch)