Helicopter pilot saves fixed-wing pilot - Unbelievable sequel! (NOW UPDATED)

[rotorboater]

Just read this on another forum, any truth in it? - Good job if it is the fact:D
We were en route from Shoreham to Bembridge passing south of Goodwood when we heard this lady with engine problems, and also apparently unable to see the field. Another aircraft nearby was able to see the stricken aircraft and stayed on scene (circling overhead) as she put down in a ploughed field just SE of Goodwood, but then overturned. Very distressing as could hear downed pilot calling for help over radio as trapped, upside down, inside the aircraft. We then heard a heli (Mustang?) out of Bembridge for Redhill call and offer assistance.
Detoured back in to Goodwood on return from Bembridge later in the day, and understand that heli crew had assisted exit and pilot was not seriously injured, though was hurt. Overflew the aircraft on the way back home and it didn't look pretty!
From what we heard at the time and saw after the event, it looks like the pilot did a pretty good job - could have turned out much worse.
Link to BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6166917.stm

[gls.fly]

I think "Mustang" call sign is from London Helicopters based at Redhill. Sounds like the pilot was not badly hurt.

[Flingingwings]

Last Sunday following a MayDay call in Southern UK, a friend of mine (a rotary FI) diverted to offer assistance. The FI had been on a X-country Nav training Ex and upon arriving he found the fixed wing inverted and the pilot trapped inside.

Having landed they managed to move the aircraft enough that the pilot could be rescued. The FI then provided suitable medical help until the Emergency Services arrived.

When the dust had settled the heli was repositioned to a nearby airfield for refuelling, a calming cup of tea, and to return a paramedic who otherwise would have been stranded in a field.

In my books the FI deserves nothing but praise. Sadly that's not a view shared by his CP :eek:

According to the CP the FI has completed an unauthorised AoC trip/s by responding to the MayDay and then repositioning whilst helping the paramedic.
FI has had to submit an MOR and the latest opinion from the CP is that the FI will have to cover the costs incurred in these 'illegal' flights :mad:

CP went further and suggested responding to MayDay's be avoided :mad:

I hope the CP and/or company owner reads this. What a disappointingly damning view of actions that may well have been life saving.

I'm disgusted at your attitude :mad: and keep my fingers crossed that whoever sees this MOR within the CAA treats it (and you) with the contempt it deserves. Lets be thankful that the rest of us are willing to look out for each other.

rant over

[HillerBee]

Who in the hell is that a****h*** and just name the Company. By the way I think it's even illegal NOT to respond to a MayDay call.

[Squawk Ident 1200]

This sickens me! It was a life threatening matter. 2 thumbs up for the pilot, 2 thumbs down for the CP. Unreal.

[jab]

Hear, hear!

What a narrow-minded, tight-fisted, ........

[albatross]

Who in the hell is that a****h*** and just name the Company. By the way I think it's even illegal NOT to respond to a MayDay call.

I agree.

What did the CP expect the fellow to do? - Of course you respond if you can help!

Kudos to the FI for a job well done. The decision to reposition and refuel seems to be good airmanship rather than perhaps attempt to return to base with low fuel.

The CP is very wrong and deserves a severe attitude adjustment. Unless there are circumstances of which we are not aware his idea of not responding is shocking.

A Mayday is a call for immediate help not a press release!

Just out of curiousity - how much flying time are we talking about.

[wg13_dummy]

Well done to the FI. The CP should be punched on the nose then reminded that if he was in the unfortunate situation of the downed fixed wing pilot, he would have been very relieved that no one took his stance and ignored. Sounds like the attitude in society of 'walking by' when you see someone in trouble.

[Bravo73]

Flingingwings,

That does seem to be a pretty despicable attitude from the CP. Unfortunately, it looks like another case of putting costs/profits above safety.

Would you mind if I reposted the link to The Argus story that you posted in the Private Forum? It should certainly help DU's case (even if he does try to use the article to get a date!;) )


B73


PS to thecontroller: In this case, CP stands for Chief Pilot. It was a training flight, hence no co-jo.

[Whirlybird]

Makes my blood boil!!!! This isn't very nice, but at this moment I'm hoping that one day that CP is in the position of needing help, and there's an FI close by who says: "Sorry, mate, can't do it. It would be an illegal AOC flight. Yes, I know you're trapped and might die, but rules is rules and they come first. Byeeee".

I probably don't really mean that, but it would serve him right!!!!!

[MyData]

For more background info I think this is the same incident being discussed here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255777

and here

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255670


suggested responding to MayDay's be avoided

:eek: I thought that in the air (and at sea) it is contravention of the law to knowingly disregard a distress call.

[SASless]

At Ease!

The CP in question must have had a very compelling reason for making the statements he did in this matter....you folks should give him a bit of sea room here.

He may very well be stating his case exactly according to his company policy manual, owner's policy, or someother binding requirement upon him and has nothing to do with his own personal reasons.

It is not inconsistent to consider the FI may have wrongfully assumed a rescue function that he was not properly trained, equipped, or tasked to do. We have had many instances of professional SAR crews lamblasting such amateur efforts even when the non-professional intervention saved lives.

Perhaps Craab will jump in here and re-iterate all the reasons he has posted in the past which would validate the dangers that such non-professional SAR acts pose to the public?:ugh:

If the FI has to pay for the flight time incurred or re-fuelling charges....count me in on the Whip Round to help him pay the bill!

Sounds to me like a certain CP needs his hind end firmly kicked....repeatedly!:mad:

The FI acted like a true Helicopter Pilot should....Bravo,:D :D Lad!

[Heliport]

Links:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6166917.stm


http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/localnews/display.var.1068449.0.pilot_speaks_of_dramatic_air_crash_res cue.php#mpubot


http://icsurreyonline.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0500dorkingleatherhead/tm_headline=training-flight-turns-into-a-mayday-rescue&method=full&objectid=18257874&siteid=50101-name_page.html

[tomotomp]

Well done that FI.
Who the :mad: is the CP anyway.
cant the company be posted or is that agenst the rules Heliport

[Heliport]

I see no reason why the company shouldn't be named.

The FI and Stude's name have both been in the press.

The name of the company is a statement of fact - provided whoever posts it gets it right.

[helimutt]

London Helicopter Centre at Redhill?

[JimBall]

According to the CP the FI has completed an unauthorised AoC trip/s by responding to the MayDay and then repositioning whilst helping the paramedic.

Must have a strange Ops Manual. There were three people onboard this instructional flight. I can't see where it changed to an AOC or CAT flight - even with the paramedic onboard the flight could still retain instructional status.

Of course, if the poor FI has to pay the extra flight time, he could try to reclaim that cost from the insurers for the fixed wing. But then someone's paying the bill - and the AOC pops its head up.

What a bollox. And what a prat CP. Soon we'll all know his name - and this is a small world. Let's club together and buy him some superglue for his lips as a Christmas present.

[Nige321]

It is not inconsistent to consider the FI may have wrongfully assumed a rescue function that he was not properly trained, equipped, or tasked to do. We have had many instances of professional SAR crews lamblasting such amateur efforts even when the non-professional intervention saved lives.
Perhaps Craab will jump in here and re-iterate all the reasons he has posted in the past which would validate the dangers that such non-professional SAR acts pose to the public?:ugh:

SASless (& Crab)

So if we see you trapped upside down in a cab - possibly about to burn - it'll be alright to go on our way without a thought...

It's this attitude and that of the CP that highlights everything thats wrong with this pox-ridden country...

You should be ashamed...

N

[Gary Smith]

Whats wrong with the operators of today when it comes to the recovery cost of aircraft time. We are talking a training exercise diversion. The student most likely learned something new at the same time.

The cost of this diversion in a 22, 44, 300, or even a jetranger doesnot add up to the cost of a human life

[wg13_dummy]

The cost of this diversion in a 22, 44, 300, or even a jetranger doesnot add up to the cost of a human life

The cost of a diversion in a 747, SR71 or Space Shuttle would not add up to the cost of a human life!

[mini]

SASless, I take your point about the amateur rescue aspect - I have been involved in similar scenarios at sea. But. This would seem to be a case of a pilot hearing a MAYDAY broadcast, finds himself in the area, has a look, sees the casualty with no-one in assistance so he does the right thing in landing and assisting.

Granted, ferrying the para may be an issue, caught up in the moment etc. but certainly responding to the initial request for help should be assumed duty no?

CP sounds like a T*T IMHO. There are bound to have been easier ways to deal with the off course aspects of this.

[cessna l plate]

As a fixed wing student, I would be at the least releived if someone came to my aid like this guy. Can I suggest a nomination to the CAA for the annual safety award, as well as the awards that various magazines run. All power to the FI, a job well very well done, and I imagine the student did learn something that day, extra to the syllabus and worthwhile.

This, in my opinion, is airmanship of the highest order and all power to the FI concerned. As for the CP, is he actually a pilot or does he fly a desk???

Awards should be given out, to the FI for such a great act, and to the CP for "Pratt of the year". A CAA endorsement of the FI's activities should wind the CP's neck in nicely!!!

[CYHeli]

Maybe one of the moderators could fix this. This thread started a few days ago,
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=255777

Interesting report from another pilot that flew overhead and heard the pilot's calls whilst upside down...

[itsveryeasy]

Now - tell me who you know that is both a FI (Heli) AND a highly trained trained Nurse? .... Go on .... Who do you know?

Well - now you do - cos it's him.

So to those who might question this particular FI's ability to deal with this crisis - cos it was a crisis - it just so happens there is NO better pilot in the UK who is trained, qualified and experienced to actually deal with that on the ground. P.S. his nursing speciality is wound care.

Put me in an upside down aircraft in a ploughed filed - and it's HIM I want on the scene - RIGHT NOW. Oh yes - and I neary forgot - half a tank of fuel somewhere sloshing around.

If the company insist on him paying for the unathorized flight I will be writing to the company and asking them to bill me direct.

Now THAT will be an interesting piece of paper to have if they send me the bill.

I feel sure there MUST be some misunderstanding on behalf of the company - isn't there?

[airborne_artist]

whats the difference between a nurse and a paramedic?

Nurse - in the UK a degree level trained practitioner who provides care to patients inside a hospital in the main, and who can go on to qualify as Midwife, Theatre nurse, A&E nurse etc.

Paramedic - trained only to care for patients in the first couple of hours of their medical emergency - career progression is into team management.

[172driver]

I find the very notion that one should NOT attempt to help someone in an accident simply beyond belief. Setting all legal niceties aside, who does this CP think he is ? God ? Honestly, people like that make my blood boil. One also has to question his character - does somebody like that really belong in a cockpit ? I think not.

As an aside, AFAIK it would also be illegal NOT to respond to a Mayday call (or to just drive past a road accident, for that matter).

SASless - I hope you never need help after an accident. It might just be that soneone who thinks like you stands idly by while you die. While there is a point in not moving injured/unconscious accident victims if you are not a pro, you cannot extrapolate that to all and any circumstance. You SHOULD at least attempt to help. I certainly would.

In any case, kudos to the FI in question, very, very well done - BRAVO :ok:

[SASless]

SASless - I hope you never need help after an accident. It might just be that soneone who thinks like you stands idly by while you die. While there is a point in not moving injured/unconscious accident victims if you are not a pro, you cannot extrapolate that to all and any circumstance. You SHOULD at least attempt to help. I certainly would.

C172....perhaps reading comprehension is not a requirement for fixed wing pilots?

How did I suggest what you purport?:rolleyes:

[172driver]

C172....perhaps reading comprehension is not a requirement for fixed wing pilots?
How did I suggest what you purport?:rolleyes:

How about this from your post:

It is not inconsistent to consider the FI may have wrongfully assumed a rescue function that he was not properly trained, equipped, or tasked to do. We have had many instances of professional SAR crews lamblasting such amateur efforts even when the non-professional intervention saved lives.

Perhaps Craab will jump in here and re-iterate all the reasons he has posted in the past which would validate the dangers that such non-professional SAR acts pose to the public?

Then again, I'm only a humble fixed-wing guy.......

[Gaseous]

172driver

Sasless's sarcasm completely missed you. You wouldnt have got it unless you have been reading these pages for ever! Sasless is one of the good guys. (usually):}

edit: or is it just that fixed wing guys dont do humour?

[SASless]

Gas....

Perhaps he did not get all the way down to this part of my post.

If the FI has to pay for the flight time incurred or re-fuelling charges....count me in on the Whip Round to help him pay the bill!

Sounds to me like a certain CP needs his hind end firmly kicked....repeatedly!

The FI acted like a true Helicopter Pilot should....Bravo, Lad!

[Flingingwings]

As the Mods seem happy.............

Situation presented to FI was a MayDay call heard. Circling fixed wing overhead the scene reported the aircraft upside down and no pilot seen. Police/ambulance heli was unavailable to attend and so the FI diverted. Scene was large enough for a safe approach and landing to be made. It took all three aircraft occupants to move the aircraft so that the fixed wing pilot could be released. This involvement was not a knee-jerk reaction. The FI was the nearest who could respond.

FI is an Ex military (RM) medic with frontline trauma treatment experience. His nursing qualifications extend to him being able to offer more specialist recovery care. He is more than qualified and experienced to have been able to have provided the treatment required.

The Chief pilot has submitted an MOR to the CAA and the Ops Inspector concerned has agreed that the return flight from the field to EGHR was AOC :ugh: .

Initial request from the CP was for the Fi to pay approx £125. This has since been reduced to approx £30. Whatever the costs involved the motive of the CP to actively look for some matter that could be reported to the CAA is alarming. And regardless of the money involved the meer suggestion is shameful! No FI can afford to lose any wages at this time of year!

The positive free publicity generated as a result fo this matter should far outway any flying costs incurred. Adverts in atleast three newspapers would easily cost more then £125.

As the Mods have no issues with details being aired. London Heli's at Redhill are the company invloved and the Chief Pilot concerned is Mark Cuttle.

I add at this point the FI spoke to me in some despair as he was concerned about the CAA throwing the book at him. The decision to air this matter is mine and mine alone.

FW

[Flying Lawyer]

Flingingwings


If the CAA (or anyone else) takes action against the FI, I'll advise/represent him FOC.



Tudor Owen

[Flingingwings]

FL,

I'll pass that on to Dom. He'll be very grateful. Please accept my thanks also.

I only hope common sense will prevail

[tescoapp]

Flying Lawer I would also like to thankyou for being such a gentleman. I have nothing to do with this case. But as an ex instructor I can imagine the despair and worry that any contact with the CAA would bring.

If there was any justice in the world this incident should propel said FI up his career ladder. Ex RM medic, good command thinking what a catch.

I would dearly like to see posted that the FI had been offered a better job and could tell the CP to stick his job up his arse.

A MOR is a manditory occurance report. There are a list of situations which you have to submit a form to the CAA informing them of what happend.

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=14&pagetype=65&applicationid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1343

The above link explains it better than I could.

[airborne_artist]

The FI is quoted as having been a nurse, and may still be registered as one. It is entirely possible that his nursing registration requires him to offer Good Samaritan assistance if he encounters a person in a medical emergency.

[kissmysquirrel]

MOR=Mandatory Occurence Report

Twas an R44 I believe, not R22. Not with a pax in the back.

[SASless]

I reckon some well meaning Bureaucrat at the CAA will now peer thickly at the sheer letter of the law and find it necessary to shine his Rice Bowl and make an alpine event out of this.:mad:

Reckon the airplane driver is in the poop for not having land owner's permission to land?

I don't reckon "intent" nor commonsense ever enters into these kinds of situations!

Look back to the American who rescued several folks in Utah during a flood there....then did some charity rides to raise money for the victims....only to be done by the ******s in the FAA office for that area.:ugh:

After thousands of letters, numerous editorials, news articles, and TV programs, and intervention by several Congressmen....they let him off with a stern lecture and a couple of years probation. (So kind and benevolent of them it was!:rolleyes: )

[nigelh]

I have picked up firemen and taken them to the top of a hill that was on fire...A) to save them a long walk and B) so they could see what was going on from above and where it was heading . I certainly couldnt give a flying **** what the CAA would make of it !!! All pilots are trained to do off airfield landings safely and once on the ground you do not need any special skills to get a person out of an aircraft if it is going to burn!!! What utter B*****ks . As for the CP he really needs to get a life and stand up for the FI. What is this country coming to ....

[ExSimGuy]

Many years ago, and a totally different scenario (albeit very close to Shoreham Airport!) and a very sane approach by "the authorities" . . .

Myself, and some friends, who hold UK "Ham" radio licenses, took part in a charity "bath-tub race", starting some 4 miles up-river from Shoreham Airport.

Just before the start, a spectator had a heart attack (or something similar) on the other bank and I dove into the river to swim across and the guy was definitely in need of emergency help.

In those days, there were no cell-phones, and a sprint to the nearest house, and the time taken to borrow a phone, would have been quite long, so I yelled at my pal on the other bank to shout for help on his "ham" vhf gear.

(we took part in the event as a ham group ("Raynet"),and were raising charity money via hams we contacted while afloat)

My pal got a shore-based fellow ham to put in a 999 call and an ambulance was soon in attendance. However, this was illegal according to the UK RT act - Hams cannot pass messages on behalf of any "third party".

My pal (who was embarrassingly employed as an "enforcer" by the UK Post Office, at that time the regulatory body for radio communications!) duly wrote an apology to the "Authority" HQ, admitting his "sin". He received a letter back saying that "Yes, he did commit an offense under The Act, and please don't do it again" (i.e. - between the lines - in the circumstances, we don't give a rat's @ss!)

Hopefully the CAA will view this "offense" in the same light - if there is any sanity.

Someone has probably done so already, but I will be dropping a line to the Brighton and Hove Evening Argus, directing them to this thread - a little "ad" on behalf of the heli company concerned may not go amiss!

I'm relieved to note that Southern Flight Centre (who are fixed-wing) is in no way involved - or I'd have to find another school when I occasionally can afford to fly a C152 - any "budding helo pilots", please not the other company at Shoreham mentioned above, and take your business elsewhere!

[ShyTorque]

If the circumstances are as reported, the CP has totally mishandled this sitiuation. IMHO, he should have publicly praised his FI, the company would then have gained a lot of free publicity, of the best type there is!

Instead, now look what he's done........

The CAA may not have given a jot, but for his ill advised submission of an MOR. As for demanding payment from the hero himself - WHAT is this country coming to? I despair. :ugh:

I too will chip in for a whip round if needed, as a point of principle. :*

[ExSimGuy]

an update - Miss Mason has been at home this week resting. She has arranged to meet Mr Underdown and Mr Beeke
"To thank her rescuers" - (the name of the CP somehow appears to have been left out of all reporting, despite his having, apparently, got out of the aircraft to assist????)

No reference in any article to be found on a search of the Argus web-site about the actions of the employers! Hopefully my letter to the Editor,and the News Reporter, will elicit some investigation there.

Scum!

(link to this thread provided to Argus for background - Danny, I hope you have no objection)

Should anyone be able to link me to a response by the Argus, I'd appreciate a PM, as I can't get my "local paper" here in the sandpit!

Oh - and seeing as the Beeb has covered the news, I thought they might like to look into the "sequel" as well. Hopefully the Company will soon be announcing that they've fired the CP, and given Dom a nice Christmas bonus for "actions promoting the Company's image"!

(and, as a fellow, occasional, student myself of a different Shoreham-based company, given Mr Beeke a few free lessons ;))

If anyone would like to post the email addy of the Company, I'll pledge a tenner on my "plastic" to them, to go towards covering Dom's costs! and include appropriate comments!!)

[rotorboater]

I would be very happy if anyone came to help me if I was stuck in my straps upside down with a sh1t load of petrol dripping down on me, The heli pilots did the right thing and I will do the same if ever in his position and I wouldn't give a stuff what the CAA would say!

If he needs some cash to defend it, I am happy to help.

PS Flying Lawyer - your a top bloke as well!

[HillerBee]

Regardless of (legal) consequenses "You should always try to save a life"

What's the name of the FI. I will put him on my list.

[Noah Zark.]

[QUOTE=SASless;3019980]
It is not inconsistent to consider the FI may have wrongfully assumed a rescue function that he was not properly trained, equipped, or tasked to do. We have had many instances of professional SAR crews lamblasting such amateur efforts even when the non-professional intervention saved lives.
Perhaps Craab will jump in here and re-iterate all the reasons he has posted in the past which would validate the dangers that such non-professional SAR acts pose to the public? Unquote.

Long ago I was undergoing rudimentary industrial First Aid training. When I queried the amount of force I was using doing C.P.R., (on a dummy) with a concern about possibly breaking a few ribs in a real-life scenario, I was assured that it was much more desirable to be alive with some broken ribs, than dead without.
In other words, get stuck in, there's a life at risk. Properly trained or not, in a given situation, you have to act, regardless of your training, or lack thereof, especially if you are the only person around.
If the life is saved, all other consequences can be sorted out later.

[topendtorque]

Congratulations to the FI involved a good lesson for his students. (All students)
Here is a few notes for the hapless CP to peruse. I knew that bound assistance for aircraft or vessels in distress related back to the Titanic, only because a distant rellie of mine (step grandfather) had informed (berated) me with such.

He had been a rad-tech responsible for fitting radios on board ships, sail the first voyage with it and instruct the crew in the operation and repair there-of. They used have one frequency only for all comms worldwide, a situation that extended well into the Great War as far as I am aware.

On that fateful night he was on a ship of the same company as Titanic’s and on watch, listening and relaying all night. The ship he was on was too distant to assist and next morning he put the story in the ships daily, roneoed paper.

He was summonsed to the captain’s cabin and told in NO uncertain terms that it was, a) preposterous and b) impossible and therefore he should withdraw the story. Of course when the ship berthed some days later there was no record of apology forthcoming from the skipper.

I guess each contracting state (in this case Britain) can do a search of their rules of the air and see where the Chicago convention and other agreements apply.

I certainly am aware as most everyone would be, that there have been actions against rescuing ‘enthusiasm’ when later it was found that, a) the ‘rescue’ contributed further to a medical condition and b) that no immediate threat to the victims life was then apparent. But in this case with a trained person on the job, it should be bollocks to that. I think the arguments would centre on the ‘currency’ of the medical qualification.

Here below is a sample of a few minutes at Google, all the best to flying lawyer etc. and yes happy to add to the hat should it be needed.
Surely an apology must soon be forthcoming from the owners / chiefs of the outfit involved, perhaps a return form of disapproval (MOR?) from the CAA to the CP and AOC holder.
TET

International Wireless Telegraph convention 1903 (Berlin)

Article 9

Wireless telegraph stations are bound to give absolute priority to calls of distress from ships, to similarly answer such calls and to take such action with regard thereto as may be required.

Regulation pertaining to Aerial Navigation, ParisOct 13 1919(superseded by the Chicago Convention)




Article 22
Aircraft of the contracting States shall be entitled to the same measures of assistance for landing, particularly in case of distress, as national aircraft.
Article 35
(c) The use of wireless telegraphy in air navigation, the establishment of the necessary wireless stations, and the observance of international wireless regulations.

Chicago Convention 1944 (This is our bible, well as far as my naïve impression extends)
Article -25
Aircraft in distress
Aircraft in Each contracting State undertakes to provide such
measures of assistance to aircraft in distress in its
territory as it may find practicable, and to permit,
subject to control by its own authorities, the owners
of the aircraft or authorities of the State in which
the aircraft is registered to provide such measures
of assistance as may be necessitated by the circumstances.
Each contracting State, when undertaking
search for missing aircraft, will collaborate in
coordinated measures which may be recommended from
time to time pursuant to this Convention.


SOLAS Convention 1914 (safety of life at sea) - in response to the Titanic
Article 34
says ships with radios fitted must maintain a listening watch
and
Article 37
says that ships are bound to respond to distress calls etc, etc.
ps, I tried to copy but I guess the doco was a picture copy.

[chester2005]

Disbelief!!!

FI Top Marks , I think i would do the same. A+:ok:

CP Go to the bottom of the class AR:mad:LE F- :=

CAA Nothing would surprise me.

Flying Lawyer Top Marks again A+ :ok:

Count me in to any whip-round for the FI by the sound of it,he might need all the help he can get , can anyone offer him a better job?


Chester:ok:

[chester2005]

Quote from CAA website
"The MOR scheme aims to prevent incidents and accidents by ensuring that relevant information on safety is reported, collected, stored, protected and disseminated.

It requires UK aviation professionals and approved and licensed organisations such as UK operators, maintenance organisations and air traffic service providers to report to the CAA all incidents which endangered or, if not corrected, would have endangered an aircraft, its occupants, or any other person."

How in this case did any aircraft become endangered because of the actions of the FI?

If he had not intervened the occupant would have been endangered but surely that is not the point of an MOR is it ?

Chester

[[email protected]]

Sasless - thanks for all the flak I have taken on this thread thanks to you. I don't mind being flamed when I have commented on a thread but to receive incoming about a thread I hadn't read until today seems a tad unfair.
For the record, I think the FI did exactly what I would expect any aviator to do - however, if he had hovered over the top and tried to encourage the FW pilot to climb onto the skid I might have a different opinion:)

[Pat Malone]

I suppose this is a rumour network, but this is just bollocks.
There has never, ever, been any suggestion that Dominic would have to pay for any portion of this flight.
He has been roundly praised by his CP and his company for the action he took. Any pilot would do the same, and would be expected to do the same.
The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly of the flight with the paramedic from the accident site to Goodwood. The company's owner maintains there can be no AOC aspect if, as is the case, the company paid for this portion of the flight. There the matter rests.
It would be unthinkable for the CAA to take action against the company on these grounds, and I don't think for a moment they will.
What is certain is that once again somebody's got the story twisted aound his head and the pprune rumour mill has traduced a company and a chief pilot. And you people complain about what you read in the newspapers.

[SASless]

Pat,

Perhaps someone close to the matter could have/shall set the record straight....I am sure this thread is not unknown to the principals involved.

The way I read this thread....folks are standing up for a fellow that was reported to have been or faced being badly treated for doing a good deed.

It may be rumour....but at least it is a believable rumour unfortunately.

Thus...the sensitivity of the subject.

It would be unthinkable for the CAA to take action against the company on these grounds, and I don't think for a moment they will.

Let's hope you are correct in that thought.

[Flingingwings]

Pat,

Gauntlet accepted :E

My posts on this thread are factually correct. The information comes first hand from Dom.

Upon what do you base the assumption that I am mistaken?
Perhaps you'd like a contact number for Dom so you can confirm the facts for yourself?

Alternatively, as Fred Cross is aware of this situation perhaps you'd care to confirm things with him

[Pat Malone]

How far do you want to push this?
If intemperate words were spoken it was about the details of the story in the Surrey Mirror, not about the event or its sequel.
As to having someone directly involved contribute to this, why the hell should they?

PS: I have Dom's number. I flew with him recently.

[nimbostratus]

I truly believe that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. What I posted earlier (in this post) was correct. However, we all make mistakes, and I agree that Mr. M.C's past should remain just that.

[Flingingwings]

Pat,

I feel I'm missing your problem. There was a certain implied irony in my reply to you.

As and when the situation changes you may rest assured updates will be forthcoming. Dom is a good friend of mine who (like many others) has worked (and still works) extremely hard to make a living out of aviation. He is in the early stages of his career and having given the matter careful thought I won't sit back and not publicly offer him my support. I am very aware of the potentially negative impact this may have for the company and CP concerned and I would never raise an issue such as this unless I was satisfied the information passed to me was genuine and accurate.

There WERE (no if's about it) a number of issues raised with Dom, most were trivial , and yes they did relate in part to some of the newspaper coverage. I chose to mention the point with the biggest negative effect on Dom, and this industry.

I've never suggested anybody from LHC should post on this thread.

I agree there is a lot of irrelevant content on this site (as is the case with many internet forums). I don't consider this matter trivial. You'll also note I don't post that often.

If you know Dom please speak with him. I'll be seeing Dom soon and will mention your objections, albeit he is not responsible for these posts. I'm looking out for a fellow aviator who is a valued friend. Flaming me for that won't change a thing.

I'm more than willing to provide you with who I am if you so wish

[tescoapp]

Do we really need to go down the line of persudo rumours about peoples pasts.

If this outing on PPrune has managed to change the companys mind on Dom's action's and removed the threat of the CAA. Brillant.

It's not going to help Dom at all if all the dirt on the CFI is brought up.

BTW Pat your on a looser, most of us at some point have been on the recieving end of bullying from employers. The story just rings to true. We are now into the stage of damage limitation for the company, who have taken a serious kicking.

[Flingingwings]

Tescoapp,

I agree entirely.
My one aim is to guarantee as much as possible that common sense prevails.

[plodpilot]

I only have one question.

Is this the same chief pilot, who when working as a line pilot for a company based in Blackpool, but working on a rail contract based out of York, was disciplined for flying under power cables with senior directors on board (twice), and when the then Chief Pilot of that company recomended dismissal of the said pilot, the company chairman would not allow it resulting in that Chief Pilot resigning from that company due to his belief that the company did not take issues of safety seriously. This belief was further strengthened due to the fact that the said line pilot (?LHC CP) happened to be dating the sales director (company chairman favourite)

[nigelh]

Flying under wires is not necessarily dangerous. We used to do it all the time spraying. The powerline boys must do it regularly... i for one would feel safer 20ft below the wires than 20ft above. I am quite sure that a jobsworth CP would get his knickers in a twist:D some people want to take all the fun out of flying :{ This thread is however extremely entertaining :ok:

[Bronx]

Well, well, well.
So they don't want the FI to pay anything after all.
It was all a misunderstanding. ;) ;)

Anyways, according to Pat Malone, it was the CAA guy who was the idiot.
"The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly of the flight with the paramedic from the accident site to Goodwood."


plodpilot
If your story's true, sounds to me like that CP and this CP both enjoy making a big fuss about little things.

[topendtorque]

The skill of being a helicopter pilot also revolves about looking outside the square and very much paying attention to detail, oh and yes looking after your mates.

cheers tet

[ExSimGuy]

The company's owner maintains there can be no AOC aspect if, as is the case, the company paid for this portion of the flight.
Pardon my ignorance,Pat, but do you mean there would have been an AOC aspect if Dom was asked to fork out for a part of the flight?

(Stupid SLF asking):confused:

[Night Watchman]

Anyways, according to Pat Malone, it was the CAA guy who was the idiot.
"The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly of the flight with the paramedic from the accident site to Goodwood."


Technically the CAA man is correct. If the flight was simply to take the paramedic from the accident scene and return him/her to Goodwood then that would be public transport and would have to adhere to the company's AOC. That flight was not necessary for the saving of life. (I know.... so don't start on me!).

It was an issue the North Sea operators had with taking offshore casualties to hospital landing sites. They could land without meeting the helipad take off proforma (because it was saving of life) but on take off they had to meet the proforma (re-positioning so now public transport). Not always possible in a S76 or S61. Not sure what the solution was in the end maybe someone knows on here.

It is, I believe, one of the reasons the UK Coastguard aircraft which are on the civil register maintain their 'Rescue' callsign until they have returned to base to avoid such 'issues'.

[Odi]

Night Watchman: Thank you for that, you have finally cleared up something that has confused me for a long time!

As an ATCO who controls the North Sea helicopters I have always wondered why the Coastguard S61 was still callsign Rescue even when repositioning from Tingwall to Sumburgh having dropped the casualty off at Tingwall. What you say makes perfect sense!!

Anyways - back to the thead!

[Heliport]

Being an 'idiot' and being 'technically correct' aren't necessarily exclusive.
Someone can be an idiot for bothering about a technicality when sensible poeple would ignore it as an unimportant.
Does it really matter whether taking the paramedic from the scene of the accident to Goodwood was technically public transport?


BTW, Pat Malone only says "The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly". According to Flingwings, the CP contacted the CAA not the other way around.

[Night Watchman]

Someone can be an idiot for bothering about a technicality when sensible poeple would ignore it as an unimportant.


Can't say I disagree with you but it depends on where you draw the line.

Does it really matter whether taking the paramedic from the scene of the accident to Goodwood was technically public transport?


Well, I suppose it depends on how far you look into it.

If, for example, the aircraft carrying the paramedic back to Goodwood was involved in an accident then would that not leave the operating company and pilot wide open to prosecution and possible legal action from the parmedic's family for operating outside its AOC? Perhaps Flying Lawyer could help on that one.

Are there safety reasons why operating in that fashion does not form part of the AOC?

The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.

Just raising some discussion points... that's all! :)

Personally, I believe the pilot acted in good faith throughout and his prompt action could have prevented something much worse. So good luck to him and very well done.

[Helinut]

On the basis of past performance, I would not have much faith in the CAA's legal enforcement branch doing the sensible thing. However, I do suspect that any court faced with the circumstances of this case (as related here)would give the prosecution short shrift - (especially if FL was involved in the defence).

[SASless]

The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.

Coppers don't write every violator a summons.:rolleyes:

It is comforting to know "aviation" needs "policing".:mad:

Is it so bad in the UK now....that aviation folks have to fear prosecution by the CAA over patently innocent and harmless violations of the AOC or some one-time unintentional administrative violation?:ugh:

[Daifly]

Top marks to the FI concerned. Can't think that anyone would do anything other than what he did - thankfully we're not yet in the "walk-on-by" culture in this country (or "fly-on-by" in this case!)

I would put money on the CAA doing nothing with regards to this, maybe a letter reminding the FI of the requirements of public transport flying, but they're not going to throw the book at him.

If it were a public transport flight which wasn't being operated in accordance with the Ops Manual then it would have laid the company wide open if something had subsequently gone wrong (in this litigious world we live in). The "well it didn't" argument is never one that's worked too well with the CAA.

However, a good lawyer (Mr Owen for instance) could easily show that the reactions of the FI after having been in this stressful situation clouded his judgement in his continued effort to be of assistance.

Perhaps the CP was doing, as most do, what he thought was the best way out of the situation, by turning it into a private fight and making everyone pay their share (in order to comply with the ANO)? It's one of those decisions that gets lost in translation and ends up making people look like tits. I can't honestly imagine that he was complaining about the FI actually stopping to help - that would be incredibly heartless of him and altogether rather towards the "arse" end of the "nice bloke-arse" scale if he really did.

I think the CAA would have a HUGE fight on their hands if they took action as they would have to prove that the pilot was acting recklessly, which in view of what he did, how he responded and the undoubted stress he would have been under, would be non-starter.

I'd have done the same. (Though I only fly fixed wing, so would have needed a helicopter to get me out after landing next to the first one...). If I do, please stop!

[Night Watchman]

It is comforting to know "aviation" needs "policing".:mad:

Of course it does. If you didn't have rules and regulations to follow and someone to police them then you'd have all sorts of cowboy operators and accidents. Can't see why you're so mad about that??? Sounds like common sense and good working practice to me! :)

Coppers don't write every violator a summons.

No then don't and have the CAA done that in this case? It seems to me (and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong) that the matter has been reported to them, so they have to look into it and they've pointed out that the pilot operated outside of the companys AOC. Are they taking any action? Has the pilot been charged with any offence?

DAIFLY - good comments all round and I totally agree with you.

I would put money on the CAA doing nothing with regards to this

So would I.

[johned0]

As far as I am concerned, congrats to the pilot on all fronts.

Please could someone explain what might technically have been wrong with the pilot repositioning the medic to Goodwood. I read statements like : "Goodwood then that would be public transport and would have to adhere to the company's AOC". I assume the company is licensed for public transport and the pilot has a CPL so I don't understand what can be wrong with the flight ?

As I said, I am a PPL and I ask purely out of interest, so I hope I don't start an OT "debate" ;)

John

[Flingingwings]

Guys and Gals,

I know this is an emotive matter, and that Pat's comments have done little to pour oil on troubled waters. That said can we please avoid raising the CP's past. My comments only relate to the CP's handling of this matter.

My decision to go public on this forum was not taken lightly. Given the choice of negative publicity for LHC or Dom, I'm afraid there was no choice.

I took active steps to confirm the veracity of Dom's situation before posting, and without airing more of LHC's laundry by revealing the details, measures were taken by others prior to any involvement by me.

Lets hope they can sort this internally now :ok:

[Daifly]

johned0 - tis a good question! It's, to my mind, right in the heart of the grey area of Flight Training/Public Transport.

He has actually ended up getting into the situation purely from the fact that the helicopter's operator holds and AOC and he is a commercial pilot. If he'd been a PPL and stopped to help (and then paid for the whole flight) I suspect nothing would have happened.

The fact that he was a CPL meant that the moment he diverted from the Flight Training sortie he was on (I think I'm right in saying he had a trainee with him?) then it became, I guess, a flight that he was being paid to operate, in that he wasn't paying for it, and it wasn't a Flight Training exercise. That's my take on it and, I guess, is what the CAA are angling towards.

It's the presence of the Paramedic (a "passenger") on a flight training exercise that I would imagine has caused the problem.

It's the old "Trial Lesson/Sightseeing Flight" argument with a different slant. Technically, you cannot take passengers on a Trial Lesson, only the student; if you do then the flight is actually a public transport flight rather than a lesson. It's all hair splitting in reality, but the problem is the insurance and liability which would not be valid if there was an accident - and I would guess that's what the CAA are trying to police. But it's Christmas and they're not (all) arseholes so I'd guess at it being OK.

[ExSimGuy]

But it's Christmas and they're not (all) arseholes so I'd guess at it being OK.
And with luck, they've all quit the office early for Christmas ;) :ok:

[johned0]

Thanks very much for the feedback, Daifly,

I think I figured most of this out

The argument about trial lessons etc. only seems valid for a company that doesn't have an AOC. I believe the company in this case has one so what I don't understand is that the company must have all of the required public liability insurance to handle commercial flights so what is the difference between the CPL picking up the paramedic from the field vs. the same pilot picking up the same person from (e.g.) a hotel in the country and taking him to the same airport. The latter is something that helicopters do all the time ?

Cheers,

John

[verticalhold]

Plodpilot;

One and the same. I feel sorry for Mark Souster, the MD of LHC. One of the true gentlemen of this industry. This is HIS company which is being written about. I'm sure he must be feeling very fed up with it.

P.s. plod lost your e-mail address and mobile number. PM me please, got some pictures for you, the ones you saw about 6 months ago. VH

[SASless]

My experience with LHC has been as good a one as I have ever had in the helicopter industry. I would find it most improbable this could be as suggested. Perhaps the full story will come out someday and the whole truth will prevail. Something must be getting lost in the translation I bet.

[itsveryeasy]

I remember buying a book years ago entitled "When it hits the fan". Must say I can't remember much about it, except for the first chapter. That one chapter was all you really needed, and I 've never forgotten it.

"When it hits the fan" - First thing - recognise it - own up - say sorry (and MEAN it) if need be! Why? because it defuses things!

Someone somewhere in the initial stages of this affair did get it wrong. Don't let's mess about - they just did. Quite who, in what circumstances and why we may never know.

From what I can tell from this forum Dom has never asked anyone to put these posts in, nor to reply to them, and he has never posted anything himself. The fact that his friends have speaks volumes about them - not about Dom. It also seems that neither the company owner nor the CP have either. So all three have to deal with this publicity and none of them contributed to it, other than by being who they are and doing what they did.

What the London Helicopter Centre will be remembered for is not the thread running now - but the outcome. Thus far this has been the most amazing waste of superb publicity. What LTC will be remembered for is the solution LHC provide NOT the fact that there might have been a muddled/ confused/ misunderstood communication up front.

You that are directly involved - and that's three people - just sit down together - respect each other - give praise for a job well done and then decide on how such a thing will be handled in the future.

THAT way you could all come out smelling of roses. I fear for all of you if you do not do something like this.

That will show the world you're big enough to take this stuff in your stride.

[Daifly]

JohnEd0

Yep, if a company holds an AOC and the flight takes place in accordance with the operational requirements of an AOC flight (such as, IIRC (and helicopters aren't exactly me...) site surveys to ensure compliance with clear areas in the event of EFATO and such like) then that's all well and good.

I'd guess it got all grey because there was a student on board who either a) undergoing flight training during the Paramedic flight or b) was a passenger on the sector. If it's a) then they were carrying passengers during flight training or if it's b) then the flight has to fully comply with AOC requirements, which would require the FI to be Line and Base checked. It doesn't say whether he is or isn't but it must be one of those (albeit rather vague) reasons that the CAA were getting concerned about.

Unless every aspect of the AOC flight was taken care of, then the pilot would be opening himself and the company up to a liability for which the insurers could easily duck out of - which is where the CAA would get shirty.

I've had a quick root through the BHAB website (www.bhab.org) and can find some references to unlicensed heliports (which is what any landing site is) and that does require pre-flight calculations on area. I think there are probably so many areas that weren't physically recorded as having been addressed (and to be honest who would care if they weren't in this situation apart from the CAA and the insurers) that it has let this thing run and run for nothing.

Personally I'd rather see my licence fee go on sorting out the pillocks who give us ALL a bad name by doing things like flying through parachute displays (twice in the same display over Hampshire last year - frightening - and the Notams included full details), flying low level over a group of 3,000+ people at Brands Hatch last year (or it might have been Silverstone, I can't quite remember which bit of track I'd been staring at) or generally just making us look like a bunch of Hooray Henry's with too much money to the general public where, in reality, we're a bunch of conscientious, level headed, responsible people who are lucky enough to be able to have a hobby which is a damn sight more fun than stamp collecting. And who help people in distress and then get bollocked for it.

[thecontroller]

"a bunch of Hooray Henry's with too much money"

unfortunately this is a fair proportion of people that own/fly helicopters in the UK. i think it just attracts the kind of people who like to have expensive toys, like horses and boats. witness the number of pop stars and footballers and tv personalities who have got into helicopters.

this does not include professional pilots. they are just penniless.

[ShyTorque]

Could not the company have simply declared it as a private flight? Presumably no money or other advantage changed hands. :confused:

[Torquetalk]

What can you be thinking? No fuss, no thread, just a bit of common sense. Why would you deal with a "problem' that way ;)

TT

[Flying Lawyer]

Night Watchman If, for example, the aircraft carrying the paramedic back to Goodwood was involved in an accident then would that not leave the operating company and pilot wide open to prosecution and possible legal action from the parmedic's family for operating outside its AOC? Perhaps Flying Lawyer could help on that one.Operating company: No
Pilot: Possibly, but that’s a risk he was prepared to take in order to help. I’d like to think the CAA wouldn’t prosecute – but I’ve long given up trying to understand the thinking behind prosecution decisions by the CAA's Aviation Regulation Enforcement (ARE) and Legal departments.
‘Possible legal action from the paramedic's family for operating outside its AOC?’
No, not unless this theoretical accident was caused by the pilot’s negligence, in which case there’d be a cause of action regardless of the nature of the flight. The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.The CAA can’t and doesn’t investigate every report it receives. In theory, the Head of ARE takes into account whether investigation is proportionate to the (alleged) incident.
Nothing to follow up in this instance IMHO - except perhaps a letter from the CAA commending the pilot for his assistance to another aviator in distress. (I entirely agree with your final comment.)

Daifly If it were a public transport flight which wasn't being operated in accordance with the Ops Manual then it would have laid the company wide open if something had subsequently gone wrong (in this litigious world we live in). See response to NW above.
And, nothing did go wrong so the issue is hypothetical or, as some might say, a fuss about nothing.
‘The "well it didn't" argument is never one that's worked too well with the CAA.’
You’re right - unfortunately.
The capacity of some CAA ARE and prosecution people for imagining the horrendous things that might in theory have happened (but didn’t, of course) can sometimes make the most skilled ‘shock horror’ journalists seem like amateurs.

Unless I was specifically asked to, I certainly wouldn’t say the FI’s judgment was “clouded”. From what I've read, he seems to have acted perfectly reasonably throughout.
”the moment he diverted from the Flight Training sortie ………. then it became, I guess, a flight that he was being paid to operate”.
He wasn’t being paid to operate it. That’s not the angle the CAA would take if they wished to be difficult.

As for your post #82 ………. Blimey!

itsveryeasy ”….. Dom has never asked anyone to put these posts in, nor to reply to them ……….. The fact that his friends have speaks volumes about them”If by that you mean they are concerned/angry that their friend might be treated badly after behaving commendably, then I agree with you. Let’s hope it can all be forgotten as a ‘misunderstanding.’

thecontroller
A significant number of professional pilots in the UK would be even more ‘penniless’ if it wasn’t for wealthy people who can afford to learn to fly and/or be flown around in expensive toys. ;)


A complete fuss about nothing IMHO.
Whatever was or wasn't said by the CP and/or the CAA Flight Ops Inspector, let's hope common sense ulrimately prevails.


FL

[jamestkirk]

What a thread!

Maybe if the comapny concerned decided to confirm via their website linked through here (maybe) that they would not charge Dom a penny, openly congratulate him for his bravery and integrity and stipulate that they are supporting him to the CAA no matter what was filed. Adding that the rumours on this thread are just that;

then that would be the common sense we all need.

Generally, the reason we all feel so strongly about this is that we are level headed people who take the welfare of other pilots seriously and are willing to help in a serious situation,no matter what the rules are.

I hope that Dom gets the recognition he deserves .

[Daifly]

I have only one reply to everyone:

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?categoryid=224&pagetype=65&applicationid=14

You have a little under a month...! Maybe someone can let me know Dom (I feel like he's an old friend now!)'s address or confirm that London Helicopter Centre is a good enough address?

I'll nominate him. :)

[ExSimGuy]

Daifly - I agree; if there had been a petrol leak (yeah' I know it didn't happen) the lady flying it could have been in a more than "unpleasant" situation :eek:. Being trapped in a petrol fire must be one of the worst ways to leave this world :sad:. And Dom, as well as whoever else assisted, could have been putting their own lives on the line.

My "vote" would be with yours.

So far we have had no confirmation that Dominic is being charged by what would be a very cold-hearted employer for the diversion/landing, or IF the CAA are taking action against him. In fact, there has been no input from the employer (apart from one poster who doesn't believe anything posted here)

Does anyone know what the current status is on this? Despite my (and probably other's) contacts with The Argus and the Beeb, it appears that they have been reluctant to pick it up. (Good news is easy to report; any controversy might need the Legal Department :yuk: )

Dominic - if anyone can pass this on - I hope that all of your worries are history by the time Christmas comes around. If not, you know that you have friends (both flying and non-flying) who are thinking of you and who appreciate your actions as being humanitarian, Christian - and right

[Night Watchman]

Flying Lawyer, thanks for posting. Very useful information to know.

NW

[Flying Lawyer]

I have discussed this matter with the Head of Aviation Regulation Enforcement at the CAA.
ARE is the department which investigates alleged breaches of aviation regulations.


I am pleased to post (with his consent) that, if the facts are as reported here,
he will not seek to prosecute the helicopter pilot who went to the assistance of the fixed-wing pilot in distress and thereafter assisted the emergency services.



Tudor Owen

[DX Wombat]

can someone tell me what a CP is? co-pilot? chief pilot?
In this case I would suggest "Chief Prat" might be most appropriate. :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ExSimGuy]

I gather from the above, and from a couple of PMs that this matter is now fully put-to-bed in all quarters.

But I still agree that Dominic should get some sort of commendation - perhaps he has, the best sort, from his peers!

(and I understand that he's following this thread - Bloody well done mate!):ok:

And FL - I'm sure we all appreciate your efforts - another :ok:

[Flying Lawyer]

ExSimGuy

I couldn't possibly influence the CAA. ;)

The Head of ARE made his own decision after reviewing this thread.


FL

[SAR Bloke]

I was not going to comment on this thread but feel the need to add a balanced opinion. I am in no way criticizing or passing judgement on the chap involved in this as, apart from what is mentioned here I know nothing of his experience, qualifications or ability. All I want to do is mention the pitfalls (which may be fairly obvious) to future 'have a go' heroes.

Providing support to an incident like this may not always be as straightforward as it seems. The adrenaline rushes (even for the pros) and you can be led down a path you don't want to go, rushing into a landing site, not looking out properly as you are being distracted (did you see the other chap circling overhead who also came to help?) landing too close to the incident and blowing the crap out of it, getting in the way of the emergency services (you didn't shut down next to the only gate into the field did you?). All these things I have done (and there are many more) and things learnt from experience that I will never do again.

This doesn't even go into the medical aspects and I may take issue with the nurse/paramedic definition earlier. I may actually prefer to wait for a specialist to arrive, in certain circumstances, than the local doctor doing his best. I have seen people incorrectly pronounced dead before due to the unfamiliarity of the situation and the desire to help. Was the aircraft likely to catch fire? Were the occupants actually in a life threatening position in the upside down aircraft? Obviously dragging them out of the wreckage could kill them (or at least paralyse) if you aren't careful. If you are medically qualified and you mess up because you are in a situation you are not used to then you may be open for prosecution.

If the pilot (for whatever reason - good or bad) strays outside the law, as laid down by the CAA, and it hits the press do you not think that it would be prudent for the CP to report it? Maybe he made a judgement call that the CAA would throw it out, but would they be so understanding of someone who blatantly ignored their responsibilty as an air operator to report transgressions of the law?

Please don't take this as any criticism, just food for thought. It may be that the pilot involved was fully aware of all this (and maybe even more aware than I am). Also, anyone else reading this thread, please do not take my comments as an excuse to 'walk on by' if you are in a similar situation but please think before you act, take your time and be careful. It may be me in the wreckage one day and I would be grateful for someone to stop and help! I am fortunate that I am free to use my aircraft as I see fit in these circumstances and have the support of my bosses to do so, it may not be quite so straightforward for you.

[ExSimGuy]

FL - Not for one minute suggesting that you would/could influence the CAA

But your supportive attitude,advice and offer off help were, I am sure, an example to us all.

SAR Bloke - All comments noted, and taken in the spirit that they were offered (before someone "half-reads" and starts flaming.

In this instance (not knowing otherwise) let's assume that the helo was put down and shut down in the right place,and that the FW Pilot was completely uninjured, apart from scratches etc, and there was a concern about leaking fuel.

However, your warnings appreciated, and although I'm never going to be in Dominic's situation, I'll remember them in the event of coming across an RTA

http://www.gifmania.co.uk/christmas/reindeer/n-032.gif
(http://www.gifmania.co.uk/christmas/reindeer/n-032.gif)

[thecontroller]

i want to know since when do the CAA make decisions based upon information in a thread on a rumour forum? they certainly dont take any notice of any other threads.

[Flingingwings]

Thecontroller,

Perhaps the MOR is yet to reach the CAA ARE bod spoken to by FL. In which case (as reported by FL) if the MOR contents match the comments on this thread then no action will be taken.

Nothing to say the CAA take any notice of Pprune, but a positive reply most definitely helps pour oil on troubled waters.

[NickLappos]

I have followed this thread with amusement (because it wasn't me in the hot seat) and also with a full wonder at how human systems can get so wrong-headed.

One way to be sure it doesn't happen again is to have the entire student body of that school in question demand to see a public apology from the dunderhead chief pilot addressed to the quick-thinking hero. A modern day turn in the stocks, of a sort. If not, I am sure that a 30 to 50% reduction in student attendence/fees/hours would elicit a response. After all, the school works for the students, doesn't it?

[Flying Lawyer]

i want to know ........ My summary of my conversation with the Head of ARE was intentionally brief.
Just be happy for a fellow pilot.

I've frequently been very critical of decisions by ARE (and by the CAA's legal department) about specific cases and of the CAA's prosecuting policy in general - on PPRuNe and elsewhere. However, when (as in this case) an entirely sensible decision is made, I am very happy to say so publicly.

Please bear in mind that the Head of ARE was prepared to tell me the approach he'd take in this case. He was under no obligation to do so, nor did he have to agree to my posting it here. I'm grateful to him for both.


FL

[sierracharlie]

I see Dominic is one of the three finalists for the 2007 CAA Safety Awards.
Press release here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1428)

[SASless]

All the folks nominated deserve congratulations for their deeds. I am glad I am not a judge.....it would be very difficult to decide a single winner.:ok: :ok:

[CAPTAIN COP!]

I totally aquiese with you and would like to take this opportunity to wish all the nominees every success at the awards!

However, Dominic Underdown is very good friend of mine and therefore
I am biased and would like to firstly wish him congratulations with his nomination, and secondly to say that if anyone deserves to win this award for his outstanding bravery, courage and determination to assist
the victim and to provide immediate first aid etc.. it's Dominic!

Well done buddy!!!!!:ok:

[garystemp]

I had the good fortune to meet Dom for the first time a few weeks ago.

The subject of this incident came up, and I for one and glad he has been nominated. Good on you for your actions IMHO.

Gary Spender

[gls.fly]

I have also met Dominic and had the chance to fly with him .... Nice guy, great instructor, good luck!


GLS

[slackie]

So who won the CAA award??

[sierracharlie]

A team of Air Traffic Controllers from Newcastle won it but Dominic was nominated as runner-up. :D:ok:
Full announcement here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=1454)

Dominic Underdown, a helicopter instructor from Lancing in West Sussex, was runner-up in the awards.
In December 2006, the pilot of a Pitts Special Biplane suffered engine problems and put out a Mayday call. The aircraft was damaged during the subsequent forced landing, trapping the pilot. Radio calls were then heard from the distressed pilot who believed fuel was leaking.
Mr Underdown was instructing in an R44 helicopter on a navigational exercise from Sandown on the Isle of Wight to Redhill in Surrey. He landed the helicopter adjacent to the crash site in Goodwood, West Sussex and, together with his student and a passenger, managed to free the pilot from the wreckage. Using his medical skills from a previous career as a nurse, he offered medical support until the emergency services were able to attend.

[MightyGem]

Thank you for that, Ivor. RIP.

[Plain Torque]

Today was the first time I have seen this thread and I read it from the first post not knowing this very sad ending. What a tragic loss, I can't help but feel we have lost a real hero. My deepest condolences to his family and those that were lucky to know him personally.

PT

[Flingingwings]

As one lucky enough to have counted Dom as one of my closest friends I suppose I ought to complete this thread.

Nothing ever happened with regard to any negative CAA involvement in the rescue incident :ok: In fact the CAA were very supportive.

The whole saga did 'burn bridges' for Dom and a time later he left that employer and joined the freelancer 'circuit'. In true Dom fashion he wasn't willing to accept what he perceived as poor treatment, and ultimately Dom successfully sued his previous employer at Employment Tribunal.

Soon after Dom was diagnosed with a particularly nasty strain of pancreatic cancer. He fought with great tenacity (as one would have expected from a former RM), but sadly lost the battle 14 months later.

His funeral in Plymouth was well attended by a number of former colleagues and students.

He leaves a void in many that will be impossible to fill.

[Landroger]

Today was the first time I have seen this thread and I read it from the first post not knowing this very sad ending. What a tragic loss, I can't help but feel we have lost a real hero. My deepest condolences to his family and those that were lucky to know him personally.


Ditto PT and I would echo your every sentiment. My sincerest condolences.

Roger.

[Tony Mabelis]

This is a really sad conclusion to this thread, a good Samaritan, he deserved better that.
RIP

[DBChopper]

he deserved better that

He did indeed. It was a mark of the man just how many people undertook the long journey to the South West to pay their final respects, and I think Dom would have loved just how much laughter came out of an otherwise terribly sad day. Flying lost a real personality there and we are worse off for it.

[heliski22]

May he rest in peace!