Charter Ops, Wx minima and Public Transport (night)

[helimutt]

Ok, so we know of incidents in the past where Wx has been an issue. Night also seems to play a part in most, if not all the incidents we can remember, (specifically night flying onshore),
so what do the professional pilots here think would be good guidelines or even law, which may help reduce the number of accidents possibly caused in this way?

Some ideas to start
1. Only multi crew for night flights with PAX?
2. Only to licensed fields for night ops.?
3. Wx minima en route and at destination checked for period 1 hour before eta to one hour after eta and a go-no go decision made on that basis with no option for 'well maybe it'll clear'?

Thoughts?

[MINself]

IMHO, commercial pressures will always try and push the charter helicopter pilot, who is possibly a solo owner/operator to fly at Night in marginal night VFR conditions in maybe an older generation less well equiped helicopter out of his/her comfort zone when the customer demands; "Pilot, you either fly me home or NEXT time I'll hire someone that will!"

As for the night flying regulations, there are already plenty of those they just need to be followed, which will be hard when faced with the above, especially for the smaller operators that have the creditors at their heals.

[helimutt]

so I suggest smaller operators take a long hard look at the state of the industry and think what would be worse for them. Not getting a single night flight due to being able to say 'no' or the tragic loss of pilot, passengers and their machine which brings in the revenue in the first place.

Sorry but that is a no brainer and I would reckon any operator or pilot with balls would say 'sorry, can't fly it's not good enough'.

Most operators I have spoken to would back a pilots decision not to go if Wx is marginal.

[Letsby Avenue]

Margins are tight enough as it is. If, as an operator, you have a nice little earner with an individual or company to cater for their various needs then you want to keep it. You might get away with turning them down once but twice... and they'll be off to Ascot in someone else's cab quicker than quick.

You might be the safest pilot in town but if you're losing business for everyone who employs you.....:}

[MINself]

I agree with you 100% it is a no brainer, of course no-one would dream of saying there would be any doubt as to flying at night in marginal conditions, wouldn't that be professional suicide by even hinting that you wouldn't be prepared to cancel a flight because of unsuitable weather conditions?

However, CFIT incidents happen regularly especially at night in poor weather conditions, often over areas with little urban lighting.

Yes, most operators or other pilots (with or without balls) might support a pilots decision to cancel a flight due to weather, which is fine if you have an accurate weather forecast for your destination or the route, which lays it out as black and white, but its those forecasts which are just that, a "best guess" and how often was a weather forescast wrong?

Do you stand to loose a customer because of a cancelled flight, when other helicopters are departing that same heli-port, yes probably for different destinations but the customer just sees other helicopters departing, all because of a guess... sorry a weather forecast, gets a bit greyer doesn't it?

[Xavier Dosh]

Ladies and Gentleman,

With the utmost respect, I wonder if I could ask that we just pause for a few days before we start a debate on this specific topic.

Personally, I think that the UK, Onshore, Helicopter Charter Market has a very good safety record and I can't quite see what major safety improvements could be made.

The UK, Onshore, Helicopter Charter Market has been knocked sideways by the sad news of Steve Holditch and we are going to take a while to gather our thoughts and recover....

I know this is an open forum – but can respectfully put in a request that we just keep a low profile for a few days?

I really don’t want to ruffle any feathers or offend any Ppruners. I just think it may be appropriate.

Kind regards
XD

[MBJ]

Helimutt, good idea to start a new thread but please don't put any ideas such as two crew at night into the CAA's head. Didn't save Spotty Mulhern in Ireland.

We had a knee-jerk reaction from them after Mike Goss's crash and more regulation doesn't achieve a realistic enhancement of safety without putting the light twin operators out of business.

Since this last accident was a private flight, as someone said, CAT restrictions don't apply but most of us, particularly at night, apply those restrictions mentally anyway.

The pressure on charter or corporate pilots is huge, fixed-wing or rotary but ultimately your pax don't thank you for frightening them and mostly respect an adamant, "Can't fly, you'll have to go by road"

[pitot212]

MBJ you are so right, but you know we are up for a kicking again!

[mountjoy]

XD Thankyou for voicing the thoughts that so many of us share right now.

[the beater]

Disclaimer:
The following is not intended to refer to any particular accident and should not be taken as a criticism of any pilot's operating procedures.

It appears that most helicopter accidents at night occur in the private or corporate VFR world. The pressure in the corporate world to get the job done is immense as there will always be someone else out there willing to give it a go whatever the wx. I've been there and it's no fun! Perhaps the solution lies in working to Public Transport standards for all multi-engine night operations where there is an element of 'hire and reward'.
Many times the question is asked - was the machine an IFR model? - without considering the effect this has on the safety of the operation. Unless the pilot also has an IR, I believe that flying an IFR machine will increase the pressure. Best practice must surely be that unless the forecast for the route plus/minus one hour shows that the flight can be conducted without the likelihood of going IMC, then the flight should be conducted under IFR, i.e. with a calculated MSA based on MOCA/MORA, with an IR pilot, and with a suitable diversion, only going visual when in sight of the landing area from the MSA.
This of course will not please those pilots without an IR; and the scarcity of diversion airfields with suitable approach aids at night is going to greatly restrict these flights, but I, for one, wouldn't feel safe at night flying cross-country in anything other than the clearest weather without having somewhere to divert safely.

[BoeingMEL]

.........for Public Transport w/x minima to be applied to private category flights too? After all many of us have done so voluntarily for years. (Fixed-wing and rotary of course) bm

[tecpilot]

Have done single pilots ops my flying life long, have done more than 1000h night hours as single pilot. Now in our new paper world some guys seem to need double pilot ops also on-shore on VFR conditions.

At first, we stepped from single engines to twins at night. Have we increased the safety real?

Secondly we wanted more instruments. Have we decreased the accident rate?

Now we are planning to fly allway with two pilots, with higher (better) WX minima, only with twins and may be only under IR.

This is not an airliner business and it will never be such a kind of bus driving between two fully airfields.

We as helicopter pilots will allways have the struggle against our boss, the WX, the pax, the time and our own.

More instruments oder higher Wx standards will not increase the safety because i bet it will not need a long time and the first of our gang will ignore the new rules. Why? May be a problem between our ears? Or a problem with our boss?

No! We are the problem!

After the new JAA regulations we started to write more and more papers. Manuals thousends of pages. All for safety. Today in the most companies nobody knows all the new rules, changes, amendments, NPA, AMC,... and we have developed paper specialists, Crew Rescource specialists , CAMO specialists,..., ... but we have in fact not so much changed in real life.

We starting our trip in the night also with bad Wx because we think it's our job, our boss could get a heart attack in case of staying, the pax will never come back to us. And if we stay, absolute sure an other operator/pilot is ready to do the job.

[nigelh]

Dont forget that due to some of the caa,s ludicrous regulations most of these sort of flights are not public transport ( Inc Mathew Harding ) therefore all the sensible rules are thrown out too....i do not see why people on a lease or private flight deserve less safety than others. At the end of the day you cannot take away the pilots right to make a decision and you can only hope that he works in an environment where that decision will be supported . More caa rules IMHO will make more people opt out of aoc land and will not make things safer.

[rotorspeed]

It's important to focus on what the actual causes of any relevant accident were deemed to be before considering what, if any, different approach might be employed in future for night flights.

As I recall the Matthew Harding flight accident was essentially caused by LOC in IMC en route in a VFR AS355F1 with a non IR pilot. This did not occur on the approach to land. The A109E Bournmouth accident was reportedly caused by LOC in IMC by a non IR pilot, in an IFR machine, on the approach to a major licensed airfield, with an ILS, at which the weather was well above IFR minimums.

The fact is we obviously don't know what the cause of the Phillip Carter Peterborough accident was yet.

In the UK, I am not aware of any accidents in say the last 10 years involving an IFR helicopter with an IR pilot on the approach to an unlicensed site at night. Whether PT or private. Is anyone else? Yet a huge number of such flights take place all the time, perfectly safely, using existing operating procedures.

Helimutt: I see absolutely no case for mandatory multi crews (in fact the decrease in range in a light IFR twin would be a considerable safety compromise). Neither is there any case for only licensed sites to be used. Weather is clearly an important factor, but it is usually impossible to know what it is actually at the destination, and one relies upon nearby airfields with reporting as a guide. And at night there are far fewer of those. If there is any doubt whatsoever that wx will be ok, then it becomes vital to operate as an IFR flight with suitable (often considerable) reserves to get to an alternate with known, adequate weather in the normal way.

Seems to me the biggest issue is which, if any, night flights should be permitted with non IFR aircraft and non IR pilots.

[tecpilot]

Sure we will find for any problem an example.
This is mine:
Some years ago there was a good and proficient helicopter pilot. After more than 15 years and 5000h he changed to an EMS operator. It was the time of change between the single turbines like Longranger and AS 350 in the EMS to the BH 222, AS 355, BO 105. The operators were under big pressure because the new ships were much expensier than the old singles. This pressure came back to the pilots. "We need each flight!" My friend started his IR training under the pressure of the operator. Up to this point he was a very safe pilot. If the Wx was wrong, he stayed. Now IR he started to made any flight. "No excuse more" he smiled allways sad. 1995 he died at night in a Bell 222 in bad weather during the attempt of a self constructed instrument approach to a grass field with no lights. He had done this illegal approach to this field and to others more than hundred times before. Sure it was prohibited, but this was the job. If he wasn't able to do the the job, ok take the the next. The operator is still in business. Pilot error :}

[paco]

I've been watching this one with interest - when they banned night flying in singles with passengers on board, I must say I was surprised - are the machines automatically safer when they are not on board? If night flying is that unsafe, it should have been banned altogether!

I have a lot of experience flying corporate at night - at Alton Towers we used to do it almost every night of the week. Granted, our Longranger had a full IFR fit, but I had a lot of good military training and I considered it no problem at all as long as we flew when the weather was right.

Extra crews are not the answer, or extra instruments - it's an attitude adjustment, as tecpilot says - if a passenger is going to lose money because we don't get him there on time, why is that our problem?

If someone is trying to bully you, he wants something out of you, and you therefore have the upper hand! Believe me, if you stick to your guns and draw a line, you will soon be respected. It's only when you don't that you find the problems.

Our product is safe arrival, and we should stick to it.

phil

[MINself]

How about a campaign by the CAA republicising the night VFR limits to operators, pilots and customers with a reminder what breaking these limits can lead too, it certainly worked in NI when some quite graphic TV adverts appeared highlighting the dangers of excess speed which dramtically reduced the accident rate for that year.

Also as the weather is such a feature of all these accidents how about introducing a grid of automated weather reporting stations evenly spread across the UK which could give the user a METAR and a military style colour coding as to the current weather which could be accessed 24/7 via a phone as voice or as a text message. As late at night or on public holidays how many of the current weather reporting stations are closed or of little relevance because they're miles away from your route and from a field site gaining access to the internet can be a bit difficult.

MS

[nigelh]

They only banned public transport at night in singles ...not lease or private work. I cannot recall the last accident during IFR flight with IR pilot.

[tecpilot]

There is no way to train helicopter cowboys to more assertiveness against their boss and their pax in the usual times like "will fly for food".

On nearly all accidents the pilots got informations about the bad weather, but started their trip or don't turned back.

May be the off-shore guys have better times.

Forget the CAA for real prevention.

[helimutt]

I only stated 'two-crew' for discussion sake and would not want this to happen. An IR rated pilot, experienced and operating within safe limits is going to be a safe bet and all I personally believe we need, is to be able to say NO more often if there is absolutely any doubt whatsoever. As stated elsewhere here, if there is any doubt of any kind whatsoever, then there is no doubt. It's answered the question of whether to go or not.

I wouldn't want the CAA to create more hoops to jump through. Aren't there enough already.

Maybe no night ops with passengers, PT or PVT without an IR and only to licensed fields?

[Snarlie]

Just to put Helimutt`s opening gambits into perspective:
1. Multi crew at night. Totally impractical for operators of small twins. Adequate training and checking procedures approved by the CAA for single pilot ops at night are in existence, so why propose additional restrictions? Sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas again.

2. Only licensed airfields at night. Unrealistic restriction of helicopter operations. If you are going to use an airfield you may as well use a fixed wing and we don`t want that do we? How many licensed airfields are open or are willing to extend to cope with late kick offs or private parties which finish late etc. The whole point of the helicopter is the freedom it allows in terms of back door to venue.

3. The knee jerk reaction by the dreaded "Splodge" following the Harding accident imposed draconian weather limits on visual flight at night. These certainly do not need to be re-addressed. Interpretation of the conditions remains with the individual and should be left to his judgement.

Let us keep a modicum of common sense in the aftermath of this tragic accident and dispense with the hysterical babblings from those who are probably not completely familiar with the circumstances of this theatre of operations. The final decision will always rest with the guy at the controls and if mist or low cloud is a possibility at the destination, presumably an alternative plan is in place.

Always bear in mind that members of the CAA closely follow discussions on this forum and often contribute so groundless calls for further restrictions and limits should be avoided at all costs.

[nigelh]

only to licenced fields is a problem .....will they stay open ? Are they anywhere near the site ? If the weather is clear and there is a good site which the pilot knows there is no point in saying he cannot land there ....we do still live in a commercial world and the passengers want to land as close to , or at there own home ....that is why they are paying a fortune for a helicopter ......you may as well ban all night helicopter flights and make it fixed wing only. That would be a sad day.

[MINself]

tecpilot, I think there will inevitably someone, somewhere who will always be too wilco when asked to 'give it go' against a weather forecast when £s are at stake, but often a weather forecast is unavailable for the route and/or for the destination because its a field location or the airfields en-route have closed along with their weather reporting facility.

A forecast is just that and when things like 'tempo prob30' for an off route airfield appear in a TAF the decision to go or not becomes a bit trickier.

Yes, IMHO, the off-shore fraternity have the advantage with a multi-crew, IFR aircraft, but their operations are very different to one of a charter pilot, both in terms of operation and costs. However, sadly accidents do happen there too.

MS

[rotorspeed]

Agree entirely with Snarlie.

[Agaricus bisporus]

How sad that we have all got so conditioned to the reactive control-freakery of the UK in the last 10 -25 years that even we, the level-headed Professionals immediately react to an accident by inventing new laws to prevent a repetition. How can regulations ever stop weather related accidents?

The problem with all VFR flights, and IFR flights containing a VFR sector (ie to/from an off-airfield destination) is weather. Weather may or may not be forecast, and may or may not be forecast correctly. Increasing legal minima will have no effect whatsoever where no weather is forecast - ie over the hills and between the airfields for which met is available. Thus "pressonitis" will always be a major factor. It is this hazardous condition we have to address. Every one of us has at some stage said, "Well' I shouldn't really, but it's only another 2 miles...". After all, we get away with it 9999 times out of every 10,000, don't we? The cause is human nature, not legal.

The answer is not still more cloying regulation but education and awareness, and maybe better provision of met info (once one could talk to a Met Officer who would be able to advise of low scud en route, or cloud on hills...), and, dare I say it, a pragmatic acceptance that occasionally, in an industry that relies on human and mechanical perfection to stay clear of terra-firma, that accidents will, sometimes, happen. Even to experienced airmen.

[tecpilot]

Don´t try to find problems and bad weather, they will find you!

The best regulation is know long times: If you come in bad weather try to land or turn back. "No matter what they say"

[Special 25]

Snarlie, I admit I am not familiar with your type of operation - But maybe it does need an external viewpoint to see what many of us would consider to be reckless.

Can you ever justify that landing at night in an unlicenced field or garden can be considered safe ?? I'm amazed that this goes on outside of the military and they have crewmen looking out for them and NVG's.

I'm sure you can get some locations that are very well lit (ie for the purpose) and in an area that provides good ambient illumination, but I get the feeling this is not the norm.

I accept that in the commercial world, charter operations are struggling, trying to keep the costs low, but I would agree that 2 pilots is a must at night for this sort of flying. Its just too easy for good pilots to get disorientated at night and in the blackness of offshore, bad weather or a countryside environment, I simply can't see how one man can act as Navigator, communicator, pilot and safety pilot. Its just too high a workload.

[rotorspeed]

Special 25

I am staggered at your response that you think flying into an unlicensed, modestly lit site such as a field or garden at night needs two pilots! Or even NVGs!

Assuming it is known to the pilot, has been recced in daytime and you have a good, preferably fully swivelling landing light, it is quite straightforward I can assure you, paticularly for someone with good night experience. What sort of flying have you done to have your view?

For me it is nothing to do with cost - just simply unnecessary. You approach slowly, look all around, get fully orientated locally and let down. Assuming the weather is no limitation, no big deal.

[Francis Frogbound]

RotorSpeed;

Sadly special25 knows not of what he speaks. I regularly fly into private sites at night. Each one will have been ground recce'ed first and each one will be lit. Half of our customers here need that service, we are just bloody careful how we provide it. As winter comes on we juggle the pilots to keep them current on day ops into particular sites before they tackle them at night.

Steve Holdich's destination was well lit and he was incredibly familliar with it. He was also probably one of the most experienced and qualified operators in the UK on shore charter market. He just didn't shout about it.

The military are not the only ones to operate to night sites, also offshore I could never understand the fuss about landing a Sea King on a platform when the rest of us just got on with it. In civvy ops we are subject to huge scrutiny, over the last 20 years the only pilots I have ever needed to "hold back" were recently ex-military fliers who needed to slow down and learn the system. Once they knew the system they invariably became good, safe, reliable operators, especially when they realised that in many areas civvy flying is safer due to increased oversight.

Special25 if you are interested in seeing how we operate pm me and I'll run over it with you (preferably in a pub) and then show you how night sites are arranged and used for real.

FF

[MBJ]

Thank you Snarlie, well said!

...only to licensed fields? Helimutt, have you looked at a map and counted how many licenced fields there are open in the whole country at 0030 local?!

The pilot in the recent accident had an IR and a machine with an autopilot, so how would legislating for that help? (What he may not have had was recent local Met info)

..and Special 25, comment from the luxury of a Police perspective is less than pertinent. Suggest you take up Froggie Frogspawn's offer of re-briefing.

[jumpseater]

The answer is not still more cloying regulation but education and awareness, and maybe better provision of met info (once one could talk to a Met Officer who would be able to advise of low scud en route, or cloud on hills...),

Just as a thought the last airport the aircraft flew past with a recent Metar assuming they flew 'down the M6', would likely have been Coventry, with the next nearest to the crash site being Luton. If they had routed via Leeds and down the A1 then it would have been Doncaster. As far as I'm aware most of the military bases are also closed and 'weatherless' at that sort of time of night too. I am a qualified met observer, the Met office is now in Exeter where they do still have aviation forecasters, and speaking to them on the phone they can give some very good and accurate forecasts. To make a good forecast they use metars as part of the 'jigsaw', with sometimes little cover in not so remote areas, good quality data is not always to hand once airports shut for the night.

[Special 25]

I admit (and did so at the very beginning of my post) that I have never done charter work, so I hold my hands up to not having a clue about what you do. I have a full admiration for the work you do and achieve quite safely 99.9% of the time, I also have a genuine sympathy with the commercial pressures you are under, that I simply am not.

As I said, I imagine there are sites that a reletively straight forward to fly into at night, but that would rely on good lighting of the touch down area and a certain amount of ambient lighting. You say yourself, sites are reccied in daylight and they are nomally sites you have flown to several times before which I guess I would expect, but what sort of met limits do you impose on yourself ? - Me being a bit of a southern softie would want cloud 800ft AGL and 6000m viz - Am I dreaming ??

[RVDT]

From another place (NZ)......

135.155 Meteorological conditions – VFR flight
(a) A person performing an air operation must ensure that a VFR flight is not commenced unless current meteorological information indicates VFR minima prescribed in Part 91 and in paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) can be complied with along the route, or that part of the route to be flown under VFR.
(b) A pilot-in-command of an aeroplane performing a VFR air operation outside controlled airspace must fly in meteorological conditions—
(1) of not less than a ceiling of 1000 feet AGL and a flight visibility of not less than 5 km; and
(2) if the operation is by night, of not less than a ceiling of 3000 feet AGL and a flight visibility of not less than 16 km.
(c) A pilot-in-command of a helicopter performing a VFR air transport operation outside controlled airspace must fly in meteorological conditions—
(1) of not less than a ceiling of 600 feet AGL and flight visibility of not less than 1500 metres; and
(2) if the operation is by night, of not less than a ceiling of 2000 feet AGL and flight visibility of not less than 5 km.
(d) A pilot-in-command of a helicopter performing a VFR commercial transport operation must—
(1) manoeuvre the helicopter so that the pilot can, at all times, observe other traffic and any obstruction in time to avoid a collision; and
(2) for remote aerodrome access, fly in meteorological conditions of not less than a ceiling of 600 feet AGL and flight visibility of not less than 1500 metres; and(3) for other than remote aerodrome access, fly beneath the ceiling, remaining clear of cloud, and in continuous sight of the surface and above not more than scattered cloud; and
(4) if the operation is by night, fly in meteorological conditions of not less than a ceiling of 2000 feet AGL and a flight visibility of not less than 5 km.

[rotorspeed]

flungdung

Generally agree but the problem is that for late night heli flights there is almost certainly no METAR info at the destination, and TAF info that is limited because of distance from the landing site and inherent inaccuracy potential.

As I'm sure you'll agree this means that unless the en route and destination weather is known to be better than night VFR minimums (and often it is not) the only safe approach is to treat the flight as IFR to an operational airfield which has an instrument approach and suitable weather, but route via the private site in the hope that on arrival the weather is such that a safe landing can be made there. Which is usually the case.

[rotorspeed]

We don't need more regulations.

Sensible planning and a high skill level that does not get compromised by pressure is the answer. Flungdung has it right on professional mindset.

It should be said that a major safety promoter is this forum itself. There will be a lot us of us looking even harder at what we do because of the debate that PPRuNe enables. Pre forums, few knew much about an accident until the AAIB report. Now awareness of circumstances is much higher and we can mull over what might be learnt from an incident early on and I have no doubt that tends to promote safer flying. The prevailing attitude from posts is correctly one of professionalism not bravado.

Sorry but forget the notion of compulsory flight plans for night flights. I'm quite sure no-one who reads them is going to want to get involved in being a met analyst, nor will it result in the SAR boys coming out within an hour if you don't call in to report your landing. What it will do is frustrate everyone with the extra complication of trying to file, often from private sites, and potentially lead to departure delays that increase the risk of fog/mist build up.

[Flingingwings]

So it takes an accident and four fatalities to initiate this discussion :confused:

Atleast when these matters were discussed post AAIB report,as far as possible the real reason was known. That sort of discussion beats knee jerk specualtion any day IMHO.

Why hold the debate soley about poor Wx at night. How about new measures to prevent non IR holders/ non IR aircraft (ppl and/or cpl) flying IMC or VMC on top.

Professionals that have IR's and who fly into private sights at night are discussing the RUMOURS that have initiated this thread, albeit privately.

Respect has left the building :mad: :mad:

[helimutt]

but isn't it fair to say that even without previous accidents, discussions on weather and safety improvements are a good thing?

That is the main reason I started this thread away from the other one. As mentioned above, I thought we were all supposed to be professional aviatiors here?
I, for one, would welcome immediate discussion into any cause of accident if one day I was to be involved.
Even if the 'other' accident turns out to be mechanical failure, which is entirely possible, then we are discussing bad weather ops here. It just so happened to be bad weather the evening in places. ie fog/mist/low cloud whatever. Nothing can change what the weather was then.

As for VMC on top? Is there actually such a thing allowed. I thought not. You should be clear of cloud and and not above it, without any of the surface obscured at any time. (ppl and cpl holders without IR)

[SASless]

Is this not the same situation USA based EMS operations confront on a daily basis?

We have had several long threads that discuss the dangers of night flying in marginal weather conditions, in areas without adequate weather reporting.

The FAA now requires operators to maintain "operational control" for each flight as a safeguard against pilot's feeling compelled to make flights into unknown or sub-minimum weather.

It seems to be working over here.....at least we have not had any CFIT accidents yet this year.

Perhaps the CAA might consider doing the same thing for you folks in the UK.

[Flingingwings]

HM,
The discussion isn't the issue. It's the timing.
My comments re VMC on top etc were a tad tongue in cheek - whilst it may not exist legislatively - It most definitely occurs.

[mountjoy]

FD, i agree education is needed, but also respect for Those colleagues and friends who have suffered a great loss this week. B73 hit the nail on the head.

Armchair experts exist the world over, prehaps before you should all be throwing in your money's worth we should be more considerate. For surely that is a part of being 'professional'

Out of interest i wonder how many contriutors actually fly SPIFR, and understand the workload asocated with this operation. Let alone have a current IR with hours ?

[91205]

how can you fly SPIFR into a private site with no instrument approach procedure? its all very well cruising along in the soup on autopilot but at some point you have to descend and find the landing site, and if its 100 feet cloudbase or thick fog, then you're a bit buggered, are you not?

[Special 25]

Surely you can be 'VMC on top' but not VFR which does require sight of the surface.

My concerns are the grey area between IFR and VFR where I gather quite a few charter pilots seem to feel it OK to cancel their IFR flight plan whilst making an approach to land, and descend below MSA (using the GPS I assume) to get visual beneath the cloud. I've heard pilots descending to 300ft on this basis, hopefully only if they know the approach well. Even so, I thought the only way down was either to descend to MSA or an authorised approach / cloud break proceedure.

Not sure on the role of ATC in this situation. If a controller knows that the cloud base around Manchester or London is 500ft - 800ft, do they have any responsibility if an aircraft claims to be letting down to land under their own navigation from 2,400ft ?? I assume legally, once you dispense with an ATC service, you're on your own.

[London Mil]

Special, you certainly can be VFR on top. Something like 8kms viz, 1500 ft horizontal and 1000ft vertical.

[Chilli Monster]

Not sure on the role of ATC in this situation. If a controller knows that the cloud base around Manchester or London is 500ft - 800ft, do they have any responsibility if an aircraft claims to be letting down to land under their own navigation from 2,400ft ?? I assume legally, once you dispense with an ATC service, you're on your own.

Correct.

The flight in question flew past an open, large, international, regional airport and obtained a FIS from them. Weather there at the time of the incident was "9999 SCT010". He left the frequency prior to the event.

Weather at the crash site (taken from the Wittering weather archives) was:

EGXT 020150Z 01012KT 3000 BR BKN002 07/06 Q1017

EGXT 020050Z AUTO 02011KT 5000NDV BR BKN002/// 07/07 Q1017


In the "Plank" world we're always told - if the weather's that bad, you divert somewhere where you can get in, and carry fuel accordingly - a divert would have meant an hours drive in a taxi. Out of interest (from a Pilot/ATCO) - do the Rotary world impress the same on their pilots, or are there other factors that are considered more relevant?

[Flingingwings]

Flungdung,
My concern is purely for those family, friends and colleagues of all who sadly lost their lives.
I'm SPIFR rated and have no other issues regarding this matter, but thanks for the concern :ok: . I've cancelled more then one trip, despite passenger protests, due to marginal weather and would not hesitate to do so again if the circumstances warranted.
I'm sorry you disagree with my opinion that the timing of this discussion is insensitive. But, it is your earlier post that references a 100nm flight with 8/8 at 200' as irresponsible. Is that simply pure coincidence or are you linking this thread to the 'other' one ?

As you say you have been lucky previously (and I assume from your post, more than once) and that these lessons cannot be taught on a CPL and/or IR course, I wonder did you air your mistakes on Pprune a few days later so others could learn? This thread is now at three pages with many suggestions on how things could change but little to no examples of how others have learnt from their mistakes. If you chose to remain silent at the time, how about kicking off with your examples (The prevailing conditions, your experience level at the time, what went wrong, what nearly went badly wrong, how you resolved the situation safely and what lessons you learnt). Guidance from somebody that has err'd before along with hints, tips and the warning signals only experience can provide would be helpful to many that use this forum.
Regards
FW

[Francis Frogbound]

Chilli Monster;

In the rotary charter world we certainly do carry IFR diversion fuel and it appears on the operational flight plan the pilot carries and the CAA audit regularly.

A let down in the murk to a private site is only carried out to a pre-determined altitude with rad-alt back up and an awareness of all obstructions from studying the site details against an OS map, also the pilot needs to be familliar with the site from previous visits (see my earlier post) While a gps is a nice tool the sensible SPIFR operator will also have plotted the site as a VOR/DME fix if at all possible, he will also have his diversion sorted out and the aircraft set up for the go-round.

As for the customers, it is a case of education. A brief explanation of the problems before departure goes a long way along with a request not to disturb you when the work load is high. I have quite happily thrown away approaches into private sites (day and night) in favour of an approach into the nearest airport and all bar one of the passengers over a lot of years now have understood and taken my judgement as final. The one who created a scene was firmly told "I have no intention of dieing tonight, and I certainly don't (don@t) intend to die for you, you don't pay enough for that." That was three years ago and I still fly him regularly, and he is marvellous at keeping his guests out of my hair and letting me get on with my job. The same situation with a couple of other customers/pilots has led to the loss of business, rather that than the loss of the pilot or customers' lives. As far as we are concerned a pilot means no when he says no, one customer who called ops to complain was told that he should be thankful the pilot was prepared to take such hassle to keep the customer safe, and would he have bitched so much if the pilots of his private jet had diverted due to weather?

More regulation is not the answer to the rotary SPIFR/night situation, just more education. I've learned a huge amount from mistakes, mine and other peoples' personally I would like to see the IR course take a few hours to teach students how to do the off airfield bit as well as the airfield bit. Then perhaps the hair raising experiences of those of us who have been learning this trade for longer than we care to remember can be passed on in a chunk of knowledge to the newer guys without them having to learn from them in anecdote form in the pub.

[Droopystop]

I think FF hits the nail on the head - educating the customer, retaining professional standards and the nuturing of younger and less experienced pilots.

[paco]

"personally I would like to see the IR course take a few hours to teach students how to do the off airfield bit as well as the airfield bit"

As a matter of interest, part of my IR in Canada was a discussion about how to get into a HEMS landing site in mountains from protected airspace a few miles away. It involved hopping across to another airway with a lower MSA, amongst other things. A very practical approach (pardon the pun). It was also a good exercise in knowing the regulations, and I think the JAA (sorry, EISA) would do well to take it on board. So much for it being of a lower standard!

Phil

[Chilli Monster]

FF - many thanks, it's always nice to know what's going on at the other end of the freq.

[mountjoy]

FF has nit the nail on the head, a good post. For us all, gaining a rating is only the door to a further education that continues to the day you stop flying. If there is anything positive to come out of any situation like this it must be better education for those who are knew to these situations.

I know Dennis Kenyon mentioned in a post a few weeks ago, the possibility of starting an 'advanced' flying course, could it not be time for people/companys to step up and look at the same for newly IR qualified pilots. The ratings are a tool to do a job but skill comes with practice. If there could be a course or seminar available to pilots new and old, how many takers could there be.

FD i was not suggesting you were an 'armchair expert' those that are, know who they are. :ok:

[helimutt]

London Mil, you can't be VFR on top. := You cannot be above cloud and with any of the surface below you obscured. Don't know where you got your info from unless you mean in another country but I was meaning in the UK. UK VFR requirements without IMC/IR rating are to be found in the ANO (sched 8)

[MINself]

helimutt, well said Sir. London Mil := , VMC on top, although a tempting option is completely illegal in the UK for a non-IR rated pilot and also that he/she must be IR rated on the type being flown and that that aircraft is also IFR equipped as per the ANO.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/LASORS_07.pdf

Section 2 contains a practical guidance for UK VFR requirements.

Contained within this section are a couple of cards and note 1 of the first card, card A interestingly specifies that you must remain in sight of the surface at all times to be VFR, as well as maintaining the required seperation from cloud and keeping the forward visibilty for the relevant airspace.

MS

[JimL]

I have no wish to rain on anyone's parade but:
A let down in the murk to a private site is only carried out to a predetermined altitude with rad-alt back up and an awareness of all obstructions from studying the site details against an OS map, also the pilot needs to be familiar with the site from previous visits (see my earlier post) While a GPS is a nice tool the sensible SPIFR operator will also have plotted the site as a VOR/DME fix if at all possible, he will also have his diversion sorted out and the aircraft set up for the go-round.is not permitted under current regulations for Commercial Air Transport. Apart from the obvious dangers of setting minima from an OS map and the lack of 'guarding' of the site from temporary or permanent additions to the obstacle environment, most pilots do not have the knowledge required to design let-down procedures.

Perhaps Francis was indicating that an en-route let down below cloud which is above the MSA was being described; however, for CAT, even that is not permitted unless it is accordance with a procedure that is in the OM and approved by the appropriate authority. There are obvious dangers that are associated with an uncontrolled descent in IMC, not-the-least of which may be a conflict against opposing traffic (two of you may have the same idea at the same time).

There is a readership here which is eager to learn from the wisdom of their more illustrious peers - please be careful when encouraging other pilots to carry out procedures which are, for obvious reasons, prohibited.

Jim

[London Mil]

MInself, you misquote. The sentence on Card A is completed with the phrase:


unless you hold a valid IMC or Instrument Rating.

ANO Schedule 26 - Visual Flight Rules says:

An aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1500 metres horizontally and 1000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

There is no mention of sight of surface.

Methinks you are confusing flight rules with license priveleges. My original statement never metioned licenses.

[MINself]

In the context of what is being discussed on this thread I think it is important to be specific, rather than simply state VFR on top is acceptable, so I accept your last post in that licence privelages do effect when or why VFR on top is legal and in quoting from LASORs I am well aware that whether you hold an IMC rating or an IR is of relevance and this cannot just be discounted, just because it doesn't suite a particular side of the discussion.

I should add that the point I was bringing up was not a general one ie A helicopter below 3000', (possibly on the approach to land) whilst still seemingly 'VMC on top' but out of sight of the surface is not under the ANO in VMC/VFR, unless this aircrat is being flown by a pilot with an current IR on type and the aircraft is IFR equipped.

As for the limits you quote from the ANO, these are for above FL 100 which unless you have some form of supplemental oxygen then those for below FL 100 would be of more relevance, just a thought?

MS

[paco]

One of the reasons some countries ban flying VMC on top in single-engined machines is to do with performance - if an engine fails, you must be in sight of the surface, to perform safe forced landing.

phil

[[email protected]]

JimL - throughly concur with your post - it seems from FFs post and other comments made on other threads in the past that unofficial letdowns using GPS or VOR/DME are not only seen as an acceptable risk by some operators but even as a 'normal' way to get the job done and keep the customer happy. If this is so then the accidents will never go away.

[Max_Chat]

JimL I agree fully with your comment. Needless to say poor guidance is no guidance at all.

[Francis Frogbound]

JimL;

Sorry, you are right as usual. The pre-determined altitude I described would not take you below MSA, I should have made that clearer. If you become visual on the way down then to continue visually is quite legal. If you are not visual at that point then off to the nearest airfield with an IFR approach.

Max_Chat. Apologies for an unintended missed guidance. I still think, however the IR(H) should cover off airfield ops as well as on airfield.

FF

[Flaxton Flyer]

Quick question - for CAT (PT) night landings at an off-airfield site, what are the requirements ref. site dimensions and lighting ?

Thanks.

[thecontroller]

interesting stories.

what is "LSALT" and "nightsun?"

[Flingingwings]

Flungdung, Thankyou:ok:
I was in no way disputing that night and/or IFR require a significantly different flying approach. Out of curiousity what hours did you have at the time of those two incidents?
IMHO starting a trip with 'We'll give it a go' is the start of a slippery slope. I've done it before but have always stated before departure exactly how low things will go. On a couple of occasions I've even refused to go. If you take the time to explain your reasons most irrate pax accept your decision. Never had any problems from the companies involved.
Nightsun - many million candle power moveable searchlight.
LSALT - In the written context I'd assume 'Lowest Safe Altitude'

Apologies see FD elaborated whilst i slowly typed:(