UK AAIB May 2007

[Hilico]

Student starts up R44 as briefed but low-rpm horn check gets a bit ambitious.

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aaib/publications/bulletins/may_2007/robinson_r44_ii__g_cdjz.cfm

[thecontroller]

see the last 2 paras of the report. (i tried to copy and paste it in here but all i got was gibberish)

does this mean we are now NOT allowed to let students start the engine/rotors unless they have a PPL(H)? or can we let them start up if they have flew solo in the past?

i've read article 26 of the ANO here:

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20051970.htm

but it is not clear to me

????

[Pandalet]

From reading the report, it seems the student was alone at the time. There is also a statement implying that the instructor told him to start up, but not go through the full pre-lift checks.

With respect to the ANO ammendment, surely having an instructor sitting next to said student, but not actually doing anything other than watching like a hawk (and having hands at the ready) would satisfy the requirements?

[thecontroller]

"With respect to the ANO ammendment, surely having an instructor sitting next to said student, but not actually doing anything other than watching like a hawk (and having hands at the ready) would satisfy the requirements?"

yes, this would satisfy the requirements, but this means the instructor does not get to eat his lunch/de-brief the last student/do the paperwork/etc while the next student is starting up

it's will be pain having to sit next to a competent student with 40+ hours while he starts up, just to satisfy a legal requirement

[oldbeefer]

The report say ' it's normal practice for a student to carry out starts'. In the military they are only allowed to carry out solo starts once they have flown solo. Seems very sensible to me!

[SilsoeSid]

In the military they are only allowed to carry out solo starts once they have flown solo. Seems very sensible to me!

Can't see the link of proficiency there, however that solo bit didn't seem to be the case on Lynx conversions where the first starts took around 45 minutes!!

Solo starts were allowed in order for the instructor to finish off his coffee, complete the days admin and add some extras to the flights spell checker auto correct, before joining his student at the 'release rotorbrake' stage of the sortie.

However, in this case the student continued with the checks beyond the point briefed by the instructor. The student also held a fixed wing Private Pilot’s Licence.

The simple matter is, it doesn't matter at what stage the student is in his or her training, if they cannot follow a basic instruction, should they even be allowed solo before being qualified? They might be briefed what to do and where to go, but who's to say they won't go off and do their own thing anyway?

Another big factor in this, is the last sentence in the above quote.
Lets say as a JARCPL(H) with many thousands of hours etc etc, I wanted to do a PPL(A). When I am under instruction I would do as I am told, regardless of the hours, experience, licence, etc etc of my instructors. I would not dream of doing a start, then taxi out for power checks. Why?

Because as happened in this incident, the rotor rpm was at flight conditions, it became airborne and the student couldn't control it and it consequently rolled over.

[Ready2Fly]

@thecotroller
I am asking the same question myself now.
From the report:
As a result of that accident the CAA introduced an amendment to the Air Navigation Order, which came into effect on 15 March 2007, to add after article 50(4) the following:
‘(5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 6 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.’
I am not supervised by the CAA but still curious as to whether students past solo stage are not allowed to start up the engine anymore (flying with an instructor they are definately not PIC). And then, when flying solo being PIC they are allowed whereas when flying with an instructor (past solo stage) the same student was not allowed to start the engine? :ooh:

[thecontroller]

yes, idiot students should do what they are told. but what concerns me is the legal aspect. if you are letting your experienced post-solo students startup while you are not with them, and one day some numptie rolls the thing over or overspeeds it, who is to blame? it will be your name on the authorisation sheet as PIC. the CAA will view YOU as the commander of the flight.

food for thought for all us FIs

[oldbeefer]

Can't see the link of proficiency there, however that solo bit didn't seem to be the case on Lynx conversions where the first starts took around 45 minutes!!

The 'link to proficiency' is that by going solo he has proved capable of starting the beast, carrying out functionals, getting airborn safely and landing again. What more proof is needed?

[Flingingwings]

Unless I've missed, it the report doesn't say that the student had already completed any rotary solo. In that case IMHO the student is not in a position to start the aircraft unsupervised (as per the ANO amendment).

Post first solo, I'd always be stood nearby so that if the student didn't follow instructions I could walk over if the RPM was increased above 70%. Accepting students need to start the aircraft solo to gain experience and confidence once I was satisfied that aim had been met, I'd explain that I'd like to sit with them purely to watch the start (I called it skills test preparation).

I also used to teach that students rolled the throttle slightly closed THEN raised the lever a little amount. If the horn didn't sound then roll the throttle closed a bit more. Battery on and engine off a student can be shown just how a small a collective up input is required to get the horn blaring.

Tricky one this as FI is technically the P1 unless the student is solo flying on that sortie. I used to be with my students well before they reached a flight RPM, afterall that's the time I was being paid for.

[the beater]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but having read the report (and the relevant part of the ANO), I don't see that the instructor has done anything wrong. Providing the student follows the instructions of the FI, then this satisfies the requirements. As regards not operating the rotors at flight idle I, for one, would not be happy approaching a running helicopter unless the rotors were at flight NR. Pilots (and student pilots) make mistakes; we have to accept that.

[thecontroller]

how can the instructor be PIC unless he is on-board the aircraft?

[Flingingwings]

Aside from your earlier post...............

IMO - Student pilot (no licence, no permission to fly supervised solo) on a dual training exercise cannot be PIC. Auth sheet will detail FI as P1. Why does a bum on a seat make a difference? IMO it doesn't. Suggesting that an FI only becomes P1 when he joins the aircraft is unmanageable to my mind. FI signs auth sheet accepting the aircraft and from that point onwards the aircraft is their responsibility.

In a two crew environment the handling pilot is not necessarily the aircraft commander. Who would you say was responsible then?

[Hughes500]

Havent read the report but, before a student can go solo he has to pass a medical, this becomes his provisional licence. this must be carried with him when he goes solo ( like we have to carry our licences ). Thus he is allowed to start the helicopter solo. If this was not the case how the hell would he do his qualifying x country with two land aways at different airfields !!!!!!Or are we saying he should leave it running and go and get his certificate signed by ATC:eek:

[thecontroller]

Flingingwings, i agree. whoever signs the auth sheet is PIC.

this is why, as an FI, if you let a student startup on his own, you are putting yourself/your licence at risk.

because he is flying the aircraft, and you are inside drinking tea, yet you are the legal PIC.

99.9% of the time its not a problem. but when he f*cks up the startup and chops the tail off and, heaven forbid, the debris kills someone, the CAA will be gunning for YOUR arse, as you were the legal PIC.

[Flingingwings]

Exactly.
But this report doesn't say the student had ever flown rotary solo. What it does clearly state is that the lesson was to be dual training.
I feel there is a real difference between a student flying supervised solo where they can log the time as P1 (qual x-country etc etc) and a dual lesson where the stude logs all the time as Pu/t (regardless of any previous solo flying experience) is simply sent out to start the aircraft unsupervised.
Assuming the logic that the student is responsible on these dual lessons, what are the thoughts on the stude logging that 0.1 as P1? Afterall flight time is from rotor start till rotor stop:{
I know a stude that did similar but end result was an overspeed. He started an r22 with the throttle open (unsupervised start on a dual lesson):ugh: :ugh: P1 was the FI. Albeit the school asked the student to pay half of the insurance excess. Surely if the student was responsible they'd have asked for all the excess:confused:

[SilsoeSid]

The 'link to proficiency' is that by going solo he has proved capable of starting the beast, carrying out functionals, getting airborn safely and landing again. What more proof is needed?


However in this case, no matter at what stage of training or proficiency the student was, the basic of not doing what he was told, (or doing more than he was instructed to do), caused this incident.

[scooter boy]

...and all our insurance premiums stay sky high because of a perfectly preventable incident.

All I can say is thank god nobody was hurt.

I'll bet the instructor concerned is wishing he hadn't had that last cup of instant coffee/last cigarette/texted his girlfriend etc... rather than being in the aircraft with the 7h student. (How much of his logged time was on helos I wonder, 7h? perhaps).

Correct me if I am wrong but a private owner/student pilot started his R44 unsupervised less than a year ago with the same result, perhaps the cause of the amendment to the ANO?

Big dangerous machines in the wrong hands.

What a waste.

SB

[keepin it in trim]

I think the point here is not whether they will be pilot in command for that particular flight but whether they are entitled to fly as pilot in command. I would say that a pilot, holding a student pilots licence, who has completed a solo in the type is, by definition, entitled to act as pilot in command, whether they do on that flight or not is irrelevant.

All the above having been said, if someone is going to do something stupid when you are not there then there is little that you can do to stop them, presuming that the brief they had was explicit.

9mm behind the left ear usually stops this becoming a repetitive error!:E

[HeliComparator]

As far as I can make out,

a) nothing in the alleged amendment stops a student pilot from starting up on his own - article 26 says that if he holds a medical, is over 16 and on the authorisation of an instructor, can not only start up but of course can fly solo.

b) the ANO as currently published on the CAA's website does not include this alleged amendment to article 50
Perhaps there is loss of communication between the CAA and the AAIB. How unusual...

Really Mr AAIB, you should desist from inaccurate propaganda that only serves your views on the way it should be!

To those who think he can only start up after he has gone solo, I would ask whom you think was the commander of the aircraft on his first solo? Maybe you should read article 26 before posting?


HC

[Daysleeper]

HeliComparator

Look harder next time - ok so its not on the CAA website but google found the 2007 ANO in 0.14 seconds LINK ANO 2007 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2007/20070274.htm)

(3) After article 50(4) add —


" (5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 26 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.".

Also includes a bunch of other changes from in flight vis to HUMS to equipment to be carried.

[oldbeefer]

" (5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 26 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.".

Surely a student who has completed a solo sortie satisfactorily is just that?

[HeliComparator]

Daysleeper,

Seems odd that its not on the CAA website, however it clearly exists so I retract my "alleged".

What I do not retract is that there is an implication from the AAIB report that the change was to "fix" this accident scenario. In fact pre- or post- the change, the student pilot was/is legally entitled to start the aircraft with the approval of the instructor.

Therefore I ask what was point of including this irrelevant comment in the report - was it perhaps to spread confusion amongst flight instructors in the hope that more would decline to allow their students to start up solo? - if so that is dishonourable and an attempt to spread mis-information. Looking at some of the posts on this thread, a sucessful one at that.

Oldbeefer is a good example of the confusion - sorry to pick on you but you posted whilst I was writing - perhaps you are not an instructor but the point is that to be allowed to start up solo (which is reasonably surely a precursor to solo fllight?) and/or to fly solo, you merely need a student licence/medical and to be under the supervision of an instructor

HC

[Hairyplane]

A shed load of hours for a student?

HP

[Bravo73]

Oldbeefer <snip> - perhaps you are not an instructor

FYI HeliComparator, oldbeefer is one of the most experienced instructors on this board. He's involved with some mob over at Shawbury. And I understand that they know a thing or two about helicopters.

That's about the 3rd thing that you've got grossly wrong on this thread. I suggest that you wind your neck in and leave your thoughts and opinions to matters that you actually know something about. :ugh:

[SilsoeSid]

Thats the way I also read it TorqueStripe, however you must realise that there are a lot of threads here posted by those who haven't read it at all.

Two things stand out so far in this thread.

1. The lack of people prepared to comment, who have actually read Article 26 as highlighted by TorqueStripe.

2. If you aren't allowed to start the thing unsupervised prior to flying solo, who is in charge when they fly solo for the first time? Because if you can't be trusted to start the thing by yourself, how can you be trusted to fly the thing by yourself??

:confused:
SS

[Flingingwings]

Ah, if only it was always so black and white............
Various schools (and instructors within) have differing views on solo starting early into training. Just like some schools will specify a minimum of say 20hrs dual training before 1st solo regardless of a students ability. 1st solo is not a race, better to be a little later and a bit safer/more proficient to my mind. 1st solo shows they have the mechanical skills to handle the aircraft for one circuit and a couple of take offs and landings. There is still a huge amount of a ppl course left after that exercise before the course ends.
IMO it is all about risk management and the rules don't guarantee to help there, as all students are different.
I see no reason why a student should be starting an aircraft unsupervised prior to their 1st solo. Not least because in the civvie world the first solo is normally sprung on the student during a circuits lesson so that they don't get an opportunity to worry about it beforehand. In a ppl course there is plenty of time to get the starting and stopping sorted without being in a rush. IMO it is better to get them able to hover to a reasonable standard so that if things go wrong (like this incident) they stand a better chance of doing less damage.
I'd read the items quoted, and my thoughts still stand. The student in this AAIB report was clearly instructed to start the aircraft to a certain point. His authority to start being based upon amongst other things his following of an FI's instructions. If we're going to view this in black and white terms, what happens when the student deviates from those instructions? Is the student still authorised past that deviation:confused: :confused:
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right/sensible. In this case we've got a red faced FI, a pi$$ed off owner/operator, a student with lower confidence than when the sortie started, and a large bill :(
As I said earlier there should be a distinction between flights that are supervised solo sorties and those that are dual training lessons. Not saying my thoughts are gospel, but for the training I taught I had no incidents or damage and my students all passed first time. So in my mind, my application of the rules worked for me.
It's up to each FI to stand by their choice, because they'll have to justify it if the worst happens :{

[HeliComparator]

bravo73 - Oh dear, sorry to have upset you - clearly its unacceptable to have a viewpoint different from yours.

Thankyou for informing me of Oldbeefer's experience in military instructing, strange then that his post, whilst factually correct, seems to miss the point that it makes no difference whether a student has gone solo or not to the legal position of solo starting. It only makes the point that the military procedures are more restrictive than those required by law. But fortunately he has you snap at the heels of any questioners - perhaps he is too Old to do it himself? But no, I'm sure its that he is too courteous and respects the right of others to have an opinion.

Not quite sure what you mean by That's about the 3rd thing that you've got grossly wrong on this thread. as so far I have said that the amendment to the ANO was not on the CAA website, and that its legal for any student under the supervision of an instructor to do solo flights. Do you think that either of those statements is grossly wrong? Then I did wonder whether perhaps OB was not an instructor, but surely wondering is not something that can be right or wrong.

So overall B73, could I suggest that it is you who should wind your neck in unless you have anything interesting to contribute?

Flingwings, of course flying schools can and should set their own more restrictive standards, I was just making the point about what was legal. I think you are right in that if the student goes beyond what was briefed by the instructor, he no longer has the ability to act as flight crew in that role as required by article 26 and is therefore breaking the law

HC

[oldbeefer]

Oldbeefer is a good example of the confusion - sorry to pick on you but you posted whilst I was writing - perhaps you are not an instructor

7000hrs as an instructor, 48 types flown and 6 years as a CAA Panel Examiner, but, hey, what do I know!

[[email protected]]

I would suggest that the reason you wouldn't let the student start up alone until he has been on first solo is because a helicopter is esentially flying once the rotors are turning and therefore, until he has shown the ability to fly the aircraft safely enough to warrant being sent first solo, he doesn't get to start it by himself.

[Twiddle]

And probably also, as has appeared in an AAIB report before, a bad start can result in an inadvertant lift (think there was a student that ended up lifting with the frictions on sometime back doing a low RPM horn check), and also, I think the current recommendation of the governor staying engaged on Robbos all the time will result in a few unwanted spins when somebody lets it creep past 80 without realising it?

[HeliComparator]

Oldbeefer - I have no Beef with you and I have no doubt that you are a highly experienced instructor, but I would suggest that that does not necessarily translate into you being a good interpreter of the latest amendment to the ANO. But by the same count it does not mean that you are not a good interpreter of said laws...laws whose interpretation is ultimately only relevant when done by lawyers in a court of law.

Perhaps you could indulge me by indicating your interpretation of the latest amendment we are discussing - do you think that only students who have flown solo are legally allowed to start up on their own, or do you think it means that any student (with medical etc) is legally allowed to start up on his own subject to authorisation from his instructor?

HC