Shirley Bassey & Night Flying (UK)

[91205]

Anyone heard anything about this?




Thread title changed:

The 'engine failure' reported in the press turned out to be a precautionary landing due vis.
The 'public transport' flight turned out to be a private flight.
The thread develops from tabloid style to a discussion about UK night flying regs.
Heliport

[jeepys]

Only heard on the news that her chopper had to make an emergency landing due to bad weather and narrowly missed power lines in the process.

[docstone]

NEWS BASSEY CHEATS DEATH IN HELICOPTER SCARE Music, movie & Entertainment News (http://www.pr-inside.com/bassey-cheats-death-in-helicopter-scare-r161027.htm)

BASSEY CHEATS DEATH IN HELICOPTER SCARE



2007-06-25 08:53:08 -
Singer DAME SHIRLEY BASSEY narrowly escaped death last night when the helicopter carrying her home from the Glastonbury Festival was forced to make a terrifying emergency landing in high winds.
The chopper carrying the veteran back to London from the event in the south west of England suffered a suspected mechanical failure and almost hit treetops and telephone cables as it was buffered by heavy rain and strong winds.
Witnesses have told British newspaper the Daily Mirror they heard a strange "mechanical clunking" noise before the pilot made an emergency landing at a college in Surrey.
The pilot said after landing, "That was terrifying. I was losing power and the mist was so thick I couldn't see where I was going. I've got a special passenger. We had an almighty let off. Thank God." The shaken star, 70, said after climbing out of the helicopter, "Thank God.
What a horrid ordeal. I'm so glad we somehow made it down safe," before asking locals who had gathered at the scene, "So sorry to have bothered you. May I please use someone's toilet? And a cup of tea would go down a treat." (IG/WNTMI/MT) WENN - SPECIAL NEWS - 25 JUNE 2007

[Three Blades]

"May I please use someone's toilet?" --- I'm not surprised !
Well done the pilot, not the best weather for having to put down in a hurry

[rotorspin]

anybody know any more about the heli or the charter firm?

sounds likes some exceptional piloting to me....well done that chap! :D

[Xavier Dosh]

I don't know who the operator or pilot were but would of course, wish them well.

Thank goodness for eyewitness descriptions! "Mechanical Clunking"!!

‘Narrowly missing tree tops and power cables?!

A large shovel full of salt for me please!

[902Jon]

First - and most importantly, well done to that pilot for getting down safely.
Second. Why (just going by the radio reporting) did Miss Bassey's management charter a single pilot, single engine, vfr helicopter for this trip? The weather forecasts have been pretty consistent for a good few days that the weather for this weekend was going to be c*ap. It`s not as if she can`t afford a 2 pilot IFR charter to get her to her flight back to Monaco (£15000 dress + £3000 diamond encrusted wellington boots for the Glastonbury mud!).

[airborne_artist]

The journo who wrote the piece referred to above clearly had not read the SOPs for such incidents - it's normal to include "narrowly missed school/hospital/old folks' home".

"Mechanical Clunking" Clearly an experienced RW engineer. Non-engineers would have said "sounded like it was going to crash"

Agree with 902Jon - the marginal cost of a twin IFR is not much compared to the risk of a diversion or worse.

[rattle]

BBC NEWS | UK | England | Bad weather grounds Dame Shirley (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6236392.stm)
Hardly an engine failure?

Bad weather grounds Dame Shirley

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42419000/jpg/_42419940_shirleybassey203pa.jpg Dame Shirley performed on the Pyramid Stage at Glastonbury

Bad weather forced Dame Shirley Bassey's helicopter to land in a school field in Surrey as she was flying home from the Glastonbury Festival. The singer was on her way to a hotel in Bagshot when the pilot made the unscheduled stop at Collingwood College in Camberley.
College principal Jerry Oddie said appalling weather made the school field the best landing site.
Caretakers had to let Dame Shirley out of the locked grounds.
She then went to the home of a local resident who gave her a cup of tea and a chance to freshen up.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/shared/img/o.gif http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/start_quote_rb.gif The sun certainly shone for Dame Shirley when she took to that stage http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/img/v3/end_quote_rb.gif


Michael Eavis


A member of the school's ground staff stayed up all night on Sunday to guard the helicopter which took off on Monday, said Mr Oddie.
The helicopter lifted off at about 0830 BST just before exams at the school got under way.
"The weather here was terrible last night and I suppose the pilot took one look at our school field, which is very big, and decided to put down there," said Mr Oddie.
"If we'd known, then we would have put on a better reception."
Caretaker Marion Oliver said a crowd gathered after neighbours heard the helicopter landing.
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42421000/jpg/_42421450_copter203.jpg Marion and Vince Oliver with the helicopter. Picture by Carol Tottle


"I asked her how Glastonbury was and she said it went really well," she said.
"She spoke to a couple of people in the crowd and then had some photos taken."
She said everyone was "buzzing" on Monday morning and wanted to know what had happened.
Michael Eavis, organiser of Glastonbury Festival, said he hoped the ordeal had not put too much of a dampener on Dame Shirley's experience of the music event.
He said: "Dame Shirley's appearance was one of the highlights of the weekend. The sun certainly shone for Dame Shirley when she took to that stage.
"I hope her journey back didn't spoil her enjoyment."

[Snarlie]

If, as the press report says, the pilot was terrified because the mist was so bad he could not see where he was going, why was he flying a single engined VFR machine? Sounds like an investigation by the CAA would be in order. However, we all know that they will be too busy scouring through some innocent operator`s duty hours records or checking tech log pages for crossed t`s and dotted i`s.

[whoateallthepies]

Pilot:-

"That was terrifying. I was losing power and the mist was so thick I couldn't see where I was going. I've got a special passenger. We had an almighty let off. Thank God."

Sounds like press-onitis to me.:hmm:

[pax britanica]

I live fairly close by and know the area very well. Collingwood school is at the most 200 yards from Penny Hill Park Hotel. If it wasnt a mechanaical failure/autoroatation land asap incident bad visibility seems likely;

Coming from the west (along the A30) past Blackbushe overhead Camberley Collingwood Scholl is on top of the highest point locally ( the well known Bagshot mast is just behind the school) and with Sundays awful weather the top of the hill could easily have been very close to the cluodbase and a prudent pikot may have not known and not risked the fact that the last 200 yards or so were down hill and if he could not see beyond the hill then decided to land ona nice big field

So much for the 'Journo SOP's' in this case because the pilot actually headed for a school. And it is huge field you could land a twin otter in there not just a helicopter.

A non event other than for our local paper if it waasnt for Ms B

[AlphaWhiskyRomeo]

I saw her stepping off a brown/dark red colured "MD" type chopper at Glasto over the weekend, so I presume she flew back on it???

Very suprised to see her in that - thought she'd be in a Twin Squirrel, A109 or similar. It was certianly a big step down for him from the cabin to the ground in that dree and those wellies.

[plodpilot]

Firstly, well done to the pilot for getting the aircraft down safely, but it raises several serious questions. Regardless of whether it was a single or twin engine machine, the bottom line is it would appear the weather was way out of minima. These conditions were no surprise given the recent prolonged rain and humidity - he didn't just fly into this from clear weather. Having an IR would have been of no help flying into a private site such as Pennyhill Park (or even Battersea Heliport). An IR does not give you Superman laser vision. If he did have an IR, however, then given the adverse weather, why not fly an ILS approach into Farnborough, which would have been a far more prudent decision, even prior to the 'engine failure'? One can't help but feel that this was an [inexperienced] pilot whose judgement was marred by the commercial pressure of carrying such a huge celebrity. With the greatest of respect to the great Dame, her soul is worth no more than any other fare paying passenger or, indeed the pilot's own. Had this been a normal Joe Bloggs charter, would they have made the same decision to go ahead with the flight? Also begs the question, why he overflew/flew close to 2 airports; i.e. Farnborough & Blackbush? Again, I say well done to the pilot, but this could so easily have become yet another statistic. Engine failure aside, this was no night for flying into private sites.

[Hughes500]

Nothing wrong with the helicopter, it was flown back to its home today. The pilot / owner put down due to poor vis. Before anyone asks it was not me or any of my machines. Just happen to know who it was etc

[plodpilot]

Funny old thing that!

"the mechanical clunking" noise heard was obviously the sound of his "rear end" hitting the floor when he realised he'd f***ed up!

[MINself]

Ooops :uhoh:

[keepin it in trim]

I used to work for the largest onshore operator of twins in the UK (they said it, not me) mostly doing AA and some police. All our AA pilots were sp IR and the aircraft was very well set up for sp ifr, before that I spent 10 years flying heavy twins on SAR.

I still find it incredible that so many people fly quite large, in relative terms, distances in non-ifr aircraft, in often poor weather. Don't even get me started on the long distance "night VFR" public transport issue which has tragically resulted in quite a number of deaths over recent years. This whole area needs serious review, or are we just prepared to let people, under severe commercial pressure, keep killing themselves and others. We live in a country with weather that can at best be described as variable, if you go inadvertant imc in an aircraft not equipped for it and/or you are not trained for it, the time to loss of control is shockingly small. At that point your survival chances are also shockingly small. Thank God this incident didn't reach that stage.

If I seem a little passionate about this, it is because I have seen the results of loss of control in these conditions, it is not nice and the additional human misery it causes to the near and dear of those involved is awful. I am afraid though that incidents and accidents will continue to occur until sensible enforcement of the rules makes people take notice, and also until the long distance night vfr farce is ended, night vfr belongs in the visual circuit.

Rant off, sorry

[Teefor Gage]

First - and most importantly, well done to that pilot for getting down safely.
and several other similar comments.......

I find it incredulous to believe that anybody could compliment the pilot for getting down safely in this particular situation. Let's face it - he was bloody lucky to get down in one piece and should never have been up there in the first place with the weather as it was.
Although plodpilot was amongst those praising the pilot for getting down safely, I think his other comments were more correct in that too many pilots allow themselves to make erroneous decisions when there is a VIP passenger. Dame Shirley has a history of being very pushy, although any further thoughts here would be total supposition.

[Xavier Dosh]

Aren't we all taking this a little bit too seriously?

This is only a report that was in one of the Red Tops after all. They wouldn't print a story unless they add the usual 'narrowly avoiding' lines.

Do we really think that the pilot got out the aircraft and said what was quoted? I don't.

Calm down chaps, let's wait and see what the industry says before we start ranting about life and death.

Like I say - take it with a pinch of salt. (if only for the time being)

XD

[Teefor Gage]

This is only a report that was in one of the Red Tops after all.

Indeed, the pilots supposed comments were only in one of the Red Tops. However, mine and other comments were not based on what the pilot said or didn't say - was what he did that concerns me.
The BBC was also reporting that the helicopter narrowly missed all sorts of things - I'm sure it did. The only good thing about this episode is that it didn't have a really sad ending.

[Efirmovich]

Come on guys.......... Shirley we can have some fun with this one !!

" Diva Dices Death During Dramatic Descent " ??

E. :ok:

[docstone]

http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=G-MRRR

Why on earth is somone doing Public Transport in a
369??

[AlanM]

Why on earth is somone doing Public Transport in a
369??

Maybe all the big stuff has been busy at Ascot (Would you send a nice shiney Eurocopter to a mud bath?!?!!) :)

Seriously though, I saw the details when in work today - everyone OK. Just West of Bagshot was the impromptu HLS.

[plodpilot]

I as a "Professional Pilot" do not think for one minute some of us are taking this too seriously. All situations such as this - and that includes the press and their tendency to perhaps report in a fashion that 'sell papers' - will inevitabley, and further bring this end of our industry into disrepute

I do not think 'having fun' with this is very sensible as it could have just as easily been another AAIB statistic - fortunate I think.

On other points, perhaps 'keeping it in trim' could explain how having an IR would have stopped this happening. Don't think that helps when you are operating into a PLS. What it really needs is more understanding about commercial pressure and of course having the sense to say no when it matters.

Also, "nightflying belongs in the visual circuit"!!! but then I suppose moving from military to HEMS etc explains that somewhat sheltered view of the commercial charter world. After all, how on earth would all us poor police pilots be able to do our work (ask the crims to only commit offences within 2.5 miles of base maybe).
There are safeguards in this industry, to protect both us and our passengers,and there is nothing wrong with night VFR, after all you can't fly PT at night without 2 engines and 3 axis auto-pilot.

There sometimes seems to be a little too much pushing of the good old IR, and I realise the industry appears to be going in that direction but not always for the right reasons - it has been said that it is normally customer requested even though they do not know why particularly.
The only other thing I will say on this point is that in 15 years of commercial flying, the number of times I have been unable to complete a charter/task due to weather considerations, has not yet reached double figures.

[FayeDeck]

Yeah OK, fair enough it was probably a bad decision to crack on..............but still, well done to the pilot for not compounding the mistake by cracking on that little bit too much.

Before all the perfect pilots shout at me..........I am not condoning the breaking of minimas, merely condoning a subsequent good decision which resulted in;

1. Everyone safe.

2. Lesson learnt (one would hope)

3. Keeping everyone aware of the need for adherence to rules.

Glad all ended well................bloody weather:ok:

[FayeDeck]

Oh T4, I assume that you have never screwed up:E

[91205]

I don't think there is a single pilot on this forum that hasn't taken a chance with the weather when flying.

[rotorspeed]

Let's face it, this appears to be a pretty stupid incident that yet again wrongly compromises the safety reputation of helicopters - something that affects all of us, albeit often in small ways.

Firstly why on earth Shirley Bassey was not just in a single, but a MD500, God only knows. With her wealth a twin should have been essential. Bad advice from someone. MD 500 - great pilot's machine but for pax??

Secondly the grotty weather didn't just suddenly materialise - it progressively deteriorated. To press on past Blackbushe, where a landing would have been a more professional action, was questionable. Not to turn back to Blackbushe after it worsened, pretty silly.

Thirdly it doesn't take brain of Britain to work out that with such a high profile pax, landing at an unplanned, hardly remote site is likely to attract a lot of attention. And I'll assume that to make comments about it being terrifying, thick mist etc are too crass to be true.

Not being IFR/IR has minimal relevance to the incident, though does to the choice of aircraft. And Plodpilot I agree, nothing wrong with night VFR so long as you're very sure on wx.

Back to number one again; good pilot judgement.

[ShouldItDoThat]

I think you'll find SB has a reputation for never paying for anything, she just makes demands on the organisers to provide her every whim and trinkets and baubles on top. There was a documentary/expose on her a few years back which showed her displeasure at a diamond broach she was given, not enough carats apparently.

[B Sousa]

You guys are amazing, How did we ever get by on single engine Helicopters without all this input.
Then someone calls for an investigation by the CAA. You bet those folks are your friends. They will promptly bury the poor guy in regulations and blank forms.

[Colonal Mustard]

Hang on Hang on...... Get a grip guys ......

Firstly i am not involved in the incident but it seems that many threads start with "Wooah well done to the pilot for getting it down", lets have a reality check

Helicopter pilots have a job that involves taking off to fly from A to B, if along the way the weather prevents them from flying to B they seek an alternative, if the alternative outweighs the "lets see if we can land and wait til it passes" then the pilot flies to the alternative.

However it appears that what probably happened was that the pilot judged the risks (correctly in my opinion) and instead of saying to Ms B "lets see if we can just skirt around this crap Ms Bassey, whilst using up another valuable 5 gallons" said to Ms B "i think we should land here and wait it out".

It seems to me that the pilot did exactly what he was paid to do,

1. He took off in the interest of getting the passenger to her destination

2. He found ****e weather in his way

3. An alternative wasn`t available

4. He found a suitable safe landing area and set down until the weather passed......or got his pax a lift home by road but rest assured she slept in her own bed that night.

I bet you a fiver the pylons,houses and trees he was aware of on his final approach having probably done a few orbits to assess its suitability

The mechanical clunking referred to in the media is probably called rotor blades rotating ffs:ok:

[serf]

Good answer Colonel

[Teefor Gage]

CM - Does this mean that VFR helicopter pilots can land anywhere they like, whenever they like. Sort of beats the whole intent of flight planning and site licencing etc. Not sure I like the idea of somebody using my fields as an en-route alternative whenever they feel like it, other than in the event of an engine failure or other such emergency.

Fayedeck - Much like anybody on this site, I've had my share of problems in my flying career, but none that were brought about due to lack of foresight during the planning phase. Carried plenty of important people too, but I'm not afraid to say No!

[nervy]

Has anyone ever been prosecuted for flying below VFR minimums in a helicopter?

[Snarlie]

Instead of going deeply into the why`s and wherefore`s of the pilot being pressured into flying in unsuitable weather due to commercial considerations, perhaps some consideration should be given to the real villains of the piece, namely, those in the CAA who took a perfectly good training system leading to the grant of an Instrument Rating(Helicopters) and changed it into the current shambles which no-one can afford. Those who are responsible( and they know who they are) for for changing the criteria relating to the experience and training required even to commence an approved course should be thoroughly ashamed of the heartache and difficulties their actions have brought to aspiring young pilots and the damage it has caused to the industry, in particular, the onshore market.
Perhaps Ppruners efforts would be better directed at encouraging the BHAB to mount a concerted campaign to convince the CAA that their policy towards instrument ratings is sheer folly and to re-think both training and testing. With more and more of the old guard retiring from the Madhouse, some of the incomers should be able to influence the direction of policy and introduce an element of common sense and practicality.
On a lighter note, Dame Shirley is one of the least precious celebrities it has been my privilege to fly, having dropped her on an oil rig nearly 30 years ago where she had to climb the drilling derrick to sing a song for a Christmas Special.

[Twiddle]

This is all getting a bit silly, first of, I'll state I'm not a CPL so I'm not aware what minimas you guys fly to, but how many people that have posted in this thread actually flew on Sunday?I did, from Goodwood, it wasn't good, but it was constantly changing, it was certainly flyable at time, and with a good backup plan and the acceptance that you might be letting down in a field it really wasn't a problem.We ended up turning back at Beechy Head and going back into Shoreham, could we have gone further, maybe, but we'd agreed that unless all of us felt 100% happy we'd turn back so we did, no arguments.What I am surprised is that you commercial guys seem to be baying for this guys blood and wanting the CAA involved, I flew and if the conditions were as they were when we lifted then I don't see a problem in that, push-on-itus, now that's a problem......

[plodpilot]

Colonel M
I beg to differ with your Point - '3. An alternative wasn`t available'

Coming up from the SW and landing where he did he was within 3nm of both Farnborough and Blackbushe, and almost certainly flew past both!

Surely either of these would have proved to be eminently better than the 'safe landing site' as quoted in your Point 4.

[plus expenses]

As a non IFR twin CPL, I read the weather forecast in the morning, which was marginal at best, knew that my flight in that area would be fraught and binned the trip. Its not rocket science guys!

[91205]

Snarlie - hear hear. The current JAA IR training system is an (expensive) joke. We should be allowed to train on a single engine piston, like in the USA. Then people could do it as part of their PPL/CPL hour building, which would make much more sense, cost less, and result in more IR rated pilots, which would increase safety.

[plodpilot]

Twiddle

Us commercial pilots haven’t all got it in for this guy, but asides from endangering his pax and himself, it’s incidents such as this which give the industry a bad name. It also highlights the very real commercial pressure which is prevalent (bordering endemic in some areas) in the charter industry. Admittedly, this incident probably wouldn’t have made the press save for the celeb cargo, but it emphasizes a practice which is far too familiar in the industry.

As you said yourself, however, YOU TURNED BACK and diverted into AN AIRPORT, which was also an option also for the pilot in question; but one which he apparently chose not to take.

By the by, I wasn’t aware that Sunday had anything exceptional about the weather – bad weather is bad weather whatever day of the week it occurs on.

P.S. Out of interest, what Lesson of the PPL(H) teaches you about having ‘the acceptance that you might be letting down in a field’?! In the 18 years since I did mine maybe the syllabus has changed. We all know we can do it, but it’s not something us commercial pilots factor into our flight planning – this is not a back up plan!

[Twiddle]

You're 100% right, in fact, you shouldn't risk flying in the UK, as you need to think on your feet, if you are looking on the TAF for a day that's guaranteed flyable then they are probably in the minority.The bottom line is that provided you're not foolish then it can be flyable, but you have to know the limits, you have to have a plan B, and that plan B had better involve 1 of a friend, a taxi, a scheduled flight, a train or a hotel.It's very easy to point at a TAF and say I told you so, it's also very easy to look at 2 METARS and say we could have done it, both points of view can be wrong.

[Twiddle]

Letting down into a field with good vis but closing in is better than whapping a pylon fighting back to an airport, I'd land and wait for it to clear and complete whatever paperwork I needed to any day in preference to pushing on, showing some bravado and risking the health of anybody who flew with me. I'm saying that some days you just need to be there, and Sunday it was all moving pretty fast, we did turn back, but if it had closed in we 'd have been in a field with no arguments, we wouldn't have pushed onto Shoreham come what may.

<added this bit after the first post>

Like us he may well have decided two minimas, 1 for turning back and one for setting down immediately, but who knows, as I said, you had to be there, given that he did have somebody on-board that would certainly attract attention if he did put down off sirfield then I don't think we should ever criticise somebody for putting down, that's only ever going to add to the push-on-itus, and I'm not aware of anybody ever being injured from a prudent early let down?

- Unless (for the British Ester fans....) you know different???!!!!! :E

[MINself]

Just to add to the conjecture the aircraft pictured in the news looks like a single, if the weather was that bad that the pilot had to land then how low had the pilot been flying up til this point, the A30 corridor around Camberley is fairly congested maybe we should add to the avoid vfr flying in the UK post, 'also avoid flying in crap weather over congested areas in a single in the UK' too? that point of view is fairly right on all accounts, isn't it?

[plodpilot]

I think you’re missing the point Twiddle. He didn’t just fly into this weather from out of the blue, and unlike you, who did divert to an airport, he flew past two within 3nm of his eventual LS.

Plus Expenses stated it clearly and concisely; the weather was crap, forecast to stay the same and he binned it.

The forecast hasn’t changed much in the last 10 days, and if anything it has deteriorated. As commercial pilots we fly to strict minima which far exceed a PPLs. I’m not knocking PPLs; I started as one and worked my way up to ATPL(H). We’re not infallible gods and have all experienced bad weather en route on tasks at some time, and most have also had to put down in a field at sometime, but the forecast on Sunday was not marginal it was PANTS from Somerset to Surrey and beyond. He had no right being in the air on a commercial charter, if that’s what it was.

With the greatest of respect, decisions made between pilots and their friends out on a jolly, however, are not governed by the same rules as commercial flights (as I'm you’re aware).

[Colonal Mustard]

Yawn.........Next subject to tear apart please:},

Lets talk about the benefits of tinting your windows so the public (and CAA) come to think of it cant see in but you can see out...... i`d go for 20% myself.... You Decide:E

[Twiddle]

Tinted windows, now you're going to get me going, call yourself a pilot.....:\curtains on a Cherokee 6 fine, but tints....

Point taken about CPL/AOC minimas, as I said I'm not aware of what they are, but putting down is preferable to pushing on, that's the point I'm making, should he have lifted, who knows in truth, it was changing every few minutes from not seeing the trees across the airfield to looking reasonable.

As I said, I'm not a CPL so I can't comment, I'm jabbering beyond my knowledge, but I have to respect a guys decision to put it on the deck, if my family were on board, that's what I'd expect. Should he have lifted, we I can see the other side in that Gatwick said it was good, Shoreham not too bad, Lydd was fine so it seemed fairly local to where we were at that moment in time.

[plodpilot]

Twiddle

My first post on this thread started out with, 'Firstly, well done to the pilot for getting the aircraft down safely, but it raises several serious questions.' So essentially we're in agreement. But the longer you're in this industry and the more people you see buy the farm, the more frustrated you get at lessons not learnt, that's all. And it's not just the pilots; operators and commercial pressure are a whole other thread; one which has no doubt been done to death if you excuse the pun, but little seems to have changed. BFN

[keepin it in trim]

plodpilot, I found some of your comments rather insulting, however, given that you don't know me or my full background I should perhaps elaborate a little. Firstly, I would point out that there is very little that is "sheltered" about doing day/night, all-weather sar, including night low level, in mountains, or offshore, in pants weather, when someone is critically injured and counting on you to get them out of there, something I did for 10 years. If you think that is "sheltered" and not done under some "pressure" maybe it is you that needs the reality check.

A simple point about having an IR and an IFR equipped aircraft, icing permitting, if you encounter bad weather, you can plan to pull up into it talk to atc, navigate by vor/dme/adf to the nearest suitable airfield, or your destination and shoot an instrument approach down to ils minma, which are considerably lower than what you can have visually. You can plan to do this before you even start up. You don't need to start from an airfield or even have an airfield as your final destination. I have used this on numerous occassions operating to field sites and hospitals across the uk.

I accept I was rather constrictive in my comments about night vfr, what I should have said is that if you don't have and can't guarantee to maintain good ground references then it shouldn't happen. Having been tri/tre in my last company, we did not as routine IR police only pilots, however the night check did require instrument recovery from unusual attitudes, in case of inadvertant imc, and an ability to reach the nearest airfield and shoot an approach, usually coupled. The standard displayed by some people when denied ground references was shocking and required additional training. The most ludicrous comment I heard during this was one pilot who "in 10 years had never gone inadvertant imc" and therefore pronounced that it could not happen to him.

Long night flights, such as manchester-london have resulted in tragedies which have usually included the elements of non-ir pilot/machine, deteriorating weather and loss of ground references before loss of control. I have attended too many aircraft accidents to think that the present rules/ training system will prevent further accidents.

One final point, I work for a VERY large GA company, much larger than any operator in the uk, so I think I know something about commercial pressure too, fly safe and enjoy

[plodpilot]

K.I.I.T, you are obviously such a sensitive soul, but like so many others you fail to see the point being made.
By your own admission you spent some years in the military environment and like others before you, perhaps sought a job in civvy street that closely emulated that which you were used to, hence you joined a company perhaps like BOND or PAS.
The point I made was about the "Commercial Charter World", the part of the industry that has a percentage of full time pilots but relies heavily on freelance guys.
This is a part of the industry where pilots are often expected to work long days, operate in not so good conditions and hardly ever for the best pay return but are always expected to not only get the job done, but do it well.
My point is, that this is a hard part of the industry to work in - to get work , to do it - quite often involving long distances and night flights often at the same time. No, Police, HEMS or SAR does not really fall into the commercial charter category.
So, telling guys in the charter world that they should only fly in the circuit at night unless they have an IR ( cos that obviously gives them super powers) is an insult.
Charter is the bread and butter of a lot of pilots, with and without IR.
Just a point, but I was not aware that there had been so many accidents caused by long distance night flights.
I have over 5000 hours, all rotary, in many environments but I dont feel it necessary to flex my ego.
One last thing, it concerns your final point. "Size isn't everything"

Kind regards

[dunnarunna]

You are all assuming this was a CPL on an AOC charter with a bone fide operator.......................:=

[Letsby Avenue]

Quote from the Daily Mail.
"Mr Paxton had offered her a lift in his helicopter because he was going to Glastonbury anyway.
The qualified commercial pilot said: "The trip down was fine but it was obvious that the weather was getting worse. "As we approached the hotel I knew there was not enough time to guarantee a safe arrival. I saw a sports field ahead and decided to land there."
He added: "There was not one point where I felt remotely concerned. Safety is paramount when flying and I am always aware of what impact the weather may have.
"If I had not decided to divert, there could have been a situation where there were multiple fatalities.
"I am not willing to put anybody's life at risk, whether it be a Dame or any other passenger."

[nigelh]

God some of you guys are chippy !!!! Why not do charter in a 500 ??? ( other than comfort !) How would a twin have made any difference ??? What is the big deal about letting down in a field ? it is not something you want to make a habit of but for gods sake dont knock it . I would tell any low time pilot to do exactly that . I have landed in fields a few times and not even shut down and been flying again in 10 mins with no worries with the bad weather behind me. To say that the last few days have been unflyable is nonsense , i would not like to have you as my pilot if you feel a few clouds and cb,s stops you from doing your job:confused: actually , in between the weather the viz was excellent but it would appear that he could not go around his front so landed .....big deal :ooh:
ps all my flights went like clockwork .....even without an IR and with only one engine :D

[scooter boy]

So it was Jeremy Paxton flying DSB back from the Glastonswamp in a private Hughes and a precautionary landing in a field rather than an engine failure.

He made the right call by the sound of things, we have all been there.

Amazing the headlines the press can come up with... it actually made me read the thread!

sells papers too!
SB

[Whirlybird]

I just found this thread; been a bit busy lately.

Have we managed to run to a three page discussion on....WHAT THE PRESS REPORT SAID?!!!! I can hardly believe it. Or have I missed something?

Firstly, reporters make up quotes. Not embellish, not adapt, but make up. Not all of them, not the good ones, but a lot. I know; I've been misquoted before now....correction; they've made up things I never said and never would have said.

Secondly, no-one can tell from the ground if you're narrowly missing power lines etc, or missing them by a safe margin.

Thirdly, the CAA Safety Sense leaflet on Helicopter Flying says something like, "You have the unique ability to land almost anywhere, so use it if you have to".

|Hmmm... I flew into Southampton yesterday with a couple of (thankfully) non-famous people who I was dropping off. One of them was pretty nervous, so I was flying ever so carefully and doing nothing dramatic. As we approached the airfield I saw a shower coming in; nothing awful, but I'd rather not land in the middle of it if I didn't have to. Without thinking I said, "Ooops, there's a shower over there, I'll just speed up a bit and whip it round and land quickly". Then I sensed the increase in tension from the back, so I tried to explain that it was no big deal, but why land and have to get out in the rain if we really didn't have to.

Now, suppose those people had been famous, and a reporter had been watching, on a day with little news.....

MR AND MRS X SAVED FROM DANGEROUS THUNDERSTORM

The wellknown Mr and Mrs X were approaching Southampton when a huge thunderstorm approached. The pilot threw the helicopter around, narrowly avoiding (fill in the gaps yourself; it's Southampton; you can have anything you like...schools, old folks homes, factories etc) and skillfully landed it on the main runway, where seconds before an airliner carrying large numbers of passengers had been taxying. Moments later the heavens opened. Mrs X said, "That was so scary; I don't know what we would have done if she hadn't managed to think quickly and land like that; I was terrifed when she turned sharply, but if we hadn't I might have been dead". The pilot sat there in total shock and said...nothing (Hmm...I wonder why).

Enough said.

[keepin it in trim]

plod pilot

i suggest you re-read my second post, I accept that night vfr does have to happen outside the circuit, but the way some of it is done at present is very marginal. I am well aware of commercial pressure in the company I work for at the moment, size is not the issue, if you read my post, public transport in a very high pressure environment is what I do every day now.

I know and accept that the commercial charter market is a tough COMMERCIAL dog eat dog market, and each job brings its own challenges but your derogatory comments about sar/hems being in someones comfort zone or somehow easier suggest that you are merely being argumentative, for some reason have a low opinion of all these cossetted sar pilots, or you have no knowledge or experience of what the job involves.

You seem to suggest that the commercial charter market is a much tougher environment to operate in than sar, having done both I think they are both demanding but in very different ways, in one it is often the case that risks are taken to get the job done, in the other there is a lot of pressure to take risks to get the job done.

I didn't wave my hours under your nose, because that has little to do with the validity of my or your opinion, but I have plenty thank you, not that it makes any difference. Enjoy
regards

[MightyGem]

Here's the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464155&in_page_id=1770) article that I saw. Seems that he was just "giving her a lift".

[fluffy5]

if the pilot in question did not hold a valid jaa cpl, so could not be a pubic transport. so any basic minima he could have ?
exceptional :eek:

[BRASSEMUP]

Well it seems like he was doing it as a favour………..So he did well as a PPL to make the decision to put it down in a field before it all went wrong. Well done JP and Dame SB didn’t look any worse for wear. :D

[Brom]

Hi all,
I'm new to posting on the forum but have been browsing for some time.
I've been reading this thread with interest, and I'm just a bit confused as to what licence the pilot holds, is it a PPL or a CPL? The quote from the Daily Mail says "...The Qualified Commercial Pilot..." I know, before anyone says it, I shouldn't believe all I read in the media, just curious, that's all.
Finally, what's the significance of needing a JAA CPL in order to fly a commercial flight? I don't hold one (don't particularly want one) and have been flying commercially in the UK for thirty odd years, I do, however hold a UK ATPLH/IR. Just nit-picking :E.

[Letsby Avenue]

This is a non story - I've lost count of the amount of times I have landed because of bad weather, so what?????
Well done Mr Paxton :D





edited to remove suggestion of corporate pressures on commercial pilots to continue or indeed, use the GPS for self let downs through cloud and/or fog:ugh:

[Bladecrack]

I agree with Letsby, whats all the fuss about, most of us have had to land due to bad weather at some stage, if you were to sit waiting on perfect weather in the UK you would rarely ever fly, you check the TAF,s etc, if it is worth a go, you go for it. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't flight plan and consider diversions etc, but helicopters are by their very nature, able to land nearly anywhere, so he landed in a school playing field and the pax continued by road, no major drama! Lets move on.... :ugh:

BC.

[Colonal Mustard]

Letsby,
i take issue with you making the comment about SH, whether it is meant to offend or not, the way it reads suggests you are saying that SH did something wrong, whilst not wanting to detract the thread,the AAIB will provide the facts in due course.
Maybe its the way i read it but as someone who knew SH well enough i find your previous post offensive, insensitive and only makes you look a downright idiot **:mad:**

[Letsby Avenue]

There you go Colonel M - edited to remove any suggestion of pressonitis by people who should perhaps know better.:ugh:

Still a non story.....:confused:

[Colonal Mustard]

thank you.............

[pohm1]

4 pages.........Shirley thats enough? ;)

[Gilky]

Helicopters ferrying in and out much lesser known, less wealthy musicians constantly, all weekend in cr*p wx. And the most famous, wealthiest star just happens to cadge a lift off some CPL bloke that was going to Glastonbury anyway. My *rse.....

[Chukkablade]

I take it the guy flying DSB around is the same bloke who is on a full page spread at the back of the current issue of Helicopter Life?

I binned my issue after I read it, so cant cross reference, but his name (and more so the machine; imported, zero timed at a cost of over a million, artwork paint job etc) definately ring a bell.

[thejacket]

http://www.helicopterlife.com/200702/house.html

http://www.helicopterlife.com/200603/060824142154.html

[Chukkablade]

Cheers Jacket, thats the fella!:ok:

[psyclic]

Curious that the nearest house to the field they landed in was occupied by someone working on the video of Dame Bassey's new single and that all the press photos of the landing were taken by the same person!

What a coincidence! :ok:

[Helinut]

In the UK Night VFR is illegal. All flights must be IFR (except for SVFR in controlled airspace). If the combination of operation/aircraft/pilot is not FULLY IFR, then the flight must be conducted in VMC, but it is nevertheless IFR. See the UK Rules of the Air.

[91205]

errr a private flight in night VFR is legal.

[JimBall]

Her new album available for download now, featuring:

"Diamonds Are For Hover"

"Hey Big Spender" (Spend a little time in a field with me)"

"Something (in the way - they're roofs)"

"Goldfinger" (he's a man, a man with the worst forecast)

"Never Never Never" (will I trust the man again)

"For All We Know" (which isn't very much).

You'd think that as she is so Welsh, she might have known the TAFs.

[hihover]

Well said Jim, that was just what this thread needed!

tam m

[VeeAny]

JimBall

"Hey Big Spender" (Spend a little time in a field with me)"

Whilst I appreaciate the offer, I feel the need to decline (as you are a bloke)


VeeAny


AKA Gary (Big) Spender (all 14stone of me)

[nigelh]

Helinut which planet are you from ??? Where on earth do you get the idea that night vfr is illegal .......lock me up then because we do lots of night flying and not an instrument rating between us .....AND in a single :{TUT TUT I think you will find that rule is for the poor old aoc boys only .... do tell me what other laws we are breaking !!! single pilot maybe ? no trolley dolley ?!!

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Helinut is correct, there is no night VFR in the UK but as a night rated pilot you can conduct a night flight in VMC but this is conducted under IFR.

[VeeAny]

Nigelh
I am afraid helinut is quite correct Night VFR (in the UK) is illegal, however night IFR in VMC is legal. Nothng to do with an AOC, just the Rules of The Air.

A legal technicality which should be pointed out during night rating (as was) or night qualification (as is). Its a UK specific thing but is nonetheless correct.

However I believe from reading somewhere earlier in this thread the he landed at 2000 hrs (which even if Zulu) , would be daytime at this time of year.
I was out in the area on Sunday and the showers were big and heavy but between them was probably 25-30nm vis.

We got all the way from Herts - Cornwall without going IMC and with a good view all the way.

I wouldn't have wanted to be in any of the heavy downpours we passed on the way.

And yes I am one of the few (or many) who has landed in a field on an AOC flight for 10 minutes and then carried on to destination quite safely.

I did however spend 25 minutes doing a 6 minute leg when I got into Cornwall as my 2nd landing site was covered (literally) in cloud.

I sat in the local area in 30k+ vis went back a couple of times till it cleared and then let down (Sunday was a special day from a weather point of view IMHO, perhaps not from a more experienced point of view but i've only been flying for 12 yrs)

Cheers

GS

[nigelh]

Well i stand corrected then := I however do not really understand what that means !!......i have no instrument rating , am in a single , and the flight is technically IFR. ?? I believe you but what is the difference between night vfr , illegal, and night IFR , legal . ?
( you can tell it was a few years since i had the rule book out !!)

I think on reflection that he is just being pedantic and playing to the bull**** tune from the CAA ....to all intents and purposes night VFR ( by that i mean done by a non IR pilot in a non IR machine flying in sight of the ground ) is legal . Only the CAA would wrap it up in some complicated form and call it IFR. .....IMHO

[91205]

ANO is here

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

I'm buggered if I can find the night-VFR-IF bit

Anyone care to try?

[[email protected]]

Section 6 - Instrument Flight Rules.
In a nutshell, below 3000' and outside controlled airspace you just have to stay visual with the ground, clear of cloud and with more than 800m in flight vis.

Only in the UK could something that sounds like VFR flight be classed as IFR!!

[Helinut]

I thought that might generate a reaction!

However, it is true. To anyone who needs convincing, have a read of Rule 20 of the Rules of the Air and in particular 20(2):

In the UK an aircraft flying at night shall-
a) be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules outside a control zone;
b) be flown in accordance with Instrument Flight Rules in a control zone unless it is flying on a special VFR flight.

It is a source of great confusion not only outside the UK CAA but within it too. If you read a number of their own documents they read as if night VFR is permitted.

As others have said, having set up that rule, there are then a series of further rules to allow pilots/aircraft who cannot fly "full" IFR to fly at night IFR, but only visual contact flights.

How to make something complicated.........

[nigelh]

Well thanks for clearing that up ......as clear as MUD !!!:rolleyes: As far as i,m concerned night vfr ( or whatever you or the caa wish to call it ...is legal)
And i think you will find that it is private and not public transport if you take cash:D ( in the ANO part 24 section 12 (b) )

[Hughes500]

Nigel You are pulling my plonker about cash surely !!!

[scooter boy]

Cash: used notes, non-consecutive serial numbers, brown paper bag - sounds very Jeffrey Archer.

Dame Shirley would of course have paid in diamonds!

SB

[HeliCraig]

Hmmm.....

I have just downloaded CAP393 from the CAA's web site and can't find Part 24, Section 12(b). I can find article 24 which is to do with Airworthiness, but has no sections.

Am I going mad? Or is NigelH having us on?

[Twiddle]

That particular section is only printed on the back of Nigels greenbacks!!!

[Sgtfrog]

V...are you sure!!!!:E

IH

[VeeAny]

Froggy

Just to clarify

Quoting from the Rules of the Air

Choice of VFR or IFR
20.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) an aircraft shall always be flown in accordance with the
Visual Flight Rules or the Instrument Flight Rules.
(2) In the United Kingdom an aircraft flying at night shall—
(a) be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules outside a control zone;
(b) be flown in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules in a control zone unless it is
flying on a special VFR flight.

V

[MightyGem]

i have no instrument rating , am in a single , and the flight is technically IFR.
You don't require an Instrument Rating to fly by IFR. You just plan, and fly at not less than 1000 feet above the highest obstacle/ground within 5 nm of the aircraft, plus obeying the quadrantal rule regarding magnetic track and altitude.

[ShyTorque]

S2, No, you have hopefully cleared the point up for those who didn't understand.

The difficulty most folk have is getting to grips with the "let out clause" (my italics) in the definition of IFR; ie, Rule 33 (d).

The Police Air Ops Manual refers to this as "visual contact flight", or VCF.

I do think it's time the rules were written in more plain English to remove these anomalies; but I ain't volunteering.

[JimBall]

So, just to answer the question posed by this thread title, no - DSB was not in a heli which had an engine failure.

She was in a heli which was being flown perfectly correctly according to the rules of this fine country. Clear of cloud, in sight of the surface and with an ability to land without endangering people or property on the surface.

96 posts - many apparently from pro pilots not understanding the rules. As a result, nearly 8000 viewers must be confused.

I've seen more clarity in the waters of South Yorkshire this week.

[91205]

Shall I delete the thread to end all this?!

[JimL]

91205,

Don't delete the thread; repeating the rule again and again might eventually ensure that professional pilots read and understand the conditions under which night flying can be conducted...that is until EASA takes legal responsibility and provides single set of 'Rules of the Air' for the whole of Europe.

Reading and understanding the ANO - and other regulations - is not just a matter of passing examinations; it's in everyone's interest to know the rules, understand their own limitations and to operate within both.

Jim

[Curtis E Carr]

She was in a heli which was being flown perfectly correctly according to the rules of this fine country. Clear of cloud, in sight of the surface and with an ability to land without endangering people or property on the surface (my bold type)

Not quite. The rule now refers to "with the surface in sight" which means "with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument..."

Splitting hairs, I know, and I don't think this detracts from the point of JB's post but heli pilots should be aware of the tightening up of the COCISOS rule we've enjoyed up till now.

[VeeAny]

901205,
Please don't delete this one, It may be appropriate to rename it as the thread has crept quite a lot now.

Things like this a lot of people find quite useful as some don't understand the rules or are not even aware of recent changes such as the 1500m vis minima or the no IMC unless instrument rated (even with a professional licence) rules, which both came about in March 2007.

I've spoken to 3 AOC operators in the last 3 weeks who didn't know about the recent changes. 2 of whom received their subscription updates to the ANO and The Rules of The Air last week. (Almost 3 months after the rules changed).

Perhaps it highlights a problem with the way information is disseminated by the CAA, but thats a whole other argument for another thread.

GS

[helimutt]

Reading through the posts, I think the general misconception is simple. People are easily confused by the terms IMC (Instrument meteorological conditions), and IFR (Instrument flight rules)

Two completely different things but important when looked at together.

Anyone can fly using IFR as the minima, but not all can fly in IMC. The latter would mean you're in clouds/bad vis etc. IFR, you could be in Visual conditions but abiding by the IFR rules, hence, not need an IR to do so.
You could be SVFR in controlled airspace, at night, without an IR, flying under IFR, even though VMC exist. Aren't these rules fantastic? Lets not even start on the SVR bit just yet....again.
:hmm:

[Curtis E Carr]

Anyone can fly using IFR as the minima

Again, I'm not sure this is strictly true. Schedule 8 of the ANO, for a JAR PPL(H), talks about restrictions to the licence in accordance with JAR-FCL 2.175. This effectively prohibits PPL(H) holders without an IR from flight under IFR except for flight at night providing the holder has a night rating/qualification. Schedule 8 is even clearer in the case of a UK PPL(H) where it states:

"....... unless his licence includes an instrument rating (helicopter) fly as pilot in command or co-pilot of such a helicopter in circumstances which require
compliance with the Instrument Flight Rules:

(i) in Class A, B or C airspace at any time; or

(ii) in Class D, E, F or G airspace unless flying at night and remaining clear of
cloud and with the surface in sight......"

Holders of a CPL(H) may indeed operate IFR in Class D, E, F or G airspace providing they remain clear of cloud and with the surface in sight.

[Helinut]

The expression pig's breakfast springs to mind................:confused: :mad:

[Whirlybird]

Would some kind person explain to me the difference between "in sight of the surface" and "with the surface in sight".

[Cron]

Would some kind person explain to me the difference between "in sight of the surface" and "with the surface in sight".

Insight of the surface means you have an intimate familiarity and very probably some technical knowledge regarding the surface.

With the surface insight means you are acting or doing something that requires the above insight.

Regards

Cron

[Curtis E Carr]

Whirlybird

Not sure I can give you a definitive answer.

Firstly, I refer you to my answer above concerning "with the surface in sight".

Secondly, you will recall the A109E crash that occurred whilst approaching Bournemouth Airport on 3 March 2004. A recommendation of the AAIB was that:

"[the CAA] should review the Rules of the Air and relevant regulations in their applicability to helicopters and should consider imposing minimum visibility requirements for day and night. These minima should afford an effective safety margin to prevent inadvertent flight in instrument meteorological condition or loss of adequate external visual references. The requirement for a clearly defined horizon, particularly over water or featureless terrain should also be considered".

I am not aware of the previous definition (if, indeed, one existed) of "in sight of the surface" having considered the requirement for a "clearly defined horizon" and certainly there seems to be no mention of any form of forward visibility requirement. If there is no horizon, this implies that the ability of the pilot to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument (as required by the new definition) is unlikely to be possible.

Just my interpretation, you understand.

[Whirlygig]

Insight of the surface means you have an intimate familiarity and very probably some technical knowledge regarding the surface
An intimate familiarity with the surface would probably mean you're face down in it!!!! :}

Cheers

Whirls

[Bravo73]

ivor,

I suggest that you look up 'insight' in a dictionary.

It's very different to 'in sight'... ;)

[91205]

I think the use of the word "insight" is a typing error. Correct grammar/spelling would be "in sight".

I can see no difference between "In sight of the surface" and "the surface in sight". They are the same thing.

[Bravo73]

Blimey, 91205.

I guess that I have to spell it out for you then:

Yes, Cron was making a joke. The 'typo' was intentional.


:rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

Be fair Bravo - most of us don't do jokes in Dutch and I am assuming that 91205's location may also be his nationality so he could be excused for not understanding Cron's banter:)

I don't know what Ivor's excuse is............

[Bravo73]

Ah, good point, crab. I had overlooked that little detail. :O

Sorry to be a bit sarky, 91205, and welcome to the subtleties of the English language! ;)

[Curtis E Carr]

I can see no difference between "In sight of the surface" and "the surface in sight". They are the same thing.

If you take the words as they stand, I agree that there is no difference in meaning.

I guess (and it is only a guess) that the Authority wished to emphasise that there are now more stringent criteria to be applied to VMC (hence VFR) flight which may not be apparent if existing terminology was used and amended.

My 2 groats worth.

[JimL]

I have not studied the publication that contained the proposal to make these changes so I offer my view of what it intended to achieve.

It does seem rather a pity that the CAA codified their intent and did not just spell it out.

A recent UK research report that examined all UK VFR accidents - by day or by night -which had a Loss of Control (LOC) element, clearly indicated that most resulted from the pilot being in a position where visual cues were not sufficient to permit visual flight; this could have been the result of: a reduction of light sources (or no visual horizon) at night; or entry into low visibility condition during the day (most likely when IIMC).

Although helicopters generally have a better Field of View (FOV) than fixed wing they are inherently unstable. To fly visually, the FOV must contain sufficient visual cues to permit the pilot to control the helicopter.

At night when there is no visual horizon, as the light sources are reduced, control cannot be maintained. Both by day and night, if there is no horizon and the visibility reduces such that the visual cues are taken out of the FOV - for example if the slant horizon containing the cues drops 'out of sight' below the instrument panel - unless the pilot reduces the height of the helicopter, control cannot be maintained (this can be aggravated by a reduction of speed, with the associated nose up attitude, which itself 'reduces' the FOV). (In fact the reduction of height in poor visibility more often results from this necessity to keep visual cues in the FOV than from a reduction in cloud base.)

There are basically two ways to address this problem: (1) the handling qualities of the helicopter can be improved - thus allowing more concentration to be applied to to obtaining visual cues; or (2) flight should only be conducted in conditions where suitable cues for visual flight can be maintained.

Solution (1) is already applied when certification for flight on instruments is sought (clearly indicating that flying without visual cues itself requires an improvement in handling qualities) - this offloads the pilot's workload and, even in visual flight, would permit reduction in the visual cue environment to be tolerated.

Solution (2) can only be applied subjectively because it depends upon: the equipment contained in the helicopter; the skill of the pilot (the more skillful the pilot the less visual cues are required for visual flight); the FOV of the helicopter; and the amount of workload that is required to perform any task (navigating for example).

It is solution (2) that is being sought by the change in regulatory language. "With the surface in sight" is meant to imply more than just seeing the ground immediately beneath the helicopter out of the side window; it is also intended to imply a consideration of all the elements in the previous paragraph.

In addition to the considerations above, there is nearly always an underpinning visibility requirement - sometime tied to license qualifications, and sometimes to task.

Jim

[EESDL]

well Cron - I thought it was funny - in a 'how many times has this little gem been discussed before post accident' sort of way.................

is that enough words to get posted?

[Snarlie]

Not like the good old days, eh Jim? Remember when you used to recover your trusty old S61N to Aberdeen totally illegally down the ILS with an unqualified copilot? Things are so much more complicated for the young guys coming up the ladder nowadays. I wonder who managed to make it so complicated?

Incidentally, what have you been up to since you went on strike?

[wokkaboy]

What was the outcome of this (if any)?
Previous postings mainly concentrate on the weather on the day, and rightly so. However, are we to believe that no money changed hands as it was a PPL flight? Did the CAA investigate?

I'm raising this as on a recent airing of the 'Tonight' programme, Mark Austin flew in an MD of some description in the south west, which reminded me of the Shirley Bassey flight.

The two are likely to be completely unrelated and I am not making any accusations, but there aren't many MD AOC operators out there, are there?

[nigelh]

There is a lot of flying passengers out there that is not aoc . Shirley Bassey was flown by a friend and many people chose to lease helicopters rather than charter thereby making their flights private ....hence you can fly a single at night etc Nothing new there , been going on since god was a boy . Unless you are actually trying to sh*t stir ??!!!

[Hughes500]

Jeremy the owner of the 500 is a friend of Dame Shirley, so a private flight.

[wokkaboy]

Thank you Hughes500, that's all I wanted to know.

I am aware that there are shared ownership (lease) groups out there operating under private use.
I also know that AOC operators pay a small fortune each year for the privilege of operating Public Transport flights.
So, regarding Mark Austin's flight: 1) A legitimate AOC operator? 2) Mr Austin a shared/lease owner? 3) Or a friend who owns the aircraft?

"sh*t stir?" nigelh - no, just asking a question and I'd be delighted if the answer is 1.

[Hughes500]

Wooka
tell me about the costs ! Just applied for an AOC, wow, £ 6500 application fee, then £ 10500 a year to run for one single engine machine !!!
Have to do a lot of work to cover the costs let alone make any money on it !!!
Tempting not to bother and stick to training and loadlifting !

[wokkaboy]

Totally agree, hence why some don't bother and others take a risk.
The crux of the matter is the AOC charges which are crippling smaller legitimate operators.

[nigelh]

I know we have covered this loads of times but you cannot make it pay having just one or two machines on your own aoc , much better to use somebody elses and pay them for the privilege on a cost per hr OR just build up a client list who are happy to become the operator themselves , lease them the heli and get them to make their own contract with the pilot . This is then private flying and accepted as such by the CAA . You have to do it properly ie no recharging to individual pax etc There has never been a prosecution by the CAA of a properly conducted lease flight ...period. If you want to do small ad hoc flights , weddings etc then it is aoc but these flights tend to be small and not worth the trouble anyway . Also make sure your insurance covers you for all commercial lease flights in writing and if in any doubt check with the caa , as i have done . Of course if they brought in a sensible aoc for the small operator that would work we would all go in to make life simpler , but that is not their way:ugh:

[EddieHeli]

Someone should report the CAA to the monopolies commission. What exactly is provided for the £10500 fees. Isn't it against the law to charge a fee for not providing anything in return isn't that the definition of extortion.

[Twiddle]

Brave guy, that's the sort of talk that'll have you waking up with a horses head on your pillow - with SRG-1184 stamped on it.......:E