IMC in an R22 - anyone done this? [Archive]

CRAZYBROADSWORD

10th Apr 2008, 19:00

back when I was a ppl which is a long time ago I was flying with another ppl in an r22 from shoreham to sandown IOW he was flying but we had the cyclic in on my side so I could help with the radio. About half way there we saw sea fog in front of us and decided to turn around but we where too late and it formed around us and we went imc.

my friend could not do the whole lot so i took over the cyclic he pulled full power and we climbed out the top headed back to shoreham by which time the airfield was in fog so we headed to blackbush.

I have never been imc in a 22 since and will never again I hope, it is not something to be done lightly and I think we had a lucky escape.Imc should only be done by those with currant IR's as look at what happens to some evan in suitable heli's.

cyclic flare

10th Apr 2008, 21:10

On completion of my instructor rating in the late 90's my FIC took me into cloud for at least 6-7 mins which seemed like 6 - 7 hours. I re call being able to hold it straight / level with some minor adjustments from my instructor. Its not that differcult knowing you have a once IMC examiner sat next to you ready to sort it out.

In reality without proper training its impossible and that's without that the blind panic thats sets in 5 seconds after it all goes white after a further 15 seconds you start to sweat and then its starts to snowball. The feeling in your stomach is yuk

Its a lot easier in a 44 and a Bell 47 you can eat your butties on the way.

IMC is for twin pilot in a proper machine.

So why are we training simulated imc. Its a complete nonsense

Flingingwings

10th Apr 2008, 22:16

ergo it can be done under the proper circumstances

Sailor, Thanks for that BUT I suggest you check more closely :ugh:

The actual question asked was....................

Has anyone here actually gone IMC in an R22

R22 IFR training is ONLY legally allowed to be done VMC with screens (or foggles) and the Bristows AB206 IFR trainer has a similar VMC restriction.

Ergo, anybody flying IMC in an R22 regardless of being IFR trained or not is doing so illegally as the R22 is not approved for IMC flight in JAA land.

Nice to see the efforts of GS and MG will not be wasted with SO much misunderstanding amongst pilots :ok:

An article, from about two years ago, summed up IMC flight in an R22 very accurately - Do it, AND die :eek:

Flingingwings

10th Apr 2008, 22:26

Cyclic,

I agree :ok:

But see Crazy's response above yours. I can appreciate why Sim IFR is within both the PPL and CPL syllabus. To help those unfortunate enough to get themselves into such a grave situation (no pun intended).

FWIW I think it would be time better spent improving the Airmanship skills of low hours pilots so that they make good/correct decisions much earlier - thereby reducing the numbers of those that push their luck to the extent that serious injury and or death is a real possibility.

Guess we're back to the Safety evenings initiated by GS and MG (not of course forgetting the assistance now provided by Paco) :ok:

IMC/IFR flight can be safely completed, but by qualified and current pilots in IFR certificated machines. The rules are quite clear and simple really :ok:

FW

gulliBell

10th Apr 2008, 23:30

You can do your FAA IFR/ATPL rating in an R22, but like those above said it needs to be done in VFR flight conditions because the R22 is not certificated for IFR. Many years ago I did my IFR check-ride in an R22 at night and we were in and out of cloud for much of the time. The examiner was a Robinson factory authorized test pilot and he obviously didn't have much of an issue flying the R22 under those conditions because that's what we did. So to answer the question, it can be done, but not legally.

Shawn Coyle

11th Apr 2008, 02:23

One of the requirements for an IFR approved helicopter is to have a cyclic centering capability in pitch and roll. A force trim system can provide that.
And there's a good reason for requiring the system - once you have trimmed up, it requires a force to displace the stick, thus providing the pilot with a cue in hand that the stick is being moved from trim.
Since even a small lateral displacement of the cyclic from the 'wings level' position produces a roll rate, which is probably slow enough to not be noticed until the bank angle is too steep to safely recover from by use of instruments alone, having a trim system is a good thing.
But we don't ever require it in all IFR training helicopters, like R-22/44, Schweizer 300, etc.

Pity.

ASKARI

11th Apr 2008, 02:43

Just ask the guy who was flying in company with another same-type a/c a few years back on their way back into Cairns in an R22. Trying to cross a mountain saddle with very low cloud, the lead aircraft entered cloud for just a moment when the pilot lost it and crashed into a rainforest! Luckily, both occupants walked away reasonably unscathed but the a/c was totalled!
:=

relyon

11th Apr 2008, 02:44

Shawn,

But we don't ever require it in all IFR training helicopters, like R-22/44, Schweizer 300, etc.

If not force trim, what is the system in a Schweizer 300 series called? I understand the Robinsons don't really have a trim system, but the hat trim button, motors, and springs in the 300 is better than none. I always liked being able to trim the 300 for a reasonably stable forward flight without the need to make the cyclic grip a [semi]permanent part of my hand.

I'm not saying it's a force trim - I'm just curious what it's called if not.

Bob

Arm out the window

11th Apr 2008, 07:18

There's no black magic about flying helicopters in cloud without stability systems or autopilots as long as you've got the requisite instruments. Even on limited panel (ie no attitude indicator), it's doable, but the key is training.

One prevailing view in Australia is that teaching helicopter pilots a little bit about flying on instruments encourages them to take risks that get them into trouble because they push weather limits. There's no requirement for instrument training in our CPL syllabus, whereas fixed wing have to do a few hours, which I think is a cop-out to cut down training hours and therefore cut down the considerable expense of getting a licence.

I don't agree with the "don't expose them to it" argument at all, and would suggest that a bit of instrument training combined with sensible advice about pushing personal limits would save lives in the long run.

K48

11th Apr 2008, 08:15

CrazyBroadsword's story is a case in point for the necessity for teaching basic intrument flying. Surely no trained pilot can say that teaching how to deal with an IMC eventuality encourages accidents by ecouraging pilots to take risks? Training reduces the risks.... An extreme example of the no-imc-training ethic is.. teaching flying encourages accidents!
Knowledge is key... ignorant curiosity killed the cat...etc.. if you don't teach it some ppl will go and try it... teaching basic IMC for that inevitable day is essential training that really should no more be a question than any other essential safety/ emergency training...

As for the original question, R22 in IMC is technically no different to any other heli... keep your speed and trust the instruments.. But if it's curiosity you have... then far better try your hand in a sim (MS 2004). Instrument flying is the one thing you can get a taste of on the computer. Perhaps read some Vietnam heli books and get a flavour for IMC incidents and flying. In ChickenHawk they cope with no AH in IMC... The ASI is more responsive than VSI so you use that to stay level... etc etc Knowledge may save your bacon one day.... but this is one thing to 'Do try it at home'!. on the computer... not in the air...

ShyTorque

11th Apr 2008, 08:47

I think the important thing is for a pilot to know his own personal limits and those of the aircraft and also the legal requirements and to stick by them.

Any pilot can get caught out by a bit of cloud; suitable training can teach how to safely deal with it. I'm a believer that exposure to the situation in a controlled environment i.e. with an instructor, within the law, is the best way to keep a pilot safe for the future.

Unfortunately, common sense cannot be taught. For example, not so long ago I had a close encounter with a single engined helicopter (R-44), whilst we were flying IMC at 2400ft under a RIS. The R-44 was presumably being flown illegally because he was at an estimated 2300ft in solid IMC, not squawking and not talking, crossing a commonly used route in and out of the Heathrow zone. We were advised by Heathrow Radar of his presence but wrongly assumed, because of the weather and other circumstances, that he would be below the 1500 foot overcast. I don't think he saw us, but we saw him. I am fairly certain which aircraft it was. I hope the pilot isn't doing this on a regular basis or we might be having another "statistic" in the not-too distant future and if I see it again I will definitely be reporting it.

dup

11th Apr 2008, 08:55

No, wrong, don`t, not good!!!:confused:

oldbeefer

11th Apr 2008, 09:07

Nothing wrong with IMC in an unstabilised single IF the pilot is properly trained AND maintains currency at the skill (done routinely by the military) BUT BUT BUT - it's illegal in a civvy registered heli in the UK. The danger with showing a R22 pilot how to fly on instruments will always be that he/she may be tempted to push the weather limits a little further that is safe (although I do understand the good intentions of exposing a pilot to IF to give him a fighting chance if he should go inadvertent entry into cloud). By all means practice the skill with an instructor, but when the weather turns marginal, always chicken out early AND remember 'Don't Press On - land On'.

Flyin'ematlast

11th Apr 2008, 09:18

I too have been there in an R22 under training (with a suitably qualified instructor in the left seat) and I agree with all of Cyclic-Flare's comments regarding time passing and sweating. It scared the sh*t out of me :\ and I have heeded his advice ever since to treat clouds as being made of concrete :ok:.

My advice is simply DON'T DO IT! The AAIB are busy enough without you.

Ian.

ITARMAN

11th Apr 2008, 10:20

Surely no trained pilot can say that teaching how to deal with an IMC eventuality encourages accidents by ecouraging pilots to take risks?

Is it not the case that, following inclusion of IMC simulation in the PPL(H) syllabus, the accident rate arising from inadvertent IMC in PPL Helicopters has risen markedly? Of course, the existence of two facts in not sufficient to imply causality but it does beg the question.

4ftHover

11th Apr 2008, 11:22

I am aware we are creeping off the thread a bit here.

I believe the inclusion of IMC has been discussed at length before.

However as a 22 and 44 PPL and having completed my time behind the foggles during training i know now IMC is not the place i want to be.

And for this reason i pay even more attention to my weather planning.

If the weather is marginal i am staying on the ground.

Flingingwings

11th Apr 2008, 11:38

Itarman,

Sadly it does :{ As a previous FI and now an IR holder there is a real difference between Sim IMC, knowing somebody else can see outside and actual IMC.

Examples:
Lowish hours ppl(h) holder and R44 owner - reguarly flies through and in cloud. Once saw him fly into a basically fog bound airfield. Explanation given was punched up through it, when zoomed in gps said I was above the airfield I slowed and descended!! I kid you not:eek:

Or the soon to be ppl applicant that despite a non existent horizon and a clearly lowering cloud base, pressed on despite very obvious hints to the contrary, before flying into cloud at 1000' AGL in an R44. First reaction was to gulp and freeze on the controls, rapidly selecting left roll and nose down. As the FI took control student uttered ' Can you do this please'. Control was regained, a level 180 turn completed and when the aircraft went back VMC it was less than 300' AGL:eek: I know the facts, as I was the FI!!!! This was with a student who had been very sensible throughout their ppl. To finish the story, once they'd recovered the stude asked to continue with the nav exercise. Hints were again given to the contrary and eventually they were taken. A decision was made by the student to return to base, but via the most direct route - that involved flying over the high ground! You've guessed it. Straight back into IMC and very low to the ground :uhoh: I took control as we neared the grey, maintained control throughout and we had an interesting debrief and discussion on future training :mad: It remains the scariest thing I've ever done in a helicopter (I was low hours and no IR) and I never gave a student that much leeway again.

FWIW I think the syllabus is there trying to show students that IMC flight in an unstabilised single is not only very different, but very difficult. Sadly you cannot guarantee that all students will appreciate and respect that lesson.

Recall the B206 that landed in worsening weather, waited about 3 hours and despite no improvement now thought it safer to continue:confused: 4 fatalities IIRC. What a needless waste of life :{

Reality is there will always be 'One' that thinks they know better.:ugh:

VfrpilotPB/2

11th Apr 2008, 12:17

Not many been there in the R22, ...but my suggestion is this...

DONT GO THERE!!:=

Much easier to take out any .45 Smith & Wesson load 5 flatnosed shells ( leave the sixth chamber empty) spin the chamber, point at head and pull softly on the trigger, if nothing goes bang consider the lesson learnt empty all cylinders and then recite to yourself, wow Ive been lucky! if you are PPL(H) then stay VFR, its much nicer to be able to talk after your flights, rather than talked about......... But then there are always some who will try to expand the envelope, and when it rips its too late!

VfrpilotPB/2
Peter R-B

helicfii

11th Apr 2008, 14:01

gomez308

11th Apr 2008, 16:32

A good friend of mine went Inadvertant IMC in an R-44. He was a talented CFII and his student was also a rated helicopter pilot. They both died. Here is the link to the NTSB reports:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...30X00889&key=1 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20040630X00889&key=1)

You do not want to go IMC in any helicopter without SAS or autopilot

Not to speak ill of the dead, BUT.

That accident has nothing to do with SAS or autopilot. He intentionally went IMC at night with a non IFR helicopter. Then he circled down through the clouds and hit the ground. If you are making decisions like that, it doesn't matter what you are flying.

DennisK

11th Apr 2008, 19:15

After the first page of this thread, I could barely believe what I was reading ... then the experienced guys came in and started to shout the message loud & clear.

Don't attempt cloud flying in a light single in any circumstances.

And for those guys able to afford a twin, the message is the same until you have the full instrument rating and our cleared to do so by an IRE.

The top north sea and corporate guys fly IFR for breakfast of course, but they've all done around 50 hours dedicated instrument training on top of a fairly average 1000 hours. I'm a 13.700 hour rotary man with an ex RAF fixed wing 'Master Green' instrument card, but these days it wouldn't enter my head to attempt IFR in any helicopter without a ton of serious instrument practice first. And as has been noted here, in the UK, single engine IMC is not legal anyway.

On a personal basis, I regard the EASA (CAA) 5 hour PPL requirement as an open invitation to an accident. Please see the LOOP article November 2007. www.loop.aero.

Sadly, I am now up to number 8 counting the number of good colleagues I have lost while flying knowingly or unknowingly into cloud. Three of them professionally qualified.

The advice is clear ... Don't attempt it. Sure, you may be good enough to manage it ... but you don't want to be airborne in cloud when you discover you aren't!

Hope we can discuss the issue on our informal safety evenings.

Safe flying to all,

Dennis Kenyon.

CRAZYBROADSWORD

11th Apr 2008, 19:42

Just a note on my post I did my ppl before the 5 hour imc training came about and as I now teach this to others I don't agree it's a good idea, better to spend the time on improving airmanship and nav skills.

flap flap flap

11th Apr 2008, 20:18

Interesting replies chaps, keep em coming.

And by the way, I am an experienced instructor with over 1,600 hours, not a PPL newbie. And, no I would never attempt IMC in an R22,

Sailor Vee

11th Apr 2008, 20:37

IIRC the Bristow cadets did an IFR course at Redhill on the R22, albeit with an instructor always present and were 'examined' by the CAA before being released to main bases.

unlicensed/untrained people

ergo it can be done under the proper circumstances.

Flingingwings; my point is that INADVERTENT IMC should be 'escapable' from' if it isn't, don't go there.

I once flew a 206B up through 3000' of cloud, but I knew it was clear on top and I was current IFR on 2 other Bell types, (one of which had force trim, but not 'beepable'), and I knew that I was climbing over the sea, before turning onto track.

The Whirlwind 7 (S-fifty something) I flew while training didn't have a trim either, but we did manage to get a basic military IR.

BTW, I've never flown the R22 and have no wish to do so!!

(Excuse the gravelly voice, I've got a cold!)

ThomasTheTankEngine

11th Apr 2008, 21:04

I think its worth mentioning that going inadvertent IMC in a light helicopter not approved to fly in IMC (Not just R22s or singles) with a pilot who has only had the basic instrument flight training is a world apart from an instrument rated pilot having pre planned a flight taking into account minimum altitudes for terrain clearance, freezing levels etc, flying a machine certified to fly IMC.

I think the 5 hours instrument training will lull some people into a false sense of security to think they can do this, it depends on the person. I think the 5 hours could be better spent teaching students how to avoid going IMC in the first place.

My advice is do what ever you have to do to stay below cloud in the first place, if you make a decision early enough you should be able to divert to another airport etc but ultimately if you can’t do that then stick the machine on the deck.

Flingingwings

11th Apr 2008, 22:28

Sailor,

I wasn't trying to make my reply a direct attack.
As an industry we cannot escape the fact that CFIT is the single biggest cause of fatalities and injuires within the UK :(
Nor can we escape the fact that a great number of those incidents stem from totally poor airmanship decisions early on.

Flingingwings; my point is that INADVERTENT IMC should be 'escapable' from' if it isn't, don't go there

And that is my point also :ok: although FWIW I dislike the term inadvertent IMC :mad: The clouds don't just suddenly jump out and surround you whilst simultaneously shouting 'surprise' :ugh: The weather hints have more than likely been there for ages (forecasts and actual observations) it's just some choose to ignore them or leave a potentially good decision until far too late.

An experienced IR holder, particularly a 'current' one would have no major issues acting as you've suggested (legal issues aside). BUT how many current ME IR holders would deliberately take such a needless risk.?

What 'we' are trying to strongly discourage are non IR trained pilots (and I include JAA PPL's, CPL's and FI's who regardless of simulated IMC hours do not hold an IR) from being foolish enough to fly IMC, unqualified/untrained in a non IFR approved light helicopter.

We have to bear in mind that many who find themselves inadvertent IMC never set out to be there. They've more than likely set out on a marginal weather day, the weather (cloud base and viz) has gradually worsened and to compensate they've systematically got slower and lower whilst they've pressed on (scud running). They are going to be stressed and close to mental overload, just about at the point they go IMC :uhoh:

Previous threads have shown that a percentage of pilots believe this get lower and slower to be an adequate way of attempting to squeeze past poor weather. Some believeing that being very low at a hover taxi speed in total IMC is easily recoverable:confused: Even when IR holders have explained about minimum IFR control speeds and hinted at the meticulous planning that goes into an off airfield IMC cloud break to a private site.

I cast no illusions. At times it is extremely hard work in a well equipped and approved IFR machine (and I'm current). To attempt similar in a non approved A/c is a mindless and needless attempt at assisted suicide :eek:

The least experienced press on, when the more experienced turn back, only to see the most experienced who never set off in the first place.

I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was flying, than flying and wishing I was on the ground.

If we want the CFIT incident rate to decline I agree with the founders of the safety eveings, that the more experienced pilots should provide clear unambiguous guidance to those with less. Hopefully the UK safety evenings will dispel some of the myths and old wives tales/ bravado. :ok:

Bravo73

11th Apr 2008, 23:26

Somebody should get Q along to one of these safety evenings. That would make for an interesting discussion! :ok:

helicfii

12th Apr 2008, 00:01

Gomez308-

I agree that the accident I posted has less to do with SAS or autopilot, and more to do with pilot decision making. My point is that without the proper tools, if you go IMC inadvertantly or intentionally (makes no difference to me), you are taking incredibly enormous risks.

I've flown a bunch of time under the hood in the R-22 and R-44, doing everything by myself, with no assistance at all- and that is the way I taught my students to fly IFR in the R-22, as well. Later in my career, flying 412's and S-76's IFR dual pilot was a real eye opener- it was relaxing and it made sense.....very unlike when I had to fly that R-22 for IFR x-country flights under the hood.

I have no doubt that there will be/are some people taking the IFR paneled R-44's out for a spin in the clouds. What a stupid thing to do.

I've flown IFR IMC without an autopilot, but I would never attempt it without SAS. One distraction and you are a goner.

helimutt

12th Apr 2008, 06:56

Glad to see a discussion here which generally points in the direction required. I believe it's just a matter of getting low timers and the inexperienced to take note of others and not be afraid of saying 'no, not flying today. Lets go tomorrow if it's improved'
Anyone who fits IFR kit to an R44 then goes IMC to 'try it out' is a tit! It would be cheaper to just jump off a bridge and kill yourself.

Become more proficient at reading Met forms.

tony 1969

12th Apr 2008, 06:58

Hi, Very interesting topic FWIW my 5 cents worth
firstly I would never be tempted to do IMC in a single , if its that bad wx then dont go, turn back or LAND THE BLOODY THING.
I quite like the 5 hrs simulated instrument in the ppl. I tell the students yes you should not get yourself into trouble but if it does happen this will help to get you out of it. Use the five hours to show how difficlt it is to control the thing on instruments. Get them to put it into an unusual attitude by closing their eyes and trying to fly the machine straight and level, when its in a nice unusual atitude get them to open their eyes and recover. I find this makes the point quite well. If they are doing unusually well pull the gyro CB. sure as eggs are eggs the one time you need it it will break!

If I find out one of my students flys into IMC I will bloody:ugh::{
Be safe

VeeAny

12th Apr 2008, 07:47

I've been reading this with great interest.

This particular subject does feature very early in the safety evenings.

I think that some of the problems we have in the UK, are

a lack of understanding of the dangers of going IMC in an unstabilised helicopter (single or twin)
Inadequate training on CPL courses (by people who have no instrument experience)
A lack of any decision making training whatsoever.
Over confident students being 'trained' to fly on instruments (so they think)
A lack of any formal training in the UK weather, by someone more qualified than an FI.

When you read this its sounds like I am having a dig at instructors, but I am not. I have been at both ends of the scale where I am allowed to teach instruments and radio nav to CPL students (when I have no instrument experience myself). I have been allowed to teach Met to PPL students with no real experience of the UK weather. Now a bit older and perhaps no wiser, I believe the the CPL instrument training should be carried out by someone with actual instrument experience (not neccesarily a current IR perhaps previous military).

I think the 5 hrs instrument is a red herring, its generally taught by the wrong people, under foggles which are hardly the most restricitive things in the world (yes its harder, but nowhere near as hard as with screens or actual IMC).

I've just got back into R22 flying after a couple of years off the type, and am not surprised that half the gyro instruments in the ones I've been in are u/s, not completely but they do lose their alignment quite quickly, I can only assume that this is due to the environment they get operated in (training doing EOLS, and being left running during startup and shutdown).

We will hopefully have the Met Office aviation forecasters running some courses for helicopter pilots soon, I am just trying to get it sorted if anyone is interested (I suggest we discuss that in the heli safety thread or a new one and not here to avoid too much thread creep.) Thread on this can be found here. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=322320)

The R22 is a brilliant helicopter if you use it for what it was designed for, if you use it outside that environment it might (and going IMC it probably will) bite you in the arse.

Gary

CRAZYBROADSWORD

12th Apr 2008, 10:48

Perhaps if we where allowed to do off airfield landings with students they might feel better about landing in fields in bad weather? the recent gold cup was a good example of knowing your limits as on the saturday we had 5 helis to recover from verious fileds as the pilots reached there limits and did not think twice about landing where they were.

Normaly the first time PPL's land off airfield is after they have passed maybe we should be paying more attention to teaching these guys to go in and out the places they are likely to visit, which might also make them more happy landing in places other than airfields.

VeeAny

12th Apr 2008, 11:54

CrazyBroadSword

Couldn't agree more, one of the things that we are trying to encourage through helicopter safety is post PPL training for the things that are actually useful in the real world.

I can't see us getting the JAA syllabus changed, but if schools were to apply a post licence pre hire syllabus or pilots asked for it there is nothing to stop it.

Sorry for going of thread again, but its all about training to stay alive.

Gary

jellycopter

12th Apr 2008, 12:14

I know of an examiner in the UK who has recently flown IMC with PPL(H)s in unstabilised singles. The PPL(H)s were tasked with the VMC foggles-on 180 deg turn and both made a satisfactory effort. Straight afterwards, the aircraft was climbed into cloud and the PPLs asked to once again perform the 180 deg turn. Both effectively lost control after about 20 to 30 seconds!

Don't ever go IMC in an unstabilised single! Do whatever is necessary to stay out of cloud, even if that means temporarily breaking Rule 5. No-one, to my knowledge, has ever crashed into the ANO!

Fly safe

JJ

K48

12th Apr 2008, 12:22

I second that. Post PPL I went to New Zealand just to learn the basics of non airfield landings/flying. After PPL I felt unprepared for this environment (and I had great instructors. Just the syllabus is lacking....

I think its worth mentioning that going inadvertent IMC in a light helicopter not approved to fly in IMC (Not just R22s or singles) with a pilot who has only had the basic instrument flight training is a world apart from an instrument rated pilot having pre planned a flight taking into account minimum altitudes for terrain clearance, freezing levels etc, flying a machine certified to fly IMC.

I think the 5 hr PPl instrmnts was useful and made me safer at the time.... but the above point should be impressed on students equally strongly... i.e What you don't know is this.. etc etc... e.g keeping yr speed/failing AH etc.

topendtorque

12th Apr 2008, 12:25

Here is another, the good old ABC news.

The date of this report was 10/09/2004
QLD Country Hour Summary
FQLD Country Hour Summary
Friday 10/09/2004
riday 10/09/2004

Cattle king killed in helicopter crash - Arlie Douglas
The cattle industry is coming to terms today with the death of one of the country's largest landholders - killed in a helicopter accident in south-west Queensland this week. 74 year old Brian Oxenford and pilot Justin Wallace died when their four seater chopper crashed near the airstrip at Eurella Station near Muckadilla on Wednesday night. In 1997 Mr Oxenford was reported to be the third largest private landholder in country with Western Grazing holding 2.5 million hectare at the time. His interests included the famous Wave Hill lease in the Northern Territory, Magowra Station, Morestone and Oban, just outside Mount Isa and and an assortment of properties in
south-western Queensland. This year, Western Grazing has reportedly payed 50 million dollars for former Stanbroke holding Tanbar Station at Windorah and is believed to have aquired another Stanbroke gem Rocklands at Camooweal. Brian Oxenford is survived by his wife Elva, and children Lee, Pam, Loray and Dale. Property agent David Tannock spoke to Arlie Douglas about his friend - who he described as an intensely private person.
David Tannock, property agent

Oxenford I knew well and the pilot not so well. He was a well experienced corporate turbine F/W IFR pilot with several, no many renewals, up his sleeve.
He went with his brand new R44 to visit Brian who talked him into a bit of a survey, I assume a freebie and got caught late. R44 I believe only had a standard panel. the ATSB report, I don't have the link, makes interesting reading.
The pilot I think had about three hundred in R/W
RIP say no more.

topendtorque

12th Apr 2008, 12:28

No-one, to my knowledge, has ever crashed into the ANO!

excellent logic. but please slow down as you are allowed to, to look out for wires.

darrenphughes

12th Apr 2008, 14:32

IMC in a R22, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND??

helimutt

12th Apr 2008, 14:42

Anyone who takes a student into IMC, in a single eng a/c, not equipped or legal for such flying, is out of order. I don't care how it's dressed up. My instructor showed me how to do a wingover and also how to balance on a fence post after only 5 hours or so flying in an R22. No prizes for what I went out and did straight after PPL. ???!!!!

You live and learn. I think we're wasting our time and effort sometimes, and yes, I think the 5 hr instrument requirement is b*ll*x.

You are doing a VFR licence, in a VFR machine. Period. No need to see what it's like in IMC. Teach them well enough to know not to be there in the bloody first place!

Anyone ever heard of 'Duty of Care' ?????

Rant over!!!

jellycopter

12th Apr 2008, 16:04

Helimutt

The point I was trying to make is that the foggles DO NOT in any way equip a pilot effectively for flight in IMC - despite what the JAR regulators would try and have us believe. The 5 hour instrument flying element to the current JAR PPL(H) syllabus must be the only part of any flying course I'm aware of, either private, professional or military, that is effectively teaching the student to fly the aircraft in an 'illegal' manner.

I firmly believe that this requirement is wrong, and if it isn't already, will very soon be responsible for fatalities.

JJ

Edited to prevent this turning into a slanging match.

VfrpilotPB/2

12th Apr 2008, 16:30

Add on from my earlier reply,

I know my limitations, a good friend of mine who is well covered in lots of years R/w and is fully IMC able, took me with him one day to help him at the other end of the flight, the Wx was not that good but he explained he had flown above the clouds from the midlands to where he collected me, full of eagerness I boarded the Twin Squirrel and off we went he explained he had dialled in all the values in the A/P and the machine would do the rest, despite all this tricky machinery and my pal watching over things I had this huge urge to ask him to do a 180 and fly underneath, I could not make out any form of direction or level or even if we we climbing or diving( I could if I looked at the gauges) but sat there looking at the pure white of the water vapour I was mesmerised , I consider myself to be a very safe flyer, but that flight taught me more about myself and my self belief in the few minutes we were in the white stuff than I ever thought would be possible, since that day I have stood at the side of quiet a few SFH copters and made the decision not to fly because of what I could see was waiting for me.
I may sound like a bit of a softy, but I will fly anywhere to any point and arrive, but I will never give you guys the need to read about me having flown when I should not!

Vfr PilotPB/2

Peter R-B

VeeAny

12th Apr 2008, 17:42

I am on the fence as to whether illegal IMC with a test candidate is a good or bad thing (from a training point of view).

Apart from the legal issues, putting your trust in the only AI on board, which when new costs about £2500 (in aviation most things are expensive I consider this quite cheap and they do wander off more than I like) may not be overly sensible.

However I know a lot of pilots who have had this experience with examiners far more experienced than me and it taught all of them the same lesson.

I think that some people like JJs quoted examiner are MORE than capable of handling themselves in situations likes this but that is a whole different discussion I think and one on which I am not necessarily qualified to comment on. My concern would be if the experience taught the exam candidate that IMC was ok because he handled it on the day (with an examiner ready to take over from him if it went wrong, thus lowering the perceived pressure on him).

I've went IIMC for 30 odd seconds (pre my IR) towards a hill, made a 180 degree turn and GOT AWAY WITH IT several years ago and scared myself shi1tless and vowed never to do it again.

After the fact I wished someone had done it to me to teach me a lesson.

If we all operated within the rules GENERALLY we would be ok, but the one thing newly qualified or inexperienced pilots lack is an ability to assess while in the air whether what they are doing is legal, questionable or stupid / illegal.

My view while on the ground at the planning stage the flight should be legal then safe, in the air flying it should be safe then legal (they are not always the same thing, and as JJ points out no one has ever flown into the ANO).

Sorry if I am going off on one, but I've been preparing the safety presentation for Redhill since 0630 this morning and this seems relevant.

Cheers

Gary

Ioan

12th Apr 2008, 19:05

Interesting thread this. I for one think that the PPL syllabus is lacking, notably in the practice of off-airfield landings. Speaking to one new PPL not so long ago he'd actually passed a PPL without EVER having landed off an airfield; confined areas were done onto a small HLS on-airfield and sloping ground with one skid on the edge of a taxiway and one off.
Now on the one hand he's being told "don't push on - land on", while on the other hand he's planned his whole flight well with 'don't go below' MSAs, he's sat air law exams and knows all about the possible legal consequences of breaking the 500' rule...
I consider myself quite lucky that during PPL training we did make a precautionary landing in a field. Going through the whole experience of talking to London Info, doing a recce, setting up an approach while there's still time etc took all the stress out of it; I'll be far far less hesitant about doing it in future. So much easier on the heart to be sitting in a pub grouching about the weather than being up there trying to carry on through it :cool:

Foggles training in the PPL - I understand why some people are against it, yet to borrow someone's analogy if I was dumb or unlucky enough to get myself IIMC in a 22 I'd rather have that one empty chamber in the Smith and Wesson than not. I'm under no illusions about how serious it is. After a PPL and CPL (what's that? 15 hours foggles?) I thought I had this 'instrument flying' lark pretty nailed. The first IR flight in the sim, where everything went white at 300', I suddenly realised my mistake.
Maybe that would be a useful addition to a PPL. IMC in a decent sim, turbulence turned on and force trim turned off.

To answer the original question, no I've never been IMC in a 22 or any other non-IFR helicopter. One night flight in a 22 with misty stuff forming below and a strong headwind slowing our progress back to the airfield I was uncomfortable, uncomfortable enough to have made me more thorough about weather planning now, and less hesitant about making 'turn back' decisions faster in the future.

I guess you live and learn. I'm determined to keep doing both!

helimutt

12th Apr 2008, 19:14

Ioan, Good post. Thank you. :ok:

biggles99

12th Apr 2008, 22:08

as I'm one who knows you, Ioan, I'll second that.

A good post indeed, and you will not only live and learn, you'll do well.

Big Ls.

DBChopper

12th Apr 2008, 22:57

However I know a lot of pilots who have had this experience with examiners far more experienced than me and it taught all of them the same lesson.

As someone who hopes to be taking the CPL(H) course around this time next year, would whoever examines me please not do that? I hate to see a grown man cry, especially when it's me! :{

Thanks ;)

Whirlygig

12th Apr 2008, 23:17

DB, the chances are that your examiner will be from a choice of one!! And I doubt he'd do that to you!!!

However, I had it done to to me during my PPL. It did the necessary .... my sphincter muscle thankfully still operational!!! I would not have believed, at the time, how disorienting and scary it was and I would rather have been shown it than to encounter cloud, thinking I could do it, when I was flying solo or, worse still, with a passenger!!

Cheers

Whirls

agust119

13th Apr 2008, 00:02

I did my training is a R22 a few years ago and I was amazed at the comments of fellow students in my theory class re IMC, no one thought it a big problem for a short time. “Just turn around and fly out or just punch through it, etc”. The reason, no one had ever been IMC, to be fair the instructor did advise not to do it, but without the conviction of someone who had been IMC.

I was amazed as I had some experience of unofficial flying in a full IFR fixed wing with a current IFR pilot. Autopilot off just before we flew into a solid bank of cloud I tried to hand back to the pilot, he said no you have a go. After a very short period of time I felt we where in a 45 degree bank and after about 3 minutes (I checked the clock before go IMC) we where 30 degrees of course as I was concentrating on the AH. The pilot took over with much relief from me. Thank God I did not need to do a 180 degree turn and the aircraft was in trim and the air reasonably stable!

I have never been IMC in a VFR machine nor will I because of that experience.

Every VFR pilot needs the experience of what IMC is like, the weird feeling of banking when you’re not so they never try IMC!

helicfii

13th Apr 2008, 00:04

All this begs the question- maybe there should not be a ppl for helicopters? :confused:

If people want to fly their own helicopter, they will just have to obtain a commercial license. It is not a poor man's sport, after all....

It would certainly reduce the number of accidents :ok:

blave

13th Apr 2008, 02:30

I flew this aircraft (N70144) a week before this accident, and sorta kinda knew the rated pilot on board, but not the CFI, other than meeting him as they were getting ready to take this trip.

I do not know this as fact, but my recollection of being told about this is that they were low on fuel where the accident occurred, and pretty much had to "get down soon". I would have to look at maps to see if this makes sense but- well, I'm not going to at this particular moment.

My comments:

1) yes, they had get-there-itis. They were under some pressure to deliver the aircraft "on time", for an airshow the next day (if my memory serves).

2) anyone here that's posted about this particular event doesn't have any knowledge of the accident other than the NTSB report, and therefore should keep his piehole shut rather than criticize the actions of the PIC. I firmly believe that he did NOT intentionally "go IMC" (no person of any pilot-compatible IQ would do so in a Robinson) and was caught out on low fuel and non-improving conditions. (In an area that he was not that familiar with, methinks.)

FWIW, I have learned a lesson here (again) that the ol' Monday morning quarterbacking (caveat: that may be a USA-unique term) is worth the paper it's printed on, and that NTSB reports don't always tell the whole story.

Did the PIC have poor judgement? I have opined so in my own head, knowing the "back story", but in the end none of us was in the cockpit and have no idea how those unfortunate fellows got into the situation that killed them.

Dave Blevins
San Jose, CA, USA

VeeAny

13th Apr 2008, 04:17

Personally I think there is definitely a case for some IMC exposure at the PPL level, to scare pilots away from it when they are allowed to fly on their own or with passengers.

A number of different ways this can be achieved seem to be
Illegal IMC in an unstabilised helicopter.
Ride Along as an observer with an IFR pilot in an IFR machine, perhaps even get a go.
A session in a simulator where the visuals are good enough to start off VMC and transition to IMC in flight.

I've asked around and a lot people have been taken into cloud at some point during training or testing, and found it valuable. Most examiners that do it, take the candidate 100' or so into cloud so as to minimise the risk to themselves and the aircraft.

I regularly take newly qualified(ish) FIs and CPLs along as co-pilot / observers to get them some exposure to IMC / IFR flying and to see more of the country they operate in, but generally its not possible for them to fly so perhaps of little training benefit from an IMC recovery standpoint.

A session in the sim is a great tool, but unless you are immersed enough in it to be convinced you are IMC, the stress is not there, the possibility of a fatal accident just isn't there so whilst valuable I believe its not got quite as much impact as a simulated IIMC exercise in the real thing.

I don't know what the right answer is, we can't expect the authority to condone things which are illegal, its their job not to. However it does always seems to fall to the guys in the industry to do their best, but if it goes wrong they'll get the bullet.

Perhaps VMC on top of a high layer of cloud and under foggles would make a decent compromise, keeps things legal and takes the candidate out of sight of the surface with just white beneath his feet and no visible horizon. Then the problem becomes the unpredictability of when you will get those conditions to fly in.

Cheers

GS

paco

13th Apr 2008, 05:35

It would certainly reduce the number of accidents

Helicfi

Sadly, there are plenty of commercial pilots who I wouldn't trust with a pram, and plenty of PPLs whom I would trust with anything. It's not a matter of qualifications but mental attitude! :(

Phil

Sgtfrog

13th Apr 2008, 09:25

Paco,
I agree - just because you hold a CPL does not make you any better/worse than a PPL.

I don't know the right answer but if any IMC "training" for PPL/CPL was approached with the same attitude as vortex ring perhaps it would get the message across? Maybe there should be a greater emphasis placed on Met training with a suitably qualified person...?

SF

helimutt

13th Apr 2008, 10:01

my advice is to pay for an hour in an fnptII. After say 20 minutes flying the circuit with full visuals, and getting used to the sensitivity of it all, have the viz brought down to say 2k or so and add some rain. fly around like that for 5 minutes then just climb into a nice grey environment. Funny how quickly you become immersed and how real it feels. I'm hoping this exact thing can be shown by Paco.

Whirly, if your instructor took you into IMC in a 300 or R22 then can you tell me why he thought it a good idea? Apart from the fact it was probably illegal even if he did have a valid IR.
Ask the one guy who does the CPL/FI flight test and see what his thoughts are on it all?
The thought that just climbing 100' into cloud? Again, how do you know you're only going to go 100' into it? My experience is that most people, never having experienced it, want to slow down once IMC and instinctively pull aft cyclic, losing airspeed and climbing. Great combination!!:{

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Whirlygig

13th Apr 2008, 10:08

Actually, I think he did have an IR! I can't ask him now as he's no longer at the school having moved on to the North Sea. Illegality to one side, I suspect the rationale was to demonstrate what it was like and to make sure I never did it. It worked.

This wasn't on a grey murky day but a very sunny day with only a few small clouds and it wasn't for very long!!! I don't know whether that mitigates it or not - just that those were the conditions.

Cheers

Whirls

Flingingwings

13th Apr 2008, 14:14

With thanks for the honesty so that we can all learn, AND not wishing my comments to be an aside/negative view on either of the posters

After a PPL and CPL (what's that? 15 hours foggles?) I thought I had this 'instrument flying' lark pretty nailed.

I know of an examiner in the UK who has recently flown IMC with PPL(H)s in unstabilised singles

Perhaps these two quotes show clearly what the CAA and flying schools should be targetting. And the extent of the 'problem' that pilots themselves are trying to address, of course acknowledging that only those interested and willing to learn will attend the evenings.

jellycopter

13th Apr 2008, 16:02

Helimutt

Thank you for self-moderating your earlier post.

In regard to your most recent post when you write; "My experience is that most people, never having experienced it, want to slow down once IMC and instinctively pull aft cyclic, losing airspeed and climbing."

My assumption therefore is that you must be an IRI(H) or IRE(H) yet your public profile doesn't include this. My logic for this assumption is that the only time a civilian instructor gets to fly IMC 'legally' with other pilots to gain the experience you quote is when conducting IR training. How much IR instructional experience do you have? Are your comments based on instructing on an R22 or similar as part of the JAR syllabus in VMC/foggle conditions or is your experience based on your own reactions to the first time you flew in actual conditions?

The reason for my questioning is that I don't know you personally, or your experience, as I suspect most on the forum don't. I would like to get an idea of your background so myself and others can make a judgement call on how seriously to take your comments and advice.

My own experience of having flown non-stabilised helicopters in the UK military in actual instrument conditions as a student, line-pilot, instructor and examiner is that there is no standard reaction - other than WHEN a non-instrument experienced pilots' scan breaks down in IMC, loss of control of the aircraft is inevitable.

JJ

helimutt

13th Apr 2008, 16:19

Not anywhere near IRI IRE, I wish!! Maybe one day. I was an instructor a while ago but no longer. Now I fly as a lowly co-pilot in the offshore environment.

I refer to my time spent in a box where people were having a go doing what I described earlier. Those people seemed to want to slow down for some reason so pulled aft cyclic, lost speed and opened up a new can of worms. So to speak.
I can also tell you I initially did a similar thing when doing the SPIFR flight training for the s76 in a full motion sim with all SAS and AP's off. Maybe it's just me? Might just have been my reaction.

I don't profess to know anything much about Instrument flying because i'm still at the bottom of the ladder, on a very steep curve, but I do know that IMC can and does continue to kill people without proper training and fully suitable aircraft (fixed wing included but we're not dealing with that side of things here)

Take my comments generally with a pinch of salt and my advice? Well it's just that.
I knew someone very well who died not too long ago due going IMC without an IR and a good knowledge on type.
I'm just someone who is sick of hearing of needless deaths and yes, I do get wound up sometimes and tend to type before thinking. For that I apologise.

DennisK

13th Apr 2008, 16:30

For Helicfii,

Ref your post having all CPL licences ... sadly the statistics wouldn't support that situation.

Accidents due to 'Spatial dis-orientation' and 'Controlled Flight into Terrain' for the period 1975 to 2004.

Total reported accidents assessed as due to the above. 54. 100 fatalities)
Accidents with professional pilot in command. 34.
Accidents with private pilot in command. 20.

Source:

CAA review of all private and public transport accidents using CAA Mandatory Occurrence Reporting System database. MORS.

Of particular interest is the fact that CFIT and Spatial Dis-Orientation accidents for private pilots in four year moving averages as follows.

Period 1993 to 1996 ...... 02
1997 to 2000 ...... 05
2001 to 2004 ...... 08

Pretty alarming trend especially considering the introduction of the JAA mandatory five hours instrument training/appreciation .... which is why we are planning the informal 'safety evenings.

Additionally there were a further 5 accidents for all pilots in subsequent years as yet undetermined.

For the definitive reading, purchase QinetiQ's paper from the TSO No 2007/03.

See many of you on Monday evening at Redhill.

Safe flying all,

Dennis Kenyon.

jellycopter

13th Apr 2008, 17:08

Helimutt

Thanks for your last post.

DennisK

Thanks for the four-year moving average stats - pretty alarming stuff. I'm glad I'm past the 'newby' stage.

My comment on the four-year moving average is that I think it's probably less to do with the JAR 5-hour simulated instrument requirement (much as I wish we could pin it on that) but probably more due to the recent ubiquitous employment of moving-map GPS systems. Even the lowliest helicopter now has a few-hundred quids worth of GPS system somewhere in the cockpit. What this does is give the pilot, whatever their experience, extra mental capacity and therefore extra confidence. The time spent thumbing your way along a map in deteriorating weather conditions are long gone. Instead, we all know where we are, all of the time.

A few years ago, when the weather turned, it all got too difficult and flights would get knocked on the head sooner rather than later. Now, there's the temptation to follow the low ground depicted on the Skymap and press-on long after it would have been prudent to turn round.

I love GPS. I use it daily and it makes my life massively easier. I just feel a little sorry for the new-generation of pilots that know nothing else. I'm convinced GPS is indirectly responsibe for several of the recent UK fatal press-on-itis accidents.

Also, we must not forget that helicopter ownership has doubled over the past decade and that alone skews the figures to make them seem less alarming.

Aplogies for the thread creep.

JJ

DennisK

13th Apr 2008, 20:33

Interesting point JJ,

In fact thinking about it ... the latest Honeywell 'Sentinel' GPS has the usual topo features, but additionally: local height warning - clour coded for height above, at and below aircraft height. Improper use of that will really aggravate the present pressonitus problem.

Overall I tend to agree with the ;more emphasis' on training to avoid the IMC situation. As I usually tell my pilots ... its the Irishman and the bog syndrome. I won't start from that position. (with aplogies to my super mates over there!)

Take care all,

Dennis K

A.Agincourt

13th Apr 2008, 21:53

Jellybelly said: I'm convinced GPS is indirectly responsibe for several of the recent UK fatal press-on-itis accidents.

Definitely in my opinion. GPS has in effect offered an alternative to correct planning and certainly in more than one incident this year, there have been lives lost. The AAIB results when available may very well bear this out.

Best Wishes

Wan Wei Luke

13th Apr 2008, 23:11

Surely, Use of GPS doesn't cause accidents. Press-on-itis and over-confidence while relying on it does.

tony 1969

14th Apr 2008, 09:12

Good discussion still, unfortunately wont be ale to make the safety evening tonight, looking forward to the next one.

Going back to the off airfield landings I would love to get the students to do more, unfortunately training flights need to be "licensed airfield to licensed airfield" so to show the most useful aspect of the heli i.e. if the weather turns crap land the thing I have to bend the rules !!!! surely this needs changing, apart from the fact alot of people are anti helicopter and I dont want complaints from the neighbours.

As far as the inadvertant IMC goes yes its press on itis but its all down to education. I make the point more thn once its a get you out of the crap that you definately should not be in technique.
Heres an interesting point....talking to a guy with an fixed wing IR PPL and doing his heli PPL says the heli appeals more as he would be willing to fly in worse weather in the heli than the fixed wing???!!!!:uhoh:
Have a good evening at redhill