PDA

View Full Version : Suspected heli crash, Gloucestershire (Nov 2008)


cormac
1st Nov 2008, 13:41
Just caught the tail end of an item on BBC news 24 that a civilian heli , I think he said a Gazelle had come down in Gloucester hopefully no fatalities thoughts to those involved

G-CPTN
1st Nov 2008, 13:44
A helicopter has crashed at a farm near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, police have said.
It came down at about 1200 GMT at Langley Hill Farm near Winchcombe.
The flight path over the area has been closed. There is no confirmed news on any injuries at present.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch said it had been informed of the crash.
BBC NEWS | England | Gloucestershire | Helicopter crashes on farm land (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/7703961.stm)

The late XV105
1st Nov 2008, 14:18
I took this photo of Winchcombe on a flight earlier in the year because I have friends whose houses are within it.

I am pretty sure Langley Farm is the portion I have highlighted.

<Snip> - Photo removed! Thanks ppheli - I stand corrected. Langley Farm was just out of shot in fact.

spannerless
1st Nov 2008, 14:27
Any snippets guy's un girls

From BBC

A helicopter has crashed at a farm near Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, police have said.

It came down at about 1200 GMT at Langley Hill Farm near Winchcombe.

The flight path over the area has been closed. There is no confirmed news on any injuries at present.

The Air Accident Investigation Branch said it had been informed of the crash.

theavionicsbloke
1st Nov 2008, 15:48
Three killed! possibly more

Yet another sad day in aviation...

RIP

Helicopter Crashes Near Cheltenham In Gloucestershire Kills Three People | UK News | Sky News (http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Helicopter-Crashes-Near-Cheltenham-In-Gloucestershire-Kills-Three-People/Article/200811115139908?lpos=UK_News_First_UK_News_Article_Teaser_Re gion_0&lid=ARTICLE_15139908_Helicopter_Crashes_Near_Cheltenham_In_G loucestershire_Kills_Three_People)

One9iner
1st Nov 2008, 16:02
Just seen the news on the BBC regarding the 3 deaths .. All our thoughts with them & their friends and family..

ppheli
1st Nov 2008, 16:39
XV105, Langley Farm is the top edge of your pic, just left of centre AFAIK. Friends of mine used to live in Langley, the main house after which the farm (and the road they are both on) is named. Check Google Maps (http://maps.google.com) and Langley Road runs due west from the town, roughly parallel and north of the B4632 Cheltenham Road.

ivakontrol
1st Nov 2008, 16:50
The reports include a witness who described the weather at the time as misty................

md 600 driver
1st Nov 2008, 17:08
the owners of the helicopter dont live there at langley or near there

Phil Brockwell
1st Nov 2008, 17:25
Can anyone give any airframe info, even colour would help.

Phil

BoeingMEL
1st Nov 2008, 17:32
..I drove through the about an hour before the accident. Wasn't paying too much attention to the weather (and of course it could have deteriorated very substantially between 11.oo and 12.00)... but it seemed calm and benign I would guess 5k+ and clear of cloud below about 1500' Very sad. bm

md 600 driver
1st Nov 2008, 17:34
phil why ? are you a journo

Phil Brockwell
1st Nov 2008, 18:05
MD600, yeah, as a leading BBC journalist the most important thing is the colour - engage brain, look at my previous posts and if you know the answer, tell me, it's important.

It's OK, now have the information I needed.

Freefall77
1st Nov 2008, 18:13
Pictures of heli can be seen here;


Three dead after helicopter crashes into field in heavy mist | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1082296/Three-dead-helicopter-crashes-field-heavy-mist.html)

helimarshaller
1st Nov 2008, 18:34
Phil,

Can anyone give any airframe info, even colour would help.
Try this link. Some journo has dug up some info.

Three die in helicopter crash - Yahoo! News UK (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081101/tuk-three-die-in-helicopter-crash-6323e80.html)

Helimarshaller

Phil Brockwell
1st Nov 2008, 18:45
Helimarshaller - appreciate it, thanks

md 600 driver
1st Nov 2008, 18:46
they are correct it is a ex military gazelle

Fake Sealion
1st Nov 2008, 18:55
Timesonline reports the registration of the Gazelle concerned

md 600 driver
1st Nov 2008, 19:03
at least they got it correct this time

kneedwondean
1st Nov 2008, 20:06
I was teaching in that area today, around 1200 as well. Its been a strange day, over the ridge towards Kemble I could barely get 1100ft AGL, and it was real bumpy. Not too windy, between 12 and 18kts Northerly. But so bumpy, my student really struggled so we cut it short.

Thoughts with the families

agowar1
1st Nov 2008, 22:52
any confirmations of a reg no. yet?

smarthawke
1st Nov 2008, 22:53
3 people in an ex-military Gazelle?

flyingman-of-kent
1st Nov 2008, 23:20
To agowar - if you read earlier replies on this thread you would find that the answer to your question was already there in one of the links.

overfly
1st Nov 2008, 23:20
agowar1, it's a short thread, I commend you to read it, especially post #18

mini
1st Nov 2008, 23:22
RIP to those lost and deepest sympathy to those left behind.

agowar1
1st Nov 2008, 23:39
overfly - have looked at the Timesonline link and cant find evidence of a registration. would it not be easier to just tell me if you know?

Tiger_mate
1st Nov 2008, 23:49
You have to look for a second, older report on the Times online report:

However it is public knowledge, including the name of at least one on board. I will go so far as: Reported as G-CBXT; seen here on a better day.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/GImages/G-CBXT001.jpg
[CAA Database Photograph.]
Published photographs of the accident scene suggest that it remained in this colour scheme. A sad day.

100brian
2nd Nov 2008, 01:04
AGOWAR1
I don't think you have read any of the threads, If you read the link from Freefall77 (thread 14) you would have seen the reg number.

lanson01
2nd Nov 2008, 02:55
Just looking at the posts after being informed earlier of the news as many are in the dark over what has happened and dont really want any speculation to go in the wrong direction as sometimes happens in these circumstances, I know both the owners of this A/C and have flown with both pilots. One owner who is registered as the keeper where the A/C is based is two miles from my house. The Pilot that was flying was Rick Paskey and had either his son with him or another male and a female family friend.

He visited the second owners house this morning at around 08:30 GMT and took off for a private site in Stratford upon Avon and after lifting from there was flying to Falcon Air at Yeovilton where the maintenance is done and crashed on the hillside of Langley Farm near Winchcombe.

We dont know if it his son or another male onboard as yet but are all deeply saddened by the loss. Rick was a good pilot and learnt alongside myself at Coventry Helicopter Centre before it went into liquidation in 2001.

Our thoughts and blessings go out to Ricks wife and family that he has left behind and also of those onboard.

helimutt
2nd Nov 2008, 07:20
Whatever the cause, RIP to those onboard.

Not speculating here but hoping it wasn't yet another 'human factor' as the cause. Too many lives being wasted!:sad:

scooter boy
2nd Nov 2008, 07:45
What a tragic loss of life - sincere condolences to all concerned.

Although it is easy to jump to conclusions the information above would appear to suggest that this was a CFIT accident. I was flying a bit further Southwest yesterday before and after the accident and the air was far from smooth, perhaps turbulence in cloud may have also been a contributing factor. All the more tragic if this was the case since routing to the West via Glouocester would most likely have been free of mist shrouded hilltops.

Did this gazelle have an autopilot or stability augmentation system of any sort?
Anyone know if there was any kind of terrain avoidance kit fitted, even a colour moving map GPS with terrain?

RIP

Scooter Boy

wg13_dummy
2nd Nov 2008, 09:20
Not speculating??

The previous two posters (especially you, scooter boy) seem to have wrapped up the board of inquiry!

Don't be surprised it the press quote you and potentially give the family more stress at this time. :*


Knock off the armchair accident investigations eh?

ChippyChop
2nd Nov 2008, 10:25
Without jumping to any conclusions. I would like to make the following comment based on recently attending the safety briefing at Wycombe and the number of these types of incidents that happen.

A key topic at the briefing was why us rotary guys (and girls, lets just call it guys and include the girls in that) don't learn from the mistakes of the fixed wing guys. One of the things that favours fixed wing flyers is that they have to fly from an airfield. If the weather did have a part to play in this crash, for the fixed winger, he is going to have to get out of the airfield and from his arrival to his departure he is going to have to talk to many people, which gives him the opportunity to gather information about whether it is safe to fly. There are also minimum weather conditions that prohibit his departure.

On the other hand, us rotary guys take off from anywhere, might not talk to a soul before lifting (I hope not) and maybe not have enough weather info at our disposal.

Quite a few people I have flown with are surprised that I can lift off from my backyard without informing anyone.

This is only a suggestion, and I turn my cheek openly towards the pprune bashers, PPL's who fly from private sites be required to file a flight plan, say two hours prior to lifting. The CAA can then make a recommendation about the weather conditions or any other issue that might impact the flight. I underline recommendation as I'm sure the CAA will not want to open itself to any liability and the recommendation/flight plan approval, clearly states it is the captain's decision and no liabilty is accepted.

At least this way the pilot is going to have some input from someone else, whether he chooses to listen or not, is his decision, but it might help save some lives.

Cheers
Chippy

Bravo73
2nd Nov 2008, 10:37
ChippyChop,

Rather than confuse the issue here, maybe you should start another thread with your suggestion?

nigelh
2nd Nov 2008, 11:41
If you get the caa in it will probably be quicker to drive by the time you have filled in all the new forms they will require.:eek: We are so lucky in this country to have the ability to take off and fly from one end to the other without HAVING to speak to anybody at any time and it would be a sad day that we lose that . Next stop no off airport landings , no vfr etc etc I still believe we need affordable certified autopilots for small helicopters and the ability to go imc safely , if inadvertently entered . Fixed wing seem far better served with their imc ratings . Also in this day and age why is it STILL impossible to get accurate actual weather for areas away from airports ??
Very sad if it is in fact weather related once again . RIP

TRC
2nd Nov 2008, 12:16
....why is it STILL impossible to get accurate actual weather for areas away from airports ??

Look at this (http://www.wunderground.com) website.

It's a world-wide weather site. You can search by the town or airport that you are interested in. But, the great thing about it is the list of on-line personal weather stations that display actual weather continuously.

This (http://www.wunderground.com/wundermap/?lat=51.90000153&lon=-2.17000008&zoom=10) view is of Gloucestershire. There is an on-line weather station at Bishops Cleeve - about three miles west of the crash site at Winchcombe. Click on the numbered circles for the weather.

Granted, it's not a certified met-man running it, but the information available gives a pretty good indication of the actual conditions locally.

Have a look and see what you think.

Interesting to see that Staverton isn't too far from Winchcombe, they should know the local conditions, shouldn't they?

206Fan
2nd Nov 2008, 12:52
RIP to whom was lost, very sad..:(

2nd Nov 2008, 13:11
Chippychop - the problem is not access to the weather it is the decisions that pilots make about what they perceive to be their chances of success in the prevailing met conditions.

The really big difference between FW and RW is that we can go lower and slower which encourages people to push on when they should turn back or land.

How many PPLHs have to smear theselves across the landscape when pushing on in poor weather (and I am not saying that this happened in this tragic accident) before people recognise their own limitations? You wouldn't drive down a motorway in fog and rain at 100mph but lots of private helos have crashed at similar speeds in similar weather conditions.

iainms
2nd Nov 2008, 13:18
A very sad day, RIP for our friends.

HeliEng
2nd Nov 2008, 13:28
Just seen this update on Times Online: Three killed in air crash - Times Online (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5062974.ece)

Eyewitnesses are always a little tenuous with their information, the aircraft has now miraculously had a mid-air paint job, and is yellow!!! Where do they find these people, surprised she hasn't told the press she is an "Aviation Expert".

This is yet another sad day for aviation, and the rotary world especially.


I don't agree with any speculation in a public domain such as this, especially as we all know that the press frequent these parts and will mercilessly quote people's posts. We all have ideas in our heads as to what MAY have happened, and perhaps in our heads is where they should stay.

My thoughts are with the families of those involved.

helimutt
2nd Nov 2008, 15:43
It's all very well being armchair experts, but come on, not speculating on this one, how many accidents have we seen in recent years where a heli has flown into the ground, killing all onboard, due to combinations of inexperience, weather, pressonitis or other.

Having attended the Safety evening last week at Leeds, and looking at the rather sobering pictures of one of Robinsons finest smeared across the landscape due weather related crash. It's really upsetting hearing of more crashes so soon after, no matter the cause. In a perfect world there would be no crashes. In a nearly perfect world, maybe more people would question whether it was sensible to fly, for whatever reason, be it wx issues or pressures.

biggles99
2nd Nov 2008, 16:05
Crab - not sure it's fair to imply that accidents are limited to PPLs and Private Helicopters.

Flying carries a risk, as does everything else we do, and neither PPLs nor CPLs are immune from this.

For my part, I'd like to see it be far more acceptable to take a safety pilot with you on trips, whoever you are and whereever you go.

How many of you CPL types would volunteer your time to sit, FOC, next to a PPL when he is flying his helicopter?

If there's enough interest, I'll get it sorted.

Big Ls.

Hughes500
2nd Nov 2008, 17:11
Biggles99

Dont mind donating some of my time for free, but please bear in mind a lot of us are self employed. Putting a safety pilot in is like buying insurance, expensive when nothing goes wrong and awfully cheap when something does !

VeeAny
2nd Nov 2008, 17:20
Biggles

The fly with a friend thing is something we are working on as part of the helicopter safety initiative, it is however a bit more complicated than it initally sounds.

It got discussed a lot on Thursday last at Leeds. I'll add something to the Informal heli nights thread soon rather than discussing it here or feel free to PM me.

If they do ever see this thread I offer my condolences to the families of the people killed in the Gazelle.

Gary

scooter boy
2nd Nov 2008, 22:32
wg13 dummy,

Loss of life is always a tragedy and I sincerely feel for the families of all concerned.

Since I posted there have been several eyewitness reports quoted in the press supporting a CFIT mechanism for the accident.

In an anonymous forum it is imperative that we preserve the right to express opinion in an inoffensive way in order to prevent further tragedy.

I do not believe I acted offensively.

SB

nigelh
2nd Nov 2008, 22:44
I think 2 pilots , especially if they dont know each other well and each others abilities is more dangerous than 1 . I once went with somebody as a safety pilot many years ago and was not really certain of their skill level .....with the added confidence of having a cpl and cfi ( albeit low hrs )next to them , they tried for an approach into a site that they would not have done alone . Once they were in a rapid descent with the low rotor horn going and the t/r beginning to lose effect they then handed control over to me :eek: IF it had been a paid job i would have been more ascertive and intervened earlier but as a passenger in their helicopter i felt i had to wait . Never again... also not sure if you can be pic in wrong seat if you are not a cfi . Also taking control when you are in an unusual attitude is hard enough when you are on the side you are used to but more difficult from the co pilot side . Pilots have to take responsibility for themselves and if they are not competent solo they should go back into training or be failed simple as that . If you are talking about helping them fly in bad weather then you should be pic and demonstrate the safe way of going through the bad weather ie which side of high ground to fly on , exit routes etc and the way and right time to turn around or land . I just know somebody is going to say you shouldnt be flying in bad weather but the learning curve is what is bad but doable and what is a NO . This should be part of the training but sadly we are fixated with practicing autos etc ( how many engine failures are there compared to cfit ???? and are missing the real point . Until we target this lack of training i cant see any reason for the stats to change . It will however take somebody far more experienced and respected than me to make that happen .

BoeingMEL
3rd Nov 2008, 08:05
Being accompanied by a safety-pilot appears to have much to commend it.. but there are many ifs and buts. To mention just one case (of many), read the AAIB report into the fatal Cherokee at Blackpool last year. A real tragedy.

I do concede however that, properly thought out, a formal/legal safety-pilot policy could well be a very good thing. Rgds bm :rolleyes:

VeeAny
3rd Nov 2008, 08:13
BoeingMEL

Too true.

GS

henrymonster
3rd Nov 2008, 08:31
I have held a ppl for 10 years and during that time i have always taken a safety pilot. there are two good reason for me appart from the obvious safety one. my insurance was greatly reduced by stating that i would be accompanied by a pilot with a minimun 1000hrs cpl, and i have made alot of great friends. When i think of it i know it is money well spent even in these harder times.

rogerk
3rd Nov 2008, 09:03
Also applies to the AAC.
I lost a great friend in a Scout accident in Northern Ireland in the 70's.
Flying on his own - low level (had to) - middle of the night (returning from ops) - flew into a hill side.
Second Pilot/Observer ?? Not deemed necessary !!
I had been his "second seat" many times over a three year posting in Germany and it was always better to have four eyes rather than two - Luftwaffe Starfighters being favourite and sudden "claggy" weather coming a close second !!

Ding Dong
3rd Nov 2008, 09:07
A very sad event and a sad loss ....

The thread is now on a different tack and a new one may need to be started .. However, a safety pilot on Private flights is not the answer here. You can never have to much information on weather on departure and on your arrival destination .... Ultimately its up to P1

Be safe

rogerk
3rd Nov 2008, 09:14
Agree with that DingDong

I first met “Prudence” in the crew room of 651 Squadron in Verden just before Christmas 1969.

She was dressed in black stockings, suspender belt, six inch stilettos and very little else.

As a flight safety poster she conveyed a simple message

“Fly with Prudence”

Bronx
3rd Nov 2008, 09:33
Can we take it from the posts so far that the accident investigators have already excluded mechanical failure or pilot incapacitation as possible causes? :confused:

B.

scooter boy
3rd Nov 2008, 09:52
Hi Bronx,
Mechanical failure and pilot incapacitation have not been ruled out. There is an ongoing AAIB investigation into this tragic accident which when published will supercede any speculation thus far.

SB

henrymonster
3rd Nov 2008, 10:14
I agree with others this has now taken a different tack. (Partly my fault) For whatever reason there has been a tragic accident and my condolences goes to the family of the deceased.
R.I.P

a4fly
3rd Nov 2008, 14:51
smarthawke says:

3 people in an ex-military Gazelle ?

I wonder if this accident will be a watershed for such aircraft operating on a Permit ?

rogerk
3rd Nov 2008, 14:59
a4fly

Interesting point.

How "Ex Military" are these Gazelles ??

Number of airframe/engine hours ??

Why are they "ex" ?? too knackered for a military role ??

ericferret
3rd Nov 2008, 16:07
I would say that by civilian standards the aircraft are far from "knackered". The aircraft in question had about 9800 hours (from G-INFO). Some of the ex mil aircraft have been sold off with as little as 2500 hours a great waste of tax payers money. Compare this with the Pumas and S61 operating public transport on the north sea with over 30,000 hours on the clock.

The Gazelle is interesting in that the CAA deemed it inelligible for a C of A when previous ex military light helicopters have been accepted. Bell 47(Sioux), Hiller 12E, Allouette 2.

Amongst other things I believe the engine variant is not civil certified.
Many people believe that the aircraft were restricted to prevent them having an effect on the sales of new civil helicopters. A great shame if true as this is a fine aircraft.

Coconutty
3rd Nov 2008, 17:29
As usual there will be speculation about the actual cause, which may or may not ever be known, and which will continue at least until the AAIB report is published.

Getting back on topic :

The name of the pilot has been officially released, and as suggested earlier is one of the co-owners, Roderick ( Rick ) Paskey.

My personal condolences to his family and those of his passengers, who not only have to deal with their tragic losses, but also with the rumour and speculation that is almost inevitable these days, both within forums such as these, and from the media.

I was not privileged to have known Rick personally, other than through a close family friend, and through having seen the striking colour scheme flying overhead a few times.

I have passed on the the messages of sympathy posted here to Rick's wife Carol, who will let me have details of funeral arrangements when they are known. They will then be posted here.

Meanwhile, Rest in Peace.

Coconutty

CharlieRN
4th Nov 2008, 00:23
I have known Rick personally for 17 years and have enjoyed flying with him on several occasions. Having flown in a number of Royal Navy helo's I have to say that Rick always filled me with admiration and confidence. His skill and attention to safety was first class in every way.
As usual after such incidents there will be speculation from many quarters, some helpful and others not so helpful. Due to the extensive damage sustained following the impact and subsequent prolonged fire on board, it might be that we shall never know the real cause for the incident. But what ever the reason, be it CFIT, instrument or mechanical failure, the fact remains that a tragic accident occured which has devastated the lives of three families. :sad: RIP

tacr2man
4th Nov 2008, 08:27
I have no comment to make on the main topic of this thread, other than condolences .



On the safety pilot issue, 1. some are only two seats
2. I went along as second pilot(safety pilot) with a friend, I expressed great concern in some deteriorating weather we encountered , and insisted we land . He took such exception to this "interference" in front of his friends that he is now an ex friend

griffothefog
4th Nov 2008, 11:05
tacr2man,

Sounds like yer ex pal was on a big ego trip... Just what we need in our delicate aviation community. I applaude your tactful use of CRM (calculated risk management) :ok: Friends like that you don't need....

ShyTorque
5th Nov 2008, 13:56
Very sad to hear this.

Thought the RAF number seemed very familiar; I flew the airframe in question on many occasions during my time on the QHI course at CFS and instructing at 1 Sqn at Shawbury, albeit some 24 years ago.

Bertie Thruster
5th Nov 2008, 22:35
Also very sad about all this.

(Shy.....same here (QHI, etc)...my last trip in that airframe, Sept 26 1990.

ragman20
8th Nov 2008, 23:42
so any outcome yet, was it fog? as earlier suggested, poor vis and a bad call on the day by the pilot, unfortunately it will come out as that by what has been said

Coconutty
9th Nov 2008, 07:31
Ragman,

Welcome to 'prune.

As you appear to be relatively new here I guess you might not realise that the findings of the AAIB will be published in due course after a very thorough examination of all the known facts.

This may take many months or even over a year.
( Although an Interim report may be published sooner than that with any initial findings. )

It is only 8 days since this unfortunate incident, and it has not yet been possible to even formally identify some of those on board,
let alone determine the cause.

unfortunately it will come out as that by what has been said

Hmmm - Fortunately the AAIB findings will not "come out" as a result of the comments on here !

Coconutty

bvgs
10th Nov 2008, 01:02
If it was operating on a permit to fly, can you have 3 people on board? Thought it was only meant to be essential people ie 2. Either way condollences to familliesand friends.

FairWeatherFlyer
10th Nov 2008, 22:20
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP733.PDF

ragman20
11th Nov 2008, 18:38
Thanks Coconutty,
someone has suggested the heli is on a permit to fly only? if so why do pilots put themselves in this position of carrying people? was this a charter flight with fog in the area, it doesnt read too good for those left on the ground,

ivakontrol
11th Nov 2008, 20:58
The only mention of not carrying passengers with a Permit to Fly is a charity flight. See the link provided by FWF

ragman20
11th Nov 2008, 21:09
Cheers got it now

smarthawke
11th Nov 2008, 21:53
My understanding of the number of people inhabiting an ex-military Gazelle was that it is normally only allowed to fly two up - back seaters could only be carried if they were 'ground crew'. Presume that was the case in this tragic case.

Not just a blanket number of max people for a 'Permit' aircraft.

ragman20
11th Nov 2008, 22:12
yes me also smarthawke, maybe its changed but I doubt it

oldbeefer
12th Nov 2008, 09:30
Just found this thread - very sad for all involved. First flew that airframe in '76, and last flew it in '96.

Coconutty
12th Nov 2008, 13:50
As promised here are the service details for Roderick Paskey,
( also known as Rick or Rod by friends and business acquaintances ),
which his partner Carol has asked be circulated to those who knew him.

All are welcome to attend the service, burial and / or reception.

Friday 21st November @ 1100 Hrs - Fazeley Parish Church
St. Paul's Church
Coleshill Street
Fazeley
Staffordshire
B78 3RQ

Followed by burial at Sutton New Hall Cemetery @ 1230 Hrs
Lindridge Road
Sutton Coldfield
West Midlands
B75 7HX

A Reception will then be held at Drayton Manor Park.

Anyone not wishing to attend the service or burial, are welcome to attend the Reception,
where they will be joined by family and friends after the internment.

Family flowers only please, donations in lieu to Cancer Research after the service,
or via Co-Op Funeral Service, Tamworth.

Coconutty

k12479
12th Nov 2008, 18:46
Ragman, it hasn't changed - the restrictions are written in the AAN for each aircraft. See here:

http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/28593/28593000000.pdf

md 600 driver
12th Nov 2008, 21:32
k12479

but this is only the caa permit to test not the permit to fly

Coconutty
13th Nov 2008, 07:35
Details of the passengers have now been released.

They were Lawrence Bailey and Danielle Fleming.

Condolences and sympathy to the families of all involved.

Coconut

k12479
13th Nov 2008, 17:51
MD 600,

This one? - http://www.caa.co.uk/aandocs/28593/28593000100.pdf

md 600 driver
13th Nov 2008, 18:23
Thats the aan i looked for one of my old permits for the gazelle and they must have all been binned i have one getting a new permit to fly shortly i will post what it says on the permit

steve

k12479
13th Nov 2008, 19:23
MD, Am I right in thinking that the AAN is a bit like a Type Certificate for non-certified aircraft, with the issuing of a Permit to Fly being subject to having one (and obviously complying with it)?

md 600 driver
14th Nov 2008, 07:24
the pilot needs to comply with the permit to fly certificate which will be with the aircraft certificate papers in the POH or tech log

i doubt if any pilots or even owners will have ever seen the permit to test or the aan these are usually looked after by the maintence co and test pilot

also there has been slight changes to the permit to fly paperwork over the years and the permit to fly certificate has changed . looking at old paperwork like this could give you the wrong information i have old copies of the certificate to fly for gazelle and they are all different

Coconutty
18th Nov 2009, 13:36
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Gazelle%20HT.MK3,%20G-CBXT%2010-09.pdf

Worth a read, with a reminder to all about declaring medical conditions.

Although it seems that the cause of the incident was not related to any medical condition, failing to declare may have invalidated any insurance :bored:

Coconutty

Helinut
18th Nov 2009, 22:25
The other aspect worth a reminder is the operation of the aircraft under a Permit rather than a C of A. As the AAIB report points out, carriage of the passengers who were in the aircraft was outside the terms of the permit. I would think that the insurance company concerned will be able to wiggle out completely from any payout.

I have often wondered whether the people who fly in Permit helicopters are aware of the limitations. I suspect frequently not. It is all fine until some terrible incident like this happens.

chopjock
19th Nov 2009, 09:24
The other aspect worth a reminder is the operation of the aircraft under a Permit rather than a C of A. As the AAIB report points out, carriage of the passengers who were in the aircraft was outside the terms of the permit. I would think that the insurance company concerned will be able to wiggle out completely from any payout.I don't think the AAIB apportions blame, so I suggest they were not saying that. The AAIB noted that the maintenance organisation had enough crew to ground handle the aircraft? so what, maybe the owner wanted to handle it himself, until in the hangar, what's wrong with that?
It is after all, at the discretion of the pilot to take ground crew or not, isn't it?
Therefore "crew" is open to interpretation.
The insurance company would have to prove a violation was made in order to not pay out. Besides, what a ridiculous rule anyway, apparently a permit to fly aircraft is considered safe enough for crew in the back, but not for pax?:ugh:

Who thinks these rules up? someone against aviation perhaps?:rolleyes:

Helinut
19th Nov 2009, 10:08
Chopjock,

We'll have to differ about our interpretation of what the AAIB said and its effect. As I read the report, it spelt out the limitation over passengers from the Permit, and then stated evidence that the people in the aircraft other than the pilot could not have been one of the classes of "permitted" people. It did not draw the conclusion, but that is just a formality and some conclusions are unavoidable.

However, I agree with what you say about the stupidity of the limitation. Just typical of the restrictive regime we operate under. These days the UK CAA have been pretty much squeezed out of policy making by EASA. But where they do still have an input, you can pretty much guarantee it will be more restrictive and complicated than anything anyone else could think of.

As I was told many years ago, the first few active words of the ANO says it all about the mindset of the regulator:

"An aircraft shall not fly........."

Mars
19th Nov 2009, 10:25
chopjock,

Which part of this is unclear:The passengers had no flying qualifications and the helicopter was en-route to a maintenance facility where there were sufficient qualified engineering staff to assist with the handling of the helicopter. The passengers were thus not required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base and should not therefore have been on board.

chopjock
19th Nov 2009, 10:41
Which part of this is unclear: Quote:
The passengers had no flying qualifications and the helicopter was en-route to a maintenance facility where there were sufficient qualified engineering staff to assist with the handling of the helicopter. The passengers were thus not required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base and should not therefore have been on board. Like I said, The AAIB do not apportion blame. The above, in my view is an opinion. Since when do you need to be a qualified engineer to push a helicopter around? The pilot may have thought that his "crew" where required, exactly for this purpose. Maybe the pilot did not think to ask the maintenance organisation how many spare hands they have? or if they have ground handling wheels etc?

Does the restriction to the permit state the ground crew in the back have to be qualified?:)

Gazelle2
6th Mar 2013, 08:28
I am really late to this thread (nearly five years) but I just found the story as I was researching the current whereabouts of the finest helicopter I ever flew, XW898.
From April 1973 through September 1976 I was posted to RAF Ternhill as the helicopter member of the USAF/RAF Exchange Program. I was a USAF Captain at the time. I did the Central Flying School (H) course on the Whirlwind and taught as a B2/B1 instructor on #2 Squadron for a year. At the end of that year the Gazelle had replaced the Whirlwind as the tutorial helicopter at CFS(H). Although the #2 Squadron position that was the normal place for the USAF exchange instructor to do his whole three year tour, I was invited to check out in the Gazelle and join the tutorial staff of #1 Squadron. I remained on #1 Squadron for the rest of my tour and achieved my A2 rating with about a year to go.
In 1974, while I was still flying the Whirlwind on #2 Squadron, the Air Staff invited CFS(H) to form a helicopter formation demonstration team. That team flew an abbreviated airshow schedule that year and became the Gazelles. I joined #1 Squadron at the end of the 1974 display season for the Gazelles. As soon as the Air Staff announced that the had approved the Gazelles for a full display season for 1975 I was invited to try out for the team. I was lucky enough to be selected to fly the #2 (right wing) slot for that season. During the work up for the 1975 season, all four team members flew as many of the Ternhill Gazelle aircraft as we could and were allowed to choose the bird we wanted to fly as our permanent display aircraft. I did not hesitate to choose XW898 as my partner.

Our first display of the 1975 season was the opening display for both days of the Paris Air Show and it only got better from there. As it happened, I was supposed to return to the USAF before the start of the 1976 Gazelle display season but the RAF asked me if I would stay on for a second season if they could get it approved by the USAF. I told them I would love to stay, providing I would be able to keep my good friend, XW898 as my steed.
In doing my research for the whereabouts of my favorite Gazelle helicopter, I was excited to learn that, although it had been assigned the civilian designation of G-CBXT when it left the RAF, the new owner kept the CFS paint scheme and the XW898 number on the tail. That joy turned to great sadness when I learned of the tragic crash in November 2008 that took the lives of three people and destroyed a mechanical piece of art. I am just glad that I got share 2 of the 23 years that XW898 flew for the Royal Air Force. It was a real privilege.

Thomas coupling
6th Mar 2013, 16:25
It's not Bomber Brown is it?

RN Sharks Helicopter Formation Display Team (http://www.faaaa.asn.au/history/sharks_helicopter_team.htm)

:D

Adroight
6th Mar 2013, 17:49
Not unless the was an Australian serving as a Captain in the USAF on exchange to the RAF flying with the RN.

Thomas coupling
6th Mar 2013, 18:14
Where was Trevor Reick from then?

Adroight
7th Mar 2013, 05:19
From the Fleet Air Arm of Australia article:

Three Australian couples attended the weekend - Jeff and Wendy Konemann from Sydney [standing left in group picture], Trevor and Judy Rieck [standing centre] who moved to London four years ago, and Bomber and Meryl Brown from Perth [at right]. Trevor, with the little help from three RNers, organised the reunion.

Gazelle2
7th Mar 2013, 21:49
No, it is Phil Stinson, now Lt. Col. USAF (Ret). I had nothing to do with the Sharks but I am connected by history.

Flt. Lt. Rob Howley was the Gazelles narrator for the 1975 season and was Gazelle Lead for the 1976 season. After I came back to the States, Rob was posted to Culdrose for an exchange tour with the Royal Navy. While there, he was selected to lead the Sharks for the 1977 season. While I was flying the UH-1H simulator at Fort Rucker, Alabama, I received a telegram from my former Station Commander at RAF Tern Hill, Group Captain David Toon. He advised me that Rob and at least two others had been killed in a mid-air collision while practicing for the 1977 Sharks display season. That is probably the worst telegram I have ever received as Rob Howley was more than just a formation leader to me, he was a close and dear friend.

Gazelle2
7th Mar 2013, 22:11
Reference my previous posts concerning my connection to G-CBXT when she was RAF Gazelle XW898, callsign Golf.

This photo was taken at RAF Church Fenton on July 4, 1976 just before we took off to fly an airshow there. In honor of the 200th birthday of the USA, the ground crew took it upon themselves to add my name and a few other decals to the side of the bird.


https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-s1CLyh3Mwsk/UTkb2_7HIMI/AAAAAAAAAJE/oEjHdVPubrs/w606-h428-o-k/July_4_1976_2_Crop.jpg