Why CPL's should work for free!

[Basher577]

Right I'm going to stick my head well and truly above the parapet on this one.

Can anyone tell me why ours is the only industry where people think we should work for the pure pleasure of flying?
I constantly see posts referring to this subject, usually in relation to improving flight safety for the PPL fraternity.
I have yet to have my car fixed free of charge or had an electrician fit a fire detection system to my house, even though my families safety would be increased immeasurably.
I would never dream of asking any tradesman to do work for free.

If you can afford an helicopter you probably have a lot more money than your run of the mill CPL.

If you feel you are not competent to fly an aircraft solo then don't (and I salute you for realizing your limitations).

If you have a friend that has nothing better to do and happens to be an experienced pilot, do not abuse your friendship as you are a very lucky person.

Flight safety is everyone's concern but please do not demean yourself or my profession by asking for freebies, as refusal often offends.

I will gladly offer my services for free the day the VW garage say my next service is free because it gives them a nice warm feeling that I will safe next time I go down the M1.

OK that's my rant over I have donned my flack jacket, so fill your boots.

And safe flying!

[nigelh]

I totally agree and when i changed from a 206 to the 350 i had 3 to 4 days where i felt safer with a pilot with me . I know the reply i would have had if i had asked for it to be free !!!! There is no such thing as a free lunch .

[Heliringer]

New Pilots see it as a way of building hours to get themselves a job. There is no shortage of new low time pilots willing to do this. It's called volunteering over here in Australia. The CPL arrives volunteers his/her time until one of the more experienced pilots moves on and then they get a paying postion. Pay for a new pilot here is about 25K if they are lucky.


I have always been paid to fly but there are so many low hour pilots dreaming about becoming a Helicopter pilot that this will never stop.

In saying that if it was a good mate needing a hand in a non revenue situation I would help them out for free. If the machine was making money then I would expect my daily rate and some beers.:ok:

[nigelh]

I think Basher was referring mainly to safety pilots and with the best will in the world i still needed a safety pilot when i had just got my cpl !!! I think an experienced ppl would be a lot more use for safety than a new cpl ......

[RotaryRat]

Supply and demand unfortunately, too many green pilots ready to sacrifice themselves for the almighty hour....

Just like anything else worth doing for a living.. i.e motor racing, same thing.. green drivers - ain't worth s**t, Lewis Hamilton - seven figures please.

[VeeAny]

This can of worms is one of the reasons we haven't just jumped in and tried to buddy people up as part of the helicopter safety initiative.

It was suggested earlier in the year by one of the guys who sets up the safety evenings, his suggestion related to the buddying up of inexperienced pilots on the sort of two pairs of eyes are better than one basis, the discussion moved one evening to buddying up CPLs and FIs with PPLs. It became apparent quite quickly that


If we buddy up inexperienced ppls we may make matters worse for the reasons already stated by Nigelh on the Cheltenham Gazelle crash thread.
If we buddy up PPLS with low time CPLS we may make matters worse, as one may defer to the other who has only a slightly greater level of experience.
It brought with it a whole host of insurance implications (as mentioned by Heather at the Leeds evening).
How may schools would be happy with it ? So it may only benefit private owners who if they can afford a helicopter can afford a safety pilot (if they can't the helicopter probably won't stay very long).


Anyone at the Leeds evening last week may have heard me say [rightly or wrongly] something similar to that said by Basher577 in that if you can't afford to pay for further training after qualifying then perhaps you should give up now (flack jacket donned, but my focus is safety not commercial and they don't always go hand in hand).
It is an expensive hobby and one which will bite you in the arse or kill you if not carried out with some level of competence.

Some high time CPLs have voulnteered some time to help people out for free and fair play to them it can sometimes relieve the monotony of their day jobs or get them back in the air after retirement.

I usually do it the other way by taking low houred CPLs along on jobs with me to show them how someone else does it, it shows them some more of the country but I don't let them fly unless its on an empty sector and they are type rated. I wouldn't dream of charging them for it, but I am being paid already.

The fly with a friend calendar does exist in a rudimentary form but I've held it back until we sort out a way to do it safely.

Thinking on my feet now there is nothing to stop us buddying up pilots who either want to do it for free or be paid and perhaps set some criteria on the babysitters qualifications before he or she can offer their services. I am sure that would cause problems also.

I am open to any suggestions as to how we can set something up that improves safety.

GS

[Flingingwings]

GS,

Dons flak hat and body armour..............

It is a can of worms, and perhaps safety pilot is the wrong title?

I'm helping a friend improve his Heli lanes knowledge. I've no longer got an FI rating or an R44 ticket and I won't be doing any of the actual flying (in fact the school can remove the duals for all I care). I'm there to help with the knowledge you can't get from the map and as a confidence boost. If the weather looks poor I'll be saying so and I won't be flying - my life, my choice.

I've done similar with longer trips that this guy has planned. He plans what he reckons and simply picks my brains. I see little point in paying an FI or CPL (or anybody else for that matter) for services that he/she is only marginally more experienced at. When I fly with this chap there is no debate, he is the P1 and I'm merely an interested party with an opinion. I'm not there for him to push his luck and then bail him out of the $hit. I'm there to point out when things are going to go wrong BEFORE he gets himself in the $hit. Suggesting being paid would make anybody feel happier about speaking out earlier is laughable. At the end of the day if he crashes so do you/I! Little satisfaction in speaking up after the incident purely to say 'I knew/ told you that was going to happen'.I'm there for my experience to be of use, it's not as simple as merely turning up and going flying. We both understand EXACTLY what our roles are.

It's no different to my early days with my current employer, I could be doing the actual flying but the voice of vast experience sat beside me would (and still does at times) chip in with the invaluable pearls of wisdom.

Those offering to help aren't doing it for free to take work from CPL's or FI's, neither are we looking to network and increase our own hours and/or employability, we're simply trying to fill the void between the current training flaws and the realities. I'm not there to provide actual hands on flight tuition - that's an FI's job. A PPL is merely a licence to learn, you could be a great set of hands (thanks to a good FI) but still very inexperienced.

FW

[helimutt]

Wot He Said ^:ok:

[chcoffshore]

Fly for free!!!!! Did you just have a brain fart!:rolleyes:

[slgrossman]

Once or twice, just for the novelty of it, I see no problem. I haven't been in a Robinson in many years and would jump at the opportunity to ride along. However, if it were to become a regular thing, the novelty would wear off rather quickly and some sort of financial arrangement would be expected.

-Stan-

[Helinut]

Another aspect that may require some thought is to get a very clear understanding of who is in charge.

In my flying experience I have had a number of "incidents" when flying with a safety pilot or being a safety pilot. It is the same thing as when an instructor checks out another instructor. You have to be very clear and specific in the brief about who does what, and what role the two pilots are performing.

This aspect does not really alter if payment is made or not.

[chuks]

I just did 5 hours in a U.S.-registered Cessna in Germany, where I know very little about VFR flying. I paid for a safety pilot and considered that money well spent.

On the other hand, I once had a dorky brother-in-law tell me that going for a ride would not go amiss. I told him, "No problem! Aircraft check-out about $100, cost per hour about $60, two hours should do, so when do you want to go?"

I got such a look! Hey, didn't I just live for the privilege of having people graciously consent to go for free rides? I guess he thought holding a Commercial ticket made you some sort of public transport?

Once I knew him better I came to regret not taking him for a free demo of spinning a small Cessna, making sure to scream, "Aiyee! We are all going to die!" on the entry. Live and learn.

[nigelh]

I do have sympathy with the view that if you cant afford to pay for a safety pilot or extra training maybe you should pack up . The problem i think , is that on a good vfr day you probably should not need a safety pilot . ( IF you do , then how come you have a licence ???) therefore you only need one when the weather is poor or could be crap enroute .... In that circumstance the safety pilot would need to keep you away from the fluffy stuff before you get too close or into it ...thats fine but it does not actually help you on the next trip where you expect good vfr but stumble too far into it .....THIS is the point where things go tits up and you have no tool in your box to deal with it . Why ? Because your training kept you out of it ....then your safety pilot kept you out of it . Now 200 hrs later and cockier, you STILL are totally unprepared for the day it happens . This day will be the first time you have EVER been at the controls in cloud/mist/heavy rain with a misted up shield/or even flying into a low sun over water . ( all of these mean going onto instruments for a period of time ) I would love to have a show of hands and see how many ppl,s have flown in actual ifr in cloud ...my guess is maybe 10% . I think this is a shocking statistic ( if true ) and is one of the main areas that the training lets us down . There are plenty of days that one could ( forget the rules) practice flying in cloud in your own R22, R44, 206 etc quite safely with an instructor and i believe that 10 hrs actual would definitely save lives . The first time i flew my machine in cloud i would have DEFINITELY lost it in 30 secs if alone ( i have always found flying on instruments with a hood and instructor v easy !!! 180,s NO problem . 360 with no loss of height NO problem ) After about 2 hrs of actual i dont feel at all confident but i at least have given myself a chance .
FACT. If you fly one day you may possibly end up in cloud even for a second or two . FACT. you have a better chance of keeping it together if you have experienced it at least once before . Look at the statistics and tell me the old way is working .

[helimutt]

If anyone thinks Nigelh's idea is a good one, having an instructor take you into cloud for the experience in your R22, then you probably shouldn' be flying. Go try it in an FNPT2, sure, but even just a quick look-see for real, in an unstabilised a/c, not certificated for flight in IMC (with good reason may I add) with someone who doesn't hold an instrument rating, is a sure fire way to be somewhere you don't need or want to be.
Okay, most of you may not agree but i'm totally against anything like that.
A lot of people lose it very quickly in cloud if they don't have the experience or skills. Forget your hoods which give you soe peripheral view anyway. Nothing like being completely in cloud with nothing to see without that removable hood. When it's for real, and you're on your own, I guarantee you'll feel not so comfortable with your few hours experience. GS hopes to be arranging some SIM days soon for research and hopefully a lot of the ppl's etc will have a try under fairly strict circumstances. Nigelh, can I suggest you have a go too?

[biggles99]

Helimutt, Agree with every word you said.

Nigelh. I think I get your point, and it's a valid one. But I don't think it's right to bumble off into cloud with an inexperienced FI in a R22. The stats may prove it isn't working now, but I bet it would be worse if that became the norm.

You are right, helicopter pilots will press on into worsening weather, especially as SatNav and other avionics equipment gets better and better.

So we shouldn't kid ourselves that at the first hint of lowering stratus everyone is going to dump the lever and land near a pub.

From what I understand, the "Instrument Rating" is all about flying in non-visual conditions. It's way too expensive to be justifyable for leisure pilots, and (IMHO) in many ways would be fairly pointless too.

I think that there's now a PPL (IR) for fixed-wing -- maybe we need something similar for rotary?

Certainly I agree that something needs to change, because no matter what the law says, human nature dictates that pilots will end up in situations that are (a) outside the law and (b) beyond their capability to cope with the conditions. It's point (b) that is the one that brings sadness and regret.

Big Ls

[Flingingwings]

Oh dear :{
If anybody thinks that a few hours of actual IMC 8 months ago (with no breadth of IFR experience to rely upon) AND in a non IFR certified machine is sufficient to act as a 'Life Saver' should you push your luck.......... Please hand your licences back NOW and save your family the inevitable heartache, and the industry the inevitable negative publicity.


Surely, learning when to stop pressing onwards is a more sensible option than having a 'go' on the quiet and then hoping it all comes together when you need it to? Getting steadily lower and slower in an effort to 'beat' the weather until you're suddenly in cloud (Note: I don't agree that it's sudden) just isn't sensible :ugh:

So the weather isn't as forecast (perhaps thats why its called a forecast?), what certain people lack is the forethought to ascertain when things are going wrong before they actually do and take appropriate action early enough :{

If the CAA seem helpless (with a few exceptions), CAA examiners seem helpless, JAA rules seem not to help and some FI's also seem unable to help...........

Whats wrong with the industry trying to help itself?

Either we as a group get a grip, or eventually some paper pusher will do it for us :eek:

I know which I'd prefer!
FW

[Need money]

Does the IAM (Institute of Advanced Motorists) not seek to improve driver standards (even though people have already got their driving licence) - and the instructors there (some being police instructors) - operate for free hoping to improve driver standards and reduce accident rates and statistics......and in turn - they may learn something themselves.

...I can see both sides of the argument in this (but as a "nearly" PPL holder (and a motorbike IAM holder !) - who is not flush with an abundance of cash) - I would appreciate being able to call on a "safety pilot" as appropriate !

:confused:

[nigelh]

This is the typical response that i would expect :rolleyes:
OF COURSE it would be with an instrument instructor :confused:
Who has suddenly decided that ifr in a non sas machine is dangerous ???? Granted it is more difficult but the military have been doing it for many years in gazelles without problem .
NO NO NO i am NOT advocating going into bad wx and going ifr :ugh: but just get real and accept it IS a possibility and HAS happened many times before with terrible consequences . You guys are just spilling out the same old drivvel about dont push on , dont fly in poor weather, dont even think about flying ifr ( even just to turn around )in a single non sas machine .....
We all have our opinions and mine is that being "CAPABLE" of doing a 180 in cloud makes you a safer pilot .....to be " CAPABLE" you must surely have demonstrated it ...No??? Whoever says flying into some fluffy clouds with a good cloud base , with an Inst instructor is dangerous really do not understand the basics of flying and are just keeping the myth alive that if you go into cloud you die :ugh: That is a fine thing to say to a student to try to frighten him into staying away from it ......but on the other side of the scale it means he will panic if it does happen and have no chance . Give me one good reason why actual ifr training is not a good idea ? Has it been done before ? Does sim and hood training have a good track record ? I ask again , how many ppl,s have flown actual ifr even for 30 sec,s ??? Fear of the unknown induces panic and panic kills . We spend countless hours practicing autos...why ???? We all know the chances of an engine failure a remote compared to the chances of getting into poor viz. Its bollocks and it aint working . How you guys think training for the most life threatening event you are likely to face in your chopper is wrong defies belief:ugh:

[jeepys]

After reading the replies my opinion is that there are some valid points and some not so valid points.
Showing a pupil some flying in a R22 in actual IMC could be seen as stupid. I certainly would not entertain it. Placing a student under the hood simulating IMC does not give the whole benefit and IMHO is not a good substitute for TEACHING IMC.
With the 5 hours of instrument training on the PPL(H) course some students will accept that flying IMC (in the usual PPL role) is dodgy and beyond their limitations and will not go near the fluffy stuff, however there are others who think the 5 hours is the IR course done and off they go to find the clag and satisfy their ego that they are truly great. An instructor needs to be able to identify this and go about the right way of addressing it.

Anyway I thought this thread was CPL,s flying for free. I will fly for free provided you pay for my petrol at £8 per mile for me to get to you. Cash of course.

[Flingingwings]

Nigel,

I'm sorry you consider my opinion drivel, but I make no apologies for it. This should we/ shouldn't we IMC arguement has been going on for ages, and both sides never agree.

I accept showing a student or ppl the full IMC grey screen is light years better than trying to simulate it using foggles. I might even be persuaded that a very quick foray into a small lone cloud when there is very good ground clearance is a possible option. But...................

What experience level to you insist upon for the FI? Newly qualified with 15 simulated hours, 50, 100 simulated hours and by that do you mean foggles (accepted as unrealistic), an FNPT2 simulator or actual IMC time??????

What experience level for the student or ppl holder?

What parameters do you put on an acceptable cloud for this foray?? Size, base, horizontal visibility?????

And then how do you monitor the rules are being followed?

At what point do you introduce awareness of icing and minimum IFR control speeds? How do you get the minimum IMC speed approved and in the PoH when the aircraft is uncertificated for IMC flight by the manufacturer and the licensing authority? What about insurance?????

Your suggestion whilst having some merit has more than a few flaws before we consider a few other points.

If pilots are getting this wrong and CFIT incidents are unacceptably high, which is the greater issue requiring attention?
1) Insufficient simulated or actual IMC time so that the pilot is not comfortable executing a competent 180 turn solely on instruments OR

2) Pilots having insufficient ability to acurrately plan their proposed trip with regard to route and weather interpretation, and experience at deciding when to turn back, when to make a precautionary landing, and selecting a suitable landing site?

I've seen plenty of pilots who don't really flight plan. They're fairly sure of the route, give the met a cursory glance and then they're away, relying primarily on GPS and luck.

Looking to fly IMC/IFR requires more planning than a VFR flight. If 'we' cannot get certain pilots to plan VFR properly how do you suggest we get them to do the extra work that comes with planned IFR?

There is also a very big difference between flying into a small cloud, way away from the ground and knowing whatever happens you're guaranteed to be ok and steadily getting lower and slower (scud running), stress levels rising, and then going IMC too low, too slow and poorly prepared.

What about stability systems, TCAS, EGPWS, weather radar a dual comms and nav fit and all the other stuff that IR pilots routinely tune, ID and use even when flying VFR????

And when you've answers for those, maybe we can discuss IMC currency rules and how we intend to monitor those.

I've spent today flying predominately IMC, letting down to off airfield private sites and finally back at my base airfield (which has a 300' cloud base and about 3k viz at present), I take my flying very seriously and the trip was planned fully and limits were set that I won't deviate from. That's born from a very healthy respect for the extra demands of planned IMC/IFR flight. Maybe when 90% of pilots take VFR planning seriously your suggestions may have a chance, until then an additional false sense of security will have only one effect :{

FW

[Flingingwings]

Jeepys,

I think the IMC slant has come from the 'safety' pilot angle, and the CPL flying for free assumption that safety pilots would/should be CPL holders that then fly for free. I've not thought of a better title, but the suggestion was to pair inexperienced with more experienced with no income generated motivation.

FW

[jeepys]

Flingingwings,

I see where you are coming from. My problem is I never get to engrossed with the subject on hand and therefore many times I may get the wrong end of the stick, like last time, remember?

Anyway keep up the good work and say hi to S.T. for me please.

[JimL]

Nigel,

What you are suggesting is foolish (not to mention illegal); only helicopters that have been certificated for flight in IMC (or assessed and approved in accordance with equivalent safety criteria) should be flown (deliberately) into cloud. Certification (in accordance with Appendix B of Parts 27/29) is concerned mainly with stability and handling qualities, instrumentation and limitations. These rules are provided to ensure safety not as a challenge to risk takers. All of us are aware that one of the main causes of (mainly fatal) accidents is loss of control due to lack of visual cues. As an experienced aviator you would be better employed in persuading less experienced aviators to avoid such circumstances not convince them that they should seek experience by deliberately challenging the limitations of themselves and/or their machines.

As an aside, what would happen if, after being frightened by a bad experience, a pilot sued a fellow pilot, instructor or training establishment?

I know that to achieve effect in communication, some feel it necessary to exaggerate (and I do not exclude myself from that principle). However, to make a statement in an open forum (when your identity and company may be known) that you (may) have deliberately operated below limits is somewhat incautious. At the very least, it draws attention to you and the other crew members on your flight and may be used against you (immediately, or later when command or future employment is under discussion - remember this is a small industry).

Offshore shuttling limits are contained in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.465; they were provided by experienced pilots and are based upon years of experience in the North Sea environment. To remind you of some of the limits; Minima for flying between helidecks located in Class G airspace:

the operating height by day shall not be less than 300ft (and the cloud base shall be such as to allow that)
Two pilot minimum visibility shall not be less than 2K unless one of the structures is continuously visible (i.e. can be seen in the normal FOV)Crew room banter is one thing; open discussion in a CRM session is another; broadcasting on an open forum is quite different.

Jim

[nigelh]

Flingwing . I do take your points and they are very valid. I accept that some of what i said was somewhat flippant := I am not convinced ( having spoken to a handfull of experienced IR pilots ) that popping into cloud with a current IR pilot with say 1000 ft cloud base , is actually dangerous . They say that sas etc is not necessary for short periods of ifr and the mil do it regularly . I accept prob not a good idea in a r22 but if there was a way of giving people real hands on experience it would be a start. I knew people would blindly spout rules at me ...that is the nature of people , usually the ones who like to wear gold bars on their shirts. But there is no reason why one could not do some actual ifr training in a single safely . I have flown in an MD 500 quite happily , safely and legally in cloud so , other than the rules again, it would be quite possible . Lets just leave things as they are and wait for the next one i guess .:(

[Flingingwings]

Nigel,

I am not convinced ( having spoken to a handfull of experienced IR pilots ) that popping into cloud with a current IR pilot with say 1000 ft cloud base , is actually dangerous

Practically there is another problem for you. Your IRI will more than likely only fly IMC legally in a certified twin. That's expensive (even more so when you add the type rating!). Any old IR holder is not automatically an IRI. IRI's don't work for £50 p/hr :{


the mil do it regularly

Not really a fair comparison the mil do lots of things regularly that us civvies don't, they also operate under a different set of rules. They select their pilots pre training, us civvies just insist you can afford to learn. :E (and no I've never been in the mil!)

How long is a short period IMC???? How long did the Morecombe bay crash take? :sad: How long does a 180 turn at rate 1 take by comparision?

And again there is a BIG difference between a lone small fluffy friendly cloud when the prevailing viz and weather is good, and the mother of all CB's hidden away in some other more friendly clouds, when the prevailing conditions are not so favourable.:{

accept prob not a good idea in a r22 but if there was a way of giving people real hands on experience it would be a start.

So you're suggesting that they gain their experience on a certified IFR machine but then look to use them for real when they SFH anything from an R22 upwards?? Not a realistic solution I'm afraid, surely for greatest benefit the pilot should be getting the exposure in the aircraft they'll be using 'in anger' :confused:

I knew people would blindly spout rules at me

It's not 'blindly spouting'. This is a public forum. Many of the people discussing this with you are employed pilots, and like it or not they are rules we have to follow. Love the rules or hate them the law is a 'set menu' not a buffet you can pick and choose at. The CAA can be very specific about this at times, so do you suggest I/we publicly advocate breaking the rules concerning the area responsible for the greatest number of incidents and deaths :ugh:

that is the nature of people , usually the ones who like to wear gold bars on their shirts

Sorry Nigel, but that comment is little more than childish and won't do much to help you win support :{

But there is no reason why one could not do some actual ifr training in a single safely

Other than the legal issues and the insurance...................... :hmm:

Lets just leave things as they are and wait for the next one i guess .

And we go full circle back to the whole point of this thread, which is experienced pilots trying to help the less experienced fly more safely. Not our fault we have to do that legally. BUT atleast those involved are trying to do something RATHER than simply sitting and waiting for the next one. :hmm:

Legal issues aside (and far more simplistic) your proposal is not a huge amount different to a possible motoring solution.................

A high cause of accidents is driving at an inappropriate speed for the prevailing conditions (be they fog, mist, snow, ice etc etc).

Our suggestion is teach the drivers to better understand the prevailing conditions,the limitations of both their vehicle and themselves, and then hope that 'they' learn how to not get themselves into the problems in the first place.

Your suggestion is to take them out with an experienced driver in a top end car, race about in fog and ice, and then put them back in their own less able vehicle and let them presume they and they're vehicle will 'perform' when they really need it to :uhoh:

It is a very simplistic analogy but I prefer to drain the swamp of water, before I leap in (hoping it's clear), rather than worry about the water when I'm up to my @rse in crocodiles.

Each to their own I suppose.

FW

[nigelh]

I could equally use the analogy of sending your child to a skid pan to teach them to control a skid if they get into one . They will drive their own car , at speed on a very slippery road ( v dangerous and they should NOT do this in real life .....but in case they do you give them the experience ). They do this with an instructor , go out and skid...panic ....do the wrong thing ....and then learn . I do believe you would feel they are a safer driver after experiencing a high speed skid and learning how to correct it ???? It appears to me you think telling them it is against the law to drive fast , especially on wet roads, will do the trick ...... well it hasnt in aviation has it .
You brought up the analogy and i think it is v good . Both the driver AND the pilot NEVER experience these dangers for real in their training .....i imagine you think skid pan training is a useful tool in road safety .?? ( if you havent been trained with a pro you will definitely have practiced skids alone in your youth ...surely )
ps and yes i think the rules need breaking every now and then:ok:

[Flingingwings]

It appears to me you think telling them it is against the law to drive fast , especially on wet roads, will do the trick

I said no such thing. I said 'inappropriate' speed for the prevailing conditions. The speed could be legal just not very sensible.

if you havent been trained with a pro you will definitely have practiced skids alone in your youth ...surely

More training with a pro than you'd give me credit for. I've also taught skid control and high speed road driving in a previous occupation. Exposure to experience the feel is one thing. Defensive driving IS ALL ABOUT not getting yourself in the $hit in the first place though. It's not about carrying on blindly and then hoping any skills you possess rescue you :ugh: I can also say I never needed to experience skids for the thrill in my youth, and despite exposure to skids at high speeds in 9 years of daily high speed driving I never needed that training.

Surely IFR in an approved sim achieves that point? It's cheaper than using an aircraft, safer than using an unapproved single, legal for both student and instructor, and there are no insurance/ litigation issues.

ps and yes i think the rules need breaking every now and then

Being blunt, when it comes to pressing on in poor weather we can see where that rule breaking gets 'the industry' :=. I'm not advocating that ALL rules (not just aviation) must be followed all the time but there comes a point where a 'line' has to be drawn.

It is evident that you feel pressing on and using your greater abilities to save yourself is acceptable. Experienced pilots are offering their time for free to educate the less experienced, and if that saves only one life then all the time and effort will be worthwhile.

On your own you can do what you like, legal, sensible or otherwise. I and many others don't agree with you (our freedom of choice). I sincerely hope Pprune doesn't ever have a NigelH CFIT thread.

This has gone full circle, much the same as a lenghty previous thread on which you voiced your views on scud running and inadvertant IMC. There are two sides that never see eye to eye. Its those that sit on the fence I fear for most.

Think we're done here.

FW

[biggles99]

Nigelh, Flingingwings.

Have read your thoughts with interest.

one word sums up the difference between your points of view:

Subjectivity.

Nigelh - you believe in making a judgement based on the moment (incorporating all aspects of the pilot, ithe nstructor, the weather, the machine, the rules).

Flingingwings - you believe in dispensing with all aspects of subjectivity by designing a procedural system that is to be followed.

Neither is wrong, both have a place in every aspect of our daily lives, but often they are in conflict with each other.

A long while ago I came across the wreckage of a particular Jet Ranger. It was the first crashed heli I'd ever seen and I was staggered to see how COMPLETELY trashed it was. I asked my instructor (Mike Smith of Heliair fame) what had happened and he said that it had hit a tree whilst landing

"in a site which was smaller than the pilot's Ego".

A great expression, and one I've never forgotten.

Perhaps we should add another expression to our lexicon:

"flying in conditions beyond the capability of the pilot"

Big Ls

[helimutt]

As much as I disagree with his ideas of a quick flight in cloud in a single, I don't wish to see a Nigelh CFIT thread. I don't particularly wish to see any more threads on the subject of one of us 'buying the farm'.
Accidents will continue to happen. Rules will continue to be bent and i'll bet a months salary( £15.22) that we'll be reading of at least one more bad weather accidnet in the next 12 months.
Whilst Nigelh is saying a bit of an eye opener will possibly help matters, Flingingwings is saying maybe we should use sensible means to fulfil this experience, and yes, I wouldn't get into a car driving argument with FW as he's probably the best placed to win that one any time.:ok:

FNPT2's may not be real helicopters, but they do have a place in the training environment which, being cheaper and 'unbreakable', would seem to be the best solution.
I'm pretty sure the operators of these procedural training devices would 'sell' some training time to ppl holders and even cpl holders. Give them a try. Ring them and ask. Look at Multiflight, (leeds), Fast (Thruxton), Helicopter Services (Wycombe) etc.There are probably more. I spent 40 hours in one (not all at once) and you really do get a lot from them.
Just plan a flight along a fixed route. Get used to the sensitivity of the controls (it's a non SAS B206 or AS35 mockup usually) and then set off with a 2000' cloud base with light winds etc. Get the operator to gradually reduce the viz and cloudbase, add in some turbulence, and just see how you get on. You decide how far you go. Replay any part you like over and over. It's a cheap and very safe way of getting that experience without taking a totally unsuitable machine into cloud. That is foolish under any circumstances and I don't car who is flying it.
NigelH, If you're happy breaking one rule, are you happy breaking others? I always thought the rules and certification limits were just that, not guidelines to use as you see fit.
:hmm:

[nigelh]

Sometimes on this site you have to throw in a curved ball to get people to react and not just sit back and read . I do not intend to be on this site re cfit , i assure you . Do i fly in poor wx? Yes because i am careful and if i didnt i would rarely fly at all !!!! ( This is yorkshire ) This type of flying can only be done safely with practice and is not for new ppl, s i agree and i have never advocated them "pushing on " . One very good idea to come out of this has to be the sim and encouraging pilots to do the flights into reducing viz . If there could be a push to offer some evenings incl watching other people get into trouble and with an instructor talking it through, that would be a step in the right direction .
Ref my comments on earlier posts....i fully accept that the F W,s , Helimuts etc may have far more skills than i possess . My problem is that we have so many good brains available to try to help reduce the high level of cfit and yet we seem to be unable to come up with anything better than ..stick to the rules ...dont fly if there is any poor wx ..etc How many of the pilots in these incidents had more ifr training than the basics ? Do ifr rated ppl,s ( prob not many of them ) and cpl,s suffer cfit less ? I still believe there could be a way of doing actual in a single cheaply . ( there are 206 and 500,s out there with full ifr kit )

[helimutt]

Yes some do have the kit. There's a nice shiny red R44 with a pretty comprehensive kit in Sheffield, but would I fly it IMC? No way. I don't feel competent to take what is basically a non SAS machine into clouds. Apart from the fact that it'd be illegal, and probably void any insurance if I knowingly took it there and had an incident. The instruments and the helicopter don't know they're in cloud. They couldn't care less, but that isn't the point. I don't profess to have thousands of hours IMC. I have only probably a couple hundred actual IMC. But that is in a medium twin, with two crew, full dual auto pilot and all the bells and whistles. It's just another day at work for us but would I like to do it onshore, SPIFR? Not sure yet. Ask me in a year or two when I have more experience. ;)
You're right that something should be done. the Safety evening themes are running into other things and hopefully VeeAny will be able to give more info soon. He has enough on his plate right now but watch this space. There is possibly to be a study carried out using sim and low experience pilots.
All we want is no accidents due to the same causes.
Not a lot to ask but getting that message across isn't as easy as you think, unfortunately.:(

[nigelh]

Well something may come out of this ....i think the sim idea is great and hope to hear more soon . Dont mean to be like a dog with a bone but ....wouldnt an experienced instrument instructor be able to safely fly that R44 ifr ? Why does it need sas ? what happens in an ifr machine if the sas fails ...are you toast ? I dont think so !! In which case you could demonstrate and give hands on for students in actual for no great cost . If the only reason is the rules ...well maybe they should be changed to allow for training . I am sorry but there are a lot of rules that are just daft ( singles into Battersea etc )and maybe the single engine ifr should be changed to allow at least for training to encourage people to do it or make 5hrs actual mandatory.
My last word ( honest !) has to be the daft way we all practice autos relentlessly in training when engine failure is the very least likely thing that is going to kill you !!! ( and we wreck countless machines ...albeit mostly 22,s !)
The MOST likely ...cfit ....what training ? Virtually none at all . Just wise old men saying "dont go there". One day we will see sense and prepare people for the worst and at least give them a fighting chance .

[nigelh]

Most of what you have written has some sense to it but your final line is just stupid and may come back to haunt you . I suggest you delete it now .

[verticalhold]

Personally I'd take all trainee ppls outside, point at a cloud and tell them "stay out. Those things kill if you don't know how to deal with them."

I recently did a charter on a fully kitted twin. The lead passenger had a PPL and 150 hours. We were IMC from the climb out until we reached DH on the approach (ILS). The lead passenger sat next to me and despite having a full set of instruments felt disorientated. He had been told that if you enter IMC you should do a 180 out of it. I've looked inside his R44 and doubt that a low hour/uncurrent pilot could carry out such a manouvre with any level of safety with the kit provdided and the position it is in. The cockpit layout is in no way conducive to accurate IF.

He's been great for business. When the weather is iffy the '44 stays in his shed and he hires us to get him there. If we say no then he knows it is meant purely on safety grounds.

Many of us have found ourselves in bad positions and luck more than skill has kept us alive. My customer has learned a lot flying as a passenger and has the sense to never try anything beyond his personally set limits. Too many people who own private helis are succesful in one area of life and believe that therefore they can be succesful at everything. The ego trap then opens before them. The lucky ones dodge the trap and learn some humbling lessons,
The unlucky get their actions discussed on here, at length.

I'd like to get to retirement without ever appearing on here as a statistic, and I'd like the same for everyone else.

VH

[VeeAny]

Verticalhold

I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiments, it does however make my recent experience even more ironic.

Take an IFR twin on a hard wx day company has given you wrong timings and what was no pressure turns into you can now arrive on time but with no leeway to meet the plane, throw in a GPS fails IMC enroute to airfield 30nms away (GPS goes into DR mode, so it doesn't go off it lies about where you are based on what you are doing), no problem we'll fly the procedure, ATIS gives wx now 150ft below minimums at destination for the NDB (an airfield who don't do TAFs), let down through hole, continue enroute VMC get pushed down, decide this is silly turn away from the hills towards nearest airfield (low and poor vis) DI gives up in the turn. Ask for position fix from Radar, they agree with where you tell them you think you are (can't pick up map, outside not nice). Consider landing decide against it due nearby horses, proceed to nearest non IF airfield about 3 miles away. Deposit boss in car to meet plane.

Get a phone call, from the boss a couple of days later to say I think someone else might have carried on and got me to the plane so I am going to use them from now on :ugh:.

What would you say ?

Sorry for the thread creep, it seemed appropriate after VHs post.

[Bertie Thruster]

What would you say ?.............




............Put me down for January 21st...........

[Whirlygig]

Blackadder: Baldrick, what are you doing out there?
Baldrick: I'm carving something on this bullet sir.
Blackadder: What are you carving?
Baldrick: I'm carving "Baldrick", sir.
Blackadder: Why?
Baldrick: It's a cunning plan actually.
Blackadder: Of course it is.
Baldrick: You see, you know they say that somewhere there's a bullet with your name on it?
Blackadder: Yes?
Baldrick: Well, I thought if I owned the bullet with my name on it, I'd never get hit by it, 'cos I won't ever shoot myself.
Blackadder: Oh, shame.

Cheers

Whirls

[verticalhold]

VeeAny;

I remember you describing this flight at the time. Your boss never realised the work load you had and what the potential risks were. That is the sign of a bloody good pilot. I've lost customers in similar circumstances and it smarts.
What he doesn't realise is that the one who would press on is the one without the experience or knowledge to know how fast things will get out of hand. Last year I diverted from a private site (in a valley) to a field I knew I could get into 12 miles away. Told the boss to get into a car and had my ears ripped off all the way to Battersea as just as he was getting in the car a heli landed in the valley and collected it's customer from the same party.

The pilot of that aircraft took monumental risks. I tracked down who it was out of interest. He was new to both the game (recently ex-mil) and new to the heli. I would never use this pilot. His employer can't have line trained him properly as he should have known the rules or he set out to prove a point.

I hope your boss has calmed down. You deserved a bonus not a bollocking.

VH

[Flingingwings]

Veeany,

Good call :D
Bosses like that aren't worth flying for.

It is frustrating, but lets hope the chap realises he can pay any old monkey to fly badly, what he's paying you for is to ensure he gets 'there' safely, professionally and most importantly alive.

FW

[ShyTorque]

Bosses like that aren't worth flying for.

But we both have..... in the same aircraft.