Bad weather accidents and GPS

[jellycopter]

I have a theory that many of the recent poor weather (and night) 'CFIT' helicopter accidents that have occurred in the UK are indirectly the result of having GPS moving map equipment installed. My point being that in 'the good old days' before GPS, the pilot was so busy simply navigating from A to B and shuffling maps that even relatively small visibility reductions made the task very difficult. It was just so much easier to make the decision to land or divert than it was to struggle trying to work out exactly where you were.

After GPS moving maps, brilliant as they are, all pilots of any experience level now have much more available mental capacity as the navigation workload is almost non-existant. Couple this with terrain information and there is a serious risk of pushing on further into poor weather until we encounter our own workload threshold and call it a day - trouble is, the weather conditions when we now call it a day are significantly worse than they used to be. Therefore, some pilots workload thresholds exceed there ability thresholds with occasionally disasterous results.

Discuss.

JJ

[Shawn Coyle]

Depends on the information that the GPS system can provide. If it is intelligent enough to show you that you're about to run in to a tower or the ground, then it probably helps.
If it just gives a line on a flat display, probably not much help.

[Lama Bear]

I fail to see how an increase in situational awareness would contribute significantly to accidents. The CFIT accidents that I have been to were the result of the pilot not being where he thought he was. Granted these were in mountainous locations that did not involve man made obstructions. Interesting question!

[SASless]

GPS or no GPS....end result is the same once the decision to chicken out is postponed till it is not the pilot that makes the decision. Upon venturing past the decision point it is too late to affect the outcome. The key is in being able to see the DP approaching and being prepared, equipped, and able to make the decision prior to, at, but not beyond the DP.

Nothing beats looking out the window...and being able to see your surrounds in such a fashion so as to be able to avoid obstacles to safe flight and complete a safe landing even if that particular location is undesirable, illegal, or darned awkward.

Inpromptu landings have provided some of the richest experiences of my flying career....how else would one meet the people one does otherwise.

[jolly girl]

There is actually some research out there on the use of digital displays in GA/light aircraft, though I'm not sure how much is published as of yet. jellycopter touches on what is turning out to be a big issue - when using the analog systems, pilots were responsible for developing their own mental model of the flight environment (i.e. waypoints, terrrain, etc.) but the new systems appear to allow pilots to offload the maintenance of these models to an external actor (the digital nav system), thereby reducing SA.

[VeeAny]

I think JJ has a very valid point and he is not the only experienced pilot with an opinion like this, several have discussed this with me this year.

GPS gives you great positional awareness, not situational awareness. The big picture still matters but pilots now have a means of navigation which when it works is great. A sudden "No GPS position available" or worse still (in my opinion) DR caption in poor weather or while IMC can lead to an equally sudden huge increase in workload. I wonder (and intend trying to find out) how many accidents (or unheard of incidents) have occured due to pilots hitting direct to and blindly following the line because they didn't know any better towards rising ground and low cloud or poor visibilty. I suspect more than a few.

The GPS is great because if you are aware of what is ahead you don't need to look in at a chart at a point in the flight when you couldn't do so anyway if the vis is that poor. The next time you find yourself low and slow and following the GPS ask yourself what would I do now if it went off.

GS

[HeliComparator]

I think Jelly has it pretty much right.

Without GPS, you have to navigate by reference to visual features. In bad weather, you have to go lower (which substantially reduces your ability to use visual features), and the visibility gets much worse, which does ditto. You lose the ability to navigate visually long before you before you reach the stage where you are going to lose the visual references needed to be able to maintain stable flight, so without gps you will tend to turn back in good time. With gps you might continue, relying solely on the gps for navigation, until you lose all visual references and crash.

But I would not say this means we shouldn't have gps. GPS has many advantages. With any technology there come pitfalls as well as benefits, and the pitfalls have to be taken into account when you are flying. I say when YOU are flying because I mean its the individual's responsibility to use the equipment appropriately.

We invented cars, but cars can be driven down a motorway in thick fog at 90mph resulting in an accident. Does that mean we should ban cars? All we can do is to have good practice, rules and training (sadly lacking in the case of cars!). At least when you demolish your helicopter, its only your own vehicle that gets taken out, as opposed to the motorway scenario.

Are we as an industry doing our bit? When was the last time you reported someone who just appeared out of the mist hover taxying over the airfield boundary. Maybe they did their best and just got caught out on the exceptional day, or maybe they make a habit of it, in which case loss of licence / jail is better than dead passengers.

HC

[B Sousa]

Strangely I heard the same theory yesterday, never gave it a second thought. Love all the GPS info and the ability to get places but I always have put Weather first. GPS is just my backup for getting to a place.

Therefore for me, I may stick my nose into the sky, but never venture farther than its safe to fly. Since Im in EMS we usually always launch but have the option of cancelling anytime things get dicey. GPS is also helpful then if I need to know a place I can divert. Worse case for me if I did get in over my head, is to just sit it down, get on the sat phone and say we will be here till its better. Our missions are rarely over 100-150 miles so the geography and weather patterns are pretty well known.

[JTobias]

Morning JJ

I can't remember the last time you started a post. Something must have been the catalyst!

As you know, like lots of pilots, I'm a big fan of GPS, and some of the one's I use have terrain, it doesnt mean though that pilot's should not regularly refer to their map. Mine is always close to hand and when I'm undertaking a new trip I study the landscape, route etc prior to departure to the point that "her indoors" takes the proverbial out of me. She thinks I'm a secret cartographer!

I think pushing on into poor wx is a seperate issue and comes down to experience, airmanship and regular training. I've undertaken lots of post PPL training (as you know!) with a lot of this focussed on bad weather operations. It still amazes me that there is very little "approved" post PPL training that can be done to teach pilots proper decision making - especially where weather is concerned.

On the basis that most of us without an IR should be flying in VMC, the simple rule should be if your visibility is reducing to a point that you are having to reduce your speed considerably, then maybe it's time to put it down somewhere! Maybe when your flying at 50% of your normal operating cruise (because of reducing vis), you should be landing - or some similiar equation.

Another element is also to do with a combination of factors. I recently attended the heli sfatey evening at leeds and was surprised at how many people were unsure of the "rules" regarding putting down in a field somewhere. Other pilots rarely ventured far from their local aerodrome and only a small number of people raised there hands out of many to acknowledge that they knew that the TAF & METAR formats were changing on 5th November.

The point I'm making is that some people fly heli's regularly, but may not be activeley involved, in the heli community. If they were, they might be more aware of lots of factors that would contribute to helicopter safety in general.

Finally, regarding night operations - I can't comment too much as I'm only half way through my night training, but one thing is clear to me. The 5 hours instrument appreciation training which is part of the PPL syllabus, and is done on foggles, is a complete waste of time.

By the way have you seen the new Garmin 695. Looks great!!!!!! ;)

Joel

[heliski22]

I originally learned my map-reading in the left seat of a fast-moving rally-car at night where turning the map to track-up was a complete no-no and you had to be on top of your game in a vehicle that changed direction every couple of hundred yards. Getting on top of it was an intensely satisfying experience and that satisfaction has remained with me to this day. (It did make for an interesting conflict with early Flight Instructors when I found it almost impossible to read the chart any way but North Up but we got over it!!)

After nearly twenty years of hacking my way along from piston-engined singles via turbine singles and light turbine twins to my present FMS and Moving Map Display equipped ride, the most satisfying thing I've done in a long time after a rush of recent visits into Battersea (EGLW) is to be able to follow the H3 at night by looking out the window and recognising the various landmarks along the route with the Map Display turned down (rather than off) and only the paper chart on my lap.

To make a point, the question I ask is - "Do pilots not derive any personal or professional satisfaction from being able to find their way from A to B along a route they decided upon before they departed while knowing where they are during the trip?"

Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry (bit like my kids and all things electronic) with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?

Or am I just being an old fart?

[levo]

Why is 5 hours training with foggels a waste of time?
With a gps fitted in a helicopter you should have a lot more time to look out the window to make a better decision about the wether Poor airmanship is no excuse to blame a gps .
FLY SAFE LEVO.

[jolly girl]

"Or are more recently trained pilots simply growing up on a diet of digital wizardry... with an attendant loss of ability in the basics?"

This was what I was getting at...
Several years ago Middle Tennessee State University went to all-digital cockpits in their FW trainers marrying this change with revised training protocols combining the PP and IR curriculum. They found that the new digital curriculum had different bottlenecks (repeated lessons/flights) than the traditional system. One such bottleneck in the traditional system was cross-country navigation, pilots trained in the analog cockpit normally needed extra time but those trained in the digital breezed right through. So I have another friend at a different uni that did the same shortly after. That program is currently in the process of gathering data on efficacy of training and have found that by IR pilots trained in the digital systems are "practically unable to use the analog instruments [ie perform navigation tasks without GPS, etc.] compared to their ability to use glass." I've observed in the simulator these students maintained their SA externally rather than internally. Not a big issue now as these students are still in the training environment by this is something we should keep our eye on as they progress through the industry.

Not to bash GPS or other digital systems, I think bringing more data/cues into the cockpit, especially regarding terrain and obstructions is a good thing. I just think we need to be aware of the impications of our decisions.

Reference the GPS question, I was a radar controller when GPS was initially introduced into GA aircraft. We immediately saw a jump in airspace busts - pilots would punch in airport A and airport B then fly the straight line between, disregarding any restricted, MOA and Class B airspace along the way. It became quite easy to recognize who was navigating in this manner, allowing us to have escorts in place PRIOR to the most aggregious violations (which at the time would result in confiscation of the aircraft and detention of any on board). The increase in national security TFRs has helped with awareness but violations continue to occur.

Shappell and Weigman have done an HF review of US GA CFIT accidents, it's available on their website (www.hfacs.com, look under publications). They report a common pattern to the CFIT accidents that wasn't present in the non-CFIT events, it's an interesting read and might add to this discussion.

[Non-PC Plod]

I think we all agree GPS is a useful tool, but the danger is in becoming too reliant on it.
I think VeeAny is spot on when he makes the distinction between "positional awareness" and "situational awareness".
Its easy to get lulled into a false sense of security when you know exactly where you are on the map, although you may not know where the nearest wires/big tree/hill etc is. To retain control, you also need a good attitude reference, especially in a helicopter without full stabilisation (attitude hold). Its very easy to lose the horizon in deteriorating weather, even though you may know where you are, and can see the ground below. Disorientation can come very rapidly thereafter, especially if you start to manoeuvre, either to find a landing spot or to turn around.
I agree 100% with JTobias - I think there needs to be much better training in terms of recognizing the onset of weather limitations, and what to do when it happens. If you read CAP 780 aviation safety review 2008, or CAA paper 2007/03 "helicopter flight in degraded visual conditions", it quickly becomes apparent that press-onitis/inadvertent imc/disorientation is a factor in a huge chunk of the accident database for small helicopters.

[nigelh]

JTobias i totally agree with your comment re lack of training after ppl re flying into bad weather , precautionary landings etc most of us have learnt this by trial and error and sadly not all come out the other side of this process. Probably like you my first helicopter had no navaids at all so you had to use a map ( i did land near peoples gardens a couple of times and ask where exactly i was !!) but i am also guilty of jumping in all of a rush and setting of down that line on the screen without any idea of where the "low level " route would be , thereby sometimes making my life far more difficult . If i had looked at the map properly i would have seen that a route 10 miles to the west would have avoided the wooded hills :ugh:
JJ good point but you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? I made a point , roundly condemned , in anothe r thread about more IR training .....not to go into that , but would you not think that at least one actual sorty into poor ( imc before you jump on me ) wx with a 180out of it , and a prec landing etc would be a useful exercise for all ppl,s ??

[B Sousa]

was surprised at how many people were unsure of the "rules" regarding putting down in a field somewhere.

Now there is a big red flag and in the UK, the rule books outweigh the aircraft.
Rules are if your gonna continue and die,you set it down. If someone decides to throw rules at you at least it wont be at your memorial.

Very fortunate in the states as I have had to land in more than one farm or property in 38 years of helicopter flying. Never had a problem. Understandbly in the middle of downtown Dallas is going to get someone upset and they will thumb through all the books to find something you violated, rather than be helpful. Let me say if I had too I certainly would not think twice in landing in downtown anywhere. Rule book boys can send me a letter.

[jellycopter]

Nigel

I tend to agree with you about getting PPLs to fly in 'actual' conditions and whenever the opportunity presents itself for me to get someone less experienced into the spare seat of an A109, I take it. Turn off the SAS and let the fun begin! However,that is off topic so I'll stop there.

As regards your question "you are not advocating scrapping gps ....so what do YOU think ? . Good point. Not really sure. In order to prevent more burdensome legislation being forced in as a reaction to yet more 'accidents' happening is for the wider helicopter community to educate the less experienced.

Gary's Safety Evenings are a good starting point but on the whole I consider these to be probably 'preaching to the converted'.

Optional Post-PPL(H) training leading to an enhanced qualification that permits flight in lower weather limits might be worth considering. The regulators wouldn't let someone fly at night without proper training, yet they let people fly in crud without necessarily having had any specific training. Many PPLs conduct their training in 8/8 Blue sky without ever seeing cloud or flight without a defined horizon.

As a proposal for discussion - The VFR rules as they stand already have a structure which would be easy to implement. A 'basic' PPL(H) could be allowed to fly in 5km vis. After a 5 hour 'poor weather appreciation course' flown in real poor weather (shouldn't be too difficult to achieve in our wonderful climate) the vis restriction would be lifted to COCWSIS and 1500m.

Finally, the point of this thread wasn't purely aimed at inexperienced PPL(H)s. Witness the accident report of the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin Squirrel. I cannot believe that had the pilot been shuffling maps and flying stopwatch and compass to try and find his landing site would he ever have found himself in such a risk-ridden flight profile. The cockpit workload would have been so high simply trying to locate the LS that a no-go decision made before the flight profile became critical would probably/possibly have been made. Hindsight is a wonderful thing; I'm not criticising the pilot for his actions by the way, thats for people far more qualified than me - I'm just trying to learn from others' experiences.

JJ

[nigelh]

Helimut firstly you may or may not be a good pilot , but what you are NOT is
a) A good reader as i made it clear i was not bringing up the "actual" discussion re the other thread and
b) you are NOT in any position to tell people on this site what they can or cannot advocate := if you have anything positive to say then say it but banning people from airing their views is not in your remit . I seem to have some support in principle from Jelly ...so why not tell him to wind his neck in as well ???:rolleyes:
Ignoring Helimut for now , i think JJ,s idea of a " next step " on your licence from pure vmc to say 1500 viz with training sounds like an excellent idea . There will be those here who will say that this encourages poor flying , insurance issues etc but i say if it is a step for safety the insurance companies will sanction certain instructors to carry this training out . I would book myself in for the first course with Jelly:ok:

[VeeAny]

JJ

Gary's Safety Evenings are a good starting point but on the whole I consider these to be probably 'preaching to the converted'.

You are not the first to say it, I think we even discussed the thought when it was all still in its infancy, I'll leave it there for this thread and bring it up in the Heli Nights one in the next few days.

I genuinely don't know but perhaps the new 'Basic Licence' (I think thats what it will be called) when it comes in will have some increased weather minima associated with as it won't as far as I am aware have the 5hrs instrument as part of the course.

Post licence training is hugely necessary particularly as we now have 5th or 6th generation 300hr FIs (those who were generally taught by 300hr guys themselves) and the wisdom that sometimes comes with experience is
not being handed down like it used to be.

Nigel if we could implement something like Pure VMC down to ????m it would be great, but the 1500m change met with quite a bit of opposition when it was introduced, uping it further and then lowering it after a post ppl course is a good idea, but I'll wager it meets with a lot of opposition. Perhaps implementing it through an insurance company scheme might work, but they'd all need to buy into, it and who would have grandfather rights ? I wholeheartdly support an iniative like this, but without legislation it would be very hard to pull off I believe. Its one of the reasons that one of the final things I advocate at the safety evenings is 'Go and Ask for advanced training after you qualify' because "You don't know what you don't know".

Gary

PS not a dig at 300hr FIs I am a product of the system which is why I know how it works and what its pitfalls seem to be.

[nigelh]

VeeAny some very good points. I had not really thought about the FI part, i was lucky enough to have a chief pilot who took me through every possible trap i may come across before i did each job . ( including "actual".. oops there i go again :eek:) . In fact most cpl,s will have the benefit of a chief pilot to fly with for extra training something that the ppl doesnt have .
I cannot think the insurance co,s would have a problem with covering the training if it was done in a known area without pylons etc and proper minimums . I will ask them ... Maybe they might even encourage this training and apply a small discount if you "pass" this course ? They will be just as aware that cfit is costing them a fortune ( not to mention the human cost ). I can see no reason why you are NOT allowed to fly your robbo/ jetranger at night without special training but ARE allowed to fly in poor weather with NO training at all !!! You are right and it is illogical especially if you did your licence in the US , in which case you may never have flown near a cloud ( and dont need a night rating to fly at night ) then you come back home to yorkshire and fly in, shall we say, challenging weather more days than not .

[HillerBee]

I don't know where the idea comes from that there are no clouds in the US, but I can assure you there are. Florida has extreme weather, in the Summer with Thunderstorms every day. In the Winter you have the coldfront coming through exactly like we have here. Night privileges are included in the PPL, but you need three hours of night training (including XC). In California the weather can change very quickly and New England got it's name not for the nice weather.

The idea of going into cloud with non-certified VFR aircraft is ridiculous and as said a few times before VFR means you have to stay clear of cloud at all times. There is no reason at all to end up in cloud. The advantage of a helicopter is you can land at any time and you just land when the weather deteriorates that much. The pilot in question made the wrong weather judgement by going in the first place. The motto is simple; know your meteorology and keep it up by studying it, even when you fly everyday.

Coming back to the original question; GPS might give a false sense of security, but shouldn't be a reason to ban GPS. It's up to the pilot if he wants to rely on it, and during training it's should be made clear the dangers involved. (What to my knowledge is common practice).

An interesting question however is how many PPL's end up in the statistics of CFIT and how many CPL's?

Interesting link : http://flash.aopa.org/asf/acs_vfrimc/

[Hughesy]

What about sticking to personal limitations AND VFR met minimas?
If you get close to hitting either one of those you should stay on the ground or look to land BEFORE you get beyond your limits or become illegal by breaking the rules.
Arnt The rules are there to try to prevent these accidents happening.

[biggles99]

JJ,

we've discussed this face to face and you know I agree with your basic theory.

But there is as ever the other side to your question which is:

How many accidents has GPS prevented?

Of course, we'll never know, since they don't become statistics or get reported.

Post-PPL training is what it is all about. The system is crap, and will remain so until someone with a bit of innovation and commitment decides that that's enough.

And, by the way, I include pre-CPL AND post-CPL training in my last paragraph - we all start with a PPL.

Big Ls

[B Sousa]

One other item to throw in while flying in the states is the Geography. Probably falls best within situational awareness. Pilots who train in one part of the states and then take up a job in another part while not being familiar with the area could be in trouble. Weather in California is different than new York as is the Geography, same difference between Alaska and Puerto Rico.
As said it all should be brought together when starting the PPL.

Fly Safe.

[jellycopter]

I was hoping my theory would be the catalyst for some interesting discussion when I posted the thread. In the main it seems to be working and most have refrained from the usual slagging matches.

I think the consensus thus far seems to be that training needs to be improved - be that structured and regulated or through individuals like JTobias who have taken it upon themselves to get help.

The other point with which I agree wholeheartedly is that it comes down to pilot decision making. This is a hugely complex subject which whole university departments regularly engage studies upon - I cannot hope to comment in any qualified way other than to say it needs improving for some.

Finally, and referring back to my previous two posts; Does anyone concur with my theory that the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin-Squirrel tragedy would not have occurred had the pilot not had GPS moving map displays?

Keep it coming.

JJ

[VeeAny]

HillerBee

The site you linked to has some interesting stuff on another page Interactive Safety Courses (http://www.aopa.org/asf/online_courses/) a set of mini course some of which relate to what we are talking about here.

I haven't had time to look at them all so they may be crap, but an initial glance they seem ok.

Biggles99 the post PPL training is the bit I am trying to get people to look at as I can't force syllabus changes (nor am I the person to do so) we are building a rough syllabus for those who are interested of suggested advanced training subjects, but as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water etc. The good news is that this suggested syllabus is not just my opinions but those of people like JJ and others like him. Pre and Post CPL training is a valid point also a CPL holder is not necessarily the holder of infinite wisdom or experience as we discussed on the phone the other week.


If you learn to fly at a school,hour build there and then do your CPL with them, do not accept a "just go flying thats what everyone else does" kind of attitude from them during your hourbuilding expect some guidance form them, in return you should be willing to pay to fly with an instructor every now and again to increase your skills, find a new school if they take no interest in you.


Cheers


Gary

[VeeAny]

Sorry JJ I posted my last while you were posting yours.

I don't know if the G-BYPA accident would have occured if not for MM GPS, but I am sure that most of us who operate in the corporate world would not undertake alone some of the trips we do at night if it were not for that equipment. I know I wouldn't sometimes, just as sometimes I wouldn't undertake some IMC trips to private sites and let down without it (can of worms opened, but it is what happens in the real world as you know), Admittedly having a firmly attached yellow streak down my back (and kids at home) I wouldn't undertake those trips without the traditional kit (VOR, DME, ADF) on board to back up what the occasionally untruthful GPS is telling me.

And before anyone asks I am talking about all of the above in an IFR Twin,

You have indeed incited an interesting and informative debate !

GS

[JTobias]

Levo

Why is 5 hours instrument training on foggles a waste of time?

Firstly, 5 hours training is never a waste of time - so I'll qualify my statement.

If 5 hours instrument training on foggles is supposed to be some form of appreciation of flying in IMC i.e. in cloud, then it simply isn't. It does not in any way prepare a pilot for entering zero visibilty conditions. The physcologicial impact isn't there and nor are the changes in actual flight characteristics (updraughts/downdraughts, turbulence etc).

The foggles (certainly the type typically in use for training) do not re-create the IMC environment. You still have the ability to obtain some form of visual reference with the outside world which then allows you to adjust your flying accordingly.

I have found myself in cloud and can categorically testify that it goes pear shaped rapid - and by that I mean in seconds. I fly fixed wing and rotary wing extensiveley as a PPL and the 5 hour instrument appreciation is simply not apropriate. It is more likeley to lead a recently qualified pilot into believeing that he has the ability to perform a 180 deg turn out of cloud if he finds himself in it inadvertantly.

Anyway, I think we've moved away from the original thread here, but suffice to say, that there simply is nowehere near enough encouragement for pilots to undertake regular "advanced" training.

There should be courses on bad weather appreciation, an IMC course, navigational aids, common emergencies, etc etc etc.

Nigel

Thanks for the agreement - I haven't read the other thread (I don't think) that seems to have been controversial, but I'm with you. There is room for introducing a mechanism for taking PPL's to the next stage of reduced visibility flying. Whether that be through a simulator or by flying it for real.

Helimutt

Sorry - I don't want a head to head with you, but Nigel's opinion and others is just as valid as yours. I believe that we should be able to take apropriateley experienced pilots into IMC conditions for training. After all, if I embark on a PPL of any sort, the first lesson usually involves flying the aircraft - so there is little difference. As long as the environment is controlled. Sorry, the fact that you fly 600 hours a year and/or you get paid to do it does not in any way mean what you are doing is OK. I drive every day of the week and thankfully I haven't had an RTA in many, many years - but it doesn't mean I'm a good driver. (I am though!! :) ) I also can't see anywhere that Nigel is advocating flying into cloud or that he's trying to exceed his limitations (certainly not from this thread) I think what he is pushing for is more opportunities, through training, to become a better pilot.

As for what JJ considers to be lunacy, it's best not to quote him. Ask him for his opinion!

Helimutt, absoluteley no offence or arrogance intended.

Safe flying


Joel

[nigelh]

Joel .... a sensible , non biased and objective post ...what a delight :ok:
Our friend Helimutt is obsessed with my comments about getting people into actual imc even for a few seconds . I threw a curved ball ( just to get people thinking , as i knew the cost factor of a twin would come in ) and suggested possibility of TRAINED IFR pilots taking them into bits of cloud at safe height in a cheaper single . Apparently it is a daft idea that anybody can fly in cloud in a single . Maybe that IS the case and i am wrong .:{ but i know of many pilots i respect who believe it can be perfectly safe to go into cloud ( not in all cases ie where ils may be needed ) en route where there is lower ground ahead and good cloud base in a single with a proper i panel . Remember there are fully legal ifr singles out there on the N. Are they dangerous ? I am sure he means well but he aint half bossy :eek: Even daft ideas should be looked at as they may move the debate to an area that DOES have merit . I stick with my view that ALL pilots should HAVE to have exoerienced actual cloud . I also agree with dunker training , night training and to a small extent eol,s , albeit they are our least threat imho. And JJ you know i would be lost without my gps !!!

[ShyTorque]

Finally, and referring back to my previous two posts; Does anyone concur with my theory that the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin-Squirrel tragedy would not have occurred had the pilot not had GPS moving map displays?

JJ, I don't concur with that. Having read the AAIB report on the accident, the initial cause seem to have been a misidentified navigation IP, coupled with confusion and disorientation in bad weather after the descent and a failure to achieve a safe go-around to a safe altitude when sufficient ground references were lost.

If the pilot had planned and flown a more helpful GPS plan he might have realised that the first set of ground lights was not what and where he thought. Had he not had the GPS he might still have misidentified the IP and the outcome might well have been the same.

Basically, it seems he tried to follow a VMC plan into IMC and became disorientated to the point that terrain separation and/or control was lost.

[chuks]

I am not a helicopter pilot but I sometimes go where the helicopter pilots go...

One obvious problem is that VMC can very suddenly change to IMC at night, when reading that recent accident report suggests that might be what happened. You are busy looking outside when suddenly all visual reference is lost. What now? You had better have a real good ability to make that sudden transition to instrument flight, perhaps even a quick recovery from an un-noticed unusual attitude. Thrilling stuff!

Another thing that report suggests that the pilot would have been in much better shape if he had pre-programmed his GPS with some user waypoints that would have put him on a safe track to his destination, sort of building himself a little non-precision approach if you will. That might have let him identify some visual reference points and keep oriented so that if he had to "throw it away" he could do that in a reasonably safe manner. The report reads as if the pilot became a bit lost and mis-identified his nearby destination.

I have noticed that when I do that then I get all wrapped up in trying to make what I see fit with where I "know" I am. Once I was becoming very indignant about those crazy Nigerians having planted a big tree right in the middle of a dirt airstrip, when it turned out to be growing on the main street of the village not far away. Oh. It sounds so stupid telling about that now but it made perfect sense to me at the time!

[JTobias]

Nigel

Thanks for your comments. I do my best to be objective. I'm sure Helimutt is just being cautious. But here's another curve ball.

IMC in a single!
flying over a congested area in a single!
transitioning out of the bloody hover in a single.!
Everything is about a single.

How many engine failures are there that I have to be worried about my engine stopping? Don't get me wrong I fly with Rule 5 in mind all the time. But as far as I can remember (correct me if i'm wrong) you can get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York. The yanks don't expect that everytime they defy gravity it's going to end with an engine failure.

We're obsessed with the bloody engine stopping. Sure it's going to be a real s**t situation if it happens and I sure hope it never happens to me, but i'm fairly confident that there's more chance of me entering IMC than of my engine going quiet.

And what's more - i would rather my engine go quiet than enter IMC!

I don't drive down the road expecting my tyre to burst, or my engine to stop. I know there's a difference, but there is risk with many things. I don't get in my helicopter expecting the bloody engine to fail. I would never fly. I do however ensure that I am reasonably prepared for some form of malfunction, on the off chance that it happens.

People often sayto me that I'm bonkers for flying a heli. I look at them and tell them that it's perfectly safe and I explain why. Autorotations and all that ....

Last year I took up scuba diving. If you think flying is dangerous, get your snorkel out. There's a million different ways to kill yourself SCUBA diving. You can get the bends, run out of oxygen, get trapped below water - all sorts. I was sat in lectures thinking to myself that I must be absoluteley bloody mad. And the worst thing is this. They are all, slow, loneley and painful ways to go.

Personally if it's all going to go pear shaped. I want it to be quick and spectacular!!;)

Joel

[EN48]

Or am I just being an old fart?


Afraid so, IMHO. GPS such as G496/G696 with navigation, terrain, and wx, along with comprehensive graphical and textual online weather briefings greatly improve situational awareness and "look ahead" capabilities not possible with compass, chart, and radio. This reduces workload and frees up pilot CPU cycles to focus on more pressing issues, if any. It may be more satisfying to do it the hard way, but certainly compromises safety. And, there are certain new, but different, satisfactions to mastering the new way. Been flying for 40+ years and wouldnt want to go back to the (not so) good old days for anything. Nostalgia is great, but not on the flight deck, thank you. GPS is no substitute for pilot judgment - just gives more data on which to make a judgment.

[nigelh]

Joel you are speaking my language . A lot of the commercial pilots here ( not all )do have a "thing" about singles and dont approve of night or across water in them ....dont get me wrong the modern twins with a capability to fly/climb on one engine would give you a good feeling at night or over water ....but you still only have one of quite a few other things !!! Xmission etc Our obsession with engine failures stems from many years ago and takes up far too much of the training time imho. CFIT is the main killer and i think we all agree something has to be done . I feel a lot better now knowing that there are some excellent pilots on here such as JJ , VeeAny etc who look like they are ACTUALLY going to try to do something rather than just pontificate on this site :D We all await some news on this .
On the subject of gps , i see the new generation can have weather , terrain with msa and ALSO an AH overlaid over synthetic vision . I gather that this means that what you see on the screen is what you would see thru the windshield if there was viz . Sounds fantastic but could be opening a whole new can of worms re jj,s points ...can one test this on a sim with low hr pilots and see if it has a beneficial effect ? I am told it would greatly reduce the effect of spacial disorientation if you can see a picture of the outside view on the screen . Weather updates would however be great if accurate .

[jellycopter]

EN48

I'm with you when you say "wouldnt want to go back to the (not so) good old days for anything".

I'd hate to have to do my job without a GPS Moving Map as it leaves me so much more mental RAM to deal with other issues. And that basically is the very point of this thread.........

I put myself in situations now that I would never have considered when I was required to do 'proper navigation'. Other pilots do the same. And on the whole that's no bad thing as more is acheivable with a greater degree of safety than before. The price for this imrovement in capability however, is that we can now push further into worsening weather conditions until we reach our mental capacity but for other reasons than simply navigating. The skill, is suppose, is in recognising when you are reaching your mental capacity threshold and doing something positive to reduce the workload.

JJ

[JimL]

Nigel,

You seem intent on ignoring answers on other threads and misinterpreting what has been said in reply to your posts.

From the first thread where you advocated punching up into IFR instead of scud running to the latest of deliberately flying into cloud in an uncertificated helicopter for experience, the main argument against what you are advocating has been that there exists a system for flight under IFR which encompasses: airspace requirements, equipment, training and operational procedures - with a qualified helicopter.

In the first thread, after you introduced the subject of single engine helicopters, you were informed that ICAO Annex 6 Part III had been amended to include the Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARPs) for SEIMC (Section II Chapter 3.4 and Appendix 2). There is no international barrier to controlled access to IFR by adequately qualified singles!

The difficulty of flying in cloud relates to instrument flying skills (the currency of which degrades faster than any other) which is directly related to the stability of the helicopter and its handling qualities. These aspects of flying are not related to the number of engines and that has never been an issue.

You have now moved the discussion to this thread and re-introduced the subject of the number of engines. Flying in singles is adequately addressed in State's Operational Rules (I would question JTobias' suggestion that you can 'get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York'; Part 91.119(a) appears to preclude that practice) and doesn't enter into this discussion.

All of those who routinely fly IFR will tell you that the first encounter with IMC on a departure at night when close to T/O minima - after a summer where little low cloud has been encountered - is a spine chilling event.

Control can be lost extremely quickly in an unstabilised helicopter once the visual cues are degraded; flying in cloud is almost always associated with some degree of turbulence and no visual cues. To advocate deliberately doing this - even with an experienced pilot on board - in an unstabilised platform is exposing both crew members to a risk that is unwarranted.

Jim

[ShyTorque]

The skill, is suppose, is in recognising when you are reaching your mental capacity threshold and doing something positive to reduce the workload.


It could be argued that the real skill is recognising in advance when this might occur and not letting it happen. Again, the accident referred to was a VMC plan irrecoverably flown into IMC apparently with no instigation of an IMC contingency plan.

[jellycopter]

****e

You are indeed correct. You must always have a Plan 'B'.......and maybe C and D too.

Given that in the real world the job simply has to get done sometimes (at least that's how it sometimes feels!), pushing on with Plan A in deteriorating conditions is quite acceptable to a point, provided one can recognise when to revert to Plan B.

As regards the Twin-Squirrel, the flight profile adopted after the initial orbit and descent over the haulage yard looks to me like a classic case of 'Direct to'. I don't think I would have attempted this if I was relying on a map, stopwatch and compass - though I may have with a good Moving Map.

JJ

[ShyTorque]

JJ, if you mean "direct to" the LS, I don't see how; according to the AAIB report the actual LS location apparently wasn't in the GPS as a waypoint.

[VeeAny]

ShyTorque

It was in one of the GPSs they just don't know if it was in use.

The Skymap IIIC had a waypoint marked for the intended destination. However, selected flight plans, ‘direct-to’ activations and map zoom levels are not recorded, so it was not possible to determine if, or how, this information was being used.

Gary

[ShyTorque]

Veeany, yes thanks for that. I was in the process of re-reading the report. Having re-read it he may have elected to do a "direct to", albeit at a very late stage, as JJ said. Perhaps the visual cue of the ground lights was so strong that the GPS was disbelieved during the initial descent.

Helimutt, your input isn't wasted.

However, someone in UK seems happy to fly an R-44 in solid cloud, or did in the not too distant past. I saw him go by in cloud about a hundred feet or less beneath me. I was in cloud to the northwest of Elstree at 2400 feet, on a day when the local cloudbase was about 1200 feet. Presumably he chose not to use mode C or obtain a radar service that day as it would have alerted ATC to the fact that he was undoubtedly in solid IMC. He was probably out of Denham (that's where his mode A appeared on the TCAS and from where Heathrow spotted him) and was heading northeast. If there's a next time I'll report it to the CAA; in retrospect I should have done so at the time.

[heliski22]

EN48 et al

I do agree with you 100% about the value of all of the modern equipment some of us are fortunate enough to have with us on the flight deck. I enjoy using these pieces of kit to as much of their potential as I can wrangle out of them and there is absolutely no doubt of the hugely enhanced awarenes of position available (yes, I too know where VeeAny is coming from with his reference to occasional demands being made). I wouldn't recommend for an instant going back to working without them. I'm flying nearly 20 years (a lot less than some) and still sometimes sit there with a silly grin on my face with the satisfaction of watching all this kit make my job so much easier and, therefore, more enjoyable!!

However, I just threw the question, and my remarks, in to stir the pot a little (they didn't really, but never mind!).

[Flingingwings]

There was me mistakenly thinking this was a GPS based thread rather than another round of IMC flying in a single :{

The existing thread contains all the arguements so there seems little value repeating them or having any more slanging matches.Suffice to say both sides seem to consistantly disagree. However even the most vocal voices are trying to make things safer, albeit with a different approach.

HM has a passion for his beliefs that at times his posts hide slightly :cool:

The scuba diving analogy got me thinking though.................

Basic divers are shown and taught to only conduct dives that don't require decompression. Even so some people get it wrong and get ill and/or die.

Perhaps to get some clarity you could post a similar thread on a diving forum. I wonder if experienced and qualified diving instructors and/or experienced commercial/saturation divers would advocate exposing inexperienced divers to recompression diving just so they can experience it, or perhaps letting them get a minor case of DCI just so they can better handle it.

£50 to an aviation charity of your choosing says they'll advocate training people to be aware of the dangers and act sensibly, rather than take needless risks, and that the qualified (who also work within the diving industry) will have an issue with training people illegally and/or with unsuitable equipment :hmm:

[Devil 49]

I have worked with 'experienced' commercial pilots who couldn't navigate without the black box. The most extreme example was unable to find the Continental United States from the near inshore Gulf of Mexico. He was less than 40 miles from the base he was working from, maybe 20 miles offshore. This pilot had been lucky for a hitch or two, always in aircraft with nav systems, and his luck held long enough to finish the day's assignment. Then the LORAN crumped and he was lost. The part of the map at the top that wasn't blue had absolutely no significance.

Years later, when LORAN was commonly deployed in that employer's fleet, I sat in a ready room with experienced pilots who couldn't approximate the lat-long to the base some had worked for years. Not a clue, those numbers were PFM. Punch some numbers in (most units had a 9 waypoint memory) follow the needle. Hold departure base into memory position #1, and until you changed contracts, you never had to handle those numbers in again.

Then, I saw a pilot come out of some real crap weather following the needle. I asked why he didn't circumnavigate it, his answer "I didn't want to get that far off course".

I work with pilots now who consider the GPS a 'no-go' item, some have worked the area for 3, 4, 5 or more years. For EMS, a fair few of our given coordinates are erroneous, the expectation of accuracy works against you when that occurs.

I work with a guy who carries and sets up his own GPS, in spite of the fleet standard 2-GPS and a moving map system- and official discouragement from using non-issue, non-standard nav equipment.
Since we've started using the gee-whiz cockpit, datalink, etc., I find myself inside even more than before. Perhaps with time, I'll get back outside as much as before, but I wonder- looking at obstructions depicted, traffic, radar, course line, etc., is mighty distracting. The med crew has certainly adapted, I have to activate the destination waypoint now, so they can follow our progress, digitally.

Yes, pilots follow that needle the wrong way. Seen it happen many times- GIGO.
Yes, the illusion of knowledge, electronically computed and reported positions, seems to reduce workload and make some pilots more casual.
There's worlds of difference between data and information. Generally speaking:
Hundredths of mile, tenths of a mile, even MILES off course, is data, NOT information. How you use that data nakes it information;
Ditto for ground speed, ETE, range and bearing to destination.

The equipment gets better and more idiot proof, but it doesn't replace a competent, cautious pilot.

[verticalhold]

I've spent the last few days on line training with a new pilot. At one of the breaks we were talking about situational versus spatial awareness. As an exercise for the sake of it we went Exmoor Batttersea at night on basic nav aids and pilot nav. The work load went up, but at the end of the trip there was a great feeling of satisfaction. The newer generation of pilots who have really no experience of "old fashioned" pilot nav are the ones who I find have problems with their situational awareness. A couple of years charging around Britain on charter can bring on something akin to a taxi driver's "knowledge" so long as the pilot is prepared to teach himself by looking out of the window and comparing it to a map.

VH

[ShyTorque]

A couple of years charging around Britain on charter can bring on something akin to a taxi driver's "knowledge" so long as the pilot is prepared to teach himself by looking out of the window and comparing it to a map.


Certainly, but do you think that some pilots don't refer to a map, relying solely on a GPS display instead?

[jellycopter]

'Certainly, but do you think that some pilots don't refer to a map, relying solely on a GPS display instead?'

Yes. Particularly when the weather gets really cruddy and it's too damn difficult / dangerous to go 'heads in' to look at the map. Hence the original question at the start of the thread.

JJ

[verticalhold]

Shy;

I recently flew with one who kept a half mil in his nav-bag and slavishly followed the out of date GPS. The Cardiff CTR expansion had happened two years before and he had no ideas of where the airspace was and its altitude limits. He was supposedly a pro. I sometimes get to fly in a 350 where the owner won't leave the ground without a line on his map, time lines and a thorough study of landmarks and terrain and his GPS is updated monthly. They both have similar hours, who would you rather fly with?

Too many of us seem to rely on the electric brain rather than our own. On another thread VeeAny described a flight where the kit gave up. Without his local knowledge and use of proper raw data nav the situation could have got rapidly out of hand.

I still start a stopwatch as I set sail and compare my times with the chart markings and I fly the latest IFR all singing and dancing toys. Just once has the kit got up and left, but the transition was easier to deal with, the weather was towards minima but I knew pretty much straight off where I was.

I Have no doubt that GPS has improved accuracy, I just question the reliance we have on it and a perception I have of the atrophying of basic skills.

VH

[ShyTorque]

They both have similar hours, who would you rather fly with?

A rhetorical question, I hope. :hmm:

[verticalhold]

A rhetorical question, I hope.

Well one is an idiot and the other could drive a nun into smashing a stained glass window with a gin bottle so yes really!

VH