R44 accidents: Is there a pattern? [Archive]

biggles99

16th Nov 2009, 20:51

You are right Gary.

How about this for a theory:

Chap does training with same instructor, same aircraft, roughly same amount of fuel, and roughly 1 hour flight duration.

Gets his licence.

Chap is either light or heavy: it doesn't matter.

Chap goes for long flight, without instructor, comes back and is spooked by the difference in the angle of the skids to the ground on first contact compared to what he's used to and what it was like on take-off.

Then the over/under controlling starts to happen, and the rest is history.

The same is also true on take-off, or with passengers sitting in the back, or just on one side.

It's all within limits, but it just "feels different". If you are in-experienced, this may well "feel wrong". Hence the ensuing over/under-control.

It's only a theory, I'm not an instructor and I'll be delighted if my theory is utter rubbish.

But as sure as eggs is eggs, there's a commonality in all these accidents, and it is just a matter of time before someone is killed. And it doesn't have to happen if we can work out what is going wrong.

Big Ls

stringfellow

16th Nov 2009, 21:17

more should be made of weight and balance when solo in the r44 its a real handful.... minimum solo pilot weight 150lbs according to poh. i remember my first solo was half tanks and despite weighing 190lbs it felt so back heavy...

my suspicion is that while the r44 training is excellent... the weight and balance implications are just an after thought.

Cron

16th Nov 2009, 21:28

It may sound ridiculous but what I really wanted on my first R22 solo (and on the little 'into the hover down to the ground' lifts prior) was a dummy sat in the left seat. Same height/bulk/weight as a regular instructor.

The dummy height was to keep the restricted viz real, the dummy weight for obvious reasons and the dummy bulk to retain the restricted elbow movement.

Without such a dummy I had seemingly limitless power, limitless viz and the freedom to do weird things with my left arm all with the sensation of the machine being tilted by 30 degrees.

Without the instructor/dummy a lot more light reflected from the instrument glass (I was trained to inspect the T's and P's regularly and, because I spent to much time on MS sim, I always wanted to look more inside than outside).

On the vast 30 hours I accrued post solo the feeling never left me and I asked regularly if I could take up a passenger to replace the instructor bulk.

The answer was always a sensible 'NO' from a 30,000 hours man who said 'we expect a period of consolidation'.

He was right of course as he was right in the pre-solo brief which covered most of the above except the psychological angle of not having something in the LHS.

Regards

Cron

stringfellow

16th Nov 2009, 21:37

why did your instructor not suggest some ballast??? its not a big ask!!! in the adrenaline mist of your first solo the last thing you want is an unfamiliar feeling aircraft.

discussing the feel of a solo aircraft should take place hours before the actual solo i feel, and ballast option should be thoroughly briefed.

ReverseFlight

16th Nov 2009, 21:55

I remember asking for ballast in my student days in the R22 but my flight instructor quite rightly refused it, making me more reliant on my own judgement for things like hovering and landing.

I once flew an R44 and couldn't help noticing the rubber grip on the cyclic had been torn to shreds by nervous students, many of them whom had transitioned from the R22 and were not used to flying a larger machine. The vertical movement in the T-cyclic doesn't help as it affects the sensitivity in lateral control and (depending on your knee height) the cyclic grip is presented to students at different angles (not ergonomically efficient).

toptobottom

16th Nov 2009, 22:11

I'm not sure what the "similar accidents" or "similar circumstances" are that the previous posts refer to - please enlighten me! Unless you guys know something I don't, the PIC could have been a very experienced SFH'er?! Have i missed something :confused:

TTB

toptobottom

16th Nov 2009, 22:25

ReverseFlight - I remember my instructor (who weighed all of 150lbs) putting ballast under the left hand seat in my R22 in prep for my first solo. Thinking back, the ballast can't have weighed more than 20lbs, so the difference wouldn't have been that noticeable, even with such a light instructor. Maybe the placebo effect gave me more confidence (not necessarily a good thing!)? Providing the stude can lift nice and slowly into the hover, surely the difference in a/c attitude due to weight & balance is no worse than compensating for the effects of a stiff breeze?!

Gaseous

16th Nov 2009, 23:40

I remember being 'surprised' by the change in attitude of the 44 after I did my type rating with Geoff Day when he got out. :eek: (how is he these days? - not seen him for years)
I had about 100 hours at the time. I should imagine the first solo in a 44 would be a bit of a handful. The 44 doesnt strike me as an ideal trainer. Just my opinion. It was an Astro but I dont think the W&B implications are different are they?

4ftHover

17th Nov 2009, 05:48

I'll never forget how different the R22 was on my first solo. 15 stone of instructor gets out and you lift for the first time and it took me a couple seconds to get it stable in the hover. After that it was ok.

I guess its what happens in those couple of seconds that either results in a take off or a bent chopper.

VeeAny

17th Nov 2009, 07:52

TTB

The simlar circumstances I refer to are the 6 or 7 R44 seemingly dynamic rollover accidents that have occured this year to G registration R44 helicopters.

The AAIB are not investigating all of them (they may not be investigating any for all I know) and some will be dealt with by a form submitted to them by the pilot / operator.

I know for a fact that several of the pilots concerned are inexperienced, some of them were solo students and even if they were very experienced SFHers something has still gone wrong when accidents are happening just because the aircraft was landing or taking off, if there are no technical defects with the aircraft.

How many organisations stop their SFHers flying when they do not meet the limits of the AD set in the limitiations section of the R22 (not R44 anymore) POH ?

Unrelated to the R44 accidents but relevant nonetheless
Pilots make mistakes, but so do instructors, examiners and the system in which we operate, these accidents are not just happening and a shrug of the shoulders won't make them stop, I have suggested to the CAA a couple of times that they should start to look for patterns in where training is carried out and by whom the pilots who go on to have accidents are trained and tested by to see if there is any commonality, there may not be, but I doubt it.

There are examiners out there who will sign off LSTs and LPCs because they are being paid, they surely must shoulder some of the responsibility when some of the accidents that subsequently occur happen.

Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?

Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him.

biggles99

17th Nov 2009, 08:52

Veeany - again I have to agree with you.

We have to look at the training and other factors.

As Veeany says, we cannot simply blame the pilots. The training, the schools, the instructors, the syllabus, the ethos, are all contributing factors that lead up to a pile of bits on the floor.

If the stats exist relating to accidents and incidents per school per pilot trained, it would be very, very interesting to see whether some schools were better or worse than others.

It would be a great marketing tool too -- a league table of safe training establishments would help a new pilot make his/her choice.

BigLs

toptobottom

17th Nov 2009, 09:12

Re training and organisations paying lip service to LPC standards and the AD limits in a 22's POH, i'm quite sure it happens, but maybe not as much as it did (paradoxically, if incidents are on the increase, but maybe that's your point). I've seen many a low time, naively optimistic SFH'er turned away when the Wx has been marginal, particularly on gusty days, much to their dismay.

If a pilot is a familiar face and 'known' to the testing org as an experienced/competent pilot, then inevitably the LPC is more likely to be a formality than if the pilot is either unknown, or known to be inexperienced/incompetent. If complacency is creeping in across the board regardless, then that definitely is a worry.

toptobottom

17th Nov 2009, 09:31

This sounds horribly like the Macclesfield incident (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/395969-chopper-down-macclesfield-cheshire.html) recently posted; an experienced plank pilot getting into trouble soon after moving to rotary. Is this a pattern emerging?!
TTB

sammypilot

17th Nov 2009, 09:55

Doesn't part of the problem lie with the fact that Mr. Robinson didn't design his helicopters with training in mind. I admit to being a fixed wing pilot who has only flown a few hours on Robinson's but I found them desparately twitchy to fly whereas the C150/152 and PA38 were designed with training in mind and were made as idiot proof as possible.

toptobottom

17th Nov 2009, 10:14

SammyPilot

We're in grave danger of resurrecting an age old debate about Robinsons and their suitability for training here, but for the record I don't believe Robinsons are 'twitchy'. However, being a lightweight machine, the R22 is particularly susceptible to gusty wind conditions and very sensitive to W&B/control inputs. Remember, all helicopters are inherantly unstable and coming from a C150/152 or PA38, a plank driver will initially find any helicopter a handful by comparison.

I think the issue in this thread is more about the quality of rotary training and subsequent testing. The suggestion here is that if these were not delivered thoroughly and effectively, could this have been a contributory factor in this and the 6 or 7 other similar R44 incidents?

TTB

Whirlygig

17th Nov 2009, 11:13

Doesn't part of the problem lie with the fact that Mr. Robinson didn't design his helicopters with training in mind.
Although to my mind, the R22 is the "twitchiest" of all helicopters, the R44 isn't. However, even if you were flying a Jet Ranger, a Cessna would, in comparison, feel as stable as the Rock of Gibralter!!!

One thing that cross my mind is the geography of hangars and aprons. Maybe operators need to consider where they position their landing spots and how they will be approached.

Cheers

Whirls

Torquetalk

17th Nov 2009, 11:40

TTB

The Macclesfield pilot did his conversion "a few years back" (ref. Float Test's post) so he may not be part of that pattern. But the Harrogate accident certainly was.

Think the points being raised with regard to ensuring quality in training are bang on-the-money but it's hard to see where change is going to come from if not from training providers and their customers. The general problems with the UK training market are well-known: poor conditions of employment, high turnover, poor prospects for development as instructors for most involved. If that doesn't change, we can't really expect anything other than patchy quality. Few companies have anything like the resources, experience and philosophy needed to deliver a consistently good training product.

TT

jellycopter

17th Nov 2009, 16:11

I don't think that the emphasis is right in the UK civilian training/testing regime. It's all about filling in the paperwork correctly and flying to a pre-defined set of parameters in a known environment (ie; licensed aerodrome). There's insufficient emphasis placed upon decision-making and good old-fashioned captaincy. Being able to manipulate the controls to put the aircraft where you want doesn't make you a pilot. (However, in these recent R44 roll-overs it seems the 'pilots' couldn't even do that).

I think that the CAA, rather than audit FTOs/TRTOs (and maybe soon RTFs too) in a pre-arranged manner should consider random spot-checks. Furthermore, not only the paperwork should be auditted. How about 'mystery shopper' type checks? The industry is quite small, but it's big enough to have 'anonymous' individuals turn up at a school for a trial lesson or ask for an LPC. By flying with the people imparting the training, or conducting the tests, in a covert manner, they'll soon be able to assess accurately who's doing the job properly and responsibly. The school / examiner would get paid their normal fee so nobody has anything to lose; except maybe the dodgy operators.

Could it work?

JJ

VeeAny

17th Nov 2009, 16:33

JJ

Couldn't agree more.

The mystery shopper idea was suggested a short while ago by one of the good guys, I don't know if it got anywhere but if it could be made to work it might sort some of them out.

From a safety and standards point of view Auditing RTFs is almost a no brainer, the financials may make it a non starter but I for one hope it goes ahead.

There is a preponderance of teaching students how to manipulate controls using a script someone else wrote that doesn't always fit the helicopter in question without teaching them how to be pilots.

GS

toptobottom

17th Nov 2009, 18:11

JJ
Given how [over-]regulated most areas of the UK's GA industry is, I was gob smacked when I read in the 'Harrogate gazelle' AAIB report that RTFs need do nothing more than fill some forms in to qualify :} The controls around qualifying as a FTO/TRTO seem weak anyway, but why not apply what little there is to RTF's as well :ugh:

"To become an RTF no approval needs to be granted; organisations are only required to register with the CAA and certify that they comply with certain required conditions. No inspections are carried out and no training or operations manuals are required. Registration remains valid until either the CAA is informed that PPL training is to cease or the CAA establishes that training is not being carried out safely or is not in compliance with JAR-FCL. In these instances the registration may be revoked."

Currently, for FTO/TRTOs, an initial CAA inspection is made after one year, then it's another three years before anyone's troubled with having to prove standards are being maintained - that's ridiculous.

As Gary says, auditing not just the paperwork, but the quality of training/testing, would seem to be a no brainer. I think the mystery shopper idea would work really well; the only organisations that are likely to object are those that are not up to scratch.

TTB

chalmondleigh

17th Nov 2009, 18:40

The R44 has a big change in attitude with varying pilot/passenger weights and fuel states, much bigger than the Jetranger.

Solo with full fuel slightly nose up, four up with low fuel very pronounced nose down attitude.

Normally dressed I exceed the minimum pilot weight by only only ten pounds and whilst this conforms with the POH I always carry ballast in the form of six standard house bricks in a canvas holdall under the left seat. My bricks weigh seven pounds each.

toptobottom

17th Nov 2009, 18:51

chalmondleigh - that's a very expensive wheel barrow :}

Up & Away

17th Nov 2009, 19:46

I agree with VeeAny, who concluded with
"Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him."
Does one further conclude that the system i.e. the CAA are thus completely to blame?

Twiddle

17th Nov 2009, 20:52

Everything in the R44 is easy, provided you positively land it, otherwise hello PIO.....

I wonder if this is the issue?

The first 7 landings were rubbish, but the 8th was a doodie, now, go and repair the tarmac!

Keepitup

18th Nov 2009, 11:47

Right, so we have slated the R44, Flying Schools, Instructors, Pilots, CAA.

I thought this forum was not a forum for a bunch of old women moaning.

:p:p

Jarvy

18th Nov 2009, 13:30

Very true Keepitup, but we need to understand why these accidents happen and how to prevent them happening again. So is it the training, the helicopter, or something else that is at fault. Maybe its just bad luck but we should try to find out.

Keepitup

18th Nov 2009, 14:51

Agreed, but it still comes down to speculating !!! :ok:

vaqueroaero

18th Nov 2009, 14:55

When I soloed students in the R22 we would calculate a weight and balance with about 30 pounds of lead shot in the at the base of the left seat. I would explain in as much detail as I could what the aircraft would feel like and that the initial pick up should be done very, very slowly as it is the first time that the student has to work things out in the machine on their own. As the solo flights progressed we would reduce the balast, thereby weaning them and eventually everyone flew with no ballast.

Some may view this as overkill, but I didn't want anyone to experience my first solo adventure when my instructor simply got out and told me to have at it. The first pick up was one of the scariest moments of my career as I launched off sideways.............

I always teach that a pick up to a hover should be very slow and controlled. Anyone who rushes it is told to land and do it again. If this taught from the first flight then you can pick any helicopter up to a hover regardless of experience.

[email protected]

18th Nov 2009, 16:09

Out of interest, how many pilots are being taught to hover using the 2 o'clock daisy technique instead of using hover attitude? Students quickly learn that they can stop wandering so much in the hover if they use the daisy but it does them no good in the long run and is absolutely hopeless for lifting to the hover and landing.

manfromuncle

18th Nov 2009, 17:25

2 o'clock daisy? Please explain...

ShyTorque

18th Nov 2009, 17:33

It's an old girlfriend of Crab's (so to speak).

Stuck_in_an_ATR

18th Nov 2009, 19:20

Can anyone tell me what does it mean SFH? :confused:

MightyGem

18th Nov 2009, 19:26

Using a daisy(or something) in the 2 o'clock position as a hover reference instead of the normal looking ahead in the distance reference?? :rolleyes:

manfromuncle

18th Nov 2009, 19:42

Self Fly Hire. ie. a person who has a PPL hires a helicopter to fly himself.

chopper.al

18th Nov 2009, 23:13

Hi guys, I'm a relatively low hours PPL holder and I learned to fly at Scotia Helicopters in Cumbernauld who gave me, in my opinion, excellent training (I've had a bit of instruction at other schools in England). Everything was clearly explained and each exercise thoroughly taught until I and the instructor was satisfied that it had sank in.

I believe that these rollovers, in most cases, can be avoided if people start to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'. I heard of one incident ( not at Scotia!!!) that had a student at the controls waiting on his instructor and he decided to get the machine (R44) wound up for action. When he was checking the Low RRPM buzzer he had one hand on the collective and one holding the checklist, he pulled the collective as the RRPM was at 97% up about 6 inches or so and, as he was not holding the cyclic, ended up on his ribs in a scrapyard. :ugh:

[email protected]

19th Nov 2009, 05:40

MG has it right - despite the best efforts of instructors to get the student to look ahead for hover references, especially the hover attitude, many believe they can hold a better hover by looking down in the 2 o'clock position at a close ground reference. Whilst it can be a good place to scan to pick up fore and aft drift, it is no use as a primary hover reference and certainly no good for assessing pitch, roll and yaw changes during take off and landing.

inditrees

19th Nov 2009, 09:11

Dear crab,

If that is the case then please explain night deck landings

[email protected]

19th Nov 2009, 10:49

inditrees - don't you use the horizon bar and patter/con then?

9Aplus

19th Nov 2009, 11:10

small assistance :ok:
http://i730.photobucket.com/albums/ww304/d9aplus/Picture569sm.jpg

Bondu121

19th Nov 2009, 15:34

1. Tom Cruise shades - Check
2. Know it all after 20 hours - Check
3. Start Check List - Nah, don't need that (see 2)
4. Ah sh*t, destroyed a/c - Blame instructors/FTO/CAA/etc blah, blah
5. Tom Cruise shades - Check
6. War stories in the pub/club - Check
:ugh: :D

biggles99

19th Nov 2009, 19:21

Keepitup -- it is important to broaden the topic of discussion.

The hardware alone in these 5 or (as Veeany says) 7 accidents was worth well over a million quid, all of which has been written off.

I own quite a lot of R22s and R44s at the moment, and my insurance premiums next year may well be more next year due (partly) to these crashes.

And I don't think that any of these ones accidents have yet to pay out a personal injury claim.

So I have a vested interest in wanting to reduce the accident rate.

Chopper.al,

although these accidents are all with low time pilots, I know of many others. The following accidents are just from my local airfield.

in 2004 there was this one:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Robinson%20R22%20Beta,%20G-TGRR%209-05.pdf

in 2007 an instructor bent the tail on a AS355 while practicing single engine landings/take offs

in July 2008 an instructor wrote off a R22 while auto-ing into a field,

in 2008 an instructor allowed a student to overspeed a R22 on start-up

There was also a birdstrike that put a student in hospital as it smashed the screen of a AS355. Now, before you say "hardly anyone's fault" and mindful of the Hudson River incident, I've been in a R44 that also suffered a bird-strike -- and poor look-out (for which I accept TOTAL responsibility) was definately a factor.

and now we have this one.

So that's six expensive accidents, and one terrible fatality just at one airfield. How many more are there that I don't know about? LOADS, I'm sure.

Chopper.al. I'm afraid I disagree with you. Unless the pilot is suicidal (yes, it does happen) we've all got the self-preservation instinct. Bad judgement, bad decisions and "flying in conditions beyond the capability of the pilot" is at the heart of the problem.

Helping to establish the causes of the problem is the key to saving lives, reducing legislation and minimising insurance premiums.

On-line debates such as this one should help, I hope.

Even if all it does is make you think a little about some of the comments that you may or may not agree with, just as you turn the key/press the button.

Big Ls.

chopper.al

19th Nov 2009, 20:32

biggles,

that is what I'm actually saying. We should have the 'self preservation' not to let ourselves get into that situation, ie. listen to the instructors, listen to your peers and above all, take this flying malarky as seriously as possible. It's the same set of rules (and laws of physics) whether you've flown 20 hours or 2000 hours.

As I said, I am low hours but every flight I have is as well thought out and pre planned as possible. I read all the AAIB circulars, take the weight and balance thing seriously (I'm 6' 6'' and weigh 18 stone so I need to!!!) and brief my passengers on all aspects before flight. I take these things very seriously but I'm sure there are plenty of low hours guys who think 'it'll never happen to me' and end up in that very situation where they are flying outwith their capabilities.

If i have any problems with any area of my flying I am not too proud to go and ask for some tuition from those in the know but i wonder just how many people would? I passed my GFT in minimum hours so was happy with my progress as I was being instructed (and Dave Young was my instructor, he certainly expected the best from you) but I knew that there was plenty more to learn. I think this is the attitude to have if you want to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'.

Thanks, Alan.

Jarvy

19th Nov 2009, 20:40

Well put biggles99.
I aways find it is better to learn from other peoples mistakes than my own.

hover Motivator

21st Nov 2009, 04:52

I do not believe all instructors do it just for money, some do, some just want to build experience and move on to bigger aircraft, but I do believe alot of them do it for the satisfaction of seeing people that had never flown before, walk out of the door, tall and proud, qualified as a helicopter pilot. Its a great and very rewarding feeling. Its similar to Richard Branson's old primary school teacher who secretly says to himself, I helped make that man successful, credit where credits due, he couldn't have made a fortune if he didn't know his times tables and percentages for all that profit.

Frank Robinson identified two important things many many years ago when he produced his first helicopters.

The first was that the inital assesments of accidents in his aircraft pointed to High time fixed wing, Low time rotary, as people being the most likely to crash his aircraft.

The second is that he always believes that it is not the experience or skill of the pilot that may cause the accident, but the attitude which the pilot has towards flying the helicopter.

Frank is right and pyschometric testing of students prior to starting training (and turning them away if they fail) is probably the best way of reducing the accident rate.

Torquetalk

21st Nov 2009, 09:57

A rigorous psychometric assessment didn't stop a medical services helicopter pilot in JAR-land flying his aircraft under a bridge for kicks, crashing and killing one of his crew. Or the crew of the Puma accident in the media lately flying like dickheads (and who presumably passed similar RAF tests). So how valid, objective and reliable can such methods be?

Somebody instructed and authorised the pilot who lost control at Shobdon. If his attitudes were assessed by several people to be hazardous, how did he get to solo/pass LST/SFH? People instructing, examining and chartering out aircraft also need to assess risk and STOP someone flying if necessary.

ShyTorque

21st Nov 2009, 10:10

People instructing, examining and chartering out aircraft also need to assess risk and STOP someone flying if necessary.

Torquetalk

I agree, but it's not in the syllabus ;)

Senior Pilot

21st Nov 2009, 12:26

.

This thread has been split from a thread about a particular accident so that people can discuss whether there is a general problem and, if there is, what can/should be done about it.

Helinut

21st Nov 2009, 13:13

I haven't instructed for many years but I used to. It was probably the most satisfying part of my flying career, so far, and I wanted my students to be the best possible pilots, which I think was the common position.

In the PPL market the individual instructor can have a significant impact but he is not in control, and much less so, since JAR-FCL. PPL students (in the main) are self-selecting. The only aptitude they have is the desire to learn to fly and (hopefully) the budget to do it. There is a disincentive for the school and instructor to be too heavy about the effort needed when a prospect arrived at the flying school. They very often do not have an ideal training schedule and I recall that some did not present themselves optimally. Often they were stressed or fatigued by some other aspect of their life and they had just driven around the M25 to get to the airfield as well.

I still recall one or two students who made very slow/zero progress. The instructors used to spend a lot of time worrying about them and how to deal with them. People do progress at a different rate, for a variety of reasons. Some did eventually progress to a PPL (after a large number of hours). Some went elsewhere, got their licences and then crashed damaged aircraft. When students did transfer, we were happy to send copies of our training notes.

The authorities designate the syllabus not the instructor, nor the flying school. Helicopter training is expensive, so you would have to be very persuasive to persuade most students to do much more than the minimum. A weakness in the UK system was that the instructor (and flying school) got paid by the flying hour: I guess it is still the same. I recall doing extra ground school when I thought it sensible and the opportunity arose. However, I also recall that some students just glazed over and you were wasting your time.

As some have already said, the PPL syllabus (indeed any flying training syllabus that I have come across) does not actually spend much or indeed any time addressing the main factors that cause accidents. These are not the ability to control the aircraft, but things such as attitude, character and decision making. As those of us who have been involved in CRM know, the people who most need that sort of education are the ones least likely to accept it.

Pre-JAR, there were some real problems with the "system". The one that I recall was that once private owners had acquired their licence, they did not need to EVER fly with an instructor or examiner again. We used to try and persuade them to do continuation training. When you succeeded, you were made well aware why they were reluctant - a number were so slow and hesitant at anything out of the normal (e.g. entering auto) that a real engine failure would have had a most terminal outcome.

As those of us who have taken our careers beyond the PPL know, practice and currency are very important at maintaining, let alone improving standards. PPL (post their licence training) will frequently be or be close to being out of practice. Whose fault is that?

Mind you, there are/were some flying schools whose pads and manoeuvering areas were a disgrace. Any attempt to raise concerns would be futile, until after the accident (maybe).

manfromuncle

21st Nov 2009, 14:15

A weakness in the UK system was that the instructor (and flying school) got paid by the flying hour: I guess it is still the same. I recall doing extra ground school when I thought it sensible and the opportunity arose. However, I also recall that some students just glazed over and you were wasting your time.

Hear, hear. Paying instructors by the hour doesn't encourage good teaching practices/methods.

Most students I taught just treated the groundschool as an annoying hurdle to get out of the way. They didn't have time, nor the commitment for it. Most helicopter students are "cash rich time poor".

To be fair though, the JAA PPL exams are a joke. How is a knowledge of induced flow, bus bars and ICAO annexes going to help you when you get lost/the engine quits/the weather turns poor?

The FAA system is much better, one exam, covering a general level of detail in all subject areas.

There needs to be more emphasis on decision making, power-on forced landings, weather diversions/planning etc. in the PPL syllabus, and daft things like downwind quickstops should be removed.

topendtorque

22nd Nov 2009, 02:48

a number were so slow and hesitant at anything out of the normal (e.g. entering auto) that a real engine failure would have had a most terminal outcome.

This quote got me going as I had a real experience of this recently, even though the OZ training fraternity have done a lot of work in recent years to improve the syllabus and standards of training.

I noted recently in Heli-ops an excellent article titled “core knowledge” which referred to the core of this thread. I was amazed I must say, with all the talk of the high standards of JAR land that such a situation could exist. So far the thread seems to have concentrated mainly on the existence of the ‘problem’, not a cure for it.

I don’t see how the phantom learner will achieve much, by the very nature of this activity he is there in an unofficial capacity, and he has to dumb down to do it???? OZ regs state that CASA people must identify themselves upon first contact.

A scheme of random audits of the finished product should be a major incentive for excellence. If a problem is encountered then an exhaustive program of checking of instructors and other students should ensue at that school. If this uncovers major defects then the stiff penalty of licence pull must be contemplated.

No one should be aggrieved at that as with the exhaustive approach, there is plenty of opportunity to demonstrate competence and fairness. This must surely achieve heaps more, everything neat and legal, not sneaky and underhand and up there to be talked about to the students as well as the instructors.

Surely that will contribute greatly to a higher standard of self regulation, which is the desired outcome.

The aspect of cost will be raised, I suggest that cost will be minimal as once a couple of examples are made that word will quickly spread.

Perhaps a scheme of competition for the best student pilot, each year should be initiated from each school, with a national winner. After all many forms of the hospitality trade participate in these activities. Those with the best chefs sell the most meals. “People always remember the taste long after they have forgotten the price."

From my own first PPL licence I remember with pain just how much money that I wasted because every time that I made a few dollars, er quid back then, I would rush of and do an hour or two, the first third of which was wasted by recurrency work. A structured continuous program is much more ecenomical and better for learning.

From an operation training perspective the most problems that we used encounter focus easily on the very basic;

1) Take off and land smoothly and slowly, as already mentioned,

2) Smooth transition to forward flight, with a barely discernible nose lower attitude change and,

3) Correct and expedient reaction to emergencies at any time.

There are only a few emergencies discussed in the syllabus, they are what we need to see as a commercial operator to be done correctly. Pretty much all other manoeuvres stem from these basics.

Just recently there was a helicopter written off at Wave Hill station by a pilot who “lost it” whilst doing a simple approach to land at a fuel bowser. How’ you ask?

There have been several instances of people doing sling work and after depositing the load catching their strop / net etc on an obstacle because of an idiotic fast translation.

I can say that it is the area that gave me the most trouble in doing sling endorsements. It was brought about for two reasons on the pilots that I trained;

1) An inherent failure to have been taught properly at ab-initio stage and,

2) A developed practice of jerking off the ground and fast translation because of either, perceived dust evasion problems and or general personal slackness. (bad attitude)

One will never learn to make the best use of available power for sling work unless one exhibits strict discipline in the translation stage. The tricks that help and enhance that we will teach.

As far as progressing the politics of checking standards, then your structured organisations, such as the Guild perhaps, must be a good starting point, to actively lobby with.

The odd article here and there won’t change much, but the use of those good articles put together by respected people such as Phil Croucher, will be important when one approaches the directors of CAA and the Minister and shadow minister responsible for matters aviation.

I picked up a little and long circulated quip from a recent email which I shall pass on for the students.

Represent the numbers of the alphabet by the numbers one to twenty six and collate the numeric results of examined words as an expression of achievement on a percentage scale up to a maximum of 100%.

Examine the three words, Hardwork, Knowledge, and Attitude. You will see that whilst Hardwork and Knowledge will nearly get you there it is Attitude which will get you over the line.

All the best, tet

Sky Sports

22nd Nov 2009, 11:24

Going back to the original question, is there a pattern? I would suggest there is and that pattern when all the variables are taken out of the equation is the aircraft. Job done. :ok:

Whirlygig

22nd Nov 2009, 14:30

when all the variables are taken out of the equation is the aircraft.Or the soft, squidgy, carbon-based lifeform sitting in the cockpit? :}

Cheers

Whirls

chopper.al

22nd Nov 2009, 15:29

I would reckon the only reason the aircraft is still there after you remove all the variables is because it's the cheapest, and therefore only, training option for most civillian pilots.

I wonder what the military statistics read for pilots with the same number of hours as the civillian guys who have these accidents. Although, this may not give a true reflection as military guys will get more flying time per week than their GA counterparts which would give better continuity to the training. It took me the best part of a year to get 45 hours when I trained, I bet military pilots do that in a few weeks.

Is it possible that having a more focused period ie. 6 months maximum training time, would help with training in that it would be easier for new pilots to get a feel for the aircraft quicker and not lose their 'touch' in extended periods between each training flight? For example, if you have just got the hang of hovering and have to stop flying for a few weeks, it usually takes you a bit of time to get back into the swing of things, but if the syllabus required that you fly almost every week, but preferably two or three hours a week, this could make the learning a bit more progressive.

Discuss...... :)

topendtorque

22nd Nov 2009, 17:53

Going back to the original question, is there a pattern?

YES

Do you lack observational skill? It is screaming at you from not only my post but many others, read them again.

It is the Lack of standards.

Tightening the timeframe makes it easier and cheaper to learn and, less beneficial for the instructor and the school who is paid by the hour.

Tighten the standard and the people will stop crashing.

Standards setting comes from political will, nowhere else. Political will is generated from within your CAA or it should be directed by the politicians to generate it if it is found lacking in the top end of the CAA.

If industry says that the standards are slack then they must approach and lobby those responsible to fix them.

R22's and 44's aren't twitchy beasts, in fact they are so ridiculously easy to fly and operate that it is not funny.

I must add a well known fable; "It's a very poor tradesman that blames his tools." Keep them sharp and keep yourself sharp.

tony 1969

22nd Nov 2009, 18:15

chopper.al
Its a great idea but how would you police such a thing, most PPL's take somewhere between 6 months to two years to complete due to work, family, or finances or whatever else gets in the way. Its just not practical to make some one do it in six months (or even a year come to that).
military training is completely different to civvy, the military will test and weed out people before they even get near an aircraft.
It seems strange that we seem to be laying the blame at schools/instructors, we all know that some people are better pilots than others, it comes down to age, ability and what kind of a day they are having as well as training and aircraft.
Not every instructor is just there for the money and to move on to a "proper job", but being paid by the hour and poorly at that sucks. Some FI's may fly when they feel the weather is not really suitable, that trial lesson that just wants to look at the view, take pictures (this is classed as AOC work in the UK), when knackered, pissed off and really shouldnt be in the air.
I have come across an FI (luckily not rotary) who was a liability, poorly taught students, turns up pissed, sits in the aircraft and lets students infringe controlled airspace.....

Veeany said "Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?"

No its not right, sometimes they are overweight for an LPC let alone an LST....

I still dont see the sense in a system that will not let you land off an airfield in a helicopter, thats what they are for....:ugh:

biggles99

22nd Nov 2009, 18:52

Hear hear, TET. Or is it Here, here? I never was sure.

It's not the only solution, but it's definitely one of them.

If as much time was spent teaching decision and judgement skills as opposed to engine/tail rotor failure procedural skills, then I'm convinced we'd see a reduction in the CFIT accidents.

CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) is just as pertinent if it is a hangar door on a still clear day as it is into a hill on a foggy day. Only the last couple of seconds in either type of accident doesn't really consitute the "C" bit but the rest of the "FIT" certainly er.... fits.

Look at the stats. How many people have killed themsleves, injured thenselves, or damaged the aircraft due to engine or other equipment failure? I don't consider carb icing or engine failures due running on one mag as engine failure. It is pilot induced.

Compare this to the accidents caused by practising emergencies, and by people crashing into things on landing and take off (ie the flat ground beneath their skids) and flying in weather conditions beyond their capability.

Is the practicing of auto after auto after auto really the best way to spend time spent with an instructor? The engines don't fail these days, if you believe the stats.

And, ask any newly qualified pilot whether they think they could walk away from an undamaged aircraft in the event of a genuine engine failure in a R22. The honest ones will say "no".

So maybe it would be better to get the basic skills sorted, instill the concept that if the aircraft has failed, for whatever reason, then the only relevant thing is to stay alive. Sod the aircraft.

Then spend the time instilling the ability to land in a sensible place safely with the engine still running (should the weather turns nasty), and to get the student or early hours pilot to learn what constitutes a sensible landing site -- be this next to a hangar door, in a tennis court or on the apron of a very large airfield.

The sensible place will vary with the pilot, the time of day, the weather conditions and aircraft type -- but the understanding and interpretation of these factors remain a constant.

What do you think, Hover Motivator?

Big Ls.

Whirlygig

22nd Nov 2009, 19:21

It's "hear, hear" and is a contraction of "hear him, hear him" originating in parliament in the 18th century. :8

Cheers

Whirls

chopper.al

22nd Nov 2009, 21:57

I honestly believe the system works if the people being taught are able to fully appreciate the gravity of what they are actually doing. I know we could all suggest ways to improve it but at the end of the day it has been proven to work. Maybe more emphasis should be put on the human factors and limitations exam and some sort of case studies of common accidents caused by poor judgement etc.

Yes, each pilot is totally different and that is why some guys take longer than others to pass their test, I know of a woman who took 114 hours to get there and she could not care less as she was then much more confident in her abilities. (Her instructor told me she could have gone for her test after about 60 hours but she was much happier to continue training. Good for her!) Drilling into new pilots just how serious it could be, without scaring them sh*tless, would make for better pilots. This is how I was taught and at Scotia they will very happily take you down a peg or two if your attitude starts to outweigh your ability. The limitations of the aircraft should not really come into it. It's the limitations of us that are the problem.

Attitude and aptitude before altitude. (I just came up with that. Rubbish, isn't it?:)

herman the crab

23rd Nov 2009, 04:26

ivakontrol

28th Nov 2009, 20:48

............ Going back to R44 accidents - has anyone looked at the known accidents, and analysed them as a percentage, of

Whilst training
SFH
Ownership flyingIt might help add to the pattern? :confused:

manfromuncle

28th Nov 2009, 20:59

I usually read most AAIB helicopter accident reports and although I don't have any figures, I would guess that solo students and private owners make up the bulk of them.

flyboystogether

11th Dec 2009, 23:16

Is the point off his post started by biggles 99 (who still remains name less and and does not have the guts to show his name) to stir or to prove a point ???

Whirlygig

11th Dec 2009, 23:34

There are many people on this forum who go to great lengths to hide their identity but BigLs is not one of them. Anyone with a titter of wit in the rotary world can work out who he is.

Not that it should make any difference to validity of his points.

One could easily make the same accusation of you, flyboystogether. :hmm:

Cheers

Whirls

topendtorque

12th Dec 2009, 10:59

One could easily make the same accusation of you, flyboystogether.

brilliant whirls, you're an ace for sure.

SASless

12th Dec 2009, 13:28

Most helicopter students are "cash rich time poor".

That changes upon graduation to paid Commerical Flying!:rolleyes:

One has plenty of time to consider one's choice of professions and steady diet of Ramen Noodles!:{

EN48

12th Dec 2009, 14:25

R22's and 44's aren't twitchy beasts, in fact they are so ridiculously easy to fly and operate that it is not funny.

Well, maybe. In a strict technical sense, this may be correct as the acft only twitches if the control inputs are twitchy. But, IMHO, the R22/R44 are minimalist designs in which pilot friendliness and safety are subordinated to cost. As a pilot qualified in the R22, R44, E480B, and B407, I find the Robbies the most challenging to fly of this group. If one masters the Robbies and lives to tell of it, he has developed considerable skill. Fire away! ;)

flyboystogether

12th Dec 2009, 21:41

So whirleygig,

i am new to the industry, and its great to learn about flying from people who have vast experiance, and i do hope that from others unfortunate situations i and others of lower time in the aircraft we do not become a stastastic, be it from lack of experiance, inabitily or bad training,
So remind me why was the thread started and what has been learnt from it ?

John Black

biggles99

12th Dec 2009, 22:14

"Is the point off his post started by biggles 99 (who still remains name less and and does not have the guts to show his name) to stir or to prove a point ???"

---------------------------

That's a bit harsh, isn't it, Flyboys?

I have no point to prove. I've got the trophies and the medals already, thank you.

I have also clearly stated my view that there is something wrong with the training syllabus if 7 (or more) low houred or unqualified pilots can total the R44 they were sitting in simply when landing or taking off.

And then there's all the CFIT accidents, usually in bad weather.

My vested interest is also stated: that I have several helicopters at the moment and I don't want my insurance premiums to go up and up due to the ridiculous amounts of claims.

And if by "stir" you mean that people such as yourself will read this thread, do a bit of research, learn from other peoples' mistakes and generally engage brain before engage clutch, and stay alive longer as a consequence, then I think that this is something that should be commended rather than sneered at.

Big Ls.