UK AAIB Feb 2010

[VeeAny]

G-DBUG R44 9 Jul 2009 at Welshpool
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Robinson%20R44%20Clipper,%20G-DBUG%2002-10.pdf
Possible inadvertant hydraulic deselection.

G-EKKO R44 29 March 2009 at Swansea
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/Robinson%20R44%20Raven,%20G-EKKO%2002-10.pdf
Probable intereference with left hand side Yaw Pedals by owner who was on board with another pilot but not rated on the R44.

[generalspecific]

Something I have always wondered about. If you have a rating on the R22, does that make you a "rated helicopter pilot" as far as the dual controls restrictions from the Robinson R44 POH is concerned. Clearly you are not type rated for the R44, but the comment is directed at "helicopters" as a group, not the R44 itself?

[61 Lafite]

I don't recall seeing any CAA amendments to the POH requiring a rated helicopter pilot to be a Robinson rated pilot. In the UK it is separate rating. I don't think the handbook says 'current' rated either, but I'd guess that's what's meant.

The real issue is more one of insurance, and I did recently have a discussion about this with UK helicopter insurers.

In short (and excluding the obvious instructional policies with instructors), for a machine operating non-instructional flights, the insurer's staff told me there is a high risk that a claim would be rejected if the duals of a Robinson are in, and the passenger does not have a current helicopter rating. It would be for the pilot to prove to the insurers satisfaction that the passsenger/duals had no part in the incident, and as that is often going to be virtually impossible, a rejection's likely.

They acknowledged that some unrated passengers, such as a student pilot, might have enough skill to save the aircraft (and their payout!) in some instances, however they will not bend from the requirement that the duals come out or it's the pilot's burden of proof.

I didn't go so far as to ask about a pilot who was out-of-check or, for example, had a suspended medical - is he rated?

It also makes a nonsense of 'partners courses' where a non-pilot partner of a pilot is trained enough to recover in the case of pilot incapacitation, but doesn't do a PPL - often to allay their own fears.

Personally, I'd take them out unless I knew that the individual had been rated at some time, and I could be highly confident that he was reasonably current. I'd ignore a short time out of check or a suspended medical. Longer out of check, I'd probably make a precautionary call to the insurers - it only takes 5 minutes which isn't long in the context of checking the aricraft and preparing for a flight!

It would be better if the POH had a description which was more along the lines of requiring that the passenger to have had instructional training from a qualified instructor in manipulating the controls, similar to the FARs in the US where people have to see the training videos before manipulating the controls. The UK/CAA and insurers do like to take written statements literally!

Lafite.

[Hilico]

I wondered if you'd put this one in:

Cessna 172S Skyhawk, G-SHSP and Enstrom 480, G-LADZ (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/february_2010/cessna_172s_skyhawk__g_shsp_and_enstrom_480___g_ladz.cfm)

This was not a midair, certainly no fatalities or even injury. I gain no pleasure from pointing out it was entirely the plank driver's fault.

[Swiss Cheese]

It probably would be prudent to remove the controls on the pax side, but the insurance position is pretty clear: The helo has to be operated in an airworthy and legal manner and in compliance with the ANO. In the event of a claim, the insurer has the burden to prove that the helo was not being so operated, and if they cannot prove that, they are stuffed. Some Aviation insurers try to deny claims routinely, in the hope that they will not be challenged by a private person with limited means.

Generally if it is not specifically mandated by the insurers in your Policy that you must remove the second set of controls, and you can lawfully operate the helo with them, it should not be an issue. By analogy, GA fixed wing aircraft have dual controls, mostly not removable, and plenty of pax sit in the front seat.

In the event of a fatal accident, then absent any RT to the contrary, it will be impossible to prove that the pax was involved in the operation of the helo. Hence the insurers have difficulty relying on the small print to avoid paying a claim.

[61 Lafite]

In the event of a fatal accident, then absent any RT to the contrary, it will be impossible to prove that the pax was involved in the operation of the helo. Hence the insurers have difficulty relying on the small print to avoid paying a claim.

I wish it was that simple! it doesn't have to be impossible, because the insurance requires the insured to achieve a level of performance under the insurance contract before a claim can be paid. The catch-all clauses go as follows:

"It is necessary that the insured observes and fulfils the following conditions before the Insurers have any liability to make a payment under this Certificate"

"The insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing everything reasonably practical to avoid or diminish any loss, damage or liability hereon."

In the event of a claim (fatal or otherwise), and bearing in mind the POH, it is arguable that the insured has not used due diligence if he has gone against the statements in the POH by leaving duals in with an un-rated pax.

Nothing is black and white, so it can't be decided here, but the above is what makes it grey. This is a term from apolicy by one of the UK's leading rotary insurers.

From the insured's point of view, if the duals are in with an unrated pax in a Robinson, you're in the grey!

Lafite