CAA UK prosecutions

[JimBall]

"On 25 July 2011, at about 5.45pm, a man walking his dog along the foreshore at Bracklesham Bay heard an engine noise and, looking along the beach, he saw what he described as a microlight aircraft coming towards him at 10 feet a.g.l."

11 pages of successful prosecutions, fixed, flex & rotary. Right here (http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=14&pagetype=65&appid=7&newstype=n&mode=detail&nid=2165)

[homonculus]

So 16 prosecutions in 12 months. 6 of these were people trying it on - no licence or documentation. Leaving just 10 offences resulting from incompetance. Am I the only one to think this demonstrates a high standard of airmanship / compliance / training??

[Hughes500]

Or the inability of The CAA to get it right, wonder how many they lost ?

[Camp Freddie]

Anecdotal evidence tells me that there is a lot of dodgy charter on rotary dressed up as "private flights", but as I understand it you have to go to the CAA with the evidence rather than them look for it, I guess it comes down to staffing levels

[fluffy5]

That is quite a list of people trying it on, without a care for a licencing system.
I think I will get myself a micro light and just fly that around, only have to cough up 500 quid if I get caught !
As for cowboy charter at the weekend they never get caught unless they have a little incident.
My opinion is that if someone has knowingly falsified, or deliberately omitted any documentation then quite simply they should be electronically tagged and not allowed to touch an aircraft for a very long time.

Fluffy

[firebird_uk]

I flew in to Ascot a few years back on an AOC charter. The company I was contracted to believed that another one of their machines was liable to be used for an illegal charter to Ascot by a self-fly hirer. They had informed the CAA who were there as a matter of course.

Sure enough the heli arrived and 3 pax got out in their Ascot finery. They were asked how they knew the pilot and they said they were all friends and all paying their own way.

The pilot (dressed in a white shirt and black trousers) was interviewed after he'd parked and gave the same story.

He then sat in the pilot area all day chatting to those he knew whilst his "friends" enjoyed their day. The man from the CAA joined us at lunchtime and didn't ask a single probing question.

Later he took his PAX, sorry friends, back to their house in the country before returning the machine.

IMHO if you're an honest individual / company that inadvertently breaks the rules you're much more likely to face a grilling from the authority than those that systematically flaunt the laws.

Unless you're willing to hand the CAA a smoking gun with a fingerprint on the trigger they know they might not win in court and so nothing will happen.

[misterbonkers]

Urm I might be missing something but if it was one of their own machines why just not simply stop him from SFHing the machine in the first place?!?

[Vortex what...ouch!]

So long as he apparently followed the rules, and they appear to have been followed, and he was safe, whats the problem?

I'm amazed this idiot has not attracted more attention here?
http://www.amazon.com/Propellerhead-Antony-Woodward/dp/0007107293]Propellerhead: Antony Woodward: 9780007107292: Amazon.com: Books


He wrote about what an idiot he was. Then repeated it on film a few years later. How can any pilot be happy that lunatics like this are allowed into the sky, legally.

[nigelh]

If the AOC system was not such a ridiculous rip off more people would operate legally . There are many people who have operated carrying passengers for many many years perfectly safely without an AOC , often using exactly the same aircraft and the same pilot as a company with an AOC . I know it must be irritating but it certainly doesn't mean there is a compromise on safety . I think it is time for the CAA to operate an AOC "light " for small operator/owners that would not saddle them with high overheads . I for one would certainly never get an AOC as the system works at present .
The CAA fined a total of £20,550 over 2 years at a cost of £625,000 :confused:

[misterbonkers]

Nigel there is such an AOC!

Charge for Restricted A-B AOC
When an application is made for the grant of a Restricted A-B AOC, the applicant shall
pay a charge that is the greater of:
a) £606; or
b) £202 for each month of validity applied for.
For the purposes of this paragraph a Restricted A-B AOC is one which is subject to
restrictions which include:
• Day Visual Flight Rules (VFR) only;
• Only single-engine piston aircraft to operate under the AOC;
• All aircraft MTWA on the AOC fleet is less than 2,000 kg;
• A-B operations restricted to points within mainland UK.

You just have to be able to afford the AVGAS for the Robinson R44!

[nigelh]

So your saying i have to go back to flying a piston to be legal :eek: I,d rather carry on with a turbine and take my chances .:ok:

ps what is the difference between a piston and a turbine that makes the CAA make it piston only ??????????

[Camp Freddie]

I think I may take up excessive speeding in my car, it really is a silly law and shouldn't apply to me!

[misterbonkers]

CampFreddie - as long as you don't speed after you've picked up some random people and taken them home then I think you'll be ok :)

Driven closer than 500ft to a house and it might be a different matter though...

[outofwhack]

Here in Australia a simple charter AOC costs about $8k to set up initially in CASA manhours and no per annum fees.

Sympathy to those in the UK. Glad I left.
OOW

What does it cost to set up and keep a day/night VFR A - B charter AOC in UK?

[Hughes500]

Out of Whack

i have an AOC for single vfr turbines here are the costs

1. CAA yearly costs £ 10050.00 generously in 10 month interest free repayments. Then £ 1500 for each extra reg on the aoc
2. Independent maintenence audit £ 500
3. Independent operations audit £ 500

The above obviously does not include all the form 4 post holders ie Chief pilot. accountable manager, ground operations manager, head of Training.
Plus SMS manager, audit manager
the the expenses of keeping records etc etc

the biggest joke is not being able to use a helicopter vertically.
We fly MD 500's we have to have 231 metres infront of us ( accleration distance to 60 kts and 100ft ) of which the first 1/3 must have no obstacles the remaining 2/3 obstacles must be frangible and no more than 7 degrees slope
Now if that was an R44 that distance is 470m ( might be wrong) and the EC120 is over 500m . it is difficult to explain to a customer why you cant use a helicopter for what it was invented for
Oh well

[firebird_uk]

Hughes500. It's 427m for the R44.

I guess it's because they can show all of the accidents where single engine AOC aircraft have crashed on a vertical approach / departure due to engine failure.

It could only be because there were at least 2 or 3 examples of serious incidents that they could show, surely?? Otherwise it would seem excessively restrictive. :ugh:

I heard there's a rumour that the CAA will bar anyone under 5'10" from flying the 44 unless they wear platform shoes that bring them up to that height. Otherwise, you can't see the new (pointless) sticker on top of the fuel cap that shows you you've closed it 'cos it aligns with the white marks (which you wouldn't be able to see either). :}

[nigelh]

And the biggest joke of all is that the guys who DO pay say £50,000 pa to keep an AOC ( all the fees , plus manpower to do ...whatever ) have to say no to picking someone up from their garden ....even a REALLY BIG garden , Have to say NO to flying into Battersea in a single without floats , have to say NO to night VFR ..............and the guys who dont pay for an AOC can do ALL of the above legally on a lease deal :ugh: I know i sound like a stuck record, but would love to know why they put up with it ?? I understand if your business is loads of weddings etc , which make very little money , but if you have some good regular clients why not fly them privately and get rid of all the nonsense ? In a few years there will be just a handful of bigger operators charging a fortune and a handful of lease companies and that will create a market for the ppl cowboys to fill , and people will use them as they will be a lot cheaper.
I say the CAA should deny this easy market for the cowboys and get the operators ( ALL of the good ones who have operated for 20 years or more usually without a blemish ) to all come into a workable AOC system that actually WORKS . That maybe , perish the thought , allowed you to lift up to a 10ft hovver and cross a fence before t/o :D And maybe allowed you to plan your flight without having to employ 5 other people to file it in triplicate ..... No , that could never happen as its just TOO sensible and would allow people to charge less , do much more flying and even make a profit .

[Hughes500]

Nigel you are dreaming again !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[claudia]

Hughes. No he is not. he is just being factual.

[helihub]

OK, let's be clear as this seems to be verging on conundrums or mud slinging or both.....

What, if anything, is wrong with the following scenario of two separate transactions to get me from A to B within the UK.


I rent an airworthy helicopter - G reg or otherwise
I employ the services of a pilot rated on said helicopter


OK, so I'd need to know someone who would rent me the helicopter, and I'd need to know a pilot, but assume that I do...

Would it make any difference if the two transactions were with the same company?

[Dennis Kenyon]

Nigel .... How would you see an open article published, albeit 100% totally factual, covering the current CAA/AOC situation that you routinely outline. I'd need the Editor's and your consent to be quoted, plus a few others on here who share your situation and opinion. I'd also ask the CAA to comment before publication.

If its a 'Yes' ... I'd need you to cite as many inconsistencies as you could provide. (I have a few of my own) My idea might go to worms, but its an item I'd like to cover for a prominent aviation magazine.

You probably know I ran an AOC operation for 25 years but somewhat happily, I'm now semi retired. Regards to all. Dennis K.

[nigelh]

Of course we all know there is no difference . One transaction has to price in all the overheads associated with holding an AOC and the other doesn't . I don't see either being in any way safer than the other . As a paying passenger I would always vote to save 15 -20% and go non AOC . I would not however advocate anyone taking an illegal charter . I am quite happy being a non AOC company and have been for over 25 years but I would equally be very happy to be within a workable system . Anyone tells me I cannot take off from a garden due to a fence 20m or 200m away then forget it :mad:
It is too sensible and reasonable to ever happen especially when our industry is represented by wimps who wring their hands and curse the CAA one minute and cosy up the next . This would all have been put right and the CAA put back in their box years ago if all the operators refused to play their game !!!

[nigelh]

Hi Dennis .... Yes I would be very happy . I think I would be putting my head above the parapet .......... But so what !!!!!
Give me a call sometime and in the meantime I will make some notes .
I wouldn't hold out any hope . The CAA is a jobs for the boys club with , to my mind , no interest in safety ( other than the less flying done the safer it is .... Which I guess is quite logical !!).
After exposing the scandal of their AOC rules and charges you can then look at training/licensing / ratings etc which are equally illogical . ( out of interest how many of you have vor in your single ? How many use it ? ) .

[Hughes500]

helihub
You are in the grey area of the law here. it is not illegal to rent a helicopter nor is it illegal to hire a commerical pilot. The CAA would go after the pilot as they would say he is the operator in the aoc sense, although they have never made it stick in a court of law or so iam told.
An operator who did both without an aoc would strictly be breaking the law.

[nigelh]

Its not grey . Its black and white . CAA have never even tried to prosecute a properly transacted lease agreement and would fail if they did . I have correspondence with them going way back .

[76fan]

The CAA is a jobs for the boys club with , to my mind , no interest in safety ( other than the less flying done the safer it is .... Which I guess is quite logical !!). ..... nigel

I go along with that one. The Flight Ops Inspectors in the 90's were only interested in what appeared to be the "correct" paperwork and regulations, not safety. It all seemed to have fallen apart after Don Sissons retired.

[Pittsextra]

playing devils advocate do you think all of this is fine until it isn't and then those caught up in any accident would naturally want some kind of evidence what checks and balances have been done.

[tony 1969]

C'mon Dennis
Get that article written.

[timprice]

Come on guys don't sit on the fence say what you really think!!!

This is a rumor site after all.

We all love the CAA and the way they have embraced the rules/regulations from EASA.:}

[nigelh]

Tim , that is the real problem here ....people are NOT prepared to stick their neck out and NOT prepared to act . I have little sympathy for the dozens or hundreds of pilots who will , i guarantee, lose their jobs over the next few years due to the spiralling cost of charter . I also have little sympathy for all the small operators who cant make a profit . They are all paying the price for their apathy and the fact they didnt have the balls to man up to a bunch of suits . There must be hundreds who have read this and how many have spoken up ??
Therefore Dennis count me out ....it doesnt actually bother me what the CAA do re AOC,s as it has absolutely no effect on me . For all i care they can insist on bright yellow flying suits and airport only landings
:ok: Its just really sad that heli pilots are such whimps !!!
( Thats Pussies for you from the US ...!! )

[Dennis Kenyon]

Okay Nigel ... I certainly understand and appreciate the position and attitude you take, but you shouldn't take it out on your aviation brethren. We all have oodles of daft legislation to contend with that makes little sense and to answer you note reference VORs in singles ... I take the view that the latest requirement is not only illogical but in some circumstances, outright dangerous. I certainly don't want my student pilots head down on the instrument panel in poor weather trying to identify a VOR signal that is unlikely to be received at 500 feet ... especially since there is no requirement in the PPL syllabus to read morse. The old chestnut of the Irishman & the bog comes to mind! I wouldn't want to start from that position. DRK

[nigelh]

Dennis ....i take your point about not being mean to my poor aviation brethren .....but all these absurd rules you talk about are there for a very good reason . NOBODY STOPPED THEM :ugh: Things will only get worse until it stops working all together ( hopefully sooner rather than later ) and then we may be able to sack the lot of them and put real people in charge who understand aviation . And who care more about safety then arse covering .

[Hughes500]

Nigel

While you are correct the laws are an ass what are we supposed to do about it ?
keep on breaking the law until it is changed ? Live in the real world it wouldnt have mattered if every company stood up unless we are BA even then EASA will wave 2 fingers at everyone. EG R66 stopped certification due to the unknown failure rate of a valve that has been in a 206 for years. So taking this example even the biggest helicopter manufacturer in terms of numbers can not change anything !

[The Night Owl]

Just keep complaining, eventually they will come round :mad:

[chopjock]

While you are correct the laws are an ass what are we supposed to do about it ?
keep on breaking the law until it is changed ?

or keep on breaking the law until you are caught! :}

[nigelh]

Dennis .....dont waste your valuable time on this article ...it is quite obvious people are totally relaxed with things as they are and couldnt be bothered to try to make things better , safer ,cheaper .

ps I have never advocated breaking the law ....just operating helicopters legally without paying into the whole aoc thing . Anyway , bored now !!

[firebird_uk]

Dennis, I think you should write your article and ask the question as to whether the CAA, as an organisation that has to self fund, is fit for purpose? More importantly, is it an organisation that is promoting the growth of aviation within the UK as an intrinsic part of (what should be) a thriving modern economy?

In my opinion the answer to both these questions is no.

Previous posts have detailed how ridiculous some of the requirements are for an AOC flight, for example, 427m of open space to land an R44. I accept that there are some good reasons for the figures, but they stop helicopters being used for what the general public perceive they can be used for (and I’m not talking about landing on postage stamps and other CAT A twin tricks).

If the CAA were promoting aviation they would have spotted this problem (let’s face it, it’s not new) and with all their legal teams come up with a simple solution – a waiver. Now the customer could pay an AOC operator to fly an AOC maintained machine with a base and line checked pilot and accept that the landing site, whilst suitable for private operation, was not so for AOC work but waive their rights should an incident occur.

Each passenger would sign the waiver and then could fly with confidence knowing that:-

The pilot knows how to operate every type of fire extinguisher except the one he has in the cockpit
Knows that there is an eye patch and a sling in the first aid kit he’ll never get to after an accident
Has sat through the same dangerous goods course every 2 years and has never checked a single bag or carried freight
Has done a line check on each type they fly just in case the hotel’s move depending on the helicopter you’re in
Is aware that you should not offer first aid unless you are wearing sterile gloves (which are in the burning helicopter) and is, therefore, compelled to watch a passenger bleed to death by his first aid training.

OK, so the last bit is a dig at how much pointless, costly and repetitive training AOC pilots have to do, but I really don’t see why a waiver would not work. Flights would still be subject to the usual Rules of the Air, but customers could knowingly and willingly waive some of the extra protection their given under an AOC. Unless all passengers signed the waiver (probably in advance) and the pilot was happy the flight would have to comply with the current AOC rules.

Simples! :ok:

[jellycopter]

At my request, the CAA have published release 2 of their list of prosecutions. It amends details in my own personal case (CAA-v-Jackson) to remove unfounded, and potentially libelous, allegations with respect to the Skills Test.

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/503/CAA%20Prosecutions%202011-12%20-%20Internet%20releasev2.pdf

This may explain, to some of the naysayers, why I was awarded a conditional discharge by the court.

John Jackson

[[email protected]]

So what you wrote in the skills test report and what actually happened (and was recorded in your personal logbook) were not the same thing ie operating from a non-licensed aerodrome but claiming you were for the purposes of the test.

Once your integrity is shown to be fragile you can hardly blame people for jumping to other conclusions.

[jellycopter]

Crab

You're quite right, I made a poor decision and I've suffered the consequences. However, there's a world of difference between jumping to conclusions and widely publishing, as fact, wholly unfounded allegations.

You won't hear me complaining about what they have now published as it is true.

JJ

[[email protected]]

Fair enough:ok:

[JTobias]

Meanwhile the whole thing was a complete waste of time and money.

Joel :ugh:

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I have not posted on this forum for a while but I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed at the attitudes towards the regulator by some posters on this thread.

If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!

If you believe a rule to be flawed....campaign to have it reveiwed and amended. There are well established procedures that enable this to happen.

The history of aviation is littered with fatal accidents caused by individuals who chose not to follow the rules.

Substituting previous experience in lieu of risk assessment allows individuals to believe that operating inside the prohibited sector of the height-velocity curve (for example) is an acceptable practice. Vertical operations in a single is not only prohibited by JAR-OPS 3 but contradicts the limitations in the AFM, for good reason. In my view there is no acceptable reason for operating in this manner unless you are saving a life, and even then there is nearly always a field next door that can be used. 3 years of dedicated HEMS taught me that!!

Operating safely generally means employing procedures that are designed to minimise the risks of an undesirable event. It takes determination, skill, knowledge and judgement. In the old days we called this "Airmanship".

It is precisley becuase certain individuals think they know better, that the regulator has had to be more prescriptive in its rule making as clearly common sense is lacking amongst some of out brethren.

There are rules that seem illogical and maybe some of them are even inappropriate. As aviators we are compelled to review these issues disspassioinatley and lobby/campaign/feedback the regulator using the established review procedures to tidy these areas up.

All the CAA regulators I have met have the same goal as me. Safe, compliant operations. As such my views are fully aligned with those of the regulator.

Our passengers deserve nothing less!!

Rant over.

[Shawn Coyle]

If you read the flight manually carefully, you'll see that for Part 27 ('Normal' category') single engine helicopters, the H-V curve is not, repeat NOT a limitation.
It's in the performance section.

And you can't have 100% safe operations ever. A good deal of risk assessment needs to be done - saving a life by hovering in the H-V area for a short while is a good example.

[[email protected]]

When a rule or regulation is written as a result of an accident, it is often a question of a*se-covering instead of protecting since the regulatory body must be seen to do something rather than accept that those particular holes in the swiss cheese are ever likely to line up again.

It is the same mentality that allowed the unrestricted growth of Health and Safety legislation - it started out as a good idea to protect workers in the workplace and has ended up as an unwieldy series of rules and regs that hamstring the emergency services on a daily basis and make most normal people's lives far more difficult than they need to be.

Life is not zero-risk and never will be (thank God) and some of the jobs that need to be undertaken in aviation will always involve some element of risk.

If the CAA were really serious about safety, they would have mandated post-graduate training for PPLs many years ago. Without further training, a pilot only has his experience to go on and, if that experience is based on luck rather than skill (getting away with flying in marginal weather for example)then it should come as no surprise that eventually a few get caught out.

Rules don't make things safer - good training makes things safer.

[nigelh]

DB ....im not at all surprised by your post . You are the jobsworth who agreed it was unsafe to fly in gin clear air because the experts thought the ash cloud was over you. You were wrong ...and they were . You assumed they were experts ....they werent . :D:D I guess it takes all sorts and some are just "by the book " merchants ...luckily for all of us some people ( from high time pilots to test pilots ) have used their own common sense and sometimes pushed the boundary and created new techniques and ways to use helicopters . This is how we got SAR etc in the first place . I have never flown with a pilot like you who believes ALL rules ,daft or not , need to be stuck to in order to be safe . Your idea of the HV curve is a good example . That would mean banning most sling load ops , heli skiing , and confined area landings would be a tad tricky also . Obviously there is no point in sitting in that curve regularly just for the hell of it .
I agree with Crab ( which im sure will horrify him !!!)
ps Out of interest how many rules have YOU tried to change and suceeded ?
or do you think all the rules are correct ?

[jeepys]

Substituting previous experience in lieu of risk assessment allows individuals to believe that operating inside the prohibited sector of the height-velocity curve (for example) is an acceptable practice.

Never knew it was a prohibited area. In that case I have been operating illegally for years. Bad boy me.
I always tell people it's an area where we do not want to operate unless we have to but always take on board the issues when operating in here, after all we fly helicopters and that is what helicopters do.

DB, do you agree with all the CAA rules?

[chopjock]

DB
The history of aviation is littered with fatal accidents caused by individuals who chose not to follow the rules.

A lot more individuals who chose not to follow the rules have not had accidents !
Also I should think there are a lot more accidents to individuals who do follow all the rules too!

[Pittsextra]

Jelly - reading the accident report what exactly are you complaining about? as in what do you feel is being suggested you did wrong that you say you didn't?

[[email protected]]

Pitts - it is not what is in the report now that Jelly contests but what has been removed because it was inaccurate and possibly defamatory.

Jelly didn't get the CAA to rewrite history but got them to keep to the facts rather than their assumptions I believe.

NigelH - not horrified - pleasantly surprised:ok:

[John R81]

NigH and Crabb

I find you each to have a vald basis for the things that you post - that's why I always read your comment, sometimes more carefully than I read (or skip) some others.

You do both have an "individual" style in which you publish.

Viv la difference! :ok:

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

NigelH. You are a rude ignorant man. The very reason why I have declined/resisted/avoided posting on this forum for several years and you left me wishing I had not.

For your information only, not that I give much of a toss, I have spent a considerable part of my aviation career flying HEMs and Police, both of which are afforded risk based alleviations from the more prescriptive rules that are designed to provide a framework from which majority of us try to operate safely. I have used those alleviations in my best judgement to hopefully, make a small difference to some of the peoples lives we touched in the course of our duties.

I doubt you would be capable of understanding the relevance of risk based rule making seeing as you would prefer the anarchy of the freedom to make up the rules as they suit you.

In respect of the ash-cloud crisis. I flew every offshore mission allocated to me IAW the Company guidelines and the MET information avaible. Did you???

As I am neither a meteorologist NOR a manager responsible for overall safety, I place my trust initially in such individuals and their guidance. What other option do you think is available OR do you, in your misguided arrogance, believe you are better placed to determine what is safe than the METs or the CAA???

There is no place for attitudes like your in the modern grown up aviation world. Your anti-establishmentariasm (OK - that might not be a real word!!) paints a poor example to the rest of us.

CRAB - I am dissapointed in the first line of your post!!! I hope if you re-read it you may see the naivity of your statement that filling in swiss cheese holes should be viewed in a cynical light. It should be applauded.

DB

[Pittsextra]

Got to say when you read the AAIB report behind this tale I don't think anyone involved comes out of it looking all that clever.

With a relaxed attitude to the rules.... at what point does it become reckless?

[Hughes500]

DB

Sorry you are way off the mark with your comments i am afraid. If you follow your logic about the HV curve ( which incidentally is NOT a limitation) then you would never ever have been taught to fly.
I would assume you are probably an ex mil pilot, if so you would have been taught on a 341, if a civy then a piston single. In both cases you would have been taught double angle and vertical landings, both within the HV curve. Presumably with your logic they are a limitations so in which case you would not have been taught them ???????
Lets us look at the rules on JAR Ops 3, I have a Hughes 500 on an AOC, take off distance to 100 ft is 231m with fare paying pax on board. Put the same aircraft with the same people on board with the same pilot but pax are all cost sharing the aircraft then it can take off vertically quite legally. Now tell me what is the difference from a safety point of view ?? Why do the rules differ if all rules are there for safety ???
I think you need to look at the bigger picture, you are more likely to be killed driving on the M1 than in a helicopter. Oh better send down the boys in blue as i am teaching quickstops today in a single engine piston and as i am sure you are aware I will be in the H/V curve doing so !

[[email protected]]

DB - no, I don't agree with your view on safety - you seem to believe that flying should be made 100% safe and that isn't possible other than not flying at all.

There are some accidents which are clearly avoidable but others are just accidents, and no matter how many rules and regulations you write you won't ever get those circumstances occurring together (swiss cheese holes) again - the process hasn't made anything safer, just added another layer of bureaucracy.

Take the Air France crash into the South Atlantic - a perfectly serviceable air craft flown into the water because of a poor decision made by the captain to fly through the top of a CB with a pitot heater that wasn't cleared for that environment and iced up. Do you write a rule saying 'don't fly through CBs' or do you acknowledge that most pilots don't and any that have thought of it are very likely to have been put off it by that sad accident?

Nanny doesn't always know best - as proved with the ash cloud debacle - but sometimes people in power feel they have to be seen to do something, even if it is the wrong thing.

There remain, sadly, some people who will always be a danger to themselves, regardless of what rules and regs are there to try and protect them - the mine owner in Cumbria was a classic example as was Mr Macrae.

Most of us go about our business being mindful of, but not necessarily slavishly devoted to, rules and regs because it is ones own personal safety l margins that will keep you out of trouble, not what it says in a book.

I get to fly with quite a few people who can quote me chapter and verse of the rule books but are unable to perform the sort of manoeuvres that might save their lives because they are perpetually risk-averse and chained to the rule-book.

[Hughes500]

Crab

Very well put :ok:

[Pittsextra]

Hughes/Crab - I understand the sentiment and agree the point that its silly to become a slave to rules and regs with a disregard to common sense; but you can't have a beef with someone just because they have a harder limit than you.

In the end for any regulation to have a meaning there has to be some hard limit or else it becomes a free for all.

However I think in the context of what has happened here I don't think we are talking about minor oversights but perhaps systemic, willful oblivion.

[Nubian]

Pitts,

DB starts with I have not posted on this forum for a while but I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed at the attitudes towards the regulator by some posters on this thread.

If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!

For this kind of attitude, I think he deserves to get some replies. He follows up with reference to what he thinks is prohibited and his perception of the rules, which is wrong, and then you can just immagine how things can go when people with powers interpret ''silly rules and regs'' allready in place, let alone even more to be made.... ref what has been mentioned regards ''VolcanoGate'' 2 years back....

FFS In Norway the CAA even grounded Hanggliders!!!:ugh::ugh:

As Crab says: the ultimate safetymeasure would be to stop flying alltogether! But even if that was to happen, I'm sure there would be a "need'' for the CAA. Lets not allow common sence to be an option.

[Hughes500]

Pittsextra
His sentiment migt be in the right place but I cant believe he has the experience quoted, if he did he would know the HV curve that used to be called the avoid curve ( hint there) and when I started The dead mans curve is not a limitation.
We might take him more seriously if he knew what he was talking about, it is a bit of a schoolboy error to assume the avoid curve is a limitation !:ugh:

[Pittsextra]

Agree with all of that however I think in the context of this particular case there is a greater point.

Perhaps I've missed the point and perhaps the guy Jellycopter is known and personal friends to some but really I don't see what the CAA have really done to take issue with.

My own personal view is that there was a great to take issue with - from reading this:- Air Accidents Investigation: Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle, YU-HEW (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/november_2009/aerospatiale_westland_sa_341g_gazelle__yu_hew.cfm)

Quite honestly its total amatuer hour and there seems to be a continual desire by it seems all involved to short cut and work around things. Its a case study into the idiocy of such a mindset and no surprise people suffered.

[[email protected]]

I think Jelly, as the examiner, was somewhat seen off by his 'mate' who was the main instructor. It was the mate who incorrectly logged (or failed to log) the training hours and it was he who was responsible for ensuring the pilot covered all the exercises.

In the end, it was a poor decision by the pilot to go flying in poor weather, just to wave at his family in Knaresborough, that put him in the position of running out of skill and knowledge trying to return to the hotel.

[Pittsextra]

Crab - quite.

I think I've fallen into the trap of reading the AAIB report and assuming the link/mateyness between the two instructors was stronger than perhaps it is/was.

[misterbonkers]

DB - Please don't forget that not every aspect of aviation is governed by public transport regulations - they exist to protect members of the public who are considered to be 'unaware' of risks associated with aviation. Because of this Public Transport Regulations such as the now defunct JAR OPS 3 were evolved.

There's a lot of flying that is not PT though! Even some of the North Sea boys fly around in the avoid curve lifting flare stacks etc.

HEMS was also PT at times. when I flew HEMS, given our operating area, it was near on impossible not to be in the avoid curve at times - sometimes it is safer to hang about at a height in the avoid curve to check the landing area was clear than dropping in quick, risking lamp posts and wires to avoid operating in the avoid curve! Or your departure may be straight up and out as the site was not suited to a Helipad or Clear Area departure.

Crab - couldn't agree with you more - people will always continue to die in WHATEVER they do because every day is an exposure to risk. All we can do is manage risk but accept it at the same time - if we don't accept there is a risk then we are less likely to be aware of it!

Introducing MORE paperwork and MORE rules is not always the right approach - you just end up flying around worrying about what you've forgotten - and then you might hit those wires whilst flying a Performance Class 3 departure through a wide enough gap in the trees (the trees that hide the poles).

But then a vertical departure may hit wires above you. Arrghhh - what to do. Crikey, crumbs, I should just give up flying. Oh no, wait a minute. Clear head, sensible mindset, take your time, have a good look around and DON'T take anything for granted.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HUGHES 500 - If the H/V curve appears in the limitations sections of the RFM (and it does not for all types) it is a limitation. Aircraft are issued with a CofA. It states on the CofA that the aircraft shall be operated IAW the limitations in the RFM. I did not make the rules I just follow them when I am required to do so OR indeed, not alleviated from them.

I have not been involved in HEMS since 1996 so I am not up to speed with current operations - however, In my time we had alleviations from RoA Rule 5(1)(b), which enabled us to operate at a height and speed that did not provide for a safe forced landing without the possibility of endangering persons and/or property on the ground.

I do not agree at all that we should be allowed to operate inside the H/V avoid curve for any passenger operations. If the H/V chart is in the limitations section of the RFM, without a suitable alleviation, it must be adhered to for all operations regardless. If the manufacturer has decreed that the H/V curve prohibvited area is likley to cause me harm WHY would I ever want to deliberatley put myself in it without a very compelling reason to do so???

CRAB - The Air France accident you refer to, in my opinion, based solely on watching the ACI TV programme, would seem to be the result of poor interpretation of the Flight Instruments AND failure to adopt a sensible aircraft attitude and power setting for stable cruise flight during a malfunction of the ASI indication. TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING - in my opinion!!

It is unsettling that the pair of you seem so keen to leap down the throat of anyone who expresses a desire to follow the rules. What message are you trying to send. Is it:

(a) You do not like rules
(b) You do not follow rules
(c) You think there is no need for rules
(d) You know better!!

I follow the rules as best as I can. I have not come across a rule that caused me too much grief to comply with OR that I though was unnecessary. I am struggling to understand why you would not do the same.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HUGHES 500 - If you are teaching quickstops properly, why would you end up in the prohibited part of the H/V curve??? Surely the object of the exercise is remain in the safe sector. However, the last quickstop I did in anger was a few years ago so maybe things have changed!!

PS - Before you question someones experience you should do a little research - but just for you - ME (my favourite subject) as follows:

Army Pilots Course
15,500 hours Rotary
5 years Police/HEMS
17 Years offshore
UK TRI/TRE MPH(IR)
EX-FOI(H) with ICAO Regulatory Authority

How about you??????

I will concede that the least experience I actually have is in SE helicopters, all turbine I am afraid. But you may be enlightened to know that in the MEH world we also have H/V Charts. In both of my current types they are in the limitations section and in the CAT A Helipad section it states that the chart does not apply.

Please tell me why you wnat to be in the H/V??

[misterbonkers]

From the Single Engine Flight Manuals;

The Height-Velocity Diagram defines the conditions from which a
safe landing can be made on a smooth, level, firm surface following an
engine failure. The Height-Velocity Diagram is valid only when the
helicopter gross weight does not exceed the limits of the Altitude
Versus Gross Weight for Height-Velocity Diagram.

Robinson R44 - H/V Curve is in section 5 (Performance) not Section 2 (Limitations)
Bell 206A - Same.
Bell 47 - Same but with added 'avoid CONTINUOUS' operation in the shaded area.

As for some Twins;

AS365 - H/V is in section 2 (Limitations) however operation inside the avoid curve permitted as long as you are below certain weights prescribed in the accompanying graph.

AS355 - H/V is in section 5 (Performance). As above, below certain weight it doesn't apply. Above the size of the avoid area changes.

DB - from a teaching point of view you might not want to be in the Avoid Curve but sometimes you just have to - not every student is as capable as those carefully selected by HM Forces! But if the instructor confines the student too much then he/she will never learn from their mistakes and may never fully appreciate the dangers of ending up high in the hover. It's actually quite useful when a student gets it wrong because you can discuss the situation with them, the danger and, MORE importantly, the recovery action needed.

Lifting Pilots are in the Avoid Curve for hours on end - should we stop lifting?!?

Out of interest - how high are the oil rig platforms and what weights do you guys go in and out at?

H500 is not saying he WANTS to be there. He's saying you CAN be there if the conditions are RIGHT. The rules say for PT that you cannot be there -fair enough - 'thems the rules' but as you can see from AAIB reports - accidents have happened to pilots flying 'a normal' PC3 departure including wire strikes and even a fence.

I suppose we could all just swap to flying Aeroplanes - then there would be no Avoid Curve...! Oh, I remember - I fly helicopters because I can go to lots of different places to land - not just prescribed places, A to B, in straight lines .

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

MISTERBONKERS

Thank you for information and I understand your predicament in the training environment. I commend your committment to teach the students the potential danger of being in the avoid curve if the critical power unit fails.

To answer your question about offshore operations - majority of current offshore operations are permitted with "Exposure" during take-off and landing. By that it means should an engine fail - a safe forced landing would not be available. In the extreme, deck edge contact could occur that carries the risk of a serious accident.

Unfortunatley it is proved extremely difficult to produce a predictive, practical offshore performance model for multi-engine helicopters that works in the obstacle strewn offshore environment, though many have tried and indeed still are trying. In JAR-OPS this subject was addressed by looking at the prime causal factor of the potential accident, the failure of the engine. As such the risks of an incident are currently mitgated by additional maintenance, airworthiness and operating requirements to reduce, in so far as possible, the risks of an engine actually failing.

Some offshore types operate IAW specific performance profiles that either define, limit or remove the exposure during take-off or landing but the penalties imposed on less capable types are too limiting for all of these procedures to be practically applied.

It is a complex subject, but the reality is that for most of us in the offshore industry, "Exposure" is a risk we readily accept whilst basking comfortably in the knowledge that there has not been an attributable performance based accident offshore (certainly in the ICAO regulated environment) and to a degree, the risks are mitigated by additional requirements and procedures.

So there you go. I am not actually risk averse. I accept when it is necessary or mitigated BUT always within the operating rules applicable at the time.

For H500 - What is a "Double Angle" approach??? Maybe I was asleep during that particular lesson.

DB

[misterbonkers]

DB - a double angle approach is also known as a steep approach i.e twice the angle as the normal site picture approach technique (taught to all pilots). To stay out of Vortex Ring territory you generally fly the approach a lot slower in the later stages to reduce the rate of decent.

With regards to the helipads and oil rigs - what height are the decks at? Are you CAT A for the departure/arrival at the rigs? I understand that the CAA issued some guidance a while back stating the Helideck height should not exceed 60m AMSL? So potentially there's a lot of operation in the avoid curve? Certainly for the older types that you may have flown in 17 years of offshore flying?

Your acceptance of 'Exposure' is potential misguided - just because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean it won't and it doesn't make it any safer. The offshore environment has risks, so does the onshore. If you accept the risk (as stated) then you can't easily say to someone else they can't do a similar thing.

Interestingly if H500 fitted HUMS to his singles (you can now put it on AS350) he would gain up to 12seconds exposure which he could use, perfectly legally, to take of vertically or depart/arrive at a site that doesn't meet the minimum dimensions. He could also fly through the Specified Area.

It would be very interesting if there were statistics on number of onshore movements and H/V accidents/incidents.

Perhaps Helmets should be the next topic (thread creep) - which is something that we have to wear when operating low level, and, potentially in the Avoid Curve.

[Hughes500]

DB
When I did my Army pilots course ( 1988 )I was taught and I teach today a double angle, it is the following. Landing area not large enough to do a constant angle approach, but does not warrant a vertial landing( ie high hover) say a large clearing. Fly the approach to miss the near edge tree line by about 20 ft ( if you continued the angle you would be in the trees the other side ) as you have passed over the trees reduce power steepening the angle. Hence double angle, gives the advantage of using less power as one is keeping the helicopter moving forwards. Now depending on the height of the trees you would be in the avoid curve, but by using double angle it is safer than a true vertical landing.
Yes I agree with you about not wishing to be in the avoid curve, but even in the pplh teaching course you have to enter it at times. Otherwise how would we be able to teach ! When longline lifting, in the curve for rather longer than I would like but it is sometimes safer to use a longline than any other method.
Quickstop in a Hu 269 will involve going into the bottom curve of the h/v diagram as we will be exceeding 40 kts at 20 ft !
You must have done quickstops with her majesty in a 341 ( as i dont know you might have been on a B47 so difficult to get to 70kts I suppose !!! ) at a speed greater than 70 kts which puts you into the 341's avoid curve ????

Have fun, produces an excellent discussion, fly safe

H

[[email protected]]

Honestly you would have thought that someone with 15,500 hours would at least have heard of a double angle approach:E

[ShyTorque]

DB - a double angle approach is also known as a steep approach i.e twice the angle as the normal site picture approach technique (taught to all pilots). To stay out of Vortex Ring territory you generally fly the approach a lot slower in the later stages to reduce the rate of decent.

Mister Bonkers, that's not the normal UK military's meaning of a "double angle approach". It actually means there are two angles of approach used, as outlined in Hughes 500's post. Although in my time as a QHI we taught pilots to set up a normal constant angle approach to the far side of the clearing, which amounts to the same thing as missing the near edge by 20 feet, I suppose. The second part of the "double angle" comes when there is tail clearance over the near edge and the aircraft can either go "forward and down" into the clearing, or completely vertical if necessary. ;)

[[email protected]]

The double angle approach can be used when you can't see the bottom of the far side of the clearing so a constant angle (unless very steep) won't do. It is a halfway house between a single angle approach and an approach to an OGE hover from which you then vertically descend having selected your markers.

The idea is that you fly towards what you can see of the far side of the clearing (halfway up the trees for example) using your normal approach angle, then once the floor of the clearing becomes visible and you are confident of tail clearances, you can steepen the approach angle to get to the middle of the clearing.

DB - re: the AF crash, you are looking at the symptoms only and ignoring the underlying cause. Yes, the AF pilots just needed to go back to basics and fly an attitude and a power and that might have been achieved had the control of the side stick been transferred to the other co-pilot who was trying corrective action. You also saying that a major airline didn't do enough training to deal with this emergency.

If the Captain hadn't told the co-pilot to drive them through the top of the CB then the flight would have been uneventful so making a rule requiring extra training might help a bit but educating Captains not to make crap decisions (although a more difficult process) would have prevented those extra-honed skills being needed.

As for rules - I just don't think that all rules are good. There are plenty of good and sensible rules written to protect us and prevent accidents but there are also those knee-jerk regulations brought in to be seen to do something.

After all, if legislation was so successful then we wouldn't still be seeing accidents happening - the more rules (and the more complex they become) the more they are open to interpretation and exploitation or worse, they become so difficult to understand that they just get ignored.

Whilst some legislation is good, it does not follow that more legislation is better.

[Hughes500]

crab and Shy I suppose i could have put my description slightly better thanks for filling in the gaps !
MrB didnt realise that with Hums ? Can you point me in the right direction here as I would desperately like to shorten the 231m, mind you thank god i have a 500 if i had an eC120 that distance is over 500m I believe !

[jayteeto]

Our American exchange officers at Shawbury in the 90s did not like the teaching of double angle approaches. They told me that the USA teaching is single angle, ie, don't approach until you can see the LP. If they teach this, then many other forces around the world will do the same. Just because we do it doesn't mean it is the best way????????????????

[misterbonkers]

Hughes 500 - your friendly Ops Inspector should be able to point you i the right direction.

I'm sorry I wasn't very clear with my description of double angle. EASA have been very good and produced the following from the European Helicopter Safety Team. It describes and shows the double angle.

Interesting to note how it describes arrivals and departures IN the 'avoid curve' such as Vertical & Towering...

http://easa.europa.eu/essi/ehest/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/HE3_Off-Airfield-Landing-Site-Operations-v10.pdf

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - Despite 15,500 hours I can confirm that I have either never heard of a "Double Angle" approach OR I was asleep during that lesson OR I am suffering from Dementia. I did my Army Pilots course in 1986 so maybe we called it something different then.

H500 - When I was doing quickstops in the Army (I never rose to the dizzy heights of QHI unfortunatley) I seem to remember being far more concerned with the jaunty angle of my fancy new flying helmet and the smart cut of my olive green flight suit replete with "Dinghy Stabbing" knife than being in the the "Dead Mans Curve".

You see, I am became a pilot to have more sex, a big watch and in time...a moustache like a privot hedge. None of this actually happened despite some considerable effort on my part!!!

Somewhere along the way I sort of accidently became a "Proffessional Aviator", Instructor, Examiner and eventually a Regulator which of course anybody in this business knows only happens when we fail to either - have more sex, get a big watch or indeed develop a moustache like a privot hedge.

Now I find myself on PPRUNE trying to comnvince myself (and a hand full of others) that my life was actually worth living by scribbling garbage down in a vain attempt to prove that I actually "Learned" something along the way.

Then BAM!! you pop up with your "Double Angle Approach" and burst my bubble like the big boy in the playground with acne and a good looking sister who stabbed my football with a penknife just because I had no real pubic hair to write home about!!

MISTERBONKERS - I love your single minded view of risk and the simplicity with which you describe PC3+Exposure and maybe yesterday (before H500 stabbed my ball) I would have rattled on for ages about reliability programmes, OEM OEI statistical data, drank a few whiskies and retired to my scratcher happy in the knowledge that I "Showed Them".

But alas I think I am getting old and a little bit tired and I find myself wanting now to be "Liked" rather than "Feared" and am a little ashamed to admit that I started My Movember "MO" on the 1st, looked in the mirror on the 4th and promptly despatched the straggly spider pubes down the sink plughole and with it my last longing dream of that "Privot Hedge"!!

But boy the memories of my first Army Flying helmet with its "Double Angle" visor and my Olive green growbag + knife with it "Constant Attitude" zip will keep me warm and fuzzy as I gently slide into the confusion of realising that I probabaly have not really learned much at all!!

DB

[[email protected]]

DB - I did my RAF pilot's course in 1983 and my QHI course in 1989 and taught on the Army Pilot's course whilst on exchange in the 90s and it was called a double angle approach in all three iterations;) I cannot comment on which of the 3 causes you have suggested might be the one:ok:

If you remember quickstops finished at 30 ft in the hover on the Gazelle which is firmly inside the H-V curve (which of course wasn't a limitation in the RTS or ACM). Most of the military stuff on the APC (CAs, Obs and Recce etc) involved operating in the 'avoid curve' but, as we said earlier, there are many jobs that must be completed in helicopters that involve risk.

In your offshore job, most of the time is spent straight and level in the cruise with the AP engaged with the only risky bits being the arrival and departure at the rig (and these are well prescribed and regulated manoeuvres to maximise passenger safety). It is pretty straightforward to apply rules and regs to such ops because there is little need for dynamic risk assessment whereas those of us whose jobs involve constantly changing scenarios, too many rules and regs get in the way of pragmatic safety and airmanship decisions.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I think you will find in the light of recent events, that even cruising with the AP engaged on our way to the Rig can be a little bit risky!!

I won't bore you with the WX/Fuel connundrum that most NS Offshore crews manage every day. Operating to limits over the open ocean where only 30 minutes of fuel remain after a 500Nm sea trek is only possible by the application of sensible rules that allow us to plan and execute our missions with a defined safety margin.

Just as you think what we do is easy we laugh at the suggestion that trundling over the land trying to avoid the "Avoid" curve seems somewhat vexing for you!!

There is no quarter given by me for Pilots who do not want to follow the rules cos they know better. It's b***st in anyones language.

The first step to safety is compliance. There is not a safety system of any kind in world that does not recognise and advocate this simple strategy. Your poor view of rules and legislation does not make you hard or trendy!!
Give it up.

[[email protected]]

So you will be the guy who ALWAYS travels at or below the speed limit on the roads then:ok:

30 mins fuel reserve - luxury!! Try the same 500nm round trip into the Atlantic with no-one to come and get you, no other places to get fuel, nowhere to land and an uncertain scenario at the far end because the casualty might be in the hold rather than on the deck or that nasty weather conundrum gives you 30' seas, 50 kt winds and a small fishing boat in the dark.

Or night mountains in poor weather with no other fuel available, a bleeding casualty and max Tq in the hover due to the downdraughting.

If only all I had to worry about was the H-V curve!

As I said, you can't legislate for everything - you must train pilots to use common-sense and airmanship, even if it means ignoring some rules and regs because otherwise people might die.

Would you be like those policemen in the Midlands who watched someone drown because they weren't trained (read allowed by the rules) to enter the lake?

[Pittsextra]

I can see the problem here... You needed to be a Navy pilot... :E

[[email protected]]

At least then I'd have been able to write myself up for a medal:E

[serf]

Did you teach on the APC Crab? I thought you minced around on 671......

[[email protected]]

Yes, I started on 670 but when the hollywood course arrived, myself and the US Army exchange officer found ourselves on a Lynx course to make way for true blue AAC flight commanders in front of the cameras.:ok:

[ShyTorque]

DB, it was definitely called the "double angle approach" during my basic rotary course (RAF) in 1979 and it continued to be so during my time instructing on the Gazelle in the mid 1980s. I'm fairly sure the term was still in common use in the mid 1990s, too.

So, you must have been asleep.... ;)

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

SHYTORQUE - I think you must be correct - I must have asleep!!

CRAB - (Ignoring rules or regs because someone might die) - guess what - THERE IS A RULE FOR THAT - See JAR-OPS

1.1.1 Deviation from procedures in Emergencies

JAR-OPS 3.085(g)
The pilot-in-command shall, in an emergency situation that requires immediate decision and action, take any action he considers necessary under the circumstances. In such cases he may deviate from rules, operational procedures, and methods in the interest of safety.

Sorry CRAB - you do not have to be a drama queen by ignoring rules to save lives - YOU JUST HAVE TO KNOW THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

3,500 HEMs missions in an unstabilised machine including Night into the hills. Been there, done that. And I still followed all the rules!!

Try again!!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRABSPEAK - "myself and the US Army exchange officer found ourselves on a Lynx course to make way for true blue AAC flight commanders in front of the cameras"

Maybe the true blue AAC followed the rules!!!!

[misterbonkers]

:ugh:

At least we have determined that even if the avoid curve is in the limitation section there are still means and ways of safely flying within it - despite DB originally saying we couldn't - especially with passengers on board.

[Hughes500]

DB
Just curious if the rules are in your eyes correct then why do differing countries have differing rules ? EG use of singles in the USA for police forces in built up areas where as in Europe it has to be a twin. So please tell me which rule is correct ?
What is says to me, is that a lot of the rules are a load of bullocks and have nothing to do with safety, if they did they would be universal.

[Geoffersincornwall]

No it doesn't. It means that where the dollar is king it shouts louder than the passengers who fly in them.

Where else could you find a cockamamie system (Part 135) that allows CAT on the basis of what the guy who pays for the flight says is good enough.

OK - Part 91 - if you fly your own employees the rules are close to zero

Part 135 - You are my employee and I send you to work in the cheapest piece of s**t I can find but you have NO come back.

Part 121 - airline standard

Under JAROPS 3 standards as low as 135 would not be tolerated.

The point is that if you were sending your wife and kids and grandkids to fly at night across the city or across the water would you prefer they went in the single or the twin?

G.

[[email protected]]

DB - you are so impressed with yourself you ought to write yourself up for a medal;) An unstabilised machine - gosh you are very brave - 3,499 day VMC missions.........

1 night HEMS into the hills....oooohhhh - do please tell the story.

Crikey, I didn't know you could ignore all the rules to save lives:ugh: Is that how a SAR AOC works? I don't think so!

And you haven't answered the question about driving at the speed limits or is that just an inconvenience that might mar your Peter Perfect image?;)

[Non-PC Plod]

Saucer of milk, table 3! Miaouw! Is it just me, or is this thread getting a little bit catty?

[Hughes500]

Well having had wife and kids at night over Dartmoor in a 500 obviously the answer would be yes, but I was flying. Realistically about 90 % of all accidents are pilot error, less than 1 % are engine failure so what does that tell us ?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I see at last you show your true colours. When all else fails you resort to personal abuse. And why?? - because you cannot make me agree that rules are only for the less able than you who, by your own postings, seem to advocate that they do not/should not apply to you.

The first thing you learn in HEMs is the paradox of taking extreme risk (albiet afforded in the operating rules) only to find out that the victim has croaked, or has a minor injury. Slowly, over time, you learn to be much more discerning with how you choose to spend your own allocation of "Nine Lives". I am sure this is a concept common to most long term HEMs pilots. CRAB - by your approach to this thread I get the impression this penny has not really dropped with you!!

GEOFFERS - the voice of reason.

MISTERBONKERS - The H/V curve in a Limitations section - IS A LIMIT.

If it appears in the PERF section - IT IS A TOOL.

If the operating rules (Like PC3) require you to have a Safe Forced Landing Option at all/or some of the time, you use the PERF H/V Chart to help you retain this capability.

You cannot simplify any of this into a YOU CAN and YOU CAN'T statement and I apolgise if I gave you that impression. It depends on the location of the Chart in the AFM, the operating rules you are subject to and finally - AND PROBABLY THE MOST IMPORTANT what risks you are prepared to take. Like H500 says, he accepts some risk to his family when he is actually flying and he is talking about private night flights I suspect rather than CAT. Fair enough. He says his H500 has the H/V chart in the Perf section and not the limitations section.

Maybe H500 can put some meat on the bones here and give us his feeling about operating inside the avoid curve with his wife/kids on a private flight. Does he feel comfortable doing this or does he try to avoid this situation??

MISTERBONKERS - I am not sure we have established we can operate in the H/V avoid "Safely". I think we have established it can be done within the rules some of the time. It is safe as long as the donkey keeps on working. If it stops - you may then be unsafe, but even this is about "degrees" of safety. This is the really diffcult part of rule-making...where to draw the line. For pilots who are compelled by the needs of the task to operate beyond the line afforded by the rules, their airmanship becomes the last defence against either disaster, or just an undesirable event. This is a very difficult area and has been subject to much debate. Under JAR I feel we have a reasonable compromise that leaves much of this difficult decision making in the hands of the pilot provided he remains firmly within the guidelines and rules in play. It is for this reason that I give CRAB such a hard time for suggesting that the rule do not allow him to do SAR/HEMS to his liking. It is all there in the rules. They should be followed otherwise we do not accrue viable data to effect real change toward improvement and the alternative is aviation anarchy.


DB

[misterbonkers]

DB - I only wish PPrune had a tongue in cheek smilie.

Whilst basking in your reassured PC2exposure rules and regulations did you read the recent Myanmar crash report?

[nigelh]

DB....it's the rude , arrogant one here :ok: You wrote ........
In respect of the ash-cloud crisis. I flew every offshore mission allocated to me IAW the Company guidelines and the MET information avaible. Did you???
Well actually I think you sat on your bottom for a week or more waiting for an expert to hold your hand (sadly there are no experts in this field ...but interestingly the locals around many volcanoes worldwide fly around the ash regularly quite happily). I, on the other hand along with most people I know, flew all week in clear air ... Having used that thing called common sense !!!
As for you not having a problem with any rules ...I just don't believe you. Would you not be pissed off if you had a charter that couldn't happen because there was a 4ft fence 100 yards away?? Then to find that I did it perfectly legally privately :D:D. Do you think it makes sense to have to do training on a real vor (which almost no se Helis have) and not allowed to use the vor on a moving map ??
As for the avoid curve I personally think far more accidents have been caused by low time pilots barreling in too fast to a confined area (trying to keep 30 kn to stay outside this killer zone ...) and coming to grief. I am far happier getting firmly into the curve and do a power check and controlled, slow descent ....funnily enough taught to me by ....a military pilot.
Ps. What's the answer about breaking speed limits ...??????

[Hughes500]

DB

Where did I say I was operating inside the avoid curve by flying my machine over Dartmoor at night with my wife and kids ???? I really think you need to pay more attention to not only your reading but what you actually say as you are making your self look a bit of a prat which I am sure you are not.
Every helicopter pilot in their life as entered the avoid curve at some point, if they havent they havent been taught properly. There is nothing wrong with entering the avoid curve, it is a risk assessment as I said 90% plus of all accidents are pilot error. To my mind there is almost no difference in being in a fully loaded 355F1 on a helipad takeoff to a 500 doing the same thing, if the engine fails both are going to hit the ground pretty hard.
You obviously feel very sercure in your twin ( ever see the film of South Wales Police helicopter splatting in with a tail rotor failure, possibly in a single's avoid curve but the extra engine did diddly squat for them ), please tell me in your 17000 hours how many engine failures have you had ? I may not have the 17000 hours of experience you have ( sorry only have 6000) I have had 3 rough running piston engines, ironically it is the rules that caused each one !!!!
The current aviation rules make it dam nigh impossible for engine manufactures to put an automotive engine into aviation. You wouldnnt even make Ford's front door if you took them a llycoming piston engine that weighs 500lbs produces 190hp uses 1 litre of oil every 4 hours ( new engine) and if reved at over 3200 rpm wants to destroy itself . Ford's engine failure rate is currently 1 in 10 million, they are that confident that only 1 in 10 engines in a new car is tested before it leaves the factory. So much for the rules making everything safe!
I am not suggesting that one breaks the rules but as most things in Western life now things are getting out of hand.
Not sure I am going to bother with this thread as we sit on different sides of the fence.

[[email protected]]

DB Just as you think what we do is easy we laugh at the suggestion that trundling over the land trying to avoid the "Avoid" curve seems somewhat vexing for you!! I think the personalisation of this topic started in your post.

It was unnecessary because I wasn't (if you actually read my post) saying offshore was easy - I was pointing out that for the most part it is straightforward to apply fairly stringent ( and rightly so given it is passenger transport) regulations to offshore ops.

At this point you decided to start the black-catting with numbers of hours and difficulty of tasks.

Now you decide that I believe I can't do HEMS/SAR keeping within the rules without having a clue what I do or how I do it.

You now seem to feel sufficiently pious to lecture to all and sundry on this thread about how superior your judgement is because you follow every rule and regulation to the letter.

Still no answer about speed limits though;)

[Pittsextra]

post #15 is a hint at why rules are not a bad thing IMO.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/500215-paul-mccartney-near-death-experience.html

Might I add given the vast experience you have its a pity there isn't a greater mutual respect for each other. You know it is cool to have a different view and not kick off.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 - I apologise if I gave you the impression that you operated in the H/V avoid with your family. I was referring to the Night SE Over Dartmoor (I think that is what you said you had done).

There is a world of difference between VTOL in a H500 and an AS355F1 (Provided the AS355F1 is at the Group A Helipad Mass for Altitude and Temperature). If you do know why then I can explain!!

Not sure why you now rant about piston engines. I thought a H500 had a turbine in it but heh-ho. I could be wrong.

MISTER BONKERS - Mynamar - Proof that we are sometimes "Exposed".

NIGEL - During the ASH Cloud crisis I followed the limitations imposed upon all NS Helicopter crews. To do otherwise would have certainly resulted in my dismissal and quite rightly so. I respect your right to self determination as (I presume) you are one man band!! On the NS (not sure if you have had the pleasure) we have to follow the rules that our Company impose upon us.

Please stop blaming me for the ASH Cloud. For your information - a big volcano in Iceland did it and then ran away!!!

CRAB & NIGEL - Speeding!!! Surely you do not expect me to admit to breaking the law????

CRAB - I have always had respect for your posts with the exception of this thread where you seem determined to convince yourself and me that the rules are rubbish. I am intrigued. What message are you trying to convey!!

As for my aviation experience.... I offered some insight as it was intimated by H500 and CRAB that I was some sort of "amatuer" whoose views and opinions should be dismissed accordingly. Shame on you both that when enlightened you choose to take the mickey out of that as well. Quite frankly the technical inaccuracies of the stuff you both post, allayed with the determination to abuse anyone who seems intent on following the rules, should automatically exclude you from an environment where you have influence over other aviators.

Passengers (customers) deserve the very highest level of safety we can provide them with. That means we are first and foremost compliant with the operating rules we are compelled (and in CAT legally oblidged) to follow. If you cannot accept this please never fly me or my family!!!

DB

[Hughes500]

DB

Hughes 500 is a turbine but as i own 2 of them and 2 300's for training was pointing out that the rules prevent a safer helicopter ie the 60 year old piston engine we have to put up with in the training environment.
Thank you with the 355 I am a TRE so do know that a fully loaded one, if one of the engine goes the other is taking you to the scene of the crash unless you get past 30 kts from a helipad takeoff.

[[email protected]]

CRAB - I have always had respect for your posts with the exception of this thread where you seem determined to convince yourself and me that the rules are rubbish. I am intrigued. What message are you trying to convey!! DB - no - some rules are rubbish, as I keep trying to explain, most of the rules and regs are there for good reason but that doesn't automatically mean that all rules and regs are good - it all depends on why they were introduced and what they aim to achieve.

As for speeding - you were the one who put yourself on a pedestal, claiming that you never broke any rules at all - and that any rules that one didn't agree with could be appealed against in an appropriately legal fashion. By implication therefore you won't exceed the speed limit and will be actively lobbying parliament to repeal the legislation.

Now I will admit to speeding, in the firm belief that it doesn't necessarily make me a dangerous driver but by your logic that makes me a danger to the public who shouldn't be allowed to drive on the roads and certainly not teach my 2 sons to drive since I would be influencing them to break the law as well!

[JimL]

Perhaps the issue here is one of necessary, as opposed to unnecessary, risk.

An example already used is the HV diagram: the FAA stick to their ruling (issuing a policy letter on the issue) that this is a limitation for certain categories of Part 29 helicopter. It is not for Part 27!

As is well known (it has been discussed endlessly on PPRune) offshore operations will occasionally be conducted within the HV diagram - it is an element of exposure. Because this is a necessary disregard of the limitation, the Authorities legitimise the practice by providing alleviation in Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(b) (the FAA do the same in FAR 91.9(d)). There are many examples of such alleviations in HEMS and SAR. In these cases the Authority has undertaken a risk assessment and legitimised the practice.

However, even though such practices are legitimate, the operator/pilot are not given carte blanche and are expected to apply risk assessment to any situation to establish whether the use of alleviation is necessary.

In the recent report on the Myanmar S76C++ it would appear that there was a choice over the procedure to be used. Perhaps it was not necessary for the passengers to be exposed when there was another course of action.

It would appear from this thread that some pilots open themselves to unnecessary risk - in this group we might put the pilot who flies in inappropriate weather.

This does not extend to those pilots who's role require them to be inside the HV curve. For them such risk has been factored into the risk reward calculation and deemed to be acceptable.

Jim

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 - A fully loaded AS355 would probably not survive a VTOL Helipad CTO. An AS355 at the Group A Mass should clear the take-off surface by at least 35 feet. Of course as TRE(H) you would know that.

CRAB - Gloves OFF - Which rules do you think/believe rubbish?? Lets hear some substance instead of the endless blabbering bleats which serve no real purpose. I am willing to review my position if you can describe a rule that really does not make sense!!!

[cockney steve]

The Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying)(Glastonbury) Regulations 2011
were in force from 22 to 25 June 2011. A NOTAM and AIC were published in
the usual way. On Sunday 26 June,
A quick sidestep, here to CAA v Mann

So, what the hell am i missing?...... restriction is stated as 22nd. to 25 th.....Offence alleged on 26th.
Am I living on a different planet?.....Not a chopper-jock or even a humble PPL....but i've flown RC flingwings to the crash-site and likewise Planks.....please enlighten me as to how he commited an offence the day after the restriction expired.

DB...your first post you came across as arrogant, conceited and smug....glad to see youhave toned it down a bit, gives you a lot more credibility.....not that my opinion accounts for much!

carry on, girls! :p

[MightyGem]

3,500 HEMs missions in an unstabilised machine including Night into the hills.
How did you manage that in 5 years of Police/HEMS flying?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

MIGHTY GEM,

I was involved in Police /HEMS in the very early 90s when both disciplines were extermely busy. 4 years of HEMS averaging around 3-5 missions a day was not unusual. Having said this many of those missions were "Secondary" tasks such as transfers or filling in gaps in the Road Ambulance Network. Not all "Blood and Guts" My first Night shift at NEASU we did 14 tasks!!!

Probaly also a bit of poetic licence. I remember adding it all up once and I am sure it came out at around the 3,500. Having siad that I remember telling my kids that I had escaped from a "simulated" submarine at HMS dolphin with a free ascent from 100m. Swore blind it was true!!! Then the little monkeys googled it and turned out is was a 100' so heh-ho the memory plays tricks!!

I have told myself a million times not to exagerate"!!!!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Cockney Steve,

That's probably because I am arrogant, concieted and smug and I am "trying" to tone it down a bit!!

We all have our cross to bear/bare/baar!!! (jeez) my spelling!!!

Thanks for the encouragment!!

DB

[nigelh]

:eek:My God DB ......you are not a robot after all !! I have to admit that after all the hot air has spilled from your sails you appear ...... Well , almost human :D

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

NigelH - Jeez...coming from you that almost brought a tear to my eyes!! I think I need a long lie down.

DB

[nigelh]

I'm sure it won't last long ...:cool:

[[email protected]]

DB - now we have seen your human side, perhaps you would like to continue the catharsis by admitting you do, in fact, break speed limits when you drive:)

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I decline your offer to admit to breaking law. This thread is about prosecutions and your initial contribution is that some of the rules are rubbish. I have asked you to quantify that statement by explaining which rules you do not like. This is reasonable, I think!!

So instead of trashing me for wanting to comply (which by the way is what I am paid to do), please explain why you do not want to comply.

I am human and genuinly interested in your answer AND I am prepared to modify my view should you produce something compelling!!

Come on CRAB, surely you have some substance to you or are you really just an empty vessel bleating to the masses cos you think it makes you sound informed or influential!!!

[[email protected]]

Oh dear, and your rehabilitation was going so well....;)

[cockney steve]

[A quick sidestep, here to CAA v Mann

So, what the hell am i missing?...... restriction is stated as 22nd. to 25 th.....Offence alleged on 26th.
Am I living on a different planet?.....Not a chopper-jock or even a humble PPL....but i've flown RC flingwings to the crash-site and likewise Planks.....please enlighten me as to how he commited an offence the day after the restriction expired.


Err, -no takers?...I'm really struggling with the concept of "commiting an offence the day AFTER IT CEASED TO BE AN OFFENCE"

[Redland]

Re cockney steve

Think it is a misprint on the dates of the NOTAM, Finished on the 27th

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/223/pdfs/uksi_20110223_en.pdf

[nigelh]

Come on Crab ...Rome wasnt built in a day . This is going to be a long process!!
DB .... How about the rule where in say a squirrel you need approx 150 m with no obstacle ... Ie if you have a large lawn you cannot take off over a 4ft fence ....I would , and do regularly , but for aoc it is illegal !! Surely you cannot say it is in any way unsafe to even hovver taxi over it .. Can you??

[Pittsextra]

Nigel I think you are missing the point.

Is it dangerous? Depends what the 4ft fence is made out of, how sturdy it is, helicopter performance, weight and how likely you view an EFATO.

If you believe its never going to happen to you then carry on, maybe take up smoking 80 a day and live happily ever after.

Sure that rule might look silly but it looks a lot more silly piling in with 20 people on board, that die in a subsequent fuel fire after the fuel tank ruptured. The rule makers might have seen this issue and hence why you can do it privately within the law...

[JimL]

Nigel, you keep banging on but this is not illegal under JAR-OPS 3.540(b).

To conduct such discussions, it is always an advantage to know and understand the regulations.

Until you or Crab can actually quote a rule which is superfluous or plain stupid, it is extremely difficult for us to stop beating our wives.

Jim

[nigelh]

Fair point .... I must admit I have never actually read the rule book !!!!
I just know that I was going to do a job from a large garden ( on an aoc ) and
Was then told it was not possible due to some piddly little fence 100 m away !!!!
I then did the job from the same site privately .... I am very sorry but I really do
not see a fence as dangerous . If you hovver taxi over it where on earth is the
danger !!!!! It's just ridiculous ..... Sorry but that is my opinion !!!

[misterbonkers]

nigelh - you can hover taxi over the fence as long as the area you are hover taxiing to then meets the required dimensions (and the fence is not high enough that you have to go into the avoid curve to get over it...!) or hover taxi at a speed that means you can go higher over the fence.

Total take-off distance required for the AS350 PC3 is a long one! first 3rd needs to be obstacle free, remaining 2/3rds should be frangible (not sure if sheep are classed as frangible).

You see there are ways and means. Of course you could just hover taxi from passenger pick up point to passenger drop off point ;)

Oh, and as for daft rules;

September 16th - to renew my R22 = 2hrs dual + LPC.
September 17th - redo the whole type rating

[Hughes500]

Mr Bonkers understand your name now that you are admitting to renewing your 22 typr rating:eek:

[[email protected]]

DB - as I am sure you know, I don't have to operate to JAROps 3 or any other public transport legislation because I am a military pilot - therefore the silly rules and regs (I refer you to the first 2 pages of this thread) impact operators like NigelH and Dennis Kenyon who clearly have some specific issues with current legislation.

We have more than enough silly rules and regs in the military without me needing to know chapter and verse of the civilian rules (although I am an ATPLH holder I took air law 20 years ago and haven't need to use it since).

I may have been slightly sweeping in my generalisation about legislation but even you must admit, many of the rules are written in such a non-user-friendly fashion (I know it is for the legal eagles) that it is a wonder that anyone manages to comply at all.

There - just to show I am human as well;)

[misterbonkers]

Damn, wish I'd used bigger expired type in the example instead! ;)

I didn't bother renewing it in the end - was only going to do it so I could keep it on my EASA licence but then there wouldn't be enough space to reval everything each year anyway - I'd be getting the CAA to send me a new bit of paper every 6-9 months and given their 6 week turn around that would screw things work wise! So I've successfully managed to reduce it to 12months! Another bonkers example of rules and regs - there are not enough boxes for revals/renewals so you are potentially without a type until the CAA can send you a new one - and their argument of the open counter service is ridiculous and unpractical for most.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I am truly astounded by your revelation that you are only involved in Military flying and yet seem so intent on telling the rest of us that the rules are rubbish (or some of them). I want you to consider, just for a moment, the effect your previous comments have on the less, lets say, experienced, aviators who may read this thread.

In addition, consider how the likes of JimL, who has been instrumental in steering UK Legislation in the right direction in the midst of the confusion of conflicts that arose for JAR and EASA, views your childish statements.

Finnaly, consider Misterbonkers poor attitude towards the requirement to meet minimum hours to renew a type rating. Without rules what do you think he would do, left to his own devices. Is his attitude, freely expressed on this thread, the result of your poor example??

NigelH's poor perception of PC3 and his apparent inability to recognise risk let alone appropriate it to the task in hand just makes me sad...really.

The test here is really simple. Of you all, the only man I would trust to fly my family in JimL simply because his attitude towards rules and regs, despite his tenacous fight to make them workable and pragmatic, is the correct one.

If you have influence over others your have responsibility to meet. Think on CRAB!!!

[[email protected]]

Very pompous and very pious DB - you are clearly the sort of man who shouldn't be flying other people around because when the situation arises (and it surely can) that is outside the rule-book, you will have nowhere to turn.

Maybe that is why you are not still a military pilot and I am - because there has to be a recognition that rules are for guidance not mindless obedience.

I do respect JimL's work - he has given me a lot of information on all sorts of topics where my lack of civilian experience has left gaps in my understanding.

I though I had offered an amicable end to this dispute but you are clearly too dense to recognise it as you are too smugly sat on your moral high ground.

[misterbonkers]

DB - re-read what I wrote.

If I had chosen to renew my R22 on the 16th September all I would have needed to do was 2hrs plus LPC. I have 600hrs on the R22, fly quite a few types (including the R44 - 1000+hrs) AND I'm an FE & TRE.

Yet come the 17th it's changed to a full Type Rating Course.

I do believe it is a daft rule. I'm entitled to believe that. It's my opinion. IT DOES NOT MEAN I won't adhere to it or other rules for that matter. Without discussion on the rules and our opinions towards them we cannot get to a point where the rules might be changed (as you so suggested).

Working multi-crew offshore in the UK I truly hope that your CRM is genuinely better than the manner in which you conduct yourself on this forum because sir, it's attitudes like yours that have led to accidents. Kegworth

[Hughes500]

DB

Perhaps i have lost the plot following these posts. Can you tell me then should or should I not be teaching vertical landings in single engine helicopters ie entering the avoid curve. A simple yes or no will do
Should i be teaching vor tracking to PPLH's (dispite over 90% of vfr helicopter 's not even having one fitted) again yes or no
Should i be teaching the use of satnav (fitted in over 90% of vfr helicopters )again yes or no
Have a nice evening

[misterbonkers]

Hughes 500 - you can use an ADF instead of a VOR...! Oh, wait a minute - they're all getting switched off soon because the government wants the frequency band...!

[Hughes500]

MrB

Sir would you be taking the Michael ?

[misterbonkers]

No, I wouldn't dare - just in case DB petitions EASA to create a rule AGAINST humour in aviation - that would completely ruin the job. #tongueincheeksmilie

[Geoffersincornwall]

...yes they provide an essential framework within which we attempt to survive but I cannot say I was best please to have my ATPL(H) renewal returned with a note saying that I did not include a certification of my English proficiency. It obviously does not count that I have held a UK & JAA ATPL for 37 years the last version of which included the statement 'ENGLISH' on it.

G. :ugh:

[Hughes500]

Geoff
Just shows EASA has a sense of humour then !

[misterbonkers]

Has Cornwall not devolved yet? You should send a certificate stating Cornish Level 6.

[Hughes500]

Mr B

Oh Dear I think you might be entering into a world of grief now, although I do take my passport with me when I cross the Tamar;)

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - I may be popous and pious but I DO NOT pass opinions on subjects I know little about, such as JSP-318, having left that world behind a while ago. Unlike you, who has not even entered the civilian world yet but feels comfortable making daft statements.

Its crap spouted without thought that makes PPRUNE so much less than it can be.

This thread started as a CAA bashing session simply because they try to enforce the rules. If you hold a professional licence you are compelled to uphold the rules AND fully support those who follow them. Thats not pious or pompous. Its the law!!!

Rules apply to eveyone, equally. Thats why we all have to have a competence in the English Language, regadless of where we live, got born or indeed the language we speak.

DB

[[email protected]]

CRAB - I may be popous and pious but I DO NOT pass opinions on subjects I know little about unlike your comment about operating inside the HV curve and stating it was a limitation rather than (in many cases) a performance issue.

You seem so busy slagging me off because you object to my viewpoint - which I am perfectly entitled to hold - that you ignore that there are those who find the CAA frustrating and overcomplicated to deal with.

Are you really telling me that there are absolutely no rules or regulations that you are not happy with or that could be improved?

[Hedge36]

If you hold a professional licence you are compelled to uphold the rules AND fully support those who follow them.

Now wait a minute there...

[griffothefog]

DB,

3-5 Hems missions a day? I would be interested to know which county unit that was in :eek:
I flew the first AA in the Uk back in the late 80's early 90's and apart from summer madness, we rarely flew more than 2 missions a day. :ok:

[Dennis Kenyon]

Oh dear ... this is really becoming fun. EASA, HV curves, VOR tracking ... need I go on. But just to say the January issue of FLYER contains a report following interviews with a selection of AOC, RTFs and ATO holders and hopefully a balanced CAA response. READ ALL ABOUT IT! Dennis K.

PS. The Spanish air-ferry ended with an unserviceable ship prior to departure. So a nogo - nosho. AND both self and co-pilot managed to get robbed of £2k by police impersonators at Madrid Airport. READ ALL ABOUT THIS TOO!

[misterbonkers]

Dennis - for a truly 'balanced' view you should interview Double Bogey too!

[toptobottom]

Dennis - I heard about that robbery. It must have been awful, especially when you went back for a sixth time to pay that inflated landing fee :E

http://i851.photobucket.com/albums/ab71/prooner/girlcop.jpg

[Hughes500]

DB

Please answer my questions
1. should or should I not teach vertical take offs in singe engine machines
dont worry about the others

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HUGHES 500 - Why do you ask me questions about the subject you are qualified to teach??? Confined areas are part of the PPL(H) Syllabus, but surely you would explain to the PPL(H) student the risks of operating inside the avoid part of the H/V chart when PAX are carried.

If this chart appears in the limitations section, as I think we have already established, it is a limitation. If it is in the performance section - it is available to help us determine when we do not have a safe forced landing should we need this option.

However, the crucial point here is, regardless which damned section of the RFM the chart appears in the result, should your engine fail, is exactly the same!!!

If you carry a fare-paying PAX in the UK, without any alleviations, you must operate JAR-OPS 3 - PC3 as a minimum. This means you should endevour to operate at all times with a Safe Forced Landing.

The problem with PC3 is that it is highly subjective and requires a degree of common sense on behalf of the pilot.

PC1 on the otherhand is nearly always Black and White, using numbers and profiles with definitive points in space to provide a landing or fly-away option.

Of course H500, as a TRE(H) you know all this so why oh why do you persist asking stupid questions that you know the answer to.

Here is one for you - DO YOU FOLLOW/ADHERE TO THE RULES - and if so which rules do you believe are unworkable?

DB

[Hughes500]

Well seeing as you didnt know what a double angle approach was and you seemed to imply that the rules prevented anyone from entering the avoid curve. One of the reasons you have been getting such a pasting
The rules, in some respects probably break them everytime one goes flying.
For instance training at my home airfield, supposed to be 67m away from perimeter while conducting training flights, well thats impossible as the refueling pump is 25 m from the public highway and the same distance from a cafe. Therefore if I hav e astudent on board i break the rules.
I break the rules when doing an EOL to the ground, rules according to chief flying examiner mean we have to teach power recovery

[Dennis Kenyon]

I deem a change from HV curves, VORs, and the current slanging match is overdue. So just to warn others ... Entering the hire car return station at Madrid Airport, my co-pilot called ... "police car following us." Quite possible as I had been changing lanes too much in an effort to locate the Europcar depot.

With some misgivings I braked to a halt behind the police who wanted to know if we were carrying drugs or large amounts of cash. I was highly suspicious but didn't fancy driving off followed by a bullet. With our bags searched, an amount of Irish £20s (Northern) Sterling and Euros on show totalled £2k, The villains snatched the lot including co-pilot's cell phone and jumped into the open door of their car. I had time to take the registration but co-pilot was more determined and leaped after the car but was swiped aside fortunately at a bare 20 mph.

At the Madrid Airport police station we met a couple who had just suffered the same scam. The Airport guys were good but I've little doubt we will never see our money.

I know its obvious, but the sensible course of action has to be to keep the car doors locked and continue to drive at reduced speed to a more secure place. I'm still a learnin' tho'

Now back to the PP scrap! Much more fun ... Regards to all. Dennis K.

[[email protected]]

The problem with PC3 is that it is highly subjective and requires a degree of common sense on behalf of the pilot. so it's not all black and white then ;)

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

H500 - I have never implied that operating in the H/V curve is ALWAYs prohibited. I have explained in crystal clear language WHEN it is prohibited. I have expressed an opinion that being in it for no good reason is poor airmanship. Just what is the point YOU are trying to make??

DOUBLE ANGLE APPROACHES - For a TRE(H) you do not seem possessed of the normal required empathy when someone admits they do not know the answer.

67m FROM THE FUEL INSTALLATION - I do not know where you get this figure. I can help you I think, by drawing your attention to ICAO Annex 14 - The Heliport Manual. In this document it lays down the minimum safety distances for taxiways, air taxiways, buildings, obstacles, and I think, fuel installations. It would be the responsibility of the Aerodorme Licence holder to demonstrate compliance with ICAO Annex 14. Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision, that the aerodrome should at least meet minimum sepcifications.

Having said this you would need to let me know where you are quoting these distances from if you really want me to respond properly...or are you just winding me up....AGAIN!!!

Also, I do not feel that I have recieved an "Pasting" for sticking up for the rules. More like a slap with a wet fish!!! Even CRAB seems to be weakining and coming across into the light and the deep warm womb -like comfort of compliance!!

By they way - I have a clean driving licence - just for Ze CRAB!!!

[[email protected]]

DB you have done enough winding yourself into a frenzy without anyone else needing to help.

Perhaps if you showed any tolerance towards others you might be forgiven for the odd slip in knowledge:)

[ShyTorque]

Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision

Is this still the case? I thought the rules had changed.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRAB - POT/KETTLE - touche

[Hughes500]

If you look at training requirements it very clearly states you may not operate within 67m of airfield boundary or buildings etc etc A rule that I have to break everytime I fly
Shytorque Yes you can train from unlicensed sites, but the requirement is about the same as a normal airfield but without the fire cover. I gained the first approval to be issued, bit of a joke as the CAA hadnt thought through the contact with the ground requirement. I was asked to write a paper on it, so a case in point of the rules being made up as you go along or more correctly lets put into law without consulting anyone :ugh:
DB the problem with the rules they are not thought through or put to people working at the sharp end hence contributor's stating you cant stay within the rules.
Here is an engineering one for you to show how ridiculous the rules are.
About 20 years a go a Hughes500C ( the old 4 blades variety) had an engine fire on start up in UK. The pilot did not immediately realise until told by atc. CAA's reaction a fire wire had to be fitted to the engines ( about £ 3500 at the time) BUT only fitted to D and E models ( 5 blades T tail) neither had ever caught fire on start up, the HS and c model ones didnt need it dispite the culprit being a C model:ugh::ugh::ugh: to make matters worse no other machine with a A250C20 series engine had to have one fitted, think of all the 206's out there.
Also remember the name of the site, there are lots happy to wind you up !:ok:

[jellycopter]

Hughes500

Rule6 states:

Manoeuvring helicopters
(i) Subject to paragraph (ii), a helicopter shall be exempt from the 500 feet rule if it is conducting manoeuvres, in accordance with normal aviation practice, within the boundaries of a licensed or Government aerodrome or, with the written permission of the CAA, at other sites.
(ii) When flying in accordance with this exemption the helicopter must not be operated closer than 60 metres to any persons, vessels, vehicles or structures located outside the aerodrome or site.

I reckon that makes it OK to do what you're doing and therefore not breaking the rules.

JJ

[chopperchappie]

Quote:
Seeing as this thread is about the rules, it may interest you to know that part of the reason for mandating training only at licenced aerodromes is precisley for this kind of provision
Is this still the case? I thought the rules had changed.

DOH! :ugh:

[AnFI]

chopperchap:

the 60m rule applies - so a very small airfield (like a helipad) would have to have a diameter of 130meters to permit manoeuvering in the central 10m circle

[misterbonkers]

Not necessarily; The exemption in rule 6 for manoeuvring helicopters is a clarification of the status of helicopters conducting ground cushion manoeuvres such as training. This does not apply to helicopters landing and taking off in accordance with normal aviation practice. Normal aviation practise includes making your final approach and, if necesserary hover taxiing to your landing spot.

So your minimum landing site is governed by the helipad size required by the flight or operations manual you are working to and not the 60m rule.

[Hughes500]

as usual rules are open to interpretation !!!
Bit like a congested area, golf couse is one according to CAA not sure that would stand up to an average person in a court

[[email protected]]

Hughes 500, and that is where so much of the legislation really falls down-it is open to interpretation because it isn't written in plain English.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

CRABBY - If you are still working for HM, why do you find the CAA frustrating as surely you do not have to deal with them?

Also, apart from the Rules of The Air, which I hope you find acceptable as they are ICAO and I presume you have to follow as a Military Pilot, what rules are giving you so much grief???

Or is it that I have sorely misjudged you and that you are only sticking up for the rest of us that are subjected to the CAA and Civil Air Legislation just because you are a thoroughly nice man!!!

Finally I apologise. Of course you are entitled to your opinion and I am sorry if any of my previous posts gave you the impression that this was not the case!!

There, a wee leeetel olivey type branch offered mostly as I respect the incredible work that you and your collegues do in SAR and I guess above all the risks you take to help people entitle you to the odd rant and opinion. Said from the heart!!!

Keep up the good work

DB

[[email protected]]

CRABBY - If you are still working for HM, why do you find the CAA frustrating as surely you do not have to deal with them? renewing licences for a start!!

Olivey type branch thingy accepted with thanks on behalf of the brave people I work with.:)