Flight in Inappropriate VFR Conditions (NVIS)

[Mars]

I cannot find an appropriate thread to put this on; it is resonant with a number that are currently running.

NTSB Identification: WPR14TA149
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, March 27, 2014 in Tehachapi, CA
Aircraft: BELL OH 58A, registration: N497E
Injuries: 3 Uninjured.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this public aircraft accident report.

On March 27, 2014, about 0140 Pacific daylight time, a Bell OH-58A, N497E, collided with a highway near Tehachapi, California, after encountering instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The helicopter was registered to, and operated by, the Kern County Sheriff's Department as a public-use flight. The commercial pilot, tactical flight officer (TFO), single passenger, and a dog were not injured. The helicopter sustained substantial damage during the accident sequence. The cross-country flight departed Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield, California, about 0120, with a planned destination of General William J Fox Airfield, Lancaster, California. Marginal visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the accident site, and no flight plan had been filed.

The purpose of the flight was to transport a dog from the Sheriff Department's Canine division to urgent care in Lancaster, after it was shot while on duty, about 3 hours prior to the accident.

The pilot stated that he arrived at the air division headquarters in Bakersfield about 0100, and was briefed on the mission by the current on-duty command pilot. They discussed the weather, and he confirmed that visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed at both the departure and arrival airports. He was aware that a weather front was moving through the area, and that he would most likely encounter IMC conditions while enroute. He planned to use Tehachapi airport as an alternate landing site should conditions deteriorate.

At 0120, they loaded the injured dog into the rear left footwell, along with the Canine Division Chief who was seated in the rear right seat. The departure was uneventful, but as they approached Tehachapi they encountered light rain, strong wind, and low clouds. Both the pilot and the TFO were wearing Night Vision Goggles (NVG's) throughout the flight.

The pilot decided to proceed, and wanted to see if Sand Canyon was passable. However, once they got beyond the lights of the city, he lost visual reference after flying into what appeared to be clouds. He reported flying at about 500 feet agl at that time, and was concerned that returning might cause them to collide with obstacles in the area such as wind turbines. He elected to slow the helicopter and initiate a gradual descent with the hope of exiting the clouds. During the descent he realized that the windshield had in fact fogged up, and as such, he turned on the demister. A short time later a highway suddenly came into view and the helicopter struck the ground.

The helicopter struck the highway surface, bounced back into the air, and rotated about 180 degrees. The pilot maintained a low hover and could now see the lights of Tehachapi ahead. The helicopter appeared to be handling normally, and was not vibrating or making any unusual sounds, so he elected to return to Tehachapi Airport. Before landing he asked the TFO to open the door to observe the skids; they appeared intact. The TFO attempted to utilize the Forward Looking Infrared Camera (FLIR) mounted on the nose, and rear-mounted "Nightsun" searchlight to assist with the landing, but they were both inoperative. The helicopter then landed uneventfully.

Subsequent examination revealed that the helicopter sustained substantial damage to the belly structure, with the skids having been spread about 2 feet beyond their normal stance. The FLIR and searchlight both sustained crush damage to their lower cowlings, and the tailskid appeared to have struck the ground.

Although the following quote from ICAO Annex 6 Part III is taken from the Commercial Air Transport section, it makes good sense for it to be applied to all type of operations - including Public Use (State Aircraft):

2.3.5 Weather conditions

2.3.5.1 A flight to be conducted in accordance with VFR shall not be commenced unless current meteorological reports or a combination of current reports and forecasts indicate that the meteorological conditions along the route or that part of the route to be flown or in the intended area of operations under VFR will, at the appropriate time, be such as to render compliance with these rules possible.

Note.— When a flight is conducted in accordance with VFR, the use of night vision imaging systems (NVIS) or other vision enhancing systems does not diminish the requirement to comply with the provisions of 2.3.5.1.


Mars

[Arm out the window]

Sounds like the weather was dog****.

[Art of flight]

Well, pick the bones out of this one. Incredibly lucky people.

So, having smacked into the ground (CFIT) hard enough to do that amount of damage you opt to fly away from the hover to the nearest airport? During the pre-flight briefing did it not seem very probable that IMC would be encountered and an IMC/IFR flight should have been planned?

I'm a dog lover, but wasn't this flawed from the start.

Is 'flight in inappropriate conditions' actually flight in IMC?

[misterbonkers]

Sounds like this pilot needs a leash on to restrict his flying activities!

[ShyTorque]

Almost thirty years ago the RAF helicopter Support Helicopter OCUs were incorporating NVGs as "the norm" for all night flying. Unaided vision flight was renamed "reversionary night flying".

As staff instructors we were given the re-written rule book "from above". Previously unannounced, the weather limits had been reduced when NVGs were being used. Those of us who were more familiar with their use could immediately see the danger in this and put forward a case to have the limits put back to those previously in force for unaided vision. We pointed out that loss of visual reference using goggles meant you were in IMC deeper than without. If you lose visual references while on a low level military flight and climb you immediately expose yourself to the enemy. By reducing the limits for launch you are closer to doing so. Also, even in peacetime, if you launched to less stringent limits and your goggles failed the only option might be the IFR one. If icing conditions prevail in cloud, you're stuffed. Thankfully, the case was accepted.

This accident shows why we did it. If you don't have an IMC capability there is no sense to launch into met conditions where you may fly yourself into an IMC accident situation.

[Art of flight]

Another point from the report that puzzles me, the pilot 'reported' to the HQ at 0100 hrs and by 0120 they were loading and then departing. Sounds like a very short space of time, given the hour and weather, to allow thorough prep for the flight unless the pilot had already flown, inspected the aircraft, done the weight/balance, fuel calcs and route planning and met forecast earlier in the night?

[rotorspeed]

What an unbelievably ridiculous story, with a multitude of bad decisions from the poor to plain stupid. Firstly was it really a good use of public money to fly a wounded dog? Then at night, in a VFR single with IMC conditions likely? And then to lose visual reference despite an alleged diversion plan if the weather deteriorated to be IMC? Then to actually become IMC, and slow and descend over unknown territory at night! To not see the ground in time to avoid hitting it and being bounced in to 180 deg spin! AND THEN ELECTING TO CARRY ON!! All with 3 POB!

Complete madness. The pilot is surely not fit to fly and should lose his licence. No doubt a 6 figure acft repair bill. Thank God no-one hurt - though a miracle.

[OvertHawk]

Rotorspeed - while i agree that the decision to fly probably was flawed, i would comment that it may well have been "good use of public money to fly a dog" if that dog is an expensively trained asset belonging to the taxpayer. It costs a lot of money and time to train a police dog so a couple of thousand dollars of flight time to save it could easily be good value for the taxpayer.

It's not worth killing a crew for though!

OH

[rotorspeed]

OH - good point on the potential expensive training of the dog, but I'd still be pretty surprised if helo over road transport was really justified - let's face it, it's often debatable with humans!

[Boudreaux Bob]

Folks, you are dealing with Kern County Sheriff's Office here, you need to think about that when considering anything they do that requires thinking.

You also have to recall Police Officers and their K-9's generate some strong emotions especially when one of the them gets shot in the Line of Duty.

That is a steep, dark, Canyon they were flying in that night with plenty of wires in places.

Why they did not route down I-5 and cross the moutons that way then turn east along 130 defeats me.

I-5 has lots of vehicular traffic at all times to give them plenty of ground light reference then once they turned east it was flat open ground with a highway to follow.

Going up and over the mountains the way they did was perhaps 15 miles shorter but much more difficult and higher terrain.

I would submit the exact correct decision should have been to put the Dog and the K-9 guy into a Police Car, fire up the Emergency Lights and Siren and drive by road to the Veterinarian's Office. It would have taken about the same amount of time as driving to the Heliport, getting the Pilots and aircraft ready, then flying to Lancaster especially knowing the weather issue.

[Soave_Pilot]

Chain of bad events that could have been easily broken or avoided.

Cant believe he started to decent over unknown ground. :ugh:

[Gomer Pylot]

First, the pilot does not need a license. For public use aircraft, no FAA license is needed, unless required by the agency. It's the same for the military and state agencies. Most agencies do require an FAA pilot certificate, but it's not required by law.

The time to launch was short, but not unusual. Doing a weight & balance calculation on a 206/OH58 is, under most configurations, a waste of time, because you cannot get one out of CG as long as you're within max gross weight limits, or not too far above them. Fuel calculalions can be done in one's head in a few seconds. It ain't rocket science.

In hindsight, the decision to launch in the actual weather was poor, but it's always easy to judge from an armchair on the opposite side of the world with months to study things. Yes, he got into a bad place, and not all his decisions were perfect in hindsight, but I wasn't there so I won't make any further comments.

[Art of flight]

Don't think it would matter where in the world the armchair is positioned, and as the OP posted the report the same day most of us responded, we certainly didn't take months to come to the conclusions posted.

The pilot stated he would 'most likely encounter IMC conditions', saying not all his decisions were perfect with hindsight is leaving room to pick out some good ones?

[Boudreaux Bob]

The pilot decided to proceed, and wanted to see if Sand Canyon was passable. However, once they got beyond the lights of the city, he lost visual reference after flying into what appeared to be clouds. He reported flying at about 500 feet agl at that time, and was concerned that returning might cause them to collide with obstacles in the area such as wind turbines. He elected to slow the helicopter and initiate a gradual descent with the hope of exiting the clouds. During the descent he realized that the windshield had in fact fogged up, and as such, he turned on the demister. A short time later a highway suddenly came into view and the helicopter struck the ground.

It does not sound like IIMC in the classic sense.

The OH-58 is well known to have a tendency to have problems with condensation forming on the windscreen which causes a loss of visibility out the front of the aircraft.

[handysnaks]

One of my pet peeves with EC as well. The 355 demist could catch you out if you weren't prepared and the 135 is no different. The minute you want demist you go IMC inside the cockpit for a couple of minutes unless you have had the foresight to demist on the ground first. Have to say that demisting is one of the things that th MD 902 did/does really well.

[MightyGem]

The minute you want demist you go IMC inside the cockpit for a couple of minutes
Sometimes, if you haven't used it since the last engine wash. In my experience. :ok:

[handysnaks]

..and also when you leave it outside in the rain and damp MG :)

[John R81]

For six months of the year I run the P2 bleed after start, whilst completing checks, to warm the screen then close P2 for lift / departure. Incorporated that into my routine after having a "misting" experience on the climb -out one morning. Looking out of a rapidly-opened sliding side window whilst the screen cleared is an experience I would rather avoid repeating.

I now have air-conditioning which is a great help to reduce moisture content in the cab.

[Thomas coupling]

Rotorspeed - my words exactly.

This ******** of a pilot should never ever be allowed anywhere near a cab again.
The whole episode stinks and if I didn't know better - was a theoretical scenarion designed for a CRM module to highlight everything that is bad about commercial/parapublic air ops.
The ONLY good news to come from this is that no-one died. :ugh::ugh::rolleyes:
[Any news on the dog?]

[Arrrj]

G'day John,

Aircon in your lovely EC120B, well done ! You are just about to enter the nice flying season in the UK, where the temp will justify turning on the air-con.

In Aus, it's "air-con on" before I take off anywhere, even in Tassie where it can be pretty cold.

Having a clear view is a great thing, even if you have to be a bit cool. :ok:

Arrrj