Paul McCartney near death experience
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The fact that they only descended without hitting anything being down to luck was ok?
I'm a little confused re some of the comments. Isn't it the case that the plan was to make a decision at 500ft.. Which didn't happen and ultimately ended 20ft off the top of some trees?? So therefore my maths see that a 10000hour pilot with a 5000 hours co-pilot flying a reasonably sophisticated machine used up 480ft... Now 1000ft doesn't seem that OTT.
In the end you could make the 1000ft, zero but all you are doing is giving those that will take the piss more rope to hang themselves?
In the end you could make the 1000ft, zero but all you are doing is giving those that will take the piss more rope to hang themselves?
In the Solomons we had a GPS approach for nearly everywhere, but only down to what could be described as a non-precision DA. The GPS kit, as approved by CASA, the Oz CAA, was modified and there were certain checks before you carried out an approach. These included position error and satellite reliability, ie there had to be four satellites in view for all of the projected approach time. The HSI would also indicate full deflection at 1/4 mile error when selected to the GPS approach function.
It used to work. On one approach you were flying directly at a mountain much higher than you and then turning on to the approach track at one mile to go to a CFIT.
It used to work. On one approach you were flying directly at a mountain much higher than you and then turning on to the approach track at one mile to go to a CFIT.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Isn't it the case that the plan was to make a decision at 500ft.. Which didn't happen
My point being, there is nothing magic about the figure of 1,000 feet. The initial descent from 1,000 feet was probably the safest part of the approach.
Crab - do you still really think IMC let downs should never be below MSA in IFR helicopters?
I appreciate that the reluctance of the CAA in relation to GPS approaches is frustrating and progress in other countries shows that this can be done properly and safely. But the practice of making up your own approach is not working very well. There is always someone who pushes just that little bit too far.
Shy: I agree 1000' is an arbitrary number and maybe with today's technological advances this could be lower (even though as Crab has pointed out this doesn't always just relate to knowing your position accurately, it also takes into account pilot errors, turbulence, altimeter errors etc...). The main point however is that there must be a clear limit, whatever that number is.
Isn't it the case that the plan was to make a decision at 500ft.. Which didn't happen and ultimately ended 20ft off the top of some trees??
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The main point however is that there must be a clear limit, whatever that number is.
As I wrote before, if a 1,000' limit is mandated across the board, there would be little point in any further research and development for the purpose of making aircraft safer and more capable with respect to poor weather operations.
Again, I'd maintain that this wasn't actually the root cause of this incident.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same self administered let downs onshore were responsible for the eventual demise of the pilot of G-CRST. Corporate no rules flights get away with a lot due to no real control or checking. People of ShyTorques experience can do it with proper skill set and tools but there's also those who push it too far. The pilots in this instance were experienced but there was then the lack of CRM, no MCC as far as I am aware.
i agree you could argue a differnt number than 1000ft and actually if you are of the mindset to break a rule then frankly does it matter anyway?
What is a worry is that here is another multi thousand hour professional pilot nearly going the way of other recent multi thousand hour professional pilots with some shocking airmanship, worse the co pilot said nothing in the early stages and became paralysed with fear and still said nothing. It then takes over 2 years for this nonsense to become widely known and reported.
That isn't an industry in my opinion that is keen to really change that's one that really believes it won't happen to them.
What is a worry is that here is another multi thousand hour professional pilot nearly going the way of other recent multi thousand hour professional pilots with some shocking airmanship, worse the co pilot said nothing in the early stages and became paralysed with fear and still said nothing. It then takes over 2 years for this nonsense to become widely known and reported.
That isn't an industry in my opinion that is keen to really change that's one that really believes it won't happen to them.
The capabilities of recent civilian aircraft far surpasses what the military have at their disposal.
Published and cleared GPS approach with a proper MDA- no problem.
Made up approaches just for convenience - an absolute killer - how long can you be lucky doing those??
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
A couple of points need reinforcing here. Firstly, despite what Pitts seems to think, it is not presently illegal to descend below 1,000 feet in these circumstances, see the reference to it by the AAIB in their report.
Again, I maintain that descending below 1,000 feet wasn't the root cause of this incident.
Those calling for a total ban on doing so are making a knee jerk reaction, possibly out of ignorance about how the helicopter industry works. Such a ban would be draconian and unnecessary.
Crab, having left the military, you may need to broaden your horizons a little and step down from your lofty perch! Having been in the SAR role myself, amongst others after my military time, I can say with the benefit of hindsight that the onshore corporate market is at times equally, if not more demanding of the individual. It requires extremely high standards at all times.
It's unlikely ever to be the case that an individual customer would wish for there to be a 'published approach' to his own back garden per se, but properly thought out IMC let downs can be carried out in a perfectly safe manner (and it happens, make no mistake; the most modern helicopters in civilian use are extremely good at doing them almost by themselves) but it needs to be done in the proper way with prior planning and in a disciplined way. For example, with an agreed MDA and with a proper missed approach procedure, as you say.
To the holier than thou, I'd say that like most things in life, it's important to find a balance. A balance between keeping the industry safe and stopping it in its tracks.
Again, I maintain that descending below 1,000 feet wasn't the root cause of this incident.
Those calling for a total ban on doing so are making a knee jerk reaction, possibly out of ignorance about how the helicopter industry works. Such a ban would be draconian and unnecessary.
Crab, having left the military, you may need to broaden your horizons a little and step down from your lofty perch! Having been in the SAR role myself, amongst others after my military time, I can say with the benefit of hindsight that the onshore corporate market is at times equally, if not more demanding of the individual. It requires extremely high standards at all times.
It's unlikely ever to be the case that an individual customer would wish for there to be a 'published approach' to his own back garden per se, but properly thought out IMC let downs can be carried out in a perfectly safe manner (and it happens, make no mistake; the most modern helicopters in civilian use are extremely good at doing them almost by themselves) but it needs to be done in the proper way with prior planning and in a disciplined way. For example, with an agreed MDA and with a proper missed approach procedure, as you say.
To the holier than thou, I'd say that like most things in life, it's important to find a balance. A balance between keeping the industry safe and stopping it in its tracks.
Shytorque is absolutely bang on here.
Before droning on about IMC let downs the fact remains that one of Britain's (dare I say, the world's) crown jewels is alive and kicking today by sheer and pure LUCK. He knows it and everyone here - reading this knows it. Predominently two very very experienced pilots (like the one who flew into a crane in London last year and like the three exceptionally experienced (one being a CAA examiner) S76 drivers in Ireland several years ago) made catastrophic decisions which took them beyond their capabilities - due I would suggest (in these three cases) to believing their capabilities were above the demand on the day.
We have to thank the Authorities (in whichever country) for doing the dirty work here. It is they - who have to look at each and every scenario and implement Black and white rules to deter "experts" from pushing the limits. But as is sometimes the case - practitioners choose to ignore these rules and occasionally pay the price.
In my previous life, I have witnessed two 'royal flights' visiting a temporary LZ in well below minimum weather limits using their own onboard GPS processes. One of the LZ's was at the base of a 1500' rock outcrop along the coast and the AS355 shot an approach from seaward towards the LZ in complete IMC with a c/b of 100'.
In the Irish accident, two very experienced Captains flying a private S76 had a CAA examiner onboard experimenting with a GPS approach to the private landing site. They flew straight into the hills doing it.
We ALL know this goes on out there and there are many many advocates who defend this process - but until the real experts (CAA) are happy - this domain will continue to collect victims.
Thank God our country treasure lives to sing another day
Before droning on about IMC let downs the fact remains that one of Britain's (dare I say, the world's) crown jewels is alive and kicking today by sheer and pure LUCK. He knows it and everyone here - reading this knows it. Predominently two very very experienced pilots (like the one who flew into a crane in London last year and like the three exceptionally experienced (one being a CAA examiner) S76 drivers in Ireland several years ago) made catastrophic decisions which took them beyond their capabilities - due I would suggest (in these three cases) to believing their capabilities were above the demand on the day.
We have to thank the Authorities (in whichever country) for doing the dirty work here. It is they - who have to look at each and every scenario and implement Black and white rules to deter "experts" from pushing the limits. But as is sometimes the case - practitioners choose to ignore these rules and occasionally pay the price.
In my previous life, I have witnessed two 'royal flights' visiting a temporary LZ in well below minimum weather limits using their own onboard GPS processes. One of the LZ's was at the base of a 1500' rock outcrop along the coast and the AS355 shot an approach from seaward towards the LZ in complete IMC with a c/b of 100'.
In the Irish accident, two very experienced Captains flying a private S76 had a CAA examiner onboard experimenting with a GPS approach to the private landing site. They flew straight into the hills doing it.We ALL know this goes on out there and there are many many advocates who defend this process - but until the real experts (CAA) are happy - this domain will continue to collect victims.
Thank God our country treasure lives to sing another day
Again, I maintain that descending below 1,000 feet wasn't the root cause of this incident.
If there is nothing wrong with the corporate ethos, how did 2 such experienced pilots nearly kill themselves and their passengers?
It requires extremely high standards at all times.]
I am quite aware of what goes on in the corporate world and no doubt the 'loophole' will remain to allow people to keep earning a living from flying helicopters.
BUT, we must accept that we will continue to have such incidents as this, and the ones TC mentions, plus countless other CFITs and near CFITs whilst home-grown approaches with no obstacle clearance planes, no MAP, no DA/MDA are considered an acceptable way of providing public transport.
I don't think many comments here have much to do with knee jerk anything. 1000ft first got mentioned by Shy in this context..
So having prompted discussion why moan about it when it does?? I don't think I said anything about things legal or otherwise did I??
Its not illegal to drive you car into a wall at 70mph - you don't because you might have a personal rule that it would be dumb thing to do. etc etc.
Neither is it holier than thou, because it doesn't affect some of us one way other the other. Discussion is merely that and left there. What I do find curious is how a same old drum gets beaten, same old chippy comments, same old digs and yet as crab so accurately put it "people keep spanking them all over the place"..
So why is that? Why when some people ask a question its a discussion point, others its holier than thou??
Second point for possible discussion: Why is 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5 nms the "sacred figure" used for MSA?
Its not illegal to drive you car into a wall at 70mph - you don't because you might have a personal rule that it would be dumb thing to do. etc etc.
Neither is it holier than thou, because it doesn't affect some of us one way other the other. Discussion is merely that and left there. What I do find curious is how a same old drum gets beaten, same old chippy comments, same old digs and yet as crab so accurately put it "people keep spanking them all over the place"..
So why is that? Why when some people ask a question its a discussion point, others its holier than thou??
In the Irish accident, two very experienced Captains flying a private S76 had a CAA examiner onboard experimenting with a GPS approach to the private landing site. They flew straight into the hills doing it
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212 man;
You're right. The CAA Inspector wasn't on board, a freelance IRE (Spotty Muldoon) was on board, in the P2 seat, the operation's chief pilot was in the back. In the Irish AAIB report the final words on the CVR were Spotty saying "Gentlemen, I'm really not happy about this" followed by an AVAD 100' warning that was cut short by the impact.
The next morning when the house keeper went to check the pilots' beds she found they hadn't been slept in, at that point the search started.
The let down they were using had been created by the crew, who allowed the aircraft deliberately off track that night to compensate for wind and earlier high ground.
JJ Smith hit the mountains very close to the Haughey Air crash site.
SND
You're right. The CAA Inspector wasn't on board, a freelance IRE (Spotty Muldoon) was on board, in the P2 seat, the operation's chief pilot was in the back. In the Irish AAIB report the final words on the CVR were Spotty saying "Gentlemen, I'm really not happy about this" followed by an AVAD 100' warning that was cut short by the impact.
The next morning when the house keeper went to check the pilots' beds she found they hadn't been slept in, at that point the search started.
The let down they were using had been created by the crew, who allowed the aircraft deliberately off track that night to compensate for wind and earlier high ground.
JJ Smith hit the mountains very close to the Haughey Air crash site.
SND
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5 nms the "sacred figure" used for MSA?
JJ Smith ......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Pitts, If the cap fits.....my comment was a general one, reading through the tone of some of the posts here, which as usual, as soon as reports are published, seems to be to cast a bunch of scorn upon the crew involved. If people are going to do so, and some always will, because they lurk often anonymously in the sidelines just waiting to do so, at least they should do so from a properly informed point of view, rather than from an incorrect understanding of the rules.
Curtis,
Yes, thanks, I fully expected someone to say that - the great majority of pilots know the regulation. My question was with regard to the basis for the figure of 1,000 ft being decided upon by the authority in the first place. I think Crab more or less covered that already, but yes, (a) obviously did apply.
Curtis,
Yes, thanks, I fully expected someone to say that - the great majority of pilots know the regulation. My question was with regard to the basis for the figure of 1,000 ft being decided upon by the authority in the first place. I think Crab more or less covered that already, but yes, (a) obviously did apply.