Paul McCartney near death experience
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul McCartney near death experience
Not sure if I missed this but can't believe there has been no comments on it and the reporting style 
Paul McCartney and wife two feet from disaster in helicopter drama: Pilot forced into terrifying climb after brushing tree-tops | Mail Online
HTC
Paul McCartney and wife two feet from disaster in helicopter drama: Pilot forced into terrifying climb after brushing tree-tops | Mail Online
HTC
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Penzance
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A slightly less dramatic reporting from The Daily Telegraph:
Regardless, I'm intrigued at the accuracy of the radalt that reads two feet off the top of a tree 
Sir Paul McCartney and his wife Nancy Shevell narrowly avoided disaster after the helicopter they were travelling in almost crashed into trees in the driving rain, according to air traffic reports.
The couple were travelling back from the launch of Sir Paul's daughter Mary's new cookery book in London to their home in London when the incident happened in May.
According to reports released by the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, that monitors air traffic, the helicopter came within "two feet" of crashing into the trees.
The report said that the "commander" of the helicopter became disorientated in bad weather and skimmed the trees while trying to land.
In the end, the unnamed 55-year-old pilot, was forced to abort the landing and instead land at nearby Lydd Airport in Kent.
The near miss was recorded as a "serious incident", which it defines as "involving circumstances indicating that nan accident nearly occurred".
No action will be taken against the charter company Air Harrods, although recommendations have been made over flight safety.
The firm, that is also used by Tony Blair, charges £3,000 an hour for helicopter flights.
Sir Paul, 70, married his 52-year-old third wife Nancy Shevell last year.
His eldest daughter Mary McCartney, has written a cookbook on vegetarian dishes.
His spokesman declined to comment.
The couple were travelling back from the launch of Sir Paul's daughter Mary's new cookery book in London to their home in London when the incident happened in May.
According to reports released by the Air Accidents Investigations Branch, that monitors air traffic, the helicopter came within "two feet" of crashing into the trees.
The report said that the "commander" of the helicopter became disorientated in bad weather and skimmed the trees while trying to land.
In the end, the unnamed 55-year-old pilot, was forced to abort the landing and instead land at nearby Lydd Airport in Kent.
The near miss was recorded as a "serious incident", which it defines as "involving circumstances indicating that nan accident nearly occurred".
No action will be taken against the charter company Air Harrods, although recommendations have been made over flight safety.
The firm, that is also used by Tony Blair, charges £3,000 an hour for helicopter flights.
Sir Paul, 70, married his 52-year-old third wife Nancy Shevell last year.
His eldest daughter Mary McCartney, has written a cookbook on vegetarian dishes.
His spokesman declined to comment.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Hedski; 12th Nov 2012 at 05:36.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can't believe there has been no comments on it
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: sussex
Age: 75
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i want to hold your hand
any one been in there at night ? is it lit, only saw pic in paper , didnot look like many escape routes , they all walked away! luck or judgment ?? helispeediii
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: East Anglia.
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How on earth can something like this happen, doesn't this operator have some sort of "off-airfield" approach procedure? (like an offshore ARA), ie with a defined approach minima? (eg 200 ft) Or do they just make it up as they go along?
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: London
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Targa top
That's the problem, they clearly did, and it certainly didn't involve abiding to the legal requirements of maintaining VMC below 1000' or even to a vaguely sensible height below that figure! The AAIB report will make spectacular reading, and it will be interesting to see what else comes out. There ought to be plenty of FDR/CVR evidence, although some are saying that this was wiped because the incident wasn't reported as 'promptly' as it could have been!
76 Fan
It was the Ops Director, not the CP. Either way, I don't really see a conflict as its the accountable manager's responsibility to ensure that commercial issues don't reduce flight safety. Then again, with AH's peculiar arrangements, who is the AM?!
Not sure what you mean about having an "SOP" for "sites like this". Surely the ANO and JAR-OPS are clear enough? Or are you suggesting there should be "company minima"?!!!
How on earth can something like this happen, doesn't this operator have some sort of "off-airfield" approach procedure
76 Fan
It was the Ops Director, not the CP. Either way, I don't really see a conflict as its the accountable manager's responsibility to ensure that commercial issues don't reduce flight safety. Then again, with AH's peculiar arrangements, who is the AM?!
Not sure what you mean about having an "SOP" for "sites like this". Surely the ANO and JAR-OPS are clear enough? Or are you suggesting there should be "company minima"?!!!
Last edited by helisniper; 12th Nov 2012 at 18:42.
The AAIB report will make spectacular reading ..
Tks TRC.
.
Last edited by Savoia; 12th Nov 2012 at 19:16. Reason: Distinguish "Special Bulletin" as per TRC's comments.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may see for yourself ..
"This Special Bulletin contains facts which have been determined up to the time of issue. It is published to inform the aviation industry and the public of the general circumstances of accidents and serious incidents and should be regarded as tentative and subject to alteration or correction if additional evidence becomes available."
1. JAR-OPS is after my time.
2. By sites like this, I meant any off airfield site, especially if the aircraft was operated for its owner by company pilots.
3. Chief pilot responsible for flight safety? A direct reply from a Flight Ops Inspector when the question was put to him.
My company didn't have anybody with the grand title of Ops Director. If one person (in my case the Chief Pilot) had responsibility for "getting the job done if at all possible" and "flight safety", surely you can see the conflict of interest? I could give several examples, but not here in public, in print.
I had hoped that things had improved since my day but an occurance such as this would seem, sadly, to show that they have not.
2. By sites like this, I meant any off airfield site, especially if the aircraft was operated for its owner by company pilots.
3. Chief pilot responsible for flight safety? A direct reply from a Flight Ops Inspector when the question was put to him.
My company didn't have anybody with the grand title of Ops Director. If one person (in my case the Chief Pilot) had responsibility for "getting the job done if at all possible" and "flight safety", surely you can see the conflict of interest? I could give several examples, but not here in public, in print.
I had hoped that things had improved since my day but an occurance such as this would seem, sadly, to show that they have not.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Irrespective of the events leading up to the go-around, I wonder why the number 1 engine/transmission went over the maximum allowed combined torque figure.
My understanding is that the FADEC system should have prevented an overtorque; i.e. the advertised idea is that the pilot pulls the collective and the aircraft should look after its own limits for him. If this didn't happen, why not?
It's a great shame if a pilot makes an honest mistake, the aircraft doesn't work as advertised and so the pilot gets shown the door as the result.
My understanding is that the FADEC system should have prevented an overtorque; i.e. the advertised idea is that the pilot pulls the collective and the aircraft should look after its own limits for him. If this didn't happen, why not?
It's a great shame if a pilot makes an honest mistake, the aircraft doesn't work as advertised and so the pilot gets shown the door as the result.
My understanding is that the FADEC system should have prevented an overtorque
Was blowaway power entered ? 2 crew and 2 pax in a ++ is about as light as it gets. The PF and the PM would have been awoken by the drooping rotor that's for sure. I also believe, but stand to be corrected, that 10 minutes accumulated 2 min power is allowable before a tear down is required.
From the RFM
Blowaway is an escape logic associated with dual engine limiting that removes the takeoff power limiter in certain cases to provide for extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances where increased power beyond the takeoff power limit is required for continued safe operation. Extraordinary turbulence encountered in the final moments of a landing approach to an oil platform or pilot misjudgment of closure rate upon landing to a confined area can serve as operational examples where increased power beyond the limit could be an important contribution.
The blowaway logic can be latched in either of two ways: a slow to moderate rotor decay rate to 100% Nr or an excessive decay rate of 5% per-second or greater occurring at 104% Nr or less. In both cases rotor droop is occurring because more power is being commanded than the engines can deliver at the takeoff power rating, but in the latter one, the logic is applied sooner to counter the faster rate, presumably related to a more urgent situation. Blowaway is reset over a ten second interval that is initiated when Nr is restored and exceeds 106%.
When the logic is tripped, the dual engine takeoff limit is replaced by the 2-Minute single engine N1 limit or 115% torque whichever occurs first or in combination. Although normally both engines will blowaway, one engine may trip in some cases at the 100% Nr point if the droop rate is slow and enough power is realized from it to arrest droop and increase the rotor speed before the other engine trips. Other than in the colder ambients where 115% torque can be achieved at low N1 values, blowaway may be expected to result in 2-Minute N1 usage, and therefore, time added to the cumulative 2-Minute counters.
From the RFM
Blowaway is an escape logic associated with dual engine limiting that removes the takeoff power limiter in certain cases to provide for extraordinary and unforeseen circumstances where increased power beyond the takeoff power limit is required for continued safe operation. Extraordinary turbulence encountered in the final moments of a landing approach to an oil platform or pilot misjudgment of closure rate upon landing to a confined area can serve as operational examples where increased power beyond the limit could be an important contribution.
The blowaway logic can be latched in either of two ways: a slow to moderate rotor decay rate to 100% Nr or an excessive decay rate of 5% per-second or greater occurring at 104% Nr or less. In both cases rotor droop is occurring because more power is being commanded than the engines can deliver at the takeoff power rating, but in the latter one, the logic is applied sooner to counter the faster rate, presumably related to a more urgent situation. Blowaway is reset over a ten second interval that is initiated when Nr is restored and exceeds 106%.
When the logic is tripped, the dual engine takeoff limit is replaced by the 2-Minute single engine N1 limit or 115% torque whichever occurs first or in combination. Although normally both engines will blowaway, one engine may trip in some cases at the 100% Nr point if the droop rate is slow and enough power is realized from it to arrest droop and increase the rotor speed before the other engine trips. Other than in the colder ambients where 115% torque can be achieved at low N1 values, blowaway may be expected to result in 2-Minute N1 usage, and therefore, time added to the cumulative 2-Minute counters.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of unanswered questions when I read the Special Bulletin. Does anyone know if the AAIB are to do more investigation of the circumstances of the flight (rather than the post-incident download and analysis which is what they seem to have concentrated on so far)?
It would be interesting to know whether the site was lit.
Apart from a thankfully different outcome at the very end, this incident feels uncomfortably like the G-BYPA AS355 accident back in 2007.
Air Accidents Investigation: AS355F2 Twin Squirrel, G-BYPA
We still don't seem to be learning from our history.
It would be interesting to know whether the site was lit.
Apart from a thankfully different outcome at the very end, this incident feels uncomfortably like the G-BYPA AS355 accident back in 2007.
Air Accidents Investigation: AS355F2 Twin Squirrel, G-BYPA
We still don't seem to be learning from our history.