PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 21st Apr 2017, 11:44   #1381 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 191
Quote:
My opinion on which pilot should be monitoring and which should be flying during any particular stage of flight should entirely be the prerogative of the PIC, and not enshrined in SOP in any way. There's no way to sugar-coat it, but the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and the final disposition of it.
Beat me to it. It's staggering that Captains in civilian SAR are paid what they are yet seem to be hamstrung by procedures (often driven by the level/capability of modern automation and commercial pressures).

Surely the responsibility for safety of the aircraft/crew is that of the Captain? They should be empowered with the flexibility to achieve that in the most appropriate manner. The entire crew should be trained to a standard that best supports that.

Its called captaincy, airmanship and crew resource management.
llamaman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 11:51   #1382 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere in the Baltic Sea
Posts: 34
Quote:
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post

My opinion on which pilot should be monitoring and which should be flying during any particular stage of flight should entirely be the prerogative of the PIC, and not enshrined in SOP in any way. There's no way to sugar-coat it, but the PIC is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, and the final disposition of it.
Well said gulliBell!
Search&Rescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 12:19   #1383 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Spain
Age: 41
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by sonas View Post
Have any of you thought about the family reading this forum? Yes fully understand the technical aspect of it and learning points that have arisen. However, who should have done this and who should have done that doesn't help the relatives and friends.Think it's time to put a sock in it.
My ex-squadron left two helicopters between 2014 and 2015. Seven crewmembers died in the two accidents. I knew all of them. When I read the investigation report of the first one, I couldn't believe it. Some relevant information regarding the pilots was not in the report. I guess nobody told to the investigators in order not to hurt the families. The outcome of this is a "wrong" and not conclusive report. And families still claiming for an answer and in an spiral of conspiracy theories and self-destruction.

Putting shocks doesn't help at the long term. This is my opinion. And sorry for my English.
palacio802 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 17:25   #1384 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: EU
Posts: 71
Quote:
No sign of missing R116 crew men after detailed search of Blackrock Island
https://www.rte.ie/news/connacht/201...ue-116-search/
Red5ive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 19:21   #1385 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 68
Posts: 1,002
Pilot's prerogative.....why not?

Just remember there needs to be some SOP's that grant flexibility but also provide some structure so everyone is on the same page and each knows what the other is supposed to be doing with the idea of making sure nothing gets overlooked or there be confusion as to who is supposed to be doing a particular task.

Anyone remember that infamous BA Memorandum about Change of Duties during a Missed Approach.....the one written Tongue in Cheek but very clearly pointed out how confusing some things can be?

You 92 Drivers out there....two FMS control Pads....one for each Pilot...one by the Left Knee of the Right Seat Pilot and the other by the Right Knee of the Left Seat Pilot?

Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?

What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?

Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
SASless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Apr 2017, 20:50   #1386 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 470
gullibell/llamaman

Good to see a bit of common sense amidst all this esoteric stuff on radar operation and crew responsibilities.

What stands out from all this is that we have the nonsense of a crew probably thinking they needed to descend to the highly risky height of 200ft at night to nominally be VFR according to SOPs (or maybe just did so because it was normal SAR technique) and then clout a 300ft rock - because of course it was night and they weren't VFR at all. There was full cloud cover and there was poor vis. All this debate about radar technique (which shouldn't have been essential if they were VFR) just proves that the risks of mis-interpretation and misuse were far greater than the risk of hitting anything descending in IMC with a normal profile, navigating with reference to GPS, planned by looking at VFR charts before they departed (which presumably didn't happen) to give maximum clearance to charted and known obstacles. And if they knew they weren't going to be VFR why on earth descend to 200ft? Just do a normal IMC let down profile, to keep as high as possible for as long as possible.

I may turn out to be wrong, but I'm pretty sure this accident need never had happened if the crew had not been hamstrung with SOPs and just used their intelligence to perform a sensible let down procedure for what was after all just a refuel to a well established base. And if regulations didn't allow it they should be changed. They weren't searching for a life raft in the dark ocean for goodness sake.

I feel some posting here can't see the wood for the trees. I'm the first to admit, I've no SAR Experience so welcome any alternative views from those that do.
rotorspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 00:25   #1387 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall and here and there
Age: 69
Posts: 1,279
rotorspeed

Have you ever flown in an operation that can deliver a different copilot every day? If so you will know and understand the value of SOP's. There will always be enough slack in the system to allow some discretion for the PIC, especially in the SAR world.

G
Geoffersincornwall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 01:14   #1388 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: eire
Posts: 2
More than 100 divers in sub-sea search for helicopter crew
Survey thought to be largest dive exercise of its type in efforts to find R116 winch crew missing for six weeks

More than 100 divers in sub-sea search for helicopter crew
A Real Pin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:06   #1389 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 9
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Pilot's prerogative.....why not?

Is there not a Collective Switch that affords either pilot the ability to change Heading settings?

What about a Cyclic Button (Coolie Hat)....is there one of those?

Just how many ways are there of altering the "Heading" or "Course Flown" by a Pilot flying a 92?
As long as HDG is coupled to the flight director, heading may be altered by rotating a knob on the RIC - a small panel on the pedestal, and by pressing either cyclic coolie hat. At low speeds in SAR mode, heading is altered by pressing a switch on either collective.
Pltnorway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:39   #1390 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 9
Example of S92 MFD NAV screen.
Radar 10NM range, GMAP2, manual gain, slightly tilted down, a/c height 500 feet, oil rig target at just under 2NM, about 15 degrees offset, active waypoint symbol overlapping the radar return.

Pltnorway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:39   #1391 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
The RAAF SAR aircraft are single pilot capable, right?
Was always a two pilot affair as far as I'm aware. SOP when you were in that neck of the woods was copilot flew from RHS as PF, PIC in the left as PM conducting the orchestra. Single pilot capable though I think.
megan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:41   #1392 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 470
Geoffers

No I haven't! Don't get me wrong, I fully recognise the importance of SOPs, but I'm just trying to think of some reason as to why the flight crew opted for a much hazardous approach than necessary. It is obvious the risk of obstacles - and uncharted ones - is always going to be greater the lower you are, and the longer you're there. It's clear you've loads of experience - any ideas on why they did?
rotorspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:52   #1393 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pltnorway View Post
Example of S92 MFD NAV screen.
Radar 10NM range, GMAP2, manual gain, slightly tilted down, a/c height 500 feet, oil rig target at just under 2NM, about 15 degrees offset, active waypoint symbol overlapping the radar return.
A good example of correctly tuned radar. The point I was making earlier about interpretation of the radar information is clearly shown, with sea clutter appearing behind the target in-front of you. If the oil rig was instead a 500' cliff there would be a very deep arc absent of sea clutter behind the target, which should flag a big warning in the pilot SA loop.

The radar on the accident aircraft, if correctly operated and interpreted, should have provided a warning sign of what was ahead even if the active waypoint marker sat directly on top of the Blackrock radar return. If they send an S92 out to re-fly the accident mission profile I'd like to see what the radar image looks like.

Last edited by gulliBell; 22nd Apr 2017 at 06:04.
gulliBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 05:54   #1394 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pltnorway View Post
As long as HDG is coupled to the flight director, heading may be altered by rotating a knob on the RIC - a small panel on the pedestal, and by pressing either cyclic coolie hat. At low speeds in SAR mode, heading is altered by pressing a switch on either collective.
What rate does it turn you at, 6 degrees/sec?
gulliBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 06:47   #1395 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 128
Quote:
Originally Posted by rotorspeed View Post
gullibell/llamaman





I feel some posting here can't see the wood for the trees.
They were flying too low.
helonorth is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 09:04   #1396 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 46
"As long as HDG is coupled to the flight director, heading may be altered by rotating a knob on the RIC - a small panel on the pedestal, and by pressing either cyclic coolie hat. At low speeds in SAR mode, heading is altered by pressing a switch on either collective."

Of course, the pilot could also simply move the controls in the traditional manner in order to override the autopilot - which, if the PF had fully appreciated the proximity of the rock and the tech crewman's urgency, would probably have been a more appropriate course of action.
louisnewmark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 09:16   #1397 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 5,943
The picture of the MFD NAV screen does seem to point at why they didn't notice the rock - it's all very well to say they should have noticed the absence of returns beyond the rock but you are asking them to notice something is missing from a display which is far easier said than done.

The 3rd generation helicopter seems to have a problem of too much information and perhaps the SOP should be to have the simple radar picture on the MFD without the FMS overlay.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 10:14   #1398 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Tipperary
Posts: 25
HDG change

Re HDG change

See page 13 paragraph 4 of AAIU report
smcc63 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 10:45   #1399 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 45
Posts: 147
Thanks Pltnorway for that informative illustration. It shows my initial concern that priority given to the symbol, along with the outline needed to distinguish it, hides the return at that display range.

It is important to understand such limitations when setting the MFD for a particular task.
dClbydalpha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Apr 2017, 12:53   #1400 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by crab@SAAvn.co.uk View Post
... it's all very well to say they should have noticed the absence of returns beyond the rock but you are asking them to notice something is missing from a display which is far easier said than done..
No, it's easy to do, and it's essential knowledge which must be applied for proper use of the radar. I never paid any attention to this aspect of using the radar until I watched the Honeywell weather radar training video, which was a great resource for understanding what the radar was telling you.
gulliBell is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:58.


1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1