Originally Posted by
Gordy
They did not quote dual, they quoted TT and PIC.
In the US, once you have a certificate or rating for an aircraft type, then ALL time flown after that is logged as PIC. If there is an instructor on board and you are recieving instruction then it would be logged as PIC and Dual. Therefore those numbers are correct---he would have recieved 27 hours dual non-PIC only during his initiall PPL training.
Thanks, Gordy for this clarification. So back to the accident. What then can we learn here?
Understandably, the emotional response here focusses mostly on crash-resistant fuel tanks, as in this case this is likely to have made a significant difference to an otherwise well-survivable accident. And because the idea of passengers burning to death is so horrendous.
On the other hand, the fuel tank issue is rather coincidental, as it has nothing to do with the cause of the accident. And amongst the bad luck of the post crash fire it was sheer luck that the mishap helicopter didn't roll down the ravine, killing all on board by blunt force trauma, even without a fire.
Do we accept that the accident itself was caused by an Act of God, as the report seems to suggest?
- Do we then accept that the airframe in question has a design fault that could even take out experienced pilots? This so far has been the exclusive domain of another, American OEM whose products are so often belittled here for exactly that reason.
- Or do we say that the wind situation the mishap pilot encountered was in all likelihood
not significantly different from what the two pilots in the 10 min before him encountered? Challenging, but ultimately they was able to deal with that.
I don't see that we have another alternative: Either is was pilot error, or the anti-torque device of the EC130 doesn't have sufficient authority. (Or both of course.)