a couple more takeaways from the report
A couple more notes I made from the report.
Suppose we take the scenario where everything is supposedly functioning correctly and this is a 100% pilot error incident. Well doesn't that mean that just before the first engine starts sucking air the situation in the cockpit is that 3 people are staring at a CAD that has counted down inexorably to showing fuel of something like 2/77/0 in the fuel display, the primer cautions are allegedly on, we have LOW FUEL 1 and LOW FUEL 2 red captions warnings on the WU and the FUEL caution is also on in the CAD. We know that was the real fuel situation (2/77/0) approximately according to the report, but was it really displaying that? I don't buy it.
Neither do I find it odd that the xfer pumps are off at this stage, given the total amount of fuel on board, it would have been normal for them to be switched off anyway at this stage in the sortie as all the remaining fuel (79 odd) should have been in the supply tanks. So xfer pumps off would not have been a particularly odd configuration, it's most unfortunate that the caption is not triggered when a pump becomes immersed again if it was turned off after running dry.
P23: "When the manufacturer tested the fuel sensors that were returned from the worldwide fleet, for repair, it found about 70% had no fault."
Well helloooo. Did nobody think to question that? Isn't that a bit odd, your customers send in alleged faulty components and 7/10 have no fault! Footprints in the snow, ice that has melted then evaporated are the analogies that come to mind. The evidence has long since left the scene. I would be thinking, 'well unless my customers are crazy, there is something intangible going on here, that warrants further investigation in the field."
The AAIB have executed their remit, but it is solely data gathering and analysis, it is for us to read between the lines. They aren't infallible and neither are the authorities. No doubt they read this forum. They corrected the misspelling of Uddingston in the report (that I pointed out last year) on p6 but didn't correct it on p73. As someone has already pointed out, the new GCH is 1.5nm WEST of Stobcross not East as stated on p28. And there's been a bit of a backflip on the whole primer switch thing when a photo revealed that they weren't in the same position (ON) that they found them in later, assumed and publicised. If that photo hadn't come to light the whole primer/xfer switch pilot mix up bandwagon would probably never have got derailed. Small things but having had nearly 2 years to compile the report and umpteen people proof reading it, I'm surprised considering their exacting standards.
There was also the ghastly revelation in the post mortem that one of the victims was still alive under the heli for up to 17 hours but the scene could not be moved as someone had decided to lock it down for Health & Safety reasons.
Last edited by skyrangerpro; 28th Oct 2015 at 09:07.
Reason: ice doesn't evaporate, it melts first, my error.