PDA

View Full Version : Proposed amendment to ANO Article 41


rotorcraig
10th Jun 2004, 19:34
Found this AAIB report interesting: Robinson R22 Beta, G-DELT (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_029067.hcsp)

Conclusion

A helicopter has the capability of becoming airborne once its rotors are running with sufficient speed. It is important, therefore, that those at the controls at this time are suitably able to control the aircraft should it indeed start to move, for whatever reason. The CAA is currently proposing an amendment to Article 41 of the Air Navigation Order as follows:

"An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order."

I read the implication to be that an Instructor could no longer ask a student to start a helicopter, with the intention that they would board prior to lift.

But what is "a person at the controls entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order" given that at some point that same student will need to start in order to fly as a solo student?

I did skim read Article 21 which clearly makes provision for students to fly solo, but cannot see the basis for an obvious distinction between a student that would be legally allowed to start and one that was not.

Only thought is whether that student had signed the machine out (as opposed to the instructor) but couldn't see a reference to this in Article 21?

RC

Dantruck
10th Jun 2004, 19:52
"...for the purpose of making a flight..."

And what if the purpose is NOT to make a flight...for example, to ground-run the helicopter, perhaps to assist a mechanic?

Why is the concept of clarity through brevity lost on so many regulators?

Ascend Charlie
10th Jun 2004, 23:26
There are lots of holes in this wording, mainly "for the purpose of making a flight."

This means an engineer could start and run the engines, because he was not intending to make a flight, just a ground run.

A pilot could land, get out of the running helicopter and have a leak or do a hot refuel, because at the time, the purpose was not to make a flight, but to take a pee.:ooh:

The Nr Fairy
11th Jun 2004, 06:33
Anyone got any idea of the number of accidents caused by fixed-wing running away after a hand-swung start where is wasn't chocked, or where the student forgot to check brakes on before starting ?

paco
11th Jun 2004, 07:42
Or the number of helicopters that have taken off by themnselves?

While we're on the subject of wording, take a look at the definition of flight crew and see when you're obliged to produce your licence hehehehe


Phil

The Nr Fairy
11th Jun 2004, 13:20
Point taken, paco.

My "objection", if that is what it was, is that a change to the ANO is being proposed which affects only helicopters. Surely the same scenario applies equally to f/w and r/w ?