EC120 Rolls in Durban [Archive]

Rotor-revs

13th Sep 2004, 20:32

If this is true regarding CAA's actions then I would be most concerned since I believe that the incident only took place late last week - how on earth did the board of equiry convene so rapidly and the final CAA report get completed so quickly so that they (CAA) could make such a quick decision - sounds like a typical case of the "CAA tail wagging the dog" scenario - maybe someone from CAA could shed some light - do I sense bias here........

This incident is gathering much attention amongst the pilots/instructors and operators locally - time for Eurcopter to do some serious damage control. Rumour has it that the tail rotor failures are an illegal excercise - maybe the marketing youngster from Eurocopter SA can give the industry some valuable info in this respect, although with the past history I along with many others won't be holding our breath for a reply!

Its interesting to note that many EC 120 instructors have been doing this excercise as the manual does make mention of tail rotor failures - no mention at all though of it being illegal as I bet this will eat into EC 120 sales worldwide - should we be considering the Bell option rather - certainly seems so as the cloud of mystery thickens surounding this one.

What about the rest of the EC 120 instructors - will they also need to attend a so called "approved EC 120 instructors course" - hopefully Eurcopter will be footing the bill for this - a valuable lesson learn't (ouch) for not communicating to important information to the end user.

Sir Cumference

14th Sep 2004, 11:35

The withdrawal of the instructors rating has not been committed to writing yet, just the verbal notification. With the stuff that is flying around right now, maybe it will never happen. As Rotor Revs has intimated, fastest CAA Board of Inquiry ever!

This insistance of a "Eurocopter approved course", who provides such a thing? Is this another attempt by some individuals at the CAA to steer business to their buddies in the industry?

Like I have said before - smelly business!!

clipboard

14th Sep 2004, 14:25

Sir Cumference........ course??? What course???;)

You're right my friend, and your train of thought is not far off the mark.

Eurocopter SA does not provide new clients or pilots with a "Eurocopter Approved Course" or "factory approved" conversion to type here in SA. Some EC 120 owners have gone to the factory at Marignagne to attend some sort of a course, and some even ferried their own helicopters to SA.

In SA, there is only one SACAA Helicopter pilot & DE that has attended the course at the factory. Eurocopter SA normally gets this gentleman to do the conversion to type on the EC 120's, EC 130's and Squirrels. Apparantly he is very thorough, and spends at least an hour or two going thru the start on the EC 120. A friend of mine did his conversion with this gentleman, and was suitably impressed.

If the pilot on the EC 120 in Durban was instructor rated on the machine, then why did the CAA pull his instructors rating? Surely someone must have converted him, given him his instructors rating on the type, and for that reason he's an instructor on type. I fail to understand what he did wrong, and why the CAA would be pulling his rating. Something not quite right there.

Come on CAA guys, give us a clue here please!

goaround7

14th Sep 2004, 15:35

Check EC120 manual to be sure - I don't have one with me - but except for tail rotor (fenestrom) failure in the hover, I believe the manual requires autorotation in the event of tail rotor or control failure. Does anyone know what they were doing at the time in Durban - did they perhaps try throttle control from normal flight to the ground which could be the reason for the hoohah ?

Manual does instruct on closing the throttle if failure occurs in the hover and on trying to gain forward speed if OGE.

The DE who did my rating, probably the one referred to above, also advised me recently that in a conversation with a Eurocopter rep he was told the same story applies with the Squirrel. Prang one trying anything else but auto and you'd be 'left out in the cold' by Eurocopter although this DE had in the past done many tail rotor control/failures to the ground using throttle control even with the floor throttle...

The EC120 is the only machine I fly on which I am not instructor rated and am quite glad of that right now, thank you very much...

Firefly7

14th Sep 2004, 18:16

Hi All
Sorry I have missed somthing here !!!
What type of execrise, coz you get tail-rotor controle/failuar in the hover and in flight. and was it Right, neutral , left or total failuar
And there are is there a speed for tail rotor control failuar ????????
Goaround7 how many hours do you have on heli and on 120s????

B Sousa

14th Sep 2004, 20:17

I cant speak for Eurocopter, but after talking to sources I have been advised that there is no "Instructors Course" per se. Only an initial check out geared for one who is an Instructor.
As to the fenestron I have been told the only subtle difference is that fixed pedal operations call for Autorotation verus what some are used to during emergency procedures.
Im sure someone will work me over on that, but its pretty close to being from the horses mouth.

goaround7

15th Sep 2004, 06:14

Firefly,

Not quite sure what you mean by a speed for tail rotor failure ? But as you say there are different kinds of emergency: stuck pedals, control failure or fenestrom failure.

As B Sousa says, it appears that if you are not in the hover, ie making translational flight, then Eurocopter manual requires you to auto in all these emegencies. Squirrel however does permit you to do a run on landing if you have only tail rotor CONTROL failure.

I've 2000 hours on helis and 1400 instruction from 22 to 407. I don't instruct on the EC because I have only about 25 hours on it and don't feel comfortable with these sorts of issues and particularly the risk of hot starting it while training, especially as it is not covered by the insurance anymore. That discomfort with the EC is amplified when it's suggested that things might be different with a fenstrom and it makes me feel like I don't know the whole story.... I have tried to go on the Eurocopter ground course recently but they changed the dates at the last minute and I couldn't make it.

Maybe someone with fenestrom experience would care to comment ?

Sir Cumference

15th Sep 2004, 09:08

I have ascertained that the exercise that was being flown was one of tail rotor control failure. Everything was 'normal' until the rotation started when throttle was used to control the turn. No effect, just increasing rate of turn and pedals, which were used early in an attempt to arrest the turn (abort the exercise) had no effect.

I have been on the phone this morning and have confirmation that one of the Durban instructors, not involved in the thread accident, was given written notification yesterday that his EC-120 Instructors rating has been withdrawn until he has provided documentary proof from Eurocopter SA that he has undergone the full training required for the qualification of the instructors rating on the EC-120 helicopter.

Now the interesting issue is that this instructor was given his rating by the late Tony Ubsdell who had just returned from the Eurocopter Factory Course more than 5 years ago. He has been flying the EC-120 regularly since then. It is understood that at the time, Tony was the only EC-120 Factory Approved Instructor in the country. Furthermore, this instructor's EC-130 instructors rating seems to still be valid!?

Now I am really confused! What is the issue here? Fenestron or just EC-120? Could the "marketing youngster from Eurocopter" please give us some information as to what the real issue is here. CAA should also shed some light on exactly what the real issue is.

I am led to believe that there is a 'video' with some important gen on it about fenestron effects but nobody has access to this video but a chosen few.

Now if there are issues about the fenestron and in particular the EC-120 that the CAA are aware of and that Eurocopter are also aware of and this is of such relevance that "in the interests of public safety" selected instructors have had their validations withdrawn, should communication from Eurocopter/CAA not be sent out to ALL EC-120 users/pilots/operators informing them of this issue "in the interests of public safety"???

Smells so bad my eyes are beginning to water!!!

clipboard

15th Sep 2004, 10:11

Great posting Sir!:ok:

All of us EC 120 pilots should stand together and unite as one against this bull:mad: Eurocopter should come clean and explain exactly what the gaff is, followed by the CAA. Can you imagine the insurance implication / escalations should a few things go wrong, and Eurocopter walks away from it saying, "sorry, you did'nt do a factory course".

Who is authorized to do a factory course? Eurocopter or Broberg?
Some answers please!

Furthermore, is the suspension of EC 120 instructor's ratings now the norm all of a sudden, and if so why? Am I reading it correctly that unless you have done a Eurocopter "factory course", you are not competent to fly the machine or instruct on it????

I think there's a snake in the grass here.........

canthover

15th Sep 2004, 12:21

Is a Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise something that should never be done on an EC120. The Flight Manual certainly shows the technique in the emergency section - 3.6 for IGE/OGE and In Cruise Flight. It does not sya that you will get bitten because there are fenestron issues.

So if the CAA are pulling the ratings for three "naughty" people in Durban because they don't know enough about fenestron issues such as the aero D quirks that everyone is being led to believe are the problems then the BIG question still remains:

How do EC 120 drivers get the information from Eurocopter??? Surely they cannot simply call for everyone to have to do a full course. Surely they could sent out a simple communique along the lines of a Service Bulletin like the engineers get or like the Safety Notes Frank Robinson puts in his flight manual.

Surely the CAA should be tapping the guy at Eurocopter SA on the shoulder and saying "you are hereby instructed to issue the information in the interests of public safety". They certainly pulled the ratings " in the interests of public safety.

The other question that is left begging is - Are the CAA going to pull the ratings of all pilots in SA that did an in house non Eurocopter SA facilitated conversion - whether instructors or just pilot.

B Sousa

15th Sep 2004, 14:06

Keeping the fires lit.....
Anyone can do a factory course if they want. Its not something that requires a blessing.......ONLY MONEY. Thats the reason others go and pass on the info according to Factory Specs..."We Hope" Some in SA have been fortunate to get this compliments of Owners or by virtue of their employment.
When the dust settles on this matter, Im betting you will find that Eurocopter will stand by the procedures in the Manual. Further that there is no big secret to the Fenestron as long AS those procedures are followed.
As to the individuals Ticket being pulled, Im sure its just another mixup at CAA. As I said those who I know at Eurocopter were puzzled about an "Instructors Course" They have never heard of that.
I was also told that it says that the Procedures are only a guideline and I quote from the Eurocopter manual Part 3.1 Emergency Procedures for the EC-120B "Meanwhile, depending on the many external enviornment, such as the type of terrain overflown, the pilot MAY have to adapt to the situation according to his experience."
To me that means if the Auto isnt working you do what you can to make it work including adjusting throttle.
Now if the Aircraft rolled over nose first, it may have to do with tucking. That is another issue.

Rotor-revs

15th Sep 2004, 14:12

Gentlemen; we are digressing somewhat here and I must say that I echo the sentiments of “Sir Cumference” & “canthover”. Let’s cut the bull…t here. CAA; in true style; yet again, have elected to tackle this issue in the most unconventional means – from what I can see transpiring, a little diplomacy and team effort of all the role players would have been a far more beneficial and proactive route to follow and now look at the antagonism that has been created over this issue – I bet the 3 instructors from Durban are mighty angry; would’nt we all be.

Let’s not forget though that Eurocopter are partly and more so largely to blame here as well. Has anyone heard anything form the ‘big white empire’ up in Jhb yet – I guess not. Back to the point; the crux of the matter here is that the two pilots in question did not intentionally take the aircraft and fly it into the ground; hey pilots, this was an accident and we should all learn from this experience; CAA and Eurocopter are making this extremely difficult. It is blatantly clear that they did not have all the information, but take note that there is still no clarification of any kind in this regard which is strange to say the least. We need to find out why and what the correct information is; this is the million $ question I guess.

I think its high time we got the ‘big guns’ in for a more professional outlook and balanced opinion on things – Eurocopter France should be able to shed some light on this discussion. Maybe they will be interested to know that the operators and pilots alike, still do not have any clarification whatsoever from the local Eurocopter marketing department : ouch yet again, this will have some serious ramifications in the future and may cost them dearly in the long run as we consider the coverage that this incident is now gathering!

Nice to see that Tony was in fact “factory trained;” the next important question is to find out if the ‘factory course’ he completed did cover the issues surrounding exercises with regard to tail control failures; if not, ouch again as they may have held back slightly on the severity and depth of the matter and by not forwarding the correct info; as they may have been afraid of the impact it may have on worldwide EC 120 sales, hence the HEMS operator of the Durban aircraft should look at getting Eurocopter to foot part of the bill/blame here! We should all be very interested to find the facts surrounding this one, however I have my doubts just looking at the recent events and non-communication from Eurocopter SA with regard to the recent rollover – I smell a stinky one here!

CAA, shame on you; what about the rest of us instructors nationwide? Why just the 3 in Durban and not the rest! Double standards I say! United we stand, divided we all fall! Hey guess what, I am still in the dark as to the ‘veil of secrecy’ surrounding this exercise – best I leave EC 120’s alone for the near future!

bladestrap

16th Sep 2004, 06:58

It sounds like you guys don't understand this one.....;)

A Bell Helicopter's tail driver is reactive.......

An EC 120's fenestron is pro-active......

The difference?????:p

If the Bell's tail driver fails, you react!

If the Fenestron fails, you have to be pro-active, which means that you have to get on top of the first problem before the second problem happens......If you don't, then the third problem will make matters worse, and by the time the 4th problem occurs, you're dead meat. That is of course, if you have not been "pro-active"

Sounds like a reasonable argument to me. :ok:

(Info courtesy of FM :D

Rotor-revs

16th Sep 2004, 07:12

Has anyone heard from Eurocopter yet .........

clipboard

16th Sep 2004, 09:10

This thread has attracted a lot of attention, pilots have talked a lot about this, and I have had a few calls as well.

You will not hear from Eurocopter SA, that I can assure you. South African pilots have on numerous occassions been slated on this forum by the rest of the world, on issues relating to the operation of the Bell 407, and now its going to be on the EC 120.

Eurocopter SA will sell you a helicopter, promise you the world, and once the money is in the bank and you've taken the helicopter, then the carnival is pretty much over. Who trains you, who insures you, and what you do with your helicopter is none of their business.

Bear in mind that a number of owners have gone to the factory to do a "factory course". Not everyone flying the EC 120 though, has had that privelage.

Only one SACAA DE has done the course, and he has converted a number of pilots onto the EC 120, and as I previously posted, was very thorough and efficient.

What I fail to understand now, is why the 3 "old boys" in Durban has had their instructor ratings pulled by the SACAA. I mean, these guys have been flying for yonks, and are surely not idiots, and do have a lot of experience?

My understanding of this whole mess is that the licenses have been pulled because these boys do not understand the diference between a Tail rotor and a fenestron, especially relating to tail rotor or fenestron failures, and until such time that they can prove to the SACAA that they know this difference, they cannot have instructor ratings. Harsh, but apparently true. If these boys can prove to the CAA that they understand the Feneron concept and all that goes along with it, function, failure and remedy, then all is forgiven and they can have their licenses back.

Man, if this is true, then I'm really concerned about the standard of training, the demeanour of the SACAA and aviating in Eurocopter products here in SA in the future.

Come on Eurocopter, talk to the boys, and please ask our friendly CAA DE Mr. Broberg to post his comments. :ok:

Leftpedal

16th Sep 2004, 09:25

Surely if the CAA issued the 'Durban 3' with EC120 instructor ratings IN ERROR, they (the CAA) are at least partly responsible for the consequences (CAA guilty of negligence). If the ratings were issued in accordance with SACAA requirements then why have they been withdrawn? (CAA liable for loss of earnings / restraint of trade?). Is there a lawyer in the house?

bladestrap

16th Sep 2004, 10:18

The CAA in error! .....Never!!! Remember, everyone else is always wrong eccept the CAA. They are the law my man, and you can do whatever you like, they're NEVER wrong.

canthover

16th Sep 2004, 10:43

Nice going guys - seems like a united front (Sorry Rotor Revs - I stole this from you) will help.

I have posted a thread under Rotor Heads trying to elicit a response the gurus such as Test Pilots as Eurocopter clearly want to distance themselves from the Durban 3 and we all need to help these boys. Somone must have info. Maybe one of them will get some gen somewhere and then educate the so called numsaan in SA about the finer aspects of fenestron behaviour.

Maybe there is a man in a white coat with dik brille :8 that has a document on his desk.

B Sousa

16th Sep 2004, 13:56

CantHover.
Saw your posting on Rotorheads and it still may elicit some response . Dont give up so soon. There are three folks who post at times who are very knowledgable, Nick Lappos, Lu Zuckerman and Shawn Coyle. Problem is Nick is a Factory guy, and Shawn works at the Test Pilot school. For them to make comments regarding an accident is pretty touchy considering their positions. Lu may jump in though if someone PMs him.
This thread I think has been answered a few times. In that everyone knows a Manufacturer is not going to enter into the mess with possible pending litigation. Same as CAA. That should be understood.
Rolling an EC anything is not a common occurance due to "Fenestron issues" as far as I have seen on numerous Helicopter Forums. Im betting the best way to make this go away is for the three?? folks involved to have a sit down with someone at CAA who is directly involved with this mess and pose the question "What do we do to make it go away".
Bad enough that their is damage to an aircraft and no doubt finger pointing will result in money for Lawyers. Thankfully no major injuries.

Autorotate

16th Sep 2004, 19:31

Sir Cumference - Was the Instructor the person who recently left San parks and headed back to STAR.

Autorotate.

Rotor-revs

17th Sep 2004, 11:32

B Sousa, you make mention; quote, “Im betting the best way to make this go away is for the three?? folks involved to have a sit down with someone at CAA who is directly involved with this mess and pose the question "What do we do to make it go away"; unquote! Gents, finally we are getting to the real issue here. People in this country are not interesting in sitting down and discussing issues as they are either to arrogant or just plan uneducated in dealing each other and need to reaffirm their empires that they live it; they would far rather sit in their glass house and throw stones. The knives are out, what for I don’t know and the rest of the industry is suffering.

It might come as no surprise to everyone that this incident is gathering lots and lots of attention locally, everywhere fellow aviators are discussing the matter and making repeated reference to this ongoing debate. The hits on this thread speak volumes. I have heard via the grapevine that the two gents in question have asked CAA for inputs but it seems as though in the interests of ‘public safety’ these two individuals have been very naughty and need to be reprimanded for something they did not even know was illegal or wrong; or is it illegal, who knows! Along with this, queries were also made to the arrogant Eurocopter representative who was sent down by Eurocopter to Durbs to inspect the a/c – nice going Eurocopter, some excellent customer service once again from our good friend KS! So, no statements or comments just the usual kak attitude, Ouch!

Come guy’s, let’s not bluff ourselves here as most of the pilots passing comments on this thread are all very well entrenched within the local aviation business. Along with this I am willing to bet that Messrs GB & CW are both watching this site and its postings from their bomb shelters at ESAL and CAA. I will also put money on the fact the NAC (Bell) friends from across the runway at FALA are watching this debate with baited breath. So, everyone seems of the opinion that GB has overstepped the mark with a very impulsive decision; why is the questions and all this with no final report from the investigators and no official statement/opinion from Eurocopter; it may seem; some comments please!

If there is any substance whatsoever to the matter, then why are Eurocopter not doing any damage control and allowing their good name to go down the “poop shoot” – stinky stinky! A mere media (thread) statement from the youngster would nip things in the bud and make the aviators happy people with Eurocopter and maybe even CAA, although this one will take some time as many out there have now seen exactly just what a pilot can expect from CAA should you make a simple mistake. So, fellow aviators beware, as you will have the wrath of “Burger Lug Fart” bestowed upon you should you make a just the slightest of errors, what a lovely new SA we live in. Many comments going around are that Eurocopter and CAA have lost lots of face on this one and the process is still gathering momentum.

So back to my original point, has anyone heard from Eurocopter yet regarding a formal statement?

clipboard

20th Sep 2004, 08:04

You have no hope in hell hearing from Eurocopter, and don't expect any postings from the CAA man either. They're all reading these threads with gusto, but are too "slapgat" to comment. The Eurocopter man is so arrogant and so important, with an ego ten times higher than his IQ. "Yeah my man, I've outsold Bell in this country, I'm the King my man, I'm untouchable my man, so why should I degrade myself by posting anything on this site my man? You wanna meet me my man, make an appointment with my office my man.

Eurocopter SA is so far up the CAA man's butt, and will never cross him. They need the man, big time! Just talk to people in the industry, and you'll get the gist of it very quickly.

I think that the people affected in this matter, should take the CAA on in Court. They have not done anything wrong, they're professional, and why should the opinion of one man condemn them? They were appropriately licensed at the time, were'nt they?

I rest my case.

:}

Rotor-revs

20th Sep 2004, 11:30

Clipboard, how true your statements are. I have chatted to some of the locals and still no news yet from Eurocopter in the industry – appalling to say the least. As for CAA, the ‘groot baas’ is becoming mighty unpopular as people seem to realise more and more that CAA are just a bunch of useless individuals only willing to exercise any authority when it comes to covering their own fat asses, plane and simple window dressing, that’s what it is. CAA should start considering being more active nationally amongst the operators and pilots and addressing the real issues that need addressing; anyway I suppose that time is spent on doing factory courses paid for by the bigger companies and talking kak about this debate in the pub, boet.

As for me and the rest of the aviators, we know where we stand now! Hey, anyone heard anything yet blah blah blah; sure !

Skaz

22nd Sep 2004, 17:45

Though I cant comment on the heli issue since I'm not a rotorhead, yet, I have first hand experience in the past two months of CAA screwing up twice , costing me time, frustration, a lot of phone calls and a lot of money to fix their incompetence.

Seems that in general (as there are a FEW individuals trying very hard to provide good service) there is a distinct lack of professionalism coupled with an old nationalist party 'vervolgings-waansin' prevalent in SACAA, theyd rather scr*w you over than help you, the :mad: 's

clipboard

23rd Sep 2004, 08:34

Well said SKAZ:ok:
Bear in mind that some of the employees of the SACAA are ex Policemen, Speed Cops and MP's from the Defence Force.

Prosecution is all they know. The powers of these people are so draconic, almost as bad as that of the Scorpions.

You cross them, you're f:mad: d.

Its worse than the old regime's Section 29 State Security Act. These people do NOTHING for Aviation. They sit there in positions of power, and nail people, because they can. Always threats...."If you don't do what I tell you to do, I'm going to get you arrested & charged" :E

And the SACAA is supposed to be a service orientated Company. A company where all involved in aviation are their clients. Now you know why the CAA is running at a 40 million rand a year loss.

:E :E :E :} :} :yuk:

You've Got

23rd Sep 2004, 11:54

We all know that there is some stinky stuff going on as these three boys have ratings pulled, but the BEEEEG ? is - what recourse do they have. If they engage the services of a lawyer then they have to foot the bill - then it becomes very messy and the CAA know this. The current legislation is also very confusing as the ANR's are still in force for licensing issues and sec 1.13 refers to the Minister having to authorise the suspension - so is the suspension a legally valid one???? even if part (4) says the standard for the rating was not met - who can say this if the findings of the accident are not public knowledge yet, simply based on the numsaan's findings.

Makes one think that the industry needs to put pressure on the CAA that anytime they :mad: up then they must pay for the losses that the user incurs - such as sending a renewal in and waiting six weeks only to have to chase them up and all at the users expense.

Imagine billing the CAA at x per hour because they lost your license.

So if it all comes out in the wash that these boys can simply carry on when some bright spark realises that the action taken was incorrect - who will compensate the guys for losing out AND of course they sit with a tarnished reputation in the industry because they were naughty and got punished.

Maybe this deserves a new thread on "Billing the SACAA".

Another issue is that of culpability - if the CAA approves the rating and the rating was done i.a.w the SACAA requirements and it does come out in the wash that the knowledge transfer from source to end user is lacking as the source (read E SA) actually have the info and did not provide it because the user was not specifically trained by E SA approved persons - then who is culpable the CAA for not ensuring the information does go out to the industry, or E SA or both.......Surely not the poor sucker at the end of the line.

Some food for thought!!!!!:confused:

B Sousa

23rd Sep 2004, 13:59

You've Got says "Some food for thought" heres some more ..
Have the Pilots of South Africa ever considered organizing. Thats to say at least those who fly for hire, commercial and above. Airline types may already have a represntative to speak for them, but I think there are a lot of commercial types both Fixed Wing and Rotorheads who really have no one they can call for assistance. Especially those who work for small companies with just a few Pilots.
Its much easier for Government Agencies to hammer individuals than a group. Some kind of AOPA/South Africa (www.aopa.org)comes to mind. Im sure someone will fill me in on the subject....

francois marais

23rd Sep 2004, 14:38

Bert, how you're doing over there in Vegas?:D

I have had so many discussions with people around this thread, people who have called me about legal issues regarding the CAA etc, and now I'm going to say my piece.....;)

Bert, there are a number of organisations that represent pilots here in SA. The Airlines have ALPA, the commercial operators, both Airplane & helicopter, have the Commercial Aviation Association etc. All these organisations, from time to time, have made representations to the SACAA regarding various issues concerning aviation, crew and the SACAA.

Generally, the SACAA will not respond timeously to letters, their staff lie through their front teeth, they make promises which they can't keep and 95% of the SACAA staff AGREE that the organisation is f:mad: d. 40% of white staff have left, and very shortly they will lose some more very competent people due to politics, backbiting and huge racial disagreements. Now my dear friends, THIS IS THE ORGANISATION that must regulate aviation in this country????? I ask you???:}

Minister Radebe should fire the CAA Board and some of the utterly useless idividuals there.

And my friends, should you dare critisize them or take them on, you will be in for a big surprise. You will be ostracised, persecuted and prosecuted. They will find reasons to bite your butt. Its a shame that some of these guys are so unprofessional, and childish. Its also true that some of these people, who are the biggest whiners in the SACAA, have less backbone than a newly born slug.

With regards to this incident in Durban, what I know about it is what I read on this thread. It is clear that the SACAA official in this case, took some bold steps, and at the end of the day, only that official can give the answers to the questions posted here. Its a shame that he has'nt. Its also a shame that Eurocopter has decided not to participate in this discussion, as to date nothing has been forthcoming from them.:mad:

I won't be surprised if I get nailed by the SACAA for writing this piece, but I'm not a "gatkruiper", and neither am I afraid to make them aware of their shortcomings, of which they have many at this time. This is supposedly a free & fair democracy, where freedom of speech and opinion is not supposed to be a jailable offence. So guys, if I end up in the bin, will you come and bail me out?;) :ok:

bladestrap

23rd Sep 2004, 15:14

Take the CAA to Court. Don't take any shaait from them. Don't be afraid. Bring an urgent application in the Supreme Court. A judge will not take sides, and dispense only fair justice. These bastards should be taught a lesson. They are not GOD and neither do they know EVERYTHING! Sue them boys, sue them.:}

PM me and I'll give you the names of a first class legal team. A team that will eat them for breakfast, a team that will turn them into a picnic lunch.... Hee haa:mad:

goaround7

26th Sep 2004, 18:40

IMHO, B Sousa has got it right. The only way forward is to stop complaining about CAA, which is on an inevitable downward spiral and take control.

We need a (South) African Helicopter Pilot's Association, like, or perhaps in association with ALPA, which will act like SAA does and advises CAA how operations are going to be done and politely asks CAA to rubber stamp them or perhaps make a constructive criticism or two. If you ain't in the Association you are on your own but if you're in, the AHPA handles everything with CAA for you.

Anyone willing to do it ? Maybe one of the retiring CAA persons who does know what they're talking about ?

(Could also be a possible way to sort out the game and illegal charter industries and stop PPLs writing off helis and killing passengers ?)

B Sousa

27th Sep 2004, 02:54

"or perhaps in association with ALPA"

I think you will find that your ALPA is much like that in the states. The criteria for membership excludes Lowly Helicopter drivers. Further that in the states you cannot get two Helicopter Pilots to agree on the time of day let alone something important. Organization has never been possible here and if you watch the forum on www.justhelicopters.com you will see they are continually fighting as to Unionization, Associations etc. We have some major operators here in the states that have a few hundred Helicopter Pilots each in their employ. Associations are not really working for them and the rest of the pilots working for small companies dont stand a chance. Start something like that and they would replace the whole lot as there are many others waiting in the wings who would love to shed their Robbie skins for something that burns Jet-A
Good Idea if you can make it work...............

Sir Cumference

27th Sep 2004, 11:15

Autorotate, he is not the same guy.

Been away last week to AAD04, very interesting so have a bit of catch up to do. I understand that the CAA has not sent the letter to the pilot involved in the accident yet, only the 'verbal intention'. The other two who were not involved have received their letters.

Whilst in Pretoria, I had an opportunity to speak to someone who has completed the Eurocopter course in France. When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover, to the extent that the machine yawed in the opposite direction on its way to the ground. The student enquired as to why this was done and was told that "you do not want it to go that way!"

I have to admit that I have asked a lot of people about fenestrons and nobody seems aware of any particular vice as was encountered in this case.

carnivoruslegallus

1st Oct 2004, 13:24

What a FOX!

This man ran a flight school at Grand Central (Drome Z) as well as a maintenance organisation during the mid to late nineties.

His favourite in the Maintenance Shop was to steal servicable components from clients helicopters, and replace them with timex parts. Our Jetrangers suffered badly under his hands those days.

Other means of making money was to take huge advances from students, let them fly for a couple of hours, then stop them, and take their money.

His favourite was to take your helicopter, put it on a contract (soil sampling for example) fly the **** out of it, pocket the money and not pay you.

This man not only ruined his own father financially, but also a lot of other people, including my partner.

This man has no scruples or morals, and is the biggest bull:mad: r on two legs.

People in the aviation industry should stand together to remove this man from having anything to do with aviation.

I hope you rot in hell one day Mr. Gary Fox!:yuk: :}

B Sousa

1st Oct 2004, 13:42

Am I wrong or did a couple pages of this thread just disappear...............
I am not wrong and it looks like I have been considered the author...........Not true, but see ya all on the other thread........

Rotor-revs

2nd Oct 2004, 05:50

The "Fox Factor" would'nt we all just love to add a few names to that list ...............

Back to the topic. Has Eurcopter or CAA taken the time yet to respond, I guess not!

clipboard

2nd Oct 2004, 08:54

Its doubtfull if you if you'll get a response from Eurocopter.

The CAA man, Mr GB, is currently abroad, and will only return to office in approximately 3 weeks.

I chatted to a few people at the CAA this week, and they are adament that the right thing was done. After listening to their side of the story in more detail, I can post the following:

Apparently, and the 3 involved will know, one instructor converted the other, and the other converted the "incident victim". The CAA's thought on the issue is that the "incident victim", although a senior pilot, had less than 10 hours on the EC 120 when the "advanced manouvers" were conducted, which lead to the "incident".

The CAA man, Mr. GB, who the CAA regard as a highly competent EC 120 pilot/instructor, and who has done several factory courses, was in Durban at the time, and upon investigation, he established that "certain competency" with regards to the executing of advanced manouvers such as was practised, was not sufficient, and it appeared that the instructors involved did not really know how to deal with the "fenestron failures" as prescribed by the factory.

Based on this, the 3 had their instructor ratings pulled, and needs to satisfy the CAA of their competence in this regard, prior to getting it back again.

In spite of all of the above, it is all rather strange that the CAA took such firm action, and one can only but wonder if this action was taken in the interest of "aviation safety", or if their are other hidden issues involved that we don't know about????

A couple of Durban Helo pilots that I spoke to, are of the opinion that Mr. GB and the CAA acted correctly! Maybe they know more than I do.

Safe flying!:ok:

goaround7

2nd Oct 2004, 09:44

"to deal with the "fenestron failures" as prescribed by the factory"

Does this refer to the manual's instructions that if you aren't in the hover and it happens, then you must autorotate , not try to fly in with power and close throttle ?

Sir Cumference reports the student in France was told

'When they got to this exercise the Eurocopter instructor snapped the throttle closed (as opposed to controlling the yaw with throttle) as the aircraft came into the hover', the key here being 'as the aircraft came into the hover'. If it was flying already, ie in translational flight before it came into the hover, how did it get there ? Doesn't this imply that they flew it down to the hover and then closed throttle ? Therefore no autorotation ?

I am now confused and even more uncomfortable with the 120. Will talk to Mr GB when he comes back but the scary element is not knowing what is the correct procedure and critically, what does the insurance company want you to do ?

Why doesn't Eurocopter say something, if not here, then somewhere eg. safety bulletin ?

bladestrap

2nd Oct 2004, 10:13

GOAROUND7..... You're right! Eurocopter should at least say something, but I can guarantee you they won't. As far as they're concerned, their helicopter is the best thing since sliced bread, and that you as the pilot, should KNOW how to pole it. If you don't, its none of their business.

I personally spoke to a person at Eurocopter SA, and the answer was clear: "Fly the helicopter according to the Manual. I mean what more can we say? Do we now have to tell the pilots how to read the manuals"?

You can just guess who that was!:p

canthover

2nd Oct 2004, 15:22

Seems like the CAA (present in Durban when the accident happened) must need glasses or the indicent victim lied in his report. Had a chat to him and he says his logbook count shows just over 100 on type.

The flight manual is quite clear - read 3.6 - in the hover close the throttle and cushion the landing with collective. So what are the other things the guys should have known about.

By the way where is the CAA man - abroad on holiday or work or a PJ (private job).

Maybe the CAA action was correct - well in their minds - but why then has the issue suddenly brought information to light in the form of a booklet and an intended roadshow - tells me there is more.:E

You've Got

2nd Oct 2004, 16:43

Clipboard - you say the guys obviously did not do an auto - as it appears they should have instead of bringing it to the hover.

Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.

A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. So he (they) brought it to teh hover - only after starting to close the throttle did thingsd start to go pear shaped - and as he says "very quickly". In fact he said things went bad so fast it felt like "someone had cut the tail boom off".

So did he just have a bash or was he doing what is expected of an instructor - i.e. the irony of instruction is you train to avoid accidents as they sure were doing and ironically had one. Now of course all the focus is on the fact that as the CAA purportedly show, he was not sufficiently experienced in the fenstron etc.

Well my guess is experience showed itself in the fact that as he said "we estimated the rotation speed to be around 120 to 180 degrees per second" and he chose to keep it in the air to the effect that he said he estimated six or so revolutions. Thats good going don't you think. Further, at that rate of rotation dumping a machine is a big decision, because you know it is going to end up on the ESA repair floor and insurers are going to ask questions.

Now if you are in a situation like this, where do you decide to call things quits. I guess this guy wnet the whole hog in trying to get out of the situation and he says the booklet reveals a recovery period that takes quite a while - so me thinks Uncle Gerr could rethink the whole issue and maybe let the guy give some feedback to all operators in helping all learn from the situation.

Get the guy back in the saddle!!:ok:

goaround7

3rd Oct 2004, 18:15

So that hopefully I understand now:

Clipboard reported:

'A simple chat with the "incident victim" indicates that all things appeared normal - as per a standard Tail Rotor Control Failure exercise - i.e. directional control in forward flight. '

Then they went into the hover ? So, in summary:

1) Manual says ' do an auto'
2) They flew it down, intending to use throttle control as we all know can be done - usually, but...
3) It all went horribly wrong
4) CAA points out the error and associates it with fenestrom
5) Eurocopter unofficially says ' rtf manual'

So, instructor did not follow manual and cocked it up.

You've got says:

'Any instruction will always place an instructor at the bounds - it is inherently risky work and it is up to the instrucotr to judge the progression of the exercise.'

Too true and if s/he had a real fenstrom failure and brought in safely to the ground using throttle control, that would make the instructor a hero. Bummer! Can't win either way but auto will see you receiving sympathy rather than blame.

Last question: what does insurance company say ?

You've Got

5th Oct 2004, 07:50

goaround7 - reread the above posts.

If you have ever done instruction - a TR Control failure can be flown all the way to the hover - well at least when I did my ratings (ooopppssss maybe the CAA will now pull mine as well) the procedure was to slow the aircraft to establish the speed under which you start to lose control - also allows you to get an idea at which speed you can go around again - so fly the damn thing to the hover, raise the nose slightly to break the last bit of speed, also means you don't have to yank the power in, then as you level the ship, start to roll throttle off and cushion with collective.

A little diff on the R22 - since you don't have much rotor inertia - so choose a long flat surface such as a runway and then slide it on and use throttle to control yaw.

Back to the 120 - so if you are in the hover - the book says roll the throttle off and cushion with collective. Nuf said on this one.

Me thinks the instructor was doing the right thing. Me thinks if ESA had the info booklet prior to the accident (which we all know they did) and had put this to the industry then the poor guy would not look like the proverbial tool.

Witnessed one of the naughty 3 in Durban getting a 130 rating from the CAA man - there was no evidence of a fenestron briefing - or too much else for that matter.

So where does culpability lie - any half sane individual knows the answer.:ok:

goaround7

5th Oct 2004, 19:37

You've Got,

Aha ! That's what you would think, as I did despite 1,400 hours of instruction but it ain't the case.

Manual says, tr failure (not in hover) then autorotate ! Problem here is nobody said why. Apparently the effectiveness of a fenestrom falls off much more rapidly with reducing air speed than does a conventional tail rotor which means if you fly it into the hover, that's when you discover that you have no effectiveness. (Also had lesson on venturi build up effect which is why you must apply pedal before you lift into hover but this also was never mentioned in the training.)

Apparently on the 130 however, manual does say fly down to a certain speed and if you still have directional stability, perform a run on landing.

120 manual is quite clear on the autorotate instruction though, so instructor was in the wrong by the book, if they did fly down to hover...

B Sousa

6th Oct 2004, 01:31

Four pages of bantering this thing and we are still at square one..
Back to the Manual:

"I quote from the Eurocopter manual Part 3.1 Emergency Procedures for the EC-120B "Meanwhile, depending on the many external enviornment, such as the type of terrain overflown, the pilot MAY have to adapt to the situation according to his experience."

Emergency Procedures are a guideline

clipboard

23rd Oct 2004, 10:43

So, irrespective of what has been said here, neither Eurocopter SA or the CAA man have at any time come forward to say something here.

I find that typical of people who are so self righteous and "know it all". Their comments will and can put an end to all the speculation, and hopefully educate the rest of us.

What is the latest on the 3 Victims? Have they been sorted, have they got their instructor ratings back, is all forgiven, are they instructing again, or what?

B Sousa

23rd Oct 2004, 14:18

Clipboard.................
The problem and the solution have been asked and answered here for some time............Further nobody expects the CAA or Eurocopters to post on the subject. One will refer you to the rules, the other will refer you to the manual...........
The answer is in there somewhere...
Also curious as to what will happen on this matter once someone at CAA makes a decision.....Im still betting it will be an easy fix if all will smile a bit and be humble.

[email protected]

24th Oct 2004, 17:13

So is this a rerun of the 'problems' encountered primarily by the British Military with the Gazelle and 'Fenestron Stall'?
Several helos were totalled and in each case an undemanded yaw rate in the hover was experienced which did not appear to respond to pedal input.
Aerospatiale took one RN pilot who had experienced the situation and flew him in a Gaz with a TP at yaw rates of up to 120 deg/sec and proved conclusively that the aircraft would always stop yawing if you applied Full right pedal and kept it there.
The problem with the fenestron seemed to be that to control an unexpected yaw to the left, the amount of right pedal required was beyond what most pilots were prepared to input and instead of pushing more right pedal they assumed the TR had failed and popped the Gazelle onto the ground while it was still yawing.
The 120 crash sounds very similar as those not familiar with a fenetrons idiosycrasies might well react incorrectly when faced with an unexpected yaw rate.

You've Got

25th Oct 2004, 07:12

Has anyone seen the information letter sent out by ESA on the EC120 as well as the much waited for taining document on the Fenestron.

All makes for an interesting read. Seems like the Feenstron does have the quirk of requiring lots of pedal (and us mere mortals are so used to the conventional system) so you end up under reacting. So that is probably what the guys did and ended up dumping it because they thought they were locked into a stalled system - wouldn't you if you were going round at the reported rate of yaw experienced.

A quick read of the ESA info letter reveals that all emergencies must be handled with an Auto and that it is only important/necessary to train to the flare and according to the letter the landing is left to chance or skill.!!!!

Thats got to hurt:{

So do the auto to 70 feet - start the flare - then its all up to chance and of course for the few that are skilled they may have a better chance.

A nicely written document HA HA....:}

SawThe Light

25th Oct 2004, 21:12

Quote (. . . . . requiring lots of pedal (and us mere mortals are so used to the conventional system) so you end up under reacting. . . . . . .)

Are we to understand that an under-reacting pilot is now considered a fault with the helicopter? Sounds more like a fault IN the helicopter.

Pity I hadn't thought of it before though. Might have save me some embarrassment.

You've Got

26th Oct 2004, 08:04

Guess by now a good few have read the contents of teh information letter and the Training Document.

Interesting to note that the training doc was first published in Oct 2001. Now surely if this is the case and the CAA has a rep that is a factory approved instructor he would/should know of this document and should have seen it and know and understand its importance.

So having punished the three naughty Durban boys for not knowing enough about fenestron behaviour and the punishement being meted out "in the interests of public safety", and as such requiring that the three get a letter from ESA indicaitng that they have done the prerequisite training to be safe and competent, he as the CAA rep should have ensured that this document be disemmenated into the industry. This may well have prevented the accident.

So again, this begs the question of accountability. The CAA must surely be somewhat accountable if they knew the info existed, had a close relationship with the manufacturer unyet did zlich to get the info into the industry.

Me thinks this doc was there a long time ago and no one even bothered.....:confused:

Sir Cumference

26th Oct 2004, 12:16

I understand that the 'arrogant ESA' man has resigned!? Him and his close 'buddy' have 'moved on.

The letter sent out on a ESA letterhead (by the two who subsequently resigned) was so flawed I think that their lawyers are going to be doing some urgent consulting! All quiet from the SACAA?

SANAE1249

26th Oct 2004, 12:23

I am amazed at the fact that the "Clipboards" and You got It" continues to harper on the hidden dangers of the dreaded fenestron. I was fortunate enough to do a factory conversion at Marignane in 2000. Guess what? They did not think it was neccesary to highlight the "dangers" of the fenestron. I don't know why the training notes was sent out in 2001, but I am sure it was not the result of numerous loss of control crashes all over the world, involving fenstron equipped EC machines. I have flown the EC120 for over 2300 hrs to the limits of my nerve. I have asked a lot from the machine and allways got a predicted response back. I did this without the knowledge of the "dangers" of fenestrons, but with the knowledge of what is written in the FM and what was taught to me. In all that time I was never bitten by the aircraft.

BSousa and other have made very valid points with regards to FM etc. It would seem as if certain gentleman cannot accept the fact that they acted outside their considerable lack of knowledge of the machine and rather acted out their "if it has rotors I can fly it " attitiude.

Lay off the manufacturer and CAA and spend some time on introspection. It goes something like " I suppose I don't know everything and have made a mistake".

You've Got

27th Oct 2004, 06:50

Sanae1249

Why so twitchy.

No one said the fenestron is bad. If you read the info letter and the booklet (again - presume with your experience on the machine you got it straight from ESA) you will note that my comments above have nothing to do with the guy possibly not knowing what he was doing. My comments were plain, simple and clear - a badly worded letter and a question as to why the CAA did not put the booklet out after it was published and are using the "lack of knowledge" that the guys had to punish them - simple enough. Then also the question of what is "in the interests of public safety" - surely flying pax around is more public than doing a base check or some guys conversion.

Give the guy who had the accident a call - he will not pull attitude about knowing everything. On the contrary disucssions with him reveal that he will be the first to admit publicly that he got bitten, but does not want others to get bitten. Isn't that what its all about - making the whole industry safer. He has on more than one occasion asked questions to try get answers.

We all want answers - after all, that is what will allow us to sit on a stoep at the age of 60, enjoy the golden nectar and tell the grand kids what we did and how we got home in the evenings but sometimes had to change undies before getting to the diningroom!!:ok:

canthover

28th Oct 2004, 07:00

Page 12 of the booklet says -

"When the rate of turn accelerates - correct immediately - Don't let it run away on you !"

Now Sanae1249 - in your opinion would you not think there is a reason why the manufacturer puts a statement in like that. My guess is - it will hurt you if it does get away.

You say the guys at the factory thought it not necessary???:confused:

There is an abundance of information on the 16 Gazelle's that were lost in the British Army - reason - it got away from them. Sure, they are different machines but there is a common thread and there is a simple solution - Knowledge/information/information flow = SAFETY!!!!!!!

Surely if everyone in the industry - even the inexperienced, had the info that was published in 2001, then this accident may not have happened.

Simple - do what Frank R does - publish safety notices (I did not say flare at 70 feet and leave the rest to chance). Not everyone has the privilege of getting to the factory - so in SA pilots cannot be blamed as there is not an abundance of cash.:ok:

Me thinks this thread has been beaten to pieces and is now tired!!!!

goaround7

31st Oct 2004, 07:41

...if you don't have 150 hours on type you have to go for a three month check flight with the insurance company's designated pilot ! As if confidence in this aircraft wasn't at an all time low, now even a high time turbine driver can't be trusted with a little EC120 until 150 hours on type ! Just say much for the helicopter's design, does it ?!

Apparently this requirement for 'just a couple of circuits' is knee jerk reaction to the overtemp by Kruger Park boys. Why not just a couple of starts then ? What are you going to achieve in a couple of circuits except cost everyone money (although check pilot is free, except for cost of taking machine to him wherever he is).

No wonder everyone is quitting Eurocopter - marketing nightmare ! Why, oh why, didn't they just build a mini Squirrel ?!!!!!!!!!!

B Sousa

31st Oct 2004, 15:04

Go Around 7 writes:"No wonder everyone is quitting Eurocopter - marketing nightmare ! Why, oh why, didn't they just build a mini Squirrel ?!!!!!!!!!!"

Im not going to win any friends with my comments but Im used to it........
I dont think there is anything wrong with Eurocopter. As to sales they are doing quite well. In fact I think its one of the best Smaller Helicopters out there today. Others have their good points such as the MD500 being a great aircraft for sling and tight spots. Bell 407 and the L series for Transportation. But all around I have found Eurocopter to be very reliable and pretty much bullet proof for Pilot mistreatment.... Yes Pilots do nice things like that. One of the reasons for FADEC.. Over Temps, Over Torques etc.. AND dont mention it to the next guy who goes out to fly, let alone risk putting it in the log book... That is a worldwide problem, not isolated to Africa..
The EC120 and for the most part EC130 are new to the market. The secret says "Never fly an A Model of Anything" and that applies here. Maybe it should say "Never buy and A model as you will be the test bed for those folks who buy the next model off the line." Also why they call it the EC120B, to make you think the A is done ha ha.
Having flown over in that part of the country, what I do see is a lack of recurrent training for Pilots. "Good Old Boy" checkrides dont cut the mustard when safety is an issue. That I believe may be one key to problems. Im not talking of the majors, as I have not been involved there. This applies to small operators who run a tight budget.
I also see a CAA that is fading into history.. Those who are there to do something worthwhile are so overloaded that its impossible to get the proper things done. Also technology passing them by, still doing paperwork that requires archival systems that get lost and a mail system that would choke a horse with lack of repsonse and non-accountability.
Maintenance wont get by without a whipping either. I have seen things done to fix a problem, then when the problem is not fixed, something else done and so on. Tells me that those working on the aircraft may not be all that sharp and correct problems by luck and an owners deep pocket versus having a good knowledge of the aircraft.
So all this technical stuff on a thread, where by now the parties mentioned have grown old and retired; is not going to help much, but it does give some a chance for conversation.
Back to the Bunker..........Awaiting Incoming..

goaround7

31st Oct 2004, 16:29

This isn't recurrent training. It's the insurance company trying to make up for what is a poorly designed starting system where you can't close the throttle if the voltage drops during a start. Yes, you can say the pilot should monitor the voltage and abort the start etc but why not just fix the issue so that the throttle can be closed manually ? ( US$1m for a pen that works in zero G or use a pencil ?)

The 'problems' eg. over temps on start and fenestrom mishaps are not the charter organisation's engineers' problems; they result from poor performance in the Head Office, including crap start design and insufficient attention to promulgation of fenestrom handling.

It's nothing to do with 'African Maintenance' - it's the insurance companies, the real controllers of aviation, (CAA being an increasingly useless organisation as stated) trying to deal with a design and info inadequacies.

A Squirrel is a Eurocopter and is a great machine which is why we hoped the 120 would be its equally reliable kid brother. The Gazelle has served well all over the world. It's just the 120, 'B' or otherwise - the 'D' will be something really special, particularly if they give it some power and sort out the CofG.

By 'leaving Eurocopter' I refer to the exodus from the SA office although I am advised this has more to do with customer compaints about crap service (our 120 came back from them in a worse state than when it went in and thankfully the owner is used to their bad service or we might have been blamed somehow), terrible parts availability and a continued cash flow problem since they were ripped off by their head of finance a while back (allegedly).

B Sousa

31st Oct 2004, 17:25

GA7. I was just stating a generality of the SA situation as I see it. You seem to make my point in your comments and somewhere in there I believe we agree. One point is that Im including all not just Eurocopter.
Like it or not Insurance companies DO RULE helicopter operations in that if the aircraft is financed they will set conditions, or if they are owned outright and the owner does not want to lose his shirt, he relys on Insurance. Exposure rate for Helicopters is what has driven them into the picture. A slight :mad: up and its millions of Dollars or Rand.
All the other things I mentioned, recurrent training, maintenance problems etc are what drive up the exposure rate......Then the CAA drops in and the paperwork war begins......Might even through in a few Attorneys to increase costs and slow down the process.........
Waiting for the EC120C to come on line............

Phoenix Rising

31st Oct 2004, 17:54

Goaround - You will find that the new guy you are getting there at Eurocopter SA, Guy Johannes will turn things around big time. He used to be CEO over in OZ before going back to France and he turned EIP (Eurocopter Intl Pacific) into a very well respected organisation, even though it is let down by France most of the time. The customer service went skywards and he was very well respected by the industry. Lets hope he is able to do the same.

I had some dealings with the German that was there, Gunther someone and found him to be someone that didnt really seem to care a toss about the customers. But thats just my opinion. I know their sales and marketing team have bailed. Clints gone, Kirtanyas gone and Deon also went. Not sure who is doing what there know.

Just my two cents worth.

:E

bladestrap

31st Oct 2004, 19:08

Phoenix Rising...... that sounds like great news. Hopefully the "new" guy will pay some attention to his customers, and deal with the negative publicity ECSA have received of late.

After reading thru these postings a number of times, it is clear that nothing significant was said by ECSA, and the CAA man has not reacted at all. Not a word from him, other than some information passed on thru some of his mates. (Hearsay)

B.Sousa, you keep on harping about recurrency training. How often should a professional pilot that flies a 100 hours a month go thru recurrency training?? Twice a year, 5 times a year, ten times a year, monthly???

You must remember that the pilots referred to in this thread are all professional. They fly daily to earn their bread, and they do their recurrency training twice annually. It is therefore that I find it indeed very strange that the CAA man, Mr. Broberg, has not responded or commented on this thread. He is the EC 120 guru, having attended various factory courses, and therefore he SHOULD comment, especially since he is a CAA official as well. As a CAA official, it should be his duty, in the interest of aviation safety, to facilitate the transfer of skill and relevant information, especially if it can prevent incidents/accidents. So why the silence?

The big question here is: "Do you blame the lack of recurrency training on all the EC 120 incidents i.e. as the cause of the pilot burning out the engine on the EC 120 in the Waterberg, as well as the Parks Board guy? Also, are you of the opinion that the "roll over" incident in Durban was due to the lack of recurrency training?

You must remember that it was the CAA man who converted the Waterberg pilot to type. Now why did the Waterberg pilot burn out the engine on start? Was it due to the fact that he did not receive sufficient recurrency training, or was it because he's an idiot, or was it because the CAA man did'nt teach him all the tricks or make him aware of all the shortcomings on the EC 120, or was it because he's a great pilot that received great training, but the lack of recurrency was the cause of him burning out the motor? Makes you think huh? Or maybe it was due to the ****ty start system on the machine. We will never know Sir, but what is clear, is the fact that tooo many EC 120 have been involved in incidents/accidents where the pilots were blamed for whatever went wrong.

You must also believe me when I tell you that designers and builders will NEVER believe that their product is inferior, has problems, or are a piece of dirt. Designer/builders will NEVER listen to the pilots out there in the industry who have to operate their machines. They design them, build them, write manuals for them and that's it. No argument.

Mr. Broberg should hold a seminar on all the shortcomings and problems on the EC 120. In such a seminar, he should inform insurers, pilots and owners of the problems on the EC 120 (if any. ;-) and give the interested parties an opportunity to ask questions. That way one can eliminate all the excuses such as "oh the volt meter did'nt read, the solenoid got stuck, the micro swith shorted out etc". Maybe the designers will then also take a different and more co-operative view.

Safe flying is the name of the game, and anyone in the employ of the SACAA, as the regulatory authority, should do everything and anything in his/her power to ensure aviation safety at all levels. That is why Mr. Broberg should have this seminar, and at the same time, he can produce a little leaflet or booklet on the vices of the EC 120, and how to deal with them so that engine burn outs and roll overs can be prevented in the future.

Name the place, date & time and I'll be there. I'll even bring a coupla mates along.

:ok:

B Sousa

31st Oct 2004, 23:24

Bladestrap writes:"B.Sousa, you keep on harping about recurrency training. How often should a professional pilot that flies a 100 hours a month go thru recurrency training?? Twice a year, 5 times a year, ten times a year, monthly???

You must remember that the pilots referred to in this thread are all professional. They fly daily to earn their bread, and they do their recurrency training twice annually."

You bit on that big time.. My point was that many of those pilots DO fly many hours per month....BUT many DO NOT get their faces in the books and rely on habit to wander through airspace.
I didnt want to put all the Pilots in the same basket, but there are may out there like that.

Forgot to mention you used the term Professional Pilots.. A whole different topic. Professional seems to have been borrowed from our Fixed Wing brothers. The word is used as Professional Helicopter Pilots do that work for a Profession nothing more. Most that I know and fly with....and they are my friends..... professionally have had no less than 20-25 companies on their resumes in the same amount of years. Yes they are for the most part "professional" in their attitude towards the job. But most remain in the profession as after many years most have no retirement plan, no health care, no other form of employment and must be Professional until they die. Im in the same crowd albeit a bit more planning. Im leaving my professional job here in Las Vegas for my winter Professional job in the Virgin Islands. Im glad I dont have to depend on either of these jobs for bread on the table.
Dont take it too seriously, Im not someone that many listen too anyway........

SANAE1249

1st Nov 2004, 14:01

Dear fellow 120 Drivers,

I have followed this thread for quite long and it has now come to the point that it is obvious that a lot of people has a lot of questions for different people on the machine and its "gremlins"
Mention is made of the responsibility of Mr Broberg to host a seminar on the machine to answer all the questions.

ESAL have sent out an invitation to customers to attend an "Epicentre" event at their Midrand office on 25 November 2004. This is a drive by EC France to bring representatives of the factory to the customer, to answer questions and to inform them on developements on a specific type. So if you were not invited officially, please call ESAL. I am sure afer all this it would serve the purpose to speak directly to the manufacturer. It is my guess that the people really interested and concerned about developements around the EC120 will go trough the trouble to attend.

So gents/girls, phone ESAL at 0112660357 and show your intention to attend. It would certainly enlarge the group of people operating the product. It would help ensure that the venue is adequate, and that, after the fight there is enough snacks/beers to cool everybody down again. This could be really productive so please try and get there.

canthover

2nd Nov 2004, 08:51

The last I heard the guys from ESAL were going on a road show around SA.

To my understanding that was going to be in the "big" centers such as JHB, CPT and DBN - that way I guess more people out there would get a look in - but I guess we have to make to do with whats thrown our way and oh I guess that for us that can't get there - we're simply not interested!! Yeah right.:E

goaround7

2nd Nov 2004, 12:43

Thanks SANAE1249,

Have called and registered for ESAL.

Plan to come in our EC120, experience fenestrom failure, perform a text book autorotation with feet off pedals, land hard on the nose as the CofG will be out as it always is, shut down and immediately do a hot start and melt the engine just to get discussions off to a good start....

Recuperator

2nd Nov 2004, 14:01

GA7,

Man, That was the funniest comment i have read for a long time!:p

Just remember to do it downwind, so when you open your door and it swings open fully, without the gas strut in place, the blades chop off the top of the pilot's door for you as well!

Will see you on the 25th in Midrand.

R:ok:

goaround7

2nd Nov 2004, 17:57

Thanks, I'll be the guy with no head as I'll make sure to leave the rear seat belts all fastened nicely so the belt tensioners do their stuff for five instead of one...

What Red Line?

2nd Nov 2004, 20:19

I've just taken the time to read through this topic and a very interesting read it was, leading me, and no doubt several others, to the inescapable conclusion that there are some folks out there who really shouldn't be trying to fly the 120.

It seems clear that some of these folks see it as an un-controllable ship that obviously "does things" without any help from the pilot. It is also apparent that some haven't got much time in it, probably due to the fact that every time they do want to fly it, the engine over-temps itself. Then of course, if you are lucky enough to actually get it running (without it overtemping itself) and try to get it off the ground, it either goes into a non-recoverable spin or rolls over (again apparently all by itself).

Simple solution folks, (and you will probably kick yourselves for not thinking of it your-selves) go fly something that you want to fly. Yep, that easy.

WRL

4HolerPoler

2nd Nov 2004, 21:25

Wind-up Alert guys - if you do feel inclined to rise to the bait, please keep it nice.

4HP

goaround7

3rd Nov 2004, 04:47

Dang it ! Sheeeeet, now why oh why didn't little ol' me think of THAT one ! Hold your horses there boys - I'ma just gonna check with the Boss on this one - surefire thing it'll be okay with him if I do my 3 passenger prairie viewing and the counting of the lil' bokkies in his shiny new 407. Bet he's be just dandy and happy as a hog in sh!t at paying 50% more 'n the 120 per hour.

Maybe I'll take Goaround Junior along wi' me for the ride - he'd lurv that. Folks can't see his buck teeth and be all nasty to 'im when we's flying. Yeehah !

Recuperator

3rd Nov 2004, 16:32

Engineers (like yourself) should be seen and not heard...:ok:

SawThe Light

3rd Nov 2004, 19:05

Ouch! Just like being in the dentist's chair.

Someone hit raw nerve?

What Red Line?

4th Nov 2004, 00:24

Don't you just love those old sayings like that.

I particularly like the one that went something like - It's a bad workman who blames his tools.

WRL

Recuperator

4th Nov 2004, 04:28

WRL

Here's another for you:

"If the shoe fits...";)

What Red Line?

4th Nov 2004, 07:57

It's kinda getting off the topic but hey, you just might have at last stumbled onto something you might be good at.

Truce?

Lets get back to slagging of at the tools and rules makers.

WRL

rototq

10th Nov 2004, 16:38

It is with great interest that I have been closely following the debate surrounding the EC 120 B rollover which occurred on 9 September 2004. I must add though that things have digressed somewhat over the weeks as to the original questions asked as to why the industry had not been informed and still remain confused as to the nature surrounding this exercise. I therefore decided to reserve comment until a statement / further information was put forward by the manufacturer which has now taken place.

I have studied the letter from Eurocopter SA (ESAL); “EC 120 B INFORMATION LETTER”, dated 14 October 2004, compiled by the Eurocopter Southern Africa, Chief Pilot; which accompanied the “Fenestron Tail Rotor” theoretical pilots training complement/manual.

The Fenestron training compliment/manual was found to be most ambiguous and confusing in some instances; I am sure many of you will agree, yes!

I wish to be ‘nitpicky’ and elaborate on something of concern; under the “TRAINING” heading a statement is made; “The final part-the landing, is more subject to chance than actual skill.” I am eager to know if this letter was proof read and accepted by Eurocopter France as the statement could have future ramifications due to the interpretation thereof.

So, after watching this debate so closely over the past weeks I am dumb founded as to the exact nature of the Fenestron document that Eurocopter issued to the industry; is it possibly a smoke screen to distract everyone for the real issues at hand, seems so. What relevance; if any, does this document have with respect to the incident that took place on the 9 September 2004? The only deduction that I can come to is that the Eurocopter document, along with some nice diagrams and graphs explains to pilots that if you experience a yaw turn to the left, then you should push full right pedal and wait until the yaw rate is damped and stops. In a nutshell, all the document is really telling us is that if you are intending at keeping a steady heading and a left yaw turn is experienced, you must put in right pedal, great! So, if it (left yaw) continues, put in more right pedal and the turn will eventually stop! Wow, I thought I learnt that technique many, many years ago during my initial student pilot training; obviously not so; I will have to try that one out sometime to see if it really works, “lol”; and to think that Eurocopter has kindly gone to these great lengths and cost to compile a document to explain this very simple procedure to all us inexperienced helicopter pilots with zillions of hrs of flying time; thanks Eurocopter!
Pilots, best you all sit up and take note before you end up spinning around and around to the left in your ‘120’ until the aircraft either runs out of fuel or you crash – that will dampen your yaw rate!

So, what exactly does this document have to do with the incident; can anyone out there elaborate a little! Everyone has been warned that tail rotor control failure exercises on the EC 120 B, carried out in the conventional manner, as was the case with the unfortunate instructor and pilot on the EC 120 B on that day, may not be done – why why why !

Surely; if the techniques explained in the Fenestron document really work, then instructors can continue doing the conventional technique on the EC 120 B; yes-no; if you experience a turn to the left, put full right pedal in and the yaw will dampen and stop, as we have been assured in the document! The manual stipulates that in the IGE hover during a tail rotor control failure, chop the throttle and land. In the OGE hover and FWD flight, execute an autorotation – ok, accepted; but why the change in procedure from the norm! Surely we as professional pilots are at least entitled to know why this manoeuvre may not be carried out, or can it, nobody really knows! The flight manual does not have any warnings in this regard. Are there airflow problems over the fenestron at this critical phase or not! Why can conventional tail rotor control training practises not be carried out on the EC 120 B, or can they. Is there any answer for this anywhere; maybe we should chat to the numerous Gazalle pilots that experienced the same mishaps.

If there is in fact a problem, which I am sure everyone will agree that there is; then why have Eurocopter been so evasive in making mention of the fact that this training exercise in the conventional means is dangerous and not recommended. Their silence has cost the operator and pilots dearly; in addition, why is no mention made of it in the flight manual. I will bet that if there was a warning put out when the EC 120‘s first arrived in the country, the pilots in question would never have gone down that road which resulted in the EC 120 B crash. What’s also alarming is that CAA officials/instructors have attended factory courses in France and it has been unclear whether they in fact were ever made aware of the dangers involved thereof. This is evident as numerous pilots who had flown with the factory approved instructors on fenestron type aircraft before the accident, were never briefed on this; FACT!

I am very interested to know if there are any instructors out there that have, before the accident occurred and we were living in the dark ages then; had been doing tail rotor control failures on the EC 120 B in the old conventional way and gotten away with it, please come forward and exercise your right to be anonymous. I am sure there must be a couple. Many feel in this incident that the fenestron may have stalled during the final phase of this manoeuvre resulting in the so called full right yaw pedal input being totally ineffective; so prove us wrong!

Some food for thought; if the instructor on the EC 120 B did in fact experience a rapid yaw rate to the left during the final phases of the exercise and did in fact put full right pedal in to dampen the left yaw rate/turn and nothing happened, then we have some serious debate to continue with; could the gentleman and or someone with the relevant info come forward to elaborate on his exact actions.

The next question would then be to ask as to why the industry was not made aware of this fenestron anomaly and where did things fall by the wayside. What is Eurocopter hiding…………………...

canthover

11th Nov 2004, 10:49

Well done sir!

Someone has at least had the cahooners to stand up and spell it out instead of all the garbage earlier on in the thread where unrelated topics such as the Fox issue even crept in.

I have spoken at length with the two accident boys. They say again and again that they started to roll off throttle and the rate of yaw increased so fast that they had no option but to abort the exercise with pedal and to slowly open the throttle, all the while accepting the accelerating rate of yaw - even with full pedal - I hope they don't take offense to this as I may not have worded as they have.

SO the next debate is the issue of the exercise being done incorrectly as they should have done an autorotation! Why do an auto if the aircraft still has directional control down to the hover. Surely you are more at risk doing an auto (I presume the flight manual infers that you must train this exercise with a complete auto - I can hear the insurers screaming and slitting their wrists) than if you can actually bring it to a hover and as the flight manual says - roll off throttle and cushion the landing with collective.

Yes rototq is on the money with what he says - the training document is confusing.

Page twelve is where the big question mark exists - it says in a box on the bottom right corner of the page - Correct immediately - Don't let it run away on you!

Why are they so emphatic about this - well the two in Durban certainly saw why.

But then I guess they are bad workmen so are blaming their tools. Yeah right!!!!!!!!:yuk:

So will someone please set the record straight - How is this exercise supposed to be done. Oh and of course please enlighten me - is the landing still more subject to chance than actual skill? So why teach autos at all - just tell the student to lower the lever and hope for the best - the ground will cushion your fall.

Can the CAA put out a brief on this exercise so we can all learn something and be safer.:ok: