Heli down in Cumbria.

[Pontious]

Reported on local TV news network that the wreckage of a helicopter has been discovered by a farmer on farmland in Cumbria at around 11.30 local time this morning. More details on the Granada Reports bulletin at 16.30 this afternoon.

Thoughts and condolonces go out to anybody involved in the accident.

I was thinking of going to Windermere today but the overnight weather forecast wasn't good with low cloud and rain moving south from Scotland and low overcast early this morning thickening and bringing more rain towards lunchtime.

[Wedge]

Four people killed. Looks like it went down last night after departing for a destination in Scotland.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931139.stm

[Barshifter]

Rumored to be An R44

[Max_Chat]

Thoughts and condolences to the family and friends of those involved.

Pontious, why the weather forecast?

[gulliBell]

A tragic accident. Assuming the report in the link is correct, how is it that an R44 can take off at night, on a cross country flight, with passengers, and in bad weather?

[TRC]

Pontious, why the weather forecast?


Windemere is in Cumbria, about 15 miles from the crash site.



......how is it that an R44 can take off at night....


Civil twilight there last night was about 21.40 - maybe it was before that. We'll have to wait and see.

[lartsa]

in the uk night flying can be carried out with passengers in a R44 most small helicopters can fly at night if the night kit is fitted

possibly not public transport or for hire and reward but private flights

its only rumoured it was a r44 at the moment nobody has confirmed it yet

[on21]

Very sad news indeed.

Max_Chat, why the weather forecast?

Why do you think? Marginal weather in that area, nothing more, nothing less, Pontious is stating a fact.

[Crieff-ite]

Just heard on the local news that the heli took off at approx 7pm.

[west lakes]

Just heard on the local news that the heli took off at approx 7pm.

For Info

from Border TV
As above 4POB going to Lochmaben (Dumfries & Galloway).
From police spokesman, on non-arrival alarm raised seach last night by police, RAF, mountain rescue & coast guard. Farmer was out checking stock this a.m. when wreckage discovered.

At approx 17:00 on the West Coast cloudbase was down below 500ft

[Pontious]

Max Chat

Do the replies by on21 & TRC answer your question? Adverse weather coupled with hilly terrain frequently appears as a contributing factor in aircraft accidents.

[PAXboy]

Timed at 17:59 BST
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931139.stm
Excerpts:
...
Police said the helicopter had taken off from Carnforth, Lancashire, at about 1900 BST on Friday bound for Lochmaben, near Lockerbie, in Scotland.
...
Police pinpointed its position using signals from the passengers' mobile phones, but by that time a farm worker had spotted the crashed aircraft.
He alerted emergency services at 1122 BST.
...
A spokesman for Cumbria Fire and Rescue Service said two bodies were found in the helicopter and two were in a field nearby. He said the area had experienced heavy rain and strong winds on Friday night.

[west lakes]

Further info

Sill Field is approx 1/4 mile east of the M6 about 2 miles north of Jct 36 (Kendal). terrain about 5 - 6 hundred feet

[Max_Chat]

Pontious and On21

Looks like the investigation has started and your conclusions are clear. Shame you can't wait for ALL the facts before you start chucking stuff around.

Anyway, I shall leave this thread.

[hihover]

I'm afraid I don't see the relevance of today's weather forcast on a tragic accident that happened last night.

The inclusion of that forecast in the announcement of the accident is misleading and IMHO very distasteful.

[egbt]

But Pontious did not know the accident was last night the report said a/c found 11:30 this morning so not at all distasteful.

[Nige321]

hihover
Pontius quoted the weather near the accident scene overnight , and into today, as does the BBC report...
Try reading...
N

[rattle]

My thoughts are with the families.

I agree completely with Max Chat. To start a thread asking about a crash, and then add the forecast to your post is beyond unreasonable. Unless pontius knew alot before he posted, I think the implication from his post was that this was going to be found to be weather related. Maybe wait for a few facts before making veiled accusations.

Of course somebody will claim it was an innocent remark, but asking about an accident "this morning" and following with the TAF? What do you expect us to say?

I agree with TRC. "We'll have to wait and see"

[Heliport]

egbt, Nige 321 etc.

That's cleared up then.
Despite all the comments about the weather, nobody was jumping to conclusions/suggesting the weather was a factor in the accident in which these people lost their lives.
Quite right.
I'm sure no-one in this forum would do that. That's the sort of thing we criticise journos for doing.

Hmmm.

[vetflyer]

Sad news

The weather on friday night was low cloud and rain in the Kendal area. I driving near there early evening and though it was miserable night. Cloud on hills.
Personally, I would not have been trying to fly in it but hey i am only a fixed wing pilot.

[hihover]

Sorry pal, I'm not with you, try reading what? If you are referring to post #1 by Pontious, I read it before I made my comments and nothing has changed. The inclusion of a weather report in that announcement, in my opinion, was uncalled for.

Your opinion is obviously not the same as mine, go ahead and post your opinion if you have something to say. That might be a better option than a smarmy comment.

Back to the thread.....Can anyone confirm that it was an R44 or do we still not know?

tam

[treadigraph]

Film report on ITV news a few minutes ago showed it to be an R44.

[west lakes]

BBc also confirms it as an Robinson44

This is a tragedy, but I failed to mention that the border bulletin earlier stated they were on their way to a wedding, this makes it even sadder, I think

[theavionicsbloke]

Yeh,
Pretty sure I saw G-OSSI R44.
3 years old, registered to an owner in Bradford
on Public Transort.
Archived pictures show the airframe displaying
'Goss Air"

Condolences to family, colleagues and friends on yet another sad outcome in aviation

[Barshifter]

ITN news just showed the wreckage of this aircraft.Very sad.
http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f84/Barshifter/G-OSSI001.jpg

[on21]

Nobody is disputing this is a terrible accident, and will destroy more lives than the four confirmed fatalities, however how many of these posting has there been over the years. Every genuine pilot out there knows where this is going distasteful or not.

Don't shoot the messenger.

[theavionicsbloke]

Owned by Goss Air Ltd

Looks like it may have been a Public Transport Flight as Weddings appears to be a speciality of the company

http://www.gossair.co.uk/flights.html

What a tragedy if it was on a wedding job

[theavionicsbloke]

http://www.gossair.co.uk/images/wedding.jpg

[hihover]

Don't fool yourself, genuine pilots will not be passing judgement at this stage.

Does anyone know if this operation is anything to do with my old pal Mick?

What a tragedy.

tam

[jayteeto]

It has become a regular argument on Prune whether people should speculate or the old 'wait for the enquiry' pleas. This is a rumour network. I agree that falsely accusing someone of taking a poor course of action is wrong, but posting a weather report is not really a problem. To be honest, most pilots first thought will be please not one of my friends/condolences to family. Second thoughts usually are what type and what was the weather like?
My heart goes out to the families in their loss, I hope they get all the answers to their questions as quickly as possible.

[JimBall]

Well - I've looked for GOSS AIR on the latest (20/7/7) CAA AOC list.

No sign.

[scooter boy]

Jim Ball - could they have been operating on someone else's AOC? - quite possible if just a single aircraft operation.

I don't feel that anybody has speculated excessively on this thread or been disrespectful to the deceased or their families.

IMHO posting the weather at the time was entirely relevant - nobody has drawn any conclusions yet but at least we have a clearer picture of the circumstances surrounding this tragic loss.:sad:

SB

[S76Heavy]

IMO posting the wx also paints a picture of how difficult the search and rescue/recovery might have been. So I'd say it is relevant.

[Letsby Avenue]

Tam - Your not referring to Mick Goss ex AAC are you?:uhoh:

If you are I'm afraid I have some bad news for you.

He is unconnected with this accident.

[HEDP]

Would that be Tam of the inadvertant crewman initiated engine off variety by any chance?

[psyan]

Letsby: I certainly hope that that was not a reference to wingnut too - RIP.

[JimBall]

Scooter: I hope not.
Single engine CAT at night in the UK..........

[lartsa]

i may be wrong but isnt the heli based at multiflight and uses their aoc ?

[G-CPTN]

http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaysun/news/tm_headline=four-dead-in-copter-crash%26method=full%26objectid=19571591%26siteid=50081-name_page.html

[TRC]

The farm manager having been told of the situation: "went to the crash scene with his son John, nine."

He is reported to have said: "It was not very pleasant to see, especially for my young son."

WTF??

[k12479]

Was going to a pheasant shoot, including a father & son:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931902.stm

[sitigeltfel]

Pheasant shoot? hardly likely!

The season does not begin until 1st October and most shoots will wait a few more weeks after that before starting.

BBC!

[nigelh]

There is no shooting at this time of year ...Aug 12th is the first shooting to come into season. Used to see it parked at Leeds on my way in to pick up FIBS. Very sad indeed.

[AussieAndy]

I am led to believe that although the aircraft may be listed on an AOC, it will not appear as the MTOW is too low.

As in the following example taken from AOC Register:

"Aircraft below MTOW 1361 kg: Robinson R44"

[Droopystop]

Jimball
Scooter: I hope not.
Single engine CAT at night in the UK..........

Who said it happened at night? T/O 1900, official night wasn't until 2130ish local

[Pontious]

I apologise if anybody drew any inference from my opening statement that suggested I stated weather was the single cause of this tragedy.


I simply shared information that I knew to be factual as I had planned a trip up there myself for about the same time as the flight and decided against it even though my trip was to be by road not air. The weather around that area is notoriously unpredictable and actual conditions are frequently worse than forecast, especially in terms of cloud base,visibility and levels of precipitation.Earlier in my career I've turned back on more than one occasion or diverted to route along the Cumbrian coast where the cloud base and vis' can be much improved and more suited to VFR.


The information I posted was just that- Factual Information NOT PROBABLE CAUSE. Factual information based on local knowledge and local experience. I am very familiar with the area as I travel there often, and only too well aware of the 'freakish' nature of weather in The Lakes' and anyone who easily discounts factors such as weather conditions and terrain at and around an accident site is mistaken. Why is so much of a Pilot's training,albeit Private, Commercial or Airline Transport, Rotary or Fixed Wing comprised of Meteorlogy Studies and Altimetry?


Posters will note that I never wrote anything about the technical record of the aircraft concerned because I'm neither Rotary qualified nor familiar with the type but I am very familiar with the local terrain and local weather and quite frankly I resent having to justify my comments on here when they concerned the stating of fact NOT supposition and with no intention of inference in the apportioning of blame or cause.

[[email protected]]

Every time we get a thread relating to an accident on this forum we end up with the same old procedure; someone posts with a speculative comment (some are well-informed - some aren't) and then someone else feels obliged to defend the honour of the people involved, then we end up with playground bickering.

Eventually we all come to the same conclusion - that accidents leading to the loss of life are very sad and that no matter what we think, the AAIB will investigate thoroughly and come up with a report from which we can at least draw informed conclusions.

This is after all an open forum which is as close to a virtual crewroom as we are going to get - why shouldn't people speculate on the cause of an accident? Weather, pilot error or mechanical failure (or combinations of these) are the big 3 killers - why not discuss them in an adult fashion so that we may all learn from the mistakes or misfortunes of others.

Just because one person thinks a pilot may have made an error doesn't make it so and doesn't mean that others have to take offence by proxy.

[rotorspeed]

Largely agree Crab, though I'm sure you'd agree you can put weather into the pilot error category, albeit it major sub-category.

There is major difference between stating what the cause of an accident is (which is clearly irresponsible ahead of the AAIB report) and commenting on probable significant risk factors. And after every accident someone always pipes up here saying that no-one should speculate and that we should wait until the AAIB report. And when that does come out, a couple of years or so later, actually very little comment tends to be made on this forum.

There is always a cause to every accident, and much as pilots might not like to face the fact that we sometimes make critical mistakes, nor I'm sure do aircraft manufacturers and maintenance organisations. How do think Frank Robinson feels every time one his aircraft crashes with fatal results? Extremely sorry I'm sure, but also hoping it wasn't caused by a failure on his company's part no doubt. But it's always going to be someone's fault ultimately.

And let's face it we all know weather is a major killer and that the chances are, given the reports, it will turn out to be a critical factor in this accident. So it seems to me for all of us to have another reminder to treat it with more respect is no bad thing. And you never know, doing just that may save more lives in the intervening period before the AAIB report does actually come out, regardless of the ultimate cause.

But it is extremely tragic, for sure.

[garystemp]

The four men killed have now been named.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/cumbria/6932769.stm


GS

[west lakes]

Further

On local news in Cumbria, crash thought to have been at 19:35, initial impact point within sight of M6. Report (OK media!) sugesting hit a post wire fence & flipped over. Also saying "Eyewitness reports suggest helicopter could have been having mechanical problems"

It was the a/c mentioned earlier in thread.

Don't shout just relaying from the news report.

[psyan]

There but for the grace of God go I. Live and learn, take sustenance from the sacrifice of others and let their lives be not in vain. Honour them by remembering the mistakes made and when you encounter similar circumstances, remember them. Add their experience to yours and so their memory will live on. It's the greatest honour you can give and the best thing is.........you profit too.

I know that area very well and have negotiated it many times over the last 33 years. I have a very vivid picture in my mind right now borne of my personal experience and that of imagination. I can [as others have alluded] postulate probable circumstance but would never dare to do so not at this time.

We all have been close to catastrophe at one point or another and more times than we might care to admit, as a consequence of our inadequacies. Please let us remember our own failings and with deference to camaraderie felt by all rotary wing addicts, desist from publicly making assertions especially when they are based upon conjecture.

Whilst I agree that there are lessons to learn from all incidents and that we all should take note, there is no definitive information yet, just supposition.

RIP

[nigelh]

Yes, but take the supposition away and , in a case like this, there is nothing left. This is , as many have pointed out,is a site for discussion about relevant topics. If this is not relevant i dont know what is:confused: weather related ( possibly) accidents seem to be the one area that helicopters are not getting safer in . We have had 2 in quick succession so there is something to be learnt from some of the more experienced on this forum. I do sometimes wonder if it may be safer for singles to go ifr rather than claw around at 200ft ( this is no reference to either of these ). The question is , why not ? If you made ifr flying more accessable then less people would be grovelling amongst the hill and wires. Fixed wing i would guess have a better record re weather ? maybe due to the fact that they can go ifr. Just a thought but no doubt i shall get shouted at by somebody with a lot of stripes on their shoulders. Somebody tell me why can singles NOT fly ifr when the military have been doing it for years and with no autopilot.

[hihover]

Nigel,

Flying IFR in a single engine helicopter is no big deal, however, it cannot be used as a substitute for poor weather flying if the terrain over which you fly is poking up into the cloud.

At the back of every SEH pilot's mind is where to go when the engine stops. If the ground is in the cloud then your options are already exhausted, you have nowhere to go. If, however, you made sure that you had some cloud/ground clearance and some visibility then IFR can make life less stressful. At the end of the day it is a tricky decision with only one engine and bad weather.

Single engine aeroplanes face exactly the same problem. They are, however, less likely to launch in marginal weather and, of course, their VFR limits are different.

[nigelh]

I guess you need to look at the probability of flying into something when grovelling vfr as against the probability of the engine failing....which in a modern turbine is virtually never !!! How many accidents have there been in this country during an ifr flight ? I think you will find that there have been very very few . Maybe more training and a cheaper way of retro fitting autopilot onto,at least turbine helicopters,and more development of gps with terrain etc could make a change for the better. I know that i would feel happier at msa in cloud if it were legal. After all , i think we all know quite a few very high hour pilots who do regularly choose, rightly or wrongly, to go this route rather than trust their old eyesight!!

[paco]

I must agree with you nigel - I used to fly the Alton Towers LongRanger, which subsequently became G-RASS, which had a full IFR fit, except for two engines and two batteries. I always thought it would have been a lot safer to fly through Birmingham zone at 3000 feet under radar than to battle with the tower lines on the M1, although there was a point obviously where it would have been not prudent to go anyway. However, when it was a go decision for VFR, but still gropy, it was awfully tempting, especially as my military procedural and fixed wing IRs were current......

Given that Air Hanson did the maintenance, and that if the engine quit while VFR over the city I would have been in just as much doo-doo, I thought it was a fair risk assessment.

Phil

[JimL]

Nigel,

The latest amendment to ICAO Annex 6 (revision 12) contains a Standard for singles flying in IMC.

It is not as simple as retrofitting an autopilot, it has to meet compliance with Appendix B to Part 27 and the additional equipment Standard for flight in IMC.

As Hihover has indicated, it is not simple to replace VFR operations with IFR - it requires the appropriate certification, equipment, qualification, experience and infrastructure.

Whether this (economically) buys sufficient additional capability when operating to other than airfields is questionable. Even in the coming era of GNSS Point-in-Space procedures, the infrastructure requirement is way beyond that required for VFR flight.

That is why you will continue to see sophisticated SPIFR twins flying VFR (for HEMS, police etc.).

Jim

[Droopystop]

IFR is fine if you are going somewhere where there are IAPs or somewhere to let down. This flight was going from private site to private site and I guess would have always been attempted VFR. I agree that it may be an option to change to IFR enroute, punch up and change the destination. But then you have the problem of maintaining terrain clearance whilst IMC below MSA. Single pilot. Single Engine. No stabilisation. The workload would be enough for a regular flyer, probably too much for an infrequent one, even if they did have an IR. But you are always going to have people who are attempting to go places, but have not got around to doing an IR. The best course of action is to impress on pilots during initial and continuation training that when encountering unforecast rubbish weather you always have the option of landing in a field.

This is situation where I think most of us think "there by the grace of God...."

RIP. Thoughts with family and friends.

[nigelh]

It is not as simple as retrofitting an autopilot, it has to meet compliance with Appendix B to Part 27 and the additional equipment Standard for flight in IMC.
As Hihover has indicated, it is not simple to replace VFR operations with IFR - it requires the appropriate certification, equipment, qualification, experience and infrastructure.
JimL That is my point...there is maybe too much red tape to allow this.
Droopystop. Why would you need to fly below msa ? I agree that some pilots will not have the currency to do the flight and the current status quo will remain unchanged ...but there are a lot of pilots out there , cpl and ppl who could get say an imc rating and are current but fly vfr machines...why not make a practical way for them to fly in imc legally . I know from a lot of experience that there are many times when you are flying from point A which is fine vfr , say 1000ft cloud base but you have a band of weather say 20nm wide with the cloud on the deck, but your landing site is also clear with 1000ft.....surely in anyones book it is safer to go up for those 20nm rather than grovelling???? Fixed wing pilots do it the whole time , in singles ....i do not understand why helicopters cannot do the same . It CANNOT be worse than what is happening now surely ???
I have spoken now to a good number of pilots who all seem to agree that the system of forcing people to stay vfr come what may , is not the way forward . The statistics, i would say prove it. There should IMHO be 3 choices when confronted by a band of low cloud ( in a single) 1) turn around
2) put down or 3) IF you know that the weather is vfr within a few miles (which you can check) punch up , fly ifr for 10 min and carry on your way, staying well clear of masts,power lines and hills ....subject to having an imc rating as per fixed wing ,standby AI etc
Ready to be shot down............

[hihover]

Nigel,

I don't think anyone would shoot at you for offering a suggestion. My problem with it is that, no matter how infrequent, engines do still fail (did you not see the spectacular filming of one last week), and it is not only an engine failure that might require an immediate descent.

I could not justify entering cloud in a single engine aircraft if the ground is also in there - IR or no IR, aeroplane or helicopter, doesn't matter.

[[email protected]]

Nigel, how many of the singles have an icing clearance at all, let alone anti-icing on the aircraft. It doesn't take much to get to airframe icing conditions even in Summer in UK, especially IFR above high ground like mountains and piston engine icing can occur up to Plus 30 deg C.

The other problem I have with your idea is that you will get people 'popping' up into cloud with no radar service, no TCAS and possibly no IFF - especially dangerous over relatively unpopulated areas with poor primary radar cover.

If you are going to fly IFR then it should always be done properly and planned as such.

[Sliding Doors]

Nigel,

Options 1 and 2 exist already. And a third option also already exists - 'cancel the trip'

If people are happy to push those existing options too far (sometimes without event other times tragically) I for one would be unhappy flying IMC amongst singles lacking the same levels of equipment. (TCAS, Wx radar, SAS etc etc etc)

I've seen singles flying VMC on top for protracted distances and know of those that will fly IMC through cloud, many of whom have never held an IR. Your Option 3 won't help those individuals gain any more common sense or respect for aviation. In fact it will probably convince them they are even 'greater' pilots. :ugh:

[the beater]

It's unlikely that we will see single engine IFR in the UK in the near future. I stand to be corrected, but I am only aware of one helicopter (the Bristow Jetranger) that is cleared for this, which I believe can only be operated IFR when conditions are such that in the event of an engine failure, wx conditions are such that a visual recovery is possible.
But even if we do allow single engine IFR, this will not prevent CFIT accidents. The problem is cost. Obtaining an IR is expensive, prohibitively so for most pilots, and to be confident you need to remain current. The equipment requirement is also going to prevent the use of most small piston helicopters. It isn't simply a case of a few hours instrument appreciation and a change to the rules, as it would be foolhardy in the extreme to start a trip VFR and then change to IFR as and when conditions demand. How many pilots flying VFR are aware of their MOCA/MORA should they wish to climb? And knowing that the cloud base is 1000' at your destination does not necessarily allow you to remain above MSA until visual.
You will not find me going IMC in a Robinsin R44, legal or not; and I have a current IR. Forget having only one engine, that's the least thing to worry about.:=

[nigelh]

All perfectly reasonable answers....however i guess tcas could be made affordable in the near future and i hear there is already a very cheap latest tech autopilot already tries and tested ....but not certified due to cost.
Lastly, can you not fly ifr outside controlled airspace in an N reg on a faa ir?
Maybe there is no answer to this problem , that is why it has been the No1 killer for so many years. Maybe you could have a system where you are allowed to fly only up to say 20 -30 miles in cloud and then only with some sort of permission ? I guess it will stay as it is ...those that have the equipment and ability pop up and do it quietly and the rest take their chances or land. But you must admit it IS frustrating when you come across a line of low cloud , you KNOW you can fly at msa without ice problems and you KNOW the sun is shining 10 miles further on !!!!:{

[the beater]

I've flown thousands of hours IFR, and have never flown an A/C with TCAS! But agreed, there are solutions that will never be used due to the certification requirements. However, I still believe that a trip conducted IFR with the option to go VFR is still safer than going VFR with an option of limited IFR. If you can fly safely for 20-30 miles IFR, then you will be safer to remain IFR than to be required to descend into the clag again.
There are many ways of making a flight a little bit safer, but none to beat a good decision as to whether to set off in the first place. I've been lucky in the past that my poor decisions haven't cost me more than a few sleepless nights.

[[email protected]]

Nigel, the only answer would be to make GA flying so overly restrictive that no one would be able to get airborne without fully briefing a supervisor or similar - a bit like the Military in many respects.

This clearly won't happen so it is up to education in flying clubs and from the CAA to ensure pilots are aware of the risks involved in flying in poor weather.

I know a lot of education goes on at the moment but the CFITs are still happening because the urge to reach the desired destination clouds (pun not intended) the judgement of many pilots and they selectively ignore the bits of the met forecast that don't suit their decisions. All the courses in the world won't stop you making a crap decision especially when you are under pressure from pax/friends to go.

Sadly the old lessons keep being relearned the hard way.

[G-ROAR]

I am the holder of a ME/IR and fly my twin C401 as much as possible on airways, often in cloud, for long periods safe in the knowledge that air traffic are responsible for separation, and that the aircraft has pitot de-icing, de-icing boots, and is compliant with the avionics necessary for the cruise and an ILS at the other end.
I also fly an R44 and it is frustrating to have to abandon trips when bad weather is ahead. I flew last Saturday from north of Welshpool to an intended landing at eskdale in the lakes, the morning after this incident. I abandoned the flight at Blackpool, quite rightly, because the weather ahead was completely unacceptable- very por vis( 2000 meters) and cloud down to 200 ft. This was not unexpected as the weather in that area had been poor all morning and it was there quite clearly on the metars and Tafs.
I would not relish punching up into cloud, as I would in the 401, because besides the R44 not being authorised for IFR, it can be extremely uncomfortable and turbulant flying in say, cumulus cloud which are unstable with large upcurrents. Sometimes you think it is only for a short time but once in cloud you can be stuck there for long periods due to high ground and cloud can form very quickly ahead. Not a nice position to be in.
I know it is dissapointing when on a planned trip to have to abandon it but someone (you) has to be disciplined and make a positive decision.
Better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here.

[scooter boy]

G-ROAR,

I am totally in agreement with you and congratulate your decision-making last weekend.

I fly IFR in my deiced Mooney Ovation as well as VFR in my R44. The 44 is just beyond the capabilities of most pilots in cloud - I avoid flying in cloud in the chopper at all costs but just like you would have no problem in my right fixed wing. Single-engined IMC does not bother me (in the right aircraft).

Basically the chopper is far less intrinsically stable and I have found it very hard to hold on a heading on the odd foolish occasion when I have been within cloud. Those foolish occasions just do not happen to me now - I am older and far wiser than once I was!:E

No autopilot = no IFR for me F/W or helo, the workload and opportunity for disorientation is just way to great.

Fly safely,

SB

[nigelh]

So how would you feel about ifr in a squirrel with autopilot ??

[manfromuncle]

I think there should be some inclusion of "flying in poor weather" in the JAA Heli PPL syllabus.

[Dato_R44]

This is my first entry into the foray of PPRUNE and reviewing this particular forum I feel that from the initial event the comments are moving along. I extend my sincere condolences to those family and friends who suffer through this tragic loss.

To my point - As a 44 pilot and a mature recent graduate of the "Holy of Holys'" RISK MANAGEMENT Iwould offer aftermentioned for consideration.

The United Kingdom IMHO is NOT and never will be a country with such a climate that the flying a rotory can be exercised wherever and whenever one wishes. True there is a need to experience during training the actions to be taken should adverse weather be encountered on a journey but is there enough emphasis placed on the importance of understanding the changable weather conditions throughout this country?

With increased flying time experience is gained and complacency grows. This is an observation on my part and every time I do an A I have to remind myself to complete the check to limit the risk.

I love to fly helicopters but with all my heart I believe that in the UK flying Heelios is a wonderful event that has to be experienced only on days that declare all the 9's from A to B and back! I refer my comments to the 44 and 22'ss as I dont have knowledge of the available technology fitted to other machines.

Cliches in this instance abound - but if I may submit just one that I believe may have saved me on one occasion it would be :

" The least experienced press on, while the more experienced turn back to meet the most experienced that didn't take off in the first place".

[the beater]

Disregarding the requirement to have two engines, the differences between an IFR machine and a VFR machine -which could also be a twin squirrel - are vast. Actually, the days when you can go IFR overland in the UK are limited due to icing and performance, not to mention diversion fuel requirements etc. I would have no problem going IFR/IMC in an IFR squirrel, but flights would still be subject to strict weather criteria. When the weather is marginal, you often find that the only helicopters flying are the VFR ones!
Are there any helicopters in the UK with a full icing clearance? I don't know of any.
I think that the problem stems from the way helicopter flying is sold. There are countless magazine and newspaper articles informing people that using a helicopter is three times faster than driving, will cost less than a car per mile, and can land and take off anywhere. The reality is somewhat different, but the flying school won't tell you that. By the time the newly qualified pilot finds this out, they've commited themselves to a great deal of expense.

[nigelh]

Is icing really an issue for at least 6 months of the year ? I know i am repeating myself:\but how did the military fair flying ifr in their gazelles over the years ??

[verticalhold]

manfromuncle;

I wish that they would stop any form of bad weather training in the PPL/H syllabus. The current teaching of a 180 degree turn is a recipe for an unbalanced, tightening turn with poor height control. Anything which leads an inexperienced pilot to think he can fly himself out of trouble is to my mind a bad thing. far better to stand on the apron, point up and say "Don't go into the white fluffy things without all the kit, a huge amount of extra training and a lot of experience." I've scared myself more times than I care to think of in grot weather. I've got an IR and nearly 10,000 rotary hours and still manage to scare myself usually in very marginal conditions when the aircraft hasn't got all the kit in the cockpit.

VH

[paco]

The same way the Beaver guys flew! They didn't have anti-icing either and there were very few times we didn't go!

phil

[hihover]

There is a whole pile of wisdom contained in these past few posts, very interesting responses and I'm pleased to see that there seems to be a concensus to keep things as they are.

Nigel, the military IFR capability in the Gazelle/Scout was/is just that - a capability. It was not something used in anger on a daily basis but the pilots were well trained and always current, therefore, if IFR was required and the weather was suitable, it could be done. But be under no misapprehension, to maintain that capability takes quite a bit of effort and the whole issue of instrument flying has to be taken very seriously and closely supervised by a proven chain of command. I do not believe this is where we ought to be going with single engine helicopters in the commercial/private world.

[manfromuncle]

What I mean by "poor weather training" is NOT flight into IMC then a 180 turn. I mean recognising when the weather turns crap en-route and finding an alternate, or finding a decent field to stick it in (you'd be surprised the number of students who pick terrible landing spots when simulating chip lights etc), or avoiding high ground, talking to whoever to get some help - that kind of thing.

[Droopystop]

Nigelh,

I agree that more accessible and complete IMC training would be appropriate, but you would only stop CFIT accidents in poor weather if was a compulsory part of the PPL. Even then I doubt the average ppl could or would even want to keep their IMC skills current. The same would apply to a low time CPL trying to break into the industry.

I can see where you are coming from with the getting through a band of weather scenario. I'm sure it could work in low land England where there are plenty of sources for accurate weather. But in upland England, Wales and Scotland, those sources are few and far between. Additionally weather tends to be more localised, so if you used the IMC option, you might have a lower chance of getting into your private site than you perhaps would have done staying VFR.

The IMC below MSA point I was trying to make earlier relates to trying to get up a valley where the bottom is clear of cloud and the ridge clamped. Hence MSA being a 1000' or more above you. Going IMC is clearly not an option, which is the point I was trying make.

[JimL]

Nigel,

There is a misuse of the term CFIT in accidents which occur when the pilot is (supposed to be) flying VFR. Interestingly if you were to study the accident records you would find that most of the VFR accidents classified as CFIT are in fact loss of control.

They usually occur when a pilot continues to fly in deteriorating conditions: be it at night - when the light sources are diminishing and there is no horizon; or during the day when the visibility is decreasing. As the visual cues decrease, the pilot has to use more of his mental processes accessing visual cues and less on flying, until reaching a point where loss of control occurs. At that point, coming back into the cockpit and trying to fly out on instruments is rarely possible (even for those with instrument skills).

The answers to this are: (1) provision of helicopters with better handling qualities; and (2) persuading pilots not to exceed their personal limits.

(1) above is exactly what occurs when a helicopter is certificated under Appendix B of Part 27/29 (for fixed wing these are not even Appendices but part of normal certification). It is rare that certification can be obtained without the fitting of stability augmentation.

Punching up into IMC (can you punch up into IFR without some prior planning) is not an option that should be encouraged. There is a world of difference between operating under VFR and IFR. If a pilot has reached a point where mental processing saturation has or is about to occur, they are definitely not mentally prepared for flight on instruments or, worse still, working out how to get the helicopter back down (even if the helicopter is equipped for flight in IMC).

One of the elements that was added to the HEMS (and the PAOM) requirements in the late 90s was periodic training on instruments, and a requirement for establishing "procedures to be followed in case of inadvertent entry into cloud". This because the visibility/cloud limits for those activities are lower than for passenger transfer.

What you might regard as 'red tape' others might consider to be appropriate measures to provide a safe flying regime. If you find some time, read the qualifying Appendix and guidance in Annex 6 Part III for flying IMC in PC3 - it will give some insight into the thinking of those who had to provide guidance for legitimising the activity.

Only the larger helicopters (AS332, EC225, S92) have icing protection at this time (the S76, EC155 and AW139 are sure to follow). Where aircraft are permitted to fly with cold blades into limited icing conditions (AS332 and S61), there are a strict compliance rules; because of these rules, they are unlikely to be used for other than offshore operations.

Jim

[paco]

Interesting points, JimL


"(2) persuading pilots not to exceed their personal limits"

I think, rather than an appreciation of instrument flying, emphasis should be placed on the above, although I can see the thinking behind the "instrument appreciation". The trouble is, too many think it's the same as an instrument rating.

Phil

[[email protected]]

I agree regarding the perceived wisdom of the 180 turn - it can lull the pilot into thinking it is a magic bullet saviour - so as long as he is prepared to do a 180 he can push on that bit further.

A few years ago some guys set off from Swansea in a light FW headed NE through the Brecons and encountered deteriorating weather en-route - they pushed a bit too far and crashed. We hover taxied up the hill in cloud, following the 121.5 beacon and eventually on the top of the hill saw 3 chaps standing by the edge of a small wood. We landed and sent the winchman to chat and it turned out to be the trio that we were looking for, all alive and unhurt but clearly a bit shaken. The pilot had gone too far up a valley, tried a 180, entered cloud and lost control (just like JimL says Un-CFIT). Fortunately he stalled the aircraft when it was only 20 or 30' above trees and it flopped in and parked itself, suspended above the ground, at a 45 degrees nose down attitude so they were all able to jump out.

VVV lucky guys who learned the hard way (almost the hardest way) about weather aborts and pushing on.
Now the difficult bit is how do you get that message across to all the rest of the pilots out there?

As Hihover said, the unstabilised Gazelle was capable of IMC flight (no navaids to do full IFR) but it took a lot of training to keep the skill levels up - no one is going to pay to do that much training just for the odd occasion when it might be needed. Concentrate the training on weather appreciation and good pre flight planning.

[JimBall]

Another fascinating discussion, albeit with a tragic start.

Dato: With increased flying time experience is gained and complacency grows. This is an observation on my part and every time I do an A I have to remind myself to complete the check to limit the risk.

And that is what happens in the early stages of your license. The complacency grows very quickly. The reason being your mindset : "I've laboured to get this license - it was a tough course - at times I didn't think I'd get it. That's all behind me now."

So wrong. It's actually all still to come. No flying course can prepare you for the myriad of scenarios you will face out there. No flying course can cope with all the different mindsets of students.

The answer is that all new pilots should spend a lot of flying time with experienced pilots. All new pilots should look for a crap day in the forecast (not hard) and book their best instructor. I am not saying we should teach people how to fly through cloud in a VFR machine. But we should teach that there are very real limits - and that will assist in dampening the complacency.

Maybe if a few instructors introduced some Check A "tricks" we could sort some of this mental problem without even going flying.

The society we have created has meant that complacency is now a big problem. The Health & Safety approach to life means that we all think we're safe if we just follow the signs. We all think we're safe if we buy the airbags. We go into a dangerous mindset "The sign says 30 - I'll be safe at 30 then."

Feel it. Keep flying it. Take your bloody eyes off the GPS and look out the window.

[TOT]

all very good points raised on this thread.
There is another point I think worth mentioning -pilots attitude ( although, thankfully, not all)
As a busy Examiner and instructor I come across a large selection of students and PPL (H) holders, on a large variety of types .
one thing worries me greatly- some of these guys WILL JUST NOT BLOODY LISTEN!!!!!
I come into contact with a lot of guys with 50, 80, 150 hours TT and regardless of my many, many attempts to relate to/discuss accidents, safety training, advanced training, continued flight into deteriorating weather conditions, pre flight planning, etc
some of these guys STILL take horendious! chances and think they know it BLOODY ALL!!
whats the answer??
sorry for the rant!

[Helen49]

This comment is not intended to make any judgement on the cause of the subject accident.

However a generic comment [prompted by comments on this this thread] on accidents from one who has spent a lifetime in aviation............all pilots [particularly those who will remain in the GA sector] should be compelled [not sure how!] to read and inwardly digest accident and incident reports both during their initial training and during their subsequent aviation pursuits.

Learning from the mistakes of others is of paramount importance, if only to ensure that 'those others' did not suffer in vain. The sad part about so many aircraft accidents is that they are carbon copies of countless countless previous accidents. Very very sad.

I repeat, that this comment is not intended to make any judgement on the cause of the subject accident.

H49

[lartsa]

saftey publications like gasil are very good at informing crews of aircaft but infortunately the are sent only to the registerd owner of a aircraft not the crews of them [ unless they want to pay] it also misses out all the foregn registered aircraft in brittain
its a shame the gasil is not a free publication sent to any aircrew who wants it

[Three Blades]

Gasil is free on the web
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=33&pagetype=65&appid=11&mode=list&type=sercat&id=7

[nigelh]

TOT I could well have been one of them !:eek: At 100 hrs or so you can hovver beautifully, fly sideways, backwards, do great big flashy torque turns....pretty much everything your instructor can do ...whey hey !!!!! It is at about this stage that i became an instructor (FAA of course) and very quickly realized that a) handling the aircraft and being able to do aerobatics etc is NOT what safe flying is about ..in fact physical flying is probably only 10-20% of what makes a safe flight ...the rest is good decisions gained from experience , some may be personal and scary and some may be your last ever flight, but most will be handed down from the crusty old farts ( some of whom are on this site :ok:) offered up to those WHO WISH TO LISTEN...
When i instructed i realized i wasnt the only barely competent pilot with a vastly inflated idea of my own flying prowess.....MOST of my students started off all meek and wanting to learn and then in the space of a few hours developed into know alls. ( maybe its something about heli pilots in general !) Anyway the point is...there is no point in expecting people to look at the weather and say " ooh dear its not cavok 9999 all the way ...we had better stay at home and miss the party with all the booze, girls etc" :{
You will look at the weather and get the impression that , other than a little bit of weather around x it should be ok and then you will set off. That is how i do it i must admit !!! living in yorkshire, if you are not prepared to fly in bad weather you will fly 10 hrs a year. What would be helpful would be to get access to a better more detailed forecast and from that information plan the safest route. I have sometimes pushed all the way up to yorkshire in crap up the west ...when the east has been better...partly due to completely forgetting how to read a wxchart. SO how about better wx education and free route planning advice from pro forecaster to help keep us out of trouble.?? ( and solid state autopilot that will do 180 at push of button )

[heliski22]

When I got my IR ticket some years ago, an American friend congratulated me on becoming a REAL pilot.

"Of course", he said, "now that you're a REAL pilot, you can get into REAL trouble, REAL fast!"

With a properly equipped aircraft, the IR is a valuable addition to the skills required to keep in the air. It is not, however, the panacea it is often thought to be as a solution to all kinds of weather difficulties and is, as noted already, a perishable skill that needs to be kept sharp.

Without it, however, there is absolutely no point considering anything other than VMC and adhering to sound decision-making.

Not to be holier-than-thou, of course, I can remember some of my earlier days when that advice wasn't listened to either. There but for the grace of God.........

Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than to be flying and wishing you were on the ground.

[paco]

TOT - I hear you! The problem is that many students/owners own their own companies and up till they come across a helicopter, everything they touch has turned to gold, and it's hard for them to accept this with humility. Even then, their minds are far too often on the next business meeting than what they are doing in the air.

Phil

[theavionicsbloke]

"I wish that they would stop any form of bad weather training in the PPL/H syllabus. The current teaching of a 180 degree turn is a recipe for an unbalanced, tightening turn with poor height control. Anything which leads an inexperienced pilot to think he can fly himself out of trouble is to my mind a bad thing"


Sorry to go back a bit but I was taught to me that part of the bad weather traning is to show you how difficult it is to fly a none stabalised machine in IMC. I felt that having my instructor explain that to me and highlighting that a 180 turn is a last resort survival technique was a good lesson in knowing not to get yourself into that situation in the first place

[ShyTorque]

The most difficult part of flying helicopters is knowing when to say no.

[serf]

Paco has hit the nail on the head.

[nigelh]

So you think that a high proportion of what we can call cfit , for want of a better name, comes from owners not with their mind on the job ? I am afraid i disagree. ( Although i accept their is a lot of truth in that statement )
I keep coming back to the weather , or to be more accurate our knowledge of the weather. I can fly to my house perfectly safely , i believe, if the cloud is 200 +ft off the deck . ( This is the hills to the south of me) If i telephone and get first hand report that there is that gap between ground and cloud i go....if i am told there is no gap i do not go. Obviously in this case i know the area but the more i think about this the more i think that accurate weather is the key, especially in the hills . Dont forget you can still have good vis below the low cloud. Being able to get inflight updates of local weather is also a bonus and one good reason to get a mobile phone working in your cockpit so you can speak to the landing site to check the actual. Have you ever been waiting at a site that is totally socked in , wishing you could contact the pilot who is enroute ???

[hihover]

"I can fly to my house perfectly safely , i believe, if the cloud is 200 +ft off the deck ."

This is exactly where the problem lies - with cloud at 200 feet, and all you want to do is to go home - flying a helicopter there should be out of the question. Sorry Nigel, it sounds absurd to me. I'm not saying it can't be done, of course it can, but it is absurd.

tam

[JimL]

Nigel,

I think you have misunderstood the point; it is not a question of 'mind-on-the-job', more a mismatch between what has to be done and what can be done.

VFR flying is undertaken by utilising visual cues to keep the helicopter straight and level; when the visual cue environment declines (because of lack of light and light sources at night, or lack of visibility by day) it takes more processing power to assess the remaining visual cues.

As the proportion of processing biases towards assessing the (diminishing) cues, there is less-and-less available for flying (an unstable platform); this will eventually lead to loss of control.

There are other issues also concerned with reduced visibility; the visual cues can only be taken from the available cues within the helicopters Field of View (FOV), as visibility declines and the visual horizon moves closer (and therefore lower), it moves slowly, but inexorably, out of the helicopter's FOV. This is one of the reasons why a pilot descends - not because of cloud base.

There is an extremely good research paper about this issue which is about to be published by the CAA (don't know what the delay is).

...now I am in the middle of this period of high activity (=mess) and the telephone rings...

Jim

[nigelh]

I put that statement in really to make a point ....i agree that heading into unknown territory and unknown weather with 200ft is absurd.......but i bet you , if you were flying from a to b and there was a clear band of air under the cloud then you would take it ......flying low over a hill is not in itself dangerous or even illegal ....the danger is flying into worse weather that you have no knowledge of IMHO. I have flown up in hills for many years ( far less than many on this forum admittedly) and have never felt a worry about being low inall the 9999,s. I think visibility is a bigger issue and rightly or wrongly i would prefer to be low in clear air than higher and half in it. Everybody has their own point at which they call it a day and good quality info as to actual weather ,trend etc helps make the correct decision. I think to say that flying at 200ft over open hill is absurd misses the point and is actually incorrect .

JimL Would very much like to see that paper . The bit about going lower due to reduced vis is an interesting point . I think their is a difference between flying inlow vis and flying below low cloud and i know which i prefer.
( i know about cables etc but most of the recent accidents have been into the ground which indicates loss of control whilst IN cloud NOT under it) In order to gain any real benefit from this i think we need to put aside the idea that low flying is dangerous per se . It is not and i dont think it has been a factor in any recent accidents ?

[hihover]

I may have misunderstood your meaning, "200 feet off the deck" says to me a coudbase of 200 feet with the hills rising into it and gaps where the hills are lower than the cloudbase. I think what you mean is 200 feet clearance above the hilltops which is quite different.

I think Shy Torque summed it up very well in his post above. Just say no in bad weather.

[paco]

Nigelh - my comments were more in response to TOT's question as to why none of these people LISTEN!!

Phil

[Helen49]

Sorry to say but Nigelh looks like a future statistic and lawbreaker!
H49

[jellycopter]

Helen49

Out of order!

NigelH has been flying for many years and nothing he has said should give you any basis for your comment. He's merely expressing an opinion, and offering his thoughts to what is clearly a thought provoking thread.

I've not been flying as long as NigelH in calendar terms, but have the benefit of several thousand hours flying for the queen at tax payers expense. I also have the benefit of having flown with Nigel on several occasions and nothing I've ever seen would give me cause for concern.

I'll stick my neck on the block and agree 100% with Nigel's view that flying low with good visibility with clear separation from cloud is far safer than flying at 500ft in the bottom of the scud in crappy vis. Flying below 500ft is not illegal (in the UK); neither it is unsafe as some seem to intimate, provided the visibility is good and the pilot suitably trained.

I'd far rather pilots understand that 500ft is not a 'hard deck', but there for the protection of the public, as and when they or their buildings/vehicles are around. If they are not around, as is very much the case in Nigel's home patch, the 500ft Rule can be a bit of an irrelavence.

NigelH - I'll fly in the back of the Squirrel with you at the controls anytime becuase I know you've got the experience and the forethought to consider the weather implications before they arise.

John Jackson

[Droopystop]

I think Nigel's point about visability vs low cloud is valid. The problem is that you rarely know what the weather is going to do, especially in the hills. Moreover, given the versitility of helicopters, there will always be missions where you will not know whether the weather is going to allow you to get to your destination VFR.

Nigel's local knowledge allows him to decide if he can get over the last hill before home. True, flying below a low (300' say) cloud base in 9999s is bound to be easier than if the cloud base is say 700' with 3000m vis. But local knowledge is just that. We all have it. But what I'm happy to do around my home base, doesn't mean to say I can safely fly in the same conditions somewhere new.

I would also be very careful assuming that flying low over a ridge line is "not in itself dangerous". There be dragons.

[nigelh]

Thanks for that JJ:ok: Helen sadly came along with an inane, uneducated attack at a time when ,unbelievably for pprune ,the thread was not taken over by self righteous so called pilots who never fly in less than cavok etc etc
This is not about personalities and point scoring ...it is about addressing a REAL problem the helicopter community have. I do not believe you are going to stop people flying in bad weather...i do it all the time here..it is part of living in yorkshire !! I do firmly believe that it is in the training we give. I was lucky that i had a head start when i started flying in UK weather having done crop spraying which gives you an insight into safe low level flying. I also believe that most pilots who have developed their method for scud running have done it by trial and error...and they are the survivors. We need to impress upon pilots ( again IMHO) that in bad weather FORGET about 500ft and all that crap...all you HAVE to do is keep OUT of cloud. At the point where you are below the cloud you can decide whether to make that descent part of a precautionary landing or carry on at a speed where you can see obstacles AND stop if faced with cloud on the ground. IF you try to do as you have been taught...ie i MUST keep 500ft then you are likely to enter cloud and the rest is history. QUESTION. How many scud running flights have come to grief in last few years by flying into obstacles (i am not counting aerial work etc ) ??? How many have ended up in disorientation ???? We should teach students that staying clear of cloud is the only golden rule and if you go low you go SLOW.

[Droopystop]

Nigel,

Well said. I think if I was still instructing, I would be inlcined to get students to practice forced landings for reasons other than the donk stopping. The height at which a flight should result in a forced landing (due low cloud) is a point for discussion, and would depend on a whole raft of factors (terrain, obstructions, aircraft type, laws, pilot experience to name a few) and therefore be determined on a case by case basis. I think however it would be difficult to justify continued flight where the 500' rule (and indeed the rest of the fifth rule) cannot be observed due to a lowering cloud base and if that were the case, it would be time to start selecting a field.

[120torque]

I mostly agree with Nigel, however, it appears that he has a lot of experience with flying in multiple roles which enables the motor skills of flying, navigating and communicating easier so concentration on wire spotting is improved. One would be concerened if a SFH pilot in a R22/R44 now thinks lets not worry about cloud base as long as I have decent vis lets go!

Of course, unfortunately, pilots have to experience bad weather, high ground, etc to find their limits - they can't all be taught as they are always changing with a gain of skills with experience of different conditions. An example - Immediatly post ppl I lifted from a private site with 400ft cloud base and 3-4k vis - I felt that was my limit and landed. Now with quite a few more hours and some bad weather experience those figures would be acceptable and the flight would have been conducted safely.

Also, I'd rather fly in lower than perfect wx with a 250hr pilot who has flown in good, bad & very bad weather/vis & worked out his limits than a 10000 hour pilot who has flown where cloud base is 25000ft with 10k+ vis most days.

[B47]

As a fellow Yorkshire based pilot, Nigel's points re. weather and go/no go decisions are spot on. If you try and use your machine for transport, rather than flying the local area for pleasure only in good weather, you are faced with the same decisions as the pros. No more or less pressure to go or to press on, that's not where the problem lies so long as you have the balls to say no to your passengers. It is when most of your route looks OK for weather but one bit is uncertain. Of course you go, otherwise, as he says you'd hardly ever fly.

I was one of the many who tried to get back north from the Goodwood Festival of Speed last month and that day was a perfect example. Forecast good enough to go, but a bit of doubt about the return. Ended up routing via south coast and choosing the lowest ground to fly. Kent, Thames, Essex, north rather than South Downs and the Chilterns. In parts ended up doing 40kts to gently probe a way through. Low and slow is fine - you're not going to fly into cloud in good light if you are slow enough. When it got worse, we spent the night at a friend's house in Kent. Had I known it would be precisely those conditions then of course I wouldn't have gone that day. But, until weather forecasts are accurate and understandable (by heavens I try..), there will always be days like that.

To answer TOT's problem with cocky new PPL's, I think the answer is simple. An LPC check is not just to check physical flying ability. I always understood the examiner was asking him/herself 'would I let my partner and children fly with this pilot?' If there is any doubt about that, don't sign them off. Attitude is far more important than just aptitude on the controls.

As an R44 owner, I think the 44 has opened this risk up enormously in recent years. (down Nigel, non of your 44 jibes...!) Now the most popular type, many new PPLs are flying three people around not just one. Of course one accident or casualty is too many, but recent accidents show how many more passengers on non commercial/AOC flights are being put at risk. More seats, more miles flown, in private four seat machines than ever before.

Access to data has never been easier, but the presentation of Notams and weather is frankly diabolical. How on earth does a 80 hr PPL really work out what it's like 100 miles away?

[nigelh]

B47 I totally agree with all. By the way i would not make a joke about the R44. I was so impressed with the one i went in i bought one for my keeper!!
But on serious side ...how do you get your weather ...avbrief..metoffice...they are all pretty poor and do not give any indication about local wx where there are no airports. As for notams ...is there an easy way of trawling through those ? A friend of mine has his telephone ( sat and mobile) plumbed into his machine and when confronted with deteriorating wx he calls his mate who is an expert and he guides him around it. Now if we could all have that :ok:
One thing that troubles me is that for all this talk about how to train pilots better , will anything actually be done or will we just keep to the same methods. As we basically live in a country with crap weather...then crap weather should form a large part of out training, which it doesnt. ( i am sure that some schools do take their students up in bad weather but not all and it is not,asi am aware even a requirement)

[Gaseous]

I recall a thread a few years ago similar to this. I put up a post then stating that the CAA would not prosecute for a visibility related infringement of the old rule 5. The gent who told me that has now long gone but hopefully the policy survives.

Do not crash to avoid prosecution. If you need to fly lower, slower, or land, do it. Dont let the law cloud (ha, ha) your judgement if up against it. Flying in cloud is really crap. Been there, done that, didn't like it.

EGNH (nearest report) TAFs in my experience are a guide only for Lancashire's hill country. If you fly long enough in Lancashire you WILL end up in weather totally different to the forecast. I have now done all of the following. Landed, turned round and gone home, gone up, gone down. In fact everything except crashing. Going up tends to make it worse. Favourite is any hint of poor vis do a 180 and go home. Oh and I'd rather not be in a Robbie either if it gets thick.

I dont yet have thousands of hours but have more than a thousand flights in Lancashire.

I would expect the same applies over quite a lot of the UK.

[[email protected]]

Here is a simple rule - if you can't accurately assess the weather en route - drive instead of fly. There is plenty of met info available on the internet and other sources - the only thing preventing you from interpreting it is laziness. There are so many good books on met available - it is not rocket science or a black art.

If you think that a metman from many miles away will be able to give you a spot-on local forecast for a remote area then you are deluding yourself. You probably know your local area and micro-climates better than most if you fly in it regularly - apply this knowledge to a sound knowledge of met principles and you are more likely to make an accurate assessment.

As far as met is concerned, knowledge is not only power but safety!

Launching on a telephone report of 200' above a saddle is OK as long as you have sensible alternatives so that when you get there and the cloudbase has lowered (as it can do quickly in hills) you are prepared to cancel your trip and go home. If you decide to press on because you have an appointment to make and you got through OK last time - then you are well on your way to becoming a statistic.

[DONKEY73]

Flying at < 500ft


At those hieghts in the event of an engine failure would you have sufficient time to turn into wind and succesfully enter an auto. ?

[Gaseous]

Yes.
This bit added to make up 10 characters.

[nigelh]

As Gaseous said...YES , there is time ...but if there isnt well do your landing downwind. This is the same mindset as having to stay 500 ft to be legal....engine failure is not something that needs to be in your mind when your only priority is staying clear of cloud. Get your instructor/whoever to do some low level autos right down even to 100ft ( you can go right down to 20ft if youlike )and you will see there is no problem. ( finding a nice perfect spot may be tricky tho !!)

[[email protected]]

As a premeditated exercise you might get round 180 degrees from below 500' and make a safe EOL (if there is a suitable landing area). However, in the real case where it takes a second or two to recognise the failure and react you are poorly placed.

As to downwind EOLs .. in 5-10 kts maybe but in 20 - 30 kts fat chance especially as it will be something you have never seen before.

You need to practise LL autos and EOLs a lot to have any chance of surviving and your choice of landing areas is very limited - don't kid yourselves that this is a realistic risk to take when deciding to press on in poor wx.

[gulliBell]

"Flying at < 500ft At those hieghts in the event of an engine failure would you have sufficient time to turn into wind and succesfully enter an auto. ?"

That wouldn't enter my mind for even the slightest consideration if forced down low through stress of weather to remain visual with terrain. After >10,000 engine operating hours and never having one spit the dummy, I would be far more concerned at executing my best option plan to remain visual below 500ft rather than decisions being influenced to keep as much height below me in the (very unlikely) event of engine failure.

And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go.

On those few ocassions where I have screwed up, even descending through 10,000ft of cloud in a VFR helicopter is possible if you know exactly where you are, and you can end up over water where more often than not you have a couple of hundred feet of cloud base to play with, then fly back towards the coast visually.

I don't advocate flying in cloud in VFR helicopters, and I don't advocate scud running and flying into something either. But being human, sometimes you do screw up, and having an otherwise undesireable Plan B to fall back on can be lifesaving.

Note: said VFR helicopter above was at least equipped with an attitude reference.

[hihover]

"We need to impress upon pilots ( again IMHO) that in bad weather FORGET about 500ft and all that crap...all you HAVE to do is keep OUT of cloud."

I'm afraid I just don't see it your way. This is not the message we should be teaching pilots at any level. I believe you are in the dangerous position of believing that what works for you should work for everyone else. That is not and will never be the case.

A VFR flight is a VFR flight. VFR with an unplanned IMC excursion is inexcusable, the flight should have been terminated way before that point - this is what we should be emphasising - IMO.

These rules were not written overnight, they are the result of a long learning process which is continually changing. They are there to protect us from ourselves and whilst I agree there could be room for manoeuvre for those experienced pilots, the rules are there for everyone and should apply to everyone, otherwise we need to appoint someone as the line drawer. Where do we draw the line? Who draws the line?

Sorry Nigel, pilots grow older and more experienced through nurture and supervision, not through a blatant disregard for rules that don't suit them. IMHO, your emphasis is not in the best interests of the helicopter community as a whole, and that is the emphasis that the rulemakers are interested in.

We can't enforce experience and judgement, those have to be developed individually, this is where interpretation of weather reports either works or does not work. If interpreting the ample weather info in the UK is too difficult, cancel the flight, in the meantime, pilots need a set of rules to which they must adhere.

You make some valid points but I just don't share your outlook.

tam

[Johe02]

I agree with Nigel for VFR - "We need to impress upon pilots ( again IMHO) that in bad weather FORGET about 500ft and all that crap...all you HAVE to do is keep OUT of cloud."

I also believe the extra 5 hours added to the PPL(H) course for 'instrument appreciation' is a contributory factor to accidents like these. (Of which there seems to be an increase since it was introduced)

[EESDL]

Now that is something worth getting concerned about - has the instrument appreciation course resulted in an unpredicted increase in inexperienced pilots thinking they now have another credible option if they fly into smeg - only to end up as a statistic - with a whole bucket load of other pilots having narrow escapes and increased laundry bill?

[psyan]

hihover wrote: " A VFR flight is a VFR flight. VFR with an unplanned IMC excursion is inexcusable, the flight should have been terminated way before that point - this is what we should be emphasising - IMO."

And until there is proof of a technical failure - and I sincerely doubt that there was - the underlined statement is 100% correct. There is no interpretation required here, even a complete numpty on weather interpretation/assessment can be expected to determine existing conditions reasonably accurately in terms of horizontal visibility and cloud base, and be able to do so fairly accurately.

In a number of incidents I suspect that there has been insufficient planning prior to flight. Known circumstances in this case indicate to me that any planning that might have taken place prior to flight was limited and insufficient even at a basic level.

It is a common mistake to assume that following the M6 north from the Garstang area, will lead to a sometimes passable gap in bad weather. It points to the right direction but inevitably leads you higher and higher. The bad weather route is some distance away to the east.

What we apparently have here is a complete and utter lack of Captaincy and an utter disregard for established protocols and procedures. The aircraft should have been landed well before as stated instead of pressonitis taking control.

JMO

Best Wishes

[rotorspeed]

While there have been some good points made here about the absolute importance of remaining VMC in poor weather and going lower and slower to ensure this, some comments do worry me.

GulliBell, you've obviously got loads of experience but there is no way non IR pilots, especially those with far fewer hours than you, should be encouraged to do as you promote:

"there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go."

I do appreciate you said earlier that this applied to when you could not land, perhaps being over forest/ mountainous terrain etc, but the decision to carry on in poor weather must take where to land in hurry into account. Flying VFR you just should not get yourself into a situation where you cannot land if it deteriorates further. That must always be an option. Frankly it should always be there for engine failure anyway, if you are not going to endanger life, assuming you have pax, though do agree it's a relatively minimal risk.

It really must be understood that going IMC puts a whole new complexion on the flight. An intended IFR flight is planned knowing that you have known diversion (if not always accurate destination) weather and diversion fuel, all charts, approach plates, MSA, en route weather, freezing level, fully serviceable IFR aircraft etc. The chances are few if any of that will be known as you suddenly decide on impulse to climb into IMC.

In a VFR machine, pilot stress loads are going to be pretty high going IMC and even assuming that control is no problem (which it may well be sooner or later) trying to work out where you are going to let down safely is going to be a major challenge and require a level of discipline that may well not exist. If the weather is bad enough to make you think about punching up, it's likely to be bad enough that letting down is hardly going to have you VMC at 1000ft.

There is a world of difference to being IFR in IMC and committed to being so until you can safely get VMC, and to being VFR when you can put it on the ground literally the minute to wish to.

[nigelh]

You need to practise LL autos and EOLs a lot to have any chance of surviving and your choice of landing areas is very limited - don't kid yourselves that this is a realistic risk to take when deciding to press on in poor wx.
crab...i agree but once you have set down the route to get out of the weather low level i do not believe that 1% of your brain should be worrying about engine failure !!!!
A VFR flight is a VFR flight. VFR with an unplanned IMC excursion is inexcusable, the flight should have been terminated way before that point - this is what we should be emphasising - IMO.
hihover..that is fine but we live in the real world where people will set off in a hope of finding a clear route.....rightly or wrongly. Also ( not trying to be a smart ass but..) if the rules set out are so well thought out and for our benefit do you believe that they are working ???? It is pointless saying thou shalt not....when you know people like us WILL !!!!!
DONT make the mistake that i am advocating pressing on etc i am purely stating what i believe you should do if you decide to push it "a little" with the knowledge that you "may" have to put down at short notice. As i said before i hardly know of ANY accidents from flying too low and bumping into something ...but know of dozens where they were obviously too high and "in it". If you do not lose reference i would suggest you are very much less likely to crash, hence go as low as you need to and this can form part of your long landing approach and keep it dead slow.

As for punching up .....well if i were a better pilot and had 100,s hours instrument then i agree but for me i think it would be a death sentence and would rather put it down on a hill or into trees and write it off if there were no other way out. However you always have a chance if you are daft enough to get into that position ....i know 2 people at least who have hovvered 5ft above a tree top and the other a rock outcrop, they have waited for 45 min in the hovver and then a break came ....PHEW :ok:

[MINself]

Johe02, I am suprised that you think since the addition of the insturment flying section of the PPL(H) that accidents have increased. Surely the limited IF on the PPL course must demonstrate how different a skill IF is compared to VFR flight and how critical it is to stay out of cloud. Or is it that a little knowledge is dangerous?

IMHO, SPIFR in IMC is the hardest of all skills and 5hrs IF appreciation doesn't even begin to prepare a pilot for the work load of the initial disorientation of inadvertent IMC, let alone trying to form a plan to get yourself home!

Couldn't agree more with hihover, a VFR flight is just that, stay out of cloud at all costs unless you are rated and current. There are enough sources of met information in the UK and although forecasts can be wrong this is not an excuse to fly below VFR limits, but if in doubt slow down and fly lower or turn back or land or end up another statistic, your choice.

MS

[DONKEY73]

Surely the limited IF on the PPL course must demonstrate how different a skill IF is compared to VFR flight and how critical it is to stay out of cloud

I totally agree, i found the 5 hours a massive deterent to going IMC.

[nigelh]

I imagine that most of the instrument practice is done with a hood ? When i did my hood flying i found it very easy...up...down ...turns etc absolutely NO problem . Then i flew in cloud ....:confused: no peeking out of the bottom of the hood....no idea of up and down from the brightness...:uhoh: my small brain shrinking as even the simplest of tasks like changing radio freq becomes a massive task ...that feeling of panic lurking just below the surface.......and that was WITH another ir pilot !!! I may be wrong but hood prepared me IN NO WAY for the real thing. Your brain is going to play tricks with you.......maybe there should be either some proper instrument training ....or none.? My tuppence worth is maybe there should be more with some actual . ( done in a single with high cloud base with caa approval etc)

[Max_Chat]

Some of the views expressed, in relation to how to deal with deteriorating weather, really concerns me. It sounds like egos and confidence are way out of proportion to experience for some posting here.

The rules are in place for your safety and those of your passengers, if you come up to the limits then land and wait, don't bust them! :ugh:

This is not rocket science.

[gulliBell]

"As for punching up .....well if i were a better pilot and had 100,s hours instrument then i agree but for me i think it would be a death sentence and would rather put it down on a hill or into trees and write it off if there were no other way out."

Agreed.

However. My posting was purely mentioned in the context of real life situations I have found myself in, which in the prevailing circumstances "punching up" was a far better option than putting it in a tree. For they were the only 2 remaining choices. To have put it in a tree they would never have found me (8/8th remote mountainous jungle with 200+ foot canopy), and I would be dead.

I am no stranger to IFR, but in properly equipped helicopters. So taking a punt on "punching up" in a VFR helicopter and flying it for 30 minutes in the gloop, which is not a very comfortably feeling I might add, proved to be the better option. Because I lived, and learned from the experience. But again, I re-iterate, it is an option of absolute last resort and should not be attempted by anyone with limited IFR experience. Otherwise, put it in the tree as Nigels suggests and take your chances.

Edit: And I agree also with Nigel that IF flying practice/training solely under the hood, does not prepare you adequately for flying in cloud.

[ShouldItDoThat]

The instrument training should be undertaken over water. You'll notice an immediate deterioration as you leave land and the brain loses the visual clues you're not even aware of.

SIDT

[hihover]

"hihover..that is fine but we live in the real world where people will set off in a hope of finding a clear route.....rightly or wrongly. Also ( not trying to be a smart ass but..) if the rules set out are so well thought out and for our benefit do you believe that they are working ???? It is pointless saying thou shalt not....when you know people like us WILL !!!!!"

I agree that in the real world, there are times when we can apply local knowledge to a general forecast and we can expect to find a way through - I see nothing wrong with that if the adventure is thought through and flown within the rules. But if you can't get through without breaking the rules then you have to call it a day before you put yourself and your passengers and the unsuspecting public below you in danger. You are advocationg that you continue probing and looking for that way through, even if it means a 45 minute hover over trees or slow to a creeping speed in order to make it work when all the indications are bad..... come on Nigel.

Do I think the rules are working? Absolutely yes, based on the number of safe flights carried out each day.

If you can come up with a better set, you may want to present it to someone who can have the rules changed.

Do bear in mind, the moment we start breaking the rules, insurance policies become just pieces of paper. That is always at the back of my mind.

Thou shalt not..... is not what I'm saying, I'm saying if thou bl00dy does, then thou needst to be able to defend thyself when thou cocks it up. Non-compliance because you don't like a rule or because you know better will not work. I don't make the rules Nigel, like most, I try my best to adhere to them because they have been set by better and wiser people than I.

[mickjoebill]

Is part of the probelm that when it gets really hairy it is too late to find a suitable safe landing site?

How many cases are there of pilots who knowing they are out of their depth in poor weather conditions opt for putting it down with the certain knowledge that some damage will be done to the aircraft, rather than continue in IMC?


Mickjoebill

[Gaseous]

The 500 ft rule is there to stop us pissing people off on the ground. Not for our safety. If there is clear air at 300ft and cloud at 500 I know where I am going to be. If I am at 300ft I will be landing if safe. This does not infringe rule 5. The 500 ft rule is about socially acceptable flying. Dont die because of it. Bear in mind that if you are at 500 ft but in cloud you are still breaking the law, a different law, and putting yourself at great risk.

In an ideal world we would all fly in CAVOK but life just isnt like that.

I also think that the 5 hours instrument appreciation is worthwhile. If you really end up in the **** then at least you have a chance of getting out of it. Its not ideal training for IMC but its better than none.

[nigelh]

Hihover ...i accept your point but i was never suggesting pushing to the limit where you end up like my two friends !!!! That was just a point to make that IF you got in that position there are alternatives to going into cloud.
I,m not sure that the rules really are working in this instance but as has been said before flying below 500ft is not illegal....even over obstacles etc ....if it is part of your approach to find a suitable landing spot. If at the end of your approach there is a clear break then you may choose to abort your planned landing .:ok:

[MINself]

I appreciate the making an approach to land arguement, but by that rationale couldn't you claim that could fly low level, below VFR limits, making several "approaches" to a landing site that kept getting further away? surely the CAA has heard that excuse before?

[[email protected]]

Nigel, I am sorry to say it but Helen's earlier assessment seems to be true if you believe what you are posting about rules.

Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it.

The graveyards are full of pilots who thought they knew better than the legislators and then discovered the rules were there for thier protection, mainly from themselves.

It is strange that you acknowledge your limitations with regard to instrument flight but not low level/poor weather flight.

If your are on a VFR transit and your choice is to descend below 500' or turn back then you should make the turn back decision then, not 5 miles later when you are now at 100' having compromised your safety and that of your passengers.

If you want the thrill of low flying then do it over a suitable area on a good day - don't wait until you are forced into it by weather.

[Max_Chat]

Crab@SAAvn you are lucid as ever.

And it is true that "Experience is something that you wished you had a few moments before".

Overconfidence is a killer. How many pilots have returned to a crew room with tales of woe and thanking God they "got away with it". Of course those you do not hear from are those that "did NOT get away with it".

The impresion that some are giving is that it is a slur on their abilities to infer that landing is sometimes the better option, indeed some are quite blatent in their opinion that rules are for obedience of fools and the guidence of wise men. Well, not a great deal of wisdom is being demenstrated by some.

[HillerBee]

You won't die from landing in a field, you might if you're pushing through.

[Flaxton Flyer]

Mmmmm. Not sure I like where this is all heading. Launch into the unknown on the say-so of an observer at the other end (who undoubtably isn't a trained weather person) that you have a 200' gap under the clouds, fly as low as you like, and don't worry about an engine failure as it is an unlikely event anyway.

Pretty much everything you were taught NOT to do on your PPL course.

We've all done it, and hopefully we've all regretted it half way through and sworn we would never do it again when we have been lucky enough to survive. However, I would guess (hope) we have done it after being caught out by a dodgy forecast or just poor interpretation of said forecast.

What seems to be being advocated here is "pre-planned press-onitis" if such a thing exists. I think we should be really careful about promoting this as an acceptable form of "flight planning".

Maybe taken individually each of the above elements may be considered an acceptable risk. Put them together, and the holes in your Swiss Cheese Accident Model are starting to line up.

[Max_Chat]

Just a thought. I wonder if the CAA and PFA read these forums?

[hihover]

Flaxton,

Pre-planned pressonitis - exactly what it sounds like and very difinitely not the message that should be sent out by experienced pilots.

What concerns me most is the lack of a decision to cancel/abort. Some of these guys seem quite keen to fly themselves into a corner with the knowledge that it will be ok as there are other tricks that can be pulled out of the bag. It is not acceptable to take it that far, breaking rules or not.

It is not as simple as stating "just stay out of cloud", I would much rather be hearing "just don't allow unprofessionalism to get yourself into that mess in the first place".

What kind of message is being sent by you more experienced and influential pilots to the newer pilots you are in contact with?

tam

[nigelh]

Everything you say above makes total sense. IF there are to be rules then they have to be set somewhere ..i agree. Nowhere have i implied that you should plough on until 100ft !!! If you read carefully you will see that the point i have tried to make is that IF you get into bad weather then there may be a totally safe way under it but below 500ft....whatever you say on this site can be misinterpreted , and usually is !! You may disagree with me but it appears a lot of experienced pilots AGREE with me ...so we shall have to agree to disagree !!! ONE LAST TIME for the record .....i do not advocate flying low level in bad viz....period. But your point about turning back when it is 500ft just is not realistic and we all know that. At the end of the day it is each to his own . I still cannot accept that flying low is dangerous .....sorry !!!! Or maybe you can give me some incidents due to low level flying ???? I am prepared to learn and be corrected.

As for the caa reading ...fine !! This forum is for the discussion of safety matters and they should be delighted that people are talking about them.
Do not forget once again flight below 500ft is NOT illegal and CAN be the safest .

[Flingingwings]

Nigel,
Flight below 500' is not AWLAYS illegal. There are SOME cases when it would be though.
Flying into cloud as a low/medium hours PPL WILL kill you (and your passengers).
Keeping clear of cloud is common sense. Pushing that clear of cloud until the point that you end up flying into it at 100-200' AGL and slow IS a truly frightening prospect.
The rules are restrictive, but all these CFIT incidents show is that for those that bend or break those rules the incident rate is high and injuries are severe. More flexible rules would only lead to more problems. Schools should take an active interest in all hires before authorising a flight. I wonder what percentage of CFIT are owners????
More worryingly the latest Trainingcom from the CAA details something like 6 out of 24 CFIT incidents had instructors onboard. We don't learn. The Jetranger that waited on the ground something like three hours before setting off again only to crash is a good example.
As a VFR pilot there is NO excuse for flying into cloud. (That common sense shouldn't have avoided in the first place.)

Got the figures now. From Heli Trainingcom 1/2007.

Research into the AAIB website for the 5 years pre and post JAR implementation (1996-2005) indicate there were 24 helicopter accidents in the UK where disorientation was a contributory factor and whilst 16 of those involved were PPl holders, of those only three were JAR PPL holders and two of those had night qualifications (6 accidents were with FI's on board). There is no obvious trend in aircraft type, teh accidents are split evenly between night and day flying, however it was noted teh majority of pilots involved did have less than 1000 flight hours

[jellycopter]

Crab said:

"Just because a rule doesn't suit you or what you perceive your capabilities to be does not give you carte blanche to ignore it."

A bit pious don't you think Crab? From your comment it would also follow that you're never found driving over 70mph on a motorway.........?

I don't know who said it but it stands in every other aspect of life so I don't necessarily see why aviation should be different - Rules/Laws are there for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools.

And before everyone jumps on what I've posted, I'll put it into context. I'm not advocating routinely breaking Rule 5 (or any other Rule for that matter). What I'm trying to say is that sometimes, every so often, when the weather is marginal a flight can be accomplished more safely by not worrying overly about breaking the 500ft Rule when staying VMC is paramount. This will then provide the thinking time to make a decision to land, turn round, or continue.

John Jackson

[nigelh]

Flingingwing .......... Pushing that clear of cloud until the point that you end up flying into it at 100-200' AGL and slow IS a truly frightening prospect

I promised myself i would let this drop .............you obviously believe it is unsafe to fly low. That is fine with me , but i think your emphasis on hight being safe is just wrong...on certain occasions .. You emphasise disorientation as a prime cause of accidents and i agree. Surely you must agree that being below the cloud , albeit for a while at below the magic 500ft , in good viz has just GOT to be the safe option ???? I do not believe for one minute that you would be scared if i flew you at 2-300 agl over a hill without a cloud above ??? The whole point of SLOW is that you have time to stop or turn and is good sense in any weather low level IMHO.
over and out !! fly safe.

[MightyGem]

Nigel, you may feel comfortable doing what you describe, but you are wrong to try and encourage others to do the same. Planning to fly through a gap in the hills, with low cloud, that you are familiar with is one thing. Continuing on in deteriorating/bad weather is another.
How long can a pilot who has little or no instrument training expect to live after he flies into bad weather and loses visual contact? Researchers at the University of Illinois did some tests and came up with some very interesting data. Twenty student "guinea pigs" flew into simulated instrument weather, and all went into graveyard spirals or rollercoasters [a tribute to the U of I flight training program??]. The outcome differed in only one respect - the time required till control was lost. The interval ranged from 480 seconds to 20 seconds. The average time was 178 seconds -- two seconds short of three minutes.
Here's the fatal scenario. . . . . . .
The sky is overcast and the visibility is poor. That reported five mile visibility looks more like two, and you can't judge the height of the overcast. Your altimeter tells you that you are at 1500 feet but your map tells you that there's lcoal terrain as high as 1200 feet. There might be a tower nearby because you're not sure how far off course you are. But you've flown into worse weather than this, so press on.
You find yourself unconsciously easing back just a bit on the controls to clear those towers. With no warning, you're in the soup. You peer so hard into the milky white mist that your eyes hurt. You fight the feeling in your stomach. You try to swallow, only to find your mouth dry. Now you realize you should have waited for better weather. The appointment was important, but not all that important. Somewhere a voice is saying, "You've had it -- it's all over!"
You now have 178 seconds to live.
Your aircraft feels on even keel but your compass turns slowly. You push a little rudder and add a little pressure on the controls to stop the turn but this feels unnatural and you return the controls to their original position. This feels better but now your compass is turning a little faster and your airspeed is increasing slightly. You scan your instruments for help but what you see looks somewhat unfamiliar. You're sure that this is just a bad spot. You'll break out in a few minutes. (But you don't have a few minutes left. . .)
You now have 100 seconds to live.
You glance at your altimeter and you are shocked to see it unwinding. You're already down to 1200 feet. Instinctively, you pull back on the controls but the altimeter still unwinds. The engine is into the red and the airspeed, nearly so.
You have 45 seconds to live.
Now you're sweating and shaking. There must be something wrong with the controls; pulling back only moves the airspeed indicator further into the red. You can hear the wind tearing at the aircraft.
You are about to meet your Maker; you have 10 seconds to live.
Suddenly you see the ground. The trees rush up at you. You can see the horizon if you turn your head far enough but it's at a weird angle -- you're almost inverted. You open your mouth to scream but. . . . . .
. . . .you just ran out of seconds.
Think about it before you press on into marginal weather.
Remeber, the above example takes place in a nice, stable fixed wing, not an unstable helicopter.

[Max_Chat]

The idea of "breaking rules being OK" on occasions is worrying. The Human Factors book that I have has some interesting things to say about this sort of behaviour.

"It is probably true to say that it is the development of rule based behaviours or procedures in aviation, and the associated training and checking of these behaviours, that has made commercial aviation as safe as it is". And, "Errors may also occur if the pilot believes that it is safe to depart from the procedure (disregard the rules).

[MINself]

The short time you have left, if you press on and you end up in cloud might just be long enough to consider the words of some that advocate.

And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go.

for a non-IR pilot in a non-IFR equipped helicopter encountering inadvertent IMC, MightyGems's post should reinforce how important it is to stay out of cloud and to make an early met "go/no go" call and don't listen to those that advocate "scud running" 500' from objects is tricky when your below 500' agl, certainly in most places in the UK.

Regardless of if you have 5 hours PPL instrument appreciation, if the moment comes that you take a risk and "climb up into it" the initial disorientation will be imense and it is likely that some of the pilots that have been sadly killed in accidents with a contributing factor of inadvertent IMC probably shared the above thoughts right up until second 178.

[nigelh]

Mighty Gem ....your post is the perfect example of what i mean . There was an unecessary urgency to gain hight and visual contact lost.....i could not have put it any better. Thankyou. The pilot in your scenario would have lived if he had stayed in contact with the ground. Period. To continue into worse weather is just plain stupid, i agree.
Still nobody has come up with any relevant number of incidents where people
have flown into objects whilst remaining vfr...why is that ? There seem to be loads of inadvertant imc......dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??

Max Chat ....i guess you are one of those guys that does a steady 70 on the m,way am i right ??

[Gaseous]

Quote:
"And as for my thoughts on scud running, if you've been caught out in bad weather with no landing options, rather than going lower and lower and risk hitting something, there comes a point where I say bugger this and climb up into it, to a height where I know I'm not going to hit anything. It's a horrible choice but I'd rather be in the gloop at a safe height in a VFR helicopter, rather than risk flying into the ground or an unseen obstacle, burning up fuel with nowhere else to go."



Climbing into cloud is really,really bad thing to do. If you fly a 22 or 44 which has no central bias for the cyclic. This is seriously bad. You will very likely lose it.
Its not about getting away with it by low flying. If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in.You may be able to fly lower but the risk of wire/obstcle strike increases, and what happens if you then fly into a bank of cloud at 200 ft agl? You're really in it then.
Northern British weather is a serious handicap to using a helicopter as an alternative to a car. Get over it. I have.
Nigel, You are right. The CFIT accidents all happen because people end up in disorientated in cloud. We'll never know because they are dead, but its a fair probability that they ignored the early signs of entering IMC and they pressed on. The risk with the press on approach is you will one day say "Bugger it" and climb into the gloop.
Theres nothing wrong with the rules, and the training is sensible if it is followed. it should enable you to do a level turn 180 to get you out of the cloud you just flew into. It does not train you for sustained flight in cloud and it cannot eliminate the risk of CFIT but sure as hell, not following it makes it a whole lot more likely.
Nigel,
We agree, dont fly in cloud, but pressing on in the way you suggest is taking on unnecessary risk and suggesting it as an alternative which may be tempting to low hour pilots is way off the mark.
You ask ".....dont you think someone is trying to tell us something ??"
Yes. Abort earlier or dont go at all. Dont press on. Dont fly at 500ft scud running to stay 'legal'. Dont fly in cloud. Dont try and scrape under it. Dont crash and die.
Fly safely
Phil Price.

[Max_Chat]

nigelh,

Max Chat ....i guess you are one of those guys that does a steady 70 on the m,way am i right ??

No, you are wrong. I sometimes drive at 65 if the conditions dictate, and if it is really $hitty I don't go at all.

Anyhow, with your attitude, and the lack of willingness to see what is an obvious fault in your reasoning, I will sign off and hope that you continue to "get away with it".

[gulliBell]

"If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in."

Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about flying in marginal weather below 500ft if you always keep a workable Plan B option to fall back on (and in my books, thinking IFR in a VFR machine doesn't constitute a Plan B, it's a Plan Z).

If the weather is really bad and you're entering the unsafe zone and decide to land or turn back, no problem, nobody will criticise you for that. But turning around only because you've got a bit less than 500ft to play with and the weather looks a bit iffy here and there, might earn you criticism in some instances for not showing enough "operational flexibility" (as some employers like to call it). You're tapped on the shoulder and told to start looking for another job, or just told to go.

I have never criticised any pilot for turning around, it's their decision to make and I will stand by it. I will express concern if they plough on into bad weather when other options are available. Time and time again we read in reports of one pilot having observed another doing something wrong, and nothing is said, and they fly it into the ground or run out of fuel, or descend below a minima, or not follow a clearance etc etc. And it's not an experience thing, it's commonly an attitude thing (or more correctly, "human factors"), and more often than not it's the experienced guys who come unstuck.

In the real world sometimes you get whacked by bad luck, and it happens whatever your experience level. If exercising superior judgement hasn't saved you from needing superior skill, and you need to bend a few rules, then let it be known so we can all learn from it.

[Mars]

Nigel:

Still nobody has come up with any relevant number of incidents where people have flown into objects whilst remaining vfr...why is that ?is it because they are flying "in accordance with the visual rules" using "see and avoid"? At the point when you cannot operate in accordance with the visual rules you risk one of two consequences: disorientation; or CFIT.

Continuing your call for pilots to bend the rules only reinforces the opinion of those who believe that helicopter operations are dangerous.

Gullibell: (yes I am quoting selectively but that's the way these posts are read).

"If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in."

Fine in theory, but in sticking to this as a hard and fast rule might mean not getting 90% of the work done, or even none at all for days at a time. Keep to it and the customer in all likelihood will have you booted off the job.is advocacy for submitting to commercial pressure which you should be ashamed of.

There is nothing inherently unsafe about flying in marginal weather below 500ft I couldn't disagree more; it's the text "in marginal weather" which makes it unsafe.

I'm appalled by your complete disregard of rules; flight in cloud in a VFR machine whilst ignoring the operating rules is just stupid.

You appear to wear your disregard of rules as a badge-of-honour; your call for others to admit to doing the same only reinforces my view that your posts are all written "tongue in cheek". If not you might be best advised to delete them before your malign influence causes the accident rate to climb.

[MINself]

If you can't maintain 500 ft agl, clear of cloud, its time to drop down, slow down and land or go back as its not suitable weather to fly in.You may be able to fly lower but the risk of wire/obstcle strike increases, and what happens if you then fly into a bank of cloud at 200 ft agl? You're really in it then.

As a hard and fast rule, absolutely, this is the safest way to view VFR flight in the UK, be it private or commercial flight any thoughts about achieving the task are secondary to maintaining VFR limits and not breaking rule 5 which are both there to prevent the sort of accidents that happen year in year out because of trying to achieve "operational flexiblity".

The idea of promoting VFR flight below 500' in marginal conditions in the UK as an option is reckless and adds fuel to the fire for the NIMBY crowd. A willingness to fly in marginal weather is one of the contributing factors to the numerous inadvertent IMC/wire strike/CFIT incidents and accidents.

[tony 1969]

Very interesting discussion and IMHO I have to agree with "Mars" post above.
Just a couple of comments to add, we started off talking about R44 accident, The suggestion about punching up through cloud (albeit a tough choice) in something like a 44 is absolutely horrifying. dont mess about land the bloody thing or turn around.
As for pushing on in bad weather, I know a very good pilot who prides himself on never having had to turn back or not got to his destination, this is only because he makes a very good go/ no go decision, Get thereitis is a killer.
Not enough emphasis is placed on pre flight planning particularly with regard to weather. Instructors involve your students in the decision
I am not sure what can be done regards hirers/owners its all down to education I guess.
In the current PPL syllabus the 5 hours of sim. IR is a limited course and the student should be told this, this is not included to allow you to fly into a cloud. Apart from the fact that these aircraft are not certified for IFR flight and niether are the pilots, the student should also be briefed/demo on the loss of visual references, limits of human balance system, instability of A/C etc

Make agood go/ nogo decision if you really need to get there and it looks that marginal get the car out.
Fly safe

[Hairyplane]

I did my first land out a few months back. A mate of mine and I got within 5 miles of home that was it. Slower and slower, lower and lower in the increasing rain. We had a table booked, we were meeting friends - all too easy to press on.

The reality was interesting because we found ourselves overhead a microlight strip near Daventry. No sooner had we landed we were met by a charming and very welcoming farmers wife who immediately offered us a cup of tea followed by a lift home.

The next day was glorious.

As an ex-cop well used to dealing with grieving families, I could just imagine the questions, in bright sunshine - pile of bits in a smoking hole just up the road and 2 of us in the morgue - why didn't they put down? They had phones. Even if they were in the middle of nowhere, we could have found them quite easily and took them back in the morning to collect the aircraft. Why?

As it turned out, we did get to the restaurant on time and now have yet another interesting flying story to tell.

Take it from me, as OIC on the midair during the Kent Messenger Air Race back in the 70's between a Bolkow Monsun and a Piper Arrow, an air crash scene is ghastly. Memories only fade.

Remember also that a relative needs to identify you to the Coroners Officer.

Been there too..........

Hairyplane

[Dato_R44]

IMHO there appears to be a honest answer to the one of the issues discussed in this forum. In my entry four pages back I believe I pretty much delivered the same sentiments. As a retired police officer ( a traffic officer for a number of years) in training a 'pre-amble ' was required without exception EVERY time one entered the motor vehicle. parts of which I believe are in fact MORE appropriate to us as heli pilots and as a very low hour (c.150) pilot of a 44 it serves me well to consider several sections of this 'pre-amble' when I walk up to a machine to head out flying. They include:
"...I will fly this machine according to a system... each feature of which is considered, in sequence, by me the pilot... To do this will require my utmost concentration, which is the full application of mind and body to a particular endeavour to the complete exclusion of everything NOT relevant to that endeavour and my endeavour today is to fly this helicopter SAFELY, SMOOTHLY, PROGRESSIVELY and WELL.(** Important to note the order listed, if these endeavours cannot all be achieved then there is no "safely"**) I will formulate my flight plan on three things what I can see, what I cannot see and circumstances I may reasonably expect to develop. By flying my helicopter to this system I will ensure that the helicopter will be in the right place in the air, travelling at the right speed and... with the ability to safely and expeditiously return the helicopter to the ground in any event that compromises the integrity of the system."

Granted a few additions added to suit the occasion but fundamentally I believe, in particularly for us low hour pilots (and I consider <1000 to be low) that the consideration of these points will only help to prolong the joy of flying helicopters within the climate of the UK

DT

[nigelh]

What IS interesting is that there is a clear split between pilots who truly believe that flying below 500ft under cloud is dangerous and those that truly believe it is safer than trying to maintain 500ft. It would be interesting to see how the cpl,s feel versus the ppl,s ? If you are going for a jolly in poor weather why bother ? If you have a job to do i do not think you would last long turning back at the first sign of marginal weather . Most flights in the UK if long distance will have bits of them which are not great and just saying you are not going to fly in less than 500ft regardless is not realistic. The rules are there for guidance and cannot cover every scenario !!!!
Stick at 70mph on an empty motorway if you wish to , but do not say that anyone in a modern car doing 80 has a death wish !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dato R44.....and for those of us in England..a translation ?!!!
Flingwings....and tell me when can you guarantee good viz oop north ? Also if you bothered read my mail i have always said you should NOT go low in bad viz. .....i could get to know you better tho,..!!

[Flingingwings]

Nigel,
Thanks for the assessment about what I'd be comfortable about flying wise when you know absolutely nothing about me. I've never said that flight below 500' is dangerous, only that in some cicumstances it would be illegal. However, flight at low level and/or low speed in marginal viz and/or deteorating wx is a path for the foolish/suicidal!
I'd figured upon your response so here's the second paragraph from trainingcom..........
' A more detailed study reveals that the majority of flights involved pilots trying to return home/base, over terrain that they were reasonably familiar with and in weather that was forecast, or known to be unsuitable. Indications are that these pilots continued en-route, TRYING to stay below the cloud in POOR visibility and had not deliberately entered cloud to practise their IF skills'
Sound familiar?
Sorry Nigel but you cannot have your cake and eat it! Weather is forecast and observations aren't always accurate or correct. In poor weather you cannot guarantee good viz or cloud base, and if you cannot guarantee it will be SAFE should you be setting off?
Maybe thats why an amendement to the ANO has specified a min viz for VFR PPL pilots as of 15/3/07 ( ANO statutory Instrument 2007/number 274)
Ok Nigel, I'll take the bait. What figures do YOU use height and viz wise in deciding when to turn back? How do you decide what is SAFE for you? And how do you propose to transpose your/others judgement abilities to those with less practical experience? Alternatively what limits would you apply to Pilots? PPL sub 500TT, sub 1000TT, night rated? CPL?
I'm SPIFR qualified and current. There are still days I won't fly or can't fly legally. I aim to retire:ok:

Ps Jaffer and vage if your reading this thread and considering trying to push on as suggested CFIT, Elaine and Kim (respectively)will be the least of your worries :E

[Dato_R44]

Hi Nigel :) understood - this little preamble was required by all traffic officers when they sat in the drivers seat of a patrol car b4 driving off - it was voiced by the student to focus his attention on what he was about to do .. I consider that parts of this blurb serve me well when getting into the right hand seat of the 44...

DT

[hihover]

Hairy,

that's a really good story, and the next day being glorious is all too common.

I have searched for more than one dead friend on a sunny day.

I believe that one of the problems we are up against here is identifying that point in time/space where it is time to turn around/take another route/land/postpone/cancel.....whatever option the pilot chooses. It appears that we have a few who are so confident in their ability that identification of this point is given a low priority.

I too, have been in that situation where I did not identify that point based on the weather around me and the "importance" of the task until very late. I found a way to make it so much easier - when things are not going to plan, I continually ask myself "can I justify what I'm doing right now"? "If I have an incident right now and have to justify to all my peers (not to mention the legal system, military or civil) why I was here, will I look/feel like a pratt?

On many occasions, that question has prompted me to change the plan good and early, way before any rules are stretched or broken.

It works for me.

[nigelh]

Much clearer now . thankyou ociffer...:ok:

[MINself]

I'm sure that Mr CAA would say 'em rules is the rules! and when they were devised it was not envisaged that they would be interpreted as guidance! Would the 500' rule not be applicable in all VFR flight (no counting landing or take-off), if you were at flying at 200' agl "scud running" popping over pylons and flying over built up areas, would the task warrant this sort of flying?

Personally my worse flying experience was in IMC, at night at the end of a long day and that was on an approved IFR flight, the mixed messages between my inner ear and the instruments that I had to fight were nothing like driving too fast on the motorway.

To run the risk of inadvertent IMC because of pressonitis is reckless, as for the first signs of marginal weather and turning back, that sounds exactly when you should be turning back or diverting, if indeed the weather forecast has been wrong and don't be guided by ones interpretation of the VFR limits and rule 5. Flying below 500' agl whilst not always dangerous is often illegal and is best left to the military who practice this continually and not just every now and again when the weather deteriorates, which is just when you don't want to be discovering how tricky a skill low level flight is.

[anti-talk]

As a relatively inexperienced Commercial Pilot with an IR (2,500hrs) I can state that with all certainty that one of the most un-nerving expereinces that I have had to date is being in cloud at 3,000 MSL in mountainous terrain in a non IFR and equiped aircraft (Bell 206).

We shot a Localiser approach (we were lucky to have approach plates in a pilot bag) using a Vor reciever after 25 minutes of flight, breaking out at less than 400ft AGL, about 600 feet right of the centre line.

From my experience, please do not climb up into cloud if you are flying an R44 - LAND you are in a helicopter they can land almost anywhere!

Frankly it was a very frightening experience and not one I ever want to repeat, we were lucky to arrive on terra firma in one piece. We got Sh#tfaced that night.

I firmly believe that a pilot who isnt formally instrument trained who then enters prolonged IMC in a machine such as a 206 or R44 stands a VERY high chance of becoming another discussion point on this board -please learn from other peoples tragic mistakes and if the weather is bad - Land or dont even start the engine!!!

Geoff

[theavionicsbloke]

Nigel
I hear what you say about 'break the 500ft Rule if it's gonna prevent you from entering cloud'

However, I can't see how deliberately setting off into a situation where you predict (Or is evident from MET data) that you will need to descend below 500ft to remain clear of cloud can really be encouraged.


Surely, if your flight became subject of a complaint from a member of public or incident then the C.A.A's Legal Team may interpret this action as negligent thus rendering you liable to prosecution and or the possible suspension of you licence ?

[Hummingfrog]

I am a little concerned that there seems to be members of the helicopter community who are willing to push on in weather where they can't maintain 500ft from obstacles.

I can see Nigel's point about remaining in good viz below cloud rather than scud running at 500ft but that good visibility should be used to turn round or land not press on.

However, what appears to be a letterbox can lead you into further dangers especially if downwind where a turn away from the high ground can result in you being blown into it. Hills can also give you false visual horizons which can be deadly if you don't have an A/H.

In a past career I have entered cloud to hover taxi up into the hills to rescue someone but you have to be very very aware of what you are doing and have briefed yourself and crew of all the possibilities before entering the cloud. It is easy to get disoriented and you have to recognise the signs and abandon the attempt.

I now work in an environment which is very safety conscious and pushing limits is a definite no no. If the weather is below limits we don’t go or if the oil company wants us to give it a try we will - but on reaching the decision point usually 3/4nm and helideck height +50ft with no visual contact we go around and head back to the beach.

With passengers or loved ones on board I would never do what Nigel advocates. You may get away with it but there are plenty of suckers gaps which if you are not trained to do an IMC abort you will kill yourself. I have been in that position several times during my military career and each time have survived due to good training and good planning.

An example would be following the A9 in Scotland trying to get to Aviemore. Cloud base coming down so we were forced lower and lower until we would have been a danger to trucks on the road. No option to turn as valley too narrow so IMC abort done as briefed – on heading provided by co-pilot who knew orientation of valley – back to max angle of climb speed with full power. Check Doppler meter for ground speed – nearly zero so going up as planned – rad op gives advice on high ground in area climb to MSA and try to find a gap near Aviemore – no luck so ONLY option RTB even though there was an injured climber on the hill. As a/c captain you do not risk yourself or crew with reckless attempts to reach him– but he was rescued a little later by MRT.

For you less experienced non IR pilots do not press on – land or turn around while you can. I have been to too many a/c crashes and most of the civilian ones have been serviceable when they hit the ground.

HF

[S76Heavy]

IMO anyone who is willing to press on, especially if not IFR rated/equipped (which is no substitute for proper planning but gives you a fighting chance to find a way out after it has all gone pearshaped), becomes a candidate for the Darwin Awards.

The rules are there to protect you, your passengers and people on the ground. If you cannot make it today, try again another day.

[heliski22]

I should have thought the 500ft rule makes it easy to make a decision, especially when there are passengers aboard or waiting to be collected.

"Sorry, I can't go on, it's illegal!" The decision is made for you by the legislation, you can blame the regulators - if you want.

Getting below 500ft to, say, 400ft, means you're taking the decision-making onto yourself and now you've got nothing to hang your hat on, as it were, except your judgement.

Given that there is evidence of flawed judgement to begin with by breaking the 500ft rule in the first place, I'm of the view that you're now fully established, so to speak, on a slippery slope.

And they only go downhil.