Poor weather options

[[email protected]]

Just happened to be operating with Port Talbot ILB yesterday in Swansea Bay in rather poor weather - vis 1500m OVC at 200' in mist and -DZ - we used an internal radar letdown to get there.

On Swansea's frequency during our time there was a light piston helo grovelling around the coast to get to Pembrey at below 200' and another helo at 2000' planning to do a GPS letdown into Pembrey.

Now is it me or do both of those ideas seem to be accidents waiting to happen? The forecast was poor, the actual was poor - we were working moderately hard in a multi-crew aircraft designed to operate in such conditions - yet both these pilots pushed on instead of cancelling or turning back.

More by luck than judgement - and I assume they got where they were intending to go because D&D didn't call us to search for them - both flights were completed - I wonder if either pilot gave themselves a good talking to after the event.

One can only hope that the 'I learned about flying from that' lessons are actually being passed on.

A GPS letdown over the sea or coast when there is no discernable horizon below and very poor vis and cloudbase is almost suicidal because you have absolutely no idea what is beneath/in front of you, not to mention being illegal. Bimbling around at 200' in the same sh8te weather following a coast is an invitation to CFIT that sadly many have taken up and regretted.

Be professional in your aviating please because I really don't want to have to pick up the pieces.

Rant over.

[ShyTorque]

A GPS letdown over the sea or coast when there is no discernable horizon below and very poor vis and cloudbase is almost suicidal because you have absolutely no idea what is beneath/in front of you, not to mention being illegal.

Not sensible, agreed, but why do you say it's illegal?

[krypton_john]

My guess is the pilot and/or aircraft was not certified for it.

[chopjock]

Bimbling around at 200' in the same sh8te weather following a coast is an invitation to CFIT that sadly many have taken up and regretted.

I don't see why. As you know helicopters can fly slow enough to enable the pilot to see ahead. You gave the vis as 1500 m. More than enough.

and I assume they got where they were intending to go because D&D didn't call us to search for them - both flights were completed

So why the rant?

[Whirlygig]

Suggest you read a few AAIB reports Chopjock and you'll see it's not as simple as that.

Cheers

Whirls

[toptobottom]

Crab - I agree with you. At the risk of being flamed (again) I assume the piston driver is a PPL and also assume he or she has relatively low hours when compared with a highly trained and experienced professional, operating appropriate gear.

I've lost two mates flying light pistons in IMC suffering from "I'll be alright'itus" and I've read about many more senseless fatal accidents caused by P1 errors of judgment when it comes to weather.

I don't get it either.
TTB

[chopjock]

Suggest you read a few AAIB reports Chopjock and you'll see it's not as simple as that.
I read ALL of them thank you.

I've lost two mates flying light pistons in IMC suffering from "I'll be alright'itus"

Sorry to hear that. Good job this piston jockey was not IMC then.

[Droopy]

A few years ago I was unfortunate enough to have to re-do the exams having allowed my IR to lapse for too long.

On the crammer's course were two chaps who were CPLs from the charter world hoping to move up; they clearly knew each other and on several occasions made jokes about how there were actually no limits whatsoever on an ILS.

Now I might have been mistaken in drawing the conclusion from what they said [in great detail] that here were chaps flogging around in unstabilised aircraft doing IFR approaches on CAT flights without IRs to below published minima. Perhaps they were just bull$hitting. Personally......:suspect:

[Two's in]

As you know helicopters can fly slow enough to enable the pilot to see ahead. You gave the vis as 1500 m. More than enough.

Well therein lies the problem. When the speed gets too low, you are now in the territory of added controllability issues, an armful of collective, high power settings, and oh by the way - you got here because you couldn't see anything clearly out of the window! This is Swiss Cheese hole alignment 101. When the visibility precludes a safe comfortable forward speed you don't just slow down, you go down and land, assuming you didn't have the basic airmanship skills to avoid the situation in the first place by making a professional decision about the weather before you took off.

Like Crab@SAAvn alludes, when the mission puts you in that situation, you mitigate the risk as much as possible with tactics, techniques and procedures that keep you safer for longer when coupled with the correct equipment and training. To find yourself there for no good reason is inexcusable, and whereas 1500m viz might seem like a summer's day to some (although not many of the professional aviators I know would make such a statement), 1500m is well below what any sensible PPL in a piston single would require for safe execution and completion of a flight for pleasure alone.

It's never about how many limits you can bust and still live - it's about knowing your own personal limits, staying safe, and operating with same level of professionalism and decision making skills as any pilot in any cockpit. PPL's should be smart too.

[paco]

"As you know helicopters can fly slow enough to enable the pilot to see ahead. You gave the vis as 1500 m. More than enough."

That doesn't mean that you have to do it. Below a certain speed (which in a Dauphin is 76 kts, but which more generally is 45), the stabilising surfaces aren't working. If you are a typical PPL who thinks that the instrument appreciation that you get on your course is the equivalent of an instrument rating, and that was over two years ago so you are definitely not current, you will be dead in about 178 seconds (Australian figures) if you suddenly pop into an unseen bit of cloud.

Because of the above, my own personal limit is speed based rather than vis-based - if I'm having trouble at 60 kts, that's when I put it on the ground.

Phil

[VeeAny]

From memory something like 46% of UK fatal helicopter accidents in the last 12 yrs involved flight in a degraded visual environment. That doesn't mean the pilots of all of those aircraft ever got themselves into cloud, just that most of them didn't know which way up they were.

There is one example where the pilot said on the RT something like 'everything's gone white' and yet the eye witnesses never lost sight of him from the ground. Was he IMC (by the Uk definition) yes he was, was he in cloud ? No. Do his family members really give toss about the technical definitions ? I don't know but I doubt it, splitting hairs over he legality of a flight is interesting sometimes but when it comes to stopping people killing themselves it serves no useful purpose. It is possible to be safe and illegal but it is also possible to legal and unsafe.

Yes its possible to do both of the things crab mentions (quite legally most of the time) I believe, however as one of my safety evening slides says 'just because you can doesn't mean you should' .

Sadly as a product of the current training environment, there are pilots out there who think that 180 degree turn on instruments are a panacea, one recent accident report proves that they are not.

Paco the '178 seconds to live video' I had in the round 1 / 2 safety presentation (thanks to you) and a very learned gentleman with a North Sea and CAA background suggested I take it out, for reasons something like 'it gives the impression that you would last that long in an unstabilised helicopter which you almost certainly would not !' Speaks volumes. I have lost the email so these are my words for the impression I got from him.

I can see why Crab is having a rant (about the light piston anyway, not knowing what kit was in the twin its difficult to comment) , it is after all he and his coworkers who will have to go an pick up the piceces initially

[SilsoeSid]

The Vale of Evesham is a good place to see some pressonitist-ists although due to the time of day when they appear, most seem to be of the gethomeitist species variety.

Trigonometry Calculator (http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp)
:eek:

[[email protected]]

CAP 773 and safetysense leaflet 25 give chapter and verse on GPS approaches and stress repeatedly that only published approaches can be used.

Even if there is a published approach to Pembrey - all GPS approaches are by definition Non Precision Approaches - how many that you know have a MDH of 200 or below?

I suspect the aircraft in question did have appropriate equipment and an instrument rated pilot so he should know better than to even consider an adhoc approach - especially when Cardiff was an available div with radar/ILS available and better weather. Fortunately for him he got a better weather report from his intended destination but, unless there were some big holes in the cloud, would have still had to perform an IMC descent to cloudbreak well below SAlt.

[toptobottom]

Chopjock
This is a forum for professional pilots. Clearly, you are not one, neither by qualification, nor (more significantly) by attitude. If you read all the AAIB reports, you'll be aware of the number of incidents caused by unqualified pilots getting into poor Wx. TBH, if the flippancy of your post is reflected in your attitude to safe flying, then I reckon it's only a matter of time before Crab, or one of his colleagues, is called out to scrape you off a hillside somewhere. :ugh:

[TRC]

Operating Helicopters Safely in a Degraded Visual Environment.
How Can Helicopters Operate More Safely in Day / Night and Adverse Atmospheric Conditions

RAes Conference Wednesday 16 - Thursday 17 June 2010

"In the context of General Aviation, one of the greatest flight safety risks for both pleasure flying and the smaller commercial operators is unintended flight into Instrument Meteorological Condition (IMC) at low altitude, often when flying at dusk or by night. Failure to divert to an alternate destination or land when faced with deteriorating weather and a DVE is too often a prime causal factor in fatal accidents in this sector of helicopter operations."

More info here (http://www.raes.org.uk/conference/indexconf.html)or register to attend here (http://conference.raes.org.uk:80/cgi/628.htm)

[chopjock]

Two's in
Well therein lies the problem. When the speed gets too low, you are now in the territory of added controllability issues, an armful of collective, high power settings, and oh by the way - you got here because you couldn't see anything clearly out of the window!With 1500m vis I should expect to at least maintain 40kts. That's hardly an armful of collective. In fact in the Enstrom that's the min power flight speed.

Paco
That doesn't mean that you have to do it.Agreed

toptobottom
If you read all the AAIB reports, you'll be aware of the number of incidents caused by unqualified pilots getting into poor Wx.Also qualified pilots.

TBH, if the flippancy of your post is reflected in your attitude to safe flying, then I reckon it's only a matter of time before Crab, or one of his colleagues, is called out to scrape you off a hillside somewhere.My "flippancy" is your opinion. My opinion is that a vis of 1500m is adequate to see where you are going(even at 60kts), and perfectly safe if done so within your limitations. (In this case, flying alongside a cliff which has ideal visual references). What, no one here has ever done that?.
Why is it that just because a pilot is flying a piston, low level in vfr conditions and a low cloud base, he is automatically assumed to be a ppl and will therefore inadvertently go imc and crash?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but is this hysteria or what?

[FLY 7]

I thought the orignal post was very pertinent. Certainly not "hysteria".

[GoodGrief]

Isn't there a rule that says you have to be at 500ft AGL?

I am a professional pilot and I now publicly state that 1500m/200ft scares the sh**t out of me.
Stay home.

Why even this discussion?

1500m in HZ with absolutely no clouds like I have everyday now is a different story.

[MightyGem]

Good job this piston jockey was not IMC then.

True, but at 1500m/200ft in mist, you've only got to glance at the ASI/altimeter/whatever for a second and you're in it, and in unexpected IMC in those conditions, you're as good as dead.

There is no law that prohibits anyone from executing an approach when the ceiling is below MDH
Hmmm...isn't there something that says, thou shall not descend below 1000' on an approach if the airfield is below your minimums?

[212man]

Hmmm...isn't there something that says, thou shall not descend below 1000' on an approach if the airfield is below your minimums?

It's an 'approach ban' and only relates to RVR - not cloud base/ceiling.

[Droopy]

MG, the 1000ft rule [or outer marker] is predicated on RVR/vis only , not on cloud, and if it dips below limits once past 1000' you can continue. JAR-OPS 3.405.

[helimutt]

There is a 500' rule isn't there? ok if you're miles from anyone/thing, but to be flying around with a 200' cloudbase in degraded viz in a single/piston etc = recipe for disaster. :ugh::=:=

Ask any offshore pilot how he likes flying around offshore, down to minima, (200') with poor viz/fog/mist, and I bet they'll all say they'd rather be anywhere else. If not then I suggest they get counselling! ;)

[SilsoeSid]

chopjock,

I'll give you 48 seconds @60kts to allow you to consider your limitations!

The problem is, the 1500m is THE limit. A lot of people think that because it is in print, it is safe. Many of us can tell you that it isn't!

You are clearly someone who has never experienced 1500m/300ft or been asked to fly, when it is.

Quote as many rules as you like, but it's not who is right, but who is left.

SS

[ShyTorque]

Hmmm...isn't there something that says, thou shall not descend below 1000' on an approach if the airfield is below your minimums?

Well, there is (or was; I can no longer find the reference to this rule in the latest edition of CAP393).

But only if the RVR is below the minima specified for the approach.

There is no prohibition on making a descent / approach if the cloudbase is below the published minima, only a prohibition on continuing below descent minima unless the prescribed visual references are obtained.

Note that this is/was specified for Public Transport aircraft; as far I recall these rules have never applied for private flights.

This is why I questioned Crab's assertion that the pilot of the second helicopter was doing something illegal. He probably wasn't.

[JimL]

The approach ban (2.6.3.2) is with reference to the RVR (or converted visibility) but there are numerous ICAO Standards which address weather below limits (from ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III - GA):

2.6.1 Flight in accordance with VFR

A flight, except one of purely local character in visual meteorological conditions, to be conducted in accordance with VFR shall not be commenced unless available current meteorological reports, or a combination of current reports and forecasts, indicate that the meteorological conditions along the route, or that part of the route to be flown under VFR, will, at the appropriate time, be such as to render compliance with these rules possible.

2.6.2 Flight in accordance IFR

2.6.2.1 When an alternate is required. A flight to be conducted in accordance with IFR shall not be commenced unless the available information indicates that conditions, at the heliport of intended landing and at least one alternate heliport will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the heliport operating minima.

2.6.3 Heliport operating minima

2.6.3.1 A flight shall not be continued towards the heliport of intended landing unless the latest available meteorological information indicates that conditions at that heliport, or at least one alternate heliport, will, at the estimated time of arrival, be at or above the specified heliport operating minima.

2.6.3.2 An instrument approach shall not be continued beyond the outer marker fix in case of precision approach, or below 300 m (1 000 ft) above the heliport in case of non-precision approach, unless the reported visibility or controlling RVR is above the specified minimum.

2.6.3.3 If, after passing the outer marker fix in case of precision approach, or after descending below 300 m (1 000 ft) above the heliport in case of non-precision approach, the reported visibility or controlling RVR falls below the specified minimum, the approach may be continued to DA/H or MDA/H. In any case, a helicopter shall not continue its approach to land beyond a point at which the limits of the heliport operating minima would be infringed.

As these limits are contained in all Annexes 6, expect to see them in EASA OPS.

Jim

[chopjock]

MightyGem
True, but at 1500m/200ft in mist, you've only got to glance at the ASI/altimeter/whatever for a second and you're in it, and in unexpected IMC in those conditions, you're as good as dead.Come now, when I look at my instruments, even for a second, I do not pull back on the stick! Does any one here do that?

SilsoSid
You are clearly someone who has never experienced 1500m/300ft or been asked to fly, when it is.How would you know? I've been there, done that many a time. The legal minima for VFR helicopters is I believe to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. ;)

[paco]

" in sight of the surface"

A general point - I believe this has been changed to "surface in sight", mainly to preclude people VMC on top saying they can see something like Mt Snowdon miles away and still being within the definition. Quite how it makes a difference I don't know but maybe someone can clarify it?

phil

[charlieDontSurf]

The legal minima for VFR helicopters is I believe to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif

Do you have different VFR-minimas in the UK than the rest of Europe?

VFR minimas in Norway is 500', 1500m vis, but for helicopters you are allowed to fly with 800m vis if you reduce speed and can maintain separation.
Over populated areas it is 1000' within a radius of 600m over the tallest building, and you need to be able to make a safe autorotation.

I believe "clear of clouds and in sight of the surface" applies for class G-airspace, but the rules above are on top of that.

Different rules apply if you are performing "aerial work", but then you're operating locally, and without any passengers. E.g long-line operations.

And what's the point of pushing beyond the rules anyway? It only takes a lot of time to get from A to B, and is the weather good enough to get any work done if you finally get there? :hmm:
I think many pilots get pushed from employers or customers, but remember that if the **** hits the fan, only the PIC gets the blame. And if you push it and get the job done, the customer doesn't give you a medal eighter. And you make it difficult for the next pilot when the weather is bad, and the customer/employer tells him "the other pilot always fly in this weather".
It's about being loyal to your colleagues also...:)

[[email protected]]

Chopjock - flying in ovc @ 200' with 1500m isn't technically illegal but very foolhardy in a non-stabilised, non-IFR capable helicopter - and one without floats as you have to be over the water to follow the cliffs.

The cloudbase in these sort of conditions varies up and, more importantly, down along with the visibility and inadvertant IMC is a real and ever-present danger. Where are your options? Revert to IFR - no kit, no IR, no training!!

Given the geography of the area, 2-300' cliffs with little beach, where would he have put down if the weather had deteriorated further (as it did periodically when we were operating)? His option for a 180 turn was very limited as it would have meant turning away from the cliff and out to sea where the horizon was non-existent and the sky and sea were the same uniform grey eg in actual conditions and no longer VMC - you cannot tell whether you are in cloud or not and the surface is indistiguishable from the sky - not exactly COCISOS is it?

Plenty of pilots have thought they knew better when it came to grovelling around in skoshie weather and lots get away with it (like you) right up until their luck runs out and they end up as an AAIB statistic.


Does anyone have a published GPS approach for Pembrey so we can see the MDH and limiting vis for it?

[Colibri49]

Dear chopjock and others who see things his way. Please take heed of those on this thread who advocate caution in reduced visibility and cloudbase, if you want a long and relatively fright-free flying career. They are right and you seemingly wish to challenge the safe limits established over decades, without enough variety of personal experience.

I'll be even more patronising and liken your attitudes to children building a campfire in a drought-stricken forest, or swimming in shark-infested waters. Eventually the luck runs out. The difficuty remains for those who have enough experience, how to convey to others the reality of the risks. Another analogy is the parent v teenager dilemma; "Don't drink and drive. Don't speed. Don't smoke. Don't do drugs. Don't do this. Don't do that."

Like anyone else, I sometimes came close to killing myself in my early flying career so how can I preach? Well, I'll just preach anyway, because it behoves the survivors of personal ignorance and stupidity at least to try passing on the lessons. Today's lesson: The rules and limits are evolved from the experiences of countless others who survived their own idiotic bad judgements. A smallish safety margin gets incorporated into the limits, which it is unwise to erode. Here endeth the lesson.

My 42 years,18500 hours professional flying include 10 years military f/w and heli involving a war, lapsed cpl f/w, current ppl f/w, atpl/h, 3 decades North Sea heavy heli (still at it) and recreational light f/w. I don't care if you think "So effing what!" and spit. I believe I've survived long enough to qualify as a patronising old tw_t.

Helimutt, you're spot-on dear chap. We can do an offshore ARA (airborne radar approach) down to 200' and 3/4 nm from the rig before going around if nothing seen. Even with a 15 degree heading offset and the all-singing, all-dancing height/heading/speed holds engaged, we aren't exactly enjoying the situation. If the rig appears by 3/4 nm (appr 1400 metres), we're working near the limits of skill to manoeuvre visually on to the helideck.

[F.A.TAlbert]

flying in ovc @ 200' with 1500m

I'd have thought that the slant range at any height above the surface would essentially have reduced that in practical terms. Perhaps 1000 at 100 feet - [ish] ??

No chance in those circumstances, to see and avoid wires, those 299 foot unmarked masts [though there may not be any in that area] not to mention the other more obvious issues.

[timex]

Flying round the cliffs at 200' quite an easy place to pick up the odd birdstrike or two!

[toptobottom]

Flying round the cliffs at 200' quite an easy place to pick up the odd birdstrike or two!

Yeah, but no problem for chopjock - he's invincible, don't forget :}

[chopjock]

toptobottom

Yeah, but no problem for chopjock - he's invincible, don't forgetNo not invincible. But I know my limitations and I stay within them. Presumably as did this piston jockey.;)

[pasptoo]

Looking at the weather reports from around the south west I am surprise to see any aviation being committed in the Bristol channel area. I'd be curious to hear what other (non IR) traffic was around. Crab and co, I assume the currency was required, as i wouldn't fancy an Amber recovery at Chiv. Afternoon watching telly and waiting for the scramble phone to ring me thinks.

As for grovelling around in a puddle jumper! Never mind the weather, was the ppl aware that Crab was at 200' and below ??? probably not, would they have seen him anyway?? Not often ANY traffic down there, never mind when you can't see squat and you probably never trained in those conditions either. I just hope the ppl realises how lucky they were to "get in" and learn from their errors of judgement- unlikely though! :ugh:

Is there a GPS Letdown published?? There is a NDB/DME. Published approaches are there for a reason! Without GPS mapping, radar and TCAS what is below may not always be what you expect. Isn't the lowest minima for a NonPrecision Approach 250' ??

5,15,1000 is there for a very good reason too.
cociss - use with caution and only if prepared to bang out when it all goes pete tong. 200' and cociss may be "comfortable" for those who train there, but the rest I assume would (if not should) be more than a little apprehensive. :\

It all may be worth pushing on to get the client there, and on time, but will your wife and kids be happy on that one day when you buy the farm trying to keep the client happy - again unlikely. You won't get return business if you scare the client either!

As Sisloe Sid said, they are THE limits, not targets! :D

Fly safe and learn from the mistakes of others, don't become another infamous thread on these pages.

pas

[Flingingwings]

CJ,

Are you the same Devon based UAV pilot who enjoys diving and flying that posted this (28/9/09) too????

HeliTorque Helicopter Portal and Forums Forums-viewtopic-PPLs doing corporate work. (http://www.helitorque.com/portal/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=6151&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)

We all had to start somewhere. I hold a PPL with 2000 hrs and fly our company helicopters in a corporate role. I have made some very frightening airmanship decisions in the past and learned from them!

For example having to fly low level in bad weather and nearly hitting a cable, several times. Or crossing the Irish sea and encountering fog half way across.

What should be done about these decisions? Goodness knows but what price do you pay for experience?


When strangely enough one reply you received then suggested........

And I guess experience would remove the word 'having' from this sentence, no one ever has to go flying (in the civvy world) in bad weather trying to stay VMC no matter what excuses they have, they elect to and sometimes go beyond their own limits (which are often above the legal minimums) and make mistakes like that.

One thing is certain and that is, if all the pilots who have been killed in VFR into IMC kinds of accidents hadn't set of in the first place or landed earlier they would not have died where they did, when they did.

:uhoh:

[chopjock]

Just curious, but what are your limitations in terms of visibility and cloudbase then?

My limitation on vis would be to only fly as far as I can see ahead, clear of cloud and with the surface in sight. Just as the ANO allows. :ok:

Have you ever been IMC?

Yes, with a safety pilot whilst doing an instrument awareness course. Scared the hell out of me and I won't go there.:eek:

[chopjock]

If I recall correctly, and I'm sure I'll get barked at if I'm wrong, VFR flight rules for helicopters below 3000 feet is to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

[chopjock]

I got a little confused there with the question. Of course the VFR limits below 3000 feet for a helicopter includes a vis of 1500m. My point was that my personal limit is to look out the window and only fly as far as I can see. That could be more or less than 1500m, but how do you measure that?
Ps Now what about that height AGL that you're prepared to go down to remain VFR?Don't know, I suppose it depends on the terrain (probably 200 ft.). I have landed on several occasions when it got too bad. Nice of you to ask.:)

[Scott Diamond]

Yes, with a safety pilot whilst doing an instrument awareness course. Scared the hell out of me and I won't go there.:eek:

Really? With the attitude you're showing I wouldn't be so quick to shunt that aside. :ok:

[chopjock]

Thanks for the advice TTT :ok:

[Fly_For_Fun]

I have read this thread with interest and conclude that the AAIB will only get busier with attitudes such as that demonstrated by Chopjock. :ugh:

[chopjock]

I have read this thread with interest and conclude that the AAIB will only get busier with attitudes such as that demonstrated by Chopjock.An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one. The "piston jockey" mentioned in the first post apparently had a similar attitude and did he crash in IMC? I think not, because he flew skillfully within his limitations and experience. Did he wish he was somewhere else? probably yes. Did he complete his journey safely? probably yes. Was he legal? probably yes. Will there be an AAIB investigation? Probably not. :rolleyes:

[toptobottom]

chopjock - your arrogance is extraordinary. It's that same arrogance that will get you and your unfortunate pax into some scary flying (if you're lucky) and dead (if you're not).

I think you should re-read this thread from the top and instead of trying to respond with half-baked, smart-arse sarcasm, you should at least acknowledge the vast experience of the many contributors to this thread who know what they're talking about. Judging from flingingwing's post #38 in this thread (which I note you chose to ignore), you haven't learned from your mistakes. Worse still, you're not prepared to learn from others' mistakes either.

As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.

TTB

[Fly_For_Fun]

Chopjock, I do not aim to change your attitude, that is clearly impossible reading this thread, I mearly point out that the AAIB may be busier because of it.

[TRC]

In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.

They are all dead.

I wish you - and your passengers - the best of luck.

[Um... lifting...]

An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one.

Not directly, but it does create the conditions by which you outfly your abilities, and that hurts people.

Someone who's (apparently) only satisfied the requirements for the PPL(H) perhaps should consider that the path of prudence is likely not telling the numerous ATPL, CPL, Instructors both Civil and Military, and SAR Professionals on this forum about the direct and indirect effects of "attitude".

[chopjock]

TTB
As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.You are right, I don't see why. But accidents may happen to the best of us, whether we are arrogant or not.

FFF
I do not aim to change your attitude, that is clearly impossible reading this thread, I mearly point out that the AAIB may be busier because of it.I can't for the life of me figure why the AAIB would be busier as a result of reading this thread or because I may have a bad attitude.:}

TRC
In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.

They are all dead.Why did they die? because of a bad attitude? or they flying beyond their limitations?

um lifting

Not directly, but it does create the conditions by which you outfly your abilities, and that hurts people.I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.

But I apologise for having a different point of view to all of you on here. It is a forum and I usually like to be controversial and argue the "other corner".
Kind of a wind up if you didn't guess.

[Um... lifting...]

I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.

Then we agree to disagree. In a few decades of professional flying, every person I've met with an attitude like yours has left flying, either because they were sacked, bent metal, or changed their attitude.

I daresay my observations are probably more comprehensive than yours. Professionally, I wouldn't fly with you.

[birrddog]

An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one.
I will go one step beyond Um.. and say that it does.

Being fit to fly depends on more than just a pilot’s physical condition and recency of experience. Having a Hazardous attitude, and being in an accident can land you in hot water, not just risking the safety of yourself or others.

So much so that the FAA and NTSB explicitly identify Five Hazardous attitudes that would deem you not fit to fly, and if you are not fit to fly, you are highly likely to hurt someone, including yourself.

1. Anti-Authority:
"Don't tell me."

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, "No one can tell me what to do." They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary. However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.

2. Impulsivity:
"Do it quickly."

This is the attitude of people who frequently feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. They do not stop to think about what they are about to do; they do not select the best alternative, and they do the first thing that comes to mind.

3. Invulnerability:
"It won't happen to me."

Many people feel that accidents happen to others, but never to them. They know accidents can happen, and they know that anyone can be affected. They never really feel or believe that they will be personally involved. Pilots who think this way are more likely to take chances and increase risk.

4. Macho:
"I can do it."

Pilots who are always trying to prove that they are better than anyone else are thinking, "I can do it –I'll show them." Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others. While this pattern is thought to be a male characteristic, women are equally susceptible.

5. Resignation:
"What's the use?"

Pilots who think, "What's the use?" do not see themselves as being able to make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things go well, the pilot is apt to think that it is good luck. When things go badly, the pilot may feel that someone is out to get me, or attribute it to bad luck. The pilot will leave the action to others, for better or worse. Sometimes, such pilots will even go along with unreasonable requests just to be a "nice guy."
I would gather that repeatedly demonstrating Hazardous attitudes could land one in trouble with your regulator. (Flying Lawyer, could you comment on the CAA?)

chopjock, there is no reason to be defensive in this, I certainly can't see an upside for you, on the forum or in real life.

My experience with Rotorheads vs. rest of PPRuNe on balance is a good group of participants with a sense of camaraderie and support. (And a healthy tolerance of private pilots like myself)

This is definitely a situation where I would not fight their advice on this definition.

[chopjock]

Birrddog
I see you have come up with quite a list of Hazardous attitudes, do you also have a list of positive attitudes?

Either way, they are still attitudes.
I've just apologised and now you have me going again. Sorry.

I suppose I do suffer from "anti-authority" sometimes,

However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.

[Two's in]

I think CJ wins one of two awards here;

1. Most successful wind up of the professional fraternity of rotary pilots.

or:

2. Rotary pilot most likely to arrive at his own smoking hole any time soon.

He should wear either award with pride...

[froggy_pilot]

Without full details this thread is completly stupid

1500 m VIS is enough for special VFR in most countries, then 200ft OVC is the minimum for an ILS

Is the aircraft IFR certified ? single crew ?

With this weather conditions you have nothing to do there in VFR :ugh: (stay in bed or in your favorite bar), if you are IFR where is the problem, just do what the company pay you for :mad: you have minimums for the approach

If you were in VFR flight you should have landed long before weather get that bad, when pilots will know and follow official rules then the sky will be a safe place... :E

Just follow the rules, simple :sad:

[212man]

Without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, and with the greatest of respect for all the private owners on this forum, it's a fact that to privately own and operate a helicopter requires a degree of wealth that most people would consider to be rich. I think most of us agree that money doesn't grow on trees and that, by-and-large, 'normal' occupations do not allow one to become 'rich.' It is generally true that those who become rich through their own endeavours (as opposed to inheritance or lottery wins) do so because of their strong characters and personalities enabling them to succeed in their chosen enterprise - be it business or sports or entertainment.

Sadly, some of the character traits that lead to such success are mutually incompatible with the traits required of a safe pilot. Steve Hislop and Colin McCrae stand out as well known examples, but there are many more less well known owner/pilots who have met similar ends.

I do not wish to tar every owner with the same brush, of course, and many many owners on this forum demonstrate excellent commitment to safety and understanding. I even know of one owner (of an EC-155) who paid for a CPL/IR and then flew periodically with an operator to 'professionalise' himself (admitedly he also had a full time pilot employee.)

Flame me if you wish, but from a basic human factors perspective, I believe the above to be true.

[Whirlygig]

Like many threads in which chopjock has participated, I suspect (or should that be "hope") it's a wind-up. Otherwise ...

http://www4.picturepush.com/photo/a/1909447/480/SENCE-this-album-makes-none-of-it/You-Make-Kitty-Scared.jpg

Cheers

Whirls

[JimL]

Whilst not accepting the arguments put forward by Chopjock, he does have a correct understanding of the (somewhat liberal and soon to be replaced) regulations of the UK.

Sadly, they do not agree with those provided in the pamphlet referenced by Talk The Torque; they are also not in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air:

Flight outside controlled airspace

28.—

(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c)is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d)is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.

(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable; and
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight.

(6) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in accordance with rule 6(i)

[VeeAny]

Jim

Thats pre the 2007 amendment which can be found here The Rules of the Air (Amendment) Regulations 2007 No. 1371 (http://www.england-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2007/uksi_20071371_en_1)

It modifies rule 28(5) to read
(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which—

(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;

(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;

(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and

(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.”


This has an amendment bar next to it in the current rules of the Air.

[SilsoeSid]

Have you ever been IMC?

Yes, with a safety pilot whilst doing an instrument awareness course. Scared the hell out of me and I won't go there.

Wouldn't it be nice if we always had choices about everything that goes on around us!

... my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.

:ugh:

[chopjock]

Ok wind up over. I apologize to everyone. :ouch: Just because I have done it does not make it right. I assure all of you I am a safe and cautious pilot. Any forum bashing or "attitudes" stay right here, they do not reflect into my flying skills.

[toptobottom]

Ok wind up over

So, it was a wind up all along, eh? :hmm:

I don't think it was, but I do sincerely hope your attitude has been tested in the wake of the overwhelming pressure from the many qualified (both academic and experience) pilots on this thread.

Fly safe Mr. chopjock

[MINself]

Anyone care to clarify

(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and

And, could you legitamatly say you're VMC on an IFR flight, when asked by ATC to report your in-flight conditions, obviously in a suitably equiped helicopter and with the required ratings, when you're above an ovc layer whilst below 3000 with viz >1.5km and clear of cloud, BUT, with the surface possibly maybe in sight, somewhere on the horizon?

This is something that often comes up for discussion where I work. My personal view is, yes, within reason, as long as you're not "cloud surfing" so as to make seeing and avoiding another aircraft problematic. I'd be interested to hear any views, incl ATCs. Hopefully this isn't too much of thread creep for some!

Cheers, MS

[F.A.TAlbert]

And, could you legitamatly say you're VMC on an IFR flight,

Why not? One defines the meteorological conditions and the other the set of rules you are flying under. :ugh:

[MINself]

Yes thank you... Now read the rest of it!!!

[VeeAny]

MINSelf

It is of course quite possible to be VFR without the surface in sight by compliance with rule 27(2)b or 28(2), if your licence privileges allow you to be. Perhaps doesn't answer your question but does open a whole other can of worms.

The UK definition of IMC is itself interesting as its got naff all to do with being in cloud.

I say this from a rules point of view and NOT A SAFETY ONE before anyone jumps on me.

GS

[MINself]

I might be missing something but I don't think either of your paras apply? As I'm talking about helicopters flying below 3000', who's flight is covered but a subsequent para. My question mainly revolves around the statement of "With the surface in sight" which for me is vague, as I haven't been able to find it's definition yet.

[VeeAny]

The definition of ' with the surface in sight' is in the ANO interpretations article, number 255

‘With the surface in sight’ means with the flight crew being able to see sufficient surface
features or surface illumination to enable the flight crew to maintain the aircraft in a desired
attitude without reference to any flight instrument and ‘when the surface is not in sight’ is to
be construed accordingly.

My musings about VFR on top I just threw in to see what others had to say about the VFR rules, maybe shouldn't have addressed them at you.

But I think that the paras referred to may or may not apply in the <3000ft case and that depends on whether the legal interpretation of 28(5) is with my emboldening.

Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which:
(a) flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b) flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable;
(c) remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d) is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.


So if <3000ft AMSL without the surface in sight it looks like para 2 applies.
Which implies at say 2000ft VMC on top of a cloud top layer at 500ft AMSL you can be VFR in 5km vis.

I don't think thats what they meant to say, but this what it seems to say, I have written to the CAA in the last few days requesting clarification.

Above 3000ft like I said comply with 28(2) and your licence privileges.

[F.A.TAlbert]

My question mainly revolves around the statement of "With the surface in sight" which for me is vague, as I haven't been able to find it's definition yet.

After 30 odd years, nor have I either. However I do remember at some point along the way being given the 'explanation' - "to be able to alight the craft in the event of an emergency with sole visual reference to the surface and within compliance of all the provisions of the ANO". Which, at the time, didn't make matters any clearer for me. But when bumbling along my merry way later, I'd ask my self the question 'what if'? That will usually focus the mind on whether the current circumstances are the best viable [reasonable]. But I guess you already know that.

Now read the rest of it!!!

I did but my understanding of your point seemed to be a bit 'cloudy'.

[MINself]

Many thanks for finding the definition.

But, wouldn't you still need to be "in sight of the surface"? If flying a helicopter below 3000, viz >1.5km, clear of clouds and with the surface in sight. In your example you've said you're at 2000 and VMC above a layer, but, out of sight of the surface, so, regardless of the forward visibility you cannot be VMC? Be it flying by IFR or VFR. As in my current operation we are almost always IFR, but, sometimes asked to state our in-flight conditions.

Fat bloke very drole!

[VeeAny]

Perhaps VMC was a poor choice of a descriptor on my part, assume unlimited viz and at least 1000ft seperation vertically above a flat overcast layer.

The problem we have in the uk with our definitions is that whilst we use the argument of VMC and IMC being conditions and VFR and IFR being rules, the definitions blur things slightly(!!) because VMC and IMC are related directly to flying in conditions accordant with the visual flight rules or not. The Visual flight rules amounting to not a lot more than some specified distances from cloud and in flight visibility.

So if you are too close to cloud but in unlimited vis and not in accordance with the helicopter exceptions to the VFR rules you are techincally IMC, is it any wonder confusion ensues about what the rules mean and why so many FIs teach rule 28(5) in its entirety as the only rules that apply to helicopters VFR, they know no better because the guy who taught them knew no better.

Crab

Sorry Major thread Creep, my fault I believe.

[[email protected]]

Veeany - no problem - I think any discussion that clarifies (or tries to) the messy legislation that exists has got to be a good thing.

In fact even chop jock's wind up has been useful because I know there are pilots out there who really believe what he said about grovelling around in poor weather being OK - hopefully the weight of argument against on this thread should persuade them otherwise and we might avoid more CFIT and IIMC accidents.

212 man's view on some elements within the GA market reflects not only my experience but also the accident stats and the findings of many AAIB investigations.

The bottom line for all those guys out there is - if you don't have a reversion to IFR available, don't grovel around in poor weather.

[paco]

Veeany - is it worth releasing that photo in this discussion?

Phil

[VeeAny]

I would but sadly I promised my life away to an AAIB man to get it, and promised him even more for being able to give it to you !

It would be useful but I cannot break my word to him.

What Paco refers to is one of the photos used at the safety evenings and I believe ats Pacos CRM courses of a 206 flying past an accident site in about 100m vis at about 15ft AGL, oblivious to the fact that sadly four people had lost their lives in a poor visibility related accident the night before and the AAIB were standing in the field at the start of the investigation.

It is a very powerful photo, but sadly the release I have for it is on the understanding it and the others they provide me NEVER get on the internet.

[paco]

I thought so, but it was worth asking! It went down very well at HAI

phil

[VeeAny]

Just had a very prompt and incisive reply to my Question about this from the CAA, I will not post it here as it did not ask his permission to do and asked the Q before we started on this.

It does confirm my example given above as correct, provided your licence privileges allow you to be out of sight of the surface then 27(2)b or 28(2) can apply regardless of whether above or below 3000ft.

The reason I thought it was not their intention to make it the way I interpret it is that the explanatory material associated with it makes it sound like if <3000ft AMSL there is only one set of rules, and that it turns out was not what the writer meant as he was focussing on the new rules when he wrote it.

Regardless of whether its legal I still think it foolhardy in an unstabilised helicopter, if you cannot get below without going through cloud which would then not be VFR or VMC (no matter where your definition comes from), whilst the likelihood of an engine failure is statistically small whether you should do it I will leave for the subject of further debate.

[MINself]

Wow the power of pprune! Thanks VeeAny that answers my question nicely and straight from the horses mouth, so to speak.

[chopjock]

Ok, sensible hat back on now (not a wind up).
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation as described by original post,(piston jockey grovelling along the coast at 180 feet in BR , vis 1500m). Obviously you should not be there but what to do next? Go back? The turn itself could disorientate you and have you enough fuel to go back? Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse? Or perhaps continue on to a valley where a landing can be made.?
If Swansea was O/C and Pembrey was 1500m, and you can see where you are going, what would you do? Obviously fly low and slow and remain in sight of the surface. Perhaps being in radio contact with your destination and having been re assured about the vis the decision might be to continue to destination.

What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m, would you then be prosecuted? Then when you land think how stupid you were attempting such a flight in the first place. :hmm:

[VeeAny]

Chopjock I seem to remember something from the early days of flight training it goes something like

Hoping and praying should not be confused with pre-flight planning.

As part of a team looking at UK accidents in recent years in some detail one of the biggest things we have noticed is that mission planning is usually lacking in a lot of poor weather / degraded visibility accidents (and quite a few others).

My opinion on some of your points
You find that you have allowed yourself to get in the situation: Don't; Make a positive decision to not go there in the first place, this kind of weather is very rarely a surprise, stay on the ground or have an alternate plan in place BEFORE YOU EVEN GET AIRBORNE.

The turn itself could disorientate you and have we enough fuel to go back?
Why are you there in the first place with insufficient fuel, particiularly when the weather is rubbish , know when the point of no return is, not to your base perhaps but to a point of safe landing. If the wx is that bad that you can lose visual reference in the turn you really shouldn't have been there, see point 1.

Cliff tops are in cloud so can't land on them, should you continue cautiously on in the hope the vis will not get worse?
See above, mission planniing and why did you continue when you passed the point that cliff tops where in the cloud ? Yes the cloud base can come down but at the point where you can no longer continue and have a get out, land or turn back. See my earlier point about hoping and praying.

What about if, and when you arrive, the vis has fallen to below 1500m ?
The CAA man formerly responsible for prosecuting GA helicopter pilots came along to a safety evening, and whilst you can hardly take my word as gospel his attitude was if the wx was forecast to be below the legal limit and you went anyway they may well seek to prosecute you, however if it was not and you encountered it enroute they probably would not, I doubt however they would be overly amused if you met obviously rubbsih weather and carried on in what was cleary below limits, particularly if anyone was injured, losing control would hardly be a great defence in court (not that I know anything about the law).

My opinions only.

GS

[skidbiter2]

To me, Chopjock, like myself, likes to play the Devils advocate, it p..ses people off, but has created a great discussion on bad weather op's, if he didn't play his part, it would have been one sided and I am sure wouldn't have had the same effect on the inexperienced pilots out there that may be reading it.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

VeeAny;

On my office wall I have a formal caution from the CAA for a breach of Rule 21. (Basically I infringed Heathrow by 700 m at the north west corner of the zone) I flew into un-forecast IMC and medium icing and clipped the zone trying to escape from the weather, while at the same time trying to deal with a passenger who suddenly started complaining of chest pains and shortage of breath. I didn't even realise I had infringed until I was on the ground and got the "call this number message".

Enforcements pursued me relentlessly for some months and eventually, amid great ceremony I received my caution. Despite all the mitigation they kept going, and knew that if it went to court I was bang to rights, yes I had infringed, so was guilty and they would have got a nice guilty verdict and probably costs awarded.

I would advise anyone who busts a limit en-route due to unforecast weather to be very careful what they say to anyone in an official position.

The enforcements guy at least had the decency to smile when my colleagues arranged a prisoners escort to the desk where I had to sign a piece of paper which leaves a black mark on my CAA record for the rest of my proffesional flying career.

SND

[VeeAny]

SND

Very, very wise words.

The man I am talking about was not an A.R.E guy he was Flight ops GA, and they seem to come to that dept. for advice when deciding who to do.

I have a friend who was being pursued for an airspace infringement, despite having had permission to operate where he was prior to a controller change.

To be clear the scenarios I paint above are for someone who does not have the IMC option, it is clearly much easier to meet unforecast nastiness if you are already in it.

GS

[ShyTorque]

In a previous role as chief pilot I had a letter from the CAA's enforcement department, alleging repeated infringements of the 500 ft rule by our unit aircraft.

Why they sent it I never did find out because a) the allgations revolved around us taking off and landing at our CAA cleared base helipad and b) we were flying under a Police AOC, which exempted us from Rule 5, in any case.

I suggested to the UEO that the Chief Constable might like to reply to them about wasting police time but he declined to do so. :E

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Oh God yes;

If you have the IMC option its a no-brainer, climb and use the qualifications. What got me was un-forecast medium ice at 2400ft. The aircraft went from nice, smart IFR fully toyed piece of kit to a flying ice lolly in about 20 seconds.

The torque shot up as the speed decayed and then she was coming down now matter what I did. I know now I should have turned right instead of left but I made that mistake as the bloke in the back decided to announce his imminent demise.

The next 2 aircraft through there picked up a small amount of ice and lost it in minutes. I just felt persecuted for some months.

The bloke in the back went to hospital where they diagnosed chronic indegestion brought on by the massive fried breakfast he'd eaten while keeping me waiting.

SND

[[email protected]]

Chopjock - the weather on the day was exactly as forecast so he had no excuse for launching - a simple telephone call to Swansea or Pembrey would have confirmed the poor conditions - Swansea was in cloud.

If you have a look at a map or google earth you will see just how far, in such poor conditions, he had to go following the coastline to get to Pembrey - not exactly a short hop to safety - it is a long way up the estuary so the risky option would be to take a dirty dart across with only the sea to look at. I don't know what he did but I bet it was much harder work and considerably less safe than accepting the met is crap and cancelling the flight.

No matter what we say on this forum, people will still launch and press on because it is the weekend and the only time they can fly so why should they let the weather stop them - anyway who listens to the met man anyway he's wrong so often. The list of excuses for getting airborne is shi*e weather is endless and the desire to go flying very strong - just a shame it costs people their lives.

[cladosporangium]

The question was put, somewhere back in this thread, "is there a published GPS let-down to Pembrey?"
Well, is there?

[FairWeatherFlyer]

There is nothing listed in AIP at the moment.

NATS | AIS - Home (AIP Pembrey - EGFP) (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=116&Itemid=165.html)

Maybe someone's got it on a post-it note somewhere??

Shoreham has some, the terminology appears to be the system-neutral RNAV (GNSS),

NATS | AIS - Home (AIP Shoreham - EGKA) (http://www.nats-uk.ead-it.com/public/index.php%3Foption=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=134&Itemid=183.html)