Do these guys know what harm they do?

[206 jock]

OK, it's second-hand, there might be more to the story etc etc, but we rotor pilots have privileges bestowed upon us in terms of minimum visibility - with an application of some common sense and responsibility, we stand a chance of keeping those privileges.

However, I fear that knobheads (http://forums.flyer.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=67428) like this will ultimately spoil the party.

Hi all,

Can you believe someone actuially tried to fly into EGBO (Halfpenny Green) on Monday given these TAFs?

TAF EGBB 060458Z 0606/0706 30005KT 0300 FZFG VV///
PROB30 TEMPO 0606/0611 0800 FZFG IC BKN002
BECMG 0611/0614 3000 BR BKN004
TEMPO 0614/0618 5000 SCT004
BECMG 0618/0621 0300 FZFG VV///=

TAF EGOS 060441Z 0606/0615 VRB03KT 0200 FZFG VV///=

It just so happened he descended through fog into 80m vis about 3-miles from EGBO at 1115, into an impossible landing area, and who should be there at the time but me (walking my dog)! A few hand gestures later I managed to get him into an open field.

I am just stunned that anyone attempted to fly given those TAFs.

Simon

I mean, look at the TAF before reading the rest of it. At the risk of being flamed, what a prat.

'Weatherman' is a errr...weather man, by the way.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Be interesting to see how he explains it away. A quick look out of the window has suffuced as a weather check for me most of this week!

[RVDT]

Looked at the TAF.

What time did it all happen? 1115Z?

The original TAF was issued at 060458Z.

BECMG 0611/0614 3000 BR BKN004
TEMPO 0614/0618 5000 SCT004

And the 1100 TAF sez -

TAF EGBB 061103Z 0612/0712 30005KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 TEMPO 0612/0618 5000 BR
BECMG 0617/0620 0300 FZFG VV///=

SA 06/12/2010 11:20->
METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=

Min visibility in most parts of the world outside controlled space for helicopters is if you can see enough to stop before you hit it!

EGBB looks OK to me.

No doubt EGOS was crap at the time although it is 25 miles away!

METAR COR EGOS 061050Z 00000KT 0150 SG FZFG VV/// M05/M06
Q1002 BLACKRED NOSIG=

OK, it's second-hand, there might be more to the story etc etc sounds about right!

How he ended up where he was is anyones guess but the weather reports didn't look as bad as erroneously portrayed.

[206 jock]

Min visibility in most parts of the world outside controlled space for helicopters is if you can see enough to stop before you hit it!As indeed it used to be in the UK until a few idiot pilot killed a few passengers as the concept of 'well the rules say it's OK' took precedence in their decision making process. And clowns like this give the authorities the excuse to further curtail the regs.

No doubt EGOS was crap at the time although it is 25 miles away!And EGBB was 22 miles in the other direction. So what?

I suppose dropping his machine into a playground full of kids was 'just one of them things', huh?

Yup, 80m viz. Not sure aircraft type, bigger than an R22. Luckily, I was positioned one side of a small 'valley' he was on the other and were almost at eye level with each other. I measured it out today and the distance from one side to the other is about 40m. Rear rotors approx 3ft off ground, ground slopes around 40 degree gradient..say no more!

And yes JoeC, those were about as big as I was trying to make my hands!!!

Subsequently found out he landed on a school playing fields and that the school children were on the fie,d at the time. Oh well, any port in a storm?

CAA dealing with it I understand.

Simon

[ShyTorque]

Min visibility in most parts of the world outside controlled space for helicopters is if you can see enough to stop before you hit it!

The minimum visibility for civilian helicopter ops in UK under VFR is now 1500 metres, has been for some time.

So I wonder what icing clearance that "IFR" helicopter has...

The CAA normally deem school playing fields to be a "congested area", for which prior written CAA permission is needed for a landing.

I hope the pilot has learned the error of his/her ways because this is just the sort of incident the press love to pounce on, to illustrate just how dangerous helicopters can be..... :rolleyes:

[RVDT]

My point is that the sensationalizing of the incident is using a TAF which is clearly hours old and probably has little relevance at all yet somebody bases their whole argument on it.

Nobody knows if the guy even read any weather reports!

He ends up in the crap and in a school playing field. What that has to do with a 6 hour old forecast from an airport miles away has got me.

In defense the current TAF and METAR at the same location that he is being hung on was OK.

Methinks the horse might be a bit too high.

[Aucky]

obviously not a clever call.... but at least he got it down. sure he wont be doing (or allowed to do) it again in a hurry :rolleyes:

[Epiphany]

Ooooh nearly! Is no one going to defend this pilot? You disappoint me Rotorheads as there is usually at least one with an excuse.

[SilsoeSid]

If we put what the thread starter on the other site says all together;

"Can you believe someone actuially tried to fly into EGBO (Halfpenny Green) on Monday given these TAFs?

TAF EGBB 060458Z 0606/0706 30005KT 0300 FZFG VV///
PROB30 TEMPO 0606/0611 0800 FZFG IC BKN002
BECMG 0611/0614 3000 BR BKN004
TEMPO 0614/0618 5000 SCT004
BECMG 0618/0621 0300 FZFG VV///=

TAF EGOS 060441Z 0606/0615 VRB03KT 0200 FZFG VV///=


It just so happened he descended through fog into 80m vis about 3-miles from EGBO at 1115, into an impossible landing area, and who should be there at the time but me (walking my dog)! A few hand gestures later I managed to get him into an open field."

"Of course I gave him the benefit of the soubt at first, thinking there could have been engine or icing problems, but it appears (to the best of my knowledge at the moment) that he was 'lost'."

"Not sure aircraft type, bigger than an R22. Luckily, I was positioned one side of a small 'valley' he was on the other and were almost at eye level with each other. I measured it out today and the distance from one side to the other is about 40m. Rear rotors approx 3ft off ground, ground slopes around 40 degree gradient..say no more!"

"Subsequently found out he landed on a school playing fields and that the school children were on the field at the time. Oh well, any port in a storm?"


So concerened was 'Simon' that he didn't even go over to see if there was a problem. If for no other reason than to make sure all was ok.

No, no no, quick as a flash he went and loaded up the TAFs! If he had gone over, he might have found out, even out of simple curiosity what was occuring. He may have found out where the ac took off from and where he was trying to get to, was it actually EGBO or somewhere else?
After all, Simon only assumes he was lost, after giving him the benefit of the doubt! FFS

Simon claims that "A few hand gestures later I managed to get him into an open field." Not bad at 40m in fog and a pilot looking for a landing site, with perhaps other things on his mind. Would you trust a dog walker that you've just 'descended upon'?
Simon subsequently found that he had guided him into a school playing field. So, how do you all feel about that?
Good choice of landing area by the pilot? Luck? 'Well done Simon' for guiding a helicopter into a school field? etc

By Simons description
"Not sure aircraft type, bigger than an R22. Luckily, I was positioned one side of a small 'valley' he was on the other and were almost at eye level with each other. I measured it out today and the distance from one side to the other is about 40m. Rear rotors approx 3ft off ground, ground slopes around 40 degree gradient..say no more!"

"I measured it out....about 40m...approx 3ft...around 40 degree." :ugh:

Probably a Chinook then!
Bigger than an R22
30m long (rotors turning)
Rear rotors
;)

[SilsoeSid]

Maybe there was a problem with the aircraft;
Just for arguments sake, lets say the flight was from A - B, via o'head EGBO, after all, the tops were around 500ft and all above was 8/8 BLU
.
.
.
Then it all goes wrong!

What would you do when it says...Land Immediately, or Land as Soon as Possible?

[ShyTorque]

No doubt we can all discover the truth when the MOR is published. ;)

[Epiphany]

Excellent. Knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

[SilsoeSid]

Ooooh nearly! Is no one going to defend this pilot? You disappoint me Rotorheads as there is usually at least one with an excuse.


Excellent. Knew I wouldn't have to wait long.


Hardly an excuse, simply highlighting that we don't know anything about this.

[RVDT]

Might be this (http://news.wombourne.net/?p=299) one then?


http://news.wombourne.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/20101208-141612.jpg

A helicopter on route to Halfpenny Green airport made a unsheduled landing on the Ounsdale School field during break time on Monday morning. Staff and students became aware of the helicopter as it passed over the school field but were initially unable to see it through the thick fog. The unusually dense fog made it impossible for the pilot to continue and the large field was a fortunate opportunity.
One student turned to his friends when they saw the helicopter and said “I’d laugh if that lands on our field”, which of course it then did.
Attempts in the afternoon to take off again were thwarted by continued poor visibility & ice on the rotor blades. The vehicle was stranded overnight and was only able to continue its journey on Tuesday morning.
Yup. Definitely a Chinook Mr Cholmondely-Smythe.

[SilsoeSid]

Excellent, lets google map, 'Ounsdale School'... I prefer Simons version of events, it's more sensational.
:rolleyes:

[ShyTorque]

So there will be an MOR to read, oh goody. :p

Anyone else like flying singles in IMC and icing conditions? :hmm:

[John R81]

He was accurate ..... a bit bigger than an R22

[Epiphany]

Silsoe - you forgot to mention that the pilot heroically steered the stricken helicopter away from the school.

[SilsoeSid]

I think you meant to say that Simon forgot to mention how he heroically marshalled the aircraft away from the school!

[SilsoeSid]

Epiph,

You are clearly after a reaction. :ok:

As it happened, on Monday the weather perhaps wasn't as bad as Simon tells us. After all, he was merely a dog walker, the fact he is a weatherman isn't really relevant as all he can add to the story is that where he was it was foggy. Certainly when I drove into work on Monday morning it wasn't foggy. I remember commenting that it was as if the motorway gantries warning of fog patches were acting as a fog dispersal system.


If you read RVDTs earlier post, you would see the 'updated' (not the sensational 'Simon' earlier) TAF read;

TAF EGBB 061103Z 0612/0712 30005KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 TEMPO 0612/0618 5000 BR
BECMG 0617/0620 0300 FZFG VV///=

SA 06/12/2010 11:20->
METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=

As another that was flying around Birmingham and Wolverhampton on Monday, and can verify that generally it wasn't as bad as Simon paints it, this event could simply be a case of getting caught out by the weather.

Am I defending this? Not necessarily as I don't know the full story.
However if it turns out that the point of departure was clear, the route was clear, Halfpenny was asked about their weather and was suitable at the time, I would defend the decision to land in a school playing field, because it's a lot better to do that than challenge the consequences of trying to carry on!

If you then read RVDTs link;

A helicopter on route to Halfpenny Green airport made a unsheduled landing on the Ounsdale School field during break time on Monday morning. Staff and students became aware of the helicopter as it passed over the school field but were initially unable to see it through the thick fog. The unusually dense fog made it impossible for the pilot to continue and the large field was a fortunate opportunity.

"Made it impossible for the Pilot to continue and the large field was a fortunate opportunity"
Good call :ok:

[Hughes500]

The dog walker is a weatherman, there we have the nub of the problem, what would a weatherman know about the weather if most of the forecasts of the past couple of years are to go by ? SS is dead right here, I have been to EGBO and told that viz was less than 100 m which was correct but if you stepped outside the airfield gate it was 9999, so who is to say what the viz was like, perhaps he flew over the fog from a nicer part of the country.

[RVDT]

To quote Mr O'Leary (Ryanair CEO)
I mean, it is absolutely bizarre that the people who can't tell us what the fu#*ing weather is next Tuesday can predict with absolute precision what the fu#*ing global temperatures will be in 100 years' time. It's horse#hit.

*expletives modified*

Yup. Weathermen for you. :D

[206 jock]

So a weatherman, quoting weather where he is (not predicting it, or giving a forecast or whatever) is demonised? And the pilot was just clearly unlucky, huh?

What a weird place this is. Just look at the photo.

Yep Epiphany, there's some on here that would tell you black was white. The pilot can't be a 'cock' for pissing about in stupid weather, oh no.

You'll all moan when the minimum visibility distances are increased. Again. Oh and by the way, flying around when you can't see isn't just illegal, it's dangerous.

[SilsoeSid]

If I had a quid every time I heard, 'Well the weathers ok here, why aren't you coming?', I'd have quite a few quid! Much the same as the times when I've heard "I can hear you but can't see you".

As for the photo, you have no idea when it was taken or on what. I can tell you that a just couple of hundred feet above, when I was around a little later, it was 8/8 blue.

Are you 2 really pilots?

Simon was quoting the weather given on a TAF given out at 060458Z that gave unpleasant weather all day. However the TAF at 061103Z was giving all the 9's and few at 3.

Highlighted even further on how even a metman can't always be a reliable witness in these events is when he starts quoting METARS from very much earlier in the day instead of a more up to date one such as METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=
And how come he couldn't be more reliable with these reports considering he didn't make his 'report' until 05:24 the next morning?


Simon says that the ac landed around 11:15, 5 mins before Brums actual was giving 8km no sig cloud. I don't understand why Simon wasn't able to get hold of the TAF and METAR that were closest to the time of his concern.

What Simon doesn't seem to realise and this surprises me, is that vertical vis and slant vis are 2 totally different kettles of fish and as aviators 206 and Epith should know this. This is proved when Simon says, "It just so happened he descended through fog into 80m vis about 3-miles from EGBO at 1115, into an impossible landing area".
Don't forget that this is 80m forward vis according to the ground observer, however the vertical vis may well have been unlimited therefore possibly making the descent into the field possibly steep, but certainly not impossible at all.


206 Jock - This Pilot wasn't 'pissing about in stupid weather' as you put it, it seems to me that he made a good decision to do what he did rather than carry on. This should prove to be a good learning point to us all, better to bottle it when you see a landing site than to carry on in blind hope.

Regardless of how you or Epith feel about it, I think you'll find the CAA will not have a great deal to say about this, especially not in the way you want them to!

[RVDT]

Sid,

Is that an echo I hear? Too bad others can't, maybe they need a hearing test!

[ShyTorque]

A few thoughts:

The weather man will be used to making met observations, they are paid to do so and to cast aspersions on the OP here is IMHO, unprofessional. The estimate of visibility by the OP is likely to be as good as one might expect anywhere; irrespective of the forecast or METAR for the nearest airfield(s).

The photo in the press report shows a single engined Squirrel helicopter. We do not know if this the actual aircraft in question and press reports are often completely erroneous in this respect.

However, in UK, no single engined helicopter is allowed to fly under IFR, and most are not fully equipped for IFR flight.

It is possible to hold a private or commercial pilot's helicopter licence without an instrument rating and in this case we do not know if the pilot held an IR.

The pilot has a legal obligation to ensure that any flight can be safely made; i.e. the weather is suitable in all respects. If the aircraft could not have landed at its planned destination, sufficient fuel should have been carried from the outset to divert to a suitable landing place under VFR.

From my own experience of dealing with the CAA about such landings, a school playing field is always classed as a congested area, irrespective of its location. A landing in a congested area requires a written permission from the CAA, i.e. exemption from Rule 5(3)(c), which costs £108!

In this case we do not know if such a permission was applied for and granted but if it was (i.e. the playing field was the intended destination), one requirement would have been that the landing site would have been secured i.e. children would not have been on the field, except under strict control by persons on the ground. Another condition always mandated by the CAA is that the landing must take place under VFR, i.e. the visibility must be 1500 metres at the time.

I think the CAA might well be interested in looking into the press report.

[RVDT]

Given that the weather was evidently marginal and changing, the point is that this person managed to get into deteriorating conditions and the visibility went below VFR and continued to deteriorate.

As pointed out IFR is NOT an option. You are in sight of ground although the visibility is worsening.

As pointed out - VIS below 1500 metres you MUST land. What are the other options?

(a) Do you go back the way you came with the prospects of the conditions being worse than they were when you came that way?

(b) Do you decide to go up into it IMC (I hope not and illegal)

(c) Land. Just so happened to be a large area available even though it is a school playing field blah blah etc etc.

Which is the least dangerous?

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), it is an offence to contravene, to permit the contravention of, or to fail to comply with, the Rules of the Air

(3) It is lawful for the Rules of the Air to be departed from to the extent necessary:

(a) for avoiding immediate danger;

(5) If any departure from the Rules of the Air is made for the purpose of avoiding immediate danger, the commander of the aircraft must cause written detailed information about the departure, and of the circumstances giving rise to it, to be given within 10 days of the departure to the competent authority of the country in whose territory the departure was made or if the departure was made over the high seas, to the CAA.

[ShyTorque]

RVDT, Hence my comment about fuel reserves. The situation possibly wouldn't have occurred if more consideration had been given to the weather forecasts and weather diversions.

I wonder what fuel reserves were being carried and why the aircraft was landed off airport in poor visibility and freezing conditions.

Why did the pilot not divert to land at Birmingham airport instead? It's less than ten minutes flying time away.

Silsoe Sid, who is based there, said the conditions above the fog were very good and the conditions at the airport were suitable.

Pilots continue to get themselves into tight corners, especially in poor weather. That's when accidents happen and we all get tarred with the same brush. The general public see more evidence that helicopters are intrinsically dangerous. This is the last thing the industry needs, especially in an economic downturn.

Sometimes the most difficult thing about aviation is knowing when to cancel a trip. In my time I've known quite a few "yes-men" pilots, always full of good intentions to get a job done, who are now dead men.

The pilot in this incident will no doubt already have informed the CAA about the circumstances of his landing in a congested area, (unless he was already given a permission), hence my earlier reference to an MOR. If he has not, he shouldn't be totally surprised if they come asking for him to explain his actions.

[nigelh]

I for one wouldnt divert to Brum as that would involve being messed around by atc for god knows how long AND the need to fly over congested area ..... i think the pilot made right call ...just bad luck it was a school :eek: How many of us havent landed not knowing what the field is ? I once did it and ( luckily before i had closed down ) a load of prison guards came running across the field thinking it was a break out !! I repositioned pretty quick .
I dont think its a good thing to do and isnt helpful to our cause .....but it will happen now and again regardless of rules .....it just should happen often !!
( as for being guided by some random dog walker .....he may be a rabid anti and sending you towards the telephone lines .....)

[fly911]

Until I hear more about it, my default position is to side with the PILOT IN COMMAND over all monday morning co-pilot comments. The pilot did the right thing. GET 'ER DOWN! :ok:
I've been there myself and I can assure you that anything that could have been posted here would not have carried one gram of weight in my decision.

"A landing in a congested area requires a written permission from the CAA". Really ShyTorque? Even in an emergency? You aren't suggesting that the pilot PLANNED to land in a school yard, are you?

206 jock, is it true that you once said "Doesn't that pilot know what harm he's doing by landing in the Hudson River"? Just wondering...

[Dantruck]

fly911 is right. If in doubt, if viz is deteriorating fast, etc, etc, get her down. Afteral, that's what helicopters can do, so why not use that ability in timely fashion?

Or, as I think David Dixon once advised: 'If in doubt, chicken out!"

Happened to me due rapid fog formation, and I elected to follow David and my instructor's advice from years before,,,"Dan, make an early decision, not a late one, and thus give yourself time to make a nice unhurried touchdown somewhere...preferably near where you can get a cup of tea."

My R44 and I ended up nestled between miles of olive trees atop a Spanish hill, miles from anywhere. Notified ATC by phone, revised the flightplan and everyone was happy. Lifted out of there a few hours later. Never did find the farmer - or get a cup of tea - but I'm here to tell the tale. How many are not because they feared breaking a rule, pressed on and maybe later got accused of suffering 'get there'itis'?

Dan

[Sam Rutherford]

Nobody died, nobody even got hurt.

It's a good result.

Sam.

[ShyTorque]

"A landing in a congested area requires a written permission from the CAA". Really ShyTorque? Even in an emergency? You aren't suggesting that the pilot PLANNED to land in a school yard, are you?

Don't think it was a "school yard" but I was giving the pilot the benefit of doubt. As I said twice before here, I'm looking forward to reading the MOR (and finding out what the "emergency" was). An engine failure, perhaps? :rolleyes:

[fly911]

ShyTorque: "I'm looking forward to reading the MOR (and finding out what the "emergency" was). An engine failure, perhaps?"

:rolleyes:
My guess would be inadvertent IMC?

[Epiphany]

You don't land in fog. You land before you get there or 180. I hope some of the comments here are not from professional pilots.

[nigelh]

Fog can develop and/or move very quickly . Starting an approach in deteriorating waether can end in landing in fog . The other day i tried to get out of my house as the fog was coming in ....as i started it was clear with fog around 500m away ...as i started to lift it came over me and i had to land again and abort ....all in 2 -3 minutes . If you were not in the heli you dont know the circumstances . There are a lot of armchair experts here who like nothing more than to slag off other pilots . Sad but true .

[Epiphany]

The other day i tried to get out of my house as the fog was coming in ....as i started it was clear with fog around 500m away ...as i started to lift it came over me and i had to land again and abort ....all in 2 -3 minutes

And there are Weathermen with more flying sense and airmanship than some pilots. Sad but true.

[nigelh]

are you one of those ? Or are you just anonymously damning "other " pilots !!! There are good pilots and good weathermen ......remember Michael Fish !!!

[Epiphany]

No. I am not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot. But I know about the formation and dissipation of fog and if I had looked out of my window and seen it forming 500m away I would either be closing the hangar doors and opening the garage doors or going back to bed and waiting for it to clear - not attempting to take-off.

[nigelh]

I am sure you are the best :D But a really daft comment from you all the same ...there are many days up here when it is clear sky and all the 9.s with fog in the valleys ....that fog sometimes gets blown over the hills....sometimes it clears again quickly and sometimes it stays socked in ....IF you can escape before it engulfs you then you fly ...simple but i guess a true professional like you would just take the day off :ok:
Its arrogant posts like yours that would stop low timers daring to ask questions .....and even stop them landing in case its say a school field ??
I do not believe that any pfofessional would find a problem flying in 10+k of viz but within 1/2 k of a fog bank ... or maybe you just didnt understand the point ...

[Hughes500]

epiphany

If you believed the weather forecaster you would never get in the dam machine and fly anywhere. How many times in your professional life have you not flown due to the forecast and the weather has been cavok and vice versa? I am afriad today the weatherman is bordering on incompentent, you only have to look at Sky news weather versus BBC weather versus ITV weather not unusual to get 3 different answers, then look at the aviation one and get a 4th answer.As to fog and closing the hanger door, what are you on about ? Fog can happily form in the bottom of a valley, doesnt stop you flying over it and still be in sight of surface etc etc
This guy made a perfectly sensible decision, none of us were there, no one was hurt. Quite frankly The CAA have / should have better things to look at.
By the way The CAA does not include all playing fields as congested areas, they lost a case years ago by claiming that a golf course was a congested area

[SilsoeSid]

Epiphany;
No. I am not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot. But I know about the formation and dissipation of fog and if I had looked out of my window and seen it forming 500m away I would either be closing the hangar doors and opening the garage doors or going back to bed and waiting for it to clear - not attempting to take-off.

"Not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot" ... or neither! :eek:
Surely if you saw fog forming 500m away you would realise that it was already fog!
:p


Here's one for you Epiph,, if you were wanting to travel in the other direction from where the fog was 'forming', which had 10k+ vis and your route and destination were clear and forecasted to remain so, would you go?
(The hypothetical return trip is the next day where the weather is forecast to be 8/8 BLU)

[ShyTorque]

By the way The CAA does not include all playing fields as congested areas, they lost a case years ago by claiming that a golf course was a congested area

I would agree about many golf courses, they are often very open and outside a congested area; but the 1,000 foot rule still applies when getting to and from them. I land on them quite often and make a decision whether to apply for a CAA permission or not at the planning stage. But this is not a golf course, it's a school playing field in a town (in Wombourne, just outside the Halfpenny Green ATZ).

[Epiphany]

"Not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot" ... or neither!


Yes Silsoe. Incredible to believe I know but 35 years flying and 10,000 hours as a professional helicopter pilot and not one accident. Been to lots though as a HEMS pilot and seen the sights, smells and indignity of a violent death. That is what p*isses me off so much about apologists on this forum who always defend and find excuses for irresponsible pilots - be it flying VFR in IMC, landing in unauthorised sites or attempting aerobatics etc, etc.

Rarely a week goes by that we do not hear of some helicopter accident and read the accompanying condolences and grieving that go with them. There is always a reason for an accident and many of them are caused by irresponsible flying of one form or another or poor airmanship and judgement.

Yet, when someone (like weatherman) highlights an incident that he believes was irresponsible flying people instantly leap to the defence of the pilot. You say that weatherman does not know the facts - well neither do you but at least he witnessed it. The difference between irresponsible flying and a fatal accident are just one link in the chain. What would have been the result if there had been wires across that field?

Surely if you saw fog forming 500m away you would realise that it was already fog!

Exactly. Which is why I quoted it. But it wasn't me who was attempting to take off in those conditions - it was nigelh - who then calls me arrogant and questions MY professionalism.

[206 jock]

So let me get this right, according to a few of you, when the forecasts available when you set off on your trip tell you that your destination is highly likely to be covered in freezing fog (low visibility and icing conditions), there's just a teeny tiny chance that at an airport 22 miles to the East of your destination will start clearing 15 mins before you are due to arrive. And one 25 miles to the West will be socked in all day. Given the above it's OK to think 'what do weathermen know, the idiots'. Wow, that's some big balls you guys have.

At least the pilot got it down OK, but he should not have been there in the first place. A real case of 'pressonitis' if ever there was one. Fortunately this one had a safe ending.

[SilsoeSid]

Some real hard feelings here, especially as none of us know what actually happened. None of us here know 'the facts'.
We don't know anything from the pre-flt planning stage to the landing at the school. We especially dont know the bits inbetween.

Yet, when someone (like weatherman) highlights an incident that he believes was irresponsible flying people instantly leap to the defence of the pilot.
Unfortunately, despite being there, Simon (the metman) doesn't tell us much of the whole story. All he has told us is that it was a bit foggy where he was, the 5 hour earlier TAF wasn't very nice and how he marshalled the ac into a field that turned out to be a school playground. Very reliable!

Clearly, as the thread is titled the way it is, some here are more than happy to hang someone out to dry, before knowing the facts. It's not a matter of defending the pilot, but being awake and savouring the coffee essence.

Despite me telling you that to the East the weather was fine and others highlighting that the later TAF was 9999 FEW030 and the METAR was VRB02KT 8000 NSC , you seem to prefer the words of a 'Weatherman' out walking his dog!
Looking at the info at the bottom of the original post, could it be Simon Keeling, Midlands Today TV weather presenter?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/midlandstoday/content/articles/2006/12/26/simon_keeling_feature.shtml
Short of a Christmas pressie? You can always buy his book!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sailors-Book-Weather-Simon-Keeling/dp/0470998032/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1292235437&sr=1-1
He may well be a very good weatherman, but we must still remember about eye witness reliability!



Incredible to believe I know but 35 years flying and 10,000 hours as a professional helicopter pilot and not one accident.
And by the sounds of it, never caught out by the weather, never had to turn around, never had to go around, never had to divert, never started to walk out to the ac and do a 360 to walk back straight back into the planning/crewroom! :suspect:

One of Epiphs earlier prune quips to keep y'all going; "Climbing into cloud won't kill you." :eek:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/368646-what-would-you-do-why.html#post4837519


206jock
A real case of 'pressonitis' if ever there was one.
Maybe, just maybe, we just don't know yet...do we!

[Hughes500]

206 jock,, here lies the nub of the problem the weatherman ! On numerous occassions the weatherman gets it horibbly wrong, I have got to the point of looking out the window, something that seems to escape The Met Office ( bear in mind I live 10 miles from them and you wouldnt believe the inaccuracies!)Yes you have to look at the met but see how often a 214 and 215 differ from the metars and tafs. With this in mind I would certainly elect to go and see,if there is conflicting information. Obviously if the weather is showing crap all day with no sign of a clearance anywhere that is different.
Bear in mind the metman is guessing from a computer model ( depends which one the met office is using though!)
Also bear in mind viz is almost impossible to determine on the ground when looking straight up to a white/grey sky, when looking down to a green/dark background viz is much much better.

[Epiphany]

Hey Silsoe, if you are going to selectively quote me then do it in context. I was referring to IFR pilots in IFR helicopters who have the option of converting scud running to a mode of flight that is less likely to result in CFIT - not VFR pilots in VFR helicopters. I climb into cloud most days and it hasn't killed me yet.

And by the sounds of it, never caught out by the weather, never had to turn around, never had to go around, never had to divert, never started to walk out to the ac and do a 360 to walk back straight back into the planning/crewroom!

You are beginning to sound desperate and incoherent Silsoe. Yes, I have turned around, yes I have gone around, yes I have diverted, yes I have walked back into the crew room. I have even cancelled the odd flight after reading a TAF. Which is precisely why I am still sitting here writing this and not dead and buried along with my unfortunate passengers.

[nigelh]

This is what i love about anonymous forums !!! Some of us hide behind secret names and others are quite visible ....the secret ones tend to be the more agressive for some reason ....
Where i live if you waited for perfect forecasts AND perfect out of the window you would very rarely fly .......today for instance i am sitting on the top of the hill blue sky 999 but once again about 1/2 k down the hill it is dense fog ....all the valleys are full . In Epiphany world i shut the hangar door and dont fly ...why ? It is a beautiful crisp sunny day out there , just keep more than 200m away from the fog and you will have a great day !! I would never advocate flying into a known area of fog but if it was forecast to clear during my flight i may well give it a go ....pushing a bit too far and having to land in it is not good airmanship i agree but it can and does happen to everyone sooner or later ....as for it being a playing field that wouldnt bother me one bit and shouldnt bother you either . What are you going to say if it transpires that the pilot has 20,000 hrs and no accident ....??

[ShyTorque]

What are you going to say if it transpires that the pilot has 20,000 hrs and no accident ....??

Now we really are speculating! I reckon a pilot with that much flying experience would have chosen to divert to Birmingham Airport instead.

Btw, Sid. Don't forget you are speaking from the view point of someone flying in an operation which exempts you from Rule 5. Most others (myself included) aren't.

[Epiphany]

Some of us hide behind secret names and others are quite visible .

Oh - you are THAT nigelh? Well I am that Epiphany. This is an anonymous forum so get used to it. I have no idea who you are and don't wish to.

I will state my point once more for clarity and then exit this increasingly depressing thread. If a pilot is flying VFR from A to B then both A, B, AND everywhere along the route should be VFR. If not then you don't go. I don't need to quote any publications as it is common dog.

There are TAF's, enroute forecasts and METARS published on a regular basis to enable pilots to make these decisions. It seems that some of you are happy to ignore them. Well if you do and you find yourself in IMC with no way out other than landing in some field IN FOG then you should take the consequences.

I'm sure you will find sympathetic readers here on Rotorheads.

[101BOY]

And by the sounds of it, never caught out by the weather, never had to turn around, never had to go around, never had to divert, never started to walk out to the ac and do a 360 to walk back straight back into the planning/crewroom! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/cwm13.gif

If you do a 360 Silsoe - don't you end up going in the same direction as you started? Surely a 180 to go to the crewroom!

I'll get my coat.

[SilsoeSid]

Aaah, yes, well spotted 101, glad someone was taking notice.
:O

[SilsoeSid]

Before you go Epiphany, can you answer my earlier question;

If you were wanting to travel in the other direction from where the fog was 'forming' (500m away), which had 10k+ vis and your route and destination were clear and forecasted to remain so, would you go?
(The hypothetical return trip is the next day where the weather is forecast to be 8/8 BLU)

or answer me this;

Epiphany;
If a pilot is flying VFR from A to B then both A, B, AND everywhere along the route should be VFR. If not then you don't go.
:confused: VFR/VMC :confused:

Does that then also apply if there is some valley fog along the way?
The way I read it is that you are saying that you wouldn't go full stop. Couldn't you fly over the valleys or simply go round them??
Is there a difference between flying over those fog filled valleys and a mass of water, like a river, lake or channel?

[SilsoeSid]

If a pilot is flying VFR from A to B then both A, B, AND everywhere along the route should be VFR. If not then you don't go. I don't need to quote any publications as it is common dog.

For those that it is not common dog to;
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_03_09.pdf

[Epiphany]

Come on Sid. If there is a layer of fog in a valley then it is pilots discretion whether he/she chooses to overfly it. If you are in a single and the donk stops you are going to have to auto into the fog - your call.

It is called airmanship or judgement and each of us has our own interpretation of that. Merry Christmas. ;)

[SilsoeSid]

Of course it is, but you tell us you wouldn't even lift in the first place!
And the first question!

[SilsoeSid]

Excellent,

Epiphany leads us on with;
Ooooh nearly! Is no one going to defend this pilot? You disappoint me Rotorheads as there is usually at least one with an excuse.

Gets the desired reaction;
Excellent. Knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

and when realises he's on the back foot;
I will state my point once more for clarity and then exit this increasingly depressing thread.
Yet only 2 hours later, he returns for more.
:D:ok:

[Hughes500]

Here's an interesting one, what does in sight of the surface actually mean? You can fly over a fog filled valley and not see the surface, but you can see the surface of the hills either side, legal or not ? I suppose you can argue could you autorotate to the "in sight of surface patch", bit it doesnt say that !
If you can see down through most of the fog is that in sight of the surface or not !

[jellycopter]

Hughes

The ANO specifies what 'Surface in Sight' means and from memory it says something about being able to control the attitude of the aircraft with reference to the surface - or words to that effect. VeeAny......? You'll have the appropraite reg to hand don't you?

JJ

[SilsoeSid]

What really gets me about this sort of discussion, is that despite not knowing the full story, some are more than happy to hang, draw and quarter the pilot, quoting any rule that may be applicable, regardless of the situation that the pilots found themselves in. Others try to rationalise the circumstances and put themselves in the pilot in questions predicament.

There's a story somewhere about a fixed wing pilot that found himself in trouble. After going through the reference cards, manuals and trying different options piped up on the radio to ATC, "I have tried everything the books say, my training and experience told me and have clean run out of ideas, can you get hold of the AAIB and ask them what I should have done".

We get comments here such as "... but he should not have been there in the first place." which is all well and holier than though, however the pilot is now in that situation, and will deal with as best they can.


Getting to my point of this post, we also get comments in relation to experience, "I reckon a pilot with that much flying experience would have chosen to divert to Birmingham Airport instead."

May I refer you all back to June 2008...

gwZILBd-mNI

...and the subsequent PPRuNe thread dennis-crashes (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/331128-dennis-crashes.html)

Only one person had the courage to question Dennis and was quickly told to go away.
Everyone else that commented supported Dennis. Others of us kept quiet, because of the obvious reaction there would be.
Later, Dennis admits the crash was caused because he got it 'all so wrong'.
Read the article and notice that after a catalogue of Swiss cheese hole lining up, a lot of basic schoolboy stuff in there, the impact with the ground was the inevitable result.
In his own words, a series of poor decisions.
We all know how experienced and respected in the industry Dennis is however...it still happened.


In this recent case, a decision to land, even though it was in a school playground, prevented anything more than a few excited schoolchildren and this thread on PPRuNe.

[ShyTorque]

But what if the outcome had been a collision with those power cables in the fog (check out the chart just to the west), or an injured school child, who ran into the tail rotor? Airmanship involves knowing when to say enough is enough and not relying on luck to get by.

I can recall the names of two experienced pilots who got themselves into a corner with paying passengers on board, from which no-one came out. One of those accidents resulted in single engined aircraft being no longer allowed to fly in IMC. There was another high profile possible CFIT accident very recently. We really don't want any more.

Again, I look forward to reading the MOR which will no doubt exonerate this particular pilot.

[SilsoeSid]

I take it all in ShyTq and what you say makes perfect sense. It is amazing that nothing else happened here, even more so when looking at google maps and the location of the school itself and surroundings. Google Maps Street View for Pool House Road. There are 3 sets of pylons to the West :eek:

Perhaps he pressed on just that little bit too far, perhaps it was an early bottle out, or simply perhaps the screen got misty.
(The 350/355's demist is not particularly good IIRC).

I also look forward to reading the MOR, I don't know about exoneration though.

[fly911]

Epiphany: You don't land in fog. You land before you get there or 180. "I hope some of the comments here are not from professional pilots."

Gee, I was just going to say the same thing about the above comment.... But then I realized how much of a know-it-all that would make me sound like.

[Epiphany]

Can't let that one go Fly99.

Know-it-all? I don't think so. What I am is a professional helicopter pilot who is alarmed at the lack of airmanship demonstrated by some pilots and the attitude and lack of knowledge evident by others on this forum.

I am an ATPL(H) holder and I know, understand and operate my helicopter by Instrument Flight Rules. That's my job and what I get paid to do and my employer, crew and passengers expect me to know the rules.

Those of you (both commercial and private pilots) who fly visually should also know, understand and operate to Visual Flight Rules. These are written for the benefit and safety of all pilots and their passengers. These are not regulations that you can decide to follow when and if it suits your purpose. They are RULES.

Judging by comments here some pilots treat these rules as discretionary, which may explain the worrying number of UK VFR helicopter accidents and incidents in marginal weather conditions.

[fly911]

Epiphany: I know, understand and operate my helicopter by Instrument Flight Rules. I've heard you say that a number of times and wonder why you can't find some IFR operators and pilots to criticize instead of coming across like you're putting down VFR pilots for not being as professional as you are. I would put a lot more stock in comments posted by pilots that routinely fly VFR like me than condesending comments like those that you've posted. I kind of view your comments as if they were posted by a starch wing commuter pilot. fly911 ATP/R CFII/R

[SilsoeSid]

Epiphany,

I thought you were going to "exit this increasingly depressing thread". :ok:

Anyhoo;
Those of you (both commercial and private pilots) who fly visually should also know, understand and operate to Visual Flight Rules.

How do you know that he wasn't?
After all, Simon says, "I was positioned one side of a small 'valley' he was on the other and were almost at eye level with each other. I measured it out today and the distance from one side to the other is about 40m."

How on Earth is that an accurate measurement of the flight visibility? All that says is the he was 40m away from the ac.
Looking closely at mappage, that all sounds a bit suss. However, we know Simon was walking his dog and you may notice that all the footpaths that are on on the other side of what could be described as a valley, are funnily enough, about 1500m away!

And I think it has been mentioned before, but just to confirm the reliable 'eye witness account' you trust so much;
In one sentence he says. "he descended through fog into 80m vis about 3-miles from EGBO at 1115, into an impossible landing area", yet then tells us, "A few hand gestures later I managed to get him into an open field."
So what happened, do you really think he landed in that impossible area, saw Simon, took off again and was marshalled in the open field that Simon later found out was a school.
Vis so bad Simon didn't see the school that he marshalled the ac into? Come on!

So what is the truth?
We just don't know, and you are now happily prosecuting a case totally blind. However as you keep telling us that you always fly IFR, you must be used to that!

[SilsoeSid]

Epiphany;
No. I am not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot. But I know about the formation and dissipation of fog and if I had looked out of my window and seen it forming 500m away I would either be closing the hangar doors and opening the garage doors or going back to bed and waiting for it to clear - not attempting to take-off.

I am an ATPL(H) holder and I know, understand and operate my helicopter by Instrument Flight Rules. That's my job and what I get paid to do and my employer, crew and passengers expect me to know the rules.

Do you not find it strange that under IFR you can (below 3,000 feet AMSL, COCISS), fly in a flight visibility minimum of 800 metres.
How is that safer?

[ShyTorque]

Do you not find it strange that under IFR you can (below 3,000 feet AMSL, COCISS), fly in a flight visibility minimum of 800 metres.
How is that safer?

Planning to fly, and flying at or above 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5 nautical miles, can help more than a little.

Don't forget that just because a pilot holds an IR, he won't be flying under IFR all the time...

If I'd inadvertantly landed on school playing fields and then had any chance of taking off again, I certainly wouldn't stay overnight, for a number of reasons. Maybe this aircraft had a fault which caused the pilot to wait for engineering assistance (or maybe the pilot needed fresh underwear for some reason).

[madlandrover]

Getting back on the start of the topic for a sec... EGBO's a tricky one in fog, but it takes local knowledge or a very good eye indeed to know that. We sit in a bowl with some very damp ground to the south of us, so are very prone to fog which can set in for the whole day even when elsewhere clears. I think the fastest I've seen in the last month (let alone the last few years working there!) was CAVOK to 200m or less FG in 25 mins. Not one to play with. The AFISOs there are incredibly professional - they are unable to give official weather observations or forecasts but will use experience to have a quiet chat. Always worth asking them about OAT and dewpoint as well, remember the 2 degree rule...

[SilsoeSid]

Don't forget that just because a pilot holds an IR, he won't be flying under IFR all the time...

Epiphany does!

[nigelh]

To be fair to Epiphany he probably hasnt flown single vfr for some years and has forgotten that we , on a daily basis , set off on flights in the knowledge that we will have to divert around some weather at some point in the journey . In my experience one can almost always find a route around the worst and can get from A to B safely . As we dont have the option to go up and through it we have to go around it ...therfore one would try to find a route east or west which will put you into better weather . I wouldnt set off if the weather spread right across the country !! Until we get a weather report that covers all parts of the country then vfr pilots are always going to be going into the unknown to some extent as you can well have two areas giving cavok and poor wx in between . As this is not covered in training then some get better at reading between the lines than others .
ps i am planning vfr from Leeds to Shoreham tomorrow at 2pm ...can you tell me if it will be cavok the whole route ? Which route ? Thanks :ok:

[ShyTorque]

You only fly in CAVOK conditions? Try via Florida

[SilsoeSid]

can you tell me if it will be cavok the whole route ?

I'd be surprised if it was CAVOK along any part of the route :p

[nigelh]

well then would you expect it to be a flight that Epiphany would undertake or would he think it was unprofessional ??!!

[206 jock]

Interesting Nigel...so there's only CAVOK and poor weather?

If you look at all the TAFs on Orbifly (MET'MAP - ORBIFLY FLIGHT SCHOOL - IFR ET CPL AMERICAIN EN EUROPE - FAA IFR AND CPL IN EUROPE (http://www.orbifly.com/member/metmap.php?region_choose=UKI&mode=taf&icao_choose=&prog_delay=12&lang=ENG)) you might be OK if you go West.

But if it all goes to pot, there's always a local school playing field to pop into :-). If it's a posh school term might have ended so you'll be fine.

[Hughes500]

206

If it is a really posh school they have a helipad ! ( See Millfield ):ok:
And no my kids dont go there

[ShyTorque]

well then would you expect it to be a flight that Epiphany would undertake or would he think it was unprofessional ??!!

No, I do not think he would think that. I'm not sure why you posted that comment unless you are just trying to "have a go" at someone for no other reason than not agreeing with your own viewpoint.

VFR is VMC, under VFR flight rules. Carrying out a precautionary or forced landing for any reason, including weather, means that an MOR should be submitted.