View Full Version : Police EC135 crash Glasgow
AllyPally
26th Apr 2002, 21:43
Anybody know if an interim report has been published concerning the BAS EC135 that crashed near Glasgow. Various rumours circulating up North ref FADEC, CFIT etc but no facts.
AP
:confused:
Helinut
26th Apr 2002, 22:33
AP,
Had a quick check of the AAIB website and could not find anything yet:
www.aaib.dtlr.gov.uk/index/
Out of Balance
28th Apr 2002, 00:42
Can't find anything in the Scottish media websites. When was the accident?
Droopy
28th Apr 2002, 01:12
No report of any sort out; I think it'll be a while yet.
AllyPally
28th Apr 2002, 09:48
The accident was in Feb 02. It involved an EC135 operated by BAS for Strathclyde Police.
AP
bosher
24th Jul 2002, 22:33
Is the report out yet.
Looked on AAIB web site, nothing yet.
Anybody got any ideas?
MightyGem
26th Jul 2002, 03:16
Yes, but I'll wait for the report.:)
Thomas coupling
28th Jul 2002, 23:19
Concur.
AllyPally
24th Sep 2002, 21:18
Why is the report taking so long?
:confused:
AP
Letsby Avenue
24th Sep 2002, 21:41
Because there is something to hide old boy....:eek:
widgeon
24th Sep 2002, 22:22
Fuel control abducted by aliens , or did the chemtrails knock out the pilot !!.
Brother
25th Sep 2002, 18:37
A certain manufacturer (of which bits I won't say) is no longer looking for mechanical faults.
SASless
26th Sep 2002, 01:45
They didn't hide anything on the BHL 76 that came first in the blade slinging contest a few months back.....what could they wish to ignore in this one?
Thomas coupling
26th Sep 2002, 07:24
The crash, because it didn't injure anyone seriously, is not at the top of the AAIB pile. It is suggested that it could therefore take some considerable time for anything to 'leak out';)
widgeon
26th Sep 2002, 10:56
Some March incidents were in Sept release and some from as far back as oct 2001 maybe we should wait until Dec before declaring a conspiracy.
Nick Lappos
26th Sep 2002, 13:41
Having worked with several accident boards, let me offer this observation:
The board's primary purpose is to prevent any more accidents from occurring. If the initial findings produce facts that change the way we maintain, inspect or operate, they might be quickly disseminated to the users (a widget is failing, a nut is loostening up, etc). Sometimes, the inspections are proven unnecessary or prematurely required, but the risk of having repeats makes this burden very acceptable.
If the board sees a more routine cause, or simply none apparent, it will be much more deliberate, and will NEVER speculate (speculation means unfounded "I wonder if....." statements).
I have never seen a coverup in any way, on any board I have known. Those empty headed assertions otherwise are usually right up there with faked moon landings, Pentagon attacks by the USAF and grassy knoll gunmen, interesting speculation from ignorant people with too much time on their hands! Aside from the professionalism of those generally involved, most countries and Military services have shown the wisdom of having the board chair as an independent person, not beholding to the entity that operates the aircraft. At times, the NTSB in the States clashes with the FAA because of this, perhaps because the NTSB recommends sweeping (and expensive or perhaps impractical) solutions for isolated accident causes, and the FAA has to help determine the economic and practical impact of these recommendations.
Letsby Avenue
26th Sep 2002, 14:09
My conspiracy theory was inspired by boredom! Always hooks TC though:D
Now the moon landings I'm not at all sure about...:cool:
Droopy
26th Sep 2002, 19:19
It doesn't seem to me that this report is taking an abnormally long time to come out - thoroughness obviously takes time. The Dyfed Powys crash was rather earlier and that's not out yet either.
AllyPally
9th Jan 2003, 22:49
Its now 2003 and still nothing from the AIB.
AP
:confused:
I've got a glossy AAIB leaflet (dated March 2002) which says they do about 350 reportable acccidents each year.
2% are the so called 'Inspector's Investigations' - the yellow formal reports - which they claim to do in '12 months' (but its not clear if that's a target or an average or what).
23% are Field Investigations which go into the monthly bulletin in '6 months'.
The other 75% are reported on in the monthly bulletin and are based on the air accident investigation form submitted by the pilot in '3 months'. Usually they don't even view the wreckage (hence their embarrassment over the first of the two identical A109 Powers accidents a few years back).
I assume if the debris is at Farnborough they must be doing one of the first two. If its a formal report its not really overdue yet, though I guess they would have made interim recommendations if there was any major hazard.
Perhaps its a pity they don't do an annual report like the Marine AIB that 'contains information about the branch's performance and accident statistics'.
AllyPally
13th May 2003, 06:48
A year goes by and still no word on what happened:confused:
AP
Twisted Rigging
15th May 2003, 20:57
AP,
Why are you so concerned with this incident?
TR
AllyPally
17th May 2003, 22:34
Hi TR
I am always interested in learning from other peoples mistakes or tech failures. This is an interesting accident because it happened at night in an area with little environmental backlighting. There are plenty of rumours about what happened and I would like to see the official report.
I don't understand why it is taking so long to appear unless there was a very complicated cause which has not yet been investigated to a satisfactory conclusion. The company concerned has many single pilot operations and I am sure that they would want to discover what caused the accident.
AP
Ally Pally:
I'm intrigued; this is a 2 page post and I am no better informed.
I realize the risks of speculation but! What happened before it crashed ? Did it lose an engine, lose contol, hit a wire ?
Thomas coupling
20th May 2003, 00:12
Allegedly: CFIT!
Droopy
20th May 2003, 02:52
Not so sure about the "C"..............
Flying Lawyer
7th Aug 2003, 18:22
AAIB Report (http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_avsafety/documents/page/dft_avsafety_023427.hcsp)
Heliport
8th Aug 2003, 07:46
http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/images/news/helicoptercrash250.jpg
The Strathclyde Police Press Release (at the time of the accident) is here. (http://www.strathclyde.police.uk/news/2002/02/news_308_020225.html)
spinningwings
8th Aug 2003, 13:10
Ooooohhhhhh......"******!"
The Nr Fairy
8th Aug 2003, 13:39
Don't fancy forking out for that brand-new, certified-to-modern-crashworthiness standards machine ?
Read this report. Then convince your boss.
Thomas coupling
9th Aug 2003, 06:33
Nr Fairy, are you saying it's not particularly crashworthy, or what?
PANews
9th Aug 2003, 06:40
No.
I read that as he meant quite the opposite.....
As the report states, quite remarkable that three 'walked' away from that basket case.
That doesn't mean YOU can fly yours anything less than carefully!
Heliport
9th Aug 2003, 16:28
from the Glasgow Herald Helicopter crash probe calls for night vision goggles
EXPERTS investigating the crash of a police helicopter in Ayrshire have recommended that pilots on such operations should have night vision goggles and a higher level of training.
The accident happened in atrocious weather near Muirkirk, in February 2002, as a Strathclyde Police Eurocopter 135 was searching woodland and fields after reports of a child's cry in the area, which turned out to be a false alarm.
The Air Accident Investigation Branch report concluded that the problems started when the aircraft encountered heavy cloud. But it said that the flight would still have been uneventful if the pilot had had more experience of operating the autopilot system.
However, it pointed out that, although he had no experience of flying helicopters with autopilot, he was trained to a level above that required, and the industry norm.
After the crash, the pilot and Constable Kenneth Irvine, 36, from Hamilton, braved a possible fuel explosion to free Constable Neil McIntosh, 41, from Bishopbriggs, near Glasgow, who lay trapped in the wreckage with a broken leg.
The conclusion of the investigators is that there were no defects on the £2.5m helicopter and the events were consistent with the pilot's inadvertently pressing a switch on his cyclic control - although the pilot has no recollection of that happening.
They say his actions when he unexpectedly encountered poor weather conditions were reasonable and the flight would probably have been uneventful if the pilot had had better appreciation of the autopilot system.
The report recommends that pilots operating in support of police operations at night should be equipped with helmet-attached night vision goggles.
It also suggests that the Civil Aviation Authority should review the Police Air Operators' Manual to ensure that training in the use of autopilot systems is required to be covered by the operator during initial and recurrent line training.
bosher
14th Aug 2003, 01:21
Those of you that fly 135's, is it that easy to disconnect the SAS and Autopilot?
What are your views of this incident?
MightyGem
14th Aug 2003, 04:33
It's as easy as pressing the "dump the AP and SAS all at once" button. Which is what, in a moment of stress, he did. What he should have/wanted to do, was press the "decouple" button to switch off the Hdg and Height holds. Different type/size of button on a different part of the cyclic.
Thomas coupling
14th Aug 2003, 07:31
Roll on NVG..............;)