AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk

[rotorspeed]

212

Quite agree Vy usually most sensible climb speed but it could just be on some types that Vy is less than VMini - which is why I said VMini+, with IMC being focal issue. Sorry wasn't very clear and too abreviated perhaps! You could argue VTOSS would be safest climb speed for IMC obstacle avoidance clearance being nearest to Vx (best angle), but that is almost always less that VMini.

[[email protected]]

212man - I don't know about your AP but mine in ATT mode (normal selection) copes very well with flapback, inflow roll and tuckunder in the transition from the hover.

My point is that you could have a lower Vmini if the pitot system was good enough but none seem to be. It is easily possible to control the aircraft on instruments below Vmini but it won't be certified that way because of the inaccuracies of the pitot system.

[ShyTorque]

I'd be surprised if this was allowable for any IFR certificated aircraft! If it was allowed, how could you carry out a legal go around in IMC?

[Torquetalk]

VTOSS is achieved quite rapidly following rotation (8 seconds in nil wind?). After that a climb attitude has to be set to avoid an excessive acceleration in IAS at the expense of rate of climb. In the AW139 this attitude results in a controlled acceleration to a speed a little above Vy. Vmini is also reached moments after VTOSS and the AFCS can be engaged. Or not. Personally, I would let the aircraft continue to accelerate and climb if it is already doing just that. A misaction during this critical phase could upset a running system.

The moment the aircraft left the ground (which was a bad decision), it was committed to the take-off. If the aircraft had the power for an OGE climb (which it had to), there was no real need to rotate at a low height (another bad decision). The cockpit had two people in it but it didn’t make the situation safer, as the crew did not know how to work together to decide upon and execute a safe course of action. Which in this case, would have been to say NO.

Great discussion. Chewing over what is and isn’t legal is important. No less the importance of doing things sensibly when having to make decisions in the grey zones and the law or employer culture can’t give the right answer.

[Torquetalk]

As a practical rider to the above, the normal rotation profile could have beeen amended to simply putting the nose on the horizon, with no nose-down attitude. VTOSS would have been gained whilst continuing to climb and with a lesser risk of illusions or fixation. At the height where they rotated, there was no need for a rapid acceleration.

[Geoffersincornwall]

As I was reminded recently at a Training Conference every accident report almost always begins

"The pilot was properly licensed, the pilot was properly qualified, he/she had x thousand hours of experience."

What does that say about our licensing system and the training that supports it?

G. :confused:

[Non-PC Plod]

I don't know it says anything about our licensing or training - it just shows that even trained, qualified and experienced people make mistakes.

[[email protected]]

But this was a big mistake, fundamental to safely flying the helicopter, not a missed RT call or an incorrect altimeter setting.

Torquetalk - I presume when you say 'the AFCS can be engaged' you mean the upper or autopilot modes can be engaged (ALTA, TAS hold etc) once above Vmini. The AFCS should be providing at least rate damping (SAS) but more likely Attitude hold in the hover and during the transition.

Geoffers - I agree - does the licensing process not look more like a box-ticking exercise rather than an assessment of flying ability?

[Torquetalk]

Yes crab, I mean exactly that. No need to be risking finger trouble by selecting autopilot cues at a critical phase of flight when things are going nicely. Better wait until the aircraft has reached a safe height and attained Vy or better. I think when to be selecting higher modes is also situation dependent. If it is a programmed SID, you may well want to select NAV at Vmini, especially if going IMC at a very ealry stage.


Licensing focuses on certain flying standard, but these rarely have any bearing on accident situations. That's why we have CRM and why it is important for multi-crew and especially important for pilots operating alone.


I find some of the simplest situations begin to get loaded if CRM and MCC are poor, whereas more complicated situations are managed comfortably by a crew that knows what it is doing and communicates well.


TT

[SASless]

A question that I see about CRM as it relates to the reality of the Cockpit can be summed by asking......"How effective is the transfer of knowledge gained during CRM Training conveyed into Operator Procedures, SOP's, and Cockpit Crew Coordination/Function?

All the CRM training in the world does not have much benefit if the principles learned are not translated into effective implementation by the Operator/Crew.

Do we actually confirm at the individual level we have fully incorporated CRM teachings to the necessary level that would prevent these kinds of Tragedies from happening?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Does that mean that we are doing everything right and that accidents are merely the product of a personality defect?

No, of course not. The Ransom model has it that we put a series of barriers in the way of the accident trajectory and that only when the holes in those barriers are aligned do we have an accident. One of those barriers is licensing. Licensing systems are designed (presumably) to deliver an optimum outcome - a competent pilot. Accordingly all the rules developed to deliver a licensed professional pilot must be designed to deliver this 'competent individual'. It therefore follows that the barrier (Swiss Cheese) called licensing is free of holes. We know different of course.

Similarly the barrier called 'Training' is designed to be compliant with the rules produced by the licensing authority. If fully compliant the schools delivering the training have every right to expect the result to be, once again, a 'competent individual'. Schools management MUST therefore focus on compliance in order to retain their approval to operate. The assumption therefore, once again, is that the 'Training' barrier (Swiss Cheese) has no holes in it. We know different here also.

I have a list of 'holes' that experience has allowed me to identify but I don't want to sound like a worn out record banging on about them. Maybe you other guys and gals out there can pitch in with your experience and tell us what 'holes' in both the Licensing and the Training Swiss Cheeses you have identified. Maybe between us we can identify a definitive list and use it to inform those that need this knowledge. A kind of bottom-up feedback.

G. :ok:

[ShyTorque]

Geoffers, here's one for a start. The A139 is certified for SPIFR, as are other similar helicopters. Pilots are trained, licensed and tested to operate single pilot IFR. But a private owner or operator can require two pilots up front when flying passengers (it is an insurance requirement for some). Then, in some cases, the only time a SPIFR pilot flies by himself is during his check rides, or during positioning flights.

[SASless]

The US FAA sets up a situation for problems when it defines IMC/VMC using Cloud Height and Visibility alone for that in our FAR Part 91. Example is the JFK Jr Fatal Crash where Night VFR for Non-Commerical operations requires no surface or celestial lighting to maintain control of the aircraft yet for Commercial Operations under FAR Part 135 it does specify surface lighting sufficient to control the aircraft.

That US EMS Helicopter Operators routinely ignore that requirement never sees enforcement action by the FAA.

Regulation....Fail

Enforcement....Fail

Training.....Fail

SOP's Operator Procedures.....Fail

Judgement.....Fail



All the Holes line up neatly far too often as a result as some of them are quite large thus facilitating the smaller ones a lot of room to line up.

[handysnaks]

Licensing systems are designed (presumably) to deliver an optimum outcome - a competent pilot..
They probably were competent for the purpose of licensing. They just weren't competent enough for the purpose of their operation. In non-private flying, it is the OPC and Line Check that should determine whether a pilot is competent to carry out the role that his or her employers are paying for. The issue here is that in a number of corporate operations, because they are carried out under the flag or private flying, there is no oversight from the regulator! What's more, as the regulator doesn't get to determine who it regulates, it seems to me that casting blame in that direction is wrong.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I think that you have made a vitally important observation - perhaps without realising it. You could maybe expand on this theme.

I am talking about your acute awareness that there is a relationship between competence and the role the professional undertakes. How would it be, do you think if the regulations required that before you were permitted to work in a discrete market sector you were required to hold a license extension that included that sector.

This you would not be permitted to work in any of the following without an appropriate 'role related' rating: -

BASIC VFR Day
BASIC Night
IFR
SPIFR
MCC
Offshore - Day only Hostile environments
Offshore - Day only Non Hostile environments
Offshore - Day/Night Hostile environments
Offshore - Day/Night Non Hostile environments
HEMS - Day only
HEMS - Day/Night
FIRE
SLING
LAW ENFORCEMENT
SAR - Overwater
SAR - Overland
(any more????)

More bl**dy bureaucracy I hear you protest but if you make it the responsibility of the employer to ensure that appropriate role training is delivered in order to achieve the - let's call it a 'Role Rating - you have - at least in regulatory terms brought together the job with appropriate training.

G. :ok:

[SASless]

A perfect recipe for Empire Building and Turf Guarding by far too many people.

Your UK Licensing System is far too complex and convoluted as it is now.....why add to that Monster.....not to forget Lots of Lots of Cost!

In a cold view....would that be cost effective as compared to the real cost in machines and lives?

Are there cheaper and far less complicated ways of achieving the same goal?

[Geoffersincornwall]

If there is a cheaper way please show me.
Don't you think you are in denial. A licensing system must be fit for purpose. The CPL as is leaves the newly licensed rotary wing professional facing a huge skill gap before he can be of any use as a functional crew member in most helicopter roles.

At present we rely on a patchwork of 'on-the-job' training that clearly doesn't work. Agreed the big operators tend to recognise the realities and put their people through a comprehensive programme that takes them all the way from Newbie to 'good-to-go' line pilot. They would not incur any additional costs if they put their programme forward as an 'AMC'.

The effect of a 'role rating' would be to codify what is expected by way of 'Best Practice'.

G. :ok:

[jellycopter]

Back at the start of this thread, I pleaded that there should be no more regulation. Enforcement maybe, but regulation..... NO!

I struggle to beleive what I'm reading here.

Two under-'qualified' pilots put themselves in an entirely avoidable situation. Launching at night in IMC and making it up as they went along was always going to end one way. If not on the night of the accident, then surely some time later.

I apologise if this sounds callous, it's not meant to. However, let's not regulate to the lowest common denominator. Regulation alone doesn't work; there will always be Darwin Award candidates that think they can circumvent the system. It's down to training and testing being made more appropriate to the real world and the acceptance that helicopter flying is a risk strewn business that CAN be managed.

JJ

[[email protected]]

So we come back to this case where the helicopter IR is clearly not fit for purpose - no flight below Vmini is ridiculous - the mil IR in many fleets specifies a low speed UP/UA recovery and an IF take off (from the hover) for exactly the reason that this crash occurred - people will use the helicopter to achieve an aim.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Two under-'qualified' pilots put themselves in an entirely avoidable situation.

It's down to training and testing being made more appropriate to the real world

You said it mate - not me. Now read my previous posts and tell me that's not what you are talking about.

I agree that our current system would work better if there was more rigour and better enforcement. The problem I am pointing at is that our system is based on the fixed wing philosophy that sees Joe Pilot pop from CPL FHT to airline with no serious issues but we cannot do that in most cases because the skills gap between the New CPL and the functioning crew member is simply too great. We need another way.

G.

[ShyTorque]

The experience gap is here to stay for quite some time, it seems. The onshore corporate world is a highly demanding role. Quite often these days, it seems no sooner has a pilot obtained his twin rating, he is in the job as single pilot corporate captain, often coming under a lot of commercial pressure, with little guidance from more experienced colleagues, as used to be the case.

Unfortunately, Jellycopter, legislation sometimes has to take account of the lowest common denominator. I probably feel just as strongly as you about not clipping everyone's wings for the sake of a few (and as you know, I've been around the bazaars for a while) but tbh, I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the terrible damage these unnecessary and preventable accidents have had on the way our business is regarded by Joe Public. Giving pilots a more simply understood set of weather limits will make it easier for the inexperienced to stand up to undue pressure to launch against their better judgement, as it seems occurred in this case.

[Cows getting bigger]

Geoff, it's not necessarily a skills gap, it's an airmanship and Command gap. The rotary world is far more demanding in this area.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Yes, yet we sign up to a scheme that promotes the notion that newbies can hours-build teaching other newbies and that this is an intelligent interpretation of the (completely idiotic) notion that more hours = more competence.

6 out of the top 10 causal factors (FAA data and EASA data) in aviation accidents involve decision making errors.

The academic papers that explore poor decision making in aviation tend to repeat one important word - EXPERIENCE. Yes you are right you cannot teach experience but if you place a newbie alongside an experienced instructor then as the academics point out you have increased the range of decision options that the newbie is exposed to.

IMHO all FI's and TRI's should all have at ATPL before being allowed to teach.

G.

[handysnaks]

Crab.

I think the helicopter I/R is fit for its basic purpose, which is to fly from anyplace with an official IFR departure procedure to any other place with an official IFR arrival procedure. The problem is depending on your point of view;

1. The rules are not strict enough and therefore allow pilots to get into the situation that started this thread or

2. The rules are strict enough but human nature being what it is, these accidents will happen if pilots don't assess their own capabilities honestly and decline to carry out operations that they are not competent enough to carry out safely every time.

SASless.

The UK licensing system (actually, the European licensing system now), is certainly more onerous than the US system and certainly more expensive, but I don't think it is much more complex or convoluted. In effect there are still only three possible things to achieve, a CPL, an ATPL and an I/R. Should you fly from airfield to airfield then any of those should allow you to do it reasonably competently within the constraints of the licence held.

Geoffers.

In a sense, that role related training that you write about already exists. Maybe not to the standard you would like it to be but within PT or Aerial Work, all organisations are required to show that they are complying with the 'spirit' of the regulations by providing OPC's and Line Training before a pilot is released to work. ( I think that is true for aerial work but happy to be shot down in flames if it is not). What you are asking for seems to be moving away from the EASA methodology, which seems to be to get operators to regulate themselves in accordance with the EASA/national and company regulations and for the local representatives of EASA to verify that each companies method of self regulation is fit for purpose. However, the 'problem' in the case mentioned is that as a private flight, the operation was not subject to any regulation. Now on the one hand it seems a bit strange that an operation that has employed pilots on its books, who are paid to fly an aircraft in the service of a company, is not subject to the same regulation as others who do virtually the same thing. On the other hand, the corporate market in the UK is (I believe), larger than most other countries in Europe. Maybe this is a case where we actually have a lot of flexibility in the industry, rather than the overly bureaucratic system that quite a lot of our number criticise regularly. Even trying to get a buy in from the private operators via the BHA is unlikely to work as many don't join. There have been a few discussions in the past regarding whether piloting aircraft is a profession or not. One of the requirements of being a member of a profession is the obligation to commit to a programme of Continuing Professional Development. Perhaps this is one of those examples that shows that maybe it is not, in that although we have to maintain our skills via OPC LPC or LC, there is very little continuing professional development that we as individual pilots are required to do, to 'keep up to the latest standards.

[ShyTorque]

Geoffers, I concur. One aspect of this accident apparently not taken into account by the AAIB was that the captain had previously been the instructor of the co-pilot, during his more recent basic rotary training. There may have been a subtle cross-cockpit gradient; the CVR revealed that one of the pilots mentioned that he wasn't happy to depart in view of the conditions.

[[email protected]]

I think the helicopter I/R is fit for its basic purpose, which is to fly from anyplace with an official IFR departure procedure to any other place with an official IFR arrival procedure. The problem is depending on your point of view but it is just a FW IR profile flown in a helicopter rather than something that reflects the realities of RW IFR.

We still have the same limits for NDB tracking as VOR despite the former (in all helis I have flown) being something of an area weapon.

How many RW pilots regularly conduct NDB or VOR holds (on the job, not for training).

The ability to get from place to place using radio aids is still just about valid but GPS will be the weapon of choice for corporate pilots I expect, with the radio aids being there for back up.

If we ignore the realities of the onshore corporate world and pretend everyone is an offshore IF God the we will keep seeing accidents like this.

Like so many accidents, this one had a number of causal factors, some of which you just can't legislate for (bad decision making or poor CRM due to previous cockpit gradient) but the mechanics of the takeoff could have been taught and tested early in both pilots careers.

[Geoffersincornwall]

I believe there is merit in seeking out best practice in each area of helicopter operations and using it to codify the requirements.

If I understand things correctly all EASA operations of non commercial complex helicopters will require AOC like provisions next year.

CRM - It's sad that it takes hindsight for the subtle cross-cockpit gradient to be so obvious and sad that it was not commented upon.

I wonder if AAIB get a few spare moments to read up on the academic studies that discuss bad decision making in aviation?

Could I add 'Corporate Ops' to my list of Role-Ratings. There would be the opportunity to learn about and develop strategies for dealing with problem owners/customers. I've been there too, it's no fun but if handled correctly you get away with a bit of huffing and puffing but they see sense in the end. Those that don't can be VERY difficult but not impossible because in the end you simply have to say no.

Crab - To extend the training into an area outside the RFM flight envelope wouldn't be allowed but your point is valid, helicopter pilots will want to use the full capabilities of the machine even when they know it's not kosher. As an ex-mil pilot I could refer back to the training you describe but those that have never been there will be standing into danger if and when they try to do the same thing.

G.

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I agree but perhaps there needs to be a clarification of what Vmini actually means.

It is sensible to have a minimum speed for cruise flight where the pitot system is accurate and the stability isn't an issue but to say that the aircraft CAN'T be flown on instruments safely to get to or from the hover is a nonsense. It isn't outside the flight envelope, simply below the figure in the RFM for flight on instruments.

I don't know what the criteria are for certification purposes or what has to be demonstrated or guaranteed when dictating Vmini but it does seem that the manufacturers have painted the pilots into a corner.

[handysnaks]

but it is just a FW IR profile flown in a helicopter rather than something that reflects the realities of RW IFR.

We still have the same limits for NDB tracking as VOR despite the former (in all helis I have flown) being something of an area weapon.

How many RW pilots regularly conduct NDB or VOR holds (on the job, not for training).

...and you can add to that the fact that as the number of NDBs and VORs are being reduced, eventually there may not be any to hold over or track to!

Geoffers.
I believe there is merit in seeking out best practice in each area of helicopter operations and using it to codify the requirements.

The only problem is that now we have to change regulations on a European level. Getting all member states to agree to what we think is best practise is probably nigh on impossible. (although I agree that the fact that it is a problem to change a poor regulation, doesn't mean you shouldn't try)!

[SASless]

What is the "NDB" thing they speak of....are they not NDB Approaches a thing of the past with the advent of GPS?

[ShyTorque]

SASless, NDB approaches to airfields still aren't too uncommon in UK (unfortunately). But I've not had to carry out an NDB hold, other than for an IR revalidation, for well over ten years now. But GPS obviously wins for accuracy and for situational awareness, hands down every single time, especially with modern moving map avionics fitted.

[SASless]

Aw Gee....no more Fixed Card NDB Holds and Approaches with no Gyro's.....whatever happened to Training Standards!

[Geoffersincornwall]

Just so we understand what we are up against these are some facts of life that make our lives even more complicated when trying to discuss standards.

1. There are parts of the world where it is normal to award an IR with no ILS experience. Russia, China, Australia? Brazil and probably others where there are simply no ILS outside the national capital or other major airports.
2. Russia certainly and others maybe have an infrastructure built around the twin NDB approach with minima that equates to CAT 1 ILS or close to it.
3. From what I see at work the TR candidates that arrive from all over the globe have a universally weak IF capability due to minimal training compounded by minimal practice combined with little practical experience, All this is compounded by ab LPC/OPC environment that lacks rigour and oversight.

CRAB - To operate outside the scope of the RFM without formal approval from the NAA or the OEM is inviting a legal issue in the event of any kind of incident. I see no reason in theory why such authority couldn't be sought. Some years ago the AAIB reported on a serious incident involving a Bell 214 ST during a night approach offshore. They (AAIB) recommended we practice zero vis IF take offs from the hover in order to experience and learn the techniques for recovering from a situation of IMC/low speed - and the UK CAA agreed and mandated these in LPC/OPC's. I can remember doing them behind the screens in a 365N. Easy peasy for RN AS SK guys, it's second nature.

G.

[handysnaks]

Although I sympathise with corporate pilots needing to carry out these types of low level IFR operations in order to keep the customer happy. My worry whilst I'm plodding around at VFR at night with a 600 ft cloud base in open country is someone carrying out some local IMC GPS (or any other type of) let down to a site that unbeknown to me is co located with my actual position at the same time!!

(TBH, the 600 ft cloud base I mentioned was for the benefit of the boss! You'll struggle to get me out into the bondu with a cloud base less than 1000 ft!, but the sentiment still holds):ok:

[ShyTorque]

Handysnaks, just keep your transponder Mode C switched on and chances are, you'll be known about, ATC coverage or not. TCAS/TAS is a great piece of equipment and most modern IFR helicopters have it as standard.

[handysnaks]

Err, yes, thanks for that Shy, I will do (as well as also looking at my own TCAD screen) although (and I am about to anthromorphize a bit of electrical equipment), it does tend occasionally to keep things to itself until the range is within a kilometre, just to ensure my heart rate can accelerate from about 60 bpm to 120 !!

[SASless]

Is that an ATC Workaround done off the cuff?

You do use the same Radio Frequency VFR and IMC in Un-Controlled Airspace don't you?

If you are dropping out Cloud at night in your fully IFR Turbine Twin with the Boss Fellah in the back sipping his Champagne....will you be chatting with any other traffic in the area that might darting about VFR under the Cloud Layer?

TCAS/TCAD is nice but doing a bit of Traffic Separation by Radio would seem a welcome addition.

[ShyTorque]

Only 120? You want to try an IFR letdown at night with a 600 ft cloud base! :}

[[email protected]]

Sasless, having flown in UK, you know the answer to most of those questions is NO.

Military aircraft fly around almost exclusively on UHF, Civil traffic is on VHF, getting anything other than a Basic service below 3000' is very unlikely unless you are in the vicinity of an airfield with radar and , whilst there is a low level common frequency (UHF) for military users, there is no VHF equivalent mandated for GA.

You only have to spend 5 minutes listening to London Information (VHF) to realise how many people there are airborne, especially on a nice day, who don't have much of a clue about what they are doing or where they are going.

Fortunately, at night and in crap weather, it is only those who have to be out there to earn a living who run the risk of bumping into each other.

TCAS does mitigate the risk to a degree, providing everyone's transponder is working properly (and turned on) but self-positioning GPS letdowns to private sites IMC to visual seem to be asking for trouble.

[SASless]

Thank you for the explanation....and as it has been some time since I enjoyed flying in the UK....I did not wish to make assertions that might not still be the case.

The thing that stood out to me while flying there is what you do not have in the UK that we do in the USA when it comes to Aviation Infrastructure. We are quite blessed here mostly due to the way we fund our system as compared to the UK method.

Nick Lappos had done some test flying at Sikorsky with an S-76 in the past that proved Low Altitude Helicopter IFR improvements are quite feasible but have yet to be fully incorporated into the national airspace system.

Part of those improvements include Point in Space Approaches and related techniques.

Perhaps along with other changes in the way we look at Helicopter IFR Flight there might be some thought given to Low Altitude IFR Operations by Helicopters to better afford us in the Helicopter Industry more flexibility in the use of the unique capabilities of the Helicopter but at the same time add a bit of structure to the way we use those Capabilities.

[Sir Korsky]

The answer to all of this commentary lies squarely at the foot of the pilots. If you ain't comfortable doing it, don't do it. I have lined up on a low viz runway on many occasions and asked the SIC if he/she wanted to continue. A few times we both agreed it wasn't worth the risk and found our way back to the hangar. The customer didn't get his ride, but tough. Our SOPs and management backed us up and our decisions were not questioned. Never fly outside your comfort zone. Make a 180, land or just don't take off. If you have to worry about having a job when you get back, maybe you need to find another one.

[SASless]

I once had a Manager walk out onto our Runway....cast an eye skyward....and look over at me as I stood there Tea Cup in hand clearly in hurry not to go anywhere.

He then looked at his watch and then again at me.

I looked at my Watch and suggested he might one day buy a Rolex like mine....and if he wanted to go flying the Keys were in my Cab.

He told a Training Captain to take my Co-Pilot and aircraft and go make the run....to be told by the Co-Pilot that he was assigned to fly with me that day and had no intentions of changing the roster. The Training Captain put his fingers to his Brow and found a Co-Pilot and aircraft to fly.

That is how a Crew should work together....weather below Company Minimums....get another Cup of Tea and wait for a distinct improvement in the weather. Once you say "No!"...the harder someone tries to coerce you to fly....just become far more firm in your stance.

The weather was good in the Oil Field Ten miles away but the Takeoff location was blanketed with Fog with less than a Hundred Yards Visibility and no way to safely comply with the two Takeoff Profiles authorized by Company Procedures.

Sometimes you just have to say "NO!".

If I had gone and nothing bad happened I would not have gotten a single Red Cent more in my pay packet.....but if something had gone wrong....the Company Management would have dropped me quicker than a used Condom to protect their own backsides.

Later on that same Training Captain obtained employment with the CAA.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Couldn't agree more - I call it applying the 'at the subsequent enquiry' test.

My 'life changing moment' came after a fatal accident the cause of which could equally be parcelled out between the pilot, the customer and the regulator with a slice going the operator's way too. Those with power or money, or both can use that leverage to escape the consequences of their actions - and so it was - leaving the poor old pilot to 'cop the whack' as they say up North.

Ever since, I have applied that test (imagine you are standing in the dock) and it has served me well. Maybe that explains why I am such an awkward and opinionated old bugger.

G. :ugh:

[SASless]

When you the Pilot show up in Court....the Operator's Legal Counsel represents the Operator....not you the Pilot.

The Insurance Company's Legal Counsel represents the Insurance Company.

The Passenger's Legal Counsel....

Well you can see how that is going.

It might be your Next of Kin that has to stand in the Dock and fight to save their Home and Income against all the others.

No sense risking all that by making a less than stellar decision.

[SuperF]

i have literally asked pushy pax if they want to die. That gets their attention.

The other thing that i have asked passengers reasonably often, is "how do i face your parents or kids at your funeral, because i crashed and was the only survivor?" Some get it, but generally if I've got to the stage of actually having to ask them that, they really don't understand how dangerous the situation they are asking to be put in actually is... :ugh:

Or depending on the client, you can just let out a crazy laugh and say F$#k no!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

SuperF;

I normally say "I'm not paid enough to die for this." that usually does it. I've been on the receiving end of some pretty severe shoutings at over the last 28 years of rotary, I'm old enough, ugly enough and bolshie enough to tell it how it is.

The owner of LBAL bonded all his pilots, I wonder how often the bond threat was used...........................

SND

[Dave B]

A lot of this thread could be applied to engineering. I was in charge of heavy maintenance on several types of Helicopters during my career, as I always preferred this to boring repetitive check ones.
My first manager was a great guy, who stated, "my job is to keep the directors off you backs"
My subsequent managers could not take this pressure, and passed it straight on, I have lost count of the number of times I have faced a red faced guy having hysterics because an aircraft was not out running on the totally unrealistic day it was planned to be.
We used to trick one guy in particular by pushing the aircraft out of the hanger,(more so on a nice day), and carrying on working out side, it used to take him half a day to realize that the aircraft was not running or flying.
I did get a rocket from the CAA once over incomplete paper work, although I new the aircraft was safe, needless to say back up was not forthcoming.
Its not easy, when you have a couple of young children, and a mortgage, to turn round and say, that's not going out until its ready, but there are times when you have no option.
The down side is that stress can have a long term effect.

[SASless]

The Accident Report on the Louisiana National Guard Blackhawk Crash near Destin has been obtained by a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The National Guard Pilots were harshly described as being dismissive of weather reports by the Boat Crews who were to pick up the Marine Corps Spec Ops team after they Rapelled/Fast Roped/Helicast into the Gulf of Mexico.

The two pilots were told of deteriorating weather offshore due to fog and log ceilings but proceeded to carry on despite the weather being far below the Mission's Briefed Weather Minimums.

The Report also reports a lack of action by Senior Staff in charge of the Training Exercise.

What was not discussed in the news article is several other aircraft Returned to Base upon realizing the weather was below Briefed Minimums.

This is not just a problem in the UK VIP Industry.

Report: Pilots in deadly Black Hawk crash disobeyed orders (http://news.yahoo.com/report-pilots-deadly-black-hawk-crash-disobeyed-orders-170210034.html)

[Wageslave]

Lead item on BBC Look East at 1830 today 13th Jan showed a movie clip taken by employees from Lord Ballyedmond's house as the helo lifted clearly showing the thickness of the fog and recording the disbelieving comments of those nearby that anyone was going flying in such weather.

BBC iPlayer - Look East - East - 13/01/2016 (http://bbc.in/2308veT)

Don't think this link will remain on the BBC site past tomorrow evening and I don't know how to download the clip.

[SASless]

We cannot view it from outside the UK.

If it is on Youtube we can.

[jellycopter]

Sas, can you download a VPN and make your PC/tablet think it's in the UK.

The video pretty much confirms what we all thought anyway.

[stacey_s]

Last few days VPN and BBC iPlayer not working here in Doha, iPlayer now senses that you are behind a VPN and refuses to ply content.

[SFIM]

It depends which VPN you use, I note "IP Vanish" does not work with BBC iplayer anymore, but "VPN Express" continues to work for example.
Update:- IP Vanish is working now, but for some reason it wasn't at lunchtime.

[Ex Machina]

IP Vanish does work with BBC iplayer when overseas. I'm using it from Italy at the moment with no trouble :ok:

[John R81]

Two screen grabs from the BBC report.


The first being a view of the machine from the house just before departure. The words are text of the voice-over by the person taking the video. For reference, the centre light is the aircraft strobe:

http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy133/Nuthurst1/NF2_1.jpg



The second, a shot of the pad on a different day

http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy133/Nuthurst1/NF3.jpg

[EESDL]

All sorted - must remember to leave a copy of SN 2016/01 on PA's desk.......

[goofer3]

Voice recording from Gillingham helicopter crash to remain confidential.
Voice recordings from fatal Gillingham helicopter crash will remain confidential - Crime - Eastern Daily Press (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/crime/voice_recordings_from_fatal_gillingham_helicopter_crash_will _remain_confidential_1_4715597?usurv=skip)

[Max Contingency]

Glad to see some common sense being applied here. The primary duty of a coroner in the UK is to find out what happened and decide on the cause of death. They have a secondary duty to make recommendations to prevent future deaths, so it is easy to see why a coroner would ask for this information. However, CVRs were introduced into aviation under a great deal of suspicion and their use has become accepted because we all now understand and believe in their ability to prevent accidents and the anonymity of the information they capture. Routinely releasing CVR information to legal entities would likely result in a lot of unexplained technical problems with them!

[Thridle Op Des]

This is still in process, be interesting to see if the precedent is set despite the judges assertion:

Scottish Court Orders Release of Sumburgh Helicopter CVFDR - Aerossurance (http://aerossurance.com/news/court-orders-release-cvfdr/)

[ShyTorque]

It's been some time since this thread was near the top of the pile.

However, due to a "no-fly" day I decided to re-read it. I might be mistaken but it appears that more than one thread was merged into the original.

CAA Safety Notice 006/2014 was mentioned. This has been replaced by Safety Notice SN-2016/001 and is downloadable from the web.

I think it's worth pointing this out because many of the more contentious points discussed in the thread have been addressed by the CAA in that document. Almost as if the CAA have been following this thread..... It's well worth a read!

[[email protected]]

Shy - I'm far too lazy to google it - could you post a link?:)

[OvertHawk]

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice%202016001.pdf

[[email protected]]

Thanks Overthawk:ok:

Shy - no mention of military-style IF take offs - the only thing (other than not taking off) that might have prevented that accident.

[Sir Korsky]

I'm sure you would have saved the day as usual Crab with your superior ability. The rest of us will have to keep on struggling to say no to our nefarious masters in the civilian world.

[[email protected]]

Rather an unnecessary jibe - the crew didn't say no and they didn't know how to depart the field safely.

A mil-style IF take off isn't a superior skill, it's very easy and very much safer than cuffing it and crashing.

[SASless]

Knowing your own personal limitation helps also!

[[email protected]]

The military does not have a monopoly of this kind of flying. It's really not that hard. Absolutely correct - unfortunately I don't think either of the pilots were off-shore trained.

Since the technique is used in civil flying as discussed, why is it not a basic part of the IR (either the training or the test)?

[tistisnot]

This talk of "it's easy to do" surely goes totally against what the CAA paper is trying to implement - correct pilot decision making / CRM.

In all probability they were unable to reach the minimum of Vmini / Vtoss as stated being required due to lack of forward visibility and ability to reject before becoming IMC?

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab - I believe it's been mentioned in a previous post but at one stage, following advice to the CAA from the AAIB after an incident involving a B214ST we did in fact introduce the military style IF take off as part of the LPC. Sadly it disappeared. I don't think it was popular with the non-UK owned helicopter operators.

That said it did actually present a problem for those helicopters that had a Vmini - usually around 50knots. It rather begged the question how can you plan to enter IMC below the official airspeed for IFR flight?

If somebody can explain to me how we can - even today - depart the offshore helideck on a pitch black night and follow the RFM limitations I would be pleased to know.

G.

[[email protected]]

geoffers - yes it is a difficult issue but assumes if the RFM says Vmini is say 50 kts then it is not possible to fly the aircraft on instruments below that speed, something we all know is not true.

tistisnot - yes, the correct decision would have been to stay on the ground but the reality is that owners/hirers will continue to press pilots to go when logic says not. At least have a technique in your repertoire to deal with that rather than spear in under pressure.

[SASless]

Why the rule or limitation of 50 Knots was placed upon the Crew is something else that needs to be re-thought.

How many millions of takeoffs have been done using the "Military" method by Pilots all around the Globe for at least the past Fifty Years that I know of....and that method is verboten by the CAA for some unfathomable reason plain escapes me.

Now if we could do that safely...routinely....repeatedly in helicopters with no Gucci Kit....why in the world could that "Tool" not be allowed in a Crew's Tool Box for the odd unusual instances such as befell the 139 Crew?

That assumes training, currency, and PROFICIENCY in the technique.

[Sir Korsky]

I trained many military students in the simulated art of zero/zero take offs from the ground. I could never really see the point unless you were being shot at or had some other kind of extreme emergency. The risk simply outweighed the reward, especially if you were unfamiliar with the climb out path. Very few students showed much inability to complete the maneuver though - but I don't think this is a path that civilian operators should be encouraged to pursue or we may be educating our 'masters' into a new realm of confidence and expectancy. The old world methods of aviating, utilizing true refined ability with fine finesse have been overtaken by touch screens and button pushing.

[SASless]

That technique came in very handy in dusty areas....especially working sling loads with a Chinook. When you do twenty or thirty of them a day....you develop a certain amount of competence in a hurry.

Add in snowy conditions on an open flat surface....or off a Rig or Platform at night on misty, drizzly, overcast nights....and again that is not an uncommon event.

As to pushing the envelope further for the Bosses....actually I see it as a self defense measure against the Bosses. We are not talking about reducing the Take Off Minimums....we are talking about safer ways of coping with departing from "confined areas and under conditions" that do not allow for "approved" profiles.

The right answer is of course....if the weather is below approved minimums....the weather is below Take Off Minimums....tell the Boss, Arrange for Ground Transport and Accommodation for him, tied the blades down, insert the Blanks and head for the Pub.

[Sir Korsky]

The level of concentration required to undertake a zero/zero departure up to the IFR environment with no SAS or FD is at the top end of any pilot ability. We didn't make it easy for them in the SIM. I'm not talking poking your head out over a dust cloud, but a long period of intense instrument scanning. Back to the same scenario in your 139, you add the boss man banging on the glass and tapping his watch, you need all your experience and everything else you got in that bag to make it through. I do agree though, that the procedure may be a useful addition to any pilot's tool bag, but it must be reviewed regularly in SIM or training sessions in the civilian world.

[[email protected]]

I don't think anyone is talking about doing a zero/zero IF take off without SAS or AP - again, not impossible but does need to be practised.

This crash was in a fully-IFR capable twin with more bells and whistles in the AP than you can shake a stick at. The simple application of a basic technique would have saved their lives - or they could have just said No.

[John R81]

- or they could have just said No.



For me that has to be the biggest learning point for any pilot; ATPL, CPL and PPL alike. No matter

how frightened you are of the big, scary businessman
what your employer wants
what you promised your friends for this weekend
how important it is to get to where you hoped you were going
you are the Captain; if the combination of conditions / machine / crew / training makes THIS FLIGHT unsafe it is your duty and responsibility to say "No".


If you can't do that - for whatever reason - then the odds are high that one day you will figure badly in an accident report, and we will be here talking about how we can't understand why you did what you did.

[Fareastdriver]

Once upon a time a major British operator removed the Helipad Takeoff from the VMC Basecheck to save money. I could well see them omitting the Vertical IFR Departure for the same reason.

The day came when a crew had to medevac a patient from offshore to Aberdeen Hospital. To depart required a Helipad Takeoff which were not checked out to do so the company had to send a training captain out from Dyce to fly it back.

Allofasudden Helipad Takeoffs were back.

[Non-PC Plod]

Its not a question that the vertical IFR departure is "verboten by the CAA", or that it is not approved by an operator.
If the rotorcraft flight manual says you can't fly less than 50 kts IMC, then you can't do it under anybody's rulebook, until the RFM is amended.

[[email protected]]

So then we come back to Geoffers point about rig departures. We all know it happens and can be done quite safely but because of the way the RFM is written it is technically verboten.

No one is suggesting extended flight below Vmini but to prevent the transition from hover to forward flight on instruments is to deny one of the great abilities of the helicopter.

[ShyTorque]

The stated minimum visibility from private sites is 800 metres. Technically speaking, this does allow departures in fog.

[SASless]

If the rotorcraft flight manual says you can't fly less than 50 kts IMC, then you can't do it under anybody's rulebook, until the RFM is amended.

There is the rub....."The Rule is the Rule!",

Mind you we have had this argument over and over.

Challenging the Lawyers who write RFM's might be in order in certain cases....don't you think?

After all....in far too many instances...the RFM is written to be a one size fits all recipe that has a sole function of protecting the Factory's legal interests only.

[ShyTorque]

I hope that those who have previously argued that in the UK, IFR departures from "non-IFR sites" are illegal, will note that the CAA don't agree with them.

[SASless]

The stated minimum visibility from private sites is 800 metres. Technically speaking, this does allow departures in fog.

If you have a minimum visibility of 800 Meters you might.....and of course you know this.....how? Have a Tape Measure in your Pilot's Kit Bag?

[Geoffersincornwall]

SAS

After all....in far too many instances...the RFM is written to be a one size fits all recipe that has a sole function of protecting the Factory's legal interests only.

... until the day comes when they beat you over the head with it because something went wrong during the period 0 kts - Vmini and you crashed. The management are very good at turning a blind eye when it suits them but soon disappear from the scene when the lawyers come running. The industry has collectively cast a blind eye over this whole subject because the situation is TOO DIFFICULT to resolve without hampering the offshore support industry.

G.

[ShyTorque]

If you have a minimum visibility of 800 Meters you might.....and of course you know this.....how? Have a Tape Measure in your Pilot's Kit Bag?

Metric, or Imperial (0.43 nm)? It could only ever be an estimate, in practical terms, unless it's a regularly used site. Or you could calibrate your legs and pace it out.

[SASless]

You wouldn't want to violate the Rule and sneak out with only 790 Feet Visibility would you?

[Sir Korsky]

It's very common in the US to pick up a IFR flight plan beginning at a point in space, if departing from a LZ without a instrument approach. Call the TRACON, get your clearance. They may ask you if you can maintain VFR to the first waypoint if the VFR transition is in controlled airspace and you may need to request special VFR. Picking up a pre-filed IFR flight plan in flight is also common, depending on how busy the sector controller is. I've always found ATC to be be extremely helpful and accommodating. How does this compare in the the UK?

[EESDL]

As a Civvy - never done a towering IF departure in a relatively 'modern' aircraft with an excellent ap.
As a Mil pilot, did quite a few in a dinosaur aircraft with non-existent auto-pilot.
We all know that the accepted/approved/trained procedure for PC2DLE is 250m RVR, clear of obstructions etc etc, no reject option as you ain't landing back on the deck.
Done many VMC departures using the IF/Visual scan in pitch black with no discernible horizon.............but the fudge is definitely 250m RVR.
Which is laughable - on one departure I swear it was more like 240m but we vowed not to tell anyone.
I remember one shag suggesting they ask the rescue vessel to station at 250m until someone highlighted the 'obstruction-like' qualities of such a vessel, right where you would not want him.

This is old hat - fudge will continue until Mr Tesla and Mr Solar Panel save the world from our addiction to carbon fuels or the OEMs provide a suitable aircraft which the energy companies are mandated to use.

[Sir Korsky]

As a Civvy - never done a towering IF departure in a relatively 'modern' aircraft with an excellent ap.
As a Mil pilot, did quite a few in a dinosaur aircraft with non-existent auto-pilot.
We all know that the accepted/approved/trained procedure for PC2DLE is 250m RVR, clear of obstructions etc etc, no reject option as you ain't landing back on the deck.
Done many VMC departures using the IF/Visual scan in pitch black with no discernible horizon.............but the fudge is definitely 250m RVR.
Which is laughable - on one departure I swear it was more like 240m but we vowed not to tell anyone.
I remember one shag suggesting they ask the rescue vessel to station at 250m until someone highlighted the 'obstruction-like' qualities of such a vessel, right where you would not want him.

This is old hat - fudge will continue until Mr Tesla and Mr Solar Panel save the world from our addiction to carbon fuels or the OEMs provide a suitable aircraft which the energy companies are mandated to use.

:)What language did you google translate that from?

[[email protected]]

Ah, that is ex-mil Anglais, I don't think google translate can turn that into spam;)

[ShyTorque]

It's very common in the US to pick up a IFR flight plan beginning at a point in space, if departing from a LZ without a instrument approach. Call the TRACON, get your clearance. They may ask you if you can maintain VFR to the first waypoint if the VFR transition is in controlled airspace and you may need to request special VFR. Picking up a pre-filed IFR flight plan in flight is also common, depending on how busy the sector controller is. I've always found ATC to be be extremely helpful and accommodating. How does this compare in the the UK?

In UK, helicopters operating from field sites seldom, if ever, "pick up a IFR flight plan". Most operate on an ad hoc basis, outside of controlled airspace, using lower airspace radar service where available (and there are significant gaps in the latter). There is no requirement to file an IFR flight plan when operating in Class G and no such thing as a clearance to operate within it. Most lower airspace in overland UK is Class G apart from airways, control areas, CTRs, and ATZs/MATZs. Basically, pilots manage their own departure and climb to MSA and pick up whatever en route ATC service they can glean. When requesting a radar service in Class G, controllers will generally advise that they can offer only a limited radar service.

In over fifteen years of corporate RW aviation, I've only ever filed one IFR flight plan prior to flight and that was almost fifteen years ago, simply because the captain decided to try it from a major airport to another minor one. In practice, we never got to fly any of the planned route and were messed about so badly we became concerned about our fuel state.

[SASless]

Crab,

It may shatter your World View but that translated quite easily into Spam....perhaps it might prove difficult for those who are limited to a single "dialect" but that post came across plain as Day.

[[email protected]]

Ah, but you've been well trained SAS:ok:

[Non-PC Plod]

The RFM surely is a result of testing by manufacturer test-pilots?
If there was sufficient commercial pressure from operators saying they wanted to perform IMC hover takeoffs, then they would presumably test the helo under these conditions and approve a profile?
I can only assume that the profile is not there because there has not been the overt demand for it.

[SASless]

You know what happens when you "assume"!

[Non-PC Plod]

I'm not going to get beaten with that hosepipe again?

[rotorspeed]

Shy
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.

[[email protected]]

Non-PCPlod - the Vmini will be mainly due to the inacuracies of thec pitot.static system since very few give IAS below 40 or so kts with any reliability and some airspeed tapes dont have any figures below 30 kts.

Since that speed is required to fly the aircraft accurately (notwithstanding what a good AP is allowed to do using other sensors), it is no surprise that they don't test or certify it in the low speed instrument regime.

It's not that the aircraft can't do it because we all know they can but no-one is going to risk the litigation when someone spears one in flying in cloud at 30 kts by saying it is safe to do so.

[rotorspeed]

Shy
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.

[tistisnot]

rotorspeed, couldn't agree more. The Emmental lines up very quickly with 'it's in my tool bag' ... 'I was shown this once 3 years ago' .... instructors should be explaining this guidance to the pilot to allow him to challenge the customer, negotiate the payload deduction, point out lack of experience, refuse the flight - as they also say they have been brave enough to do, on their posts on this site.

[Non-PC Plod]

Crab-
If they certify the SAR modes so that you can do a TU from the hover, it has kind of been proven that it is both possible and safe (if you have this phase of the software). Therefore, the Vmini should not be an issue. It kind of seems pointless having a TU mode if you can't use it IMC - e.g. at night over the oggin.

[[email protected]]

The SAR modes will use other sensors (GPS, accelerometers, inertial nav, even doppler) to give the speed which is why they are allowed to control TU/TD at low speed.

If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.

[Non-PC Plod]

The SAR modes will use other sensors (GPS, accelerometers, inertial nav, even doppler) to give the speed which is why they are allowed to control TU/TD at low speed.

If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.

Exactly - which kind of makes the VMini a strange restriction if you have the other kit.
139s all display groundspeed, and provide a "hover display" as an HSI option, to show low speed vector (both direction and speed)

[[email protected]]

Yes, perhaps it should be 'Vmini when hand flown' or similar - it's all a bit of a nonsense.

[Search&Rescue]

Exactly - which kind of makes the VMini a strange restriction if you have the other kit.
139s all display groundspeed, and provide a "hover display" as an HSI option, to show low speed vector (both direction and speed)

Hello Gents!

I am an average SARpilot (currently flying with AW139) and doing my best to follow your discussion. Just curious: how would You describe a SAFE 0/0 takeoff with coupled modes? Any suggestions?

[SASless]

No knowledge of the 139, but I assume there is Force Trim, Heading Hold, Attitude Hold, and the ability to Trim the Attitude Datum while the Pilot can control power setting via the Collective position?

[dClbydalpha]

Yes, perhaps it should be 'Vmini when hand flown' or similar - it's all a bit of a nonsense.

Sadly Crab the rules for certification are not that accommodating.

[Outwest]

Hello Gents!

I am an average SARpilot (currently flying with AW139) and doing my best to follow your discussion. Just curious: how would You describe a SAFE 0/0 takeoff with coupled modes? Any suggestions?

Come on Geoff, I know you can explain this ;)

[Search&Rescue]

No knowledge of the 139, but I assume there is Force Trim, Heading Hold, Attitude Hold, and the ability to Trim the Attitude Datum while the Pilot can control power setting via the Collective position?

I was just wondering if there is a procedure (published or not) which guarantees either safe landing or flyaway during 0/0 takeoff?

[SASless]

Is there a guarantee for such for any takeoff if one includes all contingencies?

Aviation is based upon accepting reasonable risks is it not?

Consider the 225 situation extant!



I was just wondering if there is a procedure (published or not) which guarantees either safe landing or flyaway during 0/0 takeoff?

[Search&Rescue]

Is there a guarantee for such for any takeoff if one includes all contingencies?

Aviation is based upon accepting reasonable risks is it not?

Consider the 225 situation extant!

Thanks for your kind reminder! "Guarantees" was not an optimum word. Point taken ;) And of course there are risks involved, even if you
are flying Cat A profiles... On the other hand the RFM describes e.g. how to use RHT/HOV and TU-modes...

[jeepys]

Search&Rescue,
How do you do it?

[Search&Rescue]

Search&Rescue,
How do you do it?

You are talking/asking about takeoff techniques? Describe takeoff/landing site and WX conditions. Even if I am flying SAR, we do have WX restrictions...

[jeepys]

Horizontal departure - from hover engage TU and once past min if speed (50/60kts) engage ALTA.
Vertical departure - from auto hover (30ft) increase collective height bug to suitable height (500ft for example). At safe height to clear obstacles increase hover position forward to 60 kts then follow ALTA as above.

The basic 139 has autohover and therefore a vertical departure can be followed as above which I guess was an option for LABL. Practice using auto modes is essential if you intend to fly in such conditions.

[SASless]

If you refer to a similar concept of " safely" continuing the "0/0" type take off as commonly used in other prescribed and approved techniques.....it would be determined more by performance capability considering a failed engine at any point in the take off and the height of obstacles in the take off path.

Such take offs are very rare...excepting night offshore and article or desert operations.

The technique I learned was to ascend "vertically" using a "hover" attitude....until clear of known obstacles the adjust the pitch attitude to achieve Vbroc until 500feet AGL then use the desired airspeed/ROC/power setting desired.

Mind you we were doing these in UH-1's, H-19's, H-34's....single engine helicopters....two of which had Manual throttles.

So continued flight post Engine Failure was easy decision!

Consider in this accident....the visibility (lack of....) prevented a safe takeoff using any approved takeoff profile. The right profile was no take off under the circumstances.

Perhaps the U.K. Rules need examining!

[Search&Rescue]

Horizontal departure - from hover engage TU and once past min if speed (50/60kts) engage ALTA.
Vertical departure - from auto hover (30ft) increase collective height bug to suitable height (500ft for example). At safe height to clear obstacles increase hover position forward to 60 kts then follow ALTA as above.

The basic 139 has autohover and therefore a vertical departure can be followed as above which I guess was an option for LABL. Practice using auto modes is essential if you intend to fly in such conditions.

Thanks Jeepys! Good advice! 👍

We have a quite flat country, so it will be the horizontal dep most of the times. Maybe I would start with "Confined profile" in order to reject easily if needed and @TDPe select TU. The Vertical dep might be a good option sometimes (e.g. due to poor references), but I guess that you have to plan some kind "commitment point" anyway in case of OEI before 500 ft or what would you do in case of OEI at 350 ft? Just "Standard Flyaway" and Vtoss climb until clear of obstacles or?

[Sir Korsky]

In auto hover mode, will the 139 hands free maintain its position solidly over the ground and not drift without any corrective input?

[Search&Rescue]

In auto hover mode, will the 139 hands free maintain its position solidly over the ground and not drift without any corrective input?

The HOV mode is pretty accurate. We use the HOV mode e.g. during 30-320 ft hover when checking the hoistcables (primary/secondary) with max 270kg weight and the helo will hold the position usually ± 1-2m.

[Non-PC Plod]

Depends how strong and sudden the gusts of wind are. But generally speaking - yep!

[Sir Korsky]

Is the HOV mode input accelerometer/FOG or GPS/FMS based or combination of sources? Sorry for the ' works great and lasts a long time ' question.

[jeepys]

Yes the auto hover in the 139 is very good. GPS held and often well within the 1-2m.

S&R,
If you are working to a high TDPe of say 300ft in poor weather and vis then I think first you have to ask the question 'do we really need to do this'? If the answer is yes as it can be in the SAR theatre then you have two options if you have an engine failure prior to TDP when doing a vertical procedure. You either keep the helicopter coupled in hov and fly the collective in the descent back to the pad or continue with the OEI profile post TDP.

[Search&Rescue]

Yes the auto hover in the 139 is very good. GPS held and often well within the 1-2m.

S&R,
If you are working to a high TDPe of say 300ft in poor weather and vis then I think first you have to ask the question 'do we really need to do this'? If the answer is yes as it can be in the SAR theatre then you have two options if you have an engine failure prior to TDP when doing a vertical procedure. You either keep the helicopter coupled in hov and fly the collective in the descent back to the pad or continue with the OEI profile post TDP.

That makes sense! Never tried, but I will x-check the procedure in Sim next time... Thanks again! 👍

[Torquetalk]

Which sim? What phase does it refelct?


Which 139: which phase does it have. What options were included/switched on/off?


The upper mode buttons may be there (or not), but whether the aircraft you are in will do the things promised here is another matter.

[Torquetalk]

The crew of G-LBAL didn't make use of a sophisticed AFCS apparently (or MCC or CRM for that matter). Perhaps because the aircraft they were flying didn't have these options or because the working environment wasn't conducive to training and development.

Think the thread reached broad conclusion that their work environment was risky and that to fly was the wrong decision a while ago. Rehashing how they might have done it better is surely not the right way to go.

[Sir Korsky]

I disagree Torque. I have gleaned much critical knowledge from this website over the past 15 years or so. If any discussion here provides any kind of community wide education which may help to prevent another accident, then I'm all for it. I truly appreciate the wealth of knowledge that surfaces here. There are many different ways of operating, and I'd like to review as many as possible to select for my armory. I will admit though that threads can become a little incestuous from the same band of posters. I'd like to see the Pprune of old return, where more folks are encouraged to post without the fear of being shot down by the regulars. Back to the 'new church on the block' instead of the old boys club that Pprune seems to have morphed in to.

[Search&Rescue]

I disagree Torque. I have gleaned much critical knowledge from this website over the past 15 years or so. If any discussion here provides any kind of community wide education which may help to prevent another accident, then I'm all for it. I truly appreciate the wealth of knowledge that surfaces here. There are many different ways of operating, and I'd like to review as many as possible to select for my armory. I will admit though that threads can become a little incestuous from the same band of posters. I'd like to see the Pprune of old return, where more folks are encouraged to post without the fear of being shot down by the regulars. Back to the 'new church on the block' instead of the old boys club that Pprune seems to have morphed in to.

Sir Korsky

Thanks for your engouragement! 👍

[HLCPTR]

The AW139 Hover Mode does NOT hold a GPS or FMS position. It is a velocity reference. If you have selected "0 velocity" and you drift (such as due to cross wind) it does not return you to the original position.

These discussions providing only partially correct information is what gets people in trouble when they "think" they know the system.

[Sir Korsky]

Very true HLCPTR, but it's certainly up to the individual to pick the flowers in the minefield.

[Search&Rescue]

The AW139 Hover Mode does NOT hold a GPS or FMS position. It is a velocity reference. If you have selected "0 velocity" and you drift (such as due to cross wind) it does not return you to the original position.

These discussions providing only partially correct information is what gets people in trouble when they "think" they know the system.

HLCPTR

Very good point! 👍 Direct from RFM/Suppl 69: "The HOV mode utilizes the AHRS ground velocities to maintain hover or low speed flying".

[Outwest]

HLCPTR

Very good point! 👍 Direct from RFM/Suppl 69: "The HOV mode utilizes the AHRS ground velocities to maintain hover or low speed flying".

All correct, but it is VERY good at maintaining a position, even in a crosswind.

Not to condone or criticize the actions of this crew since I have no knowledge of what pressures they were faced with, but if they would have used the full capabilities of the automation of the 139 a departure in near 0/0 could have been successfully accomplished.
Again, not suggesting that anyone should ever attempt this except maybe in a life and death situation.

[[email protected]]

If they had just trimmed to the hover attitude, raised the lever to establish a reasonable rate of climb, waitied until they saw 100' on the rad alt and then adopted a gentle accelerative attitude whilst keeping the climb going they would still be alive.

It is a basic technique which can be done in an unstabilised single as well as a full IFR AP aircraft.

[ShyTorque]

The cause of this tragic accident appears to be that a manoeuvre beyond the crew's capability was attempted, in that a transfer from visual references onto instruments wasn't successfully made.

The lesson to be learned seems obvious to me. The guidance put forward by the CAA in SN-2016/001 is very valid.

I think it's important to remember that mitigation of the risk of an engine failure is not always the most pressing need. In very poor visibility, obstacle collision avoidance might well be far more urgent. A privately operated aircraft, i.e. one not engaged on a public transport flight, is not legally required to carry out a Class A departure. Some private landing sites do not comply with the requirements for PT in any case and require a degree of flexibility with regard to published departure and landing profiles.

Having said that, it's still the commander's responsibility to keep it safe. Sometimes that means cancelling a flight.

[SASless]

AMEN! Crab is spot on with that comment!

[nevillestyke]

Cabby;


That site was lit, and I'm not aware of anyone daft enough to use un-lit sites these days.


I heard the Vine show, one bloke claimed to be an aviation analyst, he was ex-Beccles cabin crew and rattled on about instrument lag and all sorts of stuff he got from books, but the real treasure was Tommy Abdy-Collins, long retired, who decided to shoot his stupid mouth off about how pro helicopter pilots fly to Cheltenham for the festival under power lines to avoid the weather. He then regaled the listeners with stories of what cowboys we all are. WELL DONE TOMMY! YOU UTTER C***. Next time you decide to traduce my colleagues and me like this I'm going to stamp on your face you ignorant t***.


SND

TAC was slated to do a live talk on YouTube tomorrow 31st March, retelling his hilarious stories of near misses past. I had a word with the organiser, on his forum, citing your displeasure with his limelight grabbing radio foray, and it has now been changed to a private event for his forum, not to be broadcast to the wide world.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

"citing your displeasure with his limelight grabbing radio foray" .

Excellent use of Prose. Well, done Sir!

[Sir Niall Dementia]

TAC was slated to do a live talk on YouTube tomorrow 31st March, retelling his hilarious stories of near misses past. I had a word with the organiser, on his forum, citing your displeasure with his limelight grabbing radio foray, and it has now been changed to a private event for his forum, not to be broadcast to the wide world.
Thank you; just got your PM too. The last thing this industry needs is tales of derring do. We're in enough trouble right now..

SND

[meleagertoo]

Is there a recording/transcript of that Vine show interview?

[TorqueOfTheDevil]

Is there a recording/transcript of that Vine show interview?

Unlikely, this long after the broadcast