AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk [Archive]

Special 25

14th Mar 2014, 06:53

Passenger now confirmed as Lord Ballyedmond.

After the 2004 crash of an A109 at Bournemouth in 2004, the CAA produced the following recommendations.

We still have too many Night VFR VIP helicopter accidents operating out of private sites at night????

Mathew Harding
Philip Carter
Lord Balleymond

Often single pilot, poor weather, too high a workload.

Not to mention Haughey Air's S76 accident in Ireland, which was different but shows how quickly things can go tragically wrong.

FOLLOW UP ACTION
The one Safety Recommendation, made by the AAIB following their investigation, is reproduced below, together with the CAA’s response.
Recommendation 2005-55

The Civil Aviation Authority should review the Rules of the Air and relevant regulations in their applicability to helicopters and should consider imposing minimum visibility requirements for day and night. These minima should afford an effective safety margin to prevent inadvertent flight in instrument meteorological condition or loss of adequate external visual references. The requirement for a clearly defined horizon, particularly over water or featureless terrain should also be considered.

CAA Response

The CAA accepts this Recommendation.
The CAA has prepared a draft Regulatory Impact Assessment and consultation commenced in February 2005, with a view to setting minimum visibility requirements for all flights conducted by visual reference, whether by day under Visual Flight Rules (VFR) or under the provisions for visual reference flight contained in the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR).

GipsyMagpie

14th Mar 2014, 06:55

Norwich airport to the north started to fog out according to the tag at about that time. Indeed it had been dipping in for the last hour.
Thoughts with the families

ShyTorque

14th Mar 2014, 07:29

Firstly, my sincere condolences to everyone directly affected. The aircraft was operated two crew, btw. I knew both and was talking to the pilots only a few days ago.

I must say that in the circumstances I think some comments made here are particularly insensitive and thoughtless.

Sir Niall Dementia

14th Mar 2014, 08:14

Special25;

Don't forget that the pilot in the Bournemouth crash was flying a night approach in poor weather to a well equipped airport and didn't have an IR.
Mathew Harding was a departure from an airfield at night/marginal conditions in an unstabilised 355 (no autopilot, floppy stick) And Phillip Carter departed from an airport to a very well equipped HLS and something went wrong, and we still await the outcome of Peter Barnes crash.

There is nothing intrinsically unsafe about operating to private sites at night, so long as they are well equipped (decent lighting etc), the pilots are familiar and you can safely make a visual approach/departure (weather etc). Skip one out of that list and it all becomes a rather different matter.

I'd have to check my log book for exact numbers, but this winter I've probably done it 20 times, and the final say is very much with the pilot, one shred of doubt and we're off to the nearest airport.

SND

rotorspeed

14th Mar 2014, 08:55

Special 25

I fully endorse SND's post. It is important not to get carried away with sweeping generalised statements regarding night private ops. An awful lot goes on, perfectly safely and indeed it is imperative to the maximising of helicopter potential. Of course hazards are higher than daylight ops but then many forms of helicopter use have their win higher risk areas, be they North Sea, police and HEMS and these risks need to be managed and minimised. Clearly we need to wait for the accident report to see exactly why this crashed and what if any subsequent action is necessary.

Only one of your examples is relevant. As SND says, the Bournemouth 109 accident was into an airport with an ILS. The Harding accident had nothing to do with landing/taking off at night - it was a LOC in IMC in the cruise 20 miles or so from the departure point. The Carter accident probably was caused by losing visual reference on a foggy night approach.

And of course the Pete Barnes accident was daytime.

A very tragic accident though. My deepest sympathies to the families of those involved.

101BOY

14th Mar 2014, 09:02

At least there should be a full FDR/CVR to assist in the investigation.

c53204

14th Mar 2014, 09:07

Very interesting reading indeed.

NRDK

14th Mar 2014, 09:26

Bravo73

14th Mar 2014, 09:42

Pittsextra,

Can you please stop trying to stir things? Four people have died. Have some respect.

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 09:47

Sawman;
Especially when you look and find that she posted the first reference given on this thread to the aircraft being registered as "G-LBAL", which would make it seem that she is who she claimed to be. And she registered membership here quite some time back too, not today. Seems pretty obvious, even to a simpleton like me.

Before 'her' posts were made it was fairly easy to get some quite in depth information about this incident and those possibly involved based on this thread alone, let alone the updating media reports.

Posts on this thread
22:05 Augusta Westland
22:19 Norbrook 139
22:29 Based on the location and proximity of a private landing site, the identity of one male passenger is now being speculated
22:52 Haughy Air AW139 seems to be the way it's possibly heading
22:54 Haughy, Lord Ballyedmond, certainly owns Gillingham Hall
23:00 Sky reporting a Northern Ireland link
23:06 Lady Boss - Can some one please help me my husband was flying Norfolk to newly tonight?
23:32 Anyone know if XX was flying if it was indeed the Haughey 139?
23:59 Lady Boss - My husband flies G-LBAL any help please

'She' may well be genuine, however wouldn't it be better to call someone you know in the industry, or in the company, friends etc etc rather than post those sort of questions on here? As for 'her' reference to the registration number, surely something like "he flies for the company" would be more natural.

I would wonder how many press 'Aviation Experts' might have PPRuNe sleeper accounts?

By the way everyone, time to check your social media sites access settings.
It's amazing how open people seem to be! To check yours, get someone that shouldn't be able to see your social media info to have a look. They shouldn't be able to see anything, unless you want everyone to, or you are inadvertently in public mode :eek:

John R81

14th Mar 2014, 10:12

SS - perhaps the lady had other things on her mind at that moment. Personally, I find her posts absolutely understandable (having been in those circumstances) and I see nothing to 'complain' about.

My condolences to all affected.

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 10:19

John R81;
Ok, you're more trusting than I am.
However, point taken :ouch:

PoloJamie

14th Mar 2014, 10:37

My condolences to everyone involved.

Seems to be confirmed as G-LBAL

13-Mar-14 G-LBAL AgustaWestland AW139 Beccles, UK (4F) | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2014/03/13/13-mar-14-beccles-uk-4f/)

ShyTorque

14th Mar 2014, 11:04

'She' may well be genuine, however wouldn't it be better to call someone you know in the industry, or in the company, friends etc etc rather than post those sort of questions on here? As for 'her' reference to the registration number, surely something like "he flies for the company" would be more natural.

I'm sure, thanks to your sage input, she will have learned her lesson. :rolleyes:

If you understood how these private operators don't have the "ops" infrastucture that you have been, and are privileged to enjoy, you might understand that it is entirely plausible that the post was a genuine request. My wife would have been in a similar dilemma. Terribly worried but no-one available to ask at the time.

I-IIII

14th Mar 2014, 11:13

In my simple opinion
In the dubt genuine or not just show respect considering true everithing.

Bravo73

14th Mar 2014, 11:13

The EDP have published a photo of the aircraft:

http://www.edp24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/nb_helicopter_crash_1_1_3433955!image/266956263.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_490/266956263.jpg

Update: Police say roads around Norfolk helicopter crash site will remain closed for some time as investigations continue into tragedy in which four men, including Lord Ballyedmond, were killed - News - Eastern Daily Press (http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/update_police_say_roads_around_norfolk_helicopter_crash_site _will_remain_closed_for_some_time_as_investigations_continue _into_tragedy_in_which_four_men_including_lord_ballyedmond_w ere_killed_1_3431382?usurv=skip)

chevvron

14th Mar 2014, 11:34

Special 25: GLBAL was often based at the airfield where I work until recently and I've never known it operate single pilot, even for VFR positioning flights.

SASless

14th Mar 2014, 11:48

Effluent Man

14th Mar 2014, 11:52

Pitts, It would appear to be censorship on behalf of a very wealthy,influential individual.If the post had been retrospective to the crash I could see why it might be considered worthy of this treatment.However it was a link to something several years ago which was nevertheless very relevant to the current situation.

Phil Space

14th Mar 2014, 11:57

I sometimes wonder why some of the regulars log on here given it is a rumour site about aviation.

Trying to silence the story emerging and blocking media reports will never work.

The Daily Mail is running the following which details the background and probable cause of the accident.

Safety fears over £500m Tory peer's doomed helicopter | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580477/BREAKING-NEWS-Helicopter-crashes-Beccles-Norfolk.html)

Tango123

14th Mar 2014, 11:58

Sad news. AW139 is a very capable aircraft even in the most adverse conditions when used to its full potential. The UK SAR crews have to routinely explore poor weather conditions with low level IMC ops day & night.
Senseless loss.

Yes times 3.

But the fact is (how insensitive the timing is for making any conclusions), SAR and military crews are trained for it, and train for it in their flying program.

The crew flying the VIP 139 is not (up to it), no matter their former experience.

And you brake the rules if you take off VFR in fog (or into fog patches).

All my sympathy goes so far to the crew and pax.

Pittsextra

14th Mar 2014, 11:59

Pitts.....is that all you have to fret about?:=

If you have some concerns about posts being deleted....send a PM to Senior Pilot which would be far more an appropriate venue than a thread about a Crash that killed four people.

Or.....perhaps you might just take a hint when you see your posts disappearing.:ugh:

I'm not really fretting. Just asking the question.

Seriously you can't see any interest at all when a AW139 shunts in poor weather near a private site and those prior threads?

and yeah I asked Senior Pilot... waiting the reply

Sir Niall Dementia

14th Mar 2014, 12:16

Tango123;

I refer you to posts 45 and 46, a lot of highly experienced civvie crews train for it, and use that training regularly.

SND

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 12:36

Shy;
If you understood how these private operators don't have the "ops" infrastucture that you have been, and are privileged to enjoy, you might understand that it is entirely plausible that the post was a genuine request. My wife would have been in a similar dilemma. Terribly worried but no-one available to ask at the time.

Perhaps it's time to utilise such things as 'Find my iPhone'.

Bravo73

14th Mar 2014, 13:11

Video now posted:

Helicopter Crash scene, Gillingham, Norfolk. ©Archant 2014 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/embed/6wiLmX1bQY8)

Effluent Man

14th Mar 2014, 13:30

I live just a few miles from the crash site.Between Beccles and the coast,the crash site being about one mile west of the town.I was working in the garden all afternoon and only went in when it got dusk about 6pm.The three quarters full moon was clearly visible at 730 when I went back out to check on the bonfire that I had lit.

Gillingham though is beside the River Waveney and the fog forms there much more densely and often in patches.My guess is that they decided to fly and were in one of the less dense parts but quickly ran into a patch.My wife came in about seven and said she ran into some thick stuff that was clear after a couple of hundred metres.

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 13:30

Seems that Pitt has a point.
After all, the media are picking up on the request for a refund due to the aircrafts problems, so why not have a look at the company culture mentioned in all those previous threads. A culture that is possibly involved here.

John R81

14th Mar 2014, 13:34

BBC news just carried an aerial shot of the crash site. There does not appear to me to be significant forward speed evident in the debris layout, and it is close to trees just over-flown.

PPL holder interviewed suggests dense fog at the time of take-off.

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 13:51

Organgrinder (2 posts)
Oh, its in the papers so it must be true, ******* idiot.

Thank you for your contribution over an issue that has been running for quite a while before this incident. :rolleyes:

Phil Space

14th Mar 2014, 13:51

I seem to recall we have been here before and not that long ago.
Private operations and fog.

zigandzag

14th Mar 2014, 13:57

In fact, it OFTEN used to fly single pilot.

RIP Mate!!

Smeagol

14th Mar 2014, 14:02

An observation on the posted video.

Main rotor totally destroyed, tail rotor virtually intact.

Not being either an helicopter pilot or an engineer having any significant knowledge of such machines, I would not presume to infer too much but would anyone more knowledgeable care to comment?

Pittsextra

14th Mar 2014, 14:06

I found the old PPRuNe threads as one of them was the No.4 most popular on a simple google search when looking for Haughey Air, it doesn't make flattering reading. Its not the only thread with similar wording, and that's just on this site.

Add this:-

http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/upload/general/4719-0.PDF

and one wonders why the anger is directed to someone just reflecting the obvious. (obvious by which I mean there seems to be background issues)

Stuart Hughes

14th Mar 2014, 14:27

I wonder if the pressures of corporate flying have come to bear here. :=
Just a thought as I have been there many times and have been lucky.

RIP to all those who perished......

I-IIII

14th Mar 2014, 14:30

Corporate is strange world,they spent 15 milion euros for aw139 and save 2500 month for a copilot onboard

Tandemrotor

14th Mar 2014, 14:41

Genuine question.

This is being described as a VFR operation. But it's clearly an immensely capable IFR aircraft.

Are we saying the pilot didn't hold a valid Instrument Rating, or that the AOC was for VFR ops only?

Or simply that this was a VFR manoeuvre whilst not in VMC?

Or have I completely misunderstood

Cheers.

FSXPilot

14th Mar 2014, 15:35

If they were going to fly IFR they would need to take off from a site that had an approved departure procedure that would mean they did not hit anything as they took off.
I very much doubt that anyone has invested in having had this done for a private site.
It's not just about the airframe or the pilot's qualifications it is also about the infrastructure surrounding them such as departure procedures and approache plates etc.

Effluent Man

14th Mar 2014, 16:12

FSX, On the subject you raise,BBC Look East this lunchtime showed footage of the aircraft taking off from Gillingham Hall.It struck me that it looked potentially quite tricky.They were using the lawn of the house and the whole site was surrounded by mature tall trees.I would imagine that in poor visibility it would be very easy to clip a branch on your way out.

Special 25

14th Mar 2014, 18:14

I accept all your comments.

Good to hear that this was a two crew operation in an excellent aircraft. The Bournemouth accident was really being used as the source of the CAA review material. The Carter accident does have many parallels however. But that is just one and I don't really havea figure of how common this type of flying is these days.

I am sure that in these areas of dense fog patches, moon possibly shining through on occasions, a sound flying decision can quickly become a bad one.

I too saw the BBC footage of the aircraft taking off from the property, and didn't fancy it much. Also, flying for Haughey Air, with Mr Haughey in the back must be an enormous pressure - I have no reason to doubt that the crew would have had no issues with standing down, if they genuinely had concerns about the flight.

SilsoeSid

14th Mar 2014, 18:17

Sp25, wouldn't that depend on the cockpit gradient?

Pittsextra

14th Mar 2014, 18:31

SP25 - I reference this because it gives a clear picture of the crash site:-

Was helicopter in Norfolk crash that killed Lord Ballyedmond safe? | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580477/BREAKING-NEWS-Helicopter-crashes-Beccles-Norfolk.html)

Now not being funny but that suggests to me that it was shunted within a few hundred metres of lifting. So did the weather really change that much??

To be honest its irrelevant because we have what we have.

The bigger point is that it is clear the CAA needs to get involved to better protect commercial pilots from the pressure to fly when it is marginal and to look at what flying is done into and out of private sites.

Stuart Hughes

14th Mar 2014, 18:35

I don't believe it was a commercial flight.

jayteeto

14th Mar 2014, 18:40

The BBC are reporting that he wanted a refund for the helicopter from AW because of a list of technical malfunctions. Was in court this week?????

PAX_Britannica

14th Mar 2014, 18:50

jeepys

14th Mar 2014, 18:52

So why was he still using it if he thought there were technical issues?
I hope the media don't try and blame this on technical issues with the aircraft like they tried to blame the Bournemouth 109 on sabotage.
The industry is having a bad enough time as it is.

Trim Stab

14th Mar 2014, 19:29

Stuart Hughes I don't believe it was a commercial flight.

I don't think the reply was about whether the flight was on an AOC or a "private" flight.

My reading of the comment was that it was aimed at the pressures placed on any captain (whether rotary or fixed wing) in a small-fleet operation.

Often job security is non-existent, because if you do not comply with commercial demands, the beneficial owner will find another more compliant captain.

I have no idea whether this was the case here, but I hold my hand up and say that I am guilty of taking unreasonable risks to keep my own (fixed-wing) job because there is so little work out there at the moment.

CRAZYBROADSWORD

14th Mar 2014, 19:37

Ok so I have only been flying corporate for the last nine years and have had on occasion pressure to fly in bad weather and said no , and never had any problems there after . As the pilot in command you have a legal responsibility for the safety and well being of the passengers and crew even if one of them is you're boss !

If one of my employers decided they no longer wanted my services that's fine but if I was dropped over a single incidence where I would not fly due weather then I would have grounds to take legal action. What might be helpful is a standard employment contract from the caa for freelances to use when working in the corporate environment to clearly state to the employer who has final say with wether to fly or not .

CBS

Trim Stab

14th Mar 2014, 19:44

I agree CBSW but the huge expense and risk of taking legal action against an enormously wealthy and powerful employer, and the tiny compensation that is payable if you do happen to win, do not guarantee finding another job afterwards!

BeeTee

14th Mar 2014, 19:57

Fair one CBS. The pressures must be higher for Captains if they know that if they get fired, they would have to pay the training agreement (bond) back to Haughey Air as I believe many have done previously.

Trim Stab

14th Mar 2014, 20:22

BeeTee - again no idea if this was the contractual situation here, but it is becoming common in FW private flying too that captain has to "tender for bids" to "provide flying services", through his own one-man "company", thereby giving the beneficial owner (usually through another offshore holding company) to terminate services on any pretext. It is a convenient arrangement that absolves the wealthy from paying health insurance, social security, pensions or any of the other expenses involved in employing a professional pilot.

Art of flight

14th Mar 2014, 20:50

It's been the case for many years that pilot jobs are hard to come by, it's natural that once you've got one you want to hang on to it, and saying no, either to the client or boss certainly isn't easy.
If an employer has a reputation for not holding onto pilots due to Ts & Cs, it would seem logical that after a while the stream of experienced and rated people who will say no will dry up and there's a danger you'll get what your asking for....people around you who are frightened to say no. Not saying that is the case here, in fact this wealthy owner, unlike many, invested in the latest aircraft and had 2 pilot crewing.

Harry the Hun

14th Mar 2014, 21:14

...And was looking for a new pilot every six month...

CRAZYBROADSWORD

14th Mar 2014, 21:17

Art of flight .

I completely agree with you there is always someone who will fly the machines no ones else will or take the risk others don't but then what is the answer ? Just except the fact that every year a certain number of people will be killed in circumstances that the rest of us say we would never get into .

Personally I would like to see the currency requirements made much more stringent drop the 90 day rule and bring in a 30 day rule for night and imc, force owners to allow their pilots regular opportunities to practice important skills .

Also be open minded to new technology such as IR cameras and synthetic vision anything that might allow a pilot to " see " where they are going

CBS

Tailboom

14th Mar 2014, 21:28

It would be interesting to know what was the departure time filled on the GAR Report against the actual take off time,

noooby

14th Mar 2014, 21:40

CBS, this machine was equipped with LLTV/Thermal imaging. You can see the camera mounted on the belly under the pilots seat.
Was it on or not? Who knows. You'll have to wait for the FDR readout.

cameron429

14th Mar 2014, 22:08

I heard some good comments on pilot pressure, to " get the job done" there were also some comments that were less than useful.
I knew both pilots well. They were professional and committed to their job.
Risk management is the priority. Pilot skill is important, but less of an issue these days, although currency is key, to managing a complex aircraft.
These guys were current and skillful, in their operation.
I'm gutted and deeply upset of our, and their loved ones loss.
That is the priority now. Not speculating, using our so called "aviation expertise"
God bless you Carl and Lee.
It was a privilege knowing you.
God Bless.
Andy.

helihub

14th Mar 2014, 22:32

From the Guardian

https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/3/14/1394812355489/The-AgustaWestland-AW139--014.jpg

FairWeatherFlyer

15th Mar 2014, 01:49

Maybe the CAA need to raise the helicopter visibility minima's altogether?

Some prosecutions of operators/pilots doing VFR in blatant IMC might help.

HeliNomad

15th Mar 2014, 04:04

I thought the 139 could shoot a 6 degree approach to any spot in space and come to a perfect hover without coming on the control. True or false? The EC145 can do this right?

jellycopter

15th Mar 2014, 06:55

Sad as this crash is, I feel not more than a little annoyed that some are suggesting yet more regulation within the industry. With respect to weather minima, the rules are already in place.
Whilst weather is likely to be a significant factor in this crash, it hasn't yet been proven to be the case.

I'm surprised only one person seems to have picked up on the 'undamaged' tail rotor. It looks to me like the main rotor was probably under power at the time of impact and although the impact appears to be nose first, the tail rotor seems to have touched the ground and I'm surprised it appears to be unscathed. It's not as though the AW139 doesn't have a history of T/R problems.

Please, no more calls for more regulation - let's stick to, and if necessary, enforce the rules that are already in place.

JJ

Sir Niall Dementia

15th Mar 2014, 07:03

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

ceekay

15th Mar 2014, 07:22

I heard that piece too - what a complete oxygen thief! Made me embarrassed to be ex-AAC. One of the local press websites describes a large tree with the top 25ft newly broken off near by. Whatever the cause, two fewer fellow aviators are mourned by us all. There but for the grace...

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 07:42

JJ, well said.

I can no longer bear to listen to Jeremy Vine's programme. His whining, sensation seeking, apologist claptrap and the banshee wailing of his extremist, often Harpie like phone in contributors drives me to distraction. The programme has become the radio equivalent of the worst tabloid newspapers. Bring back Jimmy Young!

Effluent Man

15th Mar 2014, 08:19

For a Panorama presenter the bloke seems incredibly thick.I remember him discussing someone with an IQ of 160 "Is that high,doesn't IQ go up to 1000?"
He played the record Abraham,Martin and John. "Oh someone just told me that's about Martin Luther King,I never knew that"

inputshaft

15th Mar 2014, 08:57

Jellycopter

I think it's a bit of a stretch to start assuming TR problems from the photograph. The nose-down impact and rapid rotor deceleration that would produce that sort of destruction, would probably result in a pretty low TR rpm by the time it, the TR, touched (admittedly all measured in less than seconds)

Time will tell.

Art of flight

15th Mar 2014, 09:23

Anyone expecting to gain valuable knowledge of private helicopter operations from the Jeremy Vine show will get what they deserve. If you've done this sort of work, you'll know the pressures these 2 guys were under, you'll know that the CAA can legislate till the cows come home, but we would still try to interpret those rules to get the job done. You'd need an ops inspector to wave you off at every site to enforce any rules. It all comes down to being able to make that one decision, can you say no when the red faced boss is giving you the hairdryer treatment on the night? I suggest if you know that your relationship with your employer is otherwise, you're in the wrong industry. I have driven home in the past, expecting a job debrief from the boss next day after saying no, due to weather, and it never happened. I've flown military, police and corporate and in my opinion corporate/private is living on your wits with little or no back-up, it really takes a strong character to last in that industry.

IB4138

15th Mar 2014, 10:02

Captain Lee Hoyle, Pilot in Norfolk helicopter crash tragedy was an ex-soldier from Greater Manchester - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/captain-lee-hoyle-pilot-norfolk-6835790)

http://www.blackpoolgazette.co.uk/news/traffic-travel/travel-news/fylde-instructors-killed-in-helicopter-crash-1-6500699

skadi

15th Mar 2014, 10:27

The EC145 can do this right?

No, the 145 has a 3-axis AP.
However the new 145T2, not already in service, will have a 4-axis AP.

skadi

skadi

15th Mar 2014, 10:36

WASALOADIE

15th Mar 2014, 11:08

The 139 does have a 4 axis AFCS and can fly a very accurate approach to the hove and even do a go around when initiated. However it does need to be set up correctly including defined parameters and location etc. In this case, from what I can surmise, I think that the accident has happened in the early stages of flight and that the approach mode will not have been set up. Of course, it only works well when everything is working correctly.

Regarding the possibility of some sort of power loss, the 139 has excellent OEI performance but it does depend upon what is around you in the form of obstructions.

There are a number of possibilities as to the cause and the AIB will in due course come up with an answer. Speculation, "eye witnesses" and armchair "experts (spotters)" do very little to help the situation apart from spread bad rumour.

In my opinion JV is the radio equivalent of gutter press, he will always take a contrary argument and interview so called "experts" to get a bit of a sensationalist view on a subject. I stopped listening to him a long time ago as he never seemed to give an unbiased outlook on a subject.

God speed to the four who sadly passed away in this tragedy. My thoughts are with their families.

Bravo73

15th Mar 2014, 11:16

In the published aerial video it seems that the first contact was in the vicinity of the line of straw bales ( parts of the wreck ), then a heavy impact in the freshly ploughed field ( crater ) and finally the wreck came to rest in opposite direction.

skadi

Other media reports/photos indicate that the first contact might have been with the trees that are closer to the road.

skadi

15th Mar 2014, 11:25

Other media reports/photos indicate that the first contact might have been with the trees that are closer to the road.Ok, that was not mentioned in the video. My assumtions were that the contact with the straw bales made the helicopter to flip over during a flare or so. This could explain the obviously heavy nose down impact.

Here in the second picture theres one straw bale, which was turned over and some parts of the wreck in front of.

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/captain-lee-hoyle-pilot-norfolk-6835790

skadi

76fan

15th Mar 2014, 11:35

Art of Flight is exactly right when he said "corporate/private is living on your wits with little or no back-up, it really takes a strong character to last in that industry."

I would not recommend this work to any pilot who is "professional" in his approach to flying, standards of airmanship will be compromised many times by commercial pressure and/or owners who are used to getting their own way and want to get there like NOW. I had several head to heads with more than one owner ..... e.g. why can't you land in fog? .... why won't you fly in cloud (in a 206L) so and so does, you are an amateur pilot .... why won't you land there, the last pilot did .... and I had more than one narrow escape in fog and low cloud when I was tasked by my company (an AOC holder) to fly as P2 in a company maintained private helicopter but with the owner's own P1. I am of the opinion that that pilot survived more through luck than skill and judgement, but he had to get the job done to please his boss and keep his extremely well paid job. My company's chief pilot had that same frame of mind when the company chairman wanted to fly, or when another private owner's aircraft operated by the company overloaded the number of passengers in his aircraft. When the question of safety was raised the answer was that the company could not criticize the owner or his pilot because otherwise they might lose the maintenance and/or pilot contracts.

I retired many years ago and in those days the CAA weren't interested in "private" helicopter operations, even when they were flown by crews employed by a company holding an AOC. I hope things have changed by now.

My advice, if you are a professional, is fly with a big company, at least you will then have the support of proper rules and, more importantly, the support of other pilots with a professional attitude to their work. In a small company pilots are afraid of losing their jobs if they don't toe the line.

My heartfelt sympathies for the crew of G-LBAL and their relatives.

chopjock

15th Mar 2014, 11:54

The 139 does have a 4 axis AFCS and can fly a very accurate approach to the hove and even do a go around when initiated.

So will the 4 axis AFCS also allow a vertical take off profile with CATA performance and continue with a positive ROC with OEI with no visual references?

Sir Niall Dementia

15th Mar 2014, 12:06

76 Fan, ArtofFlight;

Well said, Under the new EASA rules a corporate ops manual is a requirement which may give some protection, also under the new rules helicopters which are on AOC's will be required to operate to AOC standards at all times. Those two should give coronaries to some of the private owners who use the AOC system to play the taxman.

I'm ugly enough to tell it like it is, I used to use "I'm not paid enough to die for you" that changed to "I'm the only me I've got and my family would like me back tonight." Nowadays its "you listen to your lawyers, bankers and accountants, well I'm the same as them, but my advice is based on keeping you alive."

I've twice seen signs in helicopter cockpits and several times had owners say "You're the expert, I'm not offended by the word no." I do make it very clear to owners/customers that when I say no, I will have looked at every option, and no means there is no safe way to carry out the flight. I've rarely seen a problem after adopting a direct approach, and when I have I've been relieved to walk away.

SND

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 12:34

In a small company pilots are afraid of losing their jobs if they don't toe the line.

Well, S76Fan, I'm certainly not afraid of losing mine!
I might lose my job, but I'm certainly not afraid of doing so. I walked from my last job because I was no longer prepared to deal with stupidity by passengers who thought they knew more about flying than than a pilot of over thirty years of professional experience.

However, I am afraid of losing my life, or at least my licence, if I don't do what I know is safe!

SND, too right!

Arnie Madsen

15th Mar 2014, 14:04

@ Skadi ..... Ok, that was not mentioned in the video. My assumtions were that the contact with the straw bales made the helicopter to flip over during a flare or so. This could explain the obviously heavy nose down impact.The eye witness and aerial video below tend to indicate that as well

Latest Anglia News - ITV News (http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/?page=2)

Go down to about the third video titled "Bodies removed"

philrugg

15th Mar 2014, 14:36

I worked for Haughy for a VERY short time and walked out due to ureasonable and dangerous pressure- I am one of very many both rotary and fixed wing!!

Turkeyslapper

15th Mar 2014, 14:38

So will the 4 axis AFCS also allow a vertical take off profile with CATA performance and continue with a positive ROC with OEI with no visual references?

Not as such, however depending on software (not sure what this particular machine has) the afcs - with good knowledge of the system - can be effectively used to conduct a vertical profile takeoff and transition to forward flight.

A few ways to skin the cat however, a vertical profile can be achieved with or without HOV (HOV - trim the height up) and once at an appropriate height TU (transition up) can be used to get into forward flight - it will default to 80 KIAS/200ft RADALT however these parameters can be easily adjusted - ie 1500 ft etc..once there, other modes can be used....depends also on the terrain etc. So far as OEI flyaway in these configuartions, like any helicopter depends on AUW etc etc?

Cheers

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 15:01

So we are now talking about different methods of taking off from a private/confined site in sh**e weather breaking all the rules in the book. Yes you can engage hover (MUH 30ft?) then climb on the radalt to a good height say 500ft, then trans up to take you to 80kts and you are away, BUT this is not a war zone so do we really need to do it. No of course not. Just remember the old adage 'there are old pilots and bold pilots ......... There is a lot of truth in that.
I agree that we should not be talking about raising the limits either. Stick to the rules and you will be fine. If the limits get raised then you may as well fly by fixed wing.

Turkeyslapper

15th Mar 2014, 15:17

So we are now talking about different methods of taking off from a private/confined site in sh**e weather breaking all the rules in the book

No, I was was giving a practical example to a question.....in addition, not that I am suggesting that it is wise to takeoff into fog from a private helipad and I am not sure what the rules are in the UK however, they are not the same all over the world either (can you even use goggles for scene landings there yet :8).

Either way, a tragedy and RIP.

Cheers

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 15:44

So we are now talking about different methods of taking off from a private/confined site in sh**e weather breaking all the rules in the book.

What rules do you suppose were broken in this case, bearing in mind this was not an AOC flight, and what evidence have you of that?

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 15:52

Shy,

the rules in your own book. We all have limitations that when broken can result in a learning process which in turn may expand those limits or in some cases may result in something far worse and unrecoverable. Note, I have not said this is what may have happened in this case.

FSXPilot

15th Mar 2014, 15:56

I feel very sorry for the two pilots and the other passenger. The owner reaped what he sowed with his attitude to his flying staff.

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 16:01

Shy, the rules in your own book.

What book is that?

101BOY

15th Mar 2014, 16:06

With you on that FSX.

There was no HOV mode or TU on this heli - I think that's only enabled on the SAR ac even though the buttons are installed. GA would only work above 60kts, but would give you a wings level climb at 1000' per min and accel to 80kts off top of head.

Ref rules Shytorque, by the sound of the metars and anecdotal eye witness reports then the VFR vis limits for a start AOC or none.

tottigol

15th Mar 2014, 16:10

Whatever the cause, the AW139 is equipped with a FDR and a CVR and it's quite possible the pilots' own records are retrievable by the authorties. Let's give time and investigative teams a chance.
Like someone before posted, there are many ways to skin a cat, but only one way to do it BY THE BOOK.

SASless

15th Mar 2014, 16:45

Zero/Zero Takeoffs are not that difficult.....perhaps Illegal....but as a practical exercise is quite a normal training task.....once done in single engined, non-Stabilzed helicopters by Student Pilots.

Now we get into convoluted esoteric arguments about capabilities of Avionics Systems.

Until the AAIB releases, at least a basic summary of what happened, anything being discussed so far is pure speculation.

Bravo73

15th Mar 2014, 17:31

GA would only work above 60kts

Judging by the engine cowlings, this would likely to have been a Phase 7 aircraft. So, FWIW, that figure would be 41kts. And, IIRC, HOV and TU modes are included as 'standard' in Phase 7.

That's not to say, however, that you would necessarily want to be using any of those modes in this scenario.

SASless

15th Mar 2014, 17:48

One of the problems encountered in AW139 training is so much time is focused on automation management it does not leave much time for basic hands on IFR flying.
In this case I agree with SAS that ITOs can be conducted safely in a unstabilized UH1 if trained and proficient to get above a fog layer to clear above or continue IFR if necessary, You can also attain proficiency in O/O autorotations in simulator.

Zero/Zero Autorotations in a Sim.......and how does that work in real life?

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 17:49

You are right, zero zero takeoffs are not that difficult once practiced and current (especially in such a capable aircraft) but if you make a habit of doing such maneouveres you stand a good chance of getting caught out one day.

The question is WHY? Why would you do such a take off in poor conditions. We all know the answers as to why and listening to pricks like the bloke on the Jeremy Vine show it's surprising these accidents are not more common.

Shy. Would you complete a take off at night in thick fog from a private site without being shot at?

Art of flight

15th Mar 2014, 17:50

Compared to the gazelle in which we used to practise zero/zero take-offs (under the hood) the UH1 IS stabilised! Not that I'd like to try it at night from a confined area surrounded by trees that can't be seen.

SASless

15th Mar 2014, 17:51

Shy. Would you complete a take off at night in thick fog from a private site without being shot at?

Perhaps if the Farmer's Daughter's Father arrived home early....and he had a Shotgun handy and one did too thorough a Run Up Checklist!:ok:

Art of flight

15th Mar 2014, 17:54

I could see how fog might be an advantage then.

HLCPTR

15th Mar 2014, 19:51

Judging by the engine cowlings, this would likely to have been a Phase 7 aircraft.

What is it about the engine cowlings that indicates Phase 7 software?

Does anyone have the serial number of this aircraft?

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 19:55

Shy. Would you complete a take off at night in thick fog from a private site without being shot at?

No I wouldn't. But what do you know about the exact prevailing visibility conditions at this private site?

And what do we know about the requirements for visibility for a private flight operating from a private HLS?

Any differences for a flight which could be planned to climb and use IFR en route?

And while we're on the subject of "breaking all the rules in the book", I ask again what book are we talking about and what differences are there in weather requirements for AOC/PT and privately operated, non AOC flights?

ShyTorque

15th Mar 2014, 20:08

So why not just regulate to say that all sites requiring night take offs are recce'd and published in official aviation literature. It would go some way to protecting pilots against pressure from clients

High Spirits, would you be happy about the details of your private home being listed in a public aviation document?

By the same principle, why not ban all car journeys from unlisted private addresses? After all, there are far more car accidents.

Why not go the whole hog, ban all helicopter flights from other than airfields? Then use a fixed wing followed by a long drive to get to your destination. That would do the industry loads of good... :ugh:

SilsoeSid

15th Mar 2014, 20:11

HLCPTR;
Does anyone have the serial number of this aircraft?

31421
GINFO (https://www.caa.co.uk/application.aspx?catid=60&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=LBAL)
:ok:

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 20:20

Shy,

I was simply asking you a question which you have assumed was directed at this incident.

I am guessing that your thoughts as to the cause of the accident are not weather related?

Bravo73

15th Mar 2014, 20:22

What is it about the engine cowlings that indicates Phase 7 software?

This aircraft has got the newer style engine cowlings (less exhaust exposed). Every aircraft that I have seen with the newer cowlings also has the Phase 7 software.

(Although my sample size is relatively small so I obviously stand to be corrected on that detail).

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 20:24

What is it about the engine cowlings that indicates Phase 7 software?

The cowlings on the latest machines are more sculpted and the exhausts are shorter. Whether this has a direct relationship to phase 7 I am unsure.

HLCPTR

15th Mar 2014, 21:04

This aircraft has got the newer style engine cowlings (less exhaust exposed). Every aircraft that I have seen with the newer cowlings also has the Phase 7 software.
I am confident it is just coincidence. One is not related to the other. Logically, however, a newer airframe is more likely to have been ordered and delivered with Phase 7 (which is still optional as far as I know).

Bravo73

15th Mar 2014, 21:17

Logically, however, a newer airframe is more likely to have been ordered and delivered with Phase 7.

Exactly my point. :rolleyes:

Tandemrotor

15th Mar 2014, 21:31

Jeepys

Shytorque makes a very good point regarding private flying versus public transport. I was flying police helicopters before the advent of the PAOC. At that time it was simply private flying with one or two exemptions from Rule 5 low flying restrictions. You'd probably be very surprised at how unrestricted it is. Purely as a random example, I recall my record was 27 consecutive days 'on duty'!

I can well see the appeal of the almost totally unrestricted nature of private flying, (I don't know if this was?) rather than PT, to the very wealthy!

SilsoeSid

15th Mar 2014, 21:50

BBC News - Norfolk crash helicopter's flight recorder recovered (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26594940)

I'm surprised how far the crash site is from the grounds of the hall, which I presume was the take off point :confused:

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/739b08fc9e5e3d22538414b68f6523a3_zpsa891dafd.jpg

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/c899faaf0a6ce8c43094b32cdb2c094d_zps307ccef2.jpg

malabo

15th Mar 2014, 22:08

The Anglia video shows a better perspective than the photo. There was a report they whacked a tree branch on the way out, but hard to say it that made any difference. They would have been going at a pretty good clip at impact to shred the fuselage like that.

Lots of chest-beating "I would never do that", even by offshore pilots that do exactly that on those dark misty nights coming off a deck pointed at ink. You follow a disciplined profile and it works. Every time.

Hard to imagine being able to keep a 139 anywhere near the ground, but who knows what their takeoff plan was. We'll know soon enough.

jeepys

15th Mar 2014, 22:46

Tandemrotor,

I fully understand what Shy is talking about as I have operated in a similar situation, however, irrespective of how relaxed the private rules are does one not have their own limits to work within?

What I am getting at is even if the rules say you can't do something like take off in poor weather from a private site that does not mean to say it's okay to do it.
As pilots we all have a duty of care for our crew and passengers, don't we?
Many of us have been in similar situations where we know what we are just about to do could be bending the rules or dodgy in some respect but we then look at the safety aspect from a self preservation point of view, throw in a few other factors and then make a calculated decision taking limitations of the aircraft and crew into account.

Forget the rules just for a minute but can we agree that it's safe and sensible should you be operating VFR to be in sight of the surface (at take off or landing) or if operating IFR then at least remain visual until you have min IF speed.

Before anyone shoots me down this is just a question that may have no bearing on this incident.

One more thing before I get my coat but are there many pilots out there who regularly practice taking off from private sites at night in poor vis weather? In the real aircraft and not the sim.

BigAl94

15th Mar 2014, 23:03

Removed due to error

Agaricus bisporus

15th Mar 2014, 23:33

OK, here's my input.

(3500hrs helo, 1000N Sea. 12000hrs airline. I'm no expert. but equally no dummy)

I have not had time to read anything on this forum about this accident. I was away from home and the interntet when it occurred until now.

I was staying about a mile from the scene.

On Thursday afternoon I was at my place rather less than a mile from the accident site burning a bonfire at 1700 when I noticed an AW139 passing to the North of me, from W to E. I recognised it as an AW139 and it was clearly slowing and descending towards a landing, helos land at the hall regularly.
I mentioned to my oppo that I thought that they were probably returning from Cheltenham, even though it seemed rather early.

As a helo Professional I listened to the sound as the aircraft disappeared from sight and gained the impression - and here I must stress that what follows is no more than my impression - that the helo slowed and made various manoeuvres for an approach and landed. I then heard - I am quite certain, about three minutes of constant burning and turning, than an increase of noise as it took off again. I thought at the time that the noise then disappeared rather quickly but that is nothing to cause alert at the time.

Note that my sighting of the 139 was at 1700 with the helo travelling W to E to the N of me in perfect vis at my guess and clearly slowing. I soon lost visual but retained audible evidence which suggested an uneventful landing, Wind was Easterly at 3-5 kts, very light.

After c. three minutes burning and turning (as you might expect for a charter stop) I'm pretty certain I heard the helo lift and depart. I wonder if I did in fact? Refuel?

At 1840 I went out for supper and remarked to my oppo that Beccles (some 2 miles distant) had disappeared in the haze, and later on the drive it was clear that it was becoming misty and that fog was forming early. I thought it would be thick. Returning from the pub at 2100 (yes, sad, I know) the fog was very thick indeed. Streetlights in Bungay only visible as you passed the previous one, so 30yards or so to see streetlights. In the Waveny valley 20mph was the max on the lanes. Vis at my place less than a mile from the accident site was the same. The fog was not patchy (8 mile drive) and my place is c. 30 ft above sea level and Gillingham Hall perhaps 20-30ft higher.

As I got out of the car I was immediately aware of at least two helos flying low and slow above and manoeuvering with a lot of blade slap. There was a full moon but it was only intermittently visible as a faint disk. I guess now they were ENG but there's no way they could have seen anything.

Hummingfrog

15th Mar 2014, 23:33

bering

Not in 50 metres visibilty they don't. That's well below any current north sea company take-off minima.

But we do if you think about it. On a dark night pointing away from any rig structure in your peripheral vision and no other boat/rig ahead of you what do you think your visibility is? You are doing a full instrument takeoff. The only advantage you have is there are no obstructions directly ahead of you.

HF

Tandemrotor

15th Mar 2014, 23:45

Jeepys

Don't get me wrong. I do agree with what you have just written. I also confess I haven't flown corporate, not least because I may be more cautious than many, and therefore always accepted that my employment in that sector could have been short lived! There must be huge pressures to get the job done. I don't envy those guys.

I have always looked on things such as this as a kind of flow diagram. In order of priority: First might an act or omission cost me my life? Second might it cost me my liberty? Third might it cost me my licence. Fourth might it cost me my employment?

Very easy to run through in the comfort of our own home. Far more difficult when operating in that sector.

I assume the vast majority of helicopter pilots will be ex-mil of one shade or another? I know for a fact in the military world, I will have carried out a 'towering take off' in limited visibility in order to get airborne from a deployed site in shallow fog. Performance A, certainly in my time in the mil, was very much secondary. It worked, (risky shift??) so I can see the temptation to try it in a civvy helicopter if under pressure, and if it weren't ruled out by nature of the category of operation in which I was flying?

But by the look of the pictures provided by SS, this may well have been an a/c unserviceability rather than simply restricted visibility? We don't yet know.

SASless

15th Mar 2014, 23:48

We have had the discussion about Weather Minimums and actual Visibility where there is nothing to look at such as Offshore and no surface lighting (boats, rigs, platforms, Gas Flares) and have to recall the Rule does not necessarily comport with reality when we use "visibility" as part of our Go/No Go decisions. If there is nothing to be seen.....but you have the required visibility...by Rule you are legal but in reality you are IMC despite the Weather being VMC.

It gets rather Dark offshore most nights....especially with an overcast and no celestial lighting....but hey....you are VMC....right? If VMC....why do we have to fly by sole reference to Instruments? Should we not be able to control the aircraft by outside visual reference if we are really VMC?

In the USA....under Part 135 (Air Taxi) surface light reference is required for Night VFR.....but under Part 91 (Non-Commerical Flight)....there is no requirement for Surface Light Reference. Go Figure?

Bravo73

15th Mar 2014, 23:57

OK, here's my input

I'm sure that you've already considered it but it might be worth contacting the AAIB with your account.

ShyTorque

16th Mar 2014, 00:14

Shy,
I was simply asking you a question which you have assumed was directed at this incident.

I am guessing that your thoughts as to the cause of the accident are not weather related?

So it was a random question that you just coincidentally posted on this thread? I see.

At this stage I don't know the cause of the accident. I have my own thoughts and could speculate in public as well as any one else here, especially as I'm in exactly the same line of business as these unfortunate pilots. I spoke to Carl and Lee briefly in the vicinity of this exact airframe just a few days before the accident. I had no direct affiliation to either, by the way, except as professional acquaintances.

But I won't speculate here. I certainly don't like to see others thoughtlessly slagging off deceased pilots, especially even before an interim report is published.

There is absolutely no doubt that the press commonly use this forum for their own ends. I declined a direct request to make contact with a member of the BBC media about this accident shortly after it occurred.

Regarding my own theory, we don't know exactly what visibility the crew found themselves faced with. Fog is notorious for forming in random patches and layers, especially at night. It's quite possible the area they took off from was in reasonable visibility at ground level, but with fog not far above.

There are other reasons why a helicopter might hit the ground shortly after takeoff, even a fully IFR equipped one.

Posting inflammatory expressions about "breaking every rule in the book" etc is highly distasteful, especially as it appears that the bereaved widow of one of the pilots has already made contact here. I know from experience that even dedicated rule followers (and this thread obviously has more than a few self righteous ones) sometimes get caught out and pay the ultimate price.

Discussion of the landing approach capability of this individual airframe seems very strange to me, as the accident occurred during the takeoff phase.

High Spirits,

We are already one of the most highly regulated professions in the world. Let's not go begging for more of it. If you look back at the recent RW accidents which have been discussed in great depth on this forum, I'd make the observation that following the existing regulations, coupled with common sense, might have made all the difference in a high proportion of them.

How you think that publishing details of private landing sites in some book or other would make any difference to safety on takeoff is beyond me. These pilots were the aircraft owner's personal pilots. They would have been aware of the details of the landing site because it was their regular one, the owner's house.

To say that I seem to care more about the industry than aircrew lives is highly offensive. My neck has been directly on the chopping block in aviation for over three and a half decades. During that time I've lost count of the friends and colleagues who have perished in aviation accidents. It's certainly more than two dozen. I've had direct dealings with the dependents of some of them and certainly attended far too many funerals for my liking. My personal priority is to keep my own backside perfectly intact. By doing so, those in the airborne armchairs behind me will stay safe, too.

What-ho Squiffy!

16th Mar 2014, 00:31

Helicopters are able to take off and land almost anywhere. However, it would be very easy to regulate them out of existence for all but government authorities and O&G. Tough enough regs will prevent ALL private helo accidents.

Surely a private operation should be allowed to operate from a private property without regulator surveys being required.

Regs are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. If it is found that this accident happened in conditions below minima, then the law will have its say. If not, it may end up CFIT for no reason other than human error.

SASless

16th Mar 2014, 00:33

My personal priority is to keep my own backside perfectly intact. By doing so, those in the airborne armchairs behind me will stay safe, too.

Amen Brother!:ok:

It does not matter a whit to me what the Bloke in the big padded chair thinks when it comes to that decision as he is second in priority after my own precious Tush!

terminus mos

16th Mar 2014, 01:07

There seems to be plenty of land around the hall to make a clear area long enough to allow a take off and approach strip.

The crews could have worked out a repeatable procedure, day or night with some defined "gates" to ensure clearance and performance during take off and landing.

While not condoning, if true, a departure in low vis, at least they may all still be alive to tell the tale.

jimf671

16th Mar 2014, 01:56

... Surely a private operation should be allowed to operate from a private property without regulator surveys being required. ...

One would think so.

However, considering TM's point about the land around the Hall, perhaps common sense has not prevailed regarding obstruction at a location said to be regularly used by a helicopter.

(Which reminds me. There is a hazel tree I need to cut down.)

hillberg

16th Mar 2014, 02:31

What gets me is the lack of damage to the tail rotor, A main rotor hub showing powered operation & sudden stopage. And the hay bails that it ran through,sad indeed.

HeliNomad

16th Mar 2014, 05:29

My deepest sympathies go those affected.

I remember reading once about a helicopter accident leaving a remote area with no published departure and the pilots anticipated entering IMC shortly after the climb out. After the VFR departure they coupled the auto pilot, set heading, speed, but sadly forgot to set a vertical speed. Already in IMC the crew failed to realize they didn't have a climb and impacted an obstacle not far from the take off site. Not drawing any conclusions as to what happened here with these excellent pilots and equipment but I was reminded of that tragic accident. I agree extra regulations isn't what we need. What I take away from this is we must remain vigilant because even those far greater in abilities/experience then ourself are also vulnerable to the risks of the operations.

captain_m

16th Mar 2014, 05:38

Greetings,

It is really sad and i'm sorry for the family of
those who died in the crash for thier loss.

The accident had happened for whatever reason.
The most important thing is to have RESPECT for
all the individuals and LEARN from the actual cause
to avoid such things in the future.

Accidents happen either in simple or complicated
aircraft, day, night, VFR, IFR or even on ground.

Rules were made and updated as experts see
them necessary. So, try to follow the rules as much
as you can

..

Fly safe ;)

Vie sans frontieres

16th Mar 2014, 07:00

Unconnected with the accident but curious nonetheless. Do crew and passengers travelling in a private helicopter across the Irish Sea have to wear immersion suits? I can't imagine corporate clients routinely going via Campbelltown so the shortest crossing of what is a very cold sea looks to be over 20 miles. Neither can I imagine ultra-wealthy passengers such as the ones on this aircraft or the one that crashed in the Mournes being over the moon about donning an immersion suit. Military crews would ordinarily wear a suit when there is any risk of ditching. Why not corporate? Or have I got it wrong and they'd all be suitably dressed for a lengthy over sea crossing?

ShyTorque

16th Mar 2014, 07:43

The rules for overwater flights in helicopters are broadly similar to those for fixed wing aircraft.

Vie sans frontieres

16th Mar 2014, 08:30

But a helicopter arguably has a much greater chance of ending up in the drink.

spencer17

16th Mar 2014, 08:47

We are speculating about sh.. weather, technical or software problems of the helicopter.
Fact is, for all reasons: If it's not safe, say NO!!!
I did it several times, for weather and technical reasons and I'm still here after more than 40 years flying.
Workmates who could not say NO ended somewhere crashing into the hills.
Making this decisions can be very difficult and it's getting not easier the more experience you have.
I'm in the very lucky position to work for a company which accepts pilots decisions as final.

jeepys

16th Mar 2014, 09:13

Shy,

if I have offended you or anyone else on this forum with respect to this thread then I must apologise, it was not intentional, however if we are not going to speculate as to the possible causes of the accident and then the follow on information from that then this thread may as well be deleted leaving just the condolences thread.
We can say no more about it and wait the 12/18 months for the AAIB report.

Whilst I appreciate you knew the two pilots and therefore your emotions may be higher than those who didn't, speculation will always be evident.

R.I.P all those on board LBAL.

Out.

ShyTorque

16th Mar 2014, 09:14

Spencer, I agree but as far as I'm concerned, any company I work for has to accept my word as final. Because if I say it's unsafe and they disagree I just walk away. I've done so a number of times and that's probably why I never got promoted to upper management, i.e. not being a perpetual yes man. But as we see here, no one respects you once you crash.

ShyTorque

16th Mar 2014, 09:18

Jeeps, as I said before, I knew these two pilots only as fellow aviators. I'm not emotional about the accident, but I am principled in what I post on a public website after a fatal accident.

Pittsextra

16th Mar 2014, 09:57

Over many years many references to Haughey Air have led down a path of concern over attitudes and treatment of it's pilots. Why is that?

Art of flight

16th Mar 2014, 09:57

So what we know so far (won't use the word facts yet) The aircraft took off at night from a confined site/HP, the lone tallest tree within a few hundred metres of the site was chopped in half at a point just above the surrounding trees. The aircraft then contacted the ground in the field beyond and struck a substatial row of hay bales before coming to rest in the opposite direction. The crew knew this site well and recently.
We don't know if there was mechanical failure during or shortly after take-off, we know the weather visibility was poor in places in the area, but not what it was like at the site until witnesses/cctv at the house are questioned. Others have speculated that the owner was a man who liked to go when he said it was time to go, but that he felt concerned enough about the aircraft to take procedings against the manufacturer to get rid of it. If it's not mechanical failure, or crew error, it could just be that they were unlucky with the one tall tree in the darkness.

tottigol

16th Mar 2014, 10:25

I don't think luck had anything to do with this accident.

Art of flight

16th Mar 2014, 10:27

I would agree that all things considered there was no 'luck'.

expatfrance

16th Mar 2014, 11:20

RIP to all the guys.

Having survived for more than 40 years of flying helis, I can only agree with the relatively few who say you need to say NO on occasions and make sure that the owners know that. I have worked for a company Shy has and was given the CP job after everyone else left. I had to start from scratch and the basic was explaining to the owner why everyone had left. Whilst he did not like it he eventually agreed and life, I think, improved for all. We used to fly in some awful weather but having written an ops manual which the boss accepted, we were able to achieve about 95% without incident. I left him in no doubt who had the last say! Corporate flying is good and rewarding as long it is safe. I worked on the principal there was only one person who had to survive and that was me, after which everyone else should be ok.

NightSurfer

16th Mar 2014, 11:50

@HLCPTR

"Does anyone have the serial number of this aircraft?"

c/n 31421 (from airframes.org)

NS

Agaricus bisporus

16th Mar 2014, 12:24

Shy, we do know the weather conditions. Read my post no. 156

SilsoeSid

16th Mar 2014, 14:36

Nice one NightSurfer, however don't expect any thanks, I didn't get any after my similar answer yesterday :ok:

HLCPTR

16th Mar 2014, 14:49

Aw, come on....

Not everyone has constant access.

But thank you both.

SASless

16th Mar 2014, 15:24

Aga......I read your Post 156 again.

Would you share with us what you considered the weather conditions at the accident scene at the time of the accident to be....including amount of daylight, celestial illumination, etc. You were in close proximity of the scene at about the time of the accident and definitely have a background and experience level to provide for a qualified opinion.

Agaricus bisporus

16th Mar 2014, 15:43

Wx at the accident scene - must be surmise on my part. I had driven 8 miles or so in the opposite direction at 2130 with no significant variation in the 30-40m vis so think it unlikely it would have been different a mile away at the Hall. The hall is on a slight rise I guess 50 ft above sea level max, my place is 30 ft. Wind calm. Light - none. very dark despite a full moon. When I was looking for the circling helos at 2100 - 2130 the moon was occasionally visible for an instant as a dim disk. The helos were not visible, nor were any lights on them.

True, this was a couple of hours after the accident so I can't be sure what things were like at 1930. As I drove to the pub at 1840 it was dusk with mist forming fast at ground level and vis I'd estimate at 2-3000m and reducing quickly. It would have been dark by 1930.

rotorspeed

16th Mar 2014, 18:05

I don't think we should read too much into the weather at Gillingham Hall at the time of the accident from what Aga has said - as I'm sure he would agree. Yes on the face of it it was simply foggy and VFR flight could not have been possible - but I'm not so sure. We all know mist and fog forming on the ground, as he says it was a mile or so away, at 18.40 could have barely affected vertical visibility. Indeed I think it is interesting the full moon was still discernable at 21.00 - a long time after the accident time. It has to be quite possible that the vertical vis at GH at the 19.30 take off time was pretty clear - clear enough for a vertical climb to be made using the full moon as a visual reference if required. One presumes the crew might have known there was fog building in the area but then maybe expected to transition to forward flight once above any fog in the area - say at a height of 100ft or so.

The location of the accident is interesting - thanks Silsoe. I suggest it is too far away from the take off location (assuming take off within the grounds and say 50m from the hall) for there to have been loss of control during the vertical climb through fog, as some are suggesting must have occurred. More likely is that either something was hit then (where was the damaged tree?) and perhaps a rotor blade damaged that then failed say 10 secs and 400m later, or perhaps more likely still, having made a successful vertical climb to the 100ft of so required to clear the surrounding trees, transition to forward flight was made too early, before being well above any surrounding fog, and maybe the crew, expecting to be effectively VFR on top, became disorientated and lost control in IMC. If this hypothesis was true, perhaps if the whole departure profile had been on instruments this could have been avoided by ensuring sufficient height was reached and a positive ROC was instigated on transitioning with forward pitch at the top of the vertical climb. Of course, all just theories.

I must say I am surprised not to see evidence of a permanent helipad at the hall on Google Earth, though maybe it was built after the 2006 image. I would definitely want to have a hard surface to land a wheeled 139 on regularly.

With regard to the crew it would be interesting to know if the co-pilot was IR - I suspect not. Again, be interesting to know what sort of total and IR time the captain had.

It is totally unnecessary and indeed it would be very negatively burdensome to the industry to change regulations as some have suggested by licensing private sites for night use etc. Many of us frequently operate helicopters into private sites at night perfectly safely with whatever level of lighting is prudent. Helicopter pilots - particularly those involved in corporate ops - need to have the intelligence and judgement to make safe decisions, all the time. At private sites even if they were licensed there would be no weather for example, so sensible judgements must be made about night take offs particularly and many are best considered as IMC departures anyway.

Where there could be a case for new regulation is in the employment of pilots. Given some of the comments on this thread about boss pressure, maybe any employer of a pilot (outside of an AOC operation) should have a licence from the CAA, granted after an interview and briefing session with the CAA (which they can pay for of course) to establish their suitability as an employer, and during which time the key employing passengers were taught some basics about helicopter regulations and safety - eg no IFR flying in singles. There is a lot of ignorance about, unsurprisingly. This licence would be anually re-issued and any comments from current or ex-pilots sought and considered by the CAA.

Helicopter pilots need to operate much more on their own initiative than fixed wing pilots and must ensure their flying is safe by being highly competent and responsible for their own judgements and decisions, but a process to minimise employer pressure (through education as much as anything else) might just be the most valuable outcome to corporate ops safety from this accident, if it is found to have no mechanical cause.

tottigol

16th Mar 2014, 18:35

"The power required to satisfy the programmed 80 kts and 750 fpm climb rate is less then the initial power used. When engaged at 60 kts reduces the power and sets up a sink rate to reduce climb. This technique may work on departure from runway but not in an area with obstructions. It is better to engage airspeed and heading maintaining the higher power setting and accelerate to VY with cyclic trim. The climb rate will be more than double of the GA mode."

DAPT, I believe you are overdue for refresher training. To put it mildly.:=

SilsoeSid

16th Mar 2014, 18:41

With regard to the crew it would be interesting to know if the co-pilot was IR - I suspect not. Again, be interesting to know what sort of total and IR time the captain had.

rs, Your answers can be found with the help of google and Linkedin!

Art of flight

16th Mar 2014, 18:47

I would agree that there is no need to change the legislation. It would seem obvious to anyone reading 'rotorheads' over the years, that this industry and private helicopter flying in particular has an element of risk greater than other forms of flying. This factor results in a tragic loss every couple of years, the greater majority of the time due to human factors. The rules are quite clear, just that at times circumstances combine to make entirely reasonable people make the wrong decision, often when pressing on in poor weather is concerned. The record shows it's a fairly constant rate, take a look around your local small airfield and compare the amount of rotary against the amount of planks. Then consider the fatality rates.

CRAZYBROADSWORD

16th Mar 2014, 18:58

I did just over six hours flying today with about 25 differant people and every single group has asked about Thursday night as if I had all the answers , just like they did after Glasgow . It may be a bit unfair but my standard answer are " it's fine we are in a single , have lots of fuel (small lie ) and it's not foggy and that seems to do the trick . Not sure what point I'm trying to make it's been a long day but while we debate these crashes the public is watching and the industry will suffer if we don't get some solid answers

Art of flight

16th Mar 2014, 19:25

I think the best offer of a solid answer is repeated every 6 months during CRM recurrency trg. Aircraft are becoming more reliable, regulations are tightened, but human factors are still consistantly the biggest cause of accidents. It seems not to matter wether it's a twin or a single, one pilot or two.

Legalapproach

16th Mar 2014, 19:33

AG it was dark on the ground by 1900. I live a couple of miles from Gillingham (in fact I am sitting on a chair that came from Gillingham Hall as I type). I was away on Thursday but my wife was driving home at about 1900. She says the fog was thick enough for her to use the fog lamps on the car - something she does not always do - and there were patches of fog that were thicker than others as she drove.

tottigol

16th Mar 2014, 19:49

DAPT, not the right thread and time, however several of your notions are not correct and imply a less than adequate understanding of the AW139 AFCS with regards to RoC and PI Limiting when collective modes are engaged.

Feel free to PM me, I believe we stole too much bandwidth from this thread already.

Cheers to all and heartfelt condolences to those who lost a dear one in this tragedy.

Sir Niall Dementia

16th Mar 2014, 19:56

CRM courses bang on and on about "the cockpit gradient" maybe for corporate charter they should bang on about the cabin/cockpit gradient. Where the gradient is not from the experienced pilot to the less experienced, whichever seat they occupy, but from the hugely wealthy holder of a pilot's contract to the pilot.

A broad look at UK helicopter accidents over the last ten years shows a fall off in the simpler AS355 types to the far more complex aircraft such as LBAL, I'm thinking offshore as well here. Current aircraft development has brought us into a far more automated place with much more reliance on the automatics, but from personal experience rotary training in the use of automation is far behind fixed wing training in the same arts. In the last five years I have completed two type ratings on highly automated fixed wing and rotary aircraft and the fixed wing course went into far greater detail and simulator time than the rotary course (simulators and trainers provided by the same training provider), but, the helicopter automation is far more complex than the fixed wing due to the greater mechanical and aerodynamic complexity of the helicopter.

When BA Helicopters S61 crashed in the Scilly Isles a lack of RadAlts and poor radar were serious factors, but for the first 2 500 hours of my rotary career I flew S61 equipped with basic SAS, RadAlt, monochrome radar and Decca. In that time I never once saw or heard of a crew getting into a problem due to finger trouble or poor IF skills. On transition to the 332L1 and 2 a lot of time was spent learning the automatics and when to rely on them and when to throw them away (thank you Pete Benson and Mike Tingle)

A final thought as I'm away now for a week in an internetless place. Even if the viz was poor but workable on Wednesday night a helicopter will quite easily create it's own fog bank. In 1997 I was asked by Ops to ground run a 332 before an early take off from Aberdeen. The weather was calm, high pressure temp and dew point the same, viz 7k. By the time I had finished the run the mixing from the helicopter had been enough to put ABZ into LVPs. 5 years ago I landed at night to pick up a customer from his home (helipad lights, PAPIs lead in lights, basically a dream site) but the weather was essentially the same as the morning in Abz. By the time I had shut down the viz was less than 100m, caused by the helicopter. His chauffeur drove me back to base where it was still a clear night and he stayed home.

Before you all shoot me down take a long hard think about your training on the automation on your aircraft and whether you learned most of what you know on the job. Now, take aim.........

SND

SASless

16th Mar 2014, 20:08

SND, perhaps we might start calling you "Joe Btfsplk" with your ability to form Fog every where you go.;)

http://s3.amazonaws.com/mmc-beta-production/assets/6818/lil_abner_article.jpg

ShyTorque

16th Mar 2014, 20:15

With regard to the crew it would be interesting to know if the co-pilot was IR - I suspect not. Again, be interesting to know what sort of total and IR time the captain had.

In a conversation I had with the co-pilot he stated that he indeed held an IR.

Thankfully the CAA HOIs of more recent appointment have the foresight to require pilots to use the automatics during tests. The old dinosaurs who apparently saw them as cheating (or too complicated for them to understand), and therefore under no circumstances allowed them to be engaged during test flights, have thankfully retired.

Komodo01

16th Mar 2014, 20:30

And had just come back from Italy from his LPC I believe.

BR

K

Flying Lawyer

16th Mar 2014, 20:48

FairWeatherFlyer Some prosecutions of operators/pilots doing VFR in blatant IMC might help.
Not IMHO.
Education is more effective than prosecutions.

NB: That is a just a general comment in response to your post.
Whether or not visibility had anything to do with this accident has yet to be determined.

FL (Like you, a PPL.)

Sir Niall Dementia

16th Mar 2014, 21:03

SAS;

Its just my little bag of gloom, I carry it everywhere!

SND

SilsoeSid

16th Mar 2014, 21:33

How does a single pilot IR differ from a multi pilot IR?

There is a previous PPRuNe thread, but how would it apply in this case?
http://www.pprune.org/professional-pilot-training-includes-ground-studies/509498-single-pilot-multi-pilot-instrument-ratings.html

FOCLH

16th Mar 2014, 21:41

I was a very good friend of Lee; one of the deceased pilots. I have read the threads with interest and sadness, some of the post are not helpful. It is inappropriate and wrong to make sweeping comments about their professional abilities, qualifications and experience.

A pilot of an AS350 approached Lee & Carl at Royal Ascot last year, the pilot asked if they were with the AW139 G-LBAL, when they confirmed this, he replied that it was amazing "Northern accents flying that". The life of a VIP pilot is difficult at the best of times, but I can assure you that it is nothing compared to what their families are going through.

I knew Lee very well and one thing I do know is that Lee was not the kind of man to say 'yes' to anyone, regardless of how much money or power they had. He was a man with the highest levels of integrity, a good man, a quiet man, a thinker, a man who strived for perfection in everything that he did. He was extremely proud at what he had achieved in his life and I know that the dreams and aspirations that Lee and his family had have been tragically taken away.

I respect the fact that everyone has a point of view, but please remember that these pilots were real people, good people; with families and friends, some of whom read your posts.

SASless

16th Mar 2014, 21:49

FL,

For what its worth.....the FAA has had that attitude with the US EMS Operators forever and to my knowledge have never enforced Part 135 Night Flight requirements re surface lighting for Night VFR despite knowing there are many large dark areas in our country where such lighting just does not exist.

I wonder what the effect of the FAA suspending a Part 135 Operating Certificate would be re changing attitudes about that as compared to the historical method of.....well you cannot say "seeking compliance" as they haven't.

I submit the numbers of accidents over the years might have been much reduced had the FAA placed adequate effort behind demanding adherence to the existing regulation instead of what they have done.

Anyone that has flown in the mountainous regions of the USA understand what I am talking about.....or out west in the wilds of Texas and other large expanses of nothing.

FAR Part 135, Section 207 is the pertinent Regulation and requires helicopters to have sufficient surface light reference by which to safely control the Helicopter.

alouette3

16th Mar 2014, 23:38

Condolences to the bereaved families and RIP and respects to the pilots.
While the weather may or may not have been a factor and other issues are yet to be determined,I will refrain from making any assumptions. But----
From a purely human factors point of view I am sure the AW139 was sold to the owner as an "all weather aircraft" with all the whiz bang bells and whistles to make flying in "zero zero" conditions child's play. Well,looks as if the owner demanded a return on his investment and the piper had to be paid ---unfortunately in blood.
There have been plenty of accidents and incidents off shore and on shore of highly sophisticated aircraft with two pilots ending up in the drink, or almost there, and even other gcrashing.The reason is perhaps because the pilot on controls in IMC is the only one afflicted by, and reacting to, an SD situation.By the time pilot monitoring realizes what is happening and attempts to take control,it is too late. So, two crew or single pilot, sophisticated aircraft or not, the best thing to do on a bad weather day is to stay on the ground.And, Shy Torque, that is straight out of the airmanship book of rules.
But, like all or most of us, we are all susceptible to the pressures of the ultimate human failing : the loss of a paycheck.
Alt3

ShyTorque

17th Mar 2014, 10:07

Alouette,

So, two crew or single pilot, sophisticated aircraft or not, the best thing to do on a bad weather day is to stay on the ground.And, Shy Torque, that is straight out of the airmanship book of rules.

Yes, by not flying you mitigate most aviation risks. I had already worked that one out about forty years ago. Like any other pilot, obviously I have cancelled flights due to weather, and I have gone around from a few approaches and/or diverted. On a few occasions I have made the highly unpopular decision to leave a helicopter on the ground and gone home by other means and come back for it later when the conditions improved enough to make a safe departure.

I can't tell you what I would have done on the occasion in question because I wasn't there, and neither were any of us. Obviously, the decision to scrub due to weather is easier for non IR'd pilots but I can tell you that my own decision would not have been based on the demands of the passenger, however much that decision was challenged. I've been paying money into my pension for many years and I damn well intend to enjoy my retirement, which seems to approach ever more rapidly.

I certainly don't condone taking off or landing below safe limits with regard to visual references, (self preservation rules OK), however I challenged the reference to "breaking all the rules in the book" because I saw it as unjustified. The person who posted it didn't refer to which book that was, and hasn't responded to my question to see if his/her claim could be qualified.

None of us know the cause of this accident, however obvious it might seem from what has been published in the media, or here. I think it far more appropriate, on what is supposed to be a forum for professional pilots, to wait to find out the result of an official and expert investigation, rather than see deceased pilots pilloried in public without proper justification.

If the cause was not directly related to met conditions (and I accept that it may be), experience tells me that no-one here will issue a public apology for their unjustified, inappropriate comments. They quietly slink away.

If you see it as acceptable, then go ahead; but hopefully my point has been made.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 10:18

I would think the manufacturers tag of 'All weather capability' would be backed up by some such phrase as when operated from and to suitably equipped facilities iaw with ICAO/EASA legislation. The civilian operation of 'all weather' would be very different to military or SAR for example.
There's plenty of talk on here of zero/zero profiles/capabilities, pilot IR experience etc, all irrelevent at the time of the accident, as this was a VFR take-off in VMC, there may or may not have been an intention to transition to IFR in IMC at some point after the take-off at which point crew qualifications and capability could be a subject of valid opinion.

To explain further, I've done plenty of zero/zero departures into IMC from suitably equipped airfields and i've done thousands of VFR take-offs from unregulated unlit field sites, but never an IFR departure/take-off from a field site.....the take-off has always been VFR with a suitable planned transition to IFR in IMC (or VMC). I imagine that is the experience of most on here?

The point I'm trying to make here, is that this was a VFR departure, it had to be, so talk of the 139s complexity and pilot IF experience is not valid.

FairWeatherFlyer

17th Mar 2014, 11:01

Education is more effective than prosecutions.

WRT evaluation of VMC, is that an opinion or based on (published) research? Sometimes it takes a jolt for an industry to wake up to its bad practices. I can think of other industries where hundred million dollar fines do little to change dubious habits.

I did just over six hours flying today with about 25 differant people and every single group has asked about Thursday night as if I had all the answers , just like they did after Glasgow

The general public view rotary flying as dangerous and given the streets of London where sprayed with bits of 109 and Jet A1 fairly recently I'm not sure I blame them. I think for people inside the industry this viewpoint is difficult to see as they have a more segmented view and know what the higher risk operations are.

Flying Lawyer

17th Mar 2014, 11:24

SASless

My comments related to the UK, where aviation is highly regulated.
I know there is cause for concern re US EMS ops.

FOCLH
I respect the fact that everyone has a point of view, but please remember that these pilots were real people, good people; with families and friends, some of whom read your posts. Well said. I'm never sure whether some people forget that or just don't care.
It will be no consolation to you, but the comments on this thread are more restrained than is often the case in discussions following fatal accidents.
As you say, everyone has a point of view. Unfortunately, on an open forum, 'everyone' includes people who have never flown a helicopter or any aircraft.

ShyTorque
Excellent post.

FairWeatherFlyeris that an opinion or based on (published) research?
It is my informed opinion.
Not yet published, but I shall probably do so (in expanded form) when I retire.

I can think of other industries where hundred million dollar fines do little to change dubious habits.True.
Yet you advocate more prosecutions? :confused:
As I said, in relation to aviation, "Education is more effective than prosecutions."

FL

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2014, 11:36

Of course the possibility for prosecution, fine and education are limited in circumstances such as this. If indeed they are even warranted, although being pragmatic one struggles to understand an attitude that resists engagement because there is a lack of a formal report when there are interesting avenues for discussion that have been thrown up by this accident, regardless of where they actually turn out to be the specific cause or not.

The element of commercial pressure is interesting and oddly people who have contributed here seem reluctant to clarify the prior concerns over this owner despite it being a potential elephant in the room. More so when a very capable machine seems to have been crashed with reasonable forward speed, where weather is being questioned within meters of its departure, the wreckage lying by a cluster of trees...

On the balance of probabilities...

Also the prevailing attitude that suggests "if I don't like things I just walk" might save you but isn't really conducive to preventing the problem. All it does is put someone else in a bad spot where they have to make that tough decision at some point in the future.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 11:49

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2014, 11:57

Pitts, I hear what you're saying, however there tends not to be room to negotiate with an employer in this little industry, so walking is the only course of action. If enough people walk over enough years from a small operation then any little bit of research (even on PPRUNE) when answering the job advert should help inform as to why the job is vacant and what you'll be getting into.

Oh yeah no doubt although - and for example - I work in finance. I have a duty to report things (a weak word but the detail isn't really relevant) that are not done properly because I become complicit in the poor behaviour otherwise.

One might think it would be possible to report things that are done badly and expect the same formal report back as you would in an accident scenario. That at least removes the most obvious quip that the departing pilot got fired and any complaint is just bad blood/ sour grapes etc.

ShyTorque

17th Mar 2014, 11:57

All it does is put someone else in a bad spot where they have to make that tough decision at some point in the future.

It's called captaincy and part of what we get paid for. If someone can't deal with that, best they stay out of the profession altogether. I was asked about this in my interview for a certain company. I was adamant that my word was final; an aircraft captain isn't a minion and must never become one if he is to keep the operation safe. I got the job. But in the end, I got frustrated at the lack of understanding and respect for the responsibility of an aircraft captain; It's a fine line to decide at times. I quit that job.

Problem is, when certain people get to certain high positions (I'm referring to passengers now, and their mentality) pilots are often the only people who say no to them.

SASless

17th Mar 2014, 12:00

Too True, Shy!

Usually it is only Money that gets lost when the Yes Men tug their forelock but with Pilots it is far more at stake than mere money.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 12:07

Even the 'CHIRP' system doesn't work in this industry, an employer would soon know who was reporting, so I say again, the only course of action is to save yourself and walk. These days of the internet help us make informed decisions about the good and bad of the industry and it's so small that word of mouth is fairly reliable.

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2014, 12:10

So what is the solution?? Because as has been pointed out there are many many posts on a variety of threads that have called out Haughey Air.

So regardless of this accident, what happens to that/those complaints? Just tittle tattle in a crew room, rolled eyes from the cynical and another post on an internet forum?

Because one way its just a moan up about the innocent - the consequences of which are nothing more than idle chit chat. The other way it could have prevented 4 people getting killed.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 13:06

I'm sure if you have a 'specific' complaint you face the employer with it and it gets dealt with. I do tend to think it's only the employees of a specific company with a specific complaint that can do anything, you try, it doesn't change to your satisfaction, so you leave. If you want to work elsewhere in the industry and want a reference you might need to be a little cautious with comments about your previous employer. Thats just how it works in most tiny industries with a small workforce. I'm not sure there is 'another way' as you put it.

John R81

17th Mar 2014, 14:02

My comment is not related to the pilots of the AW139 in this case; I have neither knowledge nor understanding of the specific event.

I am in agreement with Shy (post 213).

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks / wants. Are you the Captain or not?

If you are then it is your responsibility to keep the aircraft, the crew, the passengers and others on the ground safe in relation to the flight that you will command, and to conduct the flight in accordance with the laws / rules of good airmanship. No-one else has that responsibility, could exercise that responsibility for you, ore relieve you from the legal consequences of your failing to take that responsibility. If you, the pilot, take to the air in unsafe conditions it is your decision (under pressure or not) and you must take responsibility for that act.

Claiming later that it wasn't really your fault because 'successful people are bullies' is actually pitiful.

As said elsewhere in this thread; if you don't have the character to be a captain in private operations (or charter, or any other business environment) then you should not be looking for those positions. Get yourself a job where the demands suit your abilities or, one day, it just might be you that features in the news.

No amount of additional regulation is going to make up for a captain of weak character.

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2014, 14:29

Claiming later that it wasn't really your fault because 'successful people are bullies' is actually pitiful.

As said elsewhere in this thread; if you don't have the character to be a captain in private operations (or charter, or any other business environment) then you should not be looking for those positions. Get yourself a job where the demands suit your abilities or, one day, it just might be you that features in the news.

No amount of additional regulation is going to make up for a captain of weak character.

And again speaking in more general terms than this accident, that's all fine except that the consequence of these actions are not confined to the pilot himself...

satsuma

17th Mar 2014, 14:45

Aren't even the smallest of operations supposed to have a fully functioning Safety Management System these days? If they do have one worthy of the name, then it will probably contain words and phrases that offer the captain protection when he makes a decision based on safety grounds.

Walking solves nothing in either the short or long term and merely stores up problems before some poor soul eventually suffers the inevitable crash.

SASless

17th Mar 2014, 15:19

So....if I were to perceive the need to move on for any number of good valid reasons, do so in a manner that protects my reputation, work references, avoids my having to go to court perhaps to recover unpaid salary....and some other fellow fills my vacancy, makes a bad decision and destroys an aircraft/occupants.....it then becomes my fault somehow?

You must live in a much simpler World than the rest of us.

The UK is a very small place....with a helicopter industry that is very small in size and numbers....reputations precede most to their new employment and all it takes is one unhappy former employer and finding work could get awfully hard.

There are many factors that have generated the situation extant re being able to stand up for what is right but having to pay a price for it in far too many situations.

The Safety Manual is fine....and sounds good in Court.....but it is the ex-officio networking that poses the real threat to sound decision making that ruffles the feathers of those who make the Hiring decisions.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 15:26

Well, in the short term, walking or being pushed because of owners not agreeing with Captains decisions should make the owner realise there's something that needs looking at. In the longer term if enough walk, the owner REALLY should realise that he's not doing something right. It's a stark choice sometimes, the problem is and has been that for sometime there are more pilots looking for jobs than there are jobs, and the employers know it. That's why inexperienced pilots are willing to take just about any Ts & Cs to get on the ladder, and once they're on it, it's hard get off. Particularly when training debts and TR bonds are involved.

John R81

17th Mar 2014, 15:32

Only if the industry contains 'Captains' who lack the strength of character to obey the rules. The replacement will take the same stand you did and hence rules are followed and standards of airmanship are maintained.

So; weed out 'Captains' who break the rules or who do not show good airmanship. They don't have the skills to be 'Captains' and should be P2. The people best placed to do the "gardening" are the regulatory authorities, backed by clear and honest reporting by everyone in the industry.

"Not my fault, the 'rich man made me do it'" It sounds like the kind of thing an adolescent says when caught out.

PS. Anyone who can't take responsibility for the flight (including saying 'no'), please don't offer to fly me. I will stick with people who combine knowledge and experience with backbone, integrity and responsibility.

Pittsextra

17th Mar 2014, 15:43

How do you weed out these captains who show poor airmanship in a scenario similar to the thread we are posting in?? It seems almost binary to me. Either the flight goes without a hitch and who is any the wiser (remembering that the pax might and likely not have a clue re: aviation) OR it ends in a big mess and at that point its done.

Walking out and then having the accident happen to the replacement isn't your fault but then its also not being faithful to doing the utmost to prevent these situations.

I'll give you a recent "for example", recently an AW109 ended in a slight state after the pilot tried to put down in a field and misjudged things. That was down to grubbing around in poor weather. I'm not sure if he has learnt his lesson or not but you can be sure that if one waits for an AAIB report to modify behaviour it might be too late to learn anything.

I give that example because people who post here know the aircraft and pilot.

That kind of thing in the outside world is commonly known as turning a blind eye.

satsuma

17th Mar 2014, 16:13

SASless

It's only your fault in a sense of collective industry responsibility for allowing unscrupulous or excessively demanding owners to keep doing what they're doing. If someone walks, they've saved themself but what about those they've left behind or those that replace them who may have less experience and be less confident in challenging the 'authority' of the owner or manager? If one speaks of the responsibility of captaincy, surely one aspect of that is confronting issues and standing up for what one knows is correct, not just making for the exit and leaving behind what one knows is an accident waiting to happen. As sure as eggs are eggs, it will.

John R81

17th Mar 2014, 16:32

Satsuma

It's not the owners who are doing it.

Your 'gripe' is against the pilots who fly the aircraft.

First step on the road to change is to accept the fault. Only the pilot can commence or continue a flight which breaks the law / regulations / rules of good airmanship. The 'unscrupulous or excessively demanding owners' are sitting in the back, not holding the controls. Collectively, as an industry and 'professional pilots' take ownership of the problem (if one exists) and stop evading responsibility with phrases like 'unscrupulous or excessively demanding owners'.

Art of flight

17th Mar 2014, 16:33

All very well telling us we have a moral duty beyond the end of our employment with a certain employer, but lets have some suggestions of what practical action you think will change things. A reality check.....This is a tiny industry with no unions, lots of freelancers scraping a no fly-no pay living, and many new entrants wanting your job without questions. Just have a look at the wannabies forum. There is no collective push for better Ts & Cs. I say again, in this specific case at least, this owner provided the latest state of the art aircraft and 2 pilot crewing, in his mind I'm sure he thought he was doing everything right.

tottigol

17th Mar 2014, 17:23

Y'all sound like a UN Security Council session, talk for hours without results.

Judging by the AAIB reports it seems as if the Brits are achieving a worse safety rate than the US HEMS industry, and they are doing it with IFR multiengine (and sometimes multi crew) helicopters.
The problem is not a lack of regulation, the problem is a lack of enforcement.

Pofman

17th Mar 2014, 17:25

Looking at the map of the crash site posted on the BBC website in relation to the house, it seeems the after departing the take off zone the helicopter must have cleared the trees in the vicinity of the house, crossed the Yarmouth Rd then descended to impact the trees several hundred metres to the west. Therefore there must have been sufficient power initially. The question then is why did it descend again? Disorientation on rotation?? Or power problems??? Seems to be more to this than owner pressure.

CRAZYBROADSWORD

17th Mar 2014, 17:26

I think it helps if you explain to you're client what the rules are , I once did a job taking some people from London to Cardiff and explained the weather on route meant it was very unlikely we would be able to get there but as the weather in London was fine and they where paying we set of .

I explained that if the cloud base was less than 500 foot I would be breaking the rules as it's impossible to do the route solely over empty fields and set the rad alt to 500 foot , then about Swindon the rad alt went off and little whisps of cloud where passing us so I simply said that's it that's as far as I can go .

After landing back in London they never questioned my weather decisions again

CBS

P1DRIVER

17th Mar 2014, 17:43

Pofman

"Therefore there must have been sufficient power initially. The question then is why did it descend again?"

I think you,ll find that it clipped a tree closer to the hall ?? mentioned in a post earlier i think.

satsuma

17th Mar 2014, 17:45

SASless

17th Mar 2014, 17:49

On the most memorable of such occasions.....mine were put down in a Truck Stop and told to call a Taxi.....which they gladly did. A bit of Severe Turbulence connected to a Frontal Passage on a bright clear day and their Pilot's warning that the flight could be done as it was within both the aircraft and Pilot's capability but the ride would be extremely off putting.

They insisted as they just had to be the other side of the mountains for a Meeting.....a routine monthly meeting....that could really have been done over the telephone.

They never challenged a "No" Decision after that.

The Corporate Mentality was to fly Single Engine Helicopters and Cessna Caravans over mountainous terrain at night and IMC for the Airplane.....with the caveat that a Twin Engined aircraft would only take you to the scene of the crash following an engine failure.

I made my opinion known about that and was fired within a week.

A few months later a King Air and Beech Jet showed up.

ShyTorque

17th Mar 2014, 18:47

Practical suggestions. How about CAA inspections to include rigorous examination of an operation's Safety Management System, including examples of its application over the past time period? Pilots are bulletproof in any contentious discussion with owners or managers if they throw their own SMS back at them.

Satsuma, you may be expecting too much due to a misunderstanding. This was a private flight in the owner' own aircraft. What you are asking is a bit like expecting the DVLA to show up to check out your safety management system for going out in your own car, albeit you might pay a personal chauffeur to take you to a destination.

alouette3

17th Mar 2014, 19:01

Shy Torque,
Your points are well made and taken.However, since this happens to be a RUMOUR network a certain amount of speculation and armchair quarterbacking is acceptable.I don't think anyone is being disrespectful to the deceased.All of us are acutely aware, or at least should be, that there but for the Grace of God go I.
Besides, given the wide spectrum of geography and experience on this sight, these discussion are useful.Hopefully, everybody learns something and applies it.If we can save a few lives that way why not? I am sure all our colleagues who have departed for the big heliport in the sky would agree.And until somebody writes a book titled ( to mangle a quote from a famous movie) 'Spring Chicken to Shy Torque in One Easy Lesson', this will have to do.
For someone who has been on this site for a few years now and endured the barbs and scathing remarks of the folks here whenever there is an EMS accident in the US,I can tell you that your "wait-for-the report" "let -us-not- speculate" " I knew the guys" attitude a little disingenuous.Is that you or is it the well known British bias of Pprune?
Alt3.

jayteeto

17th Mar 2014, 19:24

Interesting that some here have already written the report (again). Particularly the quote, it crashed because it hit the tree.
Have you considered that it may just have hit the tree DURING the crash? My best guess has to be a weather related incident, but it's just that, a guess. It could easily be a technical failure....... Luckily, we have a CVR in this case

heliski22

17th Mar 2014, 21:00

@Flying Lawyer

I do believe you're right about education being better than prosecution but, having spent 30 years in law enforcement, I think there is still a case to be made for prosecution, in certain cases. I think we'd be a lot worse off if, for example, driver education was not accompanied by the threat of prosecution - drinking and driving comes to mind.

Fear of sanction does help to focus the mind where education alone might struggle.

It does, however, require enforcement action to be taken which in turn requires enforcement capability in the first instance. It has always struck me as odd to vest responsibility for enforcement in a limited company which also profits (or at least generates revenue) from the industry it (supposedly) regulates.

RIP to those lost and condolences to those left behind.

22

ShyTorque

17th Mar 2014, 21:34

Alouette, I have no objection to fair and healthy speculation after tragic accidents such as this, but always find unjustified, public criticism of deceased pilots who aren't here to defend themselves or to explain what happened more than a little obnoxious.

If you can't see the difference, then so be it.

Unfortunately your reference to the movie quote was wasted on me, I have no idea what you are on about, tbh. Maybe you're more of a spring chicken than I.

I stopped counting how many "I knew the guys" accidents I have known when the total got to around thirty, quite a long time ago. As I said before, I knew the pilots under scrutiny here only as professional acquaintances and had not flown or socialised with them. I have no particular reason to defend any action or decision they took. However, if it was your own name on the body bag, and your relatives reading this thread, bear in mind that I'd still have the same attitude about unfair criticism in public.

alouette3

17th Mar 2014, 22:18

Shy Torque,
Fair enough.All I am saying is that I wish that the same courtesy is extended to my colleagues on this side of the Atlantic.
The line I quoted is from Battle of Britain.The actual line is " Spring chicken to ****e hawk in one easy lesson".It is uttered by Edward Fox in the early part of the movie and refers to one of his rookie pilot off to train with the Squadron Commander. Now, with that tidbit, I think I have dated myself and I hope you are convinced that I am not a spring chicken. For some reason, I thought your nom de plume on this site was a clever play on words referencing that bird of prey.My mistake.
Alt3.

dannyb1

17th Mar 2014, 22:50

Speaking as a member of the public and not a pilot or aviation expert.

From reading through this thread its evident that there seems to be a real issue in the private aviation sector of being asked or forced to do things which are potentially unsafe. This is very worrying and should not be allowed within the industry wether the passenger owns the aircraft or not.

A pilot should not be in fear of loosing employment or suffering any type of discrimination as a result of refusing to carry out his/her duties on the grounds of safety. The pilots word should be final, anybody rich enough to own and operate aircraft for private or commercial purposes should be educated and sensible enough to listen to an experienced pilot and not apply pressure to break the law or risk life and limb to get to the destination. It seems to me that lorry bus and coach drivers are afforded more protection and monitored more closely by the authorities and considering the the potential dangers involved in your proffesion that in itself is ridiculous.

We do not know what has caused this accident and I think there is likely to be a number of contributing factors as there always seems to be with things like this. I have seen G-LBAL in the air on approach to Gillingham Hall a number of times but I didnt know who it belonged to until I heard about its crash on the news. It was a marvelous looking machine. The crash site is enroute to a place I visit fairly often and I can only describe seeing the wreckage over the weekend as a harrowing experience. I feel very sad for all involved, i can not imagine how the families of those onboard could be feeling and I offer my sincerest of condolences.

Where I live about 9 miles from the crash site visibility was incredibly poor last thursday evening. I await with interest to find out the cause of this accident. Had the aircraft impacted the mc donalds restaraunt or petrol station at the adjacent Gillingham Services the death toll could have been much higher.

Its such a tragic loss of life and I if nothing else something will be learned in order to prevent similar accidents in the future.

alouette3

18th Mar 2014, 00:56

A pilot should not be in fear of loosing employment or suffering any type of discrimination as a result of refusing to carry out his/her duties on the grounds of safety. The pilots word should be final, anybody rich enough to own and operate aircraft for private or commercial purposes should be educated and sensible enough to listen to an experienced pilot and not apply pressure to break the law or risk life and limb to get to the destination. It seems to me that lorry bus and coach drivers are afforded more protection and monitored more closely by the authorities and considering the the potential dangers involved in your proffesion that in itself is ridiculous.

Dannyb1,
From your lips (or keyboard) to God's ear!!:D
Alt3.

hillberg

18th Mar 2014, 01:32

Don't let them die for nothing, Learn from what ever the cause,
The people have value for who they are & After they have gone west.

The public sees the mess & are spoon fed the "SAFE" fairy tale.

Flying is a risk, Nothing safe about sitting fat dumb & happy with gravity learking near.

DOUBLE BOGEY

18th Mar 2014, 02:37

Shy torque, I would have a bit more respect for your sensitivities had you not used the term "Bodybag" in your last post. Really!

Effluent Man

18th Mar 2014, 08:06

I was talking last night with a cop who lives in my village and attended the scene.He says the freshly severed tip of the conifer is very close to the take off point,within the grounds of the hall and not on the western side of the A143 where the aircraft impacted.

John R81

18th Mar 2014, 09:34

Dannyb1

There is no problem if the 'Captain' is just that, as many posters here have shown with their own stories. It is also my personal experience. There can only be a problem IF (and it's a really BIG IF) the white shirt and gold bars are just a fancy dress costume because the individual is no 'Captain' and should not be in that seat.

With justification of "the nasty rich man made me do it" you could not even hold on to a driving license, could you?

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2014, 10:03

I would agree with you John although that does ignore the reality of many situations and the pressures individuals face. If you extrapolate that view to its logical conclusion you effectively have to dismiss any human factors from affecting any pilot worth his salt.

John R81

18th Mar 2014, 10:26

You would need to extrapolate to an illogical conclusion IMHO

Pittsextra

18th Mar 2014, 10:55

OK so....

There can only be a problem IF (and it's a really BIG IF) the white shirt and gold bars are just a fancy dress costume because the individual is no 'Captain' and should not be in that seat.

That's a big statement.

skadi

18th Mar 2014, 11:13

[email protected]

18th Mar 2014, 11:18

No doubt examination of the blades will reveal if the helo hit the tree and, if so, whether the aircraft was controllable after that point or not. Add in darkness and mist/fog and you have a scenario that none of us would wish to find ourselves in. RIP

dannyb1

18th Mar 2014, 13:22

If they did hit a tree causing total loss of control would it have impacted nose down as it appears to have from seeing the wreckage. In my own mind i would have thought it would be spinning or just fall like a stone shortly after the blade touched something. It travelled a reasonable distance from the possible initial collision.

As i said earlier I am no expert but could it have been trying to achieve forward flight with nose down as thats where majority of the damage seems to be? It could have struck a tree as a result of something mechanical going wrong rather than visibility being the initial factor. Part of me thinks the pilots would have been in and out of Gillingham fairly often and even in low visibility would have been well aware of all the nearby hazards and have a safe height they knew they needed to reach to avoid any obstructions.

codeen

18th Mar 2014, 13:35

Being as the AW 139 has a VMINI of 50 KIAS, and an IFR, CAT "A" vertical takeoff not being possible due to low cloud layer or obscuration, fog, mist, etc..maybe they were attempting to build the airspeed in a CAT B takeoff profile and contacted something? Also, the blades may be damaged beyond a point of determining when they made contact with something other than air.

Bravo73

18th Mar 2014, 13:51

Also, the blades may be damaged beyond a point of determining when they made contact with something other than air.

If the blades did impact anything before they hit the ground, then there will be evidence left behind on the object in question.

Effluent Man

18th Mar 2014, 14:24

Much will depend on the nature of the strike.It's theoretically possible for the main rotor blades to impact something solid like a tree and survive.This would depend on the thickness of the tree and how much overlap occurred.In a best case scenario with say,the end 50cm striking high up on a thin branch it's quite likely that damage would not be critical.At the opposite end of the scale a strike half way along the blade against a thick branch then I think a catastrophic failure and immediate crash would ensue.

Somewhere between the most likely outcome would be critical damage but not enough to prevent some degree of control being retained.The impact would almost certainly knock out bearings in the gearbox and cause malalignement of the rotors and potential loss of control.If this has happened they were probably unlucky because a slightly smaller impact would have permitted sufficient control to be retained to allow an emergency landing.

76fan

18th Mar 2014, 14:48

#250 : Cat "A"? Cat "B"?

Reject distances, surface type, perhaps a hillside, continued take-off flight path? Private helicopter owners do not usually have a nice paved well lit level airfield just outside their doorsteps otherwise they would not be paying for an expensive helicopter, the best the pilot can do is use his experience of the particular helicopter's performance given the AUW and be it a single or twin choose the safest approach and takeoff given the wind, obstructions, fences, etc.; plan for the worst and hope for the best. (Apology tistisnot #256: I should have said to minimise the problem in the event of an engine failure during the landing or takeoff phases. Like BA I would hope that we also do not want accidents but there is a difference between acceptable risks and enforced/dangerous risks when pilots are pressured for whatever reason).

As a BA pilot once remarked to me as we flew to pick up a VIP "we have made more decisions flying for half an hour in this helicopter than the captain of a 777 makes in flying from the UK to the west coast of America". Time for helicopter pilots to have the equivalent of BALPA?