Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover

[lelebebbel]

FAA: Helicopter Accident in Grand Canyon Kills 1 - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/faa-helicopter-accident-grand-canyon-kills-23779047)

[skadi]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152394902671023&set=a.10152262718066023.1073741862.72016066022&type=1&theater

skadi

[ReverseFlight]

Sorry to hear, heart goes out to the family.

The AS350 is a bit of a handful to land when out of wind. Also any attempts at a quick landing could trigger ground resonance. I'm speaking from personal experience.

[CRAZYBROADSWORD]

Dying from a roll over seems very unlucky R.I.P eurocopters suck in anything other than a vertical impact

[skadi]

Dying from a roll over seems very unlucky R.I.P eurocopters suck in anything other than a vertical impact

If a blade slams into the cockpit ( I dont know if this happened here ), the brand of the helicopter is not essential :ugh:

skadi

[John R81]

And not all Eurocopters. EC120 I have seen the results of 2x dynamic roll; one first-hand and the other on YouTube where the resilience of the passenger cell and fuel tanks was demonstrably 'more than adequate'.

The 350 airframe is a much older design, and I don't yet have any information on what happened here..

[topendtorque]

A very sad event, and so unexplained.

I have been chewing for a while how those who, 'have slipped the surly bonds', can more easily be remembered or referenced. I note in Ned's thread (the second post here) on the top of his thread you will see memorial thread or words to that effect.

May I humbly suggest that it could be a way to find, -- , for those who knew and cared and could be looking, later here, a similar scenario?

Just a suggestion.tet.

[Mars]

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA195
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 18, 2014 in Peach Springs, AZ
Aircraft: AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORP AS350B3, registration: N840PA
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On May 18, 2014, about 1600 mountain standard time (MST), an American Eurocopter Corp, AS 350B3, N840PA, rolled over after landing at the Ramada landing site located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon near Grand Canyon West Airport (1G4), Peach Springs, Arizona. Papillon Airways Inc., DBA Grand Canyon Helicopters, was operating the helicopter under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91. The commercial pilot with a certified flight instructor (CFI) certificate was fatally injured; the helicopter sustained substantial damage. The local repositioning flight departed 1G4, about 1555. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a company flight plan had been filed.

The accident site was 1.75 nm east of 1G4, located at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, approximately 380 feet west of the Colorado River (west shore). The wreckage was found resting on its right side located at the subject landing pad.

Witnesses reported that the pilot landed and was planning on exiting the helicopter to perform a "fluid level check." After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls. The helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and rolled over. The pilot was struck by one or more of the main rotor blades and was fatally injured.

The helicopter was examined on site by the investigation team. No abnormalities with the helicopter airframe or engine systems were noted. The helicopter was recovered for further examination.

The helicopter was equipped with an Appareo Vision 1000 cockpit imaging and flight data monitoring device. The Appareo device was undamaged and shipped to the NTSB Vehicle Recorders Laboratory in Washington, DC, for data extraction.

The helicopter was equipped with a 406-mhz Emergency Location Transmitter (ELT). The Armed Forces Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC) received the ELT activation at 2300z (1600 hours mountain standard time.) The first activation did not have any latitude or longitude information. However, the second activation was received at 2329z, which was 29 minutes after the accident with lat/lon data that was 1,500 yards north of the accident site. The ELT did not assist in locating the accident site due to on scene witnesses.

Another one to add to the list.

Mars

[Art of flight]

A great shame, and condolences to friends and family.

[Agaricus bisporus]

After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls.

I presume Art of Flight meant that it's a great shame idiots like this ever find their way into helicopter operations?

[Art of flight]

Ag, I did actually mean a great shame when things like this end in this way. I used to operate the old Westland Scout which at the time could be left running without pilot at the controls in certain circumstances, I don't know about the 350 RFM and ops manual for that company so can't comment. Is there any problem with shutting down in remote sites for instance like this one in the GC?

[Aussiecop]

Another pilot and I were talking about this one last night and regardless of the mechanical locks that some helicopters may have to fix the controls in position. With the A-Star being called the "squirrel" for good reason, getting out of it while running would be to me like leaving your car in neutral on a hill while revving the engine at 6000RPM and hoping nothing went wrong. Not trying to armchair quarterback, it may be the done thing there and for the most part completely safe. Just not my first choice in healthy decision making.

[Fareastdriver]

Any pilot that leaves his aircraft with the rotors running is eventually going to get his head examined.

[Fun Police]

Aussiecop,
are you suggesting that other manufacturers designs will hover politely if the pilot is stupid enough to get out of them while the a/c is at full throttle and no frictions/locks applied to the controls?
this is not the aircraft's fault. and who does a "fluid level check" on a running helicopter? it must mean something else...
A of F; there is no problem with shutting down at remote locations in a 350. cool downs are 30 seconds, however i have exited an idling helicopter with frictions and locks applied. i would never do it without rolling the throttle to idle (B3) or retarding the fuel flow lever to an idle speed of 67-70% (B2) and locking the collective in the full down position.
FP

[Art of flight]

FP, all good points.

Perhaps someone who operates the 350 in the GC can enlighten us as to wether this site is a no-shutdown site for some reason. I seem to remember a bit of a gotcha with the battery overheat drill with the 135 some time back...corrected in later years.

Of course sometimes people just do odd things routinely that in the cold light of day are obviously accidents waiting to happen. Once worked alongside a guy who did his 'A' Check after first flight each day just to get another 30 minutes in bed, he thought I was spoiling the show by doing as I had been taught. Sadly he's no longer around, but that was CFIT so not A Check related.

[Thomas coupling]

Another candidate for the Darwin Award.:ugh:
One less in the gene pool.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Bush Flying for at over Forty Years has involved Rotors Turning operations like refueling, hooking up external loads, loading cargo, and other chores.

It has been done quite safely over that time period.

Like any other procedure with Helicopters, One must do it "Right" to be Safe.

Judging from some of the comments, there are some very inexperienced Pilots waxing not so eloquently about this tragedy.

[ShyTorque]

Obviously, a tragic mistake was made here.

Doing this is illegal in UK. The rule is there to prevent "own goal" accidents like this.

I've never heard of a fluid levels check being done rotors running on any type of helicopter. Maybe it was a personal "fluids relief" stop?

[Wander00]

ST - wondered the same - pumping ship

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Art of Flight;


I was told by an engineer recently (within the last 10 days) that an A check should be carried out after flight as all fluids are warm and will be at the levels required for flight and any leaks will be more pronounced. If he's right then I've lost thousands of hours of lie-ins over my career. No wonder I look so sodding old...............


SND

[alouette3]

Bordeaux Bob,

Bush Flying for at over Forty Years has involved Rotors Turning operations like refueling, hooking up external loads, loading cargo, and other chores.

A lot of things were done in years past.Obviously, there is a reason why we don't fly helicopters with wooden blades anymore.Trying to make the argument that these things can be done "right" is a double edged sword.There are helicopters and then there are helicopters. There is a reason why this is not done in an AS350.For one, from shut down to start up it takes all of five minutes if no one is is in a hurry. Most companies recognize the higher risk involved in a single pilot operation and have procedures in place to prevent such accidents.

Judging from some of the comments, there are some very inexperienced Pilots waxing not so eloquently about this tragedy.

Thank goodness for that!The "experienced" lot has certainly covered themselves in glory over the past two decades in EMS!:rolleyes:
Alt3.

[fly911]

Not sure about the Darwin award, TC but I would nominate you for Ahole of the year. Glad I never had the honor of working with you, mister know-it-all.
Sometimes I wonder how a mental case like you are still around.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Alouette,

You ever reckon maybe some of those events in the past were NOT done "Right" and thus got into the Record Books?

Considering the Accidents of late I would suggest the younger Generation has its own problem children too.

When everything goes "Right" we do not hear about it. It only when someone makes a gross mistake do we hear about that.

Think about that a while and get back with Us will you?

[Lonewolf_50]

I have never flown the model of helicopter in question.

So, for my understanding:

When one starts the engines, does it start and then run at idle for a bit (blades turning) and then when you are ready you increase RPM to flight rpm, or, when you start it, does the start sequence not pause at idle but go from light off to fly rpm, at a manageable rate, with no "pause" at idle?

Why the question?

If one had to get out, and were to leave the engines/blades turning (for whatever reason, company SOP considered and such) would one be better off with the engine at idle instead of flight rpm? In the back of my mind, wind gusts and blade tip clearance might be an issue, among other things.

Hypothetical question, and not recommending leaving the blades turning with nobody guarding the controls since it was drilled into my head years ago that one simply doesn't do such things. I understand that in some circumstances, it is or has been.

Very sorry for the loss. :sad:

[alouette3]

Lonewolf 50
The engine start sequence allows you to move the FFCL to an idle position and at that point the Ng is about 70% and the blades are turning. Once you are all squared away, radios humming,Navaids up, everyone board belted and doors secured etc. you move the lever to the flight gate. At this point, the rotor is considered to be at "full" flight RPM and in governed mode.In other words, you can pull pitch and fly.
To leave it unattended,one would consider leaving it at ground idle,frictions tightened down on the cyclic and the collective locked. The collective in the AS350 has a propensity to pop up.There is ,therefore, a down lock mechanism.Every time you lower the collective fully with the intention of shutting down or spending some time on ground, it is required that you positively lock the collective.
The AS350 has no stick trim mechanism and hence the only safeguards against such incidents are the collective lock and cyclic friction which are considered inadequate protection. So, most companies that I know of who operate the type, require that the pilot not leave the aircraft unattended,even at ground idle.Now ,I don't know what goes on in the bush.You may have to ask Bordeux Bob about that.
I have a sneaky suspicion that the collective ,in this case, may not have been positively locked down and popped up on the pilot while he was out.But, that is for the NTSB to find out.
Bottom line, young uns, if you are newly minted on the AS350 disregard folks like Bordeaux Bob's advice and stay inside the machine , if you intend to let it run.If you need to get out, shut her down. Five minutes is not a big loss of time ,especially when you consider the alternative of eternity.
Alt3.

[Gomer Pylot]

I don't understand how one would 'check fluid levels' in a running helicopter. You cannot get a proper indication of any levels when it's running, although can visually check the fuel level in an AS350, fwiw.

[crunchingnumbers]

Another candidate for the Darwin Award.
One less in the gene pool.

TC I don't think that was called for, or appropriate regardless of the circumstances. A fellow pilot, a life lost and a terrible lesson or reminder, for us all to learn from.

You might do well to re-read the idea of hazardous attitudes, or at least accept that all of us remain susceptible to human behavior.

Condolences to the pilot, family and friends.

[Boudreaux Bob]

A3,

Where did I advise anyone to get out of the aircraft?

Your Reading Comprehension suffers it would appear.

I stated it was a routine practice in Bush Flying in the past.

I said if done, it should be done "Right".

Anything in error in those comments?

I also said some here with no experience in such kinds of flying were making comments that were very offensive and in extremely bad taste. That of course would require one to effectively comprehend what was being said.

You might spend some time explaining to folks all the interesting characteristics of the AS-350 or whatever they are called these days and enlighten the young ones on how many ways that machine can hurt them if they do not take care to study the Pilot's Notes on the thing.

[fijdor]

Leaving a helicopter idling while a pilot is outside doing what need to be done while one is alone and far away from any civilisation is not a thing from the past but a reality in the Bush and in remote areas. The Aircraft model, AS350 or anything else is not really important as long as everything is done correctly, controls locked etc.
It's not fun when when you are stuck 200 miles from any civilisation and about a 1000 miles from any rescue (flying that is) because you shut it down at a fuel cache and the Darn thing won't start anymore and is in need of a new "igniter box". That's only one reasons, there are others. You use your head.
Now what and why this Pilot did it I don't know but he sure was not alone there. RIP.

Any pilot that leaves his aircraft with the rotors running is eventually going to get his head examined.

That's not a really nice thing to say actually.

JD

[VegasRobbiedvr]

This is a polite way for the FAA to say the man had to drain his main vane!:D

[fijdor]

You are probably right.

JD

[Fun Police]

fijdor is absolutely right. the only time the 350 has let me down is on the ground. however, there are lots of a/c working out of Las Vegas doing tours so help would not have been far away if required.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Jeebus H. Christ. Holy cow, some of you are dense. HE HAD TO PEE. He didn't want to do it in front of the pax that had just gotten out, so he moved the ship to someplace less "public." He got out. It rolled over on him.

Is this so difficult to imagine? Have none of you ever actually flown a helicopter other than in the training environment?

The NTSB very wisely refrained from saying whether it was the helicopter or the ground it was sitting on caused it to roll over. Guess what, Pap has those video recorder thingees installed in their birds which after review will tell us just what the pilot did...or didn't...do before hopping out.

In the meantime I would like to ask some of you helicopter experts a question: "What happens to your turbine helicopter when you are sitting there at IDLE and you pull up on the collective?"

Because while I cannot speak for your ship, in EVERY helicopter I've flown the rotor simply slows down. It does *not* cause the helicopter to get airborne. It just slows down. Because it's not governed, see?

After accidents like this, there are always the pompous, inexperienced know-it-alls who loudly proclaim how pilots should NEVER exit a running helicopter...harumph! Because that is what they've been taught. Or something.

But that's not reality.

Sometimes you have to do it. Sometimes you land the boss and his friends somewhere...some remote site (which is where helicopters go, right?), and you ask them all to just sit tight while you cool down your 206 for two-friggin'-minutes...and after about fifteen seconds all three doors pop open and they're getting out both sides. Because *they* have to pee, probably worse than you do. So you jump out to make sure they don't walk under the tail.

Hey, it happens.

[aclark79]

Hey TC, I hope we don't have to ever Monday morning quarterback your fatal.

Your an asshole.

[Bronx]

TC Another candidate for the Darwin Award.
One less in the gene pool.

There was a time when you made good contributions to this forum and your acerbic style was funny.
That was a long time ago.
Now you're just nasty.
I'm really sorry you lost your medical and realize it must be frustrating but it's a pity it's made you so unpleasant.


Agaricus bosporus it's a great shame idiots like this ever find their way into helicopter operations
That nasty comment is typical of AB and can just be ignored.
AB is a self-styled expert on every type of flying and his attitude can be seen in many other forums on Pprune.



Even if this pilot did make a mistake he paid the ultimate price and deserves compassion from fellow pilots.
Very few if any pilots never make a mistake. Most of us live to tell the tale.

[Soave_Pilot]

it's a great shame idiots like this ever find their way into helicopter operations

:= no reason for that comment.


In my remote operations sometimes I have to leave the controls to embark passengers and I see no problem with that, however, when I have to do it I make sure the helicopter is on Idle, Frictions ON and HYD OFF.

[alouette3]

FH1100 Pilot
Because while I cannot speak for your ship, in EVERY helicopter I've flown the rotor simply slows down. It does *not* cause the helicopter to get airborne. It just slows down. Because it's not governed, see?

Not true for the AS350.If the engine is at idle and it is light, if the collective pops up, the aircraft will get airborne.Not climb to the dizzying heights but pop up and then when the rotor turns droop, gravity will take over.
There has been at least one fatal crash attributed to the collective popping up in the AS350 with rpms at idle.Killed three that time.
Alt3.

[Devil 49]

A single pilot might leave the cabin of a running helicopter for many reasons. The techniques to do so were routinely covered in the primary phase of the US Army when I taught there some 40+ years ago. Yes, the occasional training aircraft mishap occurred without crew at the controls. The most memorable was the solo student whose aircraft fell off a pinnacle, a second solo student landed, unaware, exited the aircraft, and then watched his aircraft fly away with the first student at the controls.

Some operators permit it, some don't, but it's not unusual that it be allowed here in the former colonies. My present employer currently allows AS350 drivers leaving the controls in certain conditions: stable on the deck; ground idle; collective down and locked (never had the collective rise with full hydraulics, but have seen some cyclic motoring); and cyclic friction firmly set; autopilot off. I don't think an Astar would lift at ground idle without a pretty stiff breeze (Edit- Alouette3 posting shows me in error). But inadequate cyclic friction, motoring and/or an unlocked collective might generate enough force at flight idle to unsettle the aircraft, perhaps lift it, and what scares me most- tip the disk presenting a hazard even if the aircraft itself doesn't move.

I've never flown for Papillion and don't fly AS350B3 or left hand pilot seat. Does the B3 normally shutdown from flight idle? That might accustom pilots to ground ops with full NR. Is the collective lock less positive than other 350 types? The collective lock on a left-hander would be in a high traffic area.

[Helilog56]

Now Thomas coupling.....if there was ever a candidate for bottom of the gene pool, your knuckle dragging, low brow comment puts you at the head if the pack.....loser.

[[email protected]]

Surely a bit of poor risk/reward analysis in this sad case - it may be essential in very remote bush ops not to shut down the rotor but the Grand Canyon operation hardly qualifies for that does it?

An 'accepted' practice on other types, this is clearly a much more risky thing to do on a 350 (as A3 has highlighted) and was there really a need to do this, just to have a piss, when it would have taken only an extra minute to shut down the head and leave the engine at ground idle or even shut down completely?

Well done TC, you have been reading that 'win friends and influence people' book again;)

[76fan]

A comment from "Vertical Freedom" re TC's comment would be interesting.

[fly911]

Most careless consequences have happened to me when I was in a hurry or rushed. I suspect this unfortunate pilot realized too late that he would have been better served had he taken the extra minute or two to idle down and properly secure the controls before unzipping. And yes, it could have happened to me. RIP.

[HeliHenri]

.
A comment from "Vertical Freedom" re TC's comment would be interesting.

You mean the pilot who has posted dozens of pictures of his 350 running without him on board (and without receiving any comments like on these 3 pages above) ?

yes, should be interesting.

.

[76fan]

My point exactly, 206 & 350, but then TC would know how to do Freedom's job far better wouldn't he?

[rantanplane]

Well done TC, you have been reading that 'win friends and influence people' book again

I suspect TC has been reading some book about genetic superiority - certainly not British (genetic?) superiority after all the crashes in the UK recently.

please bear in mind somebody else might be carrying already the pilots genes. There are more things in life than to be the 'perfect' pilot.

[Lonewolf_50]

Devil 49, Alouette, thanks for explaining the 350 bits and "if you need to get out" points to me.

The older I get, the more empathy I have for folks with small bladder capacities. :( I too have to go pee more often. If that's the root cause ... arggggh. :(

[Boudreaux Bob]

Helicopters have undertaken flight on their own volition all down the ages and it is not just the 350 series that has done so. Not so long ago it was an Osprey that did that as I recall.

I do admire the clairvoyance of some of you that post here.

Where did the NTSB say the Pilot was watering the tail boom?

Witnesses reported that the pilot landed and was planning on exiting the helicopter to perform a "fluid level check." After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls. The helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and rolled over. The pilot was struck by one or more of the main rotor blades and was fatally injured.

[Wander00]

BB -NTSB did not, no one on the forum did, it was a mere postulation of a possible set of circumstances - "rumour" forum after all. Whatever the cause, a very sad outcome.

[Boudreaux Bob]

It was Shy who first broached the thought and it was carried on from there.

I've never heard of a fluid levels check being done rotors running on any type of helicopter. Maybe it was a personal "fluids relief" stop?


I am quite sure at least two of us have done exactly the same thing during our flying careers so nothing new or unusual there. Sometimes that second cup of Tea just cannot wait for a second exposure to the air.

[[email protected]]

But is it worth losing your life for???

[Boudreaux Bob]

Crab,

One of these days you might just have to get out and work for a living flying helicopters and your cozy RAF World view will be completely shattered.

I can promise you that somewhere around this big ol' World we live in there is some helicopter pilot somewhere doing exactly what we are talking about. Out of the tens of thousands of occasions each year Pilots do this without harm or foul go completely unremarked upon.

One of the greatest hurtles Military Pilots encounter when they try to take up Civvie Flying is accepting the fact they are not still in the Military, are not Officers, and that there is a completely different way of doing things than the way they so used to doing.

In all the time pprune Rotorheads has been around, I would bet you this is the exact first time this kind of thing has happened.

Any of you old time, long time Utility Pilots know of any other similar event where a Pilot was killed by his helicopter taking off without him?

Now let's see......how many Pilots have been killed in the UK in the past couple of Years from the same old mistakes?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Bob, while Crab and I enjoy a healthy debate, I think as a long term SAR pilot, having risked his and his crews necks for more than a few Darwinian candidates in his time you could hardly accuse him of not flying for a living.

For the poor guy in this accident it's a brutal way to learn a lesson. Terrible way to go and sorry for him and his family.

Bob I just love they way you yanks have it so tough and wear that like a badge of honour. In dear old Blighty we call that Inverted Snobbery! Enjoy your gutter!


DB

[Agaricus bisporus]

Witnesses reported that the pilot landed and was planning on exiting the helicopter to perform a "fluid level check." After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls.

I have some doubts about the way this has been reported.

For instance, how would witnesses know the pilot's intentions? Did he stroll over to them and explain this? If not then that statement must surely be speculation - i.e. guesswork at best.

What on earth is a "fluid level check"? I've never heard of such a thing.

How could a helo possibly get airborne at ground idle - or did he get out with Nr at 100% - which sounds too far-fetched to be even considered for a moment?

Either way in my time in Squirrels it was absolutely forbidden to leave them rotors running, unlike the 206 where this was done routinely. Can't for the life of me remember why not, but that was the case in my company.

[Boudreaux Bob]

DB,

Ever the Wit you are.

Dim.....but a Wit.

You insult the Dead, inject true Snobbery into the discussion, and manage to be xenophobic all at the same time. Well played.

When I hear Crab tell us about slinging all day long daylight to dark, rigging his own loads, hand pumping his own fuel, and doing his own DI's, while living in a Geologist's Fly Camp, then I will accede to the fact he has "worked" for a living.

I did that in a country not my own, while employed by an Operator that had letters on the Tail Booms (not numbers). Nothing "Yank" about that operation except for me.

[Lonewolf_50]

When all of the fine gentlemen stop pissing on one another's beer glass, we can perhaps inquire as to the METAR for this incident.

Sobering thought: killed by a blade strike. That's something none of us would wish on anyone. *shudder*

For FH: does one consider bringing along an empty 1 or 2 quart Gatorade bottle with lid, for pressure relief requirements? I've done that on long road trips when I didn't want to stop driving.
I just noticed this from the NTSB initial report.
The helicopter was equipped with a 406-mhz Emergency Location Transmitter (ELT). The Armed Forces Rescue Coordination Center (AFRCC) received the ELT activation at 2300z (1600 hours mountain standard time.) The first activation did not have any latitude or longitude information. However, the second activation was received at 2329z, which was 29 minutes after the accident with lat/lon data that was 1,500 yards north of the accident site.
ELT: not up to parl or did someone move it?

[EN48]

Here is another somewhat similar event:

NTSB Identification: NYC08LA028.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division
Accident occurred Friday, November 09, 2007 in Morristown, TN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 04/30/2008
Aircraft: Bell 407, registration: N555BH
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
After arriving at the destination airport, the pilot taxied the helicopter to the fuel pumps. The pilot then realized that the fuel pumps were for aviation gasoline and not for jet fuel, so he advised the passengers that he would assist them in unloading, and then reposition the helicopter to the other fuel pump. After carrying the passengers' bags and using the restroom at the fixed base operator, the pilot returned to the helicopter. While walking toward the unoccupied helicopter, the pilot was struck by the idling main rotor. The helicopter's rotorcraft flight manual did not describe a procedure for the pilot to exit the helicopter while the engine and rotor continued to operate, but did state that during shutdown the pilot should, "Remain on the flight controls until the rotor has come to a complete stop." Additionally, post-accident examination of the helicopter revealed that the cyclic friction lock was not tightened, which contradicted with the flight manual's shutdown checklist. The substance found during the post-mortem toxicological testing of the pilot would not normally be expected to cause impairment of psychomotor or cognitive functions.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot's failure to maintain adequate clearance from the idling main rotor blade. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to comply with the manufacturer's procedure for securing the helicopter.

While perhaps harsh to describe this as Darwin at work, it seems not inappropriate.

[vaqueroaero]

There's a bit more to that report about the 407 strike than is mentioned there.

If you are in a Bell product and for whatever reason need to get out of the aircraft with it running categorically DO NOT turn of the hydraulic switch and think that that will prevent the controls and therefore the disc from moving.

[busdriver02]

Well said Crab. There's a difference between it's done all the time and it's a smart practice. There's also a difference between leaving an idle but running helo alone in the bush and leaving an idle but running helo with passengers still inside.

[Soave_Pilot]

If you are in a Bell product and for whatever reason need to get out of the aircraft with it running categorically DO NOT turn of the hydraulic switch and think that that will prevent the controls and therefore the disc from moving.



Right, but it will make it more difficult if, lets say, you bump your leg or foot getting in or out.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Bob excuse me but I did not insult the dead?

Surely this practice is ripe for a little bit of risk management!

For instance, as mentioned in this thread getting out after start to check for oil leaks, where are the ground crew? If you are involved in helicopter operations that are so tight for margins that you have no ground support to hook up a load WTF! If you have no time to shutdown and piss WTF!

I do not believe ANY helicopter flight manual allows the pilot to leave the controls with the rotor under power. In JAR-EASA Land this is further expressly forbidden by the rules. In addition, Aerial work manuals need to specify adequate manpower for load lifting etc which rules out any requirement for pilots to engage in what surely must be recognised by any sensible proffessional pilot as utter folly.

Again we have the "seasoned old sweats" claim how "essential" this is to their small time underfunded operations and how those of us who are quite rightly appalled that any rational person would consider this are pussies who do not work for a living.......Errr NO, it is just excessive risk taken for all the wrong reasons!

As for a fluids check!! What cobblers, you cannot see any levels in gearboxes that are turning!!

Hydrualics OFF/ON, frictions OFF/ON, ground idle Vs flight Idle. Just look at the ludicrous advice in this thread. Here's my contribution. If you are engaged in an operation that involves you doing this STOP IT you are breaking the law and risking yours and anyone else involved life.

Finally all small helicopters are certified with a human in the pilot seat. Removing the human with rotors turning puts the helicopter in an untested part of the flight envelope. All sorts of problems like ground resonance, dynamic roll over become possible.

I can think of few horrific ways to check out than being savaged by your own main rotor.

[[email protected]]

Bob, I'm sure you will be delighted to know that after 32 years of 'cozy' RAF life I am leaving to 'work' for a living - I still won't ever be leaving a helicopter unattended with the blades turning though;)

[John Eacott]

Guys, the issue of leaving a machine rotors running has been discussed extensively in Leaving helicopter with engine/rotors running (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/229603-leaving-helicopter-engine-rotors-running.html). Under Australian regs we are allowed to do so under certain conditions, and many of us would say that if done properly it is both safe and is essential to a remote operation.

I've operated a Wessex 60 offshore single pilot where it would have been foolhardy to have shut down both engines whilst refueling (so I and others would leave one running) on a coral atoll with no backup should a battery start fail. I've operated an AS350 in Antarctica where the fuel control cable was frozen and a restart wasn't guaranteed, necessitating constant operation all day without shutting down. Even pulling back to ground idle was a task. What other option was there other than careful calculation of the risk and the demands of the operation?

As another poster stated earlier, I don't subscribe to turning off the hydraulics as an aid to locking the controls. A proper control lock as in the BK117 or a well maintained and effective control friction is essential, plus skid gear. That and a justifiable requirement to exit rotors running are my criteria.

As to why the pilot left the machine in this accident, I think the NTSB initial report is too vague for us to be making judgement. Those who operate in regimes where rotor running exits are prohibited, you may benefit from viewing this from the experience of others who are familiar with the concept and use it on a regular basis instead of condemning the practice out of hand.

[Saint Jack]

FH1100 Pilot, your Post #33 - nice one!

HeliHenry, your Post #43 - I too have squirmed at the sight of Vertical Freedoms pictures of his 206 and 350 sitting with rotors running without anyone at the controls - often in precarious locations and with people milling around them. While I agree with others who have said that vacating a helicopter with rotors turning need not be a big deal under the correct circumstances, those photo's of the 206 and 350 are quite the opposite.

[Freewheel]

Strictly on the subject of VFs photos, many of his HLSs are at high and in some cases extreme altitudes. How do you think he'd go getting a start at over 15,000 feet?

[ShyTorque]

If the combatants would pause and take a breath, they might like to remember that this is supposed to be a forum for professional aviators, not a bunch of squabbling teenagers.

Aviation is a risky business. All risks taken by pilots should be carefully considered. Some have stated how they have felt obliged and justified in taking this particular risk (no pilot at the controls of a running helicopter). In a situation where there is a fear of an engine not re-starting, in a remote and potentially dangerous environment such as the circumstances quoted by John Eacott, a stranded aircraft could be more than inconvenient, uncomfortable, or expensive; it might also prove fatal.

However, a calculated risk taken in one extreme set of circumstances should not become the normal thing to do - because that's when the danger sets in. How many times do you risk playing "Russian Roulette" before you shoot yourself? Professional aviation shouldn't operate like that.

Was the obvious risk of leaving the aircraft unmanned justified in this tragic case? I'd say not and that this was a totally avoidable accident. I'm sure the bereaved family would agree.

We aren't allowed to do this in UK by law. Seeing as most of our rules are retrospectively written because someone fouled up in a new way ( despite what some prefer to believe), I'm sure it's happened before.

CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 1 Part 10 Page 5.

Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93 (1) This article applies to any flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom other than an EU-OPS aeroplane flying on a commercial air transport flight.
(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.
(3) If the aircraft is required by or under this Order to carry two pilots, the commander must cause both pilots to remain at the controls during take-off and landing.
(4) If the aircraft carries two or more pilots (whether or not it is required to do so) and is flying on a flight for the purpose of the public transport of passengers, the commander must remain at the controls during take-off and landing.
(5) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), each pilot at the controls of the aircraft must be secured in their seat by either a safety belt with or without one diagonal shoulder strap, or a safety harness.
(b) During take-off and landing a safety harness must be worn if it is required by article 37 and Schedule 4 to be provided.
(6) An operator must not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 50 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.

Despite it being illegal here in UK, I have seen it being done, a commercial 206 being pax loaded by the lone pilot for so-called "joy-rides". There was no risk of an aircraft stranding, it was presumably being done only for financial gain, namely to expedite the operation and to save a bit of fuel and engine start cycles. I was in two minds about it at the time and I wasn't in a position to speak to the pilot. However, if I see it happening again I'd have no qualms about reporting it to the authority because it unnecessarily puts the lives of innocent people at risk. If a pilot chooses to do it and loses his own life, tragic enough, but that was his own mistaken choice.

[chopjock]

(6) An operator must not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 50 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.

Well that's wide open to interpretation.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Perhaps there should be a new law written about the 350 and its renown ability to have the Collective Lever Pop Up! Although the new Law would only require a Placard and an additional item to be Checked on a Type Rating Check Ride while doing nothing about the cause of the problem.

Did we not see something similar recently when the CAA felt compelled to put out a Safety Notice about Off Aerodrome Take Offs?

The Rules have gotten so complex that few understood what they are well enough to be able to comply with them all.

Yet, some think Judgement can be created by writing another Law or Regulation.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Bob, the law should prevent pilots exercising poor judgements.

That is its entire point.

[TeeS]

Well that's wide open to interpretation.

Yes, but only one interpretation Chopjock.

Cheers

TeeS

[Lonewolf_50]

Bob, the law should prevent pilots exercising poor judgements.

That is its entire point.
Not quite. Laws set limits and bounds to something, and provide for penalties when crossing those limits or bounds.

Judgment is a bit more complex than you are suggesting, as I think you'll agree when reflecting upon your years in aviation.

[[email protected]]

I think the poor chap in the accident discovered exactly what the penalty for an error in judgment entailed:(

He had probably been told that leaving the aircraft running was a perfectly OK sort of thing to do without any emphasis on the reasons why it is sometimes necessary (as John Eacott explained).

Education not legislation would have helped here but, while there are the hairy-chested pioneers saying it is fine because they have been doing it for years, the newer pilots in the fold who aren't operating in the extreme conditions accept it as the norm rather than seeing it as a risky thing to do which needs to be justified in terms of safety vs risk.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Lone wolf I agree, that's why I wrote "should" but as often happens we all make mistakes or poor judgements sometime.

Someone told me that when you become a pilot you get issued with two buckets. One full of Luck and the other, marked "Experience" is empty. The trick being to fill up the Experience bucket before you empty the one marked luck.

I used fly an EMS AS355 which we often landed in the built up areas. As the paramedics ran to the patient I had to often wait the 2 minute turbine cool time before shutdown on scene.

During this time I would friction up and sit with my feet overboard looking at the TR, finger poised on the 700 watt sky shout to deter kids and onlookers from getting too close.

Now, much older, I wondered if what I was doing posed a greater risk to the wider public than the odd person we helped.

It's often easy to convince ourselves that the risks we take are acceptable. "Risky Shift" in its most blatant form.

[76fan]

Quote:
(6) An operator must not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 50 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter


So unless there is another extract not mentioned in #65 anyone can do a groundrun with rotors turning and then leave the aircraft as long as they are not intending to get airborne ......
As chopjock said "wide open to interpretation". Is it really so difficult for those that make the rules to state them simply and clearly and thereby avoid rule "bending" and "breaking" and perhaps the resulting incidents/accidents?

[TeeS]

Hi 76fan

You can't take two lines from the ANO which say what you can't do and use that to decide what you can do.

Selective reading of the legislation, in isolation, allows the much quoted phrase - 'an aircraft must not fly in or over the United Kingdom' to prevent any of us flying.

Cheers

TeeS

[alouette3]

Discussions on this forum are always interesting and a gold mine for a budding sociologist.
On the one hand , we have the risk averse group from across the Pond with the opinions of why it should not be done except in very exceptional circumstances and with appropriate precautions.
The you have the risk tolerant group from the US that says it is not a big deal,been done before, can be done routinely, everyday, all day and twice on Sundays.
In my never to be humble opinion, it is aircraft dependent and activity related. When I flew BO105s and BK117's for EMS, we would keep both engines running at idle at a scene, cyclic lock on ,SAS off and collective frictioned down and locked.But these aircraft were specifically designed for such operations. Matching the aircraft to the operation is key in risk management. An AS350 I believe is not a good candidate for leaving it unattended. Besides, with its great shut down and start up time frame, there is no real need for the average commercial operation.
One last thing, a long time ago an RN pilot said something very profound that has stuck with me all these years and has helped me several times to navigate the cultural minefields:
In the UK and other Commonwealth nations,anything that is not expressly authorized is considered forbidden.
In the US anything that is not expressly forbidden is considered authorized.
Alt3.

[Boudreaux Bob]

while there are the hairy-chested pioneers saying it is fine because they have been doing it for years, the newer pilots in the fold who aren't operating in the extreme conditions accept it as the norm rather than seeing it as a risky thing to do which needs to be justified in terms of safety vs risk.


Wrong!


Every time it was said, it was said at the same time that it must be done "Right".

Which in my version of English connotes being cautious and ensuring it was done in a safe manner. (As the discussion revolves around leaving the Pilot's Seat unoccupied and the Aircraft running at Ground Idle) What we have done as a routine in certain situations over the past Forty Plus Years has proven to be safer than any other segment of flight.

Dig through the Accident Statistics and you will see all sorts of Fatal Accidents.

Why is exercising cautions in this any different than other situations that still result in Fatal Crashes?

We have no idea what really happened in the Grand Canyon accident.

We do not know if the Collective Lock was applied or not.

We don't even know what the main rotor RPM was?

We don't know if the aircraft was setting on uneven ground or a rocky surface.

So with out one bit of real evidence to go on....you wish to condemn a practice that has been done safely countless times.

As two pilot helicopters doing instrument approaches over the water seem to run into the Oggin short of the Deck or Runway......and there always appears to be a CRM issue involved.....what say we go back to Single Pilot IFR and eliminate that source of CFIT Accident? It is the same logic you are using here.

[ShyTorque]

Well that's wide open to interpretation.

You seem surprised.. is this the first time you've read that part of the ANO?

If you get out of a rotors turning helicopter with the intention of flying again, how would you interpret that?

[ShyTorque]

Yet, some think Judgement can be created by writing another Law or Regulation.

If folks hadn't fouled up big time in the past in all sorts of ways there would be no need for any regulations at all. As I said before, the rules get written retrospectively in most cases.

[[email protected]]

Bob, I'm really not sure what your beef is.

We have mostly agreed it can be done safely when the right conditions are met - as A3 said, match the aircraft to the task.

What is open to debate is whether or not there was a NEED to get out with the rotors turning in this accident.

I haven't flown the 350 but even I know it has a propensity for jumping the collective latch - why wouldn't someone qualified on type be very wary of that possibility?

Not sure why you keep banging on about UK accidents - it's not relevant to this topic. Just because some of us from this sde of the pond have an opinion you don't like, doesn't make us wrong or irrelevant in the discussion.

[ShyTorque]

BOB has always taken this viewpoint.

[chopjock]

ShyT
If you get out of a rotors turning helicopter with the intention of flying again, how would you interpret that?

Two things to interpret…

1) "An operator must not permit…"

I could interpret that as an operator must not permit it. However not permitting something does not mean the operator must forbid it. You can't make a law stating you must forbid something. So a line pilot hops out for a pee, but that's not ok because the operator did not permit it (but the operator did not forbid it either… ). Therefore if the pilot pops out rotors running, busting for a pee (medical emergency) what's the offence? even though the operator still did not permit it.

2) "for the purpose of making a flight"

I could interpret that as "I've finished flying for now and can't wait for two minutes to shut down".
Then after relieving myself I change my mind and decide to go flying again.
As far as I know it is not illegal to change your mind.

I'm sure I could conjure up more interpretations to justify my needs.

[mdovey]

I would guess that the wording allows for circumstances when you might run the rotors (with the aircraft properly secured) for testing purposes e.g. during production or maintenance.

However, as it stands running the rotors with the aircraft unmanned for the purposes of killing nearby bystanders would be perfectly fine given the wording of regulation provided you had no intent to fly (albeit probably not in the spirit of the regulations, and it may break some other regulations and laws too).

Matthew

[tistisnot]

We could go on all day like this ......

Chopjock ...... "I've finished flying" ..... no you haven't ... the rotors have not come to a stop. Flight Duty Time.

Surely the operator does not permit - but the pilot may decide otherwise .... and therefore be it on his own head (no pun, puhlease)?

[ShyTorque]

Chopjock, I guessed as much.

I prefer to bear in mind what the more likely outcome of a court case might be.

[TeeS]

Hi Chopjock

As Tistisnot points out, Part FCL.010 - the regulations that define what you are allowed to do with your licence, defines flight time for a helicopter as ' the total time from the moment a helicopter's rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped.

If you are using your commercial licence for the purpose of commercial air transport then you need to comply with CAT.GEN.MPA.130 which says 'A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls'.

There are other bits of legislation that allow non-pilots, under certain circumstances, to be at the controls of a helicopter when it is running. Have some fun looking for the legislation for that, you will find all sorts of other genuinely useful pieces of information while you are looking - but don't read any of it in isolation and think that is the whole picture.

Cheers

TeeS

[Boudreaux Bob]

Tees,

Post a Cut and Paste of that section you quoted and show us where it uses the word "Should" rather than the imperative "Shall".

As I read that reference you used it would seem permissive rather than restrictive to the point you suggest and only serves as a suggestion rather than a requirement for the Pilot to be at the Controls all the time the Rotors are running.

Again, trying to write a prohibition that covers every nuance of a Situation is quite hard.

Unless you use simple declarative language that leaves absolutely no way to "spin" the meaning.



Crab,

As A3 pointed out there is a difference in Mindset between the UK and other locations around the World. As those of you in the UK seem to be the most vociferous about condemning the poor dead fella in this, all I am doing is reminding you over there of the relatively few instances of this kind of thing happening despite it being a common practice in some kinds of operations.

In the EMS business, it is a fairly common practice and I have seen it done or done it myself in BO, BK, and 412's. It was and is a common practice in remote area operations as well.

Yet, we hear of very few problems.

Far fewer than other kinds of accidents.

A3 is correct when he says the UK bills itself as being Risk Averse but in the final analysis despite all the Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Advisories, the Accident Rate data does not demonstrate any marked difference between the UK and other parts of the World when comparable Operations are compared.

Your Utility Sector is minuscule compared to ours, or Australia so any comparison there is really not valid. Think not, compare your Forest Fire Fighting Helicopter Fleet to those in the USA and Australia for a start.

Or, consider the Aerial Application sector in the three countries and again the UK really doesn't begin to compare.

If you want to say aircraft choice in leaving it "turning and burning", I fully agree with you.

Should it be done in a careful, reasoned, well thought out manner, I fully agree.

Should it be done only in specific situations, again I fully agree.

Are there risks in doing it, especially if done improperly or in the wrong aircraft.....absolutely I agree.

I am quite sure you do some things that carry a bit of added "Risk" but you do so with due regard to the benefit compared to the risk and make a decision.

There is nothing different here in making the same decision on exiting the cockpit while the aircraft is running. Have a valid reason, use a proper method, do so in proper conditions, and never actually leave the aircraft un-attended. Most times I did this I was under the Rotors or more commonly right next to the aircraft either loading cargo or pumping fuel, or loading medical patients when it could not be done any other way.

The one thing you folks in the UK seem to have problems with doing is putting down that Prism you hold up anytime something like this gets discussed.

When that happens, we have to remind you that Blighty ain't Kansas.

[TeeS]

Hi Bob

Do you mean this?

CAT.GEN.MPA.130 Rotor engagement — helicopters
A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls. Search EU regulation 965/2012 - it's on page 64 of 148.

Cheers

TeeS

[ShyTorque]

When that happens, we have to remind you that Blighty ain't Kansas.

The location of this accident?

[Boudreaux Bob]

TeeS,

When I searched for your original Reference CAT.GEN.MPA.130 , I could read it but could not copy the pertinent part to which I referred.

Page 27 of that document:


(b) Rotor engagement for the purpose of flight: the pilot should not leave the control
when the rotors are turning.

It then gives an example which talks of helping passengers into the aircraft and adjusting seat belts.



This side of the Salt Water Divide, "Shall Not" is imperative and "Should Not" is permissive.

[fijdor]

Your Utility Sector is minuscule compared to ours, or Australia so any comparison there is really not valid. Think not, compare your Forest Fire Fighting Helicopter Fleet to those in the USA and Australia for a start.

Don't forget Canada, we do have a couple of helicopters flying around once in a while. :}

JD

[Boudreaux Bob]

My humble apologies.....that was done by oversight and not intent.

Certainly when it comes to Mountain Flying we look North.

I also did not mention the "Heli-Logging" industry either which is big both sides of our borders but hardly exists in the EASA world if at all.

[fijdor]

All accepted. :)

Now that Heli-logging was mention, that would be another situation where would see blades turning and pilots outside shifting seats for the next cycle while the Engineer is refuelling the aircraft. The only shutdown you see during the day is at lunch time when maintenance does their thing before the afternoon shift and of course at the end of the last cycle.

JD

[TeeS]

Hi Bob

The part you read is from the guidance material that EASA publish to give clarification on how the legal word in the legislation should be applied. It is recognition that we are not legal experts and so they try and write it in layman's terms; inevitably something will be lost in the translation. What you quoted was one part of a sentence that is almost meaningless without the adjacent paragraphs. Here is a cut and paste of the whole section:

GM1 CAT.GEN.MPA.130 Rotor engagement - helicopters
INTENT OF THE RULE
(a) The following two situations where it is allowed to turn the rotor under power should be distinguished:
(1) for the purpose of flight, this is described in the Implementing Rule;
(2) for maintenance purposes.
(b) Rotor engagement for the purpose of flight: the pilot should not leave the control when the rotors are turning. For example, the pilot is not allowed to get out of the aircraft in order to welcome passengers and adjust their seat belts with the rotors turning.
(c) Rotor engagement for the purpose of maintenance: the Implementing Rule, however, does not prevent ground runs being conducted by qualified personnel other than pilots for maintenance purposes.

I'd like to point out that I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of leaving the controls in some circumstances (I used to fly HEMS in a Bo105!), I was merely trying to point out that the legality of this under European legislation is now pretty clear.

Sorry for the thread drift - I'm off now :)

Cheers

TeeS

[Frying Pan]

So, can I clarify or throw this into the mix..

As an instructor I often let my students start up on their own and after a few minutes I jump in next to them. It's a confidence booster for students and I make sure they're capable of doing the job safely.

However, according to rule subpart 6 we have every intention of flight but at the time of start up and rotors turning the PiC is not at the controls, the student is. Or is that semantics?

Apologies to this detracting somewhat from the original tragedy.

Cheers, FP

[TeeS]

Hi Pan

All the above regulations refer to commercial air transport, I think you are safe, on the basis it would be difficult to send someone solo otherwise.

Ok, I'm really off this time.

TeeS

[RVDT]

2.1.1 TYPE OF OPERATIONS
The helicopter is approved to operate :
- by day in VFR.
- by night in VFR, when the additional equipment required by
operational regulations are installed and serviceable.
The following are forbidden :
- Aerobatic maneuvers.
- Leave the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while rotor is
spinning.
- Flight in freezing rain or icing conditions.
- (visible moisture and temperatures conducive to producing ice).
- In flight engine power reduction using twist grip control except for
engine failure training, emergency procedures referring to it, or for a technical flight

No contest? It varies across AS 350 models and date of certification.

[Frying Pan]

Thanks TeeS,


But, when they're solo they are PiC...so that's not an issue. However, on their own, on start up, on a dual flight are they not still under instruction?


Cheers, FP.

[EBCAU]

As RVDT points out, what is in the flight manual is what must apply from a legal viewpoint.


Now if someone has a EC130 B4 FM to check you might find that the wording there is "should not" rather than "shall not." When the B4 came out I seem to recall it was "shall not." Is was amended to "should not" so that it could be operated in those countries where leaving the controls is legal. It has interested me a little to see that most pilots in such countries automatically assume they can leave the controls of AS350's if legislation permits but legally they cannot if the FM says otherwise.


I have left, and occasionally still do leave, the controls unattended if I deem it the safest, or the necessary and most practical, way to carry out my task. I just make sure I carry out the correct procedures to secure the machine and make it as safe as possible - in exactly the same manner in which I try to approach every facet of the job. If we deferred from doing anything associated with some risk then we would never fly at all. Appropriate risk mitigation through procedure is the answer. But is that legal? Not always, but fortunately I work in nations where the authorities have a pragmatic approach to operational requirements and I have never heard of a prosecution over this issue, despite several accidents happening to unattended machines. If someone was to be killed or injured then the legislation is in place for the appropriate action if deemed necessary. Long may it stay that way.

As others are already pointing out, the howling from the UK is from a nation that has relatively little use for utility helicopters and so they can probably operate acceptably that way. It some parts of my job (the oil industry part) the client usually stipulates the rules and so puts in place the means to facilitate the smooth and safe operation with a pilot at the controls at all times. It sure couldn't be done safely and efficiently that way in many of the other roles and areas I fly.

[Ray_A]

I'm not a Helicopter Pilot (fixed wing only) but have got a question:-

Disregarding the rights or wrongs of this incident, (sad either way).
When you leave a helicopter parked (in the correct way with the collective secured, if there is a correct way) with rotors running, is the main rotor pitch negative (IE slightly forcing the machine towards the ground) or neutral ?,
If neutral (or slightly positive, god forbid) is it possible that a strong wind gust getting under the disk could cause some undesirable lift ?

Just a question to try and understand a bit more about Helicopters.

[EBCAU]

Ray,
Mostly in the neutral to slightly negative I think, depending on machines perhaps.


Yes. An adverse wind on the disc can have an effect. I've seen it personally and know of at least one instance of a machine bent that way.

[LRP]

flat pitch blade angle is a function of autorotation rpm. It is rigged to produce the appropriate rpm in autorotation for a particular GW and DA. I have never seen one that has a negative angle of attack... obviously I have not rigged all aircraft ever produced, but I've done more than a few.

[rantanplane]

Humans learn best from practicing skills, not from obeying rules. By the true nature of learning, perhaps Americanadians should or shall become the better pilots at the end? BB, good old Blighty is as much Shakespeare as it always was. Just is it comedy or tragedy?

[Peter3127]

I recall VF stating that Ops Manual allowed it. He is a thorough driver.

[Flying Lawyer]

I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


We know, from several threads on this topic over the years, that leaving helicopters unattended with rotors turning is a widespread practice in some parts of the world.
We also know that there are sometimes accidents as a result.
Is there evidence of a high number of accidents relative to the frequency of the practice?

[TeeS]

The EC135 battery overheat drill originally required the pilot to land, lock the controls, get out and inspect the battery for signs of overheating. It changed with the introduction of current European legislation.

Oh yes, and the cyclic lock was removed after someone in a distant part of the World tried to take off from a rooftop helipad with it still locked!

Before the UK takes all the blame for over-regulation, I should point out that what we work to now, is the illegitimate love child of 30 odd European legal systems.

TeeS

[Devil 49]

The fact that a pilot leaving the controls while turning and burning is illegal in some circumstances isn't pertinent. It is/was legal at the decisive point in this event. Pilots doing so is not uncommon in some places. It is done routinely and safely where permitted.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Shakespeare understood the Human Animal and perhaps as long as we do not learn to laugh at tragedy we will survive.

It would seem this debate as others before it, has evolved to a discussion about "Rules", their derivation, implementation, and effect.

We also see as usual, varying opinions and attitudes towards the needs for "Rules".

Way deep down in the argument there exists a notion that ordinary commonsense and judgement should be the underlying basis for all "Rules".

Just as in Criminal Law, there must be some moral basis to the "Law", or in this case "Rule", or else the People will tend to ignore or violate the "Law" as they see it having no merit or basis for being.

Flying Lawyer echoes my thoughts about the situation at hand.

TeeS has presented us with some contradictions and considerations to consider regarding "Rules" in EASA Land.

The Kool Aid Acid Test for "Rules" should be to determine if there needs to be a "Rule" to begin with, closely followed by a determination of what the "Rule" is supposed to accomplish, and thirdly to determine that the new "Rule" does no harm (Remembering the Law of Un-intended Consequences).

One Man's Opinion is the UK and EASA Land have far two many "Rules", too many that are poorly written, and far too much harm gets done by that situation.

The good side of all that is folks like FL make a very good living sorting out the mess that results.

[EN48]

Irrespective of what rules may apply, the decision to leave the helicopter with the rotors under power (idle or otherwise) is an act of making a choice. All choices come with one or more tradeoffs. Some of the tradeoffs associated with this choice include saving time, saving engine cycles, etc, but other tradeoffs include some increase in risk, even when done "properly." How much risk is open to debate. Accident reports show that it is not always done properly and that the risk can be more than is understood. And, this type of event, even though preventable in many cases, seems to keep on happening even though rules, flight manuals, etc call some degree of attention to the risk involved.

My flight operations manual generally requires a qualified pilot in the PIC seat with hands on cyclic and collective when rotors are turning. Works for me, but perhaps not for all.

[Soave_Pilot]

this type of event, even though preventable in many cases, seems to keep on happening even though rules, flight manuals, etc call some degree of attention to the risk involved.

This is the second accident i have ever heard of. I think you may being exaggerating a bit.




In my view, many of us here do single pilot operations without any ground support, and this may be necessary to do under some circunstances where rules permit. From what i have read in this thread most pilots agree with that.

[SuperF]

i believe that people crash cars driving over 100 km/h (60mph) in Germany on the Autobahns. Do we all jump up and down saying those guys are idiots, thats illegal, you aren't allowed to drive that fast!!

Or do we look at it and say oh yeah the Germans have different speed limits to us, so maybe it was legal.

same thing here i would think, different laws, different countries.


it has happened a few times, a B2 and BA as well as a 120 in NZ. I'm sure that there are others.

[Ascend Charlie]

In the 80s, an R22 in NT was running roughly, the pilot landed on the only clear area, a rock pinnacle to investigate. He left it running at idle, control friction on, carefully climbed out onto right skid, crouched down to look at engine.

Stepped off the skid to change viewpoint, saw that the vibrations from the rough engine were causing the machine to skip around a little, and on the rough rock, headed towards the downhill side of things. He tried to pull it back, got pulled along himself. Said to himself: "SELF!! WTF are you DOING???" and let go of it.

it skipped to the edge of the rock and threw itself off the cliff. Pilot looks at mess at bottom... ooops...will the Streaker's Defence* work for him?




*Streaker's Defence = "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

[RVDT]

As quoted before this operation is expressly forbidden in the RFM.

An Operations Manual instruction cannot overrule it.

The RFM would require a Supplement. A Supplement might even require an STC as the RFM springs from the TC.

How many B3 operators here are aware of the MANDATORY requirement for 2 headsets and a functioning ICS?
Apparently the FAA doesn't if you read their MMEL.

Super F,

Poor analogy - Death rate in Germany per 100,000 inhabitants is approximately half your native country and they
drive twice your speed limit most of the time. Better roads, better cars, better drivers - different attitude.

The RFM prohibits you just the same in NZ as anywhere else. A while back this was raised by your CAA and had a few people scratching their heads.

Also as previously mentioned, the requirements vary across the 350 models.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Death rate in Germany per 100,000 inhabitants is approximately half your native country and they
drive twice your speed limit most of the time. Better roads, better cars, better drivers - different attitude.


Might it be the Germans drive in the correct side of the road for a start?


Perhaps one Statistic you might consider is the percentage of Fatal Accidents for those Autobahn car crashes as you might find yourself leading the Pack in that regard directly due to the Speed at which you drive on the Bahn's.

The key is that such behavior is quite legal on the Autobahn. As was what we are talking about here.

[EN48]

many of us here do single pilot operations without any ground support, and this may be necessary to do under some circunstances

Necessary or not, this is a choice you are making and it comes with increased risk. In making this choice, you are accepting the increased risk. Some have been and some will be bitten by making such a choice.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Isn't that just part of Life?

You pays your money, you takes your chances!

You ever worked in -45F weather where you are the only Helicopter in 500 miles and you have no contact with the outside World?

You want to shut down and hope the engine starts on that mountain side that is 50-60 miles from the nearest Tent, Hut, or warmth?

Compare the discussion about the R-66 making a Precautionary Landing due to Weather and think about the difference in the two situations.

Some are thinking the R-66 folks were in serious trouble.

[[email protected]]

And think about the REAL difference between operating 500 miles from support in -45 and then operating in the Grand Canyon.

In one situation you have no real options, in the other you have plenty - an action born out of necessity is not the same as one made by choice.

Get over the pioneer stuff Bob (we all get that) and accept this guy really didn't need to put himself at risk.

[EN48]

Isn't that just part of Life?

You pays your money, you takes your chances!

True in some respects! Driving to the airport to fly a helicopter involves taking risk, and the risk increases from there. Truly "professional" pilots, whether they fly for pay or not, have a well developed set of skills for managing risk. They are proactive in understanding risk and thoughtful about what risks to accept and when. These skills are not uniformly distributed in the pilot population. They are typically acquired through study, training, and experience, with experience probably the most effective teacher.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Crab,

It isn't Pioneer stuff as you seem to think. It is going on today as we speak and will go on in the future.

Unless and until you know the full facts of the situation in the Canyon that day, you are making assumptions based on ignorance of the situation.

Perhaps where he landed is a single aircraft landing site with nothing but the Colorado River and steep walled canyon surrounding the site. Sight Seeing helicopters do not have Winches you might recall.

I would suggest you consider there was no prohibition for him to have done what he did, not in Law, Regulation, or Policy.

What you need to "get" is things are different outside the UK and we have a much different mindset about operating helicopters than does the CAA and EASA.

Monday Morning Quarter Backing is always fraught with peril.

I suppose you will be bashing the R-66 Pilot for making a Precautionary Landing as he did. After all, one could say he put his passengers at risk by flying in weather that he could not guarantee making it to the Destination. That would be just as unfair as your criticism of the Canyon Pilot as you don't know the details of how that R-66 came to be where he was when he landed out.

[[email protected]]

It isn't Pioneer stuff as you seem to think. It is going on today as we speak and will go on in the future. Yes all us Brits get that as well.

Your Monday morning quarterback position is that he was completely justified in all his actions - despite the lack of evidence to say so........ mine (and others) is that he might have made a mistake doing what he did where he did - I haven't condemned him out of hand, just suggested that, in the cold light of day it is possible that he made a wrong choice rather than being forced into getting out due to operational complexities.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice.

My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.

If it was the exact right decision will have to be decided after weighing all of the factual evidence and not just assuming One knows what actually transpired.

I recall folks saying much the same about the Glasgow Crash saying we should all wait for the AAIB to report out what happened and why.

So why not in this one?

The poor dead guy has been called a Darwin Award Candidate and criticized for what he did by you Brits despite the Regulations being quite different in the USA, but that did not seem to deter y'all from making the comments you did.

It appears you just do not like being called out for that.

We saw the same thing happen when the MH-60 crashed in Norfolk too.

Even Flying Lawyer has commented on the tendency of you folks in the UK to attack one other Pilots when things happen and I see him as being quite and honest and candid fellow.

As an indication of how he views matters, read his Post which did not seem to draw any criticism or discussion.


I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


We know, from several threads on this topic over the years, that leaving helicopters unattended with rotors turning is a widespread practice in some parts of the world.
We also know that there are sometimes accidents as a result.
Is there evidence of a high number of accidents relative to the frequency of the practice?


Would it not be a breath of fresh air if all of you over there could be as fair and equitable in your comments?

He is British and can politely consider Helicopter Operations in the UK with an Open Mind. More of you should do the same i would suggest.

[handysnaks]

Bob, would you care to re visit your 'all of you over there' quote. The British contributors to Rotorheads are not all of the British helicopter pilots, what's more not all of the helicopter pilots who do contribute to Rotorheads necessarily take the view that we're always right and you're (as in you and your fellow cousins) always wrong :) .....(that's me drummed out of the country).

[tistisnot]

Bob Boudreaux .... French surname, Cajun food, who cares what else

They drive on the correct side of the road ... for their country ... housing, roadways etc .... it's no different from the driving skill required

You choose to ignore the world norm of metric .... it's effin easier to use than the mickey mouse system you stubbornly stick to .....

At least I like you trying to stick to the judgment in hand ..... but the Glasgow aircraft was in the air .... this latest incident was a choice made on the ground.

Makes me feel I shall in future ignore these pages ............

[jymil]

My bet is the collective was not being locked, this is the most likely explanation. Maybe this guy wasn't aware of the significance of this for an AS350. Keep in mind there are no type ratings in the US, so any Robinson pilot can hop into an AS350 and legally fly it. Not sure how much training this guy received on type. Maybe someone working in this area can comment on this.

It's easy to forget an item in a check list (especially when you are in a hurry), but you gotta know the critical ones by heart. Always lock the collective on the ground on any AS350, no matter whether you are inside or outside the helicopter !

[[email protected]]

Bob, now you are tarring everyone with the same brush re the Darwin remark.

There is no need to turn this into a transatlantic squabble and it is quite clear he was operating inside the FAA rules (unless the procedure is not allowed in his RFM).

The whole point of many posters here (especially the Brits) is that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it a good idea in every circumstance - in this sad case it appears, that for whatever reason, he was caught out making an unfortunate choice.

Surely, as an experienced aviator, you should be counselling those less experienced who aren't (or weren't) aware of the possible consequences of leaving the aircraft unattended.

We are supposed to learn from accidents so that others might avoid the same pitfalls in the future - that is how flight safety evolves.

[RVDT]

My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.

I would suggest you consider there was no prohibition for him to have done what he did, not in Law, Regulation, or Policy.

More learned folks might disagree.


FAR Part §91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without
complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual,
markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is
available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.



FLIGHT MANUAL AS 350 B3 Arriel 2B1 EASA APPROVED

SECTION 2
LIMITATIONS

2.1.1 TYPE OF OPERATIONS
The helicopter is approved to operate :
- by day in VFR.
- by night in VFR, when the additional equipment required by
operational regulations are installed and serviceable.
The following are forbidden :
- Aerobatic maneuvers.
- Leave the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while rotor is
spinning.
- Flight in freezing rain or icing conditions.
- (visible moisture and temperatures conducive to producing ice).
- In flight engine power reduction using twist grip control except for
engine failure training, emergency procedures referring to it, or for
a technical flight.
2.1.2 OCCUPANTS
- Minimum flight crew ................. : One pilot in right seat.
- Maximum number of occupants
(including flight crew)................ : Six

[EN48]

And then there is this:

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Administrative law judge gets to decide if its careless or reckless.

[Boudreaux Bob]

you should be counselling those less experienced who aren't (or weren't) aware of the possible consequences of leaving the aircraft unattended.

I have repeatedly.

Keep in mind there are no type ratings in the US, so any Robinson pilot can hop into an AS350 and legally fly it.

Read your FAR Part 135 Regulations then get back with us on that comment. You are quite wrong.


§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.


if there was no violation of FAR's and the RFM for that particular aircraft did not have a Restriction re Leaving the Controls and the Operator's FAA Approved Training Program and FAR Part 135 OpSpecs did not ban that practice......you would find your Case very weak indeed. Those Administrative Actions are subject to Appeal to Federal Court should the Defendant feel the Judgement is in error.


So getting back to the original argument: Who knows what happened in the Canyon that day? Does anyone know what the RFM for that aircraft had to say? Does anyone know what the Company's Training Program and OpSpecs had to say about Leaving the Controls unattended? Did the poor fellow simply make a mistake somehow although operating within the Operator's SOP's and FAR's?

This happened in the USA thus American Law and Regulations apply, not EASA Rules. Shift gears guys, it really is easy if you try. You may not agree with it, or like it, or think what is permissible is good practice, but apply the Law, Rules, and Regulations that apply.

[SilsoeSid]

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA195
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 18, 2014 in Peach Springs, AZ
Aircraft: AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORP AS350B3, registration: N840PA
Injuries: 1 Fatal.


Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;
http://helicopterindia.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/FM-AS350B3.241201933.pdf

FLIGHT MANUAL AS 350 B3 Arriel 2B1

2.1.1 TYPE OF OPERATIONS
The helicopter is approved to operate :
- by day in VFR.
- by night in VFR, when the additional equipment required by
operational regulations are installed and serviceable.
The following are forbidden :
- Aerobatic maneuvers.
- Leave the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while rotor is
spinning.
- Flight in freezing rain or icing conditions.
- (visible moisture and temperatures conducive to producing ice).
- In flight engine power reduction using twist grip control except for
engine failure training, emergency procedures referring to it, or for a technical flight.
2.1.2 OCCUPANTS
- Minimum flight crew ................. : One pilot in right seat.
- Maximum number of occupants
(including flight crew)................ : Six

:=

[Boudreaux Bob]

Find us one that is current and FAA Approved then I will listen.

This happened under FAA Rules as you may recall.

[SilsoeSid]

Can the FAA really override something that the manufacturers have forbidden?
I find that very surprising :eek:

[Boudreaux Bob]

Do you accept there might be differences between a CAA approved RFM and an FAA approved RFM?

You reckon the EASA approved RFM would have to comply with EASA Rules and Regulations while the FAA Rules and Regulations might be different thus the FAA Version of a RFM might reflect those Rules exactly in the manner the EASA Approved Version must and does?

I don't know what the FAA Approved RFM for the 350B3 has to say.

I would find it a bit odd for it to be much different than the EASA version but until we see one, how do we know?

[SilsoeSid]

Until we see one then, instead of posting worthless questions, please answer my earlier plain and simple question;

Can the FAA really override something that the manufacturers have forbidden?


I reckon, despite what you may dig up, the all covering FAA paragraph will say something such as;

"A pilot operating a civil aircraft (rotorcraft) must comply with the operating limitations specified in the approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual."


;)

[Boudreaux Bob]

Sid, Answer your own question. Did the Factory forbid it for technical reasons or did they do so because of the EASA Rules?

We have been told by those who fly the things that it varies from Model to Model.

Perhaps someone who knows the right answer will help us out here.

[SilsoeSid]

Ooo, Bob and his Maieutic games .... yawn, night night :rolleyes:

[Helilog56]

And the maturity level continues too climb......:D

[RVDT]

Bob,

The FAA RFM is the same as the EASA one if you believe the FAA TCDS H9EU.

The catch here is the Limitations Section in the B3 RFM.

Why? Obviously someone knows but that may be the hard part.

EASA land is not much different to FAA land.

Contrary to what many perceive you can actually leave the aircraft when it is running
if not overridden by other documents depending on their weight and Ops Manual etc etc.

(d) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power, for the purpose of flight,
without a qualified pilot at the controls

The real reason for this statement and definition thanks to the Swedes back in 2005. Maybe it gets lost in translation with some folks.

Reason(s) for proposed text/comment:
The proposal is an adjustment to the new ICAO Annex 6, Part III and to an applied practice among operators in most countries.
The Swedish Civil Aviation Authority has announced to JAA that we exempt the Swedish operators from the current rule.
There are situations when a pilot has to leave the controls with the rotor spinning for safety reasons or for practical reasons.
With this cognizance we believe it is better to allow pilots to leave the aircrafts while the rotor is spinning provided that the operator
in the Operations Manual has stated the special conditions that should be met and provided that it is not inappropriate because of
the construction of the helicopter. It is better that this is done legally and under stated conditions than illegal and out of control.


Maybe there is something on the B3 that comes under "inappropriate because of the construction of the helicopter"?

I am no stranger to this practice myself, yet maybe more aware of the basis.

[ShyTorque]

I haven't flown the B3 but the collective lock on the twin Squirrel I operated for three years was very basic; it consisted of a spring steel plate with a hole in it which had to engage on a landed steel button on the end of the collective. It was easily disengaged if the lever took a slight bump, which would then move upwards, increasing torque all by itself. This would occur on start also. I developed the habit of trapping the collective lever under my left knee on start, so I could feel any tendency for the lever to move upwards. I still do this today, even though it was thirteen years ago and now fly a totally different type.

[newfieboy]

Yeah I fly 350 series a/c all variants, with quite few 1000's hours on type plus quite few more thou on other products. Most of 350 time remote, mountains, Arctic, High Arctic ya da ya....the 350 across the board totally safe to idle and get out...long as you put friction on AND lock collective. It should be standard training TC, FAA, EASA whatever...if trained properly. That's where your argument BBob falls apart...there be no type ratings below 12000lbs in US.Was pole lock drummed into ya man? Don't know...don't care, is with me every time I land, collective gets the tad extra down and click...simples. This last month was doing ops in high Arctic... At 6500ft in rocks Ellesmere and Baffin long lining...so maybe 10 refuels a day. Hot refuel...yes sir, on own..yes sir, feel comfy shutting down while packing .338 as protection against polar bears....no sir but the risk I have to take. Oh and I'm a Brit....so there goes the Brit/Anglo argument.....Crab et al...yes understand it not legal in UK, bet your life it is done 24/7 elsewhere. A very sad accident...RIP man, could of been any of us. TC yes loser...had respect mate you did Halifax water course...should know better...**** happens, no Darwin...safe aviating boys...fire season just begun!!!

[jecottrell]

Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;

The B3 manual does not have the restriction that the B3 2B1 does. A more appropriate manual would be the B3 manual.

[mickjoebill]

Late last year we flew with Papillon on AS350s into the Canyon, passengers were loaded and unloaded with rotors running, loading was professional and well organised.

I'll cherish the look on my sons face when we dipped into the canyon, such flights give hundreds of passengers a memorable experience of the joys of flight.


Regardless of the legality, or best practice, if a pilot spends all day, every day with passengers loading and unloading with rotors running I could understand why it could be human nature for him to also exit with rotors running.

In the AS350s on our fights the two seater bench was installed beside the pilot, on the flight into the canyon the pilot position was on the right and on the flight out, in a different AS350, the pilot position was on the left.

Is standardising the pilot's position desirable in a multi craft company?
More chance of fouling collective on exit if pilot position is in the left seat?




Mickjoebill

[Soave_Pilot]

:D:D:D. Newfieboy

[Boudreaux Bob]

there be no type ratings below 12000lbs in US.

That is quite correct.

The statement was that One could jump into any helicopter and fly it. The statement holds (somewhat) until you get to Commercial Ops under Part 135 then you have Minimum Training Hours and Syllabus and a Check Ride before you can fly for hire.

The Accident occurred on a a Commercial Part 135 Flight thus training both ground and flight required prior to the Check Ride.

http://flightsimaviation.com/data/FARS/part_135-244.html

[SilsoeSid]

Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;
The B3 manual does not have the restriction that the B3 2B1 does. A more appropriate manual would be the B3 manual.

Surely the most appropriate would be the B3e.
Someone here must have access to one!

And while you're searching, is there a more up to date version of;
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/advisory_circulars/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/23152

[Thomas coupling]

Crikey - juicy thread eh?
Post 60 says it all really (and DB we must not continue to sing from the same hymn sheet!).

No-one has mentioned this aspect yet:

Let's say this gentleman elected to get out to check the "fluid levels" as advertised and in so doing the cab rolled over killing the pilot AND the shrapnel from the flailing helicopter kills a little boy and his mum who had recently deplaned.
Now can someone tell me the justification (or difference) for doing this?
The implications are beyond comprehension. The FAA would eat the hire company for breakfast. The Insurance company would be slammed with tens of millions of dollars worth of law suit. The pilot would be seen as a complete and utter f**kwit by everyone inside and outside the industry.
What is the difference therefore between what he did that day and what many other solo operators do during their daily job?
The difference is narrow but pertinent:
IF the operator genuinely believes that climbing out of an aircraft with rotors running is necessary to safeguard a situation - fair enough; but if the operator turns a blind eye to their pilots doing it to (a) save time, (b) save money, (c) have a piss......then they too are one and the same as this darwin rep.
Just because it appears the 'norm' for utility pilots in remote areas to practive this daily - doesn't make it SAFE or RIGHT.

We all do things 'differently'. When ONE makes the decision to depart from the guidelines/rules....one MUST accept one either knows better (which is extremely rare) or one has just thrown caution to the wind.
Sadly it appears (based on the reported criteria) this guy came from the latter camp - a definite Darwin candidate....but will ANYONE learn from this....I doubt it :rolleyes:
Pilots will cut corner's to make their trade work: There are those out there right now spending inordinate time inside the Dead Man's curve (we've beaten that conversation to death), there are those who take off in below minima weather, etc etc. It's all well and good IF you get away with it time and time again but it doesn't make it RIGHT.....does it? Think about the implications? CAN YOU JUSTIFY WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO -to the authorities? To the next of kin? To your boss? Life is a gamble and many pilots just love gambling..........................

[zorab64]

OK, TC has a point, whether or not anyone else agrees with it, although it's all about risk, surely?
If the risk is to the individual only, does he value his life enough to loose it?
If the risk is to the machine, does he value his machine enough to save his life & accept risk to the machine.
If there's any risk to others, especially if they've paid for a service, does he value his passengers lives; job; airframe; company; reputation; helicopter industry etc above that of saving a few moments / personal convenience?

Some of us who've been doing this awhile value the idea of landing safely, and getting home to the family at the end of a work period, more highly than anything else - and it's in the back of MY mind every time I consider doing anything that's close to the limits of either my machine or ability. Yes, there's risk inherent in aviation, and it's part of the thrill - or was when we were younger / less experienced. Every self-respecting pilot has, at some stage, looked to find their personal limit, or that of their machine - and probably exceeded one or the other at some stage and got away with it . . . and I know TC's no exception :=! It's the ones who aren't aware they've exceeded anything that will not be able to recognise the risk in doing it again, when another parameter may also be testing their skills and the two combine to provide the coup-de-gras. This thread just helps to remind those that remain that the risks are always there, and that ignoring them can be at your peril.

I've referred to the mantra before, but a reminder sometimes helps focus:
"Aviation is, of itself, not inherently dangerous but, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is very unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

Just because the pilot in question was a "pilot", does not mean to say he was free of culpability in the manner of his own demise. Maybe he just forgot about the risks?

[SuperF]

100% agree with my country's road accident rate, I was actually referring to the legality of driving at 100mph in different countries.

Mick, ref the standardization of aircraft, I'm sure most operators like to do that, however, sometimes you have to play with the cards that you are dealt, if an aircraft is on lease etc, then they may get some with different pilot positions.

While having RHS pilot, might be good for the pilot getting in and out of the aircraft, it isn't as good, if the next day they need to do sling work as lots of us like to lean out the left side. Also depending on AC type, having a RHS pilot, also gives the passengers a chance to mess with the controls(being in the centre of the cabin), whereas LHS pilot position the controls are more protected from the pax(sitting hard against the pilot door).

[Lonewolf_50]

newfie, thanks for that post, puts this in some perspective.

TC's point on crowd/mob reactions based on circumstances is worth pondering.

"Aviation is, of itself, not inherently dangerous but, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is very unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
This is as true on the ground as it is in the air, particularly when those wings are moving at flight rpm. :(

[handysnaks]

The hypocrisy meter is now going into the red!:confused:

We all make mistakes, however, if my oppo who I have known for 30 years and who I can assure you is a bl00dy good egg is involved in any sort of incident/accident, then I expect you all to reserve judgement on what might have happened until the final result of whatever investigation takes place and a report is released. Even then, even if it seems that he/she was culpable, I will ask you to think of the families, the mates left behind and previous good character/unblemished record and show a bit of respect with any criticism you may feel you want to publish........

On the other hand, should some johnny foreigner or god forbid, civvy have an incident or accident, then I will go out of my way to be as offensive as possible, as soon as possible I won't need the result of any investigation to tell me what I already know. This is a forum where we discuss this sort of thing without fear or favour. If someone out there feels that I'm being overly hard on them, then tough. We need to learn immediately what the probable cause was and prevent anybody from making the same mistake again. We can only do this by judging the incident on the very limited information that we may glean in the first micro seconds after the incident has occurred.:mad:


Does that sum up the current rules of engagement?

[jecottrell]

Surely the most appropriate would be the B3e.

I couldn't find any reference that the aircraft was an E model. Where is that?

[mdovey]

Could we separate out two, for me, very different discussions

a) the discussion about the accident which started this thread. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the accident report which states that the pilot was not following standard operating procedures, did not secure the controls etc.

b) a more general discussion, whether it is permissible in any circumstances to leave an aircraft rotors turning, and if so what those circumstances are.

Matthew

[mdovey]

Naive question, borne from the fact that my limited experience is with 300, R22 and G2.

In a situation where you are working remotely and concerned about an engine restart, could you not release the clutch and so have the engine still running but the rotor stationary?

Matthew

[ShyTorque]

No, because there is no clutch.

[mdovey]

Fair enough.

Matthew

[SilsoeSid]

jecottrell
Surely the most appropriate would be the B3e.
I couldn't find any reference that the aircraft was an E model. Where is that?


Post 7 of this thread :rolleyes:

[Boudreaux Bob]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/112285127/AS350B3-Flight-Manual


Page 11 shows no prohibition to leaving the controls unattended.

Perhaps this RFM thing needs to be considered more.

The Linked RFM also clearly states each Certifying Authority may vary from other Authorities.

It also notes some information in the RFM requires Authority Approval and some does not. It does not specify how to identify the difference.

[SilsoeSid]

Handy,
The NTSB preliminary report quoted in post 8 says;
Witnesses reported that the pilot landed and was planning on exiting the helicopter to perform a "fluid level check." After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls. The helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and rolled over. The pilot was struck by one or more of the main rotor blades and was fatally injured.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/GenPDF.aspx?id=WPR14FA195&rpt=p

It would appear that the NTSB find this relevant enough to put in the report.
The big question is, what does the FM for this ac actually state about leaving the ac with the ac running?

When we know that, we can answer mdovey's point 'a'.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the accident report which states that the pilot was not following standard operating procedures, did not secure the controls etc.

[jecottrell]

Post 7 of this thread :rolleyes:

Post #7:
A very sad event, and so unexplained.

I have been chewing for a while how those who, 'have slipped the surly bonds', can more easily be remembered or referenced. I note in Ned's thread (the second post here) on the top of his thread you will see memorial thread or words to that effect.

May I humbly suggest that it could be a way to find, -- , for those who knew and cared and could be looking, later here, a similar scenario?

Just a suggestion.tet.

I don't see any reference to the model AS-350 in that post.

Did you mean post number 8, the NTSB quote? If you are, I don't see any reference to a B3E there either.

[SilsoeSid]

Bob, apart from not being for the Be, page 11 (manual) page 36 (document) states a minimum crew of one pilot in RH seat.

FAA definition of crew;
"Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time."
FAA Definitions (http://www.faa-aircraft-certification.com/faa-definitions.html)

As flight time doesn't stop until the rotors have stopped ... :hmm:

[SilsoeSid]

jecottrell,
Sorry, it was post 7 when I referred to it.

It is now post 8 as you say. The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version :ok:

[jecottrell]

N840PA (http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/NNum_Results.aspx?NNumbertxt=840PA)

The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version


Sure looks like a B3 to me.


As flight time doesn't stop until the rotors have stopped ...

All of our AS-350 aircraft' Hobbs meters stop registering flight time when the collective is bottomed out. Where does your definition of flight time originate?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Keep grasping at Straws, Sid.....maybe you will find a good one one day!


FAR 1.1 states:

Flight time means:

(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;

You confusing CAA/JAR/EASA rules with FAA Rules.....they are different you should understand.

We log from when the aircraft first moves on Takeoff until the Skids Touch the ground. Each time the Skids leave the ground is a Takeoff and each time the Skids touch the ground afterwards is a Landing. That includes running takeoffs and running landings upon the Aircraft coming to a stop. The Aircraft....not the Rotors.

[evil7]

This is how we see it in our company:

Take off to langing = flight time

Start-up till shut-down (Rotor stop) = PIC (because he is in charge) or operating time

Start shooting;)

[chopjock]

So the best place to build hours is in EASA land then. Apparently it's legal to climb in, start up, lift off then land immediately
and idle with rotors running for three hours and then log three hours flying time.:}

[SilsoeSid]

jecottrell;
Did you mean post number 8, the NTSB quote? If you are, I don't see any reference to a B3E there either.

SS;
The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version

Sure looks like a B3 to me.


So what is an AS350 B3 with Ariel 2D engine called :ugh:



Bobb, no need for any straw grasping;

If I may quite your quote;
Flight time means:

(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;

Did I read that right ..... "Comes to rest after landing".

The aircraft lands ... then comes to rest.

So once a helicopter lands, at what point is it considered at rest?

Will you agree that in this incident, the aircraft was indeed still under its own power for the purpose of flight ..... with no pilot at the controls. If not, how was the helicopter able to become airborne as is stated in the report?

[fijdor]

Here are the definitions of "Air time" and "Flight time" from TC (transport Canada).

JD

“air time”

“air time” means, with respect to keeping technical records, the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface until it comes into contact with the surface at the next point of landing; (temps dans les airs)




“flight time”

“flight time” means the time from the moment an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight; (temps de vol)

[SilsoeSid]

Just a thought;
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/th_8b56ccfa0568906a531818387acd0e33_zps64feee5c.jpg (http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g11/silsoesid/?action=view&current=8b56ccfa0568906a531818387acd0e33_zps64feee5c.jpg)

[SuperF]

in some countries they have Flight time, ie, when the helicopter is flying, and RIM ie: Rotors In Motion.

I think that we have been down the road of Flight Time/RIM, and get about as much agreement as we do with the idea of getting out of the machine turning and burning.

So again, different countries, different rules.

Chopjock, yes, as long as you can convince someone to let you pay for the gas only, and not flight hours then EASA land is certainly the best way to build hours, probably not the best type of hrs to get... :}


Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls??

I always read that piece of law as meaning that the person at the controls had to have a Pilot Licence, ie you can't let anyone without a Licence fly the thing, rather than the law stipulating that you must be at the controls while the Rotors are turning, sitting on the ground...

[Devil 49]

Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning, which jibes with my company SOP.

Silsosid, I know pilots who log time as you state (sometimes referred to as "seat time"). I don't see it, but I reckon it's not an unreasonable criteria.

If I'm not manipulating the controls for the purpose of aerial navigation, I'm not flying, whether the rotor is turning or not, so I don't log it. I log from takeoff to landing- coming to rest, which I would see as stability check complete, controls secure, and going about whatever business is required: flight log, deplaning/emplaning pax and cargo, even refueling. Note lack of requirement to shutdown in that list, approved by FAA and company. Yes, I can leave the controls within company policy restrictions, I expect the accident aircraft policy was similar.

[SilsoeSid]

Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls??

But Bob is telling us by both his quotes and links;
"Flight time means: Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing"

"The ac must have a minimum crew of one pilot in RH seat"

(Remember: The FAA state "Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.")

There is no mention anywhere of whether or not there is an intention of flying, just that (by using Bobs own references), once an aircraft is capable of flight under its own power, until the time that it is no longer capable of flight under its own power, it is to be considered to be 'in flight time'.

[SilsoeSid]

Devil;
Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning,

What does one do to a helicopter in order for it to be 'at rest' after landing?

[rantanplane]

Splitting hairs with rotor blades...but it is quite clear, from the wording I would think. The moment an aircraft moves is not the moment the engine starts turning, means the AC is moving from parking position. In this respect the end of flight time is when AC is back on parking position - under its own power of course. Let's have a pushcopter for gaining hours.. Anyhow, does it say aircraft moving or engine moving, or better turning. With some old planes it is common practice to start the engine from outside the cockpit and then jump in, after collecting all the loose screws, spark plugs and being reassured of fluid levels by the number of leaks visible.
Ok now seriously, the question is if leaving the controls can be done safely on that type of Flying machine. Then have a look what went wrong. Then there is a chance to understand why. And a chance to learn something from very own understanding, not just from following - the rules, your religion or older brother.

[jecottrell]

B3e manual makes no prohibition for leaving controls, as the B3 2B1 does.

The inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue but, the pilot in question doesn't appear to be in violation of written guidance as some would assert.

http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Other/i-5KSj5ws/1/XL/1-XL.png

[Thomas coupling]

Bob: Why can't you understand from various posters here (RVDT in particular) that the RFM in any country is gospel?
First you were shown various RFM's for 350's telling the pilot that getting out whilst the rotor is turning is NOT permitted. You wouldn't have it - citing that the national authoriy can over -ride this????
Then you go away and dig up a copy of the 350B3 to prove that this statement is not in this RFM......and yet Section 2.1, Pg 11 categorically states that the MINIMUM crew must be 1 pilot in the RHS. This is tant amount to the same thing.:mad:

Yet you refuse to accept the principle?:ugh: What is it with you?

Which other parts of the limitations section of any RFM - do you pick and choose from:
Let's pull Max Cont for 10 minutes today shall we because the underslng load is a little heavier than normal. Let's ignore that overtorque? Let's se if my sloping round is steeper than the RFM's?

Of course those pilots out there who see the RFM as a target and not a limit (probably USA single pilot bush pilots with no-one for miles to monitor their activities, operating on a shoestring) think it's all in a days work. UNTIL the **** hits the fan. And then they realise they have no friends as everyone arond them thinks they were dumb for getting caught and want nothing to do with their insubordinate professional approach.

This jerk - climbed out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft against RFM policy. All because he couldn't be arsed to shut down safely. He got caught - by the eye in the sky who taught him a lesson he will never forget. RiP sunshine and move over for the next volunteer to the Darwin owners club!

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS."
Yet it's not the FAA version we ( Bobb especially) need!

If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew!

It's not a matter of who is right, but who is left!

[rantanplane]

So what does 'flight' mean ?

[Boudreaux Bob]

TC and Sid,

You have lost the argument.

Accept it and move on.

We have discerned that different models of the 350, in different Countries, have different Limitation Sections that variously show a Prohibition against leaving the Flight Controls Unattended. In American English that means even the various Authorities differ in their view of that practice as evidenced by the RFM they each approve.

In the RFM I posted, it stated each Authority would have different requirements in their specific unique RFM. That was in an Approved RFM thus we must assume that is a valid and correct statement by the author of the RFM.

We have folks from many different parts of the World who do in fact undertake the practice of some times leaving the Controls Unattended and they state they do so in full compliance with their Aircraft's Approved RFM, their Authority's Rules and Regulations, and their own Operator's Policies and Procedures.

Now what is it you two refuse to understand about all of this?

Are both of you short course Grads and that is why you are having such difficulty grasping the variances between UK Regulations and the rest of the World?

The Poor Dead Fellow so far has been shown to have acted within the scope of his authority as a PIC and well within his Operator's Policies and the FAR's.

That you two consider leaving the Flight Controls unattended a mortal sin and a crime against humanity, just does not make you right or correct.

How many times, by how many people, will you have to be told all this before you get the message?

As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World.

No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions.

[jecottrell]

If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew!

Well obviously the pilot missed something or several things prior to exiting the aircraft. The aircraft wouldn't have killed him if he had put the twist grip at idle, locked the collective and frictioned the cyclic. Because, under those conditions the aircraft is not "capable of flight under its own power." So, I guess you're agreeing, that if he had done things correctly the aircraft wouldn't have become "airborne without the minimum flight crew" and killed him. And, if he had idle/locked/frictioned the controls prior to exiting the aircraft he wouldn't have allowed the aircraft to violate any rules.


Why would the B3 2B1 specifically prohibit leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while spinning and other models not? You would think that with so many lawyers on every page of the manual, if the manufacturer felt that the aircraft shouldn't be left rotor turning, they would specifically prohibit it. They obviously felt it was necessary for the 2B1.


http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Phone/i-Zt36f9J/0/XL/20140602163154-XL.jpg

[rantanplane]

Looks like somebody lost both arms..
"Let's call it a draw" :ouch:

[fijdor]

Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS

I don't think this has anything to do with the fact of having a pilot a the control while the aircraft is idling but it is more a part of the certification process where they have establish the minimum crew needed to fly that particular aircraft.

Here are two examples of different certifications regarding minimum flightcrew.

First one from the FAA, aircraft is a Bell 214ST and the other one is from the CAA, same aircraft.

FAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS
IFR -Two helicopter pilots.

VFR -One helicopter pilot who shall operate the
helicopter from the right crew seat. The left crew
seat may be used for an additional pilot.
NOTE
Single pilot operations are based on the
standard helicopter instrument panel
and systems.


CAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS

Two suitably qualified pilot.

That's it for CAA, does that mean then, if one pilot exit the aircraft while idling to help out with the pax it would be an illegal action and to a point being considered a dangerous move?

JD

[SilsoeSid]

rantanplane
So what does 'flight' mean ?
I would say that if a helicopter was airborne under its own power, it was performing the art of 'flight'.

You have lost the argument.
Accept it and move on.
Sorry, can you make it clear what 'argument' this is?
Are you saying that the pilot in this incident was right in what he was doing? Because I'm saying that I think what he did was wrong :confused:

Just because we may disagree, doesn't make you right!

No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions.

That would only apply if there were specific instructions in the FM that this was permissible and what actions must be undertaken when doing so. If there are no instructions on how to undertake these practises, and it is stated that the minimum crew is one pilot, it must be that when the ac is capable of flight under its own power, the seat must be occupied.

As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World.

You certainly have a huge transatlantic chip on your shoulder!
Could you balance it with a similarly sized transpacific chip?

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA091 - Don?t walk away (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101358)

Light helicopters continue to be damaged or destroyed in fly-away accidents after they have been left unattended. Their pilots should have read the aircraft flight manuals.
It happens for many reasons: to open a gate for stock, to refuel, to speak with people on the ground, and in one case, a pilot’s urgent need for a ‘relief break’, as the ATSB called it, with characteristic tact. In all these cases, the result was a destroyed helicopter.

‘What often happens is that the collective rises after a gust of wind or downwash from another helicopter, and the helicopter goes up’ CASA rotary wing flying operations inspector, David Threlfo, says.

In one case a pilot was killed by the main rotor blade, and in another a passenger was injured by walking into the tail rotor, both times with unattended helicopters.

There seems to be confusion among helicopter operators as to whether leaving a running helicopter unattended is legal or not. For pilots of Robinson R22, R44 and R66 helicopters it is illegal. The aircraft flight manuals (pilot’s operating handbooks) for the R22, R44 and R66 all say ‘never leave helicopter flight controls unattended while engine is running.’ They have said this since at least 2007.

As part of the aircraft flight manual (unless otherwise exempted) this directive trumps the other laws, regulations and orders governing helicopter flight in Australia.

‘Now that Robinson has decided to put that in, it changes the law, because Civil Aviation Regulation 138 says in effect that “you will comply with the manufacturer’s aircraft flight manual”,’ Threlfo says.

For pilots of other types of helicopters with aircraft flight manuals that do not forbid unattended ground running, there are two relevant laws. Civil Aviation Regulation 225, and Civil Aviation Order 95.7 paragraph 7.

CAR 225 (1988) says: ‘... the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to the flight until the engine or engines are stopped at the termination of a flight’.

CAO 95.7, paragraph 7, is one of the many exemptions to the current civil aviation regulations. It sets out the conditions that must be met for a pilot of a single-pilot helicopter to leave the aircraft while it is running.

These are that:

The helicopter is fitted with skid-type landing gear.
The helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking both the cyclic and collective controls. (A lock fitted only to the collective control is insufficient.)
A passenger in a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls cannot interfere with the controls.
The pilot’s absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of someone on or in the vicinity of the helicopter.
The pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
The message is clear: leaving a running helicopter unattended on the ground is dangerous, even with approved control locks fitted. That’s why pilots should only do it for a safety reason that’s stronger than the inherent danger. But not if they fly Robinson helicopters – for them it’s unambiguously illegal.

For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter.

Opening gates, hot refuelling, and talking with ground staff are not valid reasons to leave a running helicopter, Threlfo says. On the subject of ‘immediate vicinity’ he says: ‘If we’re talking 100 metres away to get a fuel drum, that’s not in the immediate vicinity’.

The legal situation is that CAO 95.7 paragraph 7 exempts only parts of CAR 225 and CAR 230. CAR 138, which says that the aircraft flight manual takes precedence, still applies, and if there is a conflict, overrules CAO 95.7.

[rantanplane]

When the pilot jumped out the aircraft was not airborne.

[SilsoeSid]

That's it for CAA, does that mean then, if one pilot exit the aircraft while idling to help out with the pax it would be an illegal action and to a point being considered a dangerous move?
Assuming that the information you have given is the full story; If the pilot at the controls took off solo, then it would be. However, that pilot would be there to prevent the aircraft becoming airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.

I refer to my previous post;
"For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter."


When the pilot jumped out the aircraft was not airborne.
Which makes it clear that he didn't ensure that the aircraft couldn't become airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.

[alouette3]

I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles.
Just to add a little more to the discussion,it is not inconceivable for two authorities to approve the RFM of the same type differently.
Case in point, I believe that in EASA land it is okay to hover an EC135 on one engine.It comes with a proviso that all appropriate WAT calculations have been done,and , it is an unusual operation.The FAA forbids that completely. Many a US pilot has run into trouble for having missed the little black triangle on that page. The little black triangle basically means "Not approved for US Registered aircraft".
Similarly, there is a new Revision (11 ,I think) that has been approved for the EC130.Has not yet made the cut with the FAA. Significant changes are incorporated in the new Revision ,particularly for cold weather operations, but it hasn't been approved for the line yet.I guess ( and I hope) that the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate goes into each RFM and revision with a fine tooth comb just to make sure that the operators of the type in question are not unusually burdened by onerous procedures which are necessary in other countries but not so in the US.
Final word, approving a type for a single pilot operation from one seat only means that the aircraft will not be flown from the other seat for lateral CG considerations.Does not imply that the aircraft will not (or shall not) be left unattended.
Just my 2C.
Alt 3.

[SilsoeSid]

a3, "I believe, I think, I guess, I hope ..."
Any chance of a relevant link or something more 'solid'?


Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet?

[jecottrell]

Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet?

We're a US operator and this (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/540137-grand-canyon-accident-pilot-killed-as350-rollover-9.html#post8504774) is from our manual. Not sure what your looking for in a "FAA B3e" manual.

[Flying Lawyer]

SilsoeSidThere is no mention anywhere Flight time] whether or not there is an intention of flyingCorrect.
once an aircraft is capable of flight under its own power, until the time that it is no longer capable of flight under its own power, it is to be considered to be 'in flight time'.There is no mention of "capable of flight under its own power".


jecottrellThe inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue
There's a risk of that (interspersed with such vile descriptions of the deceased pilot as 'a candidate for the Darwin Award', 'one less in the gene pool', 'this jerk') although, as alouette3 so rightly says ....
I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles.

[Boudreaux Bob]

FL,

I posted the FAR 1.1 Definition of Flight Time for Sid. He ignored that.

I posted a copy of a 350B3 Approved Flight Manual that contained no prohibition on leaving flight controls unattended. He ignored that.

Devil 49 who operates a 350B3 clearly stated his Company legally authorizes the Practice of leaving flight controls unattended. Sid ignored that.

Newfie Boy flying in Canada recounted his very recent experience doing the same thing. Sid ignored that.

RVDT, also recounted his recent experience doing the same thing. Again Sid ignored that.

Alouette3 has also pointed out incorrect statements Sid has made. Of course, Sid ignores that.

What chance do you think you have of convincing Sid he is batting a very sticky Wicket here?

[Flying Lawyer]

Bob

Based upon what I've seen in various discussions over the years, I'd rate my chance of changing Sid's mind about anything as approximately zero.

[SilsoeSid]

Flying Lawyer,

Bob quotes FAR 1.1
Flight time means:

(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;


I would appreciate your interpretation of:
1. How a helicopter with skids, can move under its own power for the purpose of flight, without being capable of flight
2. 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".



Ok bob, you're going to change your mind as much as I am.

You're absolutely right, in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead!
Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again?

[Flying Lawyer]

Sid

FAR 1.1
The period when the accident occurred was not, in my opinion, Flight time within the meaning of the definition.

Your attempt to introduce the words 'capable of flight' is a red herring, a distraction.
(As is "he didn't ensure that the aircraft couldn't become airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.")


You say (to Bob):
in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead! That is not what Bob said.
He said: Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice.



Legality

Bob's position:My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.
Your position: The pilot acted unlawfully.
I express no opinion because I haven't researched the FAA legislation nor any relevant appeal court decisions (if they exist), nor do I know all the circumstances. I'm not inclined to do the research, partly because it would take a long time but mainly because I don't regard legality as the primary issue in this discussion.

IMHO by far the most important issue, which Bob and several others have been emphasising and you now appear to accept (?) is set out in your final sentence:
Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again?

Nothing can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again. There are clearly things that could be done to reduce the number. We've already had some suggestions, mainly from pilots who have experience of, or are familiar with, the sort of ops in which the practice regularly occurs.

Any injury/fatality is obviously a serious matter but I have no reason to believe that it is a major issue relative to the frequency of the practice in many parts of the world.
It may be. I don't know the statistics.

[Thomas coupling]

FL: I have been immersed in the practice of shutting down SE on innumerable occasions during HEMS (which we were 24/7). Every single time I landed - many of which were in inaccessible and often hostile places - I shut down. Sometimes just to swoop and scoop. Did I consciously decide NOT to shut down because I couldn't be arsed? NO. Why, well because the RFM said NO and also because it made sound sense to shut down (trying to monitor and maintain a safe zone around a chopper burning and turning close to strangers/obstructions/animals etc)...even though I always had the thought that maybe, just maybe she may not start again!
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope. It is very poor airmanship to say the least. How can anyone manage a 2 tonne hand grenade from a distance???
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency). Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.
I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.
Of course, this situation is rare and infrequent (being killed by your own helicopter) but the infrequency is not the issue.
The whole point of this argument is that it may well be practiced a lot in certain parts of the industry's but it isn't RIGHT.
[For the same reason that most people drive above the speed limit most of the time - but it isn't right and if you go there - expect and accept your punishment...but DO NOT defend what you did .

[HeliHenri]

.

TC :
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended

Well, there would be twice less pictures in the "Top of the World" topic ... :E

.

[ShyTorque]

I recall a fairly recent tragic accident not far from here. A man was working on his car, which was on a hydraulic jack. It was not properly supported in that it did not have a secondary method if the jack failed.

He went underneath the car to work on it. Now, we all know that doing this involves a level of risk. Undoubtedly, so did he.

He took the risk, thinking it would probably be all right because the jack had never failed before. But it wasn't. The jack did fail. The car fell on him and crushed him to death. In front of his young son, who frantically tried to lift the car off his father.

My own car is being worked on just now. I jacked it up. I can do as I please with regard to safety because there is no rule telling me what I can and cannot do.

I have axle stands under it. Now it is on axle stands I have lowered and reset the jack, which now backs up the axle stands.

My point here is that safety is about learning from others. No-one should have to make all the mistakes that others have made in the past. If we don't, there is no point having a flight safety system, or training, or regulations and we are, quite frankly, stupid.

The regulations are often there because the authority knows something that others may miss or forget with the passage of time. As wrote earlier, in UK at least it isn't allowed to leave a helicopter's rotors running without a qualified pilot at the controls. Some here consider that rule unnecessary but may have over-riding reasons.

All that can be said now is RIP this poor pilot and the bereaved family. Sadly, something went tragically wrong with what he did, either a human failing, or a mechanical failure of some sort. The report doesn't say which was the ultimate cause of the accident. Hopefully the company involved (and some others) will review their procedures to see if the risk of a further occurrence of this nature can be lowered.

Intensive "Nit picking" and playing with words, merely to try to trip up other contributors, achieves very little except to make those involved look rather silly, imho.

Hopefully a moderator can RIP this thread, too...... because it's achieving nothing :hmm:

[Boudreaux Bob]

Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope.

It is very poor airmanship to say the least.

I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency).

Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.


I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.


So TC, despite the Thousands of Pilots around the World, and the Hundreds of Thousands of times all this has been done with absolutely no problem, that there is no Legal Prohibition against the Practice in the vast majority of Authorities

Surely, you do not think acting in compliance with all the Rules, Regs, Laws, Safety Notices, Approved RFM's and the like within One's own Authority's Jurisdiction constitutes "Poor Airmanship or worse" do you?

If so, where does that leave You when you do that in the UK?

[canterbury crusader]

TC (and others), your argument is invalid.

From herein I am only referring to exiting a machine while it is running in a place where the country, manufacturer, operator and pilot allow it. Not this particular accident. Also I believe in some situations National Authorities can overrule manufacturers eg. allowing non-genuine parts to be installed.

In your last argument you compare it to driving above the speed limit, I assume where you wouldn't. That is the incorrect analogy to use here.

It is more comparable to driving at 30 in a 30 zone and then as you move into a 60 zone increasing your speed to 60 - yes there is more risk associated with travelling a bit faster but perfectly legal and more importantly more convenient. You may even decide to stay at 30, or only speed up to 58 (I'm picturing you in this group) - that is your choice. But to say everyone who commits this heinous act is demonstrating poor airmanship (poor choice of word given the argument) is just silly.

Have you ever crossed a road? Perfectly legal in most cases. Quite possible to do it safely but I bet you stop, look both ways, make sure it's clear and then cross - as we all do. We have all been taught to do this from a young age, managing and accepting risk at a level we deem safe enough vs convenience.

If it is an increase of risk that is concerning you, please let us know what risk you are willing to accept. Give it to us in odds if you like. I know of about half a dozen machines that have flown away without anybody driving - I am sure there have been more and in all likelihood there will be more. This most recent case, if that is what happened is the only injury/death I have heard of.

I suspect more harm has come from bird strikes, not a lot you can do about them so I suspect you accept that risk. Likewise from the moment you hit the starter you start accepting various levels, some more than others.

You asked for some sound reasons for doing it so I shall try.

Convenience - swapping seats between long-lining and passenger ops, hooking on your long-line, unloading passengers, taking a piss, loading passengers.

Safety - checking for leaks, unloading and loading passengers (I can assure you it is much easier to keep people away if your out of the machine rather than sitting in waiting for the blades to stop). How many times have you noticed people start approaching the helicopter as soon as the engines/noise stop, generally the engines pose no risk at all but the blades will do substantial damage even at slow speeds.

Have all of your passengers always listened to you? Mine haven't, I have literally raced people out of the machine as to stop them getting out and into the spinning bit at the back after being told to wait inside. People get excited and confused and do stupid things.

Also you mention infrequency not being the issue - I think it demonstrates just how safe it actually is. Machines would be left running without pilots, with an educated guess, thousands of times a day. How many times has this happened? I accept those odds.

All I'm saying is it is ok to remain at 30 if that suits you but don't go telling everyone else they are Darwin candidates if they choose to drive at 60.

[fijdor]

Edited by me, no need to irritate people with my photo.

JD

[Boudreaux Bob]

Fij, Are you not concerned about damage to that Village over the horizon about a hundred miles away, should something happen?:E

Gross negligence, Squire!;)

I guess some would have us carrying an empty plastic milk jug along to Pee in rather than stepping out and taking a quick stretch and pee break like Lorry Drivers do!:}

[SilsoeSid]

FL,
Your position: The pilot acted unlawfully.

My viewpoint/position is that a helicopter can only be 'at rest after landing', once the rotors and engine(s) have stopped. I would still appreciate your interpretation of 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".

I am sure that if you had a family member on board an aircraft that took to the air or moved under it's own power with no-one at the controls, and they were killed or seriously injured, you would have a completely different outlook on the legality of this type of operation.

30-May-13 PR-DJC Eurocopter EC130 Guaramiranga, Brazil | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source (http://helihub.com/2013/05/30/30-may-13-pr-djc-eurocopter-ec130-guaramiranga-brazil/)
The aircraft was on the ground and the rotors were turning, when the pilot left the cockpit in order to assist the passengers to disembark. The aircraft tumbled to the left, when nobody was in control. One of the passengers already in the helicopter - José Carlos Pontes, 61, president of the group Marquise - suffered serious injuries after one of the main blades amputated his leg
SGA NOTÍCIAS: Empresário José Carlos Pontes ferido em acidente passa por cirurgia e não corre risco de morte (http://www.sganoticias.com.br/2013/05/empresario-jose-carlos-pontes-ferido-em.html)
Acidente com helicóptero deixa empresário ferido - CNEWS (http://cnews.com.br/cnews/noticias/34657/acidente_com_helicoptero_deixa_empresario_ferido)
Balada In | Pompeu Vasconcelos | Helicóptero cai em Guaramiranga (http://www.baladain.com.br/nota/13662/Helicoptero-cai-em-Guaramiranga.html)

http://baladain.com.br/admin2/uploads/B4-Guara.jpg


Flight Safety should never be allowed to be a matter of luck!

[Devil 49]

Sisloesid-
"At rest" is stationary, no longer moving. Landing is the process of putting a flying aircraft on the ground, as in "landing aircraft have the right of way". An aircraft that has landed might taxi to it's resting position. A helicopter can be at rest with turning rotors.
You might not be able to think of a good reason to leave the pilot's seat with the rotors turning, that doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to do so. Accidents that occur after the pilot left the pilot seat don't prove that the practice is unsafe anymore than accidents that happen with a pilot at the controls prove that unsafe. There are ways of reducing risk in both circumstances, and as far as I know this pilot was blameless, it might have happened with all the best practices complete and in place.

Boudreaux Bob
I don't fly a B3.

[Boudreaux Bob]

49,

I fear Sid would argue with a sign post!:uhoh:




http://ts1.explicit.bing.net/th?id=HN.608028345491721608&pid=15.1

[pohm1]

This is a text on the Australian CASA website

Link (http://www.casa.gov.au/SCRIPTS/NC.DLL?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101358)

Light helicopters continue to be damaged or destroyed in fly-away accidents after they have been left unattended. Their pilots should have read the aircraft flight manuals.
It happens for many reasons: to open a gate for stock, to refuel, to speak with people on the ground, and in one case, a pilot’s urgent need for a ‘relief break’, as the ATSB called it, with characteristic tact. In all these cases, the result was a destroyed helicopter. Light helicopters, such as the Robinson R22 and R44 types that dominate the piston-engine helicopter market, are not safe when unattended, even with control locks.

‘What often happens is that the collective rises after a gust of wind or downwash from another helicopter, and the helicopter goes up’ CASA rotary wing flying operations inspector, David Threlfo, says.

In one case a pilot was killed by the main rotor blade, and in another a passenger was injured by walking into the tail rotor, both times with unattended helicopters.

There seems to be confusion among helicopter operators as to whether leaving a running helicopter unattended is legal or not. For pilots of Robinson R22, R44 and R66 helicopters it is illegal. The aircraft flight manuals (pilot’s operating handbooks) for the R22, R44 and R66 all say ‘never leave helicopter flight controls unattended while engine is running.’ They have said this since at least 2007.

As part of the aircraft flight manual (unless otherwise exempted) this directive trumps the other laws, regulations and orders governing helicopter flight in Australia.

‘Now that Robinson has decided to put that in, it changes the law, because Civil Aviation Regulation 138 says in effect that “you will comply with the manufacturer’s aircraft flight manual”,’ Threlfo says.

For pilots of other types of helicopters with aircraft flight manuals that do not forbid unattended ground running, there are two relevant laws. Civil Aviation Regulation 225, and Civil Aviation Order 95.7 paragraph 7.

CAR 225 (1988) says: ‘... the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to the flight until the engine or engines are stopped at the termination of a flight’.

CAO 95.7, paragraph 7, is one of the many exemptions to the current civil aviation regulations. It sets out the conditions that must be met for a pilot of a single-pilot helicopter to leave the aircraft while it is running.

These are that:

The helicopter is fitted with skid-type landing gear.
The helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking both the cyclic and collective controls. (A lock fitted only to the collective control is insufficient.)
A passenger in a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls cannot interfere with the controls.
The pilot’s absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of someone on or in the vicinity of the helicopter.
The pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
The message is clear: leaving a running helicopter unattended on the ground is dangerous, even with approved control locks fitted. That’s why pilots should only do it for a safety reason that’s stronger than the inherent danger. But not if they fly Robinson helicopters – for them it’s unambiguously illegal.

For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter.

Opening gates, hot refuelling, and talking with ground staff are not valid reasons to leave a running helicopter, Threlfo says. On the subject of ‘immediate vicinity’ he says: ‘If we’re talking 100 metres away to get a fuel drum, that’s not in the immediate vicinity’.

The legal situation is that CAO 95.7 paragraph 7 exempts only parts of CAR 225 and CAR 230. CAR 138, which says that the aircraft flight manual takes precedence, still applies, and if there is a conflict, overrules CAO 95.7.


Despite several accidents, including fatals, it's still a common practise in bush work, so I'm told!

P1

[JimEli]

As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:

"Quick Turnaround. Helicopter pilots may use a quick turnaround operation to avoid delays at airport terminals and minimize stop/start cycles of the engine. During the quick turnaround procedure, pilots sometimes leave the cockpit while the engine and rotors are turning. If possible, the pilot should remain at the flight controls whenever the engine is running and rotors are turning; however, if it is necessary for the pilot to leave the controls of a running machine, the pilot should observe the following safety precautions:
(1) Ensure that wind conditions will allow such an operation to be conducted safely.
(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.
(3) Reduce rotor and/or engine rpm to ground idle or minimum recommended settings.
(4) Ensure that all passengers are closely supervised by appropriately trained crew members.
(5) Ensure that no unauthorized person(s) approach the aircraft unless properly escorted."

[jecottrell]

Are sure you don't want to wrestle the "at rest" muddy pig?

[Flying Lawyer]

SidMy viewpoint/position is that a helicopter can only be 'at rest after landing', once the rotors and engine(s) have stopped. I would still appreciate your interpretation of 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".
I have already said that, in my opinion, the period when the accident occurred was not Flight time as defined in FAR 1.1.
I am not prepared say any more about the law, nor to be drawn into an argument about the legality or otherwise of such ops, for the reasons I explained in my previous post.

I am sure that if you had a family member on board an aircraft that took to the air or moved under it's own power with no-one at the controls, and they were killed or seriously injured, you would have a completely different outlook on the legality of this type of operation. I am sure you are correct.
My distress would make it very difficult for me to think rationally and impartially. The closer the relationship the more difficult it would be, to the point where it would be impossible. If I needed a legal opinion in such circumstances I would go to a lawyer who was not emotionally involved.

I repeat: I express no opinion about whether the practice is legal in America. I don't know and am not inclined to do the research necessary to find the definitive answer - assuming it exists.

[Edit]

Why not agree to differ with those who disagree with you about the legality under American law and focus upon the safety aspects/inherent risks?
Even if an activity is legal that does not necessarily mean it's safe.
Equally, illegal does not necessarily mean unsafe.


FL

[alouette3]

Be careful there JimEli.I wouldn't take an Advisory Circular to mean an explicit authorization to do anything. If that were the case I would be able to refuse to operate to most hospitals that do not have helipads that meet the requirements laid down by an AC on that subject.
I would take guidance from my company's SOP,the type's RFM and,at the end of the day,balance the need versus the risk involved. As I have stated earlier, the AS350 is a poor choice to leave running unattended. Also, there are no good reasons to do so in an average commercial operation.I am sure the company performing long line etc or operating way out on the bush would take these aspects into consideration and appropriately word their GOMs and provide training to the pilots.
EMS,ENG,Tours,O&G,Training, not so much.Hence my use of the word 'average'. You can ,if you will, substitute the word average with 'majority'
Alt3

[JimEli]

The AC clearly outlines the permissibility. To argue the opposite is futile.

You have the last word...

[EN48]

balance the need versus the risk involved

The bottom line! It comes down to this. :ok:

[Boudreaux Bob]

The AC certainly lays out the FAA Position on the matter.

[SilsoeSid]

I think the FAA's definition of flight time is quite clear in this document, produced by the FAA, for the rest of the world.

Model Civil Aviation Regulations (MCARs) Version 2.7 (http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/iasa/mcar/)

(228) Flight time. The period of time that the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after it is parked, with engine(s) shut down if applicable.
Note: Flight time as here defined is synonymous with the term "block-to-block" time or "chock-to-chock" time in general usage, which is measured from the time an aircraft moves from the loading point until it stops at the unloading point.

(229) Flight time— aeroplane. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.

(230) Flight time—helicopter. The total time from the moment a helicopter’s rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped.

(231) Flight time—glider. The total time occupied in flight, whether being towed or not, from the moment the glider first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Quote the FAR's, Sid. Those are the Regulations in force. Quit fishing in a mud hole will you?:ugh:

FAR Part 1.1 is the pertinent regulation as you have been told multiple times over and over.

[Gordy]

The definition of flight time has been determined by a legal interpretation by the FAA for the purpose of "Logging" that time.

As for the legality of leaving the controls---yes it is legal in the US if your Ops-Specs, (operational specifications) allow it. I am infinitely familiar with the FAA legal interpretation and argued it. Many years ago, when I worked in Hawaii we would hot re-fuel, hot load and leave the aircraft running under certain conditions listed in our ops-specs. We had trained ground crew who were trained to stand by the helicopter controls while we went to the bathroom. Even without the ground crew, we were permitted to leave the controls and remain in the circle of the helipad to check for "fuel levels, oil levels, seat-belts, headsets, etc".

Our company procedure was to leave the aircraft at ground idle, and turn off the hydraulics, this was in both Jet Ranger and Astar.

I still have a copy of that Ops-spec and can share if anyone really wants it....

[Flying Lawyer]

Sid

The Model Regulations are precisely that; not the law.
The Model Regulations present ICAO standards as regulatory requirements for aircraft expected to operate internationally from and into [STATE]. Where applicable, ICAO recommended standards are included for completeness. Each model regulation presents the standards and recommended practices in the appropriate ICAO Annex supplemented by sections from the United States Federal Aviation Regulations and/or the European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).


Bob
FAR Part 1.1 contains definitions.
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute.


Gordy
The definition of flight time has been determined by a legal interpretation by the FAA for the purpose of "Logging" that time.
Precisely. :ok:
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute - as the rest of your post demonstrates.


FL

[BigMike]

I think it's worth adding the rest of the CASA article...

" Doing their own thing: runaway helicopters from the ATSB archive

1988: The pilot of a Robinson R22 reported that he had landed at the mustering camp and prior to disembarking had placed a rubber strop over the collective lever. This was necessary, as the lever would rise if no restraint was applied to it. He wanted a ‘relief break’ and to deliver a parcel to one of the men at the camp. As he started to walk back, after being out of the helicopter for a few minutes, the aircraft lifted off the ground, rolled, and came to rest on its left side. When he was able to return to the cabin he found that the strop was no longer on the collective lever.

1998: The R22 pilot reported that he disembarked from the helicopter, leaving the engine running and the rotors turning, to talk with a stockman. He was returning to the helicopter when he heard its engine and main rotor RPM increasing. The pilot attempted to reach the throttle control and was at the right skid before being forced to dive away as the helicopter became airborne. The helicopter flew into the ground about five metres from its lift-off point and was destroyed. There were no injuries. Wind conditions were reported by the pilot as being light and variable.

2002: The pilot landed the Robinson R22 helicopter at a cattle yard during mustering operations to talk to the head stockman about some operational matters. The helicopter was on the ground, with the rotors being driven at ground idle, without the pilot at the controls. After the discussion the pilot walked back to the helicopter with a stockman to recommence mustering operations. The pilot assumed that the stockman was following him to the front of the helicopter, but the stockman walked into the tail rotor and sustained injuries to his right arm.

2009: The pilot of a Robinson R22 helicopter left the cockpit of the helicopter, while it was positioned on the ground with the engine running, to perform a task. While walking back to the helicopter, the pilot was struck in the head by the main rotor blade and fatally injured. "

3 accidents in a 21 year period (one was a bystander walking into a TR. Not really a pilot not being at the controls cause) is hardly a regular occurrence.
How many hours flown yearly by the mustering industry in Australia? TET?

Pohm1 "Despite several accidents, including fatals, it's still a common practise in bush work, so I'm told!"

So you never did it back in the day while working at Kings Canyon P1 .... ;)

[SilsoeSid]

JimEli;
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:

(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.

JimEli;
The AC clearly outlines the permissibility. To argue the opposite is futile.

You have the last word...

Ok Jim, How about a 'last word' being a request to a link, a link to the page in the B3e FM that states how the controls should be secured?

Because without that, you can't have the 'and'.

[Boudreaux Bob]

FL, Seems Sid is wearing off on you a bit.

I never said FAR 1.1 "settled the issue" except to settle the matter of what "Flight Time" is defined to be by the FAA.

As Sid was making all sorts of other arguments about the Definition of "Flight Time", my reference and yours to FAR 1.1 to Sid, was to remind Sid of the need to reference the pertinent FAA Regulation that applies to the "issue" being discussed,that being the "Leaving of Flight Controls Un-attended" in the United States, by an FAA Licensed Pilot, working for an FAA Certificated Part 135 Sight Seeing Operator, using an FAA certificated and licensed Helicopter, all of which fell under the scrutiny of the FAA Principal Operations Inspector assigned to the Operator by the FAA.

Sid still cannot accept all of that being the sufficient and wants to know the details of the RFM for the aircraft that was involved to know what technique must be used to secure the Collective.

Being a Lawyer, I believe you understand the "Preponderance of Evidence" and "Burden of Proof" concepts under the Law which I am sure does not vary much from the UK and the USA in theory.

Perhaps you might take a moment and explain those to Sid and perhaps find a way to end his quest for the Holy Grail here.

[RVDT]

that being the "Leaving of Flight Controls Un-attended" in the United States, by an FAA Licensed Pilot, working for an FAA Certificated Part 135 Sight Seeing Operator, using an FAA certificated and licensed Helicopter, all of which fell under the scrutiny of the FAA Principal Operations Inspector assigned to the Operator by the FAA.

And none of the above can override the Limitations Section of the FAA approved RFM (as amended) in use for the type.

True or False?

[SilsoeSid]

I can see you're tiring Bib, therefore I shall leave the topic with a thought or two;

In the case of a passenger(s) being seriously injured or worse, I would like to believe that the brief would ask the representative of the FAA their definition of 'flight time'. When they quote your 1.1, the reply has to be, " So how is it then, that this document, taken from your website, states the definition to be, 'and the rotor blades are stopped'?"


Why is there this necessity to keep the rotors running?
If the risk is really that bad of not starting up again, why not have an APU at the refuel/pick up point/etc; or maybe there's a strong case for twins here as singles aren't reliable enough, reduces the chance of being stuck with the engine not starting.... but that's a different thread.

Until the next time, because with the frame of mindset shown here, there will be :(

[John R81]

I would be interested to learn, if anyone knows, for each of the recorded incidents of helicopters departing sans-crew and wrecking themselves: did the insurance company pay-out on the hull loss?

In CAA land, as noted, this activity would be banned. For Robinson machines, it is against the PoH. I would have thought that an insurance company would deny a claim for hull loss if there were grounds - such as these - to rely upon.

[Boudreaux Bob]

RVDT,

Do you think all of the People and Organizations, Pilots and Operator, the FAA, the Operator's Insurance Provider, would ignore the dictates of the RFM if it prohibited the practice?

I guess it is possible as most things are in Life but it would prove to be one of those rare events in Aviation where a whole lot of Holes would have to line up just right for it to happen, wouldn't it?

This whole debate kicked off when some spoke very harshly and rudely about the Poor Dead Pilot and made comments that were way over the Top.

We finally have arrived at a place where we should have been all along, waiting to hear from the NTSB and FAA about what happened that day down in the Grand Canyon.

In the process we proved those making those overt the top comments did not care to deal with facts or reason but preferred to make false allegations based upon incorrect assumptions.

Some making those bogus charges were taking the exact opposite view of matters when it was someone close to them having suffered a comparable fate but were not hesitant to levy charges against this fellow who they knew nothing about.

In the past, there has been some comments by very senior folks here at pprune about the apparent zealousness of some in the UK to take every opportunity to malign others when an accident or mishap occurs. It is not that you folks in the UK hold a monopoly on that but it sure does seem the majority who do are British.

When that was being said, it was asked why that might be so but no one really came up with an answer beyond perhaps it is seen as such here due to the majority of Posters being British.

If we read back through this Thread we can identify those who made those harsh comments and flawed arguments, and tried to levy Rules and Regulations from one Jurisdiction upon all of the others in the Aviation World while giving no thought what so ever to the fallacy of that.

I would suggest some reflection is in order for those who started out making those crass comments with a view towards learning a bit of thought about leaping to conclusions long before any evidence is made public.

Yes, Sid, I am tired. I am tired of self appointed experts passing judgement on others and and entire groups of Pilots. It is one thing to hold an opinion and feel that is both valid and correct but in telling of that, One should do so in a polite and respectful manner. Far too often that does not happen here.

No one system is perfect and no one National Authority gets it completely right.

But we have to remember and accept that there are very valid reasons why Authorities vary on their view of how things should be done. We have the ICAO concept of doing this Aviation thing but each Nation State is allowed to have variances and all do.

That does not make one Nation right and all the others wrong.

[EN48]

As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:

Wrong! Advisory Circulars do not authorize anything. They do NOT have regulatory status. That's why they are called "advisory." :ugh:

[Boudreaux Bob]

The Airman's Information Manual (AIM) contains "recommended" practices yet during an FAA Investigation into some alleged violation of the FAR's those procedures are often cited by the FAA.

Just as AC's are not obligatory, neither is the AIM but the FAA or a Defense Counsel can make reference to either.

It would be up to the Judge to determine the weight and value the information would hold.

The Regulation trumps both the AC and AIM. OpSpecs also trumps the AC and AIM.

One cannot consider the FAR itself to be as written due to the interpretation of those FAR's by Judges and the FAA Legal Counsel.

Two examples is the "Careless and Reckless" Regulation and the Definition of a "Congested Area". Both have been further defined by Court Cases beyond the mere text of the Regulation.

[EN48]

It would be up to the Judge to determine the weight and value the information would hold.

FAA rarely loses on appeal. Wouldnt want to rely on an AC to make my case, especially if FAA is asserting careless and reckless operation. Would be jump ball under the very best of circumstances.

[thechopper]

10 + pages of comments put together in the majority by a bunch of righteous, pompous tossers, engrossed in self-importance citing RFMs, AOPs, legalities, authorities, what have you, fighting on nationalistic differences over an event with a fatality
which probably would not have happened if the principles of airmanship would have been adhered to.
You guys remember what airmanship is? Not cast in stone, nor laid down in legal definitions, but a skill that was applied since whoever it was, first took off. (New nationality bashing looms) And it developped over the decades.
Now we seem to have reached a point in aviation where it is a non-skill, because it is difficult to put it into a manual.
B.t.w. is it clever to put a running chainsaw on the ground next to you?
Is it illegal? Is it done somewhere in the world? On a regular basis?
Beware of tossers.:E:E:E

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Bob, when does the bleeding obvious ever register in your risk addled brain?

Leaving a helicopter running, and it subsequently taking off and killing you is VERY OBVIOUSLY fraught with danger otherwise you would not have been killed.

No matter what the ICAO states permits, the overall requirement is to comply with the CofA, upon which it states thou shall operate IAW the Flight Manual.

To operate outside the limitations of the flight manual you would need the agreement of the "Holy Trinity" being, the Type Certificate Holder,the state in which the Type Certificate was issued and of course, the State in which you operate.

Therefore, it does not matter that FAA allow this practice, they are also duty bound to ensure that the practice does not occur on those types with a prohibition in the Flight Manual, unless they have agreed, along with the other two ofthe Trinity.

What you fail to accept is at best, this practice is inherently extremely hazardous, and it worse, people get killed to maimed. Therefore given the experience you have surely you would council against such a practice, to those of us less senior than you, instead of peddling the bush pilot mentality that it is safe. It is not. The family of the pilot you feel the need to support in his excision, would no doubt strongly disagree with you.

The arguments made in support of this practice just go to show the stupidity some people will accept to get a job done. For example, operating a SEH out on a limb in the Artic such that shutting down would cost you your life is just plain stupid when you consider the myriad of malfunctions that could require an immediate landing ( and by your argument) certain death.

The only thing we have to do to ensure these horrible accidents keep happening, which lets face it do nothing to promote our industry, is to do NOTHING. To keep on peddling the bollocks that jobs cannot be done without this risk.

I mean in Oz, the only reason to do the is because time is money. There is no other acceptable reason. Counting cows for Christs sake!

So instead of preaching heresy lets hear you stand up for the progression of safety so that other young men do not get killed because a few old and bold sweats have neither the balls or intelligence to argue against it and tackle the underlying reasons and circumstances that lead you to believe the practice is necessary.

DB

[Thomas coupling]

Boudreaux Bob: You aren't SASless are you by any chance (:ugh:). A bell in every tooth as we say over here (I detect that you are very fond of driving a wedge between us and you at every opportunity, it seems).
So permit me to make several points very clear and in plain 'Americanese':

The ONLY difference I make between us and you in this domain is the assessment of risk. IMHO, yanks push the envelope / interpret the regs much more loosely than we do (generally). Sometimes you get away with it, others - you don't. I tend to believe the UK are more subserviant to the rules/regs/legislation. Could be a good thing, might not.

Secondly - let me try to understand your stance with this irreconcilable episode:

The FAR trumps Ops Specs, (:O)
Ops Specs trumps the AC and the AiM. (:))
The RFM limitation section trumps national regs? [That's a question for you].

Notwithstanding all of the above, you quote the following:
For the 350B3, the restriction to stay with the helo while rotors are turning - is removed. (Agreed).
For the 350B3 - the requirement to remain with the helicopter rotors turning during 'flight time' remains. (Agreed).

But are you also saying that:
(a) National regs trump RFM's?
(b) Flight time doesn't include ticking over on the ground rotors running?
(c) Flight time only means: "for the purpose of logging hours" and is an administrative regulation not an operational one?

As the unfortunate recipient of a sharp sudden demise climbed out of the aircraft, did he:

(a) Not understand Section 2, Page 11, 350B3 RFM: Minimum Crew?
(b) Interpret the above as: Min crew is only relevant to flight time and flight time is an admin reg therefore it doesn't apply to what I am doing operationally?
(c) Assume everything would be fine because he'd done it dozen's of times before.

There are two ways of approaching this scenario professionally:
1. Follow the limitations laid down by the manufacturer in the RFM.
2. If no limitations - then as a matter of course - safely secure said aircraft before disembarking.

(Assuming there was no serious malfunction) he appears to have done neither.

So we return to my opening statement: RISK.
RISK = Frequency x Outcome.

Perhaps the left hand side of this formula is more heavily weighted in the US of A than it might be here.
What is indisputable though, is that because of his fallibilities in the decision making department - there was a catastrophic outcome...and it was entirely and categorically avoidable. Thank Allah - no-one else was injured or killed.

I therefore strongly recommend this candidate for the Darwin Trophy. RiP.

DB - one helluva bulls eye post - you old git.
TheChopper - got it in one. - None so blind as those who will not see.........

[FH1100 Pilot]

It's interesting...funny, really. There are those who absolutely believe (because they've been told?) that leaving a helicopter running without a pilot in the seat is...DANGEROUS!

It is not.

On a solid surface, with the rotor/engine at idle, and with the controls suitably immobilized, a turbine helicopter will happily run all day long until it runs out of fuel. The collective will not "jump up" to full travel. The ship will not spontaneously explode or roll over. Random gusts of wind will not upset it and cause it to destroy itself. Nothing happens. Nothing will happen.

Let me repeat: I have never, ever, EVER been in a helicopter on the ground, at idle when a "gust of wind" caused the rotor to do something...anything...that required a control input from me. With the cyclic stationary, if the rotor flaps it will be brought back to level. That's how the linkage works. I have never, ever, ever had a helicopter roll over while I was in it at idle. And in any event, the cyclic has limited effectiveness with the rotor at idle. If your aircraft begins to roll over while you're sitting there at idle, there is nothing you can do- it's going over. You cannot *snap* the throttle open fast enough. Just ask those New York Airways pilots on the roof of the Pan Am Building what they did when they did when their S-61 rolled over on them.

A pilot in the seat with the rotor turning CANNOT see anyone approaching from the rear, especially the rear quadrant on the opposite side of that which he is sitting. A pilot in the seat CANNOT physically do anything to prevent anyone from approaching the helicopter from any quadrant. He can shout, and even gesture wildly, but there is really nothing he can do.

Leaving a helicopter idling without anyone in the pilot's seat is not "inherently dangerous" or hazardous or risky...IF DONE PROPERLY.

Unfortunately, the FAA is in a quandary here. As already reported, their own definition of pilot flight time is "skids-off to skids-on." So they cannot really say we *must* stay in the seat with the rotors turning. Because if they did we'd say, "Why? Because we are acting as PIC with the rotors turning, hmm? And so then we can log PIC time, hmm?" I assure you they do not want to open that can o'worms.

I say now the same thing as I said before: Let's wait and see what the pilot did or did not do when he got out. Did he do everything "properly"...i.e. did he reduce the power to idle and secure the controls, and was he on solid ground? Because if he actually did all those things, the Astar "shouldn't" have rolled over. So let's wait and see. We'll know soon enough.

[thechopper]

Thanks TC
Who cares whether whatever the "boy" did was legal, i.a.w. a manual or whatever; it was not applying airmanship
Sadly! Even if it was legit, it was stupid. If you have the right of way and get killed in the process what does mean to your family but a sad unnecessary loss. Machinery every so often does not act as advertised, live with it and don't blame others. Take responsibility !!!!
Good book around if anybody cares "The death of common sense"
One of my favourites for CRM training:=:=

[Boudreaux Bob]

it was stupid.


I therefore strongly recommend this candidate for the Darwin Trophy. RiP.


Therefore, it does not matter that FAA allow this practice...

The arguments made in support of this practice just go to show the stupidity some people will accept to get a job done. For example, operating a SEH out on a limb in the Artic such that shutting down would cost you your life is just plain stupid when you consider the myriad of malfunctions that could require an immediate landing ( and by your argument) certain death.

10 + pages of comments put together in the majority by a bunch of righteous, pompous tossers...



Getting rather drafty up there on that High Horse is it?

[thechopper]

What are you trying to say? Sorry, english is not my first language.
Or are you just bored in front of a computer?:E
Would like to meet you for a drink or two.

[jecottrell]

...request to...a link to the page in the B3e FM that states how the controls should be secured?

If you provide the page/paragraph number that you're looking for or an example from any other Airbus Helicopter product manual, I'd be glad to post up what you're looking for.

[Thomas coupling]

Lost for words finally Bob?

FH1100 - I seem to recall having trouble from you in the Strathclyde thread.

I don't remember what you do/did for a living but it scares the hell out of me - what you have learned as a result. Zilch / nada / nought / zero.
If you read the thread from beginning to end it is littered with several examples of cabs rolling over/getting airborne "on their own". I have seen a cab roll over without anyone in it and rotors stopped. I have flown helicopters where they have attempted to get airborne withe collective down and latched at idle.
FFS sunshine where have you been all these years. Do you remotely understand any of the basics of dynamic instability? Helo's are by their very nature (under power) UNSTABLE.
Perleeeeze - don't embarass yourself any further and come out with such crass comments. It makes you sound like a dork! Are you from the same gene pool perhaps?:rolleyes:

[Boudreaux Bob]

J,

I see you posted this earlier in the thread.

Perhaps, the small print got over looked by some here.


http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Other/i-5KSj5ws/1/XL/1-XL.png

[Thomas coupling]

And your point is?

[jecottrell]

And your point is?

Really not that complicated. The B3 2B1 specifically states you can't leave the controls, the B3e does not. Therefore, those of at least average intelligence could surmise that there is no such prohibition in the FM for the B3e.

http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Phone/i-Zt36f9J/0/L/20140602163154-L.jpg

[SilsoeSid]

If you provide the page/paragraph number that you're looking for or an example from any other Airbus Helicopter product manual, I'd be glad to post up what you're looking for.

Thanks JE,
Unfortunately. Without a manual, I cannot tell you the page/paragraph number on which the method on securing the controls is described. If you have a copy of the B3e manual, I would be grateful if you could have a browse :ok:


Bob, let it be known that I mostly criticise the 'system', not the person.
If the system had 'the pertinent sentence' continue with the words, "until the rotors have stopped", at least one life may have been saved; and it's future amendment may save others in the future. Having said that, just because you are allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have to!

[jecottrell]

Unfortunately. Without a manual, I cannot tell you the page/paragraph number on which the method on securing the controls is described. If you have a copy of the B3e manual, I would be grateful if you could have a browse

Sorry, not going to play the game of having to prove something DOESN'T exist. If you'd like to make the claim that such verbiage does, then have at. Until then, it does not and I have posted prima facie evidence that there is no prohibition in the B3e.

Would you care to try a different bait for your troll?;)

[SilsoeSid]

JE, sorry to have upset you. All I would like to know is whether or not there are instructions in the B3e FM for the securing of the controls when leaving the rotors running.:uhoh:

Really not that complicated. The B3 2B1 specifically states you can't leave the controls, the B3e does not. Therefore, those of at least average intelligence could surmise that there is no such prohibition in the FM for the B3e.

I would just like to clear up, (as you say there is no prohibition in the B3e manual for leaving the ac with rotors running), what the actions required in doing so are.

[rantanplane]

Just because somebody is not allowed, doesn't mean others, or the whole world?, shouldn't been allowed as well. In this respect Britain, or some of
my fellow aviators there, would do better looking at other countries to get back a bit of common sense, and perhaps a better accident record; Bob's your uncle :E

[Thomas coupling]

JeCotterall: Ah, you're new here...

What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?
What is your definition of flight crew?

Please - for the audience and those with average intelligence?

[Freewheel]

I find threads like this illuminating.

They remind me that nobody can possibly see it all, yet we all make judgements on others based on the limited prism through which we view the world.

I had a lot more to write, but elect not to post it, no need to add to the ridiculous carry on happening here.

[Bronx]

Thomas coupling
What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?

jecottrell is off line but I'm happy to help you.


The first line of para 2.1.2 says 'OCCUPANTS'.
To see what it means you have to read the rest of the paragraph:
The B3 2B1 and B3e are both cleared for single pilot ops.
If B3 2B1 or B3e are operated by a single pilot he/she must occupy the right seat.
The maximum number of occupants in both B3 2B1 and B3e is 6.
If the B3 2B1 or B3e are operated by 2 pilots, the maximum number of pax is 4. (6 - 2 = 4).
All the above applies to both the B3 2B1 and the B3e.

However, if you look at para 2.1.1. TYPE OF OPERATIONS you will see that the B3 2B1 and the B3e have different prohibitions.
(You'll find para 2.1.1 just above para 2.1.2 - the paragraphs are numbered sequentially.)

The important difference in the context of this thread is -

B3 2B1: Leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while the rotor is spinning is forbidden.

B3e: Leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while the rotor is spinning is not forbidden.



Hope that helps your understanding. :ok:

[Boudreaux Bob]

If the system had 'the pertinent sentence' continue with the words, "until the rotors have stopped", at least one life may have been saved; and it's future amendment may save others in the future. Having said that, just because you are allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have to!

"If" is the magic word.

Because you are allowed to do something, it means you may.

The question of Risk Management is an all together discussion than what we have focused upon lately in this thread.

Yes there is Risk to "leaving the flight controls un-attended", no question that there is. The real question is if it is going to be done, how best to do it to "minimize" the Risk. That would include a choice of situations, choice of aircraft, choice of best method to prevent problems.

One could even skip over all the analyses and study and merely ban the procedure and eliminate those risks. The question that should follow that is if you increase risks of other problems by restricting the Pilot to the Cockpit if you do a Turn Around with Rotors Turning and you have passengers or Loadies loading and unloading the aircraft and boarding or exiting the helicopter where the Pilot cannot control the situation or see what is going on at the other side of the aircraft?

Do you then ban all such activities until the engines and rotors have stopped which would be the safest situation possible? After all if one is concerned in reducing Risk then why take any chances whatsoever?

How far do you go in writing Rules and Regulations to minimize Risk before you make it impossible for people and companies to operate helicopters?

It must get back to determining the level of risk one is willing to accept after rationally examining the practice under consideration.

[SilsoeSid]

Isn't fair to say that more pilots, passengers, ground staff and onlookers have been killed or injured by helicopters on the ground, at rest with the rotors turning; than helicopters on the ground, at rest with the rotors stopped?

Surely it is everybody's duty to mitigate the dangers found around a helicopter at rest, so why is this practise allowed to continue?
I'd like to think this incident will lead to a change of practise, and company operating procedures to be changed. Who knows, even an amendment to the FLM.


Having just seen Bob's last post, I'd like to know what conditions make it so important to keep the rotors running with noone at the controls, that you are willing to risk not only your own life, but also the lives of those around you by doing it.

Do you then ban all such activities until the engines and rotors have stopped which would be the safest situation possible? After all if one is concerned in reducing Risk then why take any chances whatsoever?

How far do you go in writing Rules and Regulations to minimize Risk before you make it impossible for people and companies to operate helicopters?

How would adding 'until the rotors have stopped' to 1.1 make it impossible for people and companies to operate?

[FH1100 Pilot]

Thomas Coupling:FH1100 - I seem to recall having trouble from you in the Strathclyde thread.

I don't remember what you do/did for a living but it scares the hell out of me - what you have learned as a result. Zilch / nada / nought / zero.

Welllll....I'll tell ya, Tommy. What do I do for a living? I fly civilian helicopters. I've been a line charter pilot, doing the things that helicopters do...which is mostly going from one off-airport place to another off-airport place. And I've been doing this for money since 1982. And I'm still doing it, by God. So far, my logbook shows 11,000 hours, mostly helicopter but 1,000 hours of f/w. What the f*ck do YOU do?

As to your second statement, about how much I've learned over the years, perhaps it *is* zero/zilch/nada. Sometimes I think so. Then again, I think about all the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've spent in idling helicopters. What do you figure, conservatively, 10%? That would be 1,000 hours sitting in goddam idling helicopters. Not ONE has exploded one me yet. Not ONE has taken off without my permission. Not ONE has rolled over or even tried to.

So get off your high horse and stop thinking that you have the market cornered on what's "safe" and what's "unsafe."

You don't.

And you know what, buddy? Guys like YOU scare me.

[jecottrell]

JeCotterall: Ah, you're new here...

...has as much bearing on the debate at hand as the rest of the constructionists' arguments. Yes Mr. Coupling, some day I want to be a chopper pilot.



What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?


You can read it just as well as I can. My interpretation isn't worth the effort to type it. Debating opinions is a waste of time.



What is your definition of flight crew?


Again, it has no bearing on anything. If you're so set on constructing a parallel universe where the mishap pilot had violated the FM, why do you think my opinions will make that universe exist?



Please - for the audience and those with average intelligence?

I'm still awaiting their arrival.;)



I would just like to clear up, (as you say there is no prohibition in the B3e manual for leaving the ac with rotors running), what the actions required in doing so are.

So, now are you implying that because there is no specific procedure, then it is not allowed? Using your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to make a left turn, because no where could I find "the actions required" for a left turn in the FM.

Why is there such an endless quest to create a FM violation?

[Soave_Pilot]

I have flown helicopters where they have attempted to get airborne withe collective down and latched at idle.


:confused::confused:

come on... are you serious?
No helicopter does that unless the control's friction is not working properly.

[SilsoeSid]

So, now are you implying that because there is no specific procedure, then it is not allowed?

JEC, I'm just trying to 'tidy up' JimEli's earlier post;
JimEli;
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:

(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.


For JimEli - I would read that to mean that if instructions on how to secure the controls aren't covered in the FM, then the practise isn't authorised because both requirements haven't been made. Is that not the case?

[jecottrell]

I would read that to mean that if instructions on how to secure the controls aren't covered in the FM, then the practise isn't authorised because both requirements haven't been made. Is that not the case?

Well, you aren't employed as an inspector by the FSDO that oversees Papillon's certificate, are you? So, your opinion on the implications of the word "and" in an advisory circular is nothing but tripe.

I'll ask again, why are you so obsessed with creating a violation of policy/procedure/regulation where there clearly isn't one?

[newfieboy]

Jeez
Double Bogey, we don't all have luxury of flying 225 offshore two crew ops...Bit insulting stating flying single engine avec le Arctic not on.....
Time you tried some International hands on no autopilot flying a la longline in said. Ya might change your views in a hurry! Besides ya want to get in peeing match.....2xdonks UK mmm..1xdonk high Arctic.....none of late!!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Newfieboy its about acceptable risk. You might be slightly surprised to learn that in our IFR two crew wizzcopter we still accept risk during take-off and landing offshore. PC2 with exposure. The risk is mitigated by a few solid control factors but nevertheless it is there...sometimes!! We are not risk free we are just very risk aware.

It seems crazy that on one hand we have experienced pilots claiming the practice is safe and yet the pile of severed limbs, decapitated heads and chopped torsos imply otherwise (yes I am being dramatic but for good reason).

When we all learned to fy we were given huge respect for the spinning rotor. It's very hard to understand why under any circumstances that a shutdown OR escorted pax is not the better, safer solution than leaving the helicopter with rotors turning.

For those of you doing this right now maybe you should develop an imagination and consider the hideous consequences of events like this one.

I am also really interested in how a fluids check can possibly be carried out with the rotors under power, save of looking for tell tale leaks.

I am not sure exactly what this pilot was doing but if it was sightseeing pax flights then surely there should never be any reason to follow this practice except if the operation is so shoddy and under resourced that massive corners are being cut which ultimately led to the death of one of our own kind in terrible circumstances.

In my opinion, no more or no less, this practice should be banned completely from passenger type operations and fr all other operations, a serious review of the appropriation of risk carried out to stop these unnecessary accidents.

Surely some common sense should be applied.

I cannot agree with TCs Darwin Award. Tragically and most tellingly the blasé attitude of some of the posters on this thread, leading to this practice being "normalised" via "Risky Shift" most probably led to this persons death.

Preach conservative, common sense safety. Develop good habits that serve you and others well when tired or under extreme stress and you will contribute to your own and others safety. Normalise unsafe inappropriate behaviours and you will almost certainly contribute the reverse. Both involve "High Horses" but I feel the view from my horse suits me better!

DB