Missing Twin Squirrel: Wales/Ireland [Archive]

Bravo73

29th Mar 2017, 19:46

The link doesn't work (due to bl0gspot link). Here's the text:

Wednesday, 29 March 2017
UK Coastguard co-ordinating search operation for overdue privately owned helicopter
UK Coastguard is currently co-ordinating a search and rescue operation for an overdue helicopter in the Caernarfon Bay area.

The privately owned twin squirrel red helicopter with five people on board is believed to have left Milton Keynes earlier today on route to Dublin, via Caernarfon Bay.

Earlier this afternoon, Distress and Diversion lost radar contact of the helicopter, and after contacting all airbases with no sightings or radio contact, the UK Coastguard were notified at 4.15pm to start a search operation.

The UK Coastguard search and rescue helicopter based at Caernarfon has carried out an extensive land based search of fields and airfields within the Caernarfon area and the helicopter based at St Athan has joined the search this evening. A Mayday Relay broadcast has been issued to all vessels passing through the Irish Sea route to contact the Coastguard if they have seen anything. A search of the Irish sea route is commencing this evening. The North Wales Police have also been notified of the search operation.

UK Coastguard Duty Commander Peter Davies said: ‘We have established a search plan between Caernarfon Bay and the shore of Dublin and currently have two Coastguard helicopters searching the route. We are in the process of contacting all the vessels in the Irish Sea that were in the vicinity around midday and we are continuing Mayday broadcast action for any vessels currently in the area to contact us if they have further information. At the moment we are appealing to these vessels and to the public that if they have seen a twin squirrel red helicopter to please contact 999 and ask for the Coastguard.’

MightyGem

29th Mar 2017, 19:51

Better link:
http://hmcoastguard.********.co.uk

Maybe not, but Bravo73 has it.

epreye

29th Mar 2017, 20:09

News flash just issued by Irish RTE of a "twin squirrel" enroute Milton Keynes to Dublin with 5 on board, missing over Irish Sea.
Reported UK Coastguard search in Caernarfon Bay Area.

FSXPilot

29th Mar 2017, 20:20

G-OHCP is what I have been told. GINFO Search Results (http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/modalapplication.aspx?catid=1&pagetype=65&appid=1&mode=detailnosummary&fullregmark=OHCP)

fisbangwollop

29th Mar 2017, 20:20

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0329/863635-helicopter-irish-sea/

treadigraph

29th Mar 2017, 20:31

Don't think you should publicise the reg, FSX.

configsafenot

29th Mar 2017, 20:34

Current weather is not great in that area

Anglesey showing 21 knot wind from the south and rain

Dublin is better at 7 knots from southeast and cloudy/dry

Without having to look it up, what are the max wind operation conditions for a Twin Squirrel?

CG187 is showing on FR24 but thats the only aircraft that is visible in the area at this time, its flying at 3950ft heading south overland towards Chwilog, thats a long way south of Caenarfon

Bravo73

29th Mar 2017, 20:34

Don't think you should publicise the reg, FSX.

Unfortunately, a google images search for "red AS355 UK" produces the same results. A G-INFO search of the reg confirms the owner's address as a construction company in Milton Keynes.

Non-Driver

29th Mar 2017, 20:36

Pretty poor taste misleading photo for the headline given what happened at Blackrock:

Missing helicopter search under way at Caernarfon Bay - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39436401)

configsafenot

29th Mar 2017, 20:42

CG187 "appears" to be returning to base at Cardiff looking at their current track on FR24, there are no other aircraft/helicopters registering in the Caenarfon Bay area at the moment

Beaucoup Movement

29th Mar 2017, 20:45

My thoughts exactly ND.. You would think they could get it right in this modern age.

configsafenot

29th Mar 2017, 20:50

Daily Mail is showing photo's of the helicopter now

Helicopter carrying five goes missing in North Wales | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4362068/Helicopter-carrying-five-goes-missing-North-Wales.html)

Apate

29th Mar 2017, 20:59

My thoughts exactly ND.. You would think they could get it right in this modern age.

The photo caption says "HM Coastguard helicopters are searching for the missing aircraft", so the photo is very appropriate.

Perhaps you only look at pictures? :E

Non-Driver

29th Mar 2017, 21:22

The photo caption says "HM Coastguard helicopters are searching for the missing aircraft", so the photo is very appropriate.

Perhaps you only look at pictures? :E
A vague headline with a big photo is very different to a specfic small caption underneath

212man

29th Mar 2017, 21:33

A vague headline with a big photo is very different to a specfic small caption underneath
Pretty sure the general public is unaware of events in Ireland, and if the photo had been a yellow Seaking would not immediately think one had crashed.

jimf671

29th Mar 2017, 21:50

CG187 "appears" to be returning to base at Cardiff looking at their current track on FR24, there are no other aircraft/helicopters registering in the Caenarfon Bay area at the moment

R187 was up there and shown on ADS-B 2 or 3 hours ago. R936 may not show up on these as the ADS-B for most of the S-92 SAR fleet was tweaked during the early months of the service not to show. Most of them show up on AIS but you'd have to find a current track or find the MMSI.

configsafenot

29th Mar 2017, 21:58

R187 was up there and shown on ADS-B 2 or 3 hours ago. R936 may not show up on these as the ADS-B for most of the S-92 SAR fleet was tweaked during the early months of the service not to show. Most of them show up on AIS but you'd have to find a current track or find the MMSI.

Marine Traffic is not showing any search going on at this time, all RNLI vessels, Rig service ships and commercial shipping is either sat in port or continuing normal steaming

Weather is not wonderful and a dark red helicopter, as photographed in Daily Mail earlier, will be close to impossible to spot in the dark even with an EPIRB on board the helicopter that may or may not have activated...if it went down overland, any search would have been ceased when it went dark and resumed at first light

justmaybe

29th Mar 2017, 21:59

Don't mean to be insensitive, but given that we were all mandated to carry elt/plb might have thought that there would be some indications...

jimf671

29th Mar 2017, 22:02

The photo caption says "HM Coastguard helicopters are searching for the missing aircraft", so the photo is very appropriate.

Perhaps you only look at pictures? :E

Gold Star for BBC Online: it is actually a photo of R936 from Caernarfon.

CaptPenguin

29th Mar 2017, 22:33

Don't mean to be insensitive, but given that we were all mandated to carry elt/plb might have thought that there would be some indications...

http://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/3688.pdf

ELTs effective 40-60% of the time according to this paper

gulliBell

30th Mar 2017, 03:02

ELTs effective 40-60% of the time according to this paper

Are we to assume the missing helicopter is not fitted with pop-out floats and it went missing over water? ELT's are effective 0% of the time if the aircraft sinks, unless you're really lucky and the ELT gets a ping off at impact which is captured by an overhead satellite.

Sir Niall Dementia

30th Mar 2017, 05:32

Are we to assume the missing helicopter is not fitted with pop-out floats and it went missing over water? ELT's are effective 0% of the time if the aircraft sinks, unless you're really lucky and the ELT gets a ping off at impact which is captured by an overhead satellite.

I flew about 800 hours in that particular airframe and she didn't have floats then.

SND

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 06:07

Owners have now been named, the heli was frequently hired out to film crews and was en-route to Weston Airport, Dublin-Kildare border

Search called off due to bad weather/poor visibility, Snowdonia search & rescue teams will be out at first light subject to weather along with sea & air searching by commercial craft and public have been asked to keep a look out for wreckage on land or shoreline

No mayday calls had been received according to Coastguard

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 06:15

if it went down overland, any search would have been ceased when it went dark and resumed at first light no it wouldn't, with FLIR, NVG and white light you can search in pretty much any conditions, it is just the quality of the search that varies.

With perhaps 5 people in the water there is every urgency to throw more assets into the search rather than less.

JimF671 - why tweak the S-92s software so they don't show up?

fairflyer

30th Mar 2017, 06:26

Isn't that operated by Helicopter Services (@ Booker)?

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 06:41

Isn't that operated by Helicopter Services (@ Booker)?

Photo's of it have Cabair and Ladbrookes on the side and nose

fisbangwollop

30th Mar 2017, 06:43

Not sure if the flight would have been talking to London Information but probably so, especially planning to do an over water flight. I am assuming he had reported his planned route as via Caenarvon bay but I wonder if he actually reported coasting out?
It is possible the accident happened prior to that and possible CFIT in Snowdonia hence the present ground search now.
I guess the radar tapes would have been pulled and checked though this only of us if within radar contact so this may give an idea of last area of contact.
As a voice of Scottish Information I speak to these guys on a daily basis so we all take it to heart when something like this happens.

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 06:51

This is not good....

07:40
Visibility is poor this morning

There are currently “no plans to continue aerial search” because the visibility is so poor. The forecast for the area is not looking great today. It looks like it is going to be cloudy and damp for most of the day in the north and west of Wales.

Mountains and sea being searched for missing helicopter carrying five people - live updates - Wales Online (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/live-updates-helicopter-carrying-five-12817568)

airborne_artist

30th Mar 2017, 09:11

Isn't that operated by Helicopter Services (@ Booker)?

G-Info page:

Aircraft operated by AOC Holder:V21 LTD
TRADING AS:
HELICOPTER SERVICES

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 09:22

I would have thought flying this route either fixed or rotary wing you would be talking to London Information and RAF Valley as soon as possible, not least because of the potential conflict with military traffic. I suspect the aircraft did not reach the coast.

Of course with deteriorating weather and trying to maintain VFR, this aircraft might have been at such a height that no ATS would be available, likewise the aircraft would have dissappered off the radar. Do we have the Valley TAF or Actuals?

In respect of the 'coasting out' call, or using London Information I'm not sure how many pilots actually would do this, even though it is good practice, likewise the wearing immerssion suits.

My guess is that the aircraft did not make the coast.

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 09:24

The helo left from LTN

10:23
The helicopter left from Luton

North Wales Police have released a statement this morning saying they are continuing their search for a missing helicopter and it’s passengers after it failed to arrive at its intended destination in Dublin yesterday afternoon.

The aircraft departed from Luton earlier in the day with 5 passengers on board.
When it failed to arrive the authorities were notified and a large scale search commenced.

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 09:25

10:24
Police thoughts are with the families

Police, RAF and civilian helicopters were initially utilised to conduct searches over the sea.
The search has now been confined to land in the Snowdonia area with a number of local Mountain Rescue Teams also being used.
Superintendent Gareth Evans at North Wales Police said in a statement:
All available Police, Mountain Rescue and other civilian resources are currently being utilised and we are grateful for the assistance and cooperation of the public as well as our MRT volunteers who are searching very difficult and challenging terrain.
Five people are believed to be on board this ‘private’ flight and specialist Police family liaison officers are in contact with family members. At this stage we are not revealing their names and our thoughts are very much with their families at this difficult time.
We are also appealing for help from the public and local communities and so I’d ask if anyone who has sighted the aircraft flying over Snowdonia yesterday and thinks they may know of its whereabouts to contact North Wales Police via the live web chat http://www.north-wales.police.uk/contact/chat-support.aspx or by phoning 101.”

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 09:43

Current weather in Snowdonia area is rain/drizzle with SSW winds at 13mph with gusts of upto 40mph, visibility down to 10 meters in places on higher ground

Ber Nooly

30th Mar 2017, 09:51

Weather conditions at 4 pm at Capel Curig (216 m amsl, around 20 km northeast of Snowdonia, Bala (165 m amsl, 30 km east) and Aberdaron (95 m amsl, around 40 km southwest).

Capel Curig
AAXX 29154 03305 47423 /2327 10116 20106 39892 40152 58008 781//
333 85/10 87/19 90710 91140==

Wind 230° @ 27 knots, gust 40 knots, Temp 11.6 °C, Dewpoint 10.6 °C, Cloud 5/8 at 1000 ft, 7/8 at 1900 ft

Bala
AAXX 29154 03409 46/// /2308 10119 20112 39962 40159 57006 333 55300 2////

Wind 230° @ 8 knots, temp 11.9 °C, dewpoint 11.2 C, no cloud data

Aberdaron
AAXX 29154 03405 46/02 /2024 10098 20098 30040 40155 56009
333 55300 20294 90710 91131==
Wind 200° @ 24 knots gust 31 knots, temp 9.8 °C, dewpoint 9.8 °C, no cloud data

UnderASouthernSky

30th Mar 2017, 09:51

Can the Twin Squirrel make Milton Keynes to Weston non-stop with 5 pax, or would it need to stop for a top up?

SilsoeSid

30th Mar 2017, 09:53

Here's a handy site I use;
Formulario para peticion de mensajes aeronauticos (http://www.ogimet.com/metars.phtml.en)

Query made at 03/30/2017 09:48:20 UTC

Time interval: from 03/29/2017 12:00 to 03/29/2017 20:59 UTC

EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).
WMO index: 03302. Latitude 53-15N. Longitude 004-32W. Altitude 11 m.

METAR/SPECI from EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).
SA 29/03/2017 20:50-> METAR EGOV 292050Z AUTO 17023KT 3500 BR OVC003/// 11/10 Q1014=
SA 29/03/2017 20:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 19:50-> METAR EGOV 291950Z 17021KT 9999 -RA OVC004 11/10 Q1013 YLO2=
SA 29/03/2017 19:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 18:50-> METAR EGOV 291850Z 17020KT 9999 -RA OVC006 11/10 Q1013 YLO1=
SA 29/03/2017 18:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 17:50-> METAR EGOV 291750Z 17019KT 6000 -RADZ OVC005 11/10 Q1014 YLO1=
SA 29/03/2017 17:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 16:50-> METAR EGOV 291650Z 17020KT 9999 OVC004 11/10 Q1014 YLO2=
SA 29/03/2017 16:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 15:50-> METAR EGOV 291550Z 18022KT 6000 VCSH OVC003 11/10 Q1014 BLACKYLO2 TEMPO 3000 RADZ YLO2=
SA 29/03/2017 15:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 14:50-> METAR EGOV 291450Z 17022KT 7000 VCSH OVC003 11/11 Q1014 BLACKYLO2 TEMPO OVC005 YLO1=
SA 29/03/2017 14:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SP 29/03/2017 14:10-> SPECI EGOV 291410Z 17019KT 4000 -RADZ BKN003 OVC008 11/11 Q1014 BLACKYLO2 BECMG FEW003 BKN008 GRN=
SA 29/03/2017 13:50-> METAR EGOV 291350Z 17019KT 4000 -RADZ FEW004 OVC006 11/11 Q1014 BLACKYLO1 TEMPO 3000 RADZ SCT004 OVC006 YLO2=
SA 29/03/2017 13:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SA 29/03/2017 12:50-> METAR EGOV 291250Z 17020KT 6000 -RA BKN004 OVC007 11/11 Q1014 BLACKYLO2 TEMPO 4000 RADZ YLO2=
SP 29/03/2017 12:40-> SPECI EGOV 291240Z 17020KT 3500 -DZ BKN003 OVC008 11/11 Q1014 BLACKYLO2 BECMG 9999 NSW FEW003 BKN010 GRN=
SA 29/03/2017 12:20-> METAR EGOV NIL=
SP 29/03/2017 12:16-> SPECI EGOV 291216Z 17021KT 9999 FEW004 OVC007 11/11 Q1015 BLACKGRN TEMPO 4000 RADZ BKN004 YLO2=

short TAF from EGOV, Valley (United Kingdom).
FC 29/03/2017 16:04-> TAF EGOV 291604Z 2915/2919 CNL=
FC 29/03/2017 14:20-> TAF EGOV 291420Z 2915/2919 17025KT 8000 BR OVC007 TEMPO 2915/2919 3000 RADZ BKN003=

A Coastguard spokesman said radar contact with the helicopter was lost this afternoon and the Coastguard was notified to start a search operation at 4.15pm.

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 10:16

Not the sort of weather you want to be in Snowdonia in.

Heathrow Harry

30th Mar 2017, 10:19

BBC at 11:00

A land search is under way to try to find a helicopter carrying five people which went missing over north Wales.

North Wales Police is coordinating the search in Snowdonia with the Coastguard and other agencies.
UK Coastguard duty commander Mark Rodaway said six mountain rescue teams and a dog unit were hampered by visibility of just 10ft (3m) in places.
The privately-owned helicopter vanished (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39436401) while over Caernarfon Bay en route to Dublin from Luton.

Radar contact with the red Twin Squirrel helicopter was lost on Wednesday afternoon and initial searches followed the intended flight plan of the aircraft over the Irish Sea.
Supt Gareth Evans of North Wales Police said "All available police, mountain rescue and other civilian resources are currently being utilised and we are grateful for the assistance and cooperation of the public as well as our MRT volunteers who are searching very difficult and challenging terrain."

Supt Evans said family members of those on board had been contacted by police, but their names have not been released.

Image caption HM Coastguard helicopters searched for the missing aircraft Mr Rodaway said: "These aircraft normally carry beacons that we can track by satellite - they're activated by salt water - we've not seen any of that and also mobile phone data has aided our inquiries in shifting inland."

Helicopter searches between north Wales and the shore of Dublin on Wednesday were scuppered by low lying cloud, which reduced visibility.

Mr Rodaway said the bad weather in Snowdonia gave him "concern" about sending Coastguard helicopters into the mountain range, but if weather conditions improved throughout the morning, they would be able to send air support to aid the search teams on the ground.

Frying Pan

30th Mar 2017, 10:30

Tragic. Just heard the helicopter has been located on a mountain. No survivors.

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 10:32

North Wales Police have scheduled a press conference at 12:00 local

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 11:18

Wreckage now confirmed found by police

No survivors

Roads closed around Trawsfynydd lake

RIP to those lost and strength to their families & friends

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 11:18

Why would they not have thought 'Hang on the weather looks a bit sh*t, lets route round the North coast instead of through the mountains'?

RIP

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 11:26

The aircraft I believe was equipped for IFR, whether the aircraft MEL met with IFR is another matter. likewise the pilot would need to be qualified for IFR flight.

If would difficult to understand why someone would plan a direct track from LTN to Dublin, based on the TAFs and Actuals, assuming that a direct track was flown under VFR, even under IFR I'm not sure I would plan flight over a mountain range due to the turbulance.

Even Valley was not really a viable diversion had they needed it, VFR or IFR. I hope this is not another case of rotary wing aircraft taking a short cut through a mountainous terrain under VFR and below MSA. Even a VFR flight routing via WAL and along the North Welsh coast I have doubts about under VFR, especially with the number of wind turbines to negotiate and the weather at Anglesey.

And to add, following the sad news, the crash site is consistant with from memory a east west low level routing via Bala and Trawsfynydd, to the north the Snowden range up to about 3500ft and to the south Cadir Idris area up to about 2900 ft. So under IFR they would have needed at least 4500 ft.

Solent........ The point that crab was making that under VFR why would you not route to the North Coast in the even of poor weather en route or alternatively why would anyone plan such a VFR flight based on the TAFs and Actuals, if it was a VFR flight.

srobarts

30th Mar 2017, 11:40

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39445384

solent

30th Mar 2017, 11:48

Crab, so you know for certain the aircraft couldn't possibly have had a technical fault that could be issue?

beamender99

30th Mar 2017, 11:48

Five people killed in helicopter crash in Snowdonia - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39445384)

A mountain rescue team found the wreckage in the Rhinog mountains between Trawsfynydd and Harlech.

gulliBell

30th Mar 2017, 12:00

Crab, so you know for certain the aircraft couldn't possibly have had a technical fault that could be issue?

I think the statistics would show the overwhelming majority of helicopter crashes in bad weather are caused by bad weather, and not a technical fault with the helicopter. Until the accident investigation determines the cause, anything is possible.

Shaggy Sheep Driver

30th Mar 2017, 12:01

If radar contact was lost over Caernarfon Bay on a Luton - Dublin flight presumably they must have turned back if wreckage found in the Rhinogs.

Ber Nooly

30th Mar 2017, 12:33

Lake Vyrnwy, 360 m amsl and around 30 km southeast of the location of the wreckage, had 7/8 cloud cover at 300 ft at 4 pm yesterday, visibility 1.7 km.

AAXX 29154 03410 46217 /2013 10111 20110 39732 40162 57007 333 55300 20191 87/03

rotorspeed

30th Mar 2017, 12:38

M100S2

30th Mar 2017, 12:41

Sir Niall Dementia

30th Mar 2017, 12:48

Be surprised if this twin Squirrel was IFR - it was an F1 wasn't it? With 2400kg MTOW, 5 POB and fuel to do 225nm into a headwind I'd have thought they wouldn't have had the payload in an IFR acft. Unless it refuelled, but then no mention of that.

Assuming VFR flight, have to agree with Crab, routing north via Colwyn Bay would have been logical given the wx. Suspect even with a VFR ship weight was tight hence maybe choosing most direct route. A refuel at Caernarfon might have solved both issues.

Very sad indeed, RIP.

Rotorspeed;

She was equipped for IFR when I flew her (Garmin 430s and full SFIM autopilot) However, your question about the pax/fuel load is very pertinent. I once flew her 2 up from Troyes to Elstree non-stop. And Stansted-Dublin IFR solo. But like all middle aged ladies she had gained a bit of weight. 5 up with reserves may have been a bit of a push. I can't remember the exact numbers as I haven't flown a 355 for about 10 years and this particular one since 2004.

SND

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 12:55

Puzzling if they turned back and then proceded across the mountains in what have been poor conditions when the normally very visible airfield at Llanbedr is on the foreshore just three miles south of Harlech.

Perhaps, and this is pure speculation of course, they did turn back and they were trying to find somewhere safe to put down when the weather closed in on them

The area is notorious for weather closing in on you unexpectedly and quickly and if the pilot was not comfortable or qualified to fly IFR then logic suggests that he or she will have tried to find a safe landing somewhere nearby with a view to waiting out the weather

The media have named the owners, the husband is a qualified helicopter pilot (although level of qualification not stated as yet), the neighbours have confirmed that they are away and that the wife is Irish and they have flown to Ireland many times in the past...all tends to suggest that they were aboard, subject to confirmation...if it is them and they have been regular flyers to Dublin, they probably used the same route many times and felt safe using it again this time

Its very very sad......one hopes that they did not suffer as being stranded on the side of a mountain overnight if badly hurt and not being found in time does not bear thinking about, especially for family & friends left behind

John R81

30th Mar 2017, 13:14

The Guardian newspaper report has now posthumously upgraded Colin McRae's machine from an AS350B2 to an AS355 so that they could refer to it in their story (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/mar/30/rescue-teams-search-snowdonia-for-missing-helicopter)

memories of px

30th Mar 2017, 13:32

depends on which side of rhinog fach he was, is it possible that in poor viz he mistook trawfynydd lake for the sea, and though it safe to continue at low level, all guesswork of course, condolences to all concerned.

malabo

30th Mar 2017, 13:50

Whirlybird

30th Mar 2017, 13:52

I learned to fly at Welshpool, so Snowdonia was home territory and I used to know that area well. So a few thoughts...

Routing via the North coast makes perfect sense, or there's also a road and railway line following the valley from Welshpool to Aberystwyth; I took that route home from Caernarfon once when the weather closed in - easy to follow even in poor vis.
Refuelling possible at Caernarfon, Welshpool, possibly Llanbedr, whichever direction you're going in.
Llyn Trawsfynydd is tiny; I can't see anyone thinking it was the sea...but maybe, if the vis is really bad....
Wx can change scarily quickly in those mountains....

jimf671

30th Mar 2017, 14:54

Yet one more persuasive argument for some kind of satellite tracking. Would have quickened response time to initiate search and would have been found sooner. ADS-B won't do it down low in mountains. Look at the search resources that had to be spread out over a large area due to the uncertainty. Amazing the blind faith put into something as unreliable as an ELT simply because in its day it was the best that technology could offer.

Aircraft have taken days or weeks to find in British mountains in recent times.

I would say that the ELT approach needs a wee bit of an update. MEOSAR will help but the fitting, maintenance and operation of the devices obviously needs some looking at. I am fairly sure we can get more reliable performance from ELT than has been seen so far by systematically looking in detail at where the system fails to provide a fix and address the problems.

It is also worth saying that although satellites system often seem like the ultimate solution, they are notoriously fickle. They use ridiculously small signals and a lot of things can go wrong.

birmingham

30th Mar 2017, 14:54

With 5 nominally 77kg pax, their baggage and 200 gallons or so of fuel the AC would have been on the heavy side leaving Luton. With roughly 100 (mostly over water) miles still to go and poor weather, they may well have reconsidered (especially if vfr) and decided to land somewhere, refuel and/ or wait for better conditions. As someone mentioned earlier weather is very likely to have played some part in this - but as always - we don't know yet - the actual causes not always the most statistically likely ones

configsafenot

30th Mar 2017, 15:51

OK......a few questions, hopefully not all silly ones, I'm just curious

On a flight like the one planned, how much ATC involvement would there have been?

Apparently there were no mayday calls...but wouldn't there have been discussions with Llanbedr or Valley or somewhere along that part of the flightplan...discussions about the weather, if it was as bad on one side of the mountains than where they were...what the situation was for a diversion or permission for divert....???

Radar contact lost at 16:15 yesterday...but what about radio contact...when did they stop communications and who was the last ones to have spoken to the pilot, what was said, did the weather enter the discussions??

Very little has been released about the RT...surely they spoke to someone, somewhere??

Downwind Lander

30th Mar 2017, 16:39

Don't mean to be insensitive, but given that we were all mandated to carry elt/plb might have thought that there would be some indications...
This report suggests that last August was a deadline. (There may be updates).
https://www.flyer.co.uk/elt-or-plb-become-compulsory-equipment-from-august/

Heli Fat

30th Mar 2017, 17:13

Why is it when something like this happens you all turn into experts all of a sudden!! Let the professionals handle it and stop speculating!

Thoughts to the families involved

tistisnot

30th Mar 2017, 17:23

It staggers me we continue to have faith in the PLB/ELT/EPIRB. Aircraft are stuffed with them but more often than not they fail to activate or be activated.

Duty of care of the ad hoc operator is to provide flight following until destination reached. This can be done on a smart phone nowadays. An ELT signals bounces around the globe via telephone lists and may eventually start a trawl and search if the records are up to date, if the aircraft is carrying the correct complement.

A satellite tracker IS reliable .... a simple burst transmission of lat and long every 3 mins or so, not a 2 minute conversation. It works. It provides a track; if the flight stops abruptly at least you have a point within 3 minutes of where it probably is located. You can see if they turned back due to weather, it's blindingly obvious.

A flight follower would have realized where the aircraft was yesterday and reduced the uncertainty and time wasted for search and rescue crews.

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 17:39

Have only read that the aircraft was lost from radar, I would assume at low level this would happen between Welshpool and Bala. Upon reaching on a westerly track, Rhinog Fawr is is 700 metres AMSL, and flying west from Trawsfynydd at 229 metres AMSL, the terrain goes op to 366 metres AMSL, this is serious mountain territory. Valley is 10 metres AMSL, at with a reported clouse base of 300 ft at the time. Not sure if I agree Trawsfynydd was mistaken for the sea as someone pointed out is is quite small and does not has a coastal look.

Was the aircraft ever picked up on radar over the sea, and even if it ever made it over the sea, would anyone turn back into mountains, the sensible thing to do would have been to continue west and request VDF QDMs or radar headings from RAF valley once clear of the Phwelli penisulla divert into RAF valley below 300ft, ATC would probly able to advise when it was safe to turn right onto a northely heading.

What I do not understand as there seems a different thinking in some rotary wing pilots compared to fixed wing regading MSA and low level flying. I think this is based on the fact that some rotary wing pilots think in the back of their mind, "well if it gets bad, I can land on a field", that certainly would have been an option Welshpool. Bala and Trawsfynydd which would have had playing fields, and there is an abundance of B&B's and country hotels, welsh hospitality and lamb suppers. My second thought is that the second thought patterm may be, "if the weather gets bad, I'll do a 180 turn and fly back out of the valley. Interestingly rarely are of these options are available to a fixed wing pilot. Once you enter valley in less that optimal conditions you are committed. My other difficulty it that how rapidly mountain weather can change, in a variety of ways, I've seen rolling fog form below me while walkingon the fells in the lakes in less that twenty minutes.

The RAF Chinook accident, from Belfast to Inverness, which flew into the Mull of Kintyre with very important passengers, in poor weather, why had they not planned to climb to MSA upon poor weather? Likewise the rotary wing accident in London, where the aircraft flew into a crane on top of a tower block, the pilot is poor weather, and thinks 100ft clearance over a high building is acceptable, worse still he was using his mobile, for which I do not think the AAIB stated was a factor or was wrong.

While I do not want to single out helicopter pilots for CFIT in poor weather, I recall an fixed wing accident, two private pilot's flying from the midlands to Blackpool in a C152, while over Staffordshire or Cheshire, they inadvertantly entered IMC, they did not hold IMC ratings, while intially they were as I recall working Manchester, they apparently decided to head due west and descend over the sea. Two problems, they would need to stay south of the Liverpool and Manchester Zones, but north of Snowdonia, end result they impacted with Tryfan at about 2700 ft with fatal results.

At the time the CAA Flight Handling Test (GFT) required to demonsrate inadvent entry in to cloud, but not having failed to resume VFR, immediate climb to MSA, declare emergency and radar vectors to a descent in a safe (metwise) area. This was a failure by CAA standards.

Sir Korsky

30th Mar 2017, 17:52

Why is it when something like this happens you all turn into experts all of a sudden!! Let the professionals handle it and stop speculating!

Totally disagree. Everybody here has deep sympathy with the families. It's these discussions read by the community, that hopefully plants enough seeds in enough minds to consider that ' lets cancel today ' may be the most prudent option next time. This accident looks like bad weather is a factor and is nearly always the most common denominator in fatals.

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 17:58

Helifat ... Could it be some of us are experts in our own field. I understand your concerns about speculation, especially as I understand six children have now lost parents, but putting asside the AAIB report, the discussion on here could actually make a change in the future.

Sir Korsky, I agree if it was VFR, and I think a type rated pilot (expert) has already stated the aircraft performance, the aircraft and pilot, would not be able to maintain IFR or MSA.

I speculated that this would be CFIT either side of a low level corridor, was my speculation right or wrong?

snchater

30th Mar 2017, 18:12

I'm a fixed wing pilot (C182) and flew into Caenarfon at the weekend. Despite the cavok conditions I almost got caught out by the rotor in the lee of the Snowdonian range (1000fpm down + very turbulent).
I note from the Valley metars that there was a brisk (20kt+) north-easterly wind on the day of the accident . Do helicopters cope well with turbulent conditions?
G-XLTG

ExGrunt

30th Mar 2017, 18:14

@Homsap:
The RAF Chinook accident, from Belfast to Inverness, which flew into the Mull of Kintyre with very important passengers, in poor weather, why had they not planned to climb to MSA upon poor weather?
Without wishing to divert from the current thread. ZD576 has too many unknowns to be a good example. But in short they couldn't because MSA was outside the then icing clearance.
EG

IB4138

30th Mar 2017, 18:15

Victims identified
Businessman from Manchester and his family are victims of Snowdonia helicopter crash tragedy - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/kevin-burke-helicopter-crash-manchester-12822620)

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 18:19

EXGrunt......Thank you for pointing that out, what would there limitation in terms of icing levels on that day? I accept there may have been tactical considerations based on the PAX, that I will never know. but a C130 or civilan charter might have been better based on your icing limitations comments.

whoknows idont

30th Mar 2017, 18:28

Why would they not have thought 'Hang on the weather looks a bit sh*t, lets route round the North coast instead of through the mountains'?

RIP

Maybe more obvious: Why would they not have thought 'Hang on the weather looks a bit sh*t, lets hop on a Ryanair instead of through the mountains'? Or maybe charter a bizjet if they don't want to wait in line to sit with the peasants? After all they wanted to fly from Luton to Dublin! Both parents fly their helicopter into questionable weather without the need to do so, children sitting at home. These are the kind of decisions I don't understand. :(

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 18:43

Before they identified the people involved, I had in my mind (when they said businessman) someone in their mid-fifties with a PPL and his own helicopter as someone who might think taking that route with such a poor forecast and few options would be an acceptable course of action.

Sadly I seem to have been proven right and it looks (with a very small percentage of another cause) like another CFIT in poor weather in a private helicopter....How may more before people take notice and learn from others mistakes???

Sir Korsky

30th Mar 2017, 18:49

The couple, who lived close to where the helicopter took off in Milton Keynes, had a 14-year-old son and 19-year-old daughter.

Here are the real victims. I hope this never happens to any of you again.

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 18:53

Maybe more obvious: Why would they not have thought 'Hang on the weather looks a bit sh*t, lets hop on a Ryanair instead of through the mountains'? Or maybe charter a bizjet if they don't want to wait in line to sit with the peasants? After all they wanted to fly from Luton to Dublin! Both parents fly their helicopter into questionable weather without the need to do so, children sitting at home. These are the kind of decisions I don't understand. :(

Im pretty sure they didn't sit there and think, hmm the weather is cr@p lets go for it and try not hit anything on the way.

I think the issue is the level of knowledge of a PPL and the misunderstanding or lack of comprehension of the risks involved in IMC flight above or below MEA (obviously not advocating flight below MEA IMC!), especially without an IR. Even if they have done the whole '5 minutes of inadvertent fight into IMC' on the PPL LST.

I've been the PPL, I can appreciate the knowledge gap and the feeling that it will be ok, what can go wrong, ive got my garmin! It really wont be ok... there's a lot to learn.

RIP guys, a sad loss.

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 18:58

Sirkorsy and Crab.......

Well said. there needs to be a change in the culture 'in pressing on' for PPL (H) rotary wing pilots in poor weather.

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 19:02

SFIM

30th Mar 2017, 19:19

A PPL is 45 hours, it really is nothing at all, we forget the lack of experience gained in those hours, yet the freedom of the skies is given.

The owner has been flying since 2000, and has high experience.
I have no idea whether he was the one actually flying yesterday

rolling20

30th Mar 2017, 19:23

RIP. I was thinking of the Matthew Harding crash in 97 and remembered that was an overwhelmed pilot, changing weather,I think not qualified for IR and it was suggested he was under commercial pressure. Not suggesting the same here, but with no call makes me wonder.

whoknows idont

30th Mar 2017, 19:29

I'm sure the majority of people on here have thousands of hours under their belts, and then question the actions of a PPL

A PPL is 45 hours, it really is nothing at all, we forget the lack of experience gained in those hours, yet the freedom of the skies is given.

The PPL also has the freedom of the ground! No-go decision made real easy if you don't have to justify it in front of paying customers or employers...
I don't know about you but I've been overly suspicious about the weather from day one of flying.
And we are not talking about a 20yo happy-go-lucky thrill-seeker here. We are talking about two parents taking an unnecessary risk to leave their children as double orphans in an instance.
If they took that risk without being at least partially aware of it then they didn't do their homework. Not as a pilot and not as a parent, period.
NO understanding whatsoever!

Forgot to add: The fact that they took three more parents along for their ambitious ride certainly doesn't make it any better.

Ber Nooly

30th Mar 2017, 19:33

A NOTAM is in force in the area.

http://www.pprune.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2022&stc=1&d=1490902407

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 19:33

The owner has been flying since 2000, and has high experience.
I have no idea whether he was the one actually flying yesterday

I take that on board and am not disputing his experience, my comments were more as a general comment about the issue of a PPL.

And again as an objective comment, experience is only relevant to the conditions and environment in which it is gained. I am sure there are very experienced VMC pilots out there. Perception of experience can be a dangerous thing. Again, I am commenting in general terms, not to the facts in this case. I do not know who was flying or experience they had in these circumstances.

chopjock

30th Mar 2017, 19:33

helicrazi
I think the issue is the level of knowledge of a PPL and the misunderstanding or lack of comprehension of the risks involved

A PPL is 45 hours, it really is nothing at all, we forget the lack of experience gained in those hours,

I suppose there are no PPLs with thousands of hours of experience then?
and CPLs never have CFIT issues either?

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 19:36

The PPL also has the freedom of the ground! No-go decision made real easy if you don't have to justify it in front of paying customers or employers...
I don't know about you but I've been overly suspicious about the weather from day one of flying.
And we are not talking about a 20yo happy-go-lucky thrill-seeker here. We are talking about two parents taking an unnecessary risk to leave their children as double orphans in an instance.
If they took that risk without being at least partially aware of it then they didn't do their homework. Not as a pilot and not as a parent, period.
NO understanding whatsoever!

I totally agree.

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 19:39

helicrazi

I suppose there are no PPLs with thousands of hours of experience then?
and CPLs never have CFIT issues either?

You are quite right, but I stand by my comments on experience being mostly valid in the field it was gained. but yes we are all human, and that makes us susceptible to error and poor judgement.

Whirlybird

30th Mar 2017, 19:45

You can have thousands of hours experience, yet not know much about mountain flying, which is a whole different ballgame.

Fareastdriver

30th Mar 2017, 19:50

You use your experience not to get into situations where you need your experience to get out of them.

birmingham

30th Mar 2017, 20:01

Why is it when something like this happens you all turn into experts all of a sudden!! Let the professionals handle it and stop speculating!

Thoughts to the families involved

The professionals will handle it - but if we have no interest in this stuff we won't learn. And to be fair; before you flame people - most posters have been absolutely clear that there are a myriad of possible causes. Everybody is sympathetic and hardly any have been remotely judgemental.

I looked at all the bulletins relating to the twin squirrel - and what percentage do you think where weather related? And I posted we simply don't know the cause yet. But I am pretty sure that weather will be one of the holes in the swiss cheese.

fireflybob

30th Mar 2017, 20:10

A PPL is 45 hours, it really is nothing at all, we forget the lack of experience gained in those hours, yet the freedom of the skies is given.

Incorrect - a PPL requires a minimum of 45 hours total flying prior to skills test.
Many students require more than 45 hours - they have to be up to the standard required for a skills test before they can be recommended for test and then they have to pass.

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 20:13

212man

30th Mar 2017, 20:17

Incorrect - a PPL requires a minimum of 45 hours total flying prior to skills test.
Many students require more than 45 hours - they have to be up to the standard required for a skills test before they can be recommended for test.
Which is a telling statement in itself! Case in point: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ecace5274a1314000119/5-1990_G-SHBB.pdf

As an aside - notice that there are 3 formal reports that year into S61 accidents! An interesting contrast to today's social media fed Super Puma frenzy...,,

fireflybob

30th Mar 2017, 20:18

A PPL course is 45 hours.

Semantics but the point I'm making is that 45 hours is the minimum required to qualify - a point I make to all students I teach right at the beginning of their training.

Very few students qualify within 45 hours as it depends on their ability, the weather and other factors.

In fact the 45 hours minimum is prior to skills test and typically the test takes getting on for 2 hours.

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 20:29

Semantics but the point I'm making is that 45 hours is the minimum required to qualify - a point I make to all students I teach right at the beginning of their training.

Very few students qualify within 45 hours as it depends on their ability, the weather and other factors.

In fact the 45 hours minimum is prior to skills test and typically the test takes getting on for 2 hours.

I agree and not trying to be agrumentative, but if we take the test into account that's 47 hours achievable. There's a lot to learn, experience and appreciate in that time. Totally off toptic but to think you can hit the north Sea circa 200 hours...

Homsap

30th Mar 2017, 20:40

Birmingham....... , I'm glad you mentioned swiss chesse, you obviviously understand the reason model of error.

Fireflybob, while the intial training is important, I still feel in respect of flying my ex instructors and examiners (oddly includiing your insprational father) which are still sitting on my shoulders which is a good thing. But flying is about personal development, improving your skills, knowing the risks. understanding your limitations in terms of human factors related to the operation.

,

TylerMonkey

30th Mar 2017, 20:40

I will fly fixed wing with private pilots , but not helos. I advise my family to do the same. I want a commercial pilot who has enough hours that he has already scared himself . Keeps me safe(r). Too many low time owner/operators pushing the weather and get there-itis taking its toll year after year. Very sad event , and unnecessary. Poor kids.
If I had the $$ for a TwinStar I would also pay a good pilot to run the marginal weather.

TipCap

30th Mar 2017, 20:51

The owner has been flying since 2000, and has high experience.

SFIM, what do you regard as "high experience"

fireflybob

30th Mar 2017, 20:55

But flying is about personal development, improving your skills, knowing the risks. understanding your limitations in terms of human factors related to the operation.

Homsap, I could not agree more!

SFIM

30th Mar 2017, 21:01

SFIM, what do you regard as "high experience"

Mr TipCap, the previous poster to me started "wittering" about how the PPL course is 45 hours.
I was just making the point that this particular pilot was not in that category.
I have seen some PPL's who have better flying skills and airmanship (TEM) than many CPL's and ATPL's i have seen, but mostly as you would expect the reverse is true.
As for your question it's subjective but anything in the 000's clearly is going to be more effective than 45(47) hours !

helicrazi

30th Mar 2017, 21:05

Mr TipCap, the previous poster to me started "wittering" about how the PPL course is 45 hours.
I was just making the point that this particular pilot was not in that category.
I have seen some PPL's who have better flying skills and airmanship (TEM) than many CPL's and ATPL's i have seen, but mostly as you would expect the reverse is true.
As for your question it's subjective but anything in the 000's clearly is going to be more effective than 45(47) hours !

At risk of 'wittering', it depends what those 000's were doing and how relevant they are to the flying task at hand, which was my previous 'wittering' point

TylerMonkey

30th Mar 2017, 21:18

Most PPL owner/operators do not fly enough hours month after month to have high experience.
You get rusty and skills degrade if not exercised on a regular basis.
CPLs have a big advantage as they are forced to fly often. It's easy to forget s## when you've been away from it for extended periods. The rich in general don't have to fly until they have the time to play.

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 21:32

Tylermonkey - that is the point exactly, decent continuity allows a pilot to reach a reasonable standard within 45 hours for award of PPLH. The problem always occurs after that point where costs become a big issue, there is no post-graduate instruction mandated and no schedule for development training to begin to hone the basic skills.

It is a purely Darwinian selection process where those that have the wherewithal, the finance and the access to further instruction (or are capable of self-analysis and improvement) will get better - those that don't are frequently doomed to bounce just above the bare minimum acceptable level of ability and currency or dip below it and end up as an accident investigation.

Businessmen in helicopters must learn to think like pilots, not like businessmen!

Sir Niall Dementia

30th Mar 2017, 21:32

At risk of 'wittering', it depends what those 000's were doing and how relevant they are to the flying task at hand, which was my previous 'wittering' point
SFIM;

I've often read on here of PPL holders having considerable experience. Please define considerable experience. I have 11 000 hours rotary, another 6 000 fixed wing and consider myself experienced, by no means considerably experienced.

I've been IFR through that route in that particular 355, and far more capable aircraft and know it is hard work in the turbulence. Did the P1 hold an IR? Had he trained for mountain flying in very adverse conditions? If not where was his "considerable experience" gained? The rotary skills gap between PPL and ATPL is massive, and few current UK ATPLs would have undertaken that trip without a lot of thought and extra planning and quiet contemplation.

The PPL is a license to learn, the CPL/ATPL show a level of learning achieved, with a lot more learning to do every trip. The only "considerably experienced" pilot I've ever flown with retired with 22 700 hours on rotary, all different, all challenging.

SND

[email protected]

30th Mar 2017, 21:36

And MSA in that region would be in excess of 5000' which isn't the height you bump into terrain if you are flying IFR.

Ber Nooly

30th Mar 2017, 21:54

This was the weather from several stations in NW Wales around the time of the accident.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=413247&stc=1&d=1490910706

aox

30th Mar 2017, 22:09

mattew harding, steve holditch, G-LBAL, A109 mourne mountains, pete barnes, etc. and many more. it seems this kind of thing will keep happening

and how many other accidents almost occur?

I've seen a helicopter flying slowly along the M4 in fog and fine drizzle, about 200 to 300 metres visibility, about 5 feet higher than one row of lampposts and below the height of the trees and central line of lampposts. Then it got came down to lamppost height as the trees were lower.

Fortunately it was the opposite side of the road from two phone masts near where I was standing, but I wonder how high it had just crossed a road overbridge.

It then turned to follow a road that joined at the junction, and carried on out of my view towards where it would have a choice of either straight on over industrial estates and housing, or crossing the road to avoid these and instead worry about crossing a line of electricity pylons and cable (if it would see them).

Fortunately there was no accident in the local news a few days later.

nigelh

30th Mar 2017, 22:22

Where have all of you muppets sprung up from ?
Why do you people with no knowledge post such nonsense ? Why not just sit back and listen to the people on here with real knowledge!
So much nonsense spoken here, from needing a CPL to fly twins , to an F1 not being able to achieve MSA , to PPL pilots not being experienced so only fly with CPL,s . No wonder the really " experienced" pilots here are keeping out of this nonsense.
I would also point out that almost all of the most recent CFIT accidents have all been in twins with very capable and experienced CPL,s . It just proves that none of us are immune to making errors regardless of ratings .
And I do not consider myself extremely experienced but I have flown around this area for over 30 years , sometimes in worse weather than I should have . But I would never have been at 2300ft in that area in those conditions.
RIP

tartare

30th Mar 2017, 22:40

Basic question from a fixed wing pilot trying to understand helicopters.
What's the max height that a fully loaded A355 can hover at, OGE?
The reason I ask is the similarity of this accident (assumption) to a CFIT crash involving a UH-1H in NZ some years ago following inadvertent entry into IMC at altitude.
I assume that slowing down at the sort of altitude that this Squirrel was at when it hit the hill simply isn't an option, because you'd lose lift over the disc and fall out of the sky...?

CaptPenguin

30th Mar 2017, 22:57

a thought any ppl who wanted a twin rating needed to pass the cpl exams first?

Single-pilot multi-engine helicopters. An applicant for the issue of a first type rating for a single-pilot multi-engine helicopter shall:
(1) before starting flight training:
(i) have passed the ATPL(H) theoretical knowledge examinations; or
(ii) hold a certificate of completion of a pre-entry course conducted by an ATO. The course shall cover the following subjects of the ATPL(H) theoretical knowledge course:
— Aircraft General Knowledge: airframe/systems/power plant, and instrument/electronics,
— Flight Performance and Planning: mass and balance, performance;
(2) in the case of applicants who have not completed an ATP(H)/IR, ATP(H), or CPL(H)/IR integrated training course, have completed at least 70 hours as PIC on helicopters.

So almost correct. Exams or a specific course. This is, of course, from EASA. Can't speak as to what it would have been years ago

nigelh

30th Mar 2017, 23:08

Err not " almost correct " !!
Do you think that a 3 day ground school on the aircraft is in any way close to a full set of CPL exams ??!!!
Not to mention the fact that he could also be flying on a FAA licence which doesn't need even a rating .

gulliBell

30th Mar 2017, 23:12

..If I had the $$ for a TwinStar I would also pay a good pilot to run the marginal weather.

I don't understand the arguments being raised in this discussion about experience levels of PPL, CPL etc etc. The weather is what it is, it doesn't matter whether you're a PPL or CPL or ATPL, the weather forecast and weather minima applies equally to everyone, it doesn't matter what type of pilot license you hold. The weather is either VMC or IMC and you proceed accordingly. If VFR pilots operated in VMC they should be able to see and avoid obstacles. If the weather starts to get below VMC, land the helicopter and wait it out. That is the thing with helicopters, you don't need to get to an airport to land.

SFIM

30th Mar 2017, 23:17

So almost correct. Exams or a specific course. This is, of course, from EASA. Can't speak as to what it would have been years ago

back in 2002, a PPL could do a twin rating with no pre entry requirement, I know I did a 109 type rating and my course buddy was a R44 PPL who had a few hours on a B206.

4468

30th Mar 2017, 23:58

Before I begin. My sincerest condolences to anyone reading this who has a personal connection to those involved. I am deeply sorry for your loss. This is an awful tragedy! I have been far too close to this type of incident myself.
The rotary skills gap between PPL and ATPL is massive
I'm not sure I completely agree.

On the basis of my reasonable experience, it's the addition of an IR that signifies a robust skills gap between 'amateurs' and true 'professionals.' Though even that is no guarantee!

There have been far too many helicopter accidents, ATPL/CPL/PPL involving needless 'VFR' flight in non-VFR weather. Helicopters (or those flying them?) simply lend themselves to placing people into situations where options rapidly, completely disappear.

I am unaware of the icing clearance of the AS355, the icing level on the day, and the exact qualifications/experience of the pilot. Maybe these could have been significant?

As a professional pilot all my life, I would never ever be a passenger in any aircraft piloted by a 'hobby pilot' (much less a wealthy one's own aircraft) unless the weather was unambiguously perfect!

Sorry. I may well be alone in that view?

Nobody can yet know whether weather was a factor here.

gulliBell

31st Mar 2017, 01:48

Nobody can yet know whether weather was a factor here.

When an aircraft is missing, and the weather is too bad for the rescue resources to do a search, the weather is a factor.

gulliBell

31st Mar 2017, 01:54

...I assume that slowing down at the sort of altitude that this Squirrel was at when it hit the hill simply isn't an option, because you'd lose lift over the disc and fall out of the sky...?

Slowing down to a safe speed to maintain visual reference with the ground whilst negotiating the weather doesn't cause a loss of lift and the helicopter doesn't fall out of the sky. The only hovering you should be doing is whilst IGE, in the process of landing. I dare say that the helicopter in this instance had the performance available to do that.

industry insider

31st Mar 2017, 02:09

What's the max height that a fully loaded A355 can hover at, OGE?

Long time since I flew one but a 335F1 probably couldn't hover OGE with a full load.

Two's in

31st Mar 2017, 02:45

Tartare,

I assume that slowing down at the sort of altitude that this Squirrel was at when it hit the hill simply isn't an option, because you'd lose lift over the disc and fall out of the sky...?

Most helicopters have a minimum manual control IMC speed, below which controlling the aircraft with sole reference to instruments becomes increasingly difficult. Flying with airspeed above say 40Kt in a helicopter is not remarkably different to a fixed wing, but to decelerate below that speed may require transition to the hover, all of which takes more control coordination of pedals, cyclic and collective while trying to maintain height and heading (hovering is pretty much the most difficult thing to learn about rotary flying). Hovering with sole reference to instruments is not impossible, but you would be stupid to try. The beauty of coming to a standstill and subsequently landing in a helo to avoid bad weather only ever works if you make the decision while you are still VMC.

As for the that popular old perennial of experience, as Crab mentions, it counts for nothing without post qualification instruction and regular checks. I believe the word in use now is "recency" as opposed to "currency" but neither are meaningful without competency, and competency has to be gained, tested and measured in a structured way. Not everyone needs an ATPL to be competent, but a competent pilot sets and knows their personal limits on planning, weather, hazards and manoeuvres whenever they go flying.

tartare

31st Mar 2017, 03:06

Thank you Two's in - that's exactly the answer I was looking for.
My sole attempt to hover an R-22 VFR was absolutely pathetic!
Hadn't considered the obvious that a safe hover in IMC regardless of performance and all up weight would be very difficult and dangerous.
Brownout on landing must be bad enough, full IMC at low speed not worth thinking about.

[email protected]

31st Mar 2017, 06:59

configsafenot

31st Mar 2017, 07:04

With the bad weather that closed in, could there have been a degree of spacial disorientation too?

From various reports the route chosen was one the pilot had completed several times before so despite the bad weather would there be get there itis plus complacency involved?

piperboy84

31st Mar 2017, 07:19

It goes without saying that the PIC should possess the skills and judgement to make the go/no go or abort decision based on weather reports and analysis but I sometimes think that if the realtime tools like subscription free NEXRAD weather that can be received in flight with a cheap GPS receiver and displayed on a tablet in the US were available in Europe we would avoid some of the tragedies like this. Reading the met reports before the flight is all fine and dandy but when in flight and you look at the screen and see your wee aircraft heading straight for a red area with yellow then green borders it really catches your attention.

gulliBell

31st Mar 2017, 07:24

...Hadn't considered the obvious that a safe hover in IMC regardless of performance and all up weight would be very difficult and dangerous...

No such thing as a safe hover in IMC. Even IFR helicopters with an auto-hover system bolted on to a 4-axis AFCS is not for hovering in IMC. And IFR helicopters have a minimum speed for IMC limitation in the RFM, typically about 50 knots. Hovering is a visual manoeuvre, usually done with reference to the ground.

Torquetalk

31st Mar 2017, 07:25

What colour is granite on that system?

JulieAndrews

31st Mar 2017, 07:33

I'm assuming everyone else noted the tragic irony with the description that the pilot had "high experience"?

John R81

31st Mar 2017, 07:39

When a tragic event like this appearsto have “pilot” decisions / actions as a contributory factor it makes all pilots think hard. It is a natural human reaction to seek explanations that allow one to find comfort; “that can’thappen to me because…. “ In this case,any CPL or ATPL holder can grab the straw of “PPL” or “rich business man”because they are neither, so it won’t happen to them.

It is clear from the records that accidents for which the investigating authority has concluded that “pilot” decisions / actions were a contributory factor happen to pilots of all levels of qualification, training,currency and recency. Therefore a focuson the pilot license type is delusional; that response actually denies the possibility to learn from the tragedy, and so hope to reduce the risk of futurereoccurrence.

The common factor in accidents where pilot decisions /actions is a contributory factor is just that; the pilot made poor decisions and / or took the wrong actions. Typically that happened not once but several times. Looking at one CPL, experienced, current-piloted accident flight :the weather was poor (but he lifted), the client said “don’t bother” (but he went), overhead the destination he aborted due to weather and could have gone home, but instead chose to drop through a “sucker hole” to divert, he could have hovered, noisily, awaiting landing permission but chose to orbit, went IMC and then CFIT. How many options to “do something different”?

As others have said, experience / currency /recency are useful IF they lead to better decision making; to keep you out of the situations where your experience might be required to get you out of trouble. So it is about the mindset of the pilot, and having the sense, and the strength of mind, to stay on the ground, chose a more appropriate route, or simply to put it in a field before you run-out of VFR.

DOUBLE BOGEY

31st Mar 2017, 08:04

One way to reduce the possibilities of this happening is to raise the WX limits for VFR flight to something actually workable. 1000 feet and 5 Km would be a good start.

CaptPenguin

31st Mar 2017, 08:08

Long time since I flew one but a 335F1 probably couldn't hover OGE with a full load.

Actually should do over 4000ft in the U.K. (Nil wind etc.)

Ber Nooly

31st Mar 2017, 08:12

So do we know if they actually coasted out into Caernarfon Bay and then turned back or if they just crashed originally heading west? Ceiling in the bay (Aberdaron report) was 600 ft amsl (300 ft agl).

handysnaks

31st Mar 2017, 08:19

One way to reduce the possibilities of this happening is to raise the WX limits for VFR flight to something actually workable. 1000 feet and 5 Km would be a good start.

DB, Never a more sensible statement written on pprune.

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 08:34

DB .... You have got to be joking . I only get probably 10 days a year as good as that .
We all know that low cloud base and poor viz can be dangerous but equally it can be perfectly safe ( with ref to CFIT ) . 4-500 ft with 2-3 k viz is no problem if you just slow right down and keep a minimum forward visual distance . If that reduces to 1 k then stop ! More rules will do nothing to help . How many people get taught how to fly safely in deteriorating weather ? . When is time to say no more ?
Some of us were lucky and have flown with mentors but most are just let loose with their licence to learn their by their mistakes . Inadvertent IMC means you were going too fast . Even when faced with an oncoming fog bank you still have time to turn or land if you are going slow enough . It is no different to driving in fog and being able to stop within the distance you can see . You would never attemp a VFR flight at that height in the hills , so he was either intentionally IFR or went inadvertently IFR and was climbing to MSA . I can't see any alternative .

Whirlybird

31st Mar 2017, 08:37

There was no reason not to take a safer route - either of the low level routes take hardly any longer and they're much safer.

But...it could have been something else, eg medical emergency, technical problem. Just because the weather is marginal it doesn't mean these things don't happen.

MATELO

31st Mar 2017, 08:39

Have we ruled out mechanical failure?

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 08:43

Mechanical failure is very rare and even more so just at the moment you are next to a mountain peak in very bad weather with no viz ...

henra

31st Mar 2017, 08:47

With the bad weather that closed in, could there have been a degree of spacial disorientation too?

I think when CFIT is mentioned in this case it is not meant that the Helicopter was necessarily under Control when it impacted. LoC is a highly probable scenario in the given case.
When losing ground reference in the given circumstances in mountaineous terrain and below MSA there is a 50/50 choice between keeping airspeed up trying to maintain Control and risking hitting of Cumulu Granitus horizontally or slowing down and loosing control hitting Cumulu Granitus vertically. Which one was chosen in this case we will find out when the report comes out.
The probability that it was something completely different what caused this accident is probably low single digit.

John R81

31st Mar 2017, 08:50

The additional rule that DB suggested would not have prevented this flight from launching - those conditions were met at that time.

Additional rules are neither necessary, nor would they be effective; anyone entering IMC (without rating / aircraft / etc) is breaking so many "rules" already, and non of those prevented / saved them.

This is all about having a safety culture and mindset. It used to be called "airmanship".

gulliBell

31st Mar 2017, 09:14

Yes, I agree. If you stick with the rules as they are now, apply prudent airmanship for VFR category flights to remain in VMC, then inadvertent IMC leading to an accident just shouldn't happen. If you're flying below the MSA you need to be able to see far enough around you, at an appropriate speed, to avoid flying into something that would ruin your day. There should always be a plan B option, divert or turn around. And if plan B fails, then plan C should be self-evident. Land at the nearest suitable landing site and wait it out. Especially when flying in the mountains you need to leave yourself a wide margin for plans B and C. And plans B and C should always be considered together, because once plan B fails it might be too late to start thinking about plan C if the only suitable place to land has just disappeared into the weather. It really is difficult for me to comprehend doing anything else.

DOUBLE BOGEY

31st Mar 2017, 10:03

I did not say that my proposed rule would save all of them. However, when faced with the prime causal factor of an accident being Flight in poor WX leading to inadvertent IMC, increased the margin between the cloud and the ground and being able to see obstacles ahead in good time, is for me, a no brainier.

Nigelh clearly identifies the commercial pressure to fly VFR in quite frankly, dangerous conditions to all but the most experienced pilots.

People need protecting from their inherent potential to behave stupidly or make poor decisions. Like it or not, in aviation, that requires rules.

COCIS is an invitation to an early bath for most pilots.

In addition, as a community or aviators, the unique capability of the helicopter to land almost anywhere, means these recurring accidents demonstrates we are in capable of exercising that option when the WX is deteriorating or flying towards high ground. In some sense it makes us all look pathetic. The only way to improve chances is to increase the margin for error.

#raisethelimits.

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 10:11

At last . Three sensible posts on the trot . Rules have never been the answer alone .
How many of you break speed limits ? Flying below minima is the similar . Driving fast on a wet road becomes dangerous if you do not have the required skill / training . No one can say that 120 mph on an open road driven by an experienced racing driver is inherently dangerous . The rules are there to cover bad drivers in crap cars as well .... And of course should be obeyed .Hence they are so low . Well a pilot with relatively low hours but all of them low level , often in bad viz ( say crop spraying, power line etc ) will be safer in these marginal conditions than a high hour pilot flying A to B in good conditions ( I am not including IFR pilots in this ).
If you have lived , like I do , on the side of a big hill in Yorkshire you will either become used to flying in poor viz or you will give up flying .
My advice to anybody would be don't fly in bad weather and deteriorating viz ...... But if you don't accept that then go and fly with someone with real experience. Fly into the worst weather he is happy to go into and do a precautionary landing in a field . I know many pilots who have almost never done this ..... That means they are either very cautious ( good ) , very good a predicting the weather ( good )
Or they always make it there come what may ( bad ) . I land in fields approx 5-6 times a year at least . Sometimes just for 20 mins . Time to rethink , check weather , change plan B , C . Landing should always be an easy option when you start to tense up .
Ps. I had not seen DB post and do not endorse it . Make the rules 10,000ft and 10k if you like it will make NO difference. I think you are one of the few that don't get it crab . We need change I agree , but in training and available equipment to make flights safer . You and your type with your rules have failed totally and have just reduced the number of people flying due to onerous rules and costs . Time to think again .

John R81

31st Mar 2017, 10:19

So the solution to pilots breaking existing rules is........ another rule, which magically they will not break

Sorry, but I don't have that faith in blind rulemaking.

I have lifted in conditions below your proposed rule, safely and without incident. But then, I wasn't in mountains or flying into mountains. And on-route, I have set the machine down when weather was deteriorating; whilst still VFR.

Why propose a limit that in many cases is unnecessary, and in any case would not actually save anyone when the weather deteriorates on-route?

{Edit: I was typing when Nigel posted. For me, aviation rules are there to be obeyed, not pushed, and never broken]

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 10:30

Great sentiment John but I don't believe totally accurate. how can you accurately measure distance for viz or one minute be 700agl but a small hill makes you momentarily 450 agl ? Let's just agree that more rules will not save lives and try something new .... It can't be any worse than what we have now . Look at the monumental improval in fixed wing safety which came with the IMC , which a lot of people, especially the professionals, hated . We need a game changer like that for our community .

[email protected]

31st Mar 2017, 11:09

I think you are one of the few that don't get it crab . We need change I agree , but in training and available equipment to make flights safer . You and your type with your rules have failed totally and have just reduced the number of people flying due to onerous rules and costs . Time to think again .Nigel - not quite sure how or where I have advocated any change in rules other than to insist on more training for post-ppl pilots in exactly the manner you suggest.

Don't forget I have spent much of my life teaching pilots how to fly safely in far worse weather than many will ever venture into - I know it is ALL about training and education.

Personally I would be happy to fly with anyone who wanted to improve their weather appreciation/decision making but getting the right conditions to do that safely is often difficult.

mary meagher

31st Mar 2017, 11:10

Before we kept fuel at Shenington, I used to fly over to Enstone on a regular basis in the Supercub tow plane. And departing after refueling one afternoon in good VFR, Enstone Traffic asked me to have a look for a helicopter that had stopped talking to him, just to see if they were OK.

It had landed in a field to the west, and the folks were walking round and waving so I told Enstone there seemed to be no obvious problem. Perhaps they were practicing field landing. We do that a lot, in gliders. When driving the car round the countryside, keep an eye on the state of the crops; what looks like a good field from altitude may be 5 feet heigh in Maize! most cultivated fields will make a decent landing site. Rocks not so good.

configsafenot

31st Mar 2017, 11:18

fireflybob

31st Mar 2017, 11:22

one look at the Form 215 and the TAFs, and a bit of low-level route planning would probably have saved 5 lives.

alphanumeric, I'm with you all the way here.

I don't think a change in the VFR criteria will really change anything.

This needs to be tackled at the training end of things. Under EASA it's mandatory that Threat and Error Management is taught and practised at all levels of training and operation.

Within the fixed wing ab initio field I find there is a paucity of training with respect to how to check and interpret the weather information and then make a considered decision as to whether it's prudent to launch and which route options to consider.

Whilst TAFs are part of the big picture they are specific to a location whereas the F215 gives the big picture.

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 11:41

Sorry Crab ..... It was DB !! I think on this particular subject we are on the same side . In a completely fair non pc world you would have a higher speed limit for a qualified driver driving a modern tech car . Why should he be bound by the rules for someone with no talent ,ability or training driving a clapped out old car with poor breaks and worn tyres ??? Well the current rules for vfr are , in my opinion , possibly too low for some pilots of low ability and experience . So maybe we have different rules depending on your commitment to get the required training ?
If you only want to fly for fun on sunny days then that is fine , but if you need to fly on other days when the weather is unpredictable maybe you should do a full course of poor weather flying . This would teach you how to plan a diversion in both directions ( right or left of track ) . How to assess what the changes are in distance of viz . What height do you expect to be able to maintain . Do you have power to reduce speed to below transission if necessary to do a vertical landing ( worst case ) . Which direction do you approach wires and masts from and which way would your turn be if you decide to turn . When do you land . And lastly I still believe that an actual flight into cloud with you at the controls would hammer home the fact that you are totally unprepared and in qualified to climb to MSA .....realise that this is not really an option for the average pilot . Get to that position and you are already done for barring a big dollop of luck .
There is always the option to spend hours and hours training for ifr and then keeping in practice but very few ppl,s have the time or opportunity to do this .
So how do we start a change ? How many of you have flown into full IMC yourselves ( without rating but maybe with a rated pilot ) . Trust me it is not like flying with a hood on which is dead simple , and when low level getting glimpses of ground it is much harder than flying straight and level into a cloud at 2000 ft !!! It is totally different and I suspect most non current ppl,s would keep it together for less than 30 Sec . First time I did personally I just froze and I couldn't even change the frequencies as my brain was so overloaded . Thankfully I had a very amused and very calm mate sitting next to me . Every pilot who admits he has even just a 1% chance of making a mistake and flying into worse weather than he expected should do this . Personally I would make it part of the syllabus just like Engine off . ( but inadvertent ifr is more likely nowadays !!!!)

Whirlybird

31st Mar 2017, 11:48

Apparently according to several media reports, the flight to Dublin was a surprise for a niece which could put what happened under a slightly different light

If true, and the trip was a surprise and therefore a last minute decision, that could be why planning was not quite as thorough as would normally be done...such as maybe not being quite so well organised in respect to weather en-route and so forth

Not just pilots have made quick, spur of the moment decisions that have not worked out well for a variety of reasons...maybe this is one such occasion and its ended tragically

Doesn't make sense. Any pilot checks weather in mountains, no matter what. You just don't cross Snowdonia without checking, however spur of the moment your decision. Even if you didn't check, and realised it was getting worse as you were flying, it's very easy to head north or west to the coast and safety at almost any time. You can even turn back first and then do that. Doesn't really make sense at all.

dClbydalpha

31st Mar 2017, 12:01

A question for the experienced pilots out there. With the occasional mention of what about a "technical glitch" on this thread.

As well as considering changes in weather etc. When planning a flight do you always consider the possibility of a LASAP event?

If so does this thought process go so far to include any other specific failures, or just the generic need to reach the ground safely?

Thomas coupling

31st Mar 2017, 12:24

Early days and it is Pprune....

I was first on scene in the police helicopter when we found the wreckage of a FW that had stoofed just shy of the summit in this vicinity in Snowdon. The driver had bought the farm but there was one survivor who we airlifted to hospital. He recalled much later on stating that the pilot had worked out his MSA based on the leg he should have taken but was 'put off' by the bad weather in the area and deviated slightly but still used the MSA he had planned on. He hit just shy of the summit by 200 feet - CFIT.

I suspect (based on experience) that when the words PPL holder and IMC are thrown into the mix - it eventually forms the last two holes in the swiss cheese model.
Pilots who go inadvertent IMC who DO NOT have a current IMC rating WITH recent currency, are committing potential suicide.
If he was current and qualified - it could well have been miscalc of MSA / heading, or of course the rare issue of mechanical problem(s).
My money is on inadvertent IMC with a PPL attached.

RiP guys.

Next...........................:sad:

Shaggy Sheep Driver

31st Mar 2017, 12:26

That is the thing with helicopters, you don't need to get to an airport to land.

Light fixed wing, too. As I can attest. Better to land in a field than press on when it's looking increasingly bad. Not easy to make that 'land' decision though; the temptation to 'just keep pressing on pressing on' is very strong.

Whirlybird

31st Mar 2017, 13:08

the temptation to 'just keep pressing on pressing on' is very strong.

Not so much in helicopters, because it's so easy to take off again. You can land, wait for the wx to improve, and then carry on. Though in Snowdonia that might be in a few days rather than a couple of hours!

aox

31st Mar 2017, 13:13

Apparently according to several media reports, the flight to Dublin was a surprise for a niece which could put what happened under a slightly different light

If true, and the trip was a surprise and therefore a last minute decision, that could be why planning was not quite as thorough as would normally be done...such as maybe not being quite so well organised in respect to weather en-route and so forth

Not just pilots have made quick, spur of the moment decisions that have not worked out well for a variety of reasons...maybe this is one such occasion and its ended tragically

Believed to be a family christening (said on local TV)

I dont think you can read this, as your speculative stance can be looked at another way.

Why would someone say a few days in advance to someone else in the family we might come, but don't tell her yet, don't actually make it a promise?

See what the weather is like on the day?

Downwind Lander

31st Mar 2017, 14:06

Why is it when something like this happens you all turn into experts all of a sudden!! Let the professionals handle it and stop speculating!

... because there are a few on this board (I exclude myself) who are more knowledgeable and experienced than some of the idiots paraded in front of some of the media.

[email protected]

31st Mar 2017, 14:20

[email protected]

31st Mar 2017, 14:25

Dclbydalpha - a LASAP emergency IFR with cloud down to 2 or 300' beneath you is something you just have to hope doesn't happen to you. Consider it by all means but there is likely to be little you can do faced with a choice between continued flight with a serious emergency or an unplanned descent through cloud over ground you can't see into a situation where you might not get VMC below anyway.

Pray for a gap in the clouds or getting over the sea quickly.

Downwind Lander

31st Mar 2017, 14:26

If I was flying fare-paying passengers, I would be diligent with my planning and be prepared to say no.

If I was flying my wife, niece and other family members I would take even more care, not less.

A straight line route through the mountains in poor weather with a long sea crossing (any of them wearing lifejackets or immersion suits?) at the limits of range with few viable diversions is poor airmanship whichever way you cut it.

It reminds me of the helicopter crash into a crane in Vauxhall, London, in 2013. There are plenty of times when one shouldn't take off and tell off anyone who contradicts. (viz Buddy Holly).

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 14:30

Crab . I agree totally with what you say . A low level route to the coast where I am told the cloud base was 600ft AMSL would have been the only potential way to have a chance of staying within common sense . It also would give you an easy option of landing to get fuel and more weather info .
Coming onto the current training requirements do you have any ideas to get people more aware and more capable?

nigelh

31st Mar 2017, 14:34

Downwind Lander

31st Mar 2017, 15:39

Downwind .... That accident was so different in every way and not relevant. There was no reason why he should not have taken off . The weather was clear above cloud and he was a current IFR pilot in an IFR machine . He could easily have flown back to base but decided to go into Battersea at last minute .
You may well be right but I recall severe criticism at the time. Sometimes the pilot is under pressure and needs an external agency to ground the flight for him (or her).

Homsap

31st Mar 2017, 15:42

I agree that while Form 215 gives the big picture, but local mountain weather is unpredictable. But the Valley TAF should have been a red flag, again an actual from London Information again would have been another red flag.

I agree we could do better in the way we teach how to check and interpret the weather, but to add to that what alternative plans were in place. The accident report on G-BIIJ, a CFIT accident in Tryfan, was two young men flying to Blackpool for a stag weekend, it was suggested an instructor checked the weather, and I got the impression that meant the flight was possible. But the decision on weather was down to the PiC. Had I been the instructor based on the weather, I would authorise it on the basis that they had a plan b and c, if the weather bad. For example, diverting and hiring a car.

In respect of the recent accident aircraft in Wales, just wondered if he briefed the passengers and relatives, something like "because of the weather, I can not be sure we can complete the route, so plan b will be divert to Livepool airport, catch a ferry or flight, plan c, land at one of two hotels near Bala with heliports, I've checked they have HOTAC, and we can have a nice meal and resume the next day'. That way the passengers have no false expectations and PIC is under no pressure. How simple is that.

Regarding regulation G-LBAL accident in Norfolk, a company aircraft was to fly from a country house in Norfolk to Northern Ireland, under regulations the weather conditions were such that, if they were departing from a licenced airport, let say Norwich. the fog was below minima for a departure, yet oddly as this was country house there was no regulation as to minima. The sensible thing would have to applied the same visibility minima in an ops manual, based on the captains estimate of visibility, not least as there were fewer external refences. I find it interesting that some CEO's are too tight fisted to operate under an AOC, it is a much safer way to operate even though under regulations it not required. I also am amazed that rich or poweful people could pressurise or bully their pilot.

From the AAIB report, there are various CRM issues. Firstly assertiveness, the captain warned the CEO's PA that fog was forcasted so they needed to depart on time, the co-pliot states why dont you speak the CEO directly, CEO delays departure, by this time co-pilot expresses his concerns as fog is forming, and states to the captain, that if he had his overnight case, he would have words directly with the CEO. Aircraft departs and four are killed, two pilots, CEO and the PA I presume.

Oddly, before before the loss of G-CBAL, the same company lost G-HAUG, again non AOC, three pilots killed during a DIY GPS. The CEO did not learn that an AOC, might be the way forward, as AOC operations are externally checked.

helipixman

31st Mar 2017, 15:55

Come on correct info please.....

It was G-LBAL not G-CBAL thats a PA-28 at Redhill :ugh:

[email protected]

31st Mar 2017, 16:13

Coming onto the current training requirements do you have any ideas to get people more aware and more capable?Nigel, short of giving out our phone numbers and imploring those about to make trips in bad weather to call us and run it past someone who might note the flaws in their cunning plan - no.

In the military you have an authoriser for every sortie who you run your intended plan past and they will consider your currency, fitness for flight and host of other things. That clearly won't work in GA but phoning a friend might help.

Homsap

31st Mar 2017, 16:22

I have corrected my post to G-LBAL

N-Jacko

31st Mar 2017, 16:48

Don't mean to be insensitive, but given that we were all mandated to carry elt/plb might have thought that there would be some indications...
I don't think that's insensitive, but more to the point:

Q: why would anyone operate a half-million quid aircraft with no ADSB-out?

A: to save the price of a couple of hours flight time? :ugh:

tistisnot

31st Mar 2017, 17:45

But ADS-B is no good low level countrywide for ad hoc helicopter operations ..... Satellite tracking is more reliable ..... showing you instantly track, position, speed and altitude.

Beaucoup Movement

31st Mar 2017, 18:02

"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree
than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."

— Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. 1930's

I was given a picture with the statement above by my father when I started my aviation career at PPL level & have never forgotten it since & never will..

ATCO Fred

31st Mar 2017, 18:13

Crash site was at circa 2300ft. Terrain safe 25nm MSA for Cranfield is 2200ft and Oxford 2300ft . . . .

Nahh he wouldn't have; would he ??

Fred

dClbydalpha

31st Mar 2017, 18:18

ADS B Out is not necessarily cheap it depends at what level you want to participate and what equipment is already fitted.

Satellite tracking is not always that reliable. You are relying on data going through various gateways.

Blinkenlights

31st Mar 2017, 18:33

If the photo on BBC news is correct...

Five Snowdonia helicopter victims' bodies recovered - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-39448998)

The location of the crash site is here...

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.8206364,-3.9861012,419a,35y,346.31h,78.51t/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

The view is looking North.

N-Jacko

31st Mar 2017, 19:37

But ADS-B is no good low level countrywide for ad hoc helicopter operations

Is that really your personal experience of ADSB-out?

Mine (albeit in a simple bushplane) is quite the opposite: i.e. that extended squitter with SIL 10^-7 ensures scarily accurate FR24 tracking in upland Britain well below the height at which en-route compliance with the common rules of the air would not be assured.

As for the cost of ES, it should be around 1 AMU unless the rest of the stuff in the panel is 15 year old junk.

Ber Nooly

31st Mar 2017, 20:20

could have just flew around the base of the hill to the coast. guess we won't know until the report comes out in 2 years time

I think it will be a lot sooner than that, usually 1 year, no?

Mike Flynn

31st Mar 2017, 21:21

It is not as simple as that. Looking at my log book I have around 300 hours of flying across Wales VFR.

Most were direct line Cardiff to Valley. None were ever flown direct line.

The weather and terrain is the killer for experieneced low level pilots.

The combination of very poor visibility and turbulance is not an easy combination to cope with if you have never flown over remote mountains.

Try it at night and you really push your luck.

Been there done it and never again.

justanotherflyer

31st Mar 2017, 23:07

The big issue here with currency (recency) and experience is not the ability to fly the helicopter - it is the ability to make decisions, either before getting airborne or once in the air.

Planning to fly that route with the forecast weather is one of those areas where you might assess it as marginal and have a viable plan B (rtb or divert or land) or you might take the risk and push on until you have run out of options.

The first option might be that of an experienced pilot or a wary, less experienced one - the second option is likely to be that of someone who has convinced themselves they are good enough to cope with whatever happens and is often the precursor to many CFIT accidents.

I wonder if they ran their grand plan past anyone who didn't work for them so they might get the 'voice of reason' to tell them the idea was a crap one.

A frustratingly pointless loss of life.

The specifics of this tragic accident will, one hopes, become more fully understood. But one reason, I believe, why many pilots who may well start with a Plan B (C, etc) in mind, but do not implement them when indicated, is that they have kept the alternative plans to themselves and have not communicated them to passengers (who, if non-pilots, are generally entirely innocent of flight safety considerations). Once airborne, the pressure to keep going just that further mile, to look for the gap in the cloud or the lifting in visibility, can then become intense, for fear of disappointing the companions on board. We've all been there.

A method I have used over the years in both private and small commercial operations (FW light twins and turboprops) to offer some degree of self-immunisation from this temptation, is to "pre-disappoint" the passengers during the safety briefing. Or better, when discussing the intended flight some hours or days beforehand.

The spiel goes something like: "Folks, we are planning to fly to X and arrive by Y time, however in aviation there can be a number of reasons why it might become unsafe to continue and I may decide to divert, or even return to base, and we need to consider these before we go. They can include weather deteriorating below safe limits, suspected mechanical problems, if I or a passenger were to become unwell, or other possible contingencies. If any of these were to arise then the plan would be [divert to A, return to B, go by road, have dinner, etc etc]. It's unlikely any of these will occur but if they do, my decision will be final on these alternative plans. No flight is important enough to press on in such circumstances. Is everyone happy with that arrangement?"

I've never once given this briefing where all concerned didn't nod vigorously in agreement. Having committed to it, they have pre-approved and absorbed your contingent decision, should it become necessary, to divert from the original plan. Putting some gentle frighteners on them focuses their minds a bit further. (Call that TEM, if you like).

Should the need then subsequently arise to turn to plan B, etc., they will now be GLAD the pilot is doing so, rather than disappointed. More important she or he is relieved of a large element of internal pressure: that crushing reluctance to share the bad news while peering into an increasingly worrisome scene ahead. It's already been told, and the pilot can concentrate without distraction on getting safely to the alternate.

On a related topic:

"Safety Altitude" often gets discussed in incidents such as this. Over the years I have heard students and private flyers (and even some professionals) describe safety altitude for VFR flights as all or any of:

- A height you must stay above if you accidentally fly into cloud
- A height below which you must fly extra-carefully if the cloud base forces you below it.
- A height the school or company recommends you keep above unless you're a super-special pilot.
- A useful idea for students but something you can exercise discretion over when you get more qualified.

It is, of course, none of these things. It is a height at or above which, if you are forced to descend to it by deteriorating cloud base or visibility, then you MUST divert or return to better conditions. This is another decision which it is essential to "pre-make" in the pilot's mind long before it is forced upon them.

Instructors or pilots discussing this concept with students or fellow-flyers would to well to ensure it is thoroughly understood and internalised as a trigger to action.

gulliBell

1st Apr 2017, 07:37

MSA often gets discussed in incidents such as this....It is a height at or above which, if you are forced to descend to it by deteriorating cloud base or visibility, then you MUST divert or return to better conditions. This is another decision which it is essential to "pre-make" in the pilot's mind long before it is forced upon them.

To me that seems unnecessarily restrictive for VFR. To me it's sensible to say, you can be below the MSA if you are clear of cloud and have sufficient visibility to see and avoid obstacles, whilst maintaining a safe height above ground. When you can't be below the MSA is when you can't see where you're going.

Non-PC Plod

1st Apr 2017, 08:00

juustanotherflyer,

I like your "pre disappointment" approach. Do you mind if I blag it and your spiel to use in TEM training?

mary meagher

1st Apr 2017, 08:24

Just another, that is pure gold, the pre-briefing of a possible disappointment.
When I told a companion that we might have to rent a car to get to Austin, and he said "can't you get another weather report?"
I said "I am tired, weather is dangerous, and we might end up dead, which would be bad for our image!"

He immediately agreed to rent a car instead of continuing into horrible weather. It rained over Christmas for five days, and even the airlines had to divert!

Demeseo

1st Apr 2017, 08:25

could have just flew around the base of the hill to the coast. guess we won't know until the report comes out in 2 years time

The police released this image yesterday, showing where it came down:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8QwlA-WAAER_6R.jpg

https://goo.gl/maps/PQVs9fTPTLG2 (https://exchange.simply.ms/owa/redir.aspx?C=0fe40a3d2118446db98952ace440b278&URL=https%3a%2f%2fgoo.gl%2fmaps%2fwXJSVB9Nux32) or 52.840320, -3.993511

It crashed just below the summit (on the eastern ridge) of Rhinog Fawr, with Llyn Cwmhosan below it. The helicopter will have been flying from R to L in the photo.

Streetmap.co.uk - Map of 52.840320, -3.993511 (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=265822&y=328841&z=0&sv=52.840320,+-3.993511&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf) shows just how inaccessible the location is.

N-Jacko

1st Apr 2017, 08:34

MSA often gets discussed in incidents such as this.... It is a height at or above which, if you are forced to descend to it by deteriorating cloud base or visibility, then you MUST divert or return to better conditions.

Which is, even by the standard of PPRUNE, potentially misleading. :)

The Minimum Sector Altitude (MSA) is the lowest altitude which may be used which will provide a minimum clearance of 300 m (1 000 ft) above all objects located in the area contained within a sector of a circle of 46 km (25 NM) radius centred on a radio aid to navigation.

As such, MSA is about as relevant to contact flying in remote mountain areas as the rest of the information on a Dutch instrument approach chart.

If confusing MSA with the "minimum safe altitude" as defined, for instance, by 14 CFR 19.119 or the British rules of the air, that's a statutory requirement to maintain 500 ft separation from any person, vessel, vehicle or structure in remote areas.

obnoxio f*ckwit

1st Apr 2017, 09:04

Trust me it is not like flying with a hood on which is dead simple , and when low level getting glimpses of ground it is much harder than flying straight and level into a cloud at 2000 ft

That brought back memories of IF trg under the hood all those years ago!

"A peek is worth thousand scans!"

And limited panel UPs on a Chipmunk...:eek:

ZOOKER

1st Apr 2017, 09:24

During my 2 years as a 'spotter' at EGNX, in the early 1970s, there was a C337 based there, G-ATNY.

About 10 years later a pile of AAIB reports appeared in our crew-room at EGCC, including one involving that a/c.

Fixed-wing as opposed to rotary-wing, yes, but I wonder how many similarities there are with this tragic event?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ed03ed915d1371000143/5-1979_G-ATNY.pdf

Capvermell

1st Apr 2017, 09:24

Streetmap.co.uk - Map of 52.840320, -3.993511 (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=265822&y=328841&z=0&sv=52.840320,+-3.993511&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf) shows just how inaccessible the location is.

I think this lower level of magnification at www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=265822&y=328841&z=0&sv=52.840320,+-3.993511&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf shows rather better where the site actually is in relation to the coast and the height of the actual mountain/ridge crashed in to.

It would also be interesting to know what altitude they were travelling at during most of the rest of the journey from Luton and what effort they made to fly higher when flying over terrain chock full with mountains as high as 1085m.

If determined to make the trip in such adverse weather conditions its also hard to see why they wouldn't have flown over lower terrain and north of but close to the North Wales coast, although even then there is a long and dangerous ridge of mountains up to 1064m high just south of Llanfairfechan. But as the Twin Squirrell is capable of flying at up to 3,400m was there any good reason for them to be flying this low in this area. Of course I expect weather and lack of visibility at higher altitudes no doubt came in to the equation. Or was lack of fuel to take a more circuitous route with this amount of adult passengers and luggage also potentially a factor?

ACW599

1st Apr 2017, 09:59

>It would also be interesting to know what altitude they were travelling at during most of the rest of the journey from Luton and what effort they made to fly higher when flying over terrain chock full with mountains as high as 1085m.<

For what it may be worth, my BaseStation log shows the aircraft at 2700ft between 1227 and 1253. At that altitude my site is probably line of sight to the Rhinog area at 1090MHz.

Demeseo

1st Apr 2017, 10:37

I think this lower level of magnification at Streetmap.co.uk - Map of 52.840320, -3.993511 (http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=265822&y=328841&z=0&sv=52.840320,+-3.993511&st=7&mapp=map.srf&searchp=ids.srf) shows rather better where the site actually is in relation to the coast and the height of the actual mountain/ridge crashed in to.

It would also be interesting to know what altitude they were travelling at during most of the rest of the journey from Luton and what effort they made to fly higher when flying over terrain chock full with mountains as high as 1085m.

If determined to make the trip in such adverse weather conditions its also hard to see why they wouldn't have flown over lower terrain and north of but close to the North Wales coast, although even then there is a long and dangerous ridge of mountains up to 1064m high just south of Llanfairfechan. But as the Twin Squirrell is capable of flying at up to 3,400m was there any good reason for them to be flying this low in this area. Of course I expect weather and lack of visibility at higher altitudes no doubt came in to the equation. Or was lack of fuel to take a more circuitous route with this amount of adult passengers and luggage also potentially a factor?

On the first day of the search operation, cloud cover was down to 300m or so. Visibility was said to be around 10 feet.

SandyYoung

1st Apr 2017, 12:03

Sad that on a 'professional' forum the pilot is being blamed for flying too low in poor visibility, with little evidence. He may have been 1000 feet above the highest mountain and experienced a catastrophic mechanical fault or taken ill. It's no so long ago that the entire rotor came off of a helicopter. Had they been in poor visibility and the wreckage not found would the same presumptions have been posted?

helicrazi

1st Apr 2017, 12:05

Shaggy Sheep Driver

1st Apr 2017, 12:28

Great post, justanotherflyer. I call it 'setting expectations' and it applies to situations outside aviation as well. Your description:

" Once airborne, the pressure to keep going just that further mile, to look for the gap in the cloud or the lifting in visibility, can then become intense, for fear of disappointing the companions on board. We've all been there."

Is exactly what I meant by that 'land' decision being a difficult one, and the temptation to 'press on pressing on' is very strong.

henra

1st Apr 2017, 12:28

He may have been 1000 feet above the highest mountain and experienced a catastrophic mechanical fault or taken ill.

That may well be the case. However, Information regarding the circumstances and looking at past incidents in similar circumstances tells us that the probability of this being due to catastrophic mechanical failure is very, very low (realistically <5%). The fact that it hit barely underneath the summit of that ridge also points in a clear direction.
Professional Pilots stated that they would consider this flight on this route, weather and time of the day challenging even in a much better equipped bigger Helicopter and this coming from Military / SAR Pilots gives me a clear idea what that means for a PPL in a rather small helicopter with limited equipment to deal with such an environment.
Chances are 1 + 1 = 2.

fireflybob

1st Apr 2017, 12:40

MSA is the minimum altitude to fly at when flying IFR. From a legal point of view one has to comply with the Minimum Height Rule which is 1,000 ft above the highest point within 5 nm of the aircraft. (With certain specific exceptions). Flying IFR assumes the aircraft is suitably equipped and the pilot has the appropriate instrument qualification. Also operators might specify higher criteria that the Min Ht Rule in their manuals for a variety of reasons. You also have to ask how accurately you can pinpoint position. To allow for errors you might look 10 miles either side of track (and beyond track) to find the highest point on that leg of the route.

Flying VFR you may fly below MSA. However it's a good idea to calculate a minimum VFR altitude. The idea behind this is to have a preplanned "If I can't maintain this altitude then I'm turning back or diverting". You would also use this figure before flight when studying the Met F215 etc to make a go/no go decision or electing to fly a different route clear of higher terrain.

This hopefully prevents pilots from ploughing into bad weather and then carrying on until they create a problem for themselves. To arrive at the Min VFR Alt look at terrain and obstacles en route and then ask yourself "How low do I want to be to the ground?". This figure may well vary depending upon the individual pilot's experience. Ask yourself "Do I really want to be flying below 1,500 - 2,000 feet above ground level?"

All the above is notwithstanding the low flying regs with respect to congested areas etc.

NB As has been stated previously we don't know the cause of this accident and my comments are not intended to pre judge the results of the investigation.

[email protected]

1st Apr 2017, 13:49

Trouble is, it's far too easy to look at the clouds on the top of the hills and then get funneled down the valleys where you can still see and maintain your 500' agl - right up to the point where the valley floor is gradually climbing and you turn a corner into a dead-end (sometimes sadly, literally) with no escape route except a turnback towards the high ground of the valley sides.

[email protected]

1st Apr 2017, 13:53

He may have been 1000 feet above the highest mountain and experienced a catastrophic mechanical fault or taken ill. It is a possibility but, as already mentioned, a very remote one.

Without a CVFDR, there will only be the radar trace and any information that can be gleaned from the electronics on board - GPS, ipads, mobile phones etc.

justanotherflyer

1st Apr 2017, 13:56

Which is, even by the standard of PPRUNE, potentially misleading. :)

N-Jacko, thanks you are correct, of course it's not MSA. I'll have to blame the late night hours for that one.

Really what I was referring to is the concept of "safety altitude" as calculated by VFR flyers for x-country navigation. I have amended my post in view of your valuable correction.

BTW I am not making assumptions about the contributing factors in this particular accident, which have yet to be determined.

Typically safety altitude might be deemed as 1000 feet over the highest en-route elevation (or 2000 feet over hilly terrain).

My point is that when I have queried more than one student or pilot over the years about what that idea means, the response has been in effect "don't go any lower than safety altitude if in bad visibility". More or less taking it as akin to the IFR concepts of MSA or MORA. That way of thinking is sure to lead to hazard.

What I emphasise to students is that safety altitude is the minimum height above terrain that offers some sort of useful margin of choice for visual manouvering should wx deteriorate. If cloud or reducing vis. force you down to your calculated safety altitude, then for the sensible pilot there is no choice but to change course, you simply can't proceed.

Occasionally I've kept mum and let a student keep going a bit further to see what happens. It's not a pretty sight as the wheel gets gripped tighter and the pilot leans forward in the seat straining to see what's coming, while the altimeter inches downwards. Accidental flight into IMC becomes a real possibility. One chap was thrilled to see blue skies in a distant gap and flew right into a wide deep valley ahead. Moments later we were boxed in visually. It took my changing to IFR and flying out on top to get us home - flying by himself a difficult precautionary landing would have been necessary. The guy was sweating bullets, and vowed "never again!" a dozen times.

Anyway in summary a proper understanding of safety altitude, plus a resolute automatic decision to alter course towards clearer skies if you can't maintain VFR above it, are essential parts of a safe VFR mindset.

addendum: folks, kindly note I am writing from a FW perspective. I appreciate this is a rotary forum.

justanotherflyer

1st Apr 2017, 14:04

juustanotherflyer,

I like your "pre disappointment" approach. Do you mind if I blag it and your spiel to use in TEM training?

Please, be my guest. I use it for the very same purpose myself.

PhilJ

1st Apr 2017, 14:10

2000ft above hilly terrain for a VFR helicopter?

justanotherflyer

1st Apr 2017, 14:14

2000ft above hilly terrain for a VFR helicopter?

Hi PhilJ,

As noted in my original post, my background is in FW flying. If helicopter practices are typically different, then please adjust accordingly.

Hot and Hi

1st Apr 2017, 14:47

The area is notorious for weather closing in on you unexpectedly I know what you mean, but isn't a bit of a contradiction in terms?

I'm a fixed wing pilot (C182) and flew into Caenarfon at the weekend. Despite the cavok conditions I almost got caught out by the rotor in the lee of the Snowdonian range (1000fpm down + very turbulent).
I note from the Valley metars that there was a brisk (20kt+) north-easterly wind on the day of the accident . Do helicopters cope well with turbulent conditions?
G-XLTGNo, not really. Best to be avoided.

a thought any ppl who wanted a twin rating needed to pass the cpl exams first?No, why? Maybe in some countries, but in general, no. But in general I would assume that even private owner/PPL would have accumulated a few hours while working his way up from piston to turbine to twin...

Sir Korsky

1st Apr 2017, 17:40

Looking at the UK visual flight rules in section 4, outside controlled airspace, how long has this helicopter provision been in effect?

https://www.bfgc.co.uk/VFR_Guide.pdf

For helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable:
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

4468

1st Apr 2017, 19:03

Looking at the UK visual flight rules in section 4, outside controlled airspace, how long has this helicopter provision been in effect?
At least 4 decades to my certain knowledge. Quite probably more?

This is the fundamental difference between helicopters and fixed wing. It can be, and frequently is, perfectly safe to fly in weather so marginal that ONLY entry into IMC prevents flight in accordance with VFR! Not the case in a fixed wing!!

The underlying principle is that the ONLY back up is an immediate IFR climb above safety altitude, or an immediate landing. If one is unable due icing, or unqualified, to confidently conduct BOTH an IFR climb, and subsequent instrument recovery to a suitable diversion, then ONLY an immediate landing remains!

However, if at the same time, the terrain over which you are flying is not suitable for a landing, then your options have disappeared. Tragically the result is then inevitable.

I say again. I have no idea what the cause of this accident was. It's simply too early to say. Unless there are recorders onboard the aircraft we may never know with any certainty. Investigators may just have to collect what physical evidence there is, and make an informed guess. Very, very sad for those left behind, but a distinctly possible outcome.

chopjock

1st Apr 2017, 19:44

4468
The underlying principle is that the ONLY back up is an immediate IFR climb above safety altitude, or an immediate landing. If one is unable due icing, or unqualified, to confidently conduct BOTH an IFR climb, and subsequent instrument recovery to a suitable diversion, then ONLY an immediate landing remains.
However, if at the same time, the terrain over which you are flying is not suitable for a landing, then your options have disappeared. Tragically the result is then inevitable.

I don't agree with that, what about flying on, low and slow (30 kts) in sight of the surface until finding somewhere suitable to land?

Homsap

1st Apr 2017, 20:23

[email protected]

1st Apr 2017, 20:53

Chopjock - have you tried hovertaxiing in limited visibility, in the pissing rain in the mountains? You are certainly not VFR! if your viz is less than 1000m then you are either in cloud or in fog - take your pick.

The answer is to have turned back earlier or landed when there was an option.

Georg1na

1st Apr 2017, 21:55

Spot on Crab................

Demeseo

1st Apr 2017, 22:16

Flight up to MSA. I am not sure if either the pilot was qualified for IFR or if the aircraft was IFR capable, in the event of the weather, there would have been multiple opportunities to land on level playing fields or school grounds from Welshpool, Bala and beyond. Based on the impact on Rhinog Fawr, and the weather, it seems unlikely the aircraft was still under VFR.

This is what I don't understand about this incident. The weather conditions were so bad on Wednesday/Thursday that the initial search operation on foot had to be suspended to prevent injury/death of the mountain rescue team members. If it was that bad on foot on a big and rocky mountain, trying to fly across it blind is puzzling.

chopjock

1st Apr 2017, 22:24

crab
You are certainly not VFR! if your viz is less than 1000m then you are either in cloud or in fog - take your pick. The answer is to have turned back earlier or landed when there was an option.

Sounds like you saying there is no option to land when the vis is less than 1000m (with the surface in sight). That's nuts!

nigelh

1st Apr 2017, 23:29

I think we must be misunderstanding crab ...as I agree , hover taxiing in 1000 m viz should not be too onerous .
You really only need about 50-100m of viz to be able to taxi safely I would have said , on gentle ground . ( this is not a recommendation but just what you could do as part of your finding a safe place to land ) However add in the different high odd angles of a mountain side and then throw in a good dose of turbulence etc you may find yourself running out of power when downwind and running out of ability to control it .
An awful lot of this talk about minimums is FW and just confusing the issue . We don't have to be 1000 ft agl flying over Wales !!

4468

2nd Apr 2017, 01:11

Chopjock

Unless you've changed, you're a drone pilot? Maybe a PPL(H)?

Professional helicopter pilots are expressing opinions here. Perhaps they've more extensive experience of flying at low level, in poor weather than you?? Maybe they've flown SAR/support heli/RN/AAC helicopters in such conditions?

Perhaps we should weight their opinions, and yours, as such?

Cheers

DOUBLE BOGEY

2nd Apr 2017, 06:55

Ah now the big penny begins to drop!

Does anyone really believe either a PPL or a Fare paying passenger or YOU! The Pilot should be swanning around in COCIS conditions.

Incredulously Nigel is now telling how we can all hover taxi in fog!

With the sole exception of life saving missions (and even those harbour a paradox) everyone else should only be allowed to fly in reasonable conditions that provide a more than reasonable chance of seeing and avoiding obstacles.

For the idiots on this thread advocating the option to climb IMC, you need to read the IFR rules. Thou shalt not be in IMC below 1000 above the surface unless taking off and landing (and that must be at an approved location using an approved procedure) or on a route notified by the Authority for that purpose.

Inadvertent IMC requires a climb immediately to MSA. However, this is not a option one is allowed to exploit to manage Flight in poor weather. It is a full blown emergency procedure that may still result in CFIT until MSA is achieved and also assumes the VFR planning Included the calculation of MSA. Furthermore, even for a seasoned experienced commercial pilot, converting VFR to IFR, without it considered at the planning stage is a massive recipe for disaster.

As most of you know DB loves rules and supports the Regulator 100%. However in this area the regulator has not delivered a sensible framework that in my view would save quite a few Darwinian candidates from their own stupidity. Not all but at least some.

The terrible irony here is the monotonous consistency of these incidents and the dumb postings that follows them. On the LBAL thread that one descended into willy waving and professional pilots advocating the answer as a towering type takeoff. There is no such approval for this take off onshore in civilian operations.

4468 read your post again. You start by claiming it is often perfectly safe to fly in weather so marginal........ and then go on to explain how difficult is is to stay VMC in such conditions. Also inadvertent IMC is not an option. It's an Emergency.

[email protected]

2nd Apr 2017, 08:34

Chopjock - we were talking in the context of being in the mountains where there isn't anywhere suitable to land so getting to the point where you are forced to hover taxi in limited vis means you made the wrong decision some time previously and should have turned back or landed then.

Nigel - I think I get what you are saying but why would you hover taxi in 50 -100m vis? Just don't go flying. As per the previous paragraph if you are forced into hovertaxiing in such ridiculous conditions then you f**ked up making your decisions about continued flight earlier in the scenario.

Having done many planned and unplanned VFR to IFR aborts, I agree with DB, not something you take lightly.

Vertical Freedom

2nd Apr 2017, 09:13

Weather flying is serious, commercial or private don't matter none; if not taken seriously surely You'll end up dead :=

Please think ahead, plan ahead; get it on the ground early & go have a pint or three, rather than delaying, delaying & ending up with a bend machine, worse still end up dead http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif

Never gamble with poor weather, don't second guess, if Your not sure then your in the wrong place already. I'm just saying (my opinion) http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/icon25.gif

This horrific prang shows very poor judgement & decision making regarding ****e weather & leaving it all too late to get it on the ground safely :{

Happy Landings http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Gwyn_ap_Nudd

2nd Apr 2017, 09:14

This accident seems sadly reminiscent of the Malibu Mirage crash in Somerset in Nov 15 - that also involved a family travelling to an event in unsuitable weather.

Homsap

2nd Apr 2017, 09:40

I would add there would have been many opportunities to land in the valley apart playing fields, flat fields in the valley bed. As I see it the pilot kept pressing on and left it too late to land, entered IMC, climbed, drifted off the westerley heading taking him into the Rhinogs. had he maintained a westerley heading and climbed he probably would have cleared the terrain, but what his gameplan thereafter would have been, who knows.

funfly

2nd Apr 2017, 10:19

Before I got my instrument rating (as a FW PPl) I once found myself inadvertently in a white out. My post here is to emphasise just how quickly things happen - I was a pretty experienced flyer but within seconds I nearly killed myself (and my wife who was with me). It's not a time for quiet contemplation of options as some on here seem to think.

rotorspeed

2nd Apr 2017, 11:15

The elevation and photo of the crash site is interesting and I think casts some doubt on whether this was a simple case of a VFR flight with loss of control following inadvertent IMC entry in poor weather.

The impact location at a ? reported 2300ft is only just below the peaks in the area and much (? circa 1500 ft) higher than the valley that the aircraft presumably flew over a few miles before it crashed. If this aircraft was VFR, it is hard to see why the pilot would not have followed this low valley, south to Dolgellau and then west to the coast at Barmouth - the cloud base and visibility was likely to have been far better. Again, assuming he was VFR, he had somehow got himself to south of Trawsfynydd and given the equally hilly terrain to the east that he had passed, the weather had not been so bad that he had not been able to get himself this far.

To hit the mountain where he did, if he was VFR, it would seem most likely that the cloudbase was far higher here than many have presumed, perhaps around 2000ft. The pilot could well have thought that he just had to clear this mountain peak and then 3 miles later he could descend rapidly towards the coast at Llanbedr. With this scenario, he can't quite make it, climbs into IMC, loses control and crashes. But if the weather was this good, why would he had not just have chosen an easy cruise down the valley to the coast?

The view that seems to generally assumed to be the case by most posters here is that this pilot was groping along trying to maintain VMC, which would have meant a much lower cloudbase - elevation was down to less than 400ft in the valley that he had just crossed, so if his height was say 300ft that might have meant a cloudbase of 700ft AMSL. The idea that the pilot got into IMC inadvertently and lost control of the aircraft, yet managed to climb over 1000ft before crashing is unlikely I think - with this heavy, low powered aircraft, that would have taken a couple of minutes of solid controlled climbing and I'm sure most of these IMC LOC accidents occur within seconds not minutes.

I feel that a more likely possibility is that this pilot was deliberately flying IMC - and hit the mountain top. It seems likely that this AS355 was IFR equipped, or IFR of sorts, and putting to one side whether the pilot had an IR or not, he may well have been comfortable flying IMC, engaging the autopilot and flying in IMC. Indeed a previous poster mentioned he was at 2700ft earlier in the flight - if correct, given the weather, he would probably have been IMC then.

So if he was IMC, why might he have hit the mountain top? Clearly he may have had a mechanical failure, though this is statistically least likely. Another possibility is that he encountered icing and either descended too quickly in panic, or simply could not maintain altitude with ice on a heavy 355. Or may anti-icing was not on and an engine or two flamed out - Alton Towers memories. Then he could have had a gyro or autopilot problem which was not noticed. Or instead of having ALT engaged, had VS and that was actually in slight down so caused an unrecognised gradual descent. And finally of course he could mis-read the chart and descended a bit too soon for the coast and to get VMC.

So in summary I think there is a lot more to consider before people start making assumptions about the cause of this accident and what should happen as a result. Something that happens too much following aircraft accidents is that a lot of generalisations are made and not enough focus on actually understanding what specifically caused the accident.

Planemike

2nd Apr 2017, 11:25

Sadly brings to mind two other helicopter accidents, one in the Lakes about five years back and the other at Ben Rhydding (Harrogate) nine years ago. Not exactly parallel but both likely to have been cases of PPLs flying beyond their competences.

Sad, peace to the family involved in this recent accident.....

Ber Nooly

2nd Apr 2017, 11:49

Did he initially fly out over Caernarfon Bay and return back eastwards or did the crash occur on an initial westerly heading?

sudden twang

2nd Apr 2017, 12:51

Nigelh,
Have you ever taxied in 50m?
How about hover taxiing up a mountain in turbulence in v poor vis?
I've done both the former was in a £150m aircraft and needed a follow me truck on an airfield. Luckily I was part of a 3 pilot crew and it was difficult to go at more than 5kts.
The second event was with a v experienced 18,000hr colleague with a crewman hanging out of the door. We were only there because our pax had broken regs and quite likely would have perished if we hadnt got them.
Strong winds, high terrain, turbulence and as has just been mentioned potential icing ( and yes I've had rotor icing forcing a descent IMC) is an environment not suitable for
a 355 in anyone's hands. IMHO.

Bravo Alpha One

2nd Apr 2017, 13:13

I was cured of "pressonitis" years ago while flying VFR [no IFR] with the odd very broken and scattered cumulus, minding my own business at about 2000' [No high ground within MILES]. I started to descend gently to keep the ground clearly in sight and thought "Another 10 seconds of this and I'm turning back". About 6 seconds later ALL visual reference had gone. All I could think of as I started a turn was "How high are the wind turbines I know are round here somewhere?", while my sphincter gripped the seat.
All happened so fast it was terrifying. Looking back I could see NO dense cloud anywhere!

gpzz

2nd Apr 2017, 14:09

Was a FW sunday afternoon cavok warrior many moons ago, been following this awful story with interest. I also "play" flight sim.....
Just set up a 50 mtr low vis sim session with a heli near some hills...my goodness I now realise how utterly terrifying this type of scenario would be for the uninitiated driver.
More regs?

[email protected]

2nd Apr 2017, 14:24

Rotorspeed - the only thing we can be sure of is that they crashed into the hillside and therefore you can be pretty sure it wasn't visible to them.

I agree it probably isn't a LOC IMC, more likely not flying high enough but I don't think the zero degree isotherm was that low, IIRC it was around 6 -8000' that day.

The weather in the area was lots of stratus with bases around 3 -400' - he may have encountered this some time earlier and elected to climb IMC, hoping for cloudbreak the other side of the hills.

Whatever the reason, he just wasn't high enough for the terrain to be flying IMC.

rotorspeed

2nd Apr 2017, 15:00

sudden twang

2nd Apr 2017, 16:27

Yes agree Crab. And hoped someone would know where the 0 deg was - certainly not icing then if as high as 6k. Maybe it was as simple as flying IMC but just not high enough. The GPS trail the AAIB normally seem to get should make it fairly clear, if it was straight in or meandering. Assuming it's recoverable.
If the zero degree isotherm was at 6000' then it's quite possible to get ice at 2500' . Add frontal or cb activity and then icing is even more of a possibility. Then of course there's turbulence and downdraights.

Arfur Dent

2nd Apr 2017, 17:26

As someone wrote in an earlier post, the crux of this (I suspect) is the apparent absence of a Plan B/C for the intended flight. Diverting to Valley and getting a taxi to Holyhead and a ferry across to Dublin is an obvious Plan B but had this been discussed and was there time left before the Christening? Turning back and getting a Ryanair/Easy flight to Dublin was also a valid alternate plan.
It seems outrageous but 5 people have died because the weather over the Welsh mountains was a lot worse than the weather around Milton Keynes and nobody had anticipated it.
What an absolute tragedy.

newfieboy

2nd Apr 2017, 17:31

I don't understand why CFIT accidents in IMC are still happening VFR rotary. Especially in Blighty. If this is what this accident turns out to be. As Vertical Freedom said, land and go have a pint or three. Having flown in the UK, landing spots are a bloody luxury, compared to what we have in Canada.
I fly in some of the most extreme weather and harshest environments in the World. Fuel caches very far and few, often at the limit of the aircrafts range. Slowing down or hover taxiing around not really an option unless you want to run out of fuel. Landing spots often hard to find over the Boreal Forest or the mountains in Baffin or High Arctic. Temps maybe -40c and below. SAR often many hours away. A restart on the aircraft probably not possible without APU and plug ins for Tanis heaters. A very very hard decision to land and wait.
A few years back, Xmas eve, my 50th birthday on Xmas day and a party awaiting. heading home to base from a very remote drill camp in a B2 Astar. 44nm from civilization and a few brews after a hard six week tour, got caught in some nasty WX, low vis, icing ya di ya. Press on itis, you bet, thoughts of a good piss up after six weeks, yep. Did I, nope. Landed, shut down and spent Xmas and bday singing to myself in the middle of a frozen swamp for 18hrs. Least I did make it home eventually. Although the wifey and guests had finished off the booze....hey ho....:ugh: Better to be alive and miserable for a few hours I figure. Wasn't the first time, won't be the last.

chopjock

2nd Apr 2017, 17:37

4468
Perhaps they've more extensive experience of flying at low level, in poor weather than you??

Perhaps not, some have I'm sure and some may have not. I have done a lot of scud running in my time sir! a lot!

henra

2nd Apr 2017, 17:42

Then he could have had a gyro or autopilot problem which was not noticed. Or instead of having ALT engaged, had VS and that was actually in slight down so caused an unrecognised gradual descent.

Or hit a severe rotor in the Lee of the ridge that he hit and the AP disengaged...
Given that he hit so close to the summit with lots of altitude beneath him to the valley floor it doesn't really look like he got caught at the end of a valley. Looks more like he was trying to get over the mountains in AP when something didn't work out as it should, being terrain higher than he thought (i.e. being somewhere else than expected), or helicopter not able to maintain/reach required altitude quickly enough or the AP kicking out at an inappropriate moment (e.g. due to turbulence/downdraft) and the pilot losing control in IMC or another event roughly along these lines.

newfieboy

2nd Apr 2017, 17:51

chopjock,
2000hrs and a PPL. Be careful there Sir, to quote

'I have done a lot of scud running in my time sir! a lot'
Sounds like a recipe for another bent machine to me.

[email protected]

2nd Apr 2017, 17:51

Suddentwang - care to elaborate on your icing at 2500' with a zero isotherm at 6000'? Carb icing or engine icing maybe, but not airframe icing.

The weather IIRC was just claggy warm sector conditions, no embedded CB or severe rotors with moderate turbulence at worst. Fine weather for an IFR transit if that is how you have planned it and can get in at the other end.

chopjock

2nd Apr 2017, 18:14

Newfie
Sounds like a recipe for another bent machine to me.
Thanks for the concern, but I do look where I'm going!

nigelh

2nd Apr 2017, 18:34

DB ......... What I wrote was this ....
You really only need about 50-100m of viz to be able to taxi safely I would have said , on gentle ground . ( this is not a recommendation but just what you could do as part of your finding a safe place to land ) However add in the different high odd angles of a mountain side and then throw in a good dose of turbulence etc you may find yourself running out of power when downwind and running out of ability to control it .

Now I accept it may not have been put across eloquently but it's pretty obvious I am talking about part of a process of landing safely . At this point you are already in the **** .... You should never be in this position . My point was that it is possible to " position " a helicopter to a safe place in ideal ground . I make it quite clear that it would be nigh on impossible in mountains !!!!!
I know you are a cantankerous old boy but please lay off this one time . Nothing I have said advocates flying in mountains in bad viz .... Especially if you lack the experience and especially if you have no urgent reason to do it .
Thanks !!
Ps . Just remember most of us who are actually pilots, genuinely want to put an end to these awful accidents . You have a wonderful blind belief in the rule book , which I am afraid I don't share . I would have thought it was time to have a rethink and look more carefully at training and airmanship. Normal law abiding people do sometimes speed and that is against the rules . In the real world people I am afraid do these things . Not you obviously, but others . I just want to give them more tools in their flying tool box to be able to deal with the unexpected as a lot of them are flying around totally unprepared....

helicrazi

2nd Apr 2017, 19:05

Nigelh:

Have you ever actually tried it in 50m vis? Do you actually know what 50m vis looks like??? :ugh:

Mike Flynn

2nd Apr 2017, 20:55

Its the old story of trying to save time and fuel.

Wrexham,Hawarden and the North Wales coast and they would still be alive.

Why do rich people want to cut corners?

Mike Flynn

2nd Apr 2017, 20:58

Arfur Dent

2nd Apr 2017, 21:17

Jay - it would appear so although I spent quite a few months at Valley doing the Gnat course many moons ago and we often flew up the A5/Ogwen valley and all over Wales in pretty good weather. I agree though, if I had enough fuel with 5 up to make it to Dublin, I wouldn't go anywhere near the mountains. Mind you, just take the safer route and refuel if that's required.

sudden twang

2nd Apr 2017, 22:26

Crab
Agree airframe icing unlikely unless Supercooled dunno where the front was that day but many manufacturers state +10c and below in vis moisture or less
than 1500m vis. for the engines.

Mike Flynn

2nd Apr 2017, 22:36

nigelh

2nd Apr 2017, 23:22

Helicrazy ..... I can only assume you can't read . Read my post again . Nobody would ever intentionally fly at all in 50 or 100 or even 500 m of viz .ok ? I am only saying that if you were stupid enough to get into that sort of situation you still have the option of hover taxiing to the nearest flat clear spot to land . You can still salvage the situation you have got yourself into !! That is the beauty of a helicopter ... You always have the option to slow right down and land , even if you have already messed up and gone into really poor weather . As I said before these options reduce if you go into hostile territory like forests and mountains.
Can we please drop this whole nonsense as we all know , just because something can be done doesn't mean it should !!!
The important point is , are we going to do anything proactive to help improve these statistics of helicopters flying into things ? Surely that is what should come from this tragedy.

helicrazi

3rd Apr 2017, 06:05

nigelh:

what you said was: "You really only need about 50-100m of viz to be able to taxi safely I would have said , on gentle ground . ( this is not a recommendation but just what you could do as part of your finding a safe place to land"

Again, its not going to happen, I don't know what you think the scenario is where you find yourself in thick fog and able to transition from forward flight to a hover in this sort of vis, its not going to happen, especially in a helicopter without all the 'bells and whistles'

I ask again as you have ignored the question, have you ever hovered in 50m vis, and do you actually know what 50m vis looks like? As if you did actually know what 50m vis looks like you would realise what utter toss you are spouting.

TorqueOfTheDevil

3rd Apr 2017, 06:40

Again, its not going to happen, I don't know what you think the scenario is where you find yourself in thick fog and able to transition from forward flight to a hover in this sort of vis, its not going to happen, especially in a helicopter without all the 'bells and whistles'

I ask again as you have ignored the question, have you ever hovered in 50m vis, and do you actually know what 50m vis looks like? As if you did actually know what 50m vis looks like you would realise what utter toss you are spouting.

Erm Nige mentioned 50m as manageable for hover-taxiing rather than transitioning to the hover, and I agree with him (much as it would be a last resort - as he also said).

For the record, I have hover-taxied in 50m vis in mountainous terrain, and in 10m vis (estimated) at night over the sea. Not that either is remarkable, but this thread seems to have an appetite for stating credentials at the moment.

EESDL

3rd Apr 2017, 06:58

Have had to carry out a hoge hover-taxi in less than such viz after completely cocking-up a series of poor decisions.
Element of 'push-on-itus' as well as overconfidence of aircraft avionics kit.
Never concentrated so hard in all my life - but it was not an inconvenient 'fog-bank' that I could blame which 'caught' me out but a gradual deterioration of conditions that that got me.
After landing at the 'Blacks' and waving the pax off in an Heathrow-bound taxi (Zone was 'open' - just couldn't get there) I quickly realised that the pax would not have patted me on the back for getting him there regardless. He still caught the flight and saved some silly landing fees in the process.
No 'there go by the grace of God go I' and the usual blah - I had the wherewithal to know better but my ego convinced me otherwise.
My family have now beaten any 'ego' out of me.
I will be interested to see what the AAIB discover as the weather was forecast/actually crap for the day.

helicrazi

3rd Apr 2017, 06:59

Erm Nige mentioned 50m as manageable for hover-taxiing rather than transitioning to the hover, and I agree with him (much as it would be a last resort - as he also said).

For the record, I have hover-taxied in 50m vis in mountainous terrain, and in 10m vis (estimated) at night over the sea. Not that either is remarkable, but this thread seems to have an appetite for stating credentials at the moment.

But the context was being able to get to that position to find a suitable landing site. My point is, its not possible unless you are already hover taxiing and the vis clamps in, its not like there was an ILS to make the decent, and it was a squirrel, not a SAR cab

I don't dispute hovering in 50m vis, I also have, but I wasn't in a squirrel, and I am sure you weren't, and when you were, you had crew looking out every direction for things that you could bump into. And I'm guessing you had sufficient training.

gulliBell

3rd Apr 2017, 07:20

..Nobody would ever intentionally fly at all in 50 or 100 or even 500 m of viz .ok ?.

Certainly not intentionally, but sometimes in the mountains you can try a little too hard and all of a sudden you're up to your neck in deep trouble. It's happened a couple of times to me, and it's not something you forget. I found myself hover taxing up a 7000' mountain in fog going from tree top to tree top, with a sling load on the hook (lucky it was only a 30' line). There was no way I would have been able to turn around and go back down the mountain, but I knew there was a helipad on top of the mountain so that's where I ended up, and waited it out for the weather to improve. So, point being, even experienced pilots can get caught out in the weather, particularly when flying in the mountains.

nigelh

3rd Apr 2017, 07:50

Helicrazy . Don't worry , it's very easy to be misunderstood on these forums but I really tried to make it clear that this was just positioning ! The answer is yes I have also needed to hover taxi in very low viz but , as with the others , this was after very bad decision making on my part and was part of the process of finding a spot to land , ( the field I chose was full of cattle and so was the next one .) I would also point out that in the event of you crashing in this process you would at least be only doing a very slow speed so chances of survival would be good . I guess the point some of us have wanted to put forward is that as viz decreases , so should your speed ... So eventually if you have been stupid enough to get there , by the time the viz is 100m or less your speed should be 5-10 knots and not 100 knots !!

Vertical Freedom

3rd Apr 2017, 07:55

Had the lousy job many a-times hovering up moraines & river flats situated at very extreme altitudes to go save a Life in mist/fog/****e with less than 100metres visibility :eek: it sure ain't fun. You better know Yourself, your machine & be damn sure of the terrain with oodles of local knowledge, tons of excess power, or you'll end up a dead fool :ooh:

Also had to abandon many Rescues as I considered the risk far too dangerous, which (sadly) left the Patient to die :{ better them than me rolling-up in a ball I said :oh:

nigelh

3rd Apr 2017, 08:17

Hi V F ..
I have huge adminiration for what you do and I accept all you say above . This is not something we really want to get into ....ever !! I just wanted to emphasise that IF it happens ... Don't give up hope . You don't have to try to punch up into it as a last ditch effort , but just slow right right down and just keep visual. That would , and has been my preferred choice ( my plan C if everything went to hell ) over the last 35 years of flying .
Good luck to you out there and safe flying as always ✌️

Vertical Freedom

3rd Apr 2017, 08:26

G'day nigelh......too right & thanks mate. Yep don't ever give up, never do what Your not sure about & what I didn't add before - I do have a plan B & plan C; I was watching behind me more than ahead where the weather was better behind, so could always turn around to bug out & there was lots of places to land along the way if I got uncomfortable :D

Stay Safe...Stay happy :ok::ok::ok:

Thomas coupling

3rd Apr 2017, 12:25

The crash site is very familiar. I know the whole of N Wales like the back of my hand, flown over and in it for 13 years. Even with the benefit of police easements and NVG, it is a VERY inhospitable environment. If the dark or the low cloud doesn't get you, the turbulence will!
Some have come on here asking a variety of questions, here is the answer to some of them:

The national park is littered with wreckage from decades of flying through them. Lots snuffed it coasting in and trying to get home during the war.
Many recent stoofs caused by private flyers departing the midlands and heading for Ireland. Several have maintained their cruise altitude way down south, thinking "x" thousands of feet above terra firma is fine for the whole trip, only to clip the tops of the Snowdon range.
Many have appraoched the range at a relatively low level (1000 - 2000') only to find they are forced into cloud if they continue and then climb into IMC - and die violently because there is nothing on this earth that frightens an inexperienced / non current pilot in a helicopter - like inadvertent IMC. The AAIB reports are littered with these sorts of crashes.
The problem with Snowdon is that once in there amongst the hills - if you are forced to either climb or land, you can't do the latter due to the hostile terrain. [See crash site]. So even if the guy could partially see out, he was stuffed for a landing and either tried to push on or go IMC. (At which stage it was game over).
If I knew I was going into the hills in poor weather or at night, I would plan to arrive at 5000' plus and then decend with visual references.

A warning to all those gung ho PPL's: If you don't have a s a minimum - an IMC rating and have retained IMC currency (suggest every week) then going IMC is probably your last activity as a mortal!

The switched on PPL, is the one who avoids bad weather like the plague.

I went to one crash site (first on scene) Bell 206 still on fire. 4 on board) where they were coming back from the races in Ireland. 5 minutes before the pilot commenced a "return to target" manouevre due to a wall of cloud ahead of him as he approached rising ground, he was seen hovering in a farmers yard @ 10'. He never landed but pressed on - killing all onboard.

What goes thru these peoples minds - does piloting a helicopter attract certain gung ho people?