Robinson crash in FL [Archive]

Bell_ringer

8th Jan 2022, 07:02

Agile, all good advice, but someone has to teach you those lessons, unfortunately gaining a license is merely giving you permission to learn, it doesn't mean you know all there is to know. You just don't know what you don't know, you will never know what you don’t know. There will always be gaps in your knowledge, places where you are absolutely clueless as to your ignorance. You hope to fill the bag of experience without emptying the bag of luck. RIP to a family whose luck ran out before gaining the necessary knowledge or experience.

There often is an underlying cultural issue when looking at these types of accidents involving Robinsons.
Owner/pilot who has a bit of cash and is master of his/her business domain and is unaccustomed to hearing the word "no".
Training that involves younger instructors and a significant age/life experience gradient in the cockpit.
You just end up with new pilots who's perception of their abilities outweighs their actual ability and are completely ill-equipped to identify risk, let alone manage it.

The sensible thing to do is to leave the family at home, acknowledge the learning has just started, and go fly with other experienced pilots who can mentor you through this dangerous time.
Eventually the lightbulb goes on, in most people anyway, and they develop an appreciation for how little they actually know and behave accordingly.

Too many families are needlessly snuffed out in aviation accidents.

Hot and Hi

8th Jan 2022, 08:49

Spot on.

(adding text here to reach the prescribed 10-character minimum.)

gulliBell

8th Jan 2022, 09:01

...The sensible thing to do is to leave the family at home....

Or park the bus before the sun goes down and have another go at first light the next morning.

[email protected]

8th Jan 2022, 09:30

Absolutely right Bell Ringer:ok: sadly, it is a scenario we have seen far too often.

Not too dissimilar to rich guys buying supercars and then writing them off because they didn't know and didn't appreciate the dangers.

In a country where you have to be told that coffee in cups might be hot - how can a low-time pilot be allowed to carry pax without further training?

There should be a mandatory period of flying hours where you can only fly with a more experienced pilot or solo and then have an instructor check-ride before being allowed to carry passengers.

thechopper

8th Jan 2022, 11:31

when familly is onboard, use a diferent standard.
say no to night, say no to any weather,
no deviation from the conservative principles
go arround or cancel fligth before your personal minimum

A responsible pilot should not apply different standards whether he's carrying family or rolls of barbed wire.
Same is valid for personal minima.
But all this comes with personal experience and this involves a lot of flying under supervision be this direct or indirect.

Ovc000

8th Jan 2022, 11:33

...There should be a mandatory period of flying hours where you can only fly with a more experienced pilot or solo and then have an instructor check-ride before being allowed to carry passengers.

Totally agree.
The Robinson POH has a safety notice SN44 stating that a newly rated pilot should not carry pax until 100hrs and 20hrs solo. Also only to fly VFR in daylight and keep the first several flights local.
Many smart pilots follow this SN44, some don't and within 1-5 hrs after passing they start flying with pax to places they've never been. (not saying the affected pilot didn't. I'm not aware of his experience).

aa777888

8th Jan 2022, 14:57

The FAA says you are ready when you pass your checkride.

Robinson says what their lawyers tell them to say.

The insurance company is in there somewhere, as well.

Rotorheads will never be satisfied with anything less than a background non-commercial pilots will rarely ever reach.

The reality is, of course, somewhere in between, and is strongly dependent on actual pilot skill and judgement.

It would be interesting to know if this was his first, or fiftieth, off airport night departure. Based on a certificate date of June 2021, it is easy to guess that might have been one of his first.

Occam's Razor also suggests pilot error, but there is no way to know for certain. Perhaps it was some type of catastrophic failure that many like to assign to Robinson helicopters.

The real question is: why do they not teach pilots how to properly and safely do things with helicopters that helicopters actually do? In the US, it is very likely that a newly minted private pilot has made the vast majority of their flights paved runway to paved runway, performed their minimal confined space operations in a farmer's field that was by no means confined, have very little night experience, and have performed zero off airport operations at night.

I am the very definition of the guy "with a bit of cash, master of my business domain, life/experience gradient", etc. I was quite disappointed, sometimes bordering on the appalled, by the instruction I was not receiving. I was lucky in that I mostly (not entirely, of course, and I am ever watchful) knew what I didn't know, and thus recognized the need for more and better instruction, something which ultimately lead me to push on to a commercial rating. How many don't know what they don't know?

And even with a newly minted commercial certificate I was left hanging. For instance, I never flew in rain (in a helicopter), not once, until after I had a commercial rating! Yes, it's bad for the blade paint, but worse for the student. Never once when the weather is at Class G minimums. But I was asked to do both when actually working as a pilot. Thankfully I had my fixed wing training to partially fall back on. My private fixed wing training was much better in some areas. There are certain institutional fears found in helicopter training that are, IMHO, misplaced. VFR night and weather conditions were much more extensively flown in during fixed wing training. This needs to change where primary helicopter instruction is concerned.

And the idea that you should not fly with your family at night is ludicrous. If the weather is reasonably VFR, and the man and machine so certified, this should not be a great challenge if flown paved runway to paved runway. But, certainly, night off-airport op's are next level stuff. I'd be interested to know if anyone here ever received formal training in that outside of the military or public safety/HEMS.

zambonidriver

8th Jan 2022, 15:07

To get back to the case at hand what could explain such an utterly violent impact? This seems to be a very high energy CFIT

aa777888

8th Jan 2022, 15:26

It probably was not "controlled". Could be pilot loss of control due to spatial disorientation. Could be a catastrophic mechanical failure of some sort.

rotorspeed

8th Jan 2022, 15:43

I think most here would think it more likely that the failure in this tragic accident will be with the pilot, not the aircraft. Clearly we don't know the cause, but I do find this sort of official comment maddening:

"the LCSO reported the aircraft experienced an undetermined failure causing the crash"

It is unfairly damaging to the reputation of helicopters, Robinson and even maintenance organisations when such ignorant comments are made - there is no way that could yet be known. And course it inevitably gets repeated in other media.

megan

8th Jan 2022, 17:20

the LCSO reported the aircraft experienced an undetermined failure causing the crashPersonally I have no problem with the statement, the undetermined failure being either mechanical or pilot, as yet we don't know.

Robbiee

8th Jan 2022, 17:35

[quote] But, certainly, night off-airport op's are next level stuff. I'd be interested to know if anyone here ever received formal training in that outside of the military or public safety/HEMS.[\quote]

Would you really feel comfortable doing off airport night landing training with a cfi who's just a wet behind the ears kid who's only real world experience is the occasional photo flight, and who's only night experience is maybe ten more hours of sitting as a pax while his students do their ten trips around the pattern and one short xc to another (lighted and paved) airport?

FH1100 Pilot

8th Jan 2022, 19:02

Although I don't usually, I have to agree with aa777888 here: The training that most nascent helicopter pilots receive regarding night, off-airport, confined-area ops is deplorable. And that should change. I'm civilian-trained. It wasn't until I started flying charters - with my huge "1,000" hours (wink-wink) that I got to do my first ones. The fact that the company trusted me not to crash and kill some "very important people" seems insane now. But that was then (1982). Fortunately, I had good instructors in the late 1970's when I was coming up - guys who were recently back from Viet Nam. Those guys really knew how to fly. What they taught me obviously saved my life many times over the years.

And so, yeah, if you're going to go paved runway to paved runway... then use an airplane. But if you're going to use a helicopter to do things that helicopters do, then you should get the necessary training. Unfortunately, it is not currently provided.

B2N2

8th Jan 2022, 19:23

I don’t think he woke up that morning and thought I’m going to take my family on a bad trip

He decided to take his family.

That’s all there is to it.

It’s my understanding that Frank(?) Robinson never intended the R-22 to be a trainer or a machine for an inexperienced PPL holder.
https://www.flightglobal.com/nothing-to-be-afraid-of/17067.article
The addition of a rotorcraft/helicopter rating requires :
) Except as provided in § 61.110 of this part (https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-14/part-61/section-61.110), 3 hours of night flight training in a helicopter that includes -

(i) One cross-country flight of over 50 nautical miles total distance; and

(ii) 10 takeoffs and 10 landings to a full stop (with each landing involving a flight in the traffic pattern) at an airport.

That is all dual training and likely the only night experience in a helicopter.
SEL night training requirement added totals 6 hrs night experience over two different categories.
Currently sunset in Florida is at 17:46 EST.
Therefore 20:30 EST is dark especially with no clouds.
Back to my earlier statement: He decided to attempt the flight and take with him the people that trusted his skills the most, his own family.

ShyTorque

8th Jan 2022, 21:05

I’ve flown helicopters for a living since 1979 (with a few years of light fixed wing, too) and was trained from very early on to fly in IMC on “floppy stick” helicopters. I have (infrequently) flown some of my family, including in IMC on a couple of occasions…..but never in an unstabilised single.

I also ride motorcycles and have been doing so since long before learning to fly, having first learned to ride well over fifty years ago. I’ve always been more careful when carrying a pillion passenger. If I’ve not ridden for a while, I’d never take a passenger until I’ve gone out solo for a while, particularly when changing between my two bikes with foot controls on the opposite side.

Maybe being cautious is why I’m still here and have never injured a passenger, either flying or biking.

I’ve known both pilots and bike riders who weren’t so cautious and considered themselves highly expert but are no longer with us..

[email protected]

8th Jan 2022, 21:25

Exactly Shy and it is that caution that keeps most of us alive - it is the 'entitled' brigade who have paid their money for a licence that allows them to 'do what they want' in their minds who don't seem to understand how far down the experience tree they really are.

If more training was mandated then people would be up in arms at the prohibitive cost of getting a helicopter licence and protesting about personal freedoms being restricted etc etc.

Maybe we just have to accept that stupid is as stupid does and they will keep killing themselves in the same ways - we just just have to hope they don't crash into us!

aa777888

8th Jan 2022, 21:37

Would you really feel comfortable doing off airport night landing training with a cfi who's just a wet behind the ears kid who's only real world experience is the occasional photo flight, and who's only night experience is maybe ten more hours of sitting as a pax while his students do their ten trips around the pattern and one short xc to another (lighted and paved) airport?
Yes, that is very much a large part of the problem. I had plenty more fixed wing night hours then my first helicopter instructor had any sort of night hours. When planning my night XC he was horrified of my first choice, an easy hop over the countryside into a nice, mid-sized, well lighted airport that I had been to many times in the dark, even as a fixed wing student. "Too dark that way" he said. That was my first inkling of the training shortfalls I would experience. He had us going a much longer distance over an urban landscape that was brilliantly lit.

Robbiee

8th Jan 2022, 22:02

Yes, that is very much a large part of the problem. I had plenty more fixed wing night hours then my first helicopter instructor had any sort of night hours. When planning my night XC he was horrified of my first choice, an easy hop over the countryside into a nice, mid-sized, well lighted airport that I had been to many times in the dark, even as a fixed wing student. "Too dark that way" he said. That was my first inkling of the training shortfalls I would experience. He had us going a much longer distance over an urban landscape that was brilliantly lit.

I've got over 350 night hours (almost all over a city in an R22) and I still avoid rural America like the plague,...and fly longer to stay over more lighted areas.

Then again my first night flight was over the open desert between Phoenix and Tuscon with nothing but the lights of a skinny little road 1,500' below. Followed by an even longer one a couple nights later to Long Beach. That was enough to cure me of any desire to fly xc over nothing at night in anything but a Southwest airliner.

Then I hear about a school I went to flying an R44 over the open ocean between Hawaiian Islands at night and think, "those guys are nuts!"

Maybe I'd feel differently if I'd had instructors with real helicopter experience teaching me?

Then again I also think, "Well, they taught me how to fly at night. They taught me how to land off airport. If I can't put those two together, then maybe I'm not fit to be a pilot?"

gulliBell

8th Jan 2022, 22:22

To get back to the case at hand what could explain such an utterly violent impact? This seems to be a very high energy CFIT

Being upside down, or steep nose down at impact.

Gordy

9th Jan 2022, 00:12

Then I hear about a school I went to flying an R44 over the open ocean between Hawaiian Islands at night and think, "those guys are nuts!"

It is actually easier at night. Back in the 90's I flew between Kauai and Oahu once at night and back during daylight hours. One cannot see your destination during the day, but at night you can see the glow of Oahu..... This was in an Astar with only a compass for navigation....no GPS etc....

Robbiee

9th Jan 2022, 00:58

It is actually easier at night. Back in the 90's I flew between Kauai and Oahu once at night and back during daylight hours. One cannot see your destination during the day, but at night you can see the glow of Oahu..... This was in an Astar with only a compass for navigation....no GPS etc....

One night (many moonless nights ago) I was flying my little R22 across the SF Bay from San Carlos to Hayward. Both were reporting "clear below 12,000" and yeah the lights of the East Bay made for a very nice clear target to aim for (didn't even have to turn on my gps :}).

Then at one point somwhere near the middle I got to experience the most trouser filling two seconds of my life (at that point) when those lights disappeared and the windshield went black. Seems I had passed through a wisp of a cloud.

So yeah, I guess it is easier at night,...to go right into a cloud you didn't know was there!

For what its worth, I have flown over the open ocean during the day when I couldn't see any land in any direction (due to how low I was flying to try and avoid a much stiffer headwind higher up). That was in an R22 Mariner (with a gps so old all I had was a number to follow) and I'll take that over not being able to see the clouds in my path any day of the week! :O

Hot and Hi

9th Jan 2022, 04:48

A responsible pilot should not apply different standards whether he's carrying family or rolls of barbed wire.
Same is valid for personal minima.
But all this comes with personal experience and this involves a lot of flying under supervision be this direct or indirect.
That is incorrect and untenable.

There are many legally permissible missions that equally legally require to be done without pax. Eg, training, re-familiarization, certain DG ops.

This is (i) about avoiding to unnecessarily expose pax to the necessary risk of that mission, and (ii) simply also about the distraction and (real or perceived) pressure stemming from the presence of pax.

B2N2

9th Jan 2022, 05:56

To get back to the case at hand what could explain such an utterly violent impact? This seems to be a very high energy CFIT

Probably start with the issues the R22 is known for then determine which one is the most probable based on empirical evidence.
From my very limited knowledge about helicopters I understand there is an issue which is more prevalent with fixed wing pilots that transition to helicopter then helicopter only trained pilots.
Abrupt corrections using the cyclic (?) rather then the collective. Using the cyclic like you would a fixed wing yoke or stick as far as pitch control.
Somebody please correct me and explain it the right way.

gulliBell

9th Jan 2022, 09:22

...Somebody please correct me and explain it the right way.

This was a recently minted private rotorcraft pilot who, on the face of it, has taken off on a dark night off-airport in his own helicopter with his family on board. My hunch is as soon as he was surrounded in darkness he was instantly overcome by a situation completely outside his proficiency level, panicked and lost control of a serviceable helicopter shortly thereafter. And possibly became inverted or crashed nose first at high speed resulting in the total destruction of the helicopter, and, needlessly, themselves.

[email protected]

9th Jan 2022, 13:15

nickp

9th Jan 2022, 14:00

If I remember rightly an artificial horizon is a requirement for night flying in the UK.

Robbiee

9th Jan 2022, 14:25

Does anything in FAA land or the RFM specify the need for an artificial horizon or attitude indicator to be fitted for night flight in a Robbie?

Night VFR is a misnomer, especially over poorly lit ground or sea. You might be able to see other aircraft but probably can't see any ground definition and the visual horizon can be very difficult to define.

Nope, but you are required to be able to see the ground, either by lights on the ground, or adequate celestial illumination.

Most R44's I've flown though, have had one installed, and (to my surprise) the last R22 I flew even had a glass one, with a glass HSI below it.

[email protected]

9th Jan 2022, 15:05

The trouble is that you can't see the ground, you can only see a few lights (in a poorly lit area) and in order to correctly maintain the aircraft attitude with no AI, you need a visual horizon.

aa777888

9th Jan 2022, 15:06

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.205

Robbiee

9th Jan 2022, 15:22

The trouble is that you can't see the ground, you can only see a few lights (in a poorly lit area) and in order to correctly maintain the aircraft attitude with no AI, you need a visual horizon.

That's where proper ADM comes into play. A quality for which private owners are not quite known.

B2N2

9th Jan 2022, 16:39

Does anything in FAA land or the RFM specify the need for an artificial horizon or attitude indicator to be fitted for night flight in a Robbie?

That wouldn’t help having done 3 hrs of “simulated” instrument flying more then a year ago.

[email protected]

9th Jan 2022, 17:24

No AI, limited experience and a night flight over poorly lit terrain that ends in a high speed CFIT - that has disorientation and LOC written all over it but until there is a full investigation we won't know if there were medical issues with the pilot or any catastrophic failure of the aircraft.

RatherBeFlying

9th Jan 2022, 18:41

Don't have the FAA regs in hand, but here in Canada aircraft are required in night to have an AH & DG.

Theoretically that should be enough to fly in black holes or inadvertent cloud encounters. But it seems the required hood time is done during the day.

A modest proposal: Required night training should include a night flight under the hood of at least 50 miles to or from a rural airport.

As an FW pilot, my impression from various accident reports is that RW control can deteriorate much more quickly at night than in FW.

It's not just the newly minted pilots that come to grief at. The accident record includes commercial operators.

TSB Canada Recommendation A16-08 (https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/recommandations-recommendations/aviation/2016/rec-a1608.html)

Unfortunately the proposed amendment to the regulations CARAC NPA 2021-007 is heavily biased to NVIS. The cure could be worse than the disease, but if nobody flies at night as a result of these proposed regulations, nobody will crash at night.

aa777888

9th Jan 2022, 18:42

There's no evidence that there was no AI in that R44. Indeed, most are delivered with an AI.

Not saying it would have helped in this case.

I have an AI in my R44. It is occasionally helpful at night, and for those very hazy but otherwise legal VFR days.

JimEli

9th Jan 2022, 20:32

Nope, but you are required to be able to see the ground, either by lights on the ground, or adequate celestial illumination.

AFAIK, the only surface visibility requirement in the FARs is a part 135 regulation (excepting student and sport pilots), 135.207, VFR: Helicopter Surface Reference Requirements. (https://www.gleim.com/aviation/faraim/index.php?leafNum=135.207)

Robbiee

9th Jan 2022, 20:39

AFAIK, the only surface visibility requirement in the FARs is a part 135 regulation (excepting student and sport pilots), 135.207, VFR: Helicopter Surface Reference Requirements. (https://www.gleim.com/aviation/faraim/index.php?leafNum=135.207)
I was just quoting Robby's requirements for night flight.

megan

9th Jan 2022, 22:39

§ 135.207 – VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopterDifficulty is what constitutes conditions to safely control flight. First night cross country was in a fixed wing (T-28) over the sparsely lit country side of Florida, weather CAVOK but a black, black night, no horizon, and had the first experience of the leans, for the ground lighting looked exactly like the star lit heavens. Had yet to do any instrument training but the eyeballs were glued to the AH to restore composure.

B2N2

9th Jan 2022, 23:25

First of all this was a (R-22 )so standard equipment for a R-44 is irrelevant.
(Disregard the above I was wrong about the type)
Second of all this was a flight conducted under Part 91 (owner operated) so any 135 regulations are equally irrelevant.

91.205(c) does not require an artificial horizon for night flying.

Minimum requirements are exactly what the word says, minimum.
It doesn’t mention anywhere that this implies safe for all experience levels or at any experience level.
You don’t overnight become a year older when you celebrate your birthday, you’re just a single day older.
You don’t overnight become an experienced pilot because you pass a skill test or check ride.
You simply gain one more day of experience and no longer legally required to be supervised by an instructor. That’s all that piece of paper means.

gulliBell

9th Jan 2022, 23:30

First of all this was a R-22 so standard equipment for a R-44 is irrelevant..
If so this flight was totally illegal given an R22 has only two seats and four people were on board.

gulliBell

9th Jan 2022, 23:46

..Second of all this was a flight conducted under Part 91 (owner operated) so any 135 regulations are equally irrelevant..

Whatever the flight rules, the requirements of the RFM still apply. And in this case the RFM says pretty much what 135.207 says.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/388x227/screen_shot_2022_01_10_at_08_37_54_7e0de9a6e84ad6b04c918ca72 7879f0865dc1401.png

B2N2

10th Jan 2022, 00:21

Whatever the flight rules, the requirements of the RFM still apply. And in this case the RFM says pretty much what 135.207 says.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/388x227/screen_shot_2022_01_10_at_08_37_54_7e0de9a6e84ad6b04c918ca72 7879f0865dc1401.png

Show me where it says AH pls?
91.205 specifies exactly which instruments are required.
Previous post corrected as I was wrong about the type. My brain thought Robinson and my fingers typed 22

B2N2

10th Jan 2022, 00:33

According to FAA records the 2018 R44 II helicopter was bought 26 April 2021 with a Helicopter add on to his certificate June 2021.
I am therefore assuming that all his rotor craft experience or the majority of it was on his own helicopter.
According to FlightAware they were airborne for two minutes.

gulliBell

10th Jan 2022, 01:53

Show me where it says AH pls?

This has nothing to do with instruments and everything to do with the RFM requirement that orientation during night flight must be maintained by visual reference to ground objects. There is no getting around that whatever instruments were fitted.

B2N2

10th Jan 2022, 02:23

This has nothing to do with instruments and everything to do with the RFM requirement that orientation during night flight must be maintained by visual reference to ground objects. There is no getting around that whatever instruments were fitted.

Well you know that’s just AFM legalese for you must be able to see where you’re going.
Meaningful? No

JimEli

10th Jan 2022, 02:24

Whatever the flight rules, the requirements of the RFM still apply. And in this case the RFM says pretty much what 135.207 says.

Or does it?

Orientation during night flight must be maintained by visual reference to ground objects illuminated solely by lights on the ground

or

adequate celestial illumination.

gulliBell

10th Jan 2022, 03:06

Or does it?...

Yep. If I might dare to speculate. If the pilot did what the RFM required, and maintained orientation during night flight by visual reference to ground objects, presumably he would have arrived safely at destination and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It matters not whether an AH was fitted, he had to be able to see sufficient lights on ground, or have enough celestial illumination to see the ground, to get a proper sense of his orientation. Because without orientation you invariably end up flying into the ground, whether that be day or night.

casper64

10th Jan 2022, 06:01

when familly is onboard, use a diferent standard.
say no to night, say no to any weather,
no deviation from the conservative principles
go arround or cancel fligth before your personal minimum
Fully agree, however, you should say that in general as a low time private pilot in an unstabilized VFR-only helicopter. It’s not nice to leave your family behind either! RIP.

metalboi69

10th Jan 2022, 06:44

Yep. If I might dare to speculate. If the pilot did what the RFM required, and maintained orientation during night flight by visual reference to ground objects, presumably he would have arrived safely at destination and we wouldn't be having this discussion. It matters not whether an AH was fitted, he had to be able to see sufficient lights on ground, or have enough celestial illumination to see the ground, to get a proper sense of his orientation. Because without orientation you invariably end up flying into the ground, whether that be day or night.

Completely agree with this. I've flown over some areas that were so poorly illuminated that it all just looks like an endless sea of black. It's not possible to determine orientation using ground references when that happens.

[email protected]

10th Jan 2022, 07:20

Completely agree with this. I've flown over some areas that were so poorly illuminated that it all just looks like an endless sea of black. It's not possible to determine orientation using ground references when that happens. Absolutely right and even with some lights on the ground it can be impossible to maintain orientation - a single point light source is an awful visual reference and can induce disorientation because of the way the human eye scans.

Try googling autokinesis.

Non NVG night flight is a visual/instrument balance in anything but bright, full moonlight or over a built up area.

Robbiee

10th Jan 2022, 14:38

Completely agree with this. I've flown over some areas that were so poorly illuminated that it all just looks like an endless sea of black. It's not possible to determine orientation using ground references when that happens.

Well that's just it though. It doesn't say you just need lights on the ground. Its says you have to have reference to "ground objects" illuminated soley by lights, or "adequate" celestial illumination.

So obviously, if there are so few lights that it just looks like a sea of black, then its no longer "night" by the Robby definition, its IFR,...and you cannot legally fly a Robby by IFR.

[email protected]

10th Jan 2022, 14:41

I completely agree Robbiee - but I very much get the impression from posts here over the years that it is a widely abused definition and as long as someone can see a light somewhere, they justify it as night VFR.

Robbiee

10th Jan 2022, 15:09

gulliBell

10th Jan 2022, 23:09

Pilots of all experience levels are adept at crashing all variety of helicopters at night, even those with two engines, two pilots and certified for IFR. But doing it in a Robinson helicopter at night contrary to the RFM and the chances of an unfortunate outcome are quite high, especially for a pilot with virtually no experience. I dare say this accident was almost inevitable within a few minutes of take-off without adequate external visual reference.

RatherBeFlying

11th Jan 2022, 00:15

Night takeoff in a rural area exposes you to the possibility that you might unexpectedly encounter a lack of sufficient lighting to maintain visual reference. The other possibility is that you might encounter a false horizon illusion.

Without an AH and instrument proficiency, you are up the creek without a paddle.

In FW it's commonly taught to stay on instruments after liftoff at night until you have 500'. By then there's usually enough lights on the ground and perhaps celestial for visual orientation.

aa777888

11th Jan 2022, 00:52

In FW it's commonly taught to stay on instruments after liftoff at night until you have 500'.
Is this now taught in the US? It's been a long time since I earned my FW private rating. It sure wasn't taught "back then". It would not be a legal VFR operation to do this in any case.

gulliBell

11th Jan 2022, 01:01

...It would not be a legal VFR operation to do this in any case.
Exactly. You need to be able to see the ground at all times to maintain proper orientation, and be in no doubt about it. Hybrid IFR/instrument/visual technique is utter bollocks. Once airborne is not the time to discover you don't have proper visual reference and have no plan B, especially where the departure point is off-airport without runway lighting.

megan

11th Jan 2022, 01:28

[QUOTE][First of all this was a R-22 so standard equipment for a R-44 is irrelevant/QUOTE]Confirming the accident aircraft was a R44, registered owner HICKS SEAL COATING & STRIPING LLC of 6758 SW COUNTY ROAD 344. The following link gives weather at the time along with track flown. Place mark bottom left of photo denotes crash site, aircraft heading NE, 2.16NM to run to the freeway, so one would have surmised towards reasonable well lit residential area, albeit country side not city.

Kathryn's Report: Robinson R44 Raven II, N442VB: Fatal accident occurred December 30, 2021 in Bronson, Levy County, Florida (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/12/robinson-r44-raven-ii-n442vb-fatal.html)

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1279x795/u1_f39fb972e8ffce6ecd9fda2e24833fe45de0cb5e.jpg

Family home, own hangar, fixed wing and runway.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1413x737/u1_5178009bb3dfa174981f3cdd9101718510007885.jpg

A little tiger country to traverse, a little over 5NM, may have been the trigger for the leans given the vis.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/787x932/u2_938e72f0726702f4de91146b1ee78bfd771a1951.jpg

[email protected]

11th Jan 2022, 08:36

Hybrid IFR/instrument/visual technique is utter bollocks Or, in fact, the safe way to fly VFR at night.

You need to be able to see the ground at all times to maintain proper orientation, and be in no doubt about it. And do please tell how you do that when it is dark (except with a cloudless night and full moon).

Seeing lights on the ground is not the same as seeing the ground itself. However, lit structures can give you orientation and scale information - buildings, roads etc - but in order to form a coherent mental model of the outside world for orientation, you need a horizon or something that will serve as a horizon..

gulliBell

11th Jan 2022, 09:27

Or, in fact, the safe way to fly VFR at night.

No, it's just suckering in people who don't have the skills or recency to give it a go, and when they give it a go and it turns out to be too dark the situation ends up exceeding their capability. If it's that dark that you need to cross reference to instruments it's too dark to be flying a helicopter that requires you to be able to see the ground to maintain orientation.

And do please tell how you do that when it is dark (except with a cloudless night and full moon).

Easy. The decision is made for you by the RFM. If you don't have a clear night with ample celestial illumination to see the ground, or otherwise if you're not flying over a brightly lit city, the RFM is pretty much compelling you to stay on the ground. Which is what you should be doing in that helicopter if there is any doubt as to whether you'll be able to maintain orientation visually.

Bell_ringer

11th Jan 2022, 09:44

No, it's just suckering in people who don't have the skills or recency to give it a go, and when they give it a go and it turns out to be too dark the situation ends up exceeding their capability. If it's that dark that you need to cross reference to instruments it's too dark to be flying a helicopter that requires you to be able to see the ground to maintain orientation.

That's not right. It's often right after takeoff where disorientation can set in and create a problem where there does not need to be one.
Using instruments while you gain height, in order to better achieve a visual reference, can be useful and it is how we were taught, along with avoiding an early turn-out on takeoff.
Get settled and get your perspective sorted, a basic scan can only help with that.

People that want to fly in IFR conditions aren't put off or encouraged by what tools they do or don't have.

[email protected]

11th Jan 2022, 10:49

Easy. The decision is made for you by the RFM. If you don't have a clear night with ample celestial illumination to see the ground But you won't know that until you get in the air and look down - it will also change with the moon position and fullness.

Just because you can look up and see the stars doesn't mean you can look down and see the ground.

In 40 years of flying I have only seen a few nights, some but not many, where you could honestly say you could fly in an unstabilised helicopter with sole reference to external cues and not need to look in at the instruments.

gulliBell

11th Jan 2022, 11:26

..In 40 years of flying I have only seen a few nights, some but not many, where you could honestly say you could fly in an unstabilised helicopter with sole reference to external cues and not need to look in at the instruments.

Me to. So stick with the RFM and only blast off into the night when you can see where you are going.

gulliBell

11th Jan 2022, 11:33

That's not right. It's often right after takeoff where disorientation can set in and create a problem where there does not need to be one..

You've missed the point. And that is, don't blast off into the night unless you can see where you are going, and you have sufficient visual reference to establish your orientation without any reference to instruments. If you need to rely on instruments in that process you are not complying with the RFM. Disorientation doesn't set in when you can see the ground far enough ahead and below you that you have a proper visual horizon reference. If that requires clear skies and a full moon, so be it.

[email protected]

11th Jan 2022, 12:11

That presumes you have had enough time for your eyes to become dark-adapted and that no lights in the cockpit or your airfield have affected your night vision.

Otherwise you are taking off without full knowledge of the conditions and ability to see the ground. Another reason to use an instrument/visual balance for departure.

If your eyes haven't dark-adapted before take-off it can take between 20 and 30 minutes to achieve reasonable night vision and be able to accurately determine whether you can see the ground or not.

Your cones can get reasonably adapted in about 10 mins but your rods - which provide scotopic or night vision - take much longer, it can take several hours to reach full night sensitivity.

This means you need to turn your cockpit lighting down in stages during the sortie so you allow maximum adaptation for the external references. It always amazes me how dim the lights can be after an hour or so and you can still read the instruments perfectly. Even with my old eyes:)

homonculus

11th Jan 2022, 14:03

Reading this sad thread over the past few days has reminded me of a number of CFIT accidents during my 30 year career in aviation as well as some personal hairy moments as I gained experience. Were I to buy a 44 today the one must have option would be the autopilot. Having flown a few hours recently with this option has convinced me of its value in marginal VMC, over water and at night. I fully accept the risk that low hour pilots (and perhaps high hour pilots) might see it as an IMC option or a capability to fly when they otherwise would not, but IMHO stabilisation, the ability to maintain height and the ability to reduce cockpit workload in VMC is a significant improvement.

B2N2

11th Jan 2022, 14:39

I’m hesitant to recommend an autopilot for a skill you don’t have.
It should be an alternative and not a replacement.

[email protected]

11th Jan 2022, 14:59

Improving the handling qualities of your aircraft is absolutely the best thing you can do to improve safety - it reduces pilot workload and allows better lookout, better situational awareness and more capacity to deal with problems or changing weather.

I took part in a simulator trial at RAE Bedford in the late 90's where we had to repeat a task of medium workload while the boffins changed the handling qualities of the aircraft and the visual cues - it was an investigation into DVE.

The better the handing qualities, the worse visual cues we could cope with and vice versa.

Having a better handling aircraft won't make you fly in worse conditions - that is the pilot's decision - but it will make any flying more enjoyable and safer.

Given it's target market, the Robbie shouldn't be produced without an autopilot in my opinion - nothing clever just SAS.

megan

11th Jan 2022, 15:35

I’m hesitant to recommend an autopilot for a skill you don’t haveB2N2, the problem is a helicopter such as a Robbie has no natural stability such as a fixed wing, the machine is balanced on the head of a pin, a stabilisation system (SAS) endows the helicopter with fixed wing like stability, but costs $$$. Eases the work load no end, but of course you need the skills should it take a holiday.

Robbiee

11th Jan 2022, 15:42

If there one more thing the Robby book tells us. its that some fixed-wing techniques will get you killed in their helicopters.

This idea of taking off at night staring at the artificial horizon until you get to 500' in the hopes that you'll be able to see the ground once you get there, sounds like one of them. :eek:

As for Robbys with autopilot? Yeah, that just seems like a recipe for more scudd-running and/or too dark to fly VFR, crashes.

,...in the wrong hands I guess? :hmm:

[email protected]

11th Jan 2022, 16:31

Robbiee - a night take-off doesn't mean staring at the AI - you can make a normal visual transition if you have a reasonably lit area like an airport, get comfortable in the climb configuration and then use a mixture of visual cues and the AI to confirm them to continue on your flight.

If people are going to scud-run, they will do it anyway whether or not they have the skills to do so and regardless of the handling qualities of their aircraft, that comes down to the person and their attitude to flying- as we keep seeing on these pages, sadly

B2N2

12th Jan 2022, 00:44

The difference is stunning:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/7/8/18327589/air-ambulance-helicopter-pilot-before-south-side-crash-we-re-going-down

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/610948-ec135-hard-landing-chicago-area-july-7-a.html

A professional crew and and a professional machine.

aa777888

12th Jan 2022, 01:42

The difference is stunning:
How are those events in any way relevant to the R44 crash?

B2N2

12th Jan 2022, 14:30

How are those events in any way relevant to the R44 crash?

Not really.
More a fleeting reminder of how a properly trained experienced pilot managed a positive outcome during a night emergency.
Four people saved vs perished.
Feel free to ignore it.

aa777888

12th Jan 2022, 17:18

In 40 years of flying I have only seen a few nights, some but not many, where you could honestly say you could fly in an unstabilised helicopter with sole reference to external cues and not need to look in at the instruments.Assuming you mean an AI, AH, T&B, etc., that seems extraordinarily unlikely, or at least extraordinarily your own experience, which perhaps is heavily slanted towards more challenging night VFR conditions. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand. People have untold thousands (millions?) of hours at night in un-stabilized helicopters with no attitude information in the panel and seem to manage just fine at night under reasonable VFR conditions (not total blackness, but not brilliantly lit urban landscapes either).

If you are referring to airspeed, altitude, etc., heck, don't we all use those in all types of flight conditions?

For any newbies reading this particular thread of discussion, it's important to understand that different countries and different parts of the flying community do things differently. Part 91 operations in the US occur in ways that curl the hair of, say, retired UK military helicopter pilots. Needs must when the devil drives, and since US Part 91 op's are mostly in un-stabilized, un-sophisticated, light singles, as opposed to medium or heavy, fully stabilized, twins, you get the aforementioned un-stabilized singles flying around at night quite successfully, minus the occasional exception like the one being discussed herein.

In other words, it's not inherently evil, but one must understand the conditions they are facing and act accordingly and, most importantly, according to their own risk tolerance (damn, there's that risk thing again!) The risk tolerance of a lot of the Rotorheads on PPRuNe tends to be quite conservative. Nevertheless, remember that accidents (or "negligents") happen not because a helicopter or pilot is intrinsically more or less capable, they happen because someone exceed the capabilities of man and/or machine. Indeed, look at the other relatively recent topic about Rescue 111. If that had been an R44 they might have been dead quite quickly. It just took a bit longer for the far better equipped, trained and experienced crew of Rescue 111.

Anyone can push anything too far. That certainly seems to be the case here, and it's worth discussing the how and the why. But don't let it be an indictment of all VFR night helicopter operations.

[email protected]

12th Jan 2022, 17:38

If all those hours have been flown - not sure how you know who did what and in what conditions - then they were probably over well-lit enough areas to give adequate orientation, as the rule requires.

But, if they did that without being able to see the ground, then they did not fly in accordance with the rules for night VFR - simples.

Do tell how you control your pitch and roll attitude in an unstabilised aircraft without an external reference if you don't have an AI and you can't see the actual horizon. Perhaps the ubiquitous i-pad?

brett s

12th Jan 2022, 18:00

Not really.
More a fleeting reminder of how a properly trained experienced pilot managed a positive outcome during a night emergency.
Four people saved vs perished.
Feel free to ignore it.
Probably not a great example given exactly what caused the emergency in the first place though.

US HEMS EC135P1 Dual Engine Failure: 7 July 2018 - Aerossurance (http://aerossurance.com/helicopters/hems-ec135-dual-engine-failure/)

Years ago as a very low time PPL(H) I was ferrying piston ag ships between job sites to build hours, a fair amount was at night & to/from unlit field sites in rural areas. Being restricted category ag ships a couple didn't even have a compass. But I also had a healthy sense of self-preservation, plus several years of helicopter background as a military enlisted crewmember. Common sense & understanding your limitations goes a long ways.

aa777888

12th Jan 2022, 18:10

If all those hours have been flown - not sure how you know who did what and in what conditionsYou know I'm not spouting hard numbers, but R44s and many other light single, VFR-only helicopters fly at night all the time in the US, and historically this has gone on probably since the beginning of the helicopter. it's just common sense. By way of a single example, once upon a time, that's all police departments flew, before they started squeezing taxpayers for bigger and better.

- then they were probably over well-lit enough areas to give adequate orientation, as the rule requires.Of course that is the case.

But, if they did that without being able to see the ground, then they did not fly in accordance with the rules for night VFR - simples.That is not the case.

Do tell how you control your pitch and roll attitude in an unstabilised aircraft without an external reference if you don't have an AI and you can't see the actual horizon. Perhaps the ubiquitous i-pad?You don't.

Either you and I are not on the same page (as usual), or you are serving up non-sequiturs for some reason.

Bottom line: there are lots of night VFR helicopter op's in the US in un-stabilized, VFR-only light singles, all done 100% legally without reference to instrument flight tools and techniques, without them falling from the sky in droves. It's simply not a big problem in this country, nor is it some sort of anathema, either.

[email protected]

12th Jan 2022, 20:55

Robbiee

12th Jan 2022, 22:04

Well I can say that even in the very well lighted San Francisco Bay Area (where I got most of my night hours) true VFR nights aren't exactly a dime a dozen. Too much frickin' fog!

,...and then when you do finally get a nice fog free one, you can't go to the city because of those damn ballgame TFRs! :ugh:

aa777888

13th Jan 2022, 01:45

Not a non-sequitur - I have said how many nights I have seen where pure VFR flight at night is possible ie not that many but you say night VFR happens all the time in the US.

You can draw 2 possible conclusions from this - 1. There are far more real VFR nights in the US than the UK or 2. People are claiming night VFR when the conditions don't meet the rules

You choose.

As ever you seem to want to trivialise a thread trying to make safety points about an accident because it offends your risk appetite.Now that post is on point. Concise and clear.

Taking your points in reverse order:

First, in no way is it my desire to trivialize the issues that likely contributed to the subject accident. I fully agree with the consensus of this topic regarding the likely cause, not that that has been at all proven yet (and may never be given the level of destruction of the aircraft).

However, I completely disagree with the idea that people routinely claim night VFR when the conditions don't meet the rules, at least in the US, and that night VFR flight is an unlikely state of affairs, at least in the US.

There are certainly major differences in weather patterns throughout the world. Perhaps that is part of it. Night VFR flight in all classes and categories of powered aircraft (edited to add: for which it is legal) are de rigueur throughout the US. No doubt some take liberties, but not to the extent that there are a noteworthy number of Part 91 accidents. Indeed, most of those sort of issues seem to plague more complex operations like HEMS. That said, I absolutely agree that, as usual, operations unique to helicopters, particularly off-airport departures and arrivals, represent a substantial increase in complexity and risk.

From a more personal perspective, I have never flown at night when legal VFR was not possible, and that includes off-airport operations. This is not to say some of these flights were not challenging. But in no case did they approach a level of advertent or inadvertent flight into essentially IFR conditions. I believe most US pilots are equally responsible even in the face of the less restrictive rules found in the US. If they were not there would be a substantially higher level of night accidents in the US.

megan

13th Jan 2022, 04:37

For any newbies reading this particular thread of discussion, it's important to understand that different countries and different parts of the flying community do things differentlyNever a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5668844/AO-2011-102%20Final.pdf

Robbiee

13th Jan 2022, 05:07

Scattercat

13th Jan 2022, 05:27

[QUOTE=megan;11169240]Never a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator.

It's been some time since I've flown in Oz, but IIRC, a VFR flight at or below 2000 ft above the ground or water, a pilot is required to be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. I posit that in "pitch black" conditions, this is not possible or legal. Hence additional requirements were in place for NVFR overwater op's. I do agree that Oz NVFR requirements lacked a certain degree of clarity or guidance that sadly attributed to a number of fatal accidents.

megan

13th Jan 2022, 11:11

a VFR flight at or below 2000 ft above the ground or water, a pilot is required to be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. I posit that in "pitch black" conditions, this is not possible or legal.The requirement is you have to be able to positively fix your position by reference to features on a topographical chart at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes, which on a pitch black night means, in my opinion, a lighted area such as a town, or where I operated, an off shore platform. See page 31 of the report.

helonorth

13th Jan 2022, 12:34

I've flown quite a bit in the area of this accident and it's not that dark there. Plenty of ground lighting and flat terrain. Never heard of "pitch black" in aviation. I've flown all over the US unaided and never had a problem. Over a large body of water is a whole different story, though. The guy most likely went inadvertent. Plenty of fog there at all times of the year.

Robbiee

13th Jan 2022, 14:45

The closest I've seen to "pitch black" was looking out to sea from the Golden Gate on a moonless night. Where you can't tell if the handfull of lights you see are stars, planes, or boats?

You don't need pitch black to get into trouble though. On my ppl night cross country over the desert, all I had was the lights of the skinny little freeway below me. After maybe twenty minutes, or so, I started to feel disoriented. Fortunately, just as I was about to hand the controls to my instructor, the lights of Tuscon came up and the disorientation went away.

Though, if I had been alone on that flight,..?

aa777888

13th Jan 2022, 15:20

Perhaps a little far afield from the original topic, but I'm always more cautious/concerned about potentially getting the leans than flying into zero visibility (clouds or just blackness). At least the latter ought to be unambiguous, or at least should be. I fly in very mixed terrain, from bright urban to dark rural, from flatland to mountains, and over small bodies of water. I always make it a point to correlate what I'm seeing with known terrain features. If it seems "slanted" should it seem "slanted"? That sort of thing. Heck, even in the daytime this issue can come into play, if it's very hazy and an opposite shoreline seems "slanted". I've never had the leans, but how it might happen is definitely obvious.

Getting sucked into "black holes" is also a big one. I was once with another pilot, who was PIC, going into a pretty big airport with a perfectly serviceable PAPI. There was this large, completely black area for a mile or so directly in front of the runway. He kept going below the optical glide slope, entirely fixated on that patch of blackness, even though the PAPI was perfect on that severe clear evening. I could not understand it, but it happens. Experienced it again with someone else PIC at an unimproved, but lighted, LZ. Again, could not understand it. Fixed the problem both times, of course, else I might not be here!

The only time I've personally been spatially disoriented was one night, transitioning through Class C, with a Southwest 737 on approach to that airport. Conditions were severe clear. No problem flying straight and level, it was brilliantly lit urbanization below. But I could swear that 737 was on a collision course, the lights were so bright, and the relative motion was just so, but of course we were well separated by ATC, and he passed 2000 feet above me. That sure was weird! It's never happened again, since, but I remember that feeling like it was yesterday.

helonorth

13th Jan 2022, 16:01

Now that we are wading into boring "there I was" territory, I think we're done here for now.

ShyTorque

13th Jan 2022, 16:22

Never a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator. **

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5668844/AO-2011-102%20Final.pdf

**Indeed. I was taught from the start of my military career to fly unstabilised "floppy stick" helicopters both by night and on instruments under IFR, day and night (because that's all they had in the training system back then). However, they ALL had "blind flying" flight instruments.

I later flew a "floppy stick" public transport (police) helicopter by night, single pilot without a current instrument rating. After an accident to a police helicopter some twenty years ago, the UK CAA changed the rules such that either a second pilot was carried for such flights (impractical) or that an autopilot, i.e. a full trim/stabilisation system was installed (also impractical) and that police pilots flew a dedicated monthly instrument flying training sortie which included an ILS. That led to the ultimate demise of the AS355 for the UK police role.

helonorth

13th Jan 2022, 17:00

I later flew a "floppy stick" public transport (police) helicopter by night, single pilot without a current instrument rating.
How ever did you survive such an ordeal?

"There was that one time I found myself flying a helicopter, at night, BY MYSELF and GET THIS, NOT instrument current.

[email protected]

13th Jan 2022, 18:26

Now that we are wading into boring "there I was" territory, I think we're done here for now. especially when someone is trying to big themselves up by dissing other peoples failings when he flew with them.

'There I was, slightly below the glidepath with nothing to look at but the PAPIs'...................I've had more exciting ground runs.........

Robbiee

13th Jan 2022, 20:27

We can always go over to JH and let the HEMS guys tell us what "real night" is. :}

megan

13th Jan 2022, 23:19

Now that we are wading into boring "there I was" territory, I think we're done here for nowYou're quite entitled to your opinion but there I was stories are one of the greatest learning tools available to an aviator, more lessons have been learnt having a drink in the bar than in a class room probably.§ 135.207 – VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.I think this is an area the FAA needs to revisit. In Oz an attitude indicator is mandatory for night VFR, also night VFR approval is a separate rating on top of what ever license you might hold (in answer to Robbiee) .

The accident report I linked to contains the following statement on page 35,Any notion that celestial lighting and/or an apparent visible horizon are appropriate references for the control of an aircraft by night is misleading and dangerous and increases the probability of pilot disorientationGets my vote, this Robbie accident is likely proof of just that.

John Eacott

13th Jan 2022, 23:27

You're quite entitled to your opinion but there I was stories are one of the greatest learning tools available to an aviator, more lessons have been learnt having a drink in the bar than in a class room probably.I think this is an area the FAA needs to revisit. In Oz an attitude indicator is mandatory for night VFR, also night VFR approval is a separate rating on top of what ever license you might hold (in answer to Robbiee Robbiee) .

Indeed, the NVFR rating used to be a Grade 4 Instrument Rating way back when. Not that it's a foolproof system, but the vast areas of Oz without much ground lighting or references mandates such a minimum instrument fit for the aircraft and minimum instrument rating for the driver, airframe.

Robbiee

14th Jan 2022, 00:56

Indeed, the NVFR rating used to be a Grade 4 Instrument Rating way back when. Not that it's a foolproof system, but the vast areas of Oz without much ground lighting or references mandates such a minimum instrument fit for the aircraft and minimum instrument rating for the driver, airframe.

If a required artificial horizon and "night rating" didn't keep a 16,000 hour pilot from crashing, then what good would it do a low time guy in an R44?

Instead of increased regulation it might be better to just try harder to get the point across that if you're not going to be able to clearly see the ground at anytime during a night flight, then just file and fly IFR.

,...and if you can't, just don't fly!

Winemaker

14th Jan 2022, 01:46

If a required artificial horizon and "night rating" didn't keep a 16,000 hour pilot from crashing, then what good would it do a low time guy in an R44?

Instead of increased regulation it might be better to just try harder to get the point across that if you're not going to be able to clearly see the ground at anytime during a night flight, then just file and fly IFR.

,...and if you can't, just don't fly!
From the accident report the pilot should not have been carrying passengers.....
The pilot reached 60 years of age in October 2010 and was therefore subject to additional check
requirements. Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 5.126 required that a commercial helicopter pilot
not undertake a commercial flight as pilot in command with passengers if the pilot was 60 years
old unless they had completed a proficiency check or flight review in the previous year. 4 The pilot
reached 60 years of age in October 2010, and his last proficiency check was conducted on
27 April 2010. Therefore, he was not permitted to undertake any commercial flights with
passengers after 27 April 2011.

and shouldn't have been night flying with passengers.....
Of the pilot’s total recorded flight time, 483.8 hours were conducted at night. He recorded a total of
3.4 hours night flying within the previous 12 months and about 30 hours over the last 4 years. To
carry passengers at night, the pilot was required to have conducted 3 night take-offs and landings
in the previous 90 days (see Requirements and guidance for night operations). The only recorded
night flight in the preceding 90 days was in VH-NTV on 24 June 2011. This was a 1.3 hour flight,
which consisted of a night departure from Cooma, New South Wales, and a night landing at the
helicopter’s base in Sydney. The two previous recorded night flights were 0.6 hours on
4 April 2011 and 1.5 hours on 7 September 2010.

megan

14th Jan 2022, 02:16

If a required artificial horizon and "night rating" didn't keep a 16,000 hour pilot from crashing, then what good would it do a low time guy in an R44?It matters not what instruments the aircraft is fitted with, all can still come unraveled, two Boeing 747 have taken off at night and promptly rolled inverted and crashed, all because the pilots attitude indicator had failed, the fact there was another pilot and another two working attitude indicators didn't save them. In the early days of single seat fighters the loss rate due to the leans was high, because to tune radios/nav aids the pilot had to look down and some what aft as they were located on a console beside the seat.Instead of increased regulation it might be better to just try harder to get the point across that if you're not going to be able to clearly see the ground at anytime during a night flight, then just file and fly IFRThat may be good advice in the US given their system, but impracticable in Oz, my opinion is Oz, even with the deficiencys pointed out in the report, has a pretty good system.

[email protected]

14th Jan 2022, 12:36

Instead of increased regulation it might be better to just try harder to get the point across that if you're not going to be able to clearly see the ground at anytime during a night flight, then just file and fly IFR.

,...and if you can't, just don't fly! Spot on Robbiee - it would have saved 4 lives in this sad case.

aa777888

14th Jan 2022, 13:24

especially when someone is trying to big themselves up by dissing other peoples failings when he flew with them.

'There I was, slightly below the glidepath with nothing to look at but the PAPIs'...................I've had more exciting ground runs.........
Oh give it up, crab. You are just angry with me for daring to contradict your assertion that the vast majority of night flight is tantamount to IFR.

Bell_ringer

14th Jan 2022, 14:28

It's really easy buzzing around a well-lit city at night, thinking what a legend at night-flying you are.
Once you leave the limits and head off to the country, with the exception of clear skies and a bright moon, there will be precious few flights which, at some point enroute, would not fall beneath minima and be considered IMC.
It quickly becomes here-be-dragons country, and all the when-we stories doesn't change that.

212man

14th Jan 2022, 14:44

[email protected]

14th Jan 2022, 14:50

Oh give it up, crab. You are just angry with me for daring to contradict your assertion that the vast majority of night flight is tantamount to IFR. some very experienced people here seem to agree with me.

Ever thought you might be part of the problem?

Flight Safety is easily discounted or dismissed if you have a cavalier attitude to rules and regs because you think you are much better than the other guys and girls. Personal freedoms don't trump safety in aviation.

[email protected]

14th Jan 2022, 14:53

Ground runs can be quite exciting - ask the RNoAF! I have got close to that on a night start when the Wessex went into ground resonance due to unequal tyre pressures - that was quite exciting:)

aa777888

14th Jan 2022, 15:01

BR: we can all cite specific circumstances that support our own individual arguments. I'm not arguing that there aren't conditions at night that are tantamount to IFR. There certainly are. I'm only arguing that these do not form the preponderance of such operations everywhere, nor do the fact they exist make all night flying like that. I've already gotten into "trouble" for citing personal experience (where certain others have not...) so I won't go there again.

I think it comes down to the usual argument of "What is the right kind of flying?", or "What is the right way of doing it?" Those with certain backgrounds and experience, particularly in highly complex military environments, simply can't fathom operating at night except in a certain way. Meanwhile, others, some with many thousands of hours (that's not me, to be clear) in "floppy stick" (that's a great term!), non-IFR certified equipment, don't see any problem with tackling it as a true VFR operation. And of course the line gets a bit blurry, since most helicopters are gyro-equipped at some level. No doubt there is some reliance on that, correct or incorrect, legal or not legal.

All I'm saying is that the situation is not black and white, if you'll pardon the pun. Differences in culture, training, doctrine, experience and environment make it so that some people are quite comfortable in the dark VFR, others not so much without making it a de facto IFR flight. Those who tend towards the latter often carry that over into the expression that any such thing as night VFR should be outlawed and that those who profess any sort comfort in a night VFR environment are all cowboys who are ultimately doomed. And indeed this has lead to restrictions on night VFR flight in some places, but not the US, not yet, anyway.

aa777888

14th Jan 2022, 15:05

some very experienced people here seem to agree with me.And there are others of equal experience who posted otherwise.

Ever thought you might be part of the problem?No.

Flight Safety is easily discounted or dismissed if you have a cavalier attitude to rules and regs because you think you are much better than the other guys and girls. Personal freedoms don't trump safety in aviation.Agreed. That's why I fly within the letter of the law (US law) and have set conservative minimums based on my level of experience, training, currency, and the capability of the equipment I have access to.