Sherburn ground incident (Now incl AAIB report)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sherburn helicopter hits another while running on the ground
Earlier today a R44 and a R22 got too close and hit each others blades .
The R 44 on AOC work which parked too close to a R22 had damaged blades and the R22 had serious damage to the head ,gearbox, mast ect but thankfully nobody was injured
The CPL said it was realy bad luck
I think his line captain will surely want to bawl him out
The R 44 on AOC work which parked too close to a R22 had damaged blades and the R22 had serious damage to the head ,gearbox, mast ect but thankfully nobody was injured
The CPL said it was realy bad luck
I think his line captain will surely want to bawl him out
Last edited by lartsa; 24th Apr 2005 at 19:19.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mr Lartsa,
couple of points for you:-
1) how does this qualify as "mid air", if one a/c was on the ground and the other one was landing ?
2)assuming what your saying is accurate, "luck" wouldnt seem to have much to do with it !
what do you think
regards
CF
couple of points for you:-
1) how does this qualify as "mid air", if one a/c was on the ground and the other one was landing ?
2)assuming what your saying is accurate, "luck" wouldnt seem to have much to do with it !
what do you think
regards
CF
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
According to some on this thread, it would be appear to be the fault of the person who parked the R22. 
Glad nobody was injured.
Glad nobody was injured.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One was taking off and one had landed and its engine and blades still was running , any way if its not a mid air what is it?
may be i should have said helicopter flying hits another
but is that not mid air what is ?
We will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company
may be i should have said helicopter flying hits another
but is that not mid air what is ?
We will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company
Helicopter Pilots Get It Up Quicker
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location:
Posts: 885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company
The Civil Aviation (Investigation of Air Accidents and Incidents) Regulations 1996
Citation, commencement, interpretation and application
2.—(1) In these Regulations, unless the context otherwise requires—
"accident" means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight until such time as all such persons have disembarked, in which—
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or structural failure which—
— adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and
— would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component,
except for engine failure or damage, when the damage is limited to the engine, its cowlings or accessories; or for damage limited to propellers, wing tips, antennas, tyres, brakes, fairings, small dents or puncture holes in the aircraft skin; or
Duty to furnish information relating to accidents and incidents
5.—(1) Where an accident or a serious incident occurs in respect of which, by virtue of regulation 8(3) below the Chief Inspector is required to carry out, or to cause an Inspector to carry out, an investigation, the relevant person and, in the case of an accident or a serious incident occurring on or adjacent to an aerodrome, the aerodrome authority shall forthwith give notice thereof to the Chief Inspector by the quickest means of communication available and, in the case of an accident occurring in or over the United Kingdom, shall also notify forthwith a police officer for the area where the accident occurred of the accident and of the place where it occurred.
Details here.
I ll reserve any comments lartsa, but I m sure others won't be so kind!
PW
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it all goes to show that the most simplest of things seem to cause confusion.
when I saw the thread entitled "sherburn mid air accident" I came to the conclusion that 2 aircraft had made contact while both in flight, a sort of mid air accident if you will. and that given that this is rotorheads, that at least 1 would be a helicopter
am I the only one that thinks this?
a better title might have been "accident at sherburn today".
also can you clarify the phrase"we will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company"
I was under the impression that they are obliged to as described above, so i hope your comment is innacurate.
your post sounds like someone who is very naive, or someone who is trying to cause problems for the said company with your own hidden agenda.
regards
CF
when I saw the thread entitled "sherburn mid air accident" I came to the conclusion that 2 aircraft had made contact while both in flight, a sort of mid air accident if you will. and that given that this is rotorheads, that at least 1 would be a helicopter
am I the only one that thinks this?
a better title might have been "accident at sherburn today".
also can you clarify the phrase"we will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company"
I was under the impression that they are obliged to as described above, so i hope your comment is innacurate.
your post sounds like someone who is very naive, or someone who is trying to cause problems for the said company with your own hidden agenda.
regards
CF
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tried to change the title that did not work it only changed on the first post
i was trying to add a note to pprune not cause world war 3
i do admit i dont like the company . i did not mention them ,
there was a accident and nobody got hurt .
when and if a accident report comes out then you can all see it
ive nothing more to say
i was trying to add a note to pprune not cause world war 3
i do admit i dont like the company . i did not mention them ,
there was a accident and nobody got hurt .
when and if a accident report comes out then you can all see it
ive nothing more to say
For the benefit of LARTSA and other whisperers out there - THE FACTS of this 'mid-air'
1 x R22 and 1 x R44, both parked by previous flyers.
The R22 had started its rotors and run through it preflight checks for a training flight. The mentioned CPL is currently doing his FI rating and was waiting for his instructor to join him. The instructor boarded the aircraft and they were just about to lift when a large BANG was heard followed by a heavy vertical vibration. The aircraft was immediately shut down.
It would seem that the R44 parked next to the R22 and due to depart on a training flight with an experienced instructor and their student had decided to start their aircraft and as the clutch engaged it swung the R44 main rotor in to the R22 blades.
Luck did have something to do with it because the R22 was just about to lift!
As for the Jetranger - not an over temp but an over torque to 116% - as recorded by the digital guages. The CPL mentioned by LARTSA was on board but was not P1 - the aircraft was being positioned by a fairly experienced turbine pilot.
The verdict for the 206 incident is an entry in vortex ring state at about 50ft possibly due to windsheer and the result was to try and recover as best as possible and as opposed to hitting the ground very hard the CPL elected to pull the lever at the last minute once some sort of recovery had been achieved.
The CPL has taken responsibility of the Over-Torque despite not being P1 as the situation should not have occurred.
MORs have been completed for the R22/R44 incident and the Engineers informed - so no skull-duggery i'm afraid!
1 x R22 and 1 x R44, both parked by previous flyers.
The R22 had started its rotors and run through it preflight checks for a training flight. The mentioned CPL is currently doing his FI rating and was waiting for his instructor to join him. The instructor boarded the aircraft and they were just about to lift when a large BANG was heard followed by a heavy vertical vibration. The aircraft was immediately shut down.
It would seem that the R44 parked next to the R22 and due to depart on a training flight with an experienced instructor and their student had decided to start their aircraft and as the clutch engaged it swung the R44 main rotor in to the R22 blades.
Luck did have something to do with it because the R22 was just about to lift!
As for the Jetranger - not an over temp but an over torque to 116% - as recorded by the digital guages. The CPL mentioned by LARTSA was on board but was not P1 - the aircraft was being positioned by a fairly experienced turbine pilot.
The verdict for the 206 incident is an entry in vortex ring state at about 50ft possibly due to windsheer and the result was to try and recover as best as possible and as opposed to hitting the ground very hard the CPL elected to pull the lever at the last minute once some sort of recovery had been achieved.
The CPL has taken responsibility of the Over-Torque despite not being P1 as the situation should not have occurred.
MORs have been completed for the R22/R44 incident and the Engineers informed - so no skull-duggery i'm afraid!
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thankyou Misterbonkers for putting the record straight.
Lartsa,
I think this is an inappropriate comment here. If you have a gripe with the company, please keep it between you and them.
Lartsa,
We will possibly never know the 2 aircraft are owned /opperated by the same company
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone with firsthand experience of a company (FW in this case) that had/has a history of non-reporting reportable events I have to say I have some sympathy with lartsa's remarks.
I am not sure that it is a matter just between you and the company if they fail to report when required to do so, and being a Professional in such a company puts you in an almost impossible situation. You know what is going on is wrong - a criminal offence - and likely to have serious safety implications too but cannot communicate your concerns to your employer or you'll be marked a troublemaker. You may fear to tell the CAA for the same reason. In my case I did go to the CAA who told me that the info I had was "only hearsay" and they could not act upon it inless I was willing to appear in court as prosecution witness against my employer - a sure career stopper.
I can well understand that someone in a similar position might choose to make such remarks in a public place such as this in an effort to raise awareness, perhaps with the CAA, that something is amiss and they might like to investigate further.
I din't know if this is the "right" way to go about it, but I do sympathise - providing, of course that he is entirely honest about the events and also his own motives.
I am not sure that it is a matter just between you and the company if they fail to report when required to do so, and being a Professional in such a company puts you in an almost impossible situation. You know what is going on is wrong - a criminal offence - and likely to have serious safety implications too but cannot communicate your concerns to your employer or you'll be marked a troublemaker. You may fear to tell the CAA for the same reason. In my case I did go to the CAA who told me that the info I had was "only hearsay" and they could not act upon it inless I was willing to appear in court as prosecution witness against my employer - a sure career stopper.
I can well understand that someone in a similar position might choose to make such remarks in a public place such as this in an effort to raise awareness, perhaps with the CAA, that something is amiss and they might like to investigate further.
I din't know if this is the "right" way to go about it, but I do sympathise - providing, of course that he is entirely honest about the events and also his own motives.
Misterbonkers:
Can I ask why the R22 and R44 had been parked, such that, on engaging rotors, they both made 'contact' with each other?????
I like the one about possible Vortex Ring @ 50'!!!
How in the name of faith do you have time to determine whether you are in vortex ring with just 50' under you?????
Sounds to me like an over excited CPL being simply ham fisted with the collective in some mild turbulence.
Surely you're not going to put VR as the cause on the MOR???
Can I ask why the R22 and R44 had been parked, such that, on engaging rotors, they both made 'contact' with each other?????
I like the one about possible Vortex Ring @ 50'!!!
How in the name of faith do you have time to determine whether you are in vortex ring with just 50' under you?????
Sounds to me like an over excited CPL being simply ham fisted with the collective in some mild turbulence.
Surely you're not going to put VR as the cause on the MOR???
I hope not!
5.4.5 It is of great importance to the success of the Scheme that the reporters keep firmly in mind the concept of ‘endangering’ or ‘potentially endangering’, as used in the above definition, when deciding whether or not to submit a report. The primary
objective of occurrence reporting is to monitor, disseminate and record for analysis, critical or potentially critical safety occurrences. It is not intended to collect and monitor the normal flow of day-to-day defects/incidents etc. The latter is an important part of the overall flight safety task but procedures and systems already exist to carry out this function. In the main these comprise industry responsibilities monitored
overall by the CAA. When appropriate, such systems also provide the necessary records for statistical purposes. In order to achieve the above objectives for occurrence reporting, the criteria for a reportable occurrence need to be set above, in
terms of the effect on safety, the normal day to day defects or minor incidents. Over enthusiastic reporting of such items which fall below these criteria will involve unnecessary duplication and work to both the reporters and the CAA and will also
tend, by sheer volume of data generated, to obscure the more significant safety items. Reporters should ensure that the content of their reports meets with the criteria and guidance laid out in Appendix B. Particular emphasis should be paid to
ensuring that day to day operational anomalies, technical defects and routine reliability issues are dealt with via the normal organisational systems and procedures.
5.4.5 It is of great importance to the success of the Scheme that the reporters keep firmly in mind the concept of ‘endangering’ or ‘potentially endangering’, as used in the above definition, when deciding whether or not to submit a report. The primary
objective of occurrence reporting is to monitor, disseminate and record for analysis, critical or potentially critical safety occurrences. It is not intended to collect and monitor the normal flow of day-to-day defects/incidents etc. The latter is an important part of the overall flight safety task but procedures and systems already exist to carry out this function. In the main these comprise industry responsibilities monitored
overall by the CAA. When appropriate, such systems also provide the necessary records for statistical purposes. In order to achieve the above objectives for occurrence reporting, the criteria for a reportable occurrence need to be set above, in
terms of the effect on safety, the normal day to day defects or minor incidents. Over enthusiastic reporting of such items which fall below these criteria will involve unnecessary duplication and work to both the reporters and the CAA and will also
tend, by sheer volume of data generated, to obscure the more significant safety items. Reporters should ensure that the content of their reports meets with the criteria and guidance laid out in Appendix B. Particular emphasis should be paid to
ensuring that day to day operational anomalies, technical defects and routine reliability issues are dealt with via the normal organisational systems and procedures.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: somewhere over the rainbow...
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lartsa
can you tell me what your gripe is with said company? pm me if you want, but i am thinking of starting my training there soon, and have been very impressed with their friendly attitude to date.
what time did this happen exactly? i was down at sherburn that day and i didn't hear anything about it.
cheers
etc
can you tell me what your gripe is with said company? pm me if you want, but i am thinking of starting my training there soon, and have been very impressed with their friendly attitude to date.
what time did this happen exactly? i was down at sherburn that day and i didn't hear anything about it.
cheers
etc
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there appears to be some airmanship issues about this e.g.
1. that the 2 a/c had been parked within each others rotor disc area in the first place
2.that the "experienced instructor" in the R44 chose the moment that the R22 was about to lift to start his own a/c rotors
regards
CF
1. that the 2 a/c had been parked within each others rotor disc area in the first place
2.that the "experienced instructor" in the R44 chose the moment that the R22 was about to lift to start his own a/c rotors
regards
CF
Join Date: May 2001
Location: yorkshire
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GLAD NO LIFE HAS BEEN LOST OR HURT
Eoincarey i would not train there if i was you mate
Eoincarey i would not train there if i was you mate
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eoincarey,
I know the school and some of the individuals there fairly well. Till now, I'd rarely heard anything bad about them. But you'll hear good and bad about every flying school, and it's quite difficult to separate the truth from...general gripes, personality clashes, and people who have their own agenda. Unless you hear something concrete, I'd ignore everything being insinuated on this thread, and go with what seems right to you.
I know the school and some of the individuals there fairly well. Till now, I'd rarely heard anything bad about them. But you'll hear good and bad about every flying school, and it's quite difficult to separate the truth from...general gripes, personality clashes, and people who have their own agenda. Unless you hear something concrete, I'd ignore everything being insinuated on this thread, and go with what seems right to you.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Whirly,
I spent a lot of money at Sherburn in helicopters albeit sometime ago and never had any complaints. Even did my instructors course with someone who became an instructor there, though I don't know if he is still there.
Eoin,
One of the most important thing in learning to fly is personalities. If you feel comfortable somewhere then that is a good start. See a thread on the Private Flyers forum for learning at Sherburn.
I spent a lot of money at Sherburn in helicopters albeit sometime ago and never had any complaints. Even did my instructors course with someone who became an instructor there, though I don't know if he is still there.
Eoin,
One of the most important thing in learning to fly is personalities. If you feel comfortable somewhere then that is a good start. See a thread on the Private Flyers forum for learning at Sherburn.