UK AAIB May 2007
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: n/a
Posts: 1,425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator
Look harder next time - ok so its not on the CAA website but google found the 2007 ANO in 0.14 seconds LINK ANO 2007
Also includes a bunch of other changes from in flight vis to HUMS to equipment to be carried.
Look harder next time - ok so its not on the CAA website but google found the 2007 ANO in 0.14 seconds LINK ANO 2007
(3) After article 50(4) add —
" (5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 26 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.".
" (5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 26 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.".
" (5) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 26 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.".
Daysleeper,
Seems odd that its not on the CAA website, however it clearly exists so I retract my "alleged".
What I do not retract is that there is an implication from the AAIB report that the change was to "fix" this accident scenario. In fact pre- or post- the change, the student pilot was/is legally entitled to start the aircraft with the approval of the instructor.
Therefore I ask what was point of including this irrelevant comment in the report - was it perhaps to spread confusion amongst flight instructors in the hope that more would decline to allow their students to start up solo? - if so that is dishonourable and an attempt to spread mis-information. Looking at some of the posts on this thread, a sucessful one at that.
Oldbeefer is a good example of the confusion - sorry to pick on you but you posted whilst I was writing - perhaps you are not an instructor but the point is that to be allowed to start up solo (which is reasonably surely a precursor to solo fllight?) and/or to fly solo, you merely need a student licence/medical and to be under the supervision of an instructor
HC
Seems odd that its not on the CAA website, however it clearly exists so I retract my "alleged".
What I do not retract is that there is an implication from the AAIB report that the change was to "fix" this accident scenario. In fact pre- or post- the change, the student pilot was/is legally entitled to start the aircraft with the approval of the instructor.
Therefore I ask what was point of including this irrelevant comment in the report - was it perhaps to spread confusion amongst flight instructors in the hope that more would decline to allow their students to start up solo? - if so that is dishonourable and an attempt to spread mis-information. Looking at some of the posts on this thread, a sucessful one at that.
Oldbeefer is a good example of the confusion - sorry to pick on you but you posted whilst I was writing - perhaps you are not an instructor but the point is that to be allowed to start up solo (which is reasonably surely a precursor to solo fllight?) and/or to fly solo, you merely need a student licence/medical and to be under the supervision of an instructor
HC
FYI HeliComparator, oldbeefer is one of the most experienced instructors on this board. He's involved with some mob over at Shawbury. And I understand that they know a thing or two about helicopters.
That's about the 3rd thing that you've got grossly wrong on this thread. I suggest that you wind your neck in and leave your thoughts and opinions to matters that you actually know something about.
That's about the 3rd thing that you've got grossly wrong on this thread. I suggest that you wind your neck in and leave your thoughts and opinions to matters that you actually know something about.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Thats the way I also read it TorqueStripe, however you must realise that there are a lot of threads here posted by those who haven't read it at all.
Two things stand out so far in this thread.
1. The lack of people prepared to comment, who have actually read Article 26 as highlighted by TorqueStripe.
2. If you aren't allowed to start the thing unsupervised prior to flying solo, who is in charge when they fly solo for the first time? Because if you can't be trusted to start the thing by yourself, how can you be trusted to fly the thing by yourself??
SS
Two things stand out so far in this thread.
1. The lack of people prepared to comment, who have actually read Article 26 as highlighted by TorqueStripe.
2. If you aren't allowed to start the thing unsupervised prior to flying solo, who is in charge when they fly solo for the first time? Because if you can't be trusted to start the thing by yourself, how can you be trusted to fly the thing by yourself??
SS
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, if only it was always so black and white............
Various schools (and instructors within) have differing views on solo starting early into training. Just like some schools will specify a minimum of say 20hrs dual training before 1st solo regardless of a students ability. 1st solo is not a race, better to be a little later and a bit safer/more proficient to my mind. 1st solo shows they have the mechanical skills to handle the aircraft for one circuit and a couple of take offs and landings. There is still a huge amount of a ppl course left after that exercise before the course ends.
IMO it is all about risk management and the rules don't guarantee to help there, as all students are different.
I see no reason why a student should be starting an aircraft unsupervised prior to their 1st solo. Not least because in the civvie world the first solo is normally sprung on the student during a circuits lesson so that they don't get an opportunity to worry about it beforehand. In a ppl course there is plenty of time to get the starting and stopping sorted without being in a rush. IMO it is better to get them able to hover to a reasonable standard so that if things go wrong (like this incident) they stand a better chance of doing less damage.
I'd read the items quoted, and my thoughts still stand. The student in this AAIB report was clearly instructed to start the aircraft to a certain point. His authority to start being based upon amongst other things his following of an FI's instructions. If we're going to view this in black and white terms, what happens when the student deviates from those instructions? Is the student still authorised past that deviation
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right/sensible. In this case we've got a red faced FI, a pi$$ed off owner/operator, a student with lower confidence than when the sortie started, and a large bill
As I said earlier there should be a distinction between flights that are supervised solo sorties and those that are dual training lessons. Not saying my thoughts are gospel, but for the training I taught I had no incidents or damage and my students all passed first time. So in my mind, my application of the rules worked for me.
It's up to each FI to stand by their choice, because they'll have to justify it if the worst happens
Various schools (and instructors within) have differing views on solo starting early into training. Just like some schools will specify a minimum of say 20hrs dual training before 1st solo regardless of a students ability. 1st solo is not a race, better to be a little later and a bit safer/more proficient to my mind. 1st solo shows they have the mechanical skills to handle the aircraft for one circuit and a couple of take offs and landings. There is still a huge amount of a ppl course left after that exercise before the course ends.
IMO it is all about risk management and the rules don't guarantee to help there, as all students are different.
I see no reason why a student should be starting an aircraft unsupervised prior to their 1st solo. Not least because in the civvie world the first solo is normally sprung on the student during a circuits lesson so that they don't get an opportunity to worry about it beforehand. In a ppl course there is plenty of time to get the starting and stopping sorted without being in a rush. IMO it is better to get them able to hover to a reasonable standard so that if things go wrong (like this incident) they stand a better chance of doing less damage.
I'd read the items quoted, and my thoughts still stand. The student in this AAIB report was clearly instructed to start the aircraft to a certain point. His authority to start being based upon amongst other things his following of an FI's instructions. If we're going to view this in black and white terms, what happens when the student deviates from those instructions? Is the student still authorised past that deviation
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right/sensible. In this case we've got a red faced FI, a pi$$ed off owner/operator, a student with lower confidence than when the sortie started, and a large bill
As I said earlier there should be a distinction between flights that are supervised solo sorties and those that are dual training lessons. Not saying my thoughts are gospel, but for the training I taught I had no incidents or damage and my students all passed first time. So in my mind, my application of the rules worked for me.
It's up to each FI to stand by their choice, because they'll have to justify it if the worst happens
bravo73 - Oh dear, sorry to have upset you - clearly its unacceptable to have a viewpoint different from yours.
Thankyou for informing me of Oldbeefer's experience in military instructing, strange then that his post, whilst factually correct, seems to miss the point that it makes no difference whether a student has gone solo or not to the legal position of solo starting. It only makes the point that the military procedures are more restrictive than those required by law. But fortunately he has you snap at the heels of any questioners - perhaps he is too Old to do it himself? But no, I'm sure its that he is too courteous and respects the right of others to have an opinion.
Not quite sure what you mean by
as so far I have said that the amendment to the ANO was not on the CAA website, and that its legal for any student under the supervision of an instructor to do solo flights. Do you think that either of those statements is grossly wrong? Then I did wonder whether perhaps OB was not an instructor, but surely wondering is not something that can be right or wrong.
So overall B73, could I suggest that it is you who should wind your neck in unless you have anything interesting to contribute?
Flingwings, of course flying schools can and should set their own more restrictive standards, I was just making the point about what was legal. I think you are right in that if the student goes beyond what was briefed by the instructor, he no longer has the ability to act as flight crew in that role as required by article 26 and is therefore breaking the law
HC
Thankyou for informing me of Oldbeefer's experience in military instructing, strange then that his post, whilst factually correct, seems to miss the point that it makes no difference whether a student has gone solo or not to the legal position of solo starting. It only makes the point that the military procedures are more restrictive than those required by law. But fortunately he has you snap at the heels of any questioners - perhaps he is too Old to do it himself? But no, I'm sure its that he is too courteous and respects the right of others to have an opinion.
Not quite sure what you mean by
That's about the 3rd thing that you've got grossly wrong on this thread.
So overall B73, could I suggest that it is you who should wind your neck in unless you have anything interesting to contribute?
Flingwings, of course flying schools can and should set their own more restrictive standards, I was just making the point about what was legal. I think you are right in that if the student goes beyond what was briefed by the instructor, he no longer has the ability to act as flight crew in that role as required by article 26 and is therefore breaking the law
HC
Oldbeefer is a good example of the confusion - sorry to pick on you but you posted whilst I was writing - perhaps you are not an instructor
I would suggest that the reason you wouldn't let the student start up alone until he has been on first solo is because a helicopter is esentially flying once the rotors are turning and therefore, until he has shown the ability to fly the aircraft safely enough to warrant being sent first solo, he doesn't get to start it by himself.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And probably also, as has appeared in an AAIB report before, a bad start can result in an inadvertant lift (think there was a student that ended up lifting with the frictions on sometime back doing a low RPM horn check), and also, I think the current recommendation of the governor staying engaged on Robbos all the time will result in a few unwanted spins when somebody lets it creep past 80 without realising it?
Oldbeefer - I have no Beef with you and I have no doubt that you are a highly experienced instructor, but I would suggest that that does not necessarily translate into you being a good interpreter of the latest amendment to the ANO. But by the same count it does not mean that you are not a good interpreter of said laws...laws whose interpretation is ultimately only relevant when done by lawyers in a court of law.
Perhaps you could indulge me by indicating your interpretation of the latest amendment we are discussing - do you think that only students who have flown solo are legally allowed to start up on their own, or do you think it means that any student (with medical etc) is legally allowed to start up on his own subject to authorisation from his instructor?
HC
Perhaps you could indulge me by indicating your interpretation of the latest amendment we are discussing - do you think that only students who have flown solo are legally allowed to start up on their own, or do you think it means that any student (with medical etc) is legally allowed to start up on his own subject to authorisation from his instructor?
HC
