Proposed amendment to ANO Article 41
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Northampton UK
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proposed amendment to ANO Article 41
Found this AAIB report interesting: Robinson R22 Beta, G-DELT
I read the implication to be that an Instructor could no longer ask a student to start a helicopter, with the intention that they would board prior to lift.
But what is "a person at the controls entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order" given that at some point that same student will need to start in order to fly as a solo student?
I did skim read Article 21 which clearly makes provision for students to fly solo, but cannot see the basis for an obvious distinction between a student that would be legally allowed to start and one that was not.
Only thought is whether that student had signed the machine out (as opposed to the instructor) but couldn't see a reference to this in Article 21?
RC
Conclusion
A helicopter has the capability of becoming airborne once its rotors are running with sufficient speed. It is important, therefore, that those at the controls at this time are suitably able to control the aircraft should it indeed start to move, for whatever reason. The CAA is currently proposing an amendment to Article 41 of the Air Navigation Order as follows:
"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 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order."
A helicopter has the capability of becoming airborne once its rotors are running with sufficient speed. It is important, therefore, that those at the controls at this time are suitably able to control the aircraft should it indeed start to move, for whatever reason. The CAA is currently proposing an amendment to Article 41 of the Air Navigation Order as follows:
"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 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order."
But what is "a person at the controls entitled to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter in accordance with the provisions of article 21 of this order" given that at some point that same student will need to start in order to fly as a solo student?
I did skim read Article 21 which clearly makes provision for students to fly solo, but cannot see the basis for an obvious distinction between a student that would be legally allowed to start and one that was not.
Only thought is whether that student had signed the machine out (as opposed to the instructor) but couldn't see a reference to this in Article 21?
RC
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"...for the purpose of making a flight..."
And what if the purpose is NOT to make a flight...for example, to ground-run the helicopter, perhaps to assist a mechanic?
Why is the concept of clarity through brevity lost on so many regulators?
And what if the purpose is NOT to make a flight...for example, to ground-run the helicopter, perhaps to assist a mechanic?
Why is the concept of clarity through brevity lost on so many regulators?
There are lots of holes in this wording, mainly "for the purpose of making a flight."
This means an engineer could start and run the engines, because he was not intending to make a flight, just a ground run.
A pilot could land, get out of the running helicopter and have a leak or do a hot refuel, because at the time, the purpose was not to make a flight, but to take a pee.
This means an engineer could start and run the engines, because he was not intending to make a flight, just a ground run.
A pilot could land, get out of the running helicopter and have a leak or do a hot refuel, because at the time, the purpose was not to make a flight, but to take a pee.
Anyone got any idea of the number of accidents caused by fixed-wing running away after a hand-swung start where is wasn't chocked, or where the student forgot to check brakes on before starting ?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,154
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Or the number of helicopters that have taken off by themnselves?
While we're on the subject of wording, take a look at the definition of flight crew and see when you're obliged to produce your licence hehehehe
Phil
While we're on the subject of wording, take a look at the definition of flight crew and see when you're obliged to produce your licence hehehehe
Phil
Point taken, paco.
My "objection", if that is what it was, is that a change to the ANO is being proposed which affects only helicopters. Surely the same scenario applies equally to f/w and r/w ?
My "objection", if that is what it was, is that a change to the ANO is being proposed which affects only helicopters. Surely the same scenario applies equally to f/w and r/w ?
