May AAIB out
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
May AAIB out
3 rotary accidents in this month's edition, to ponder over:
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...s/may_2005.cfm
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/...s/may_2005.cfm
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: Harwich
I always include the year as well as the month in the thread title. It's obvious which May we're talking about now...
To expand slightly:
S61 in winching op clips ship's mast, misunderstandings between the operators.
A109 makes heavy landing after TR drive failure.
R44 - continued VFR into IMC?
To expand slightly:
S61 in winching op clips ship's mast, misunderstandings between the operators.
A109 makes heavy landing after TR drive failure.
R44 - continued VFR into IMC?
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
I'm not quite sure why the S61 crew didn't winch out over the sea and then carry the pax to the deck - that way they could have operated at a safe height over the deck. I realise they are hamstrung by the regulations requiring a max height of 10' over the deck for the passenger but that could have been achieved in this situation. It may be that they are prevented from winching a single pax in a strop over the water but this could have been circumvented by doing a double lift ie the winchman and pax together. The risk of this is that there is no one on the deck to receive the pax and the winchman and pax might arrive less than deleicately if the ship is moving a lot.
The sensible choice would have been not to do it at all or to winch out the pax at height, accepting the very minimal risk of the wire breaking and preventing the much higher risk of a blade/tail strike.
The sensible choice would have been not to do it at all or to winch out the pax at height, accepting the very minimal risk of the wire breaking and preventing the much higher risk of a blade/tail strike.
