Helicopter pilot saves fixed-wing pilot - Unbelievable sequel! (NOW UPDATED)

[ExSimGuy]

AOC?

Originally Posted by Pat Malone

The company's owner maintains there can be no AOC aspect if, as is the case, the company paid for this portion of the flight.

Pardon my ignorance,Pat, but do you mean there would have been an AOC aspect if Dom was asked to fork out for a part of the flight?

(Stupid SLF asking)

[Night Watchman]

Anyways, according to Pat Malone, it was the CAA guy who was the idiot.
"The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly of the flight with the paramedic from the accident site to Goodwood."

Technically the CAA man is correct. If the flight was simply to take the paramedic from the accident scene and return him/her to Goodwood then that would be public transport and would have to adhere to the company's AOC. That flight was not necessary for the saving of life. (I know.... so don't start on me!).

It was an issue the North Sea operators had with taking offshore casualties to hospital landing sites. They could land without meeting the helipad take off proforma (because it was saving of life) but on take off they had to meet the proforma (re-positioning so now public transport). Not always possible in a S76 or S61. Not sure what the solution was in the end maybe someone knows on here.

It is, I believe, one of the reasons the UK Coastguard aircraft which are on the civil register maintain their 'Rescue' callsign until they have returned to base to avoid such 'issues'.

[Odi]

Night Watchman: Thank you for that, you have finally cleared up something that has confused me for a long time!

As an ATCO who controls the North Sea helicopters I have always wondered why the Coastguard S61 was still callsign Rescue even when repositioning from Tingwall to Sumburgh having dropped the casualty off at Tingwall. What you say makes perfect sense!!

Anyways - back to the thead!

[Heliport]

Being an 'idiot' and being 'technically correct' aren't necessarily exclusive.
Someone can be an idiot for bothering about a technicality when sensible poeple would ignore it as an unimportant.
Does it really matter whether taking the paramedic from the scene of the accident to Goodwood was technically public transport?


BTW, Pat Malone only says "The company's CAA Flight Ops Inspector later raised the apparent AOC anomaly". According to Flingwings, the CP contacted the CAA not the other way around.

[Night Watchman]

Someone can be an idiot for bothering about a technicality when sensible poeple would ignore it as an unimportant.

Can't say I disagree with you but it depends on where you draw the line.

Does it really matter whether taking the paramedic from the scene of the accident to Goodwood was technically public transport?

Well, I suppose it depends on how far you look into it.

If, for example, the aircraft carrying the paramedic back to Goodwood was involved in an accident then would that not leave the operating company and pilot wide open to prosecution and possible legal action from the parmedic's family for operating outside its AOC? Perhaps Flying Lawyer could help on that one.

Are there safety reasons why operating in that fashion does not form part of the AOC?

The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.

Just raising some discussion points... that's all!

Personally, I believe the pilot acted in good faith throughout and his prompt action could have prevented something much worse. So good luck to him and very well done.

[Helinut]

On the basis of past performance, I would not have much faith in the CAA's legal enforcement branch doing the sensible thing. However, I do suspect that any court faced with the circumstances of this case (as related here)would give the prosecution short shrift - (especially if FL was involved in the defence).

[SASless]

The CAA are responsible for policing aviation and surely it is their job to follow this sort of thing up if it is brought to their attention.

Coppers don't write every violator a summons.

It is comforting to know "aviation" needs "policing".

Is it so bad in the UK now....that aviation folks have to fear prosecution by the CAA over patently innocent and harmless violations of the AOC or some one-time unintentional administrative violation?

[Daifly]

Top marks to the FI concerned. Can't think that anyone would do anything other than what he did - thankfully we're not yet in the "walk-on-by" culture in this country (or "fly-on-by" in this case!)

I would put money on the CAA doing nothing with regards to this, maybe a letter reminding the FI of the requirements of public transport flying, but they're not going to throw the book at him.

If it were a public transport flight which wasn't being operated in accordance with the Ops Manual then it would have laid the company wide open if something had subsequently gone wrong (in this litigious world we live in). The "well it didn't" argument is never one that's worked too well with the CAA.

However, a good lawyer (Mr Owen for instance) could easily show that the reactions of the FI after having been in this stressful situation clouded his judgement in his continued effort to be of assistance.

Perhaps the CP was doing, as most do, what he thought was the best way out of the situation, by turning it into a private fight and making everyone pay their share (in order to comply with the ANO)? It's one of those decisions that gets lost in translation and ends up making people look like tits. I can't honestly imagine that he was complaining about the FI actually stopping to help - that would be incredibly heartless of him and altogether rather towards the "arse" end of the "nice bloke-arse" scale if he really did.

I think the CAA would have a HUGE fight on their hands if they took action as they would have to prove that the pilot was acting recklessly, which in view of what he did, how he responded and the undoubted stress he would have been under, would be non-starter.

I'd have done the same. (Though I only fly fixed wing, so would have needed a helicopter to get me out after landing next to the first one...). If I do, please stop!

[Night Watchman]

It is comforting to know "aviation" needs "policing".

Of course it does. If you didn't have rules and regulations to follow and someone to police them then you'd have all sorts of cowboy operators and accidents. Can't see why you're so mad about that??? Sounds like common sense and good working practice to me!

Coppers don't write every violator a summons.

No then don't and have the CAA done that in this case? It seems to me (and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong) that the matter has been reported to them, so they have to look into it and they've pointed out that the pilot operated outside of the companys AOC. Are they taking any action? Has the pilot been charged with any offence?

DAIFLY - good comments all round and I totally agree with you.

I would put money on the CAA doing nothing with regards to this

So would I.

[johned0]

Question from a PPL

As far as I am concerned, congrats to the pilot on all fronts.

Please could someone explain what might technically have been wrong with the pilot repositioning the medic to Goodwood. I read statements like : "Goodwood then that would be public transport and would have to adhere to the company's AOC". I assume the company is licensed for public transport and the pilot has a CPL so I don't understand what can be wrong with the flight ?

As I said, I am a PPL and I ask purely out of interest, so I hope I don't start an OT "debate"

John

[Flingingwings]

Guys and Gals,

I know this is an emotive matter, and that Pat's comments have done little to pour oil on troubled waters. That said can we please avoid raising the CP's past. My comments only relate to the CP's handling of this matter.

My decision to go public on this forum was not taken lightly. Given the choice of negative publicity for LHC or Dom, I'm afraid there was no choice.

I took active steps to confirm the veracity of Dom's situation before posting, and without airing more of LHC's laundry by revealing the details, measures were taken by others prior to any involvement by me.

Lets hope they can sort this internally now

[Daifly]

johned0 - tis a good question! It's, to my mind, right in the heart of the grey area of Flight Training/Public Transport.

He has actually ended up getting into the situation purely from the fact that the helicopter's operator holds and AOC and he is a commercial pilot. If he'd been a PPL and stopped to help (and then paid for the whole flight) I suspect nothing would have happened.

The fact that he was a CPL meant that the moment he diverted from the Flight Training sortie he was on (I think I'm right in saying he had a trainee with him?) then it became, I guess, a flight that he was being paid to operate, in that he wasn't paying for it, and it wasn't a Flight Training exercise. That's my take on it and, I guess, is what the CAA are angling towards.

It's the presence of the Paramedic (a "passenger") on a flight training exercise that I would imagine has caused the problem.

It's the old "Trial Lesson/Sightseeing Flight" argument with a different slant. Technically, you cannot take passengers on a Trial Lesson, only the student; if you do then the flight is actually a public transport flight rather than a lesson. It's all hair splitting in reality, but the problem is the insurance and liability which would not be valid if there was an accident - and I would guess that's what the CAA are trying to police. But it's Christmas and they're not (all) arseholes so I'd guess at it being OK.

[ExSimGuy]

Originally Posted by Daifly

But it's Christmas and they're not (all) arseholes so I'd guess at it being OK.

And with luck, they've all quit the office early for Christmas

[johned0]

Thanks very much for the feedback, Daifly,

I think I figured most of this out

The argument about trial lessons etc. only seems valid for a company that doesn't have an AOC. I believe the company in this case has one so what I don't understand is that the company must have all of the required public liability insurance to handle commercial flights so what is the difference between the CPL picking up the paramedic from the field vs. the same pilot picking up the same person from (e.g.) a hotel in the country and taking him to the same airport. The latter is something that helicopters do all the time ?

Cheers,

John

[verticalhold]

Plodpilot;

One and the same. I feel sorry for Mark Souster, the MD of LHC. One of the true gentlemen of this industry. This is HIS company which is being written about. I'm sure he must be feeling very fed up with it.

P.s. plod lost your e-mail address and mobile number. PM me please, got some pictures for you, the ones you saw about 6 months ago. VH

[SASless]

My experience with LHC has been as good a one as I have ever had in the helicopter industry. I would find it most improbable this could be as suggested. Perhaps the full story will come out someday and the whole truth will prevail. Something must be getting lost in the translation I bet.

[itsveryeasy]

When it hits the fan!

I remember buying a book years ago entitled "When it hits the fan". Must say I can't remember much about it, except for the first chapter. That one chapter was all you really needed, and I 've never forgotten it.

"When it hits the fan" - First thing - recognise it - own up - say sorry (and MEAN it) if need be! Why? because it defuses things!

Someone somewhere in the initial stages of this affair did get it wrong. Don't let's mess about - they just did. Quite who, in what circumstances and why we may never know.

From what I can tell from this forum Dom has never asked anyone to put these posts in, nor to reply to them, and he has never posted anything himself. The fact that his friends have speaks volumes about them - not about Dom. It also seems that neither the company owner nor the CP have either. So all three have to deal with this publicity and none of them contributed to it, other than by being who they are and doing what they did.

What the London Helicopter Centre will be remembered for is not the thread running now - but the outcome. Thus far this has been the most amazing waste of superb publicity. What LTC will be remembered for is the solution LHC provide NOT the fact that there might have been a muddled/ confused/ misunderstood communication up front.

You that are directly involved - and that's three people - just sit down together - respect each other - give praise for a job well done and then decide on how such a thing will be handled in the future.

THAT way you could all come out smelling of roses. I fear for all of you if you do not do something like this.

That will show the world you're big enough to take this stuff in your stride.

[Daifly]

JohnEd0

Yep, if a company holds an AOC and the flight takes place in accordance with the operational requirements of an AOC flight (such as, IIRC (and helicopters aren't exactly me...) site surveys to ensure compliance with clear areas in the event of EFATO and such like) then that's all well and good.

I'd guess it got all grey because there was a student on board who either a) undergoing flight training during the Paramedic flight or b) was a passenger on the sector. If it's a) then they were carrying passengers during flight training or if it's b) then the flight has to fully comply with AOC requirements, which would require the FI to be Line and Base checked. It doesn't say whether he is or isn't but it must be one of those (albeit rather vague) reasons that the CAA were getting concerned about.

Unless every aspect of the AOC flight was taken care of, then the pilot would be opening himself and the company up to a liability for which the insurers could easily duck out of - which is where the CAA would get shirty.

I've had a quick root through the BHAB website (www.bhab.org) and can find some references to unlicensed heliports (which is what any landing site is) and that does require pre-flight calculations on area. I think there are probably so many areas that weren't physically recorded as having been addressed (and to be honest who would care if they weren't in this situation apart from the CAA and the insurers) that it has let this thing run and run for nothing.

Personally I'd rather see my licence fee go on sorting out the pillocks who give us ALL a bad name by doing things like flying through parachute displays (twice in the same display over Hampshire last year - frightening - and the Notams included full details), flying low level over a group of 3,000+ people at Brands Hatch last year (or it might have been Silverstone, I can't quite remember which bit of track I'd been staring at) or generally just making us look like a bunch of Hooray Henry's with too much money to the general public where, in reality, we're a bunch of conscientious, level headed, responsible people who are lucky enough to be able to have a hobby which is a damn sight more fun than stamp collecting. And who help people in distress and then get bollocked for it.

[thecontroller]

"a bunch of Hooray Henry's with too much money"

unfortunately this is a fair proportion of people that own/fly helicopters in the UK. i think it just attracts the kind of people who like to have expensive toys, like horses and boats. witness the number of pop stars and footballers and tv personalities who have got into helicopters.

this does not include professional pilots. they are just penniless.

[ShyTorque]

Could not the company have simply declared it as a private flight? Presumably no money or other advantage changed hands.