AAIB Bulletin: Morecambe Bay
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB Bulletin: Morecambe Bay
The AAIB has issued a preliminary report of the investigation into the cause of the SA-365N Dauphin 2 crash in Morecambe Bay on 27 December.
AAIB Bulletin S1/2007 Special
FL
AAIB Bulletin S1/2007 Special
FL
Can I ask that amateur crash investigators don't start putting their theories onto this board. Let the AIB finish their deliberations so we get the true picture.
HF
A Dauphin Pilot
HF
A Dauphin Pilot
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hummingfrog: I agreed with your comment, initially, then thought...hang on , if a discussion on this topic becomes "taboo", you might as well go and delete most of all the other threads on pprune. The flyBe GPWS incident is a good example. I've read enough on that thread to make me think twice on travelling with flyBe and am glad I did. I can make my own decision about the credibility of a post - a stupid theory based on little facts can be easily distinguised from an informed debate about an incident. Saying that, the media should not be given fuel to speculate - but they'll likely to find stuff out before anyone hits a key on PPRuNE anyway.
I can't help but be intrigued by this crash, and being a fixed wing pilot, I'm fustrated by lack of knowledge about rotary wing oil rig ops to even begin formulating a "best guess". I would be interested in hearing views on this one to be honest.
I can't help but be intrigued by this crash, and being a fixed wing pilot, I'm fustrated by lack of knowledge about rotary wing oil rig ops to even begin formulating a "best guess". I would be interested in hearing views on this one to be honest.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the reasons why some people here do not appreciate speculation is that a lot of the hypotheses could centre around pilot error.
If it is later found not to be pilot error though, the pilots could still be tarred with that as a reason for the accident. One only has to consider those poor bloody Chinook pilots and the effort that has gone into clearing their names.
That might be an extreme (and not entirely apposite) example but, as the rotary world is so small and many pilots on here know each other, it could be considered insensitive to discuss pilot error without having any hard evidence with which to back it up.
Secondly, when there are so many theories being bandied around, it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction.
I’m with Hummingfrog on this one. It is one matter to discuss something once the final report is out but another altogether when it's just a preliminary.
Cheers
Whirls
If it is later found not to be pilot error though, the pilots could still be tarred with that as a reason for the accident. One only has to consider those poor bloody Chinook pilots and the effort that has gone into clearing their names.
That might be an extreme (and not entirely apposite) example but, as the rotary world is so small and many pilots on here know each other, it could be considered insensitive to discuss pilot error without having any hard evidence with which to back it up.
Secondly, when there are so many theories being bandied around, it is hard to distinguish fact from fiction.
I’m with Hummingfrog on this one. It is one matter to discuss something once the final report is out but another altogether when it's just a preliminary.
Cheers
Whirls
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's small! If you read the original thread about the accident, you'll see how many of the guys here knew and respected the pilot.
Cheers
Whirls
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Spain
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just like to add my wholehearted agreement with Hummingfrog. Conversation about an accident is one thing but as has already been mentioned speculation without all the facts is undisirable and can be upsetting to friends and family.
This from a previous accident where those speculating know not what occured.
I would also add that the Captain of the 365 was a very experienced and professional Guy and will be sorely missed by all who knew him.
And "that there but for the grace of God"
If the weather was bad,could be a case fo pressonitis.
Airspeed back to nothing, hugging the ground,trying to get over that hill.
lost visual reference,low and slow,intruments no use, tail rotor or main rotor hit the hard stuff, game over!
Pure speculation on my part, but that's all we can come up with from some photos.
Could be the case, amongst others, previously mentioned.
Airspeed back to nothing, hugging the ground,trying to get over that hill.
lost visual reference,low and slow,intruments no use, tail rotor or main rotor hit the hard stuff, game over!
Pure speculation on my part, but that's all we can come up with from some photos.
Could be the case, amongst others, previously mentioned.
I would also add that the Captain of the 365 was a very experienced and professional Guy and will be sorely missed by all who knew him.
And "that there but for the grace of God"
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Non-rhetorical question: What is the point of releasing this preliminary report? It just seems to provide fuel for conjecture. Can anyone enlighten me, please? I'm a bit puzzled... 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: East Molesey, Surrey, UK
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why the bulletin?
Bulletins are routine now. They are preliminary factual reports. They contain facts as established from the FDR/CVR and leave it at that. Lots of "what happened", but no "why it happened", because the latter will not be established for some time yet.
Why post them? It's an insult to the aviation community's - and the public's - intelligence to withhold facts from them once the facts are established. It's the truth, even if it's not the whole truth. Truth, even part of it, tends to limit speculation; but nothing - even silence - will ever stop it.
I'm with StarbucksOne: "If a discussion on this topic becomes "taboo", you might as well go and delete most of all the other threads on pprune. The flyBe GPWS incident is a good example. I've read enough on that thread to make me think twice on travelling with flyBe and am glad I did. I can make my own decision about the credibility of a post."
Why post them? It's an insult to the aviation community's - and the public's - intelligence to withhold facts from them once the facts are established. It's the truth, even if it's not the whole truth. Truth, even part of it, tends to limit speculation; but nothing - even silence - will ever stop it.
I'm with StarbucksOne: "If a discussion on this topic becomes "taboo", you might as well go and delete most of all the other threads on pprune. The flyBe GPWS incident is a good example. I've read enough on that thread to make me think twice on travelling with flyBe and am glad I did. I can make my own decision about the credibility of a post."
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Facts" they may be but the context and derivation of those "Facts" is subject to debate. That is the crux of the problem in such debates as go on at places like pprune and pub bars in the wake of events such as this.
I would assume a Special Bulletin could/might contain more specific "facts" if something had been found to report and thus would provide better service to those who read the thing.
That was not the case here. The Bulletin merely set forth the status of the investigation to date thus providing an opportunity for conjecture about the cause. It would seem to me, mere conjecture serves no good at this point.
I would assume a Special Bulletin could/might contain more specific "facts" if something had been found to report and thus would provide better service to those who read the thing.
That was not the case here. The Bulletin merely set forth the status of the investigation to date thus providing an opportunity for conjecture about the cause. It would seem to me, mere conjecture serves no good at this point.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: In my house
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the sensitivities. I knew one of them. But certain facts have been established by the AAIB. There is no evidence of mechanical failure. There maybe some additional contributing factors but The liklihood of finding that evidence is probably slim.
There isn't much more to speculate on is there? This accident has the hallmarks of other accidents or near acidents.
Those of us with thousands of hours of offshore flying, especially in the dark UK winter have all been in a similar situation, it just that we had a different outcome.
Sad business.
There isn't much more to speculate on is there? This accident has the hallmarks of other accidents or near acidents.
Those of us with thousands of hours of offshore flying, especially in the dark UK winter have all been in a similar situation, it just that we had a different outcome.
Sad business.
I remember a time on Pprune when Pprune meant just that....
professional pilots rumour network.
The professionalism in us catered for the standard of the discussion and the moderators moved in when it got 'out of hand' (on those rare occasions).
It now seems (to me) that more and more (recent) members are fighting shy of discussing these rumours, or chewing over what has been / has not been disclosed.
It's as if the nanny state is pervading the very existence of free speech. I feel we are quietly sinking under a morass of political correctness; insidious malaise rather than refreshing discourse. Fear of "the fear of upsetting anything or anyone"
Look back over similar instances like this thread, why don't you?
If you were at work or in the bar, you'd chat about this....why not here also - a dedicated vehicle for such issues.
Provided one delivers a constructive opinion devoid of libel or harrassment, what harm does it do?
Are we all going to end up checking our "six" all the time? This isn't Russia for goodness sake
It won't resolve the issue, it won't (if handled correctly) upset friends and relatives - if we debate it healthily, it will simply define us for what we are: inquisitive, curious creatures. Nothing more, nothing less.
professional pilots rumour network.
The professionalism in us catered for the standard of the discussion and the moderators moved in when it got 'out of hand' (on those rare occasions).
It now seems (to me) that more and more (recent) members are fighting shy of discussing these rumours, or chewing over what has been / has not been disclosed.
It's as if the nanny state is pervading the very existence of free speech. I feel we are quietly sinking under a morass of political correctness; insidious malaise rather than refreshing discourse. Fear of "the fear of upsetting anything or anyone"
Look back over similar instances like this thread, why don't you?
If you were at work or in the bar, you'd chat about this....why not here also - a dedicated vehicle for such issues.
Provided one delivers a constructive opinion devoid of libel or harrassment, what harm does it do?
Are we all going to end up checking our "six" all the time? This isn't Russia for goodness sake
It won't resolve the issue, it won't (if handled correctly) upset friends and relatives - if we debate it healthily, it will simply define us for what we are: inquisitive, curious creatures. Nothing more, nothing less.
Hovering AND talking
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A fair point well made TC, but the freedom to swing my arm ends where your nose begins!
We may have a right to discuss such matters but we also have a responsibility to have some regard to others.
In a court of law (don't shoot me FL!!) a similar debate could be held as sub judice, and for good reason. Some of the ramblings that I have previously read regarding accidents and incidents could be tantamount to tabloid speculation and, at worst, scaremongering.
Cheers
Whirls
We may have a right to discuss such matters but we also have a responsibility to have some regard to others.
In a court of law (don't shoot me FL!!) a similar debate could be held as sub judice, and for good reason. Some of the ramblings that I have previously read regarding accidents and incidents could be tantamount to tabloid speculation and, at worst, scaremongering.
Cheers
Whirls
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've been in aviation a lot longer than most of you - conjecture re accidents has been around for as long as accidents themselves. I concur with TC. The mouse button will allow you to avoid this thread Whirly but if you venture in your brain will allow you to discount what you don't agree with - threatening TC with violence is most un-PC!!
GAGS
E86
GAGS
E86
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: London
Age: 64
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a court of law (don't shoot me FL!!) a similar debate could be held as sub judice, and for good reason. Some of the ramblings that I have previously read regarding accidents and incidents could be tantamount to tabloid speculation and, at worst, scaremongering.
Whilst I take your point regarding sub judice I would say that the two cannot be compared.
In a court of law the guilt or innocence of the accused is being decided by 'twelve good men and true'. These are selected at random from the populous and therefore no expectation of expertise lies upon them.
The AAIB are experts and therefore, one would hope, not susceptible to influence from conjecture, speculation or hearsay from outside sources such as PPRUNE.
Having said all that I choose to withold any such opinion because I am no expert myself and would not wish to either show my ignorance or inadvertently cause alarm or distress to anyone by doing so.
My thoughts are still with the families of those who perished.
LM
I'll propose that as a community, we pilots take more comfort in "pilot action" errors. That includes the pilots not handling an otherwise controllable mechanical/electrical malfunction. To hope to find an accident is the result of factors beyond a pilot's control is just too pessimistic to contemplate. As long as we can hope for "pilot error" then there's a chance that in the same situation the next pilot could have done something better, and perhaps can prepare for it in the meantime. If the accident was due to something the pilot was not able to control, then all the training and experience in the world counts for naught, and we are all doomed to the shadow of an occupation that could snuf our lives arbitrarily and randomly.
From the preliminary report, we know the aircraft had some dramatic attitude excursions from the normal profile in the final few seconds. I doubt most pilots have ever seen anything like 38 degrees nose down, unless they flew Apaches or Lynx in a past life. It is a preliminay report, with more information to come, so we can be patient. For myself I'm going to give it a try in a simulator where I get a second chance. Staying with the facts, does anybody know what kind of autopilot/flight director system this aircraft had and what modes would likely have been engaged by CHC in their standard offshore procedures. Information for the sim experience only, no speculation on what the crew may have been doing, which no doubt will be in the AAIB final report.
malabo
From the preliminary report, we know the aircraft had some dramatic attitude excursions from the normal profile in the final few seconds. I doubt most pilots have ever seen anything like 38 degrees nose down, unless they flew Apaches or Lynx in a past life. It is a preliminay report, with more information to come, so we can be patient. For myself I'm going to give it a try in a simulator where I get a second chance. Staying with the facts, does anybody know what kind of autopilot/flight director system this aircraft had and what modes would likely have been engaged by CHC in their standard offshore procedures. Information for the sim experience only, no speculation on what the crew may have been doing, which no doubt will be in the AAIB final report.
malabo
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: USA
Age: 58
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
malabo,
I am thinking the same. I was a broblem with Pitch-lanes from autopilot in a past. It is funny feeling for take-off or landing when pitch lanes drops off. Other thing is Trim feel. It is very easy to cut it off inadvertentally or maybe jump it over from checklist. This is not a speculation for this accident but it happens to me and our crews in VFR- inland ambulance flights. I can immagine how surprising it might be over the dark sea...
Hostile
Hostile