UK AAIB May 2007
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UK AAIB May 2007
Student starts up R44 as briefed but low-rpm horn check gets a bit ambitious.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ii__g_cdjz.cfm
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ii__g_cdjz.cfm
Guest
Posts: n/a
see the last 2 paras of the report. (i tried to copy and paste it in here but all i got was gibberish)
does this mean we are now NOT allowed to let students start the engine/rotors unless they have a PPL(H)? or can we let them start up if they have flew solo in the past?
i've read article 26 of the ANO here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20051970.htm
but it is not clear to me
????
does this mean we are now NOT allowed to let students start the engine/rotors unless they have a PPL(H)? or can we let them start up if they have flew solo in the past?
i've read article 26 of the ANO here:
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si2005/20051970.htm
but it is not clear to me
????
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the report, it seems the student was alone at the time. There is also a statement implying that the instructor told him to start up, but not go through the full pre-lift checks.
With respect to the ANO ammendment, surely having an instructor sitting next to said student, but not actually doing anything other than watching like a hawk (and having hands at the ready) would satisfy the requirements?
With respect to the ANO ammendment, surely having an instructor sitting next to said student, but not actually doing anything other than watching like a hawk (and having hands at the ready) would satisfy the requirements?
Guest
Posts: n/a
"With respect to the ANO ammendment, surely having an instructor sitting next to said student, but not actually doing anything other than watching like a hawk (and having hands at the ready) would satisfy the requirements?"
yes, this would satisfy the requirements, but this means the instructor does not get to eat his lunch/de-brief the last student/do the paperwork/etc while the next student is starting up
it's will be pain having to sit next to a competent student with 40+ hours while he starts up, just to satisfy a legal requirement
yes, this would satisfy the requirements, but this means the instructor does not get to eat his lunch/de-brief the last student/do the paperwork/etc while the next student is starting up
it's will be pain having to sit next to a competent student with 40+ hours while he starts up, just to satisfy a legal requirement
The report say ' it's normal practice for a student to carry out starts'. In the military they are only allowed to carry out solo starts once they have flown solo. Seems very sensible to me!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
In the military they are only allowed to carry out solo starts once they have flown solo. Seems very sensible to me!
Solo starts were allowed in order for the instructor to finish off his coffee, complete the days admin and add some extras to the flights spell checker auto correct, before joining his student at the 'release rotorbrake' stage of the sortie.
However, in this case the student continued with the checks beyond the point briefed by the instructor. The student also held a fixed wing Private Pilots Licence.
Another big factor in this, is the last sentence in the above quote.
Lets say as a JARCPL(H) with many thousands of hours etc etc, I wanted to do a PPL(A). When I am under instruction I would do as I am told, regardless of the hours, experience, licence, etc etc of my instructors. I would not dream of doing a start, then taxi out for power checks. Why?
Because as happened in this incident, the rotor rpm was at flight conditions, it became airborne and the student couldn't control it and it consequently rolled over.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@thecotroller
I am asking the same question myself now.
From the report:
I am not supervised by the CAA but still curious as to whether students past solo stage are not allowed to start up the engine anymore (flying with an instructor they are definately not PIC). And then, when flying solo being PIC they are allowed whereas when flying with an instructor (past solo stage) the same student was not allowed to start the engine? 
I am asking the same question myself now.
From the report:
As a result of that accident the CAA introduced an amendment to the Air Navigation Order, which came into effect on 15 March 2007, to add after article 50(4) the following:
(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 6 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 6 of this Order to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.
Guest
Posts: n/a
yes, idiot students should do what they are told. but what concerns me is the legal aspect. if you are letting your experienced post-solo students startup while you are not with them, and one day some numptie rolls the thing over or overspeeds it, who is to blame? it will be your name on the authorisation sheet as PIC. the CAA will view YOU as the commander of the flight.
food for thought for all us FIs
food for thought for all us FIs
Can't see the link of proficiency there, however that solo bit didn't seem to be the case on Lynx conversions where the first starts took around 45 minutes!!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unless I've missed, it the report doesn't say that the student had already completed any rotary solo. In that case IMHO the student is not in a position to start the aircraft unsupervised (as per the ANO amendment).
Post first solo, I'd always be stood nearby so that if the student didn't follow instructions I could walk over if the RPM was increased above 70%. Accepting students need to start the aircraft solo to gain experience and confidence once I was satisfied that aim had been met, I'd explain that I'd like to sit with them purely to watch the start (I called it skills test preparation).
I also used to teach that students rolled the throttle slightly closed THEN raised the lever a little amount. If the horn didn't sound then roll the throttle closed a bit more. Battery on and engine off a student can be shown just how a small a collective up input is required to get the horn blaring.
Tricky one this as FI is technically the P1 unless the student is solo flying on that sortie. I used to be with my students well before they reached a flight RPM, afterall that's the time I was being paid for.
Post first solo, I'd always be stood nearby so that if the student didn't follow instructions I could walk over if the RPM was increased above 70%. Accepting students need to start the aircraft solo to gain experience and confidence once I was satisfied that aim had been met, I'd explain that I'd like to sit with them purely to watch the start (I called it skills test preparation).
I also used to teach that students rolled the throttle slightly closed THEN raised the lever a little amount. If the horn didn't sound then roll the throttle closed a bit more. Battery on and engine off a student can be shown just how a small a collective up input is required to get the horn blaring.
Tricky one this as FI is technically the P1 unless the student is solo flying on that sortie. I used to be with my students well before they reached a flight RPM, afterall that's the time I was being paid for.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps I'm missing something, but having read the report (and the relevant part of the ANO), I don't see that the instructor has done anything wrong. Providing the student follows the instructions of the FI, then this satisfies the requirements. As regards not operating the rotors at flight idle I, for one, would not be happy approaching a running helicopter unless the rotors were at flight NR. Pilots (and student pilots) make mistakes; we have to accept that.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aside from your earlier post...............
IMO - Student pilot (no licence, no permission to fly supervised solo) on a dual training exercise cannot be PIC. Auth sheet will detail FI as P1. Why does a bum on a seat make a difference? IMO it doesn't. Suggesting that an FI only becomes P1 when he joins the aircraft is unmanageable to my mind. FI signs auth sheet accepting the aircraft and from that point onwards the aircraft is their responsibility.
In a two crew environment the handling pilot is not necessarily the aircraft commander. Who would you say was responsible then?
IMO - Student pilot (no licence, no permission to fly supervised solo) on a dual training exercise cannot be PIC. Auth sheet will detail FI as P1. Why does a bum on a seat make a difference? IMO it doesn't. Suggesting that an FI only becomes P1 when he joins the aircraft is unmanageable to my mind. FI signs auth sheet accepting the aircraft and from that point onwards the aircraft is their responsibility.
In a two crew environment the handling pilot is not necessarily the aircraft commander. Who would you say was responsible then?
Havent read the report but, before a student can go solo he has to pass a medical, this becomes his provisional licence. this must be carried with him when he goes solo ( like we have to carry our licences ). Thus he is allowed to start the helicopter solo. If this was not the case how the hell would he do his qualifying x country with two land aways at different airfields !!!!!!Or are we saying he should leave it running and go and get his certificate signed by ATC
Guest
Posts: n/a
Flingingwings, i agree. whoever signs the auth sheet is PIC.
this is why, as an FI, if you let a student startup on his own, you are putting yourself/your licence at risk.
because he is flying the aircraft, and you are inside drinking tea, yet you are the legal PIC.
99.9% of the time its not a problem. but when he f*cks up the startup and chops the tail off and, heaven forbid, the debris kills someone, the CAA will be gunning for YOUR arse, as you were the legal PIC.
this is why, as an FI, if you let a student startup on his own, you are putting yourself/your licence at risk.
because he is flying the aircraft, and you are inside drinking tea, yet you are the legal PIC.
99.9% of the time its not a problem. but when he f*cks up the startup and chops the tail off and, heaven forbid, the debris kills someone, the CAA will be gunning for YOUR arse, as you were the legal PIC.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly.
But this report doesn't say the student had ever flown rotary solo. What it does clearly state is that the lesson was to be dual training.
I feel there is a real difference between a student flying supervised solo where they can log the time as P1 (qual x-country etc etc) and a dual lesson where the stude logs all the time as Pu/t (regardless of any previous solo flying experience) is simply sent out to start the aircraft unsupervised.
Assuming the logic that the student is responsible on these dual lessons, what are the thoughts on the stude logging that 0.1 as P1? Afterall flight time is from rotor start till rotor stop
I know a stude that did similar but end result was an overspeed. He started an r22 with the throttle open (unsupervised start on a dual lesson)
P1 was the FI. Albeit the school asked the student to pay half of the insurance excess. Surely if the student was responsible they'd have asked for all the excess
But this report doesn't say the student had ever flown rotary solo. What it does clearly state is that the lesson was to be dual training.
I feel there is a real difference between a student flying supervised solo where they can log the time as P1 (qual x-country etc etc) and a dual lesson where the stude logs all the time as Pu/t (regardless of any previous solo flying experience) is simply sent out to start the aircraft unsupervised.
Assuming the logic that the student is responsible on these dual lessons, what are the thoughts on the stude logging that 0.1 as P1? Afterall flight time is from rotor start till rotor stop
I know a stude that did similar but end result was an overspeed. He started an r22 with the throttle open (unsupervised start on a dual lesson)
P1 was the FI. Albeit the school asked the student to pay half of the insurance excess. Surely if the student was responsible they'd have asked for all the excess
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The 'link to proficiency' is that by going solo he has proved capable of starting the beast, carrying out functionals, getting airborn safely and landing again. What more proof is needed?
However in this case, no matter at what stage of training or proficiency the student was, the basic of not doing what he was told, (or doing more than he was instructed to do), caused this incident.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Maders UK
Age: 57
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and all our insurance premiums stay sky high because of a perfectly preventable incident.
All I can say is thank god nobody was hurt.
I'll bet the instructor concerned is wishing he hadn't had that last cup of instant coffee/last cigarette/texted his girlfriend etc... rather than being in the aircraft with the 7h student. (How much of his logged time was on helos I wonder, 7h? perhaps).
Correct me if I am wrong but a private owner/student pilot started his R44 unsupervised less than a year ago with the same result, perhaps the cause of the amendment to the ANO?
Big dangerous machines in the wrong hands.
What a waste.
SB
All I can say is thank god nobody was hurt.
I'll bet the instructor concerned is wishing he hadn't had that last cup of instant coffee/last cigarette/texted his girlfriend etc... rather than being in the aircraft with the 7h student. (How much of his logged time was on helos I wonder, 7h? perhaps).
Correct me if I am wrong but a private owner/student pilot started his R44 unsupervised less than a year ago with the same result, perhaps the cause of the amendment to the ANO?
Big dangerous machines in the wrong hands.
What a waste.
SB
Apache for HEMS - Strafe those Survivors!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the point here is not whether they will be pilot in command for that particular flight but whether they are entitled to fly as pilot in command. I would say that a pilot, holding a student pilots licence, who has completed a solo in the type is, by definition, entitled to act as pilot in command, whether they do on that flight or not is irrelevant.
All the above having been said, if someone is going to do something stupid when you are not there then there is little that you can do to stop them, presuming that the brief they had was explicit.
9mm behind the left ear usually stops this becoming a repetitive error!
All the above having been said, if someone is going to do something stupid when you are not there then there is little that you can do to stop them, presuming that the brief they had was explicit.
9mm behind the left ear usually stops this becoming a repetitive error!
As far as I can make out,
a) nothing in the alleged amendment stops a student pilot from starting up on his own - article 26 says that if he holds a medical, is over 16 and on the authorisation of an instructor, can not only start up but of course can fly solo.
b) the ANO as currently published on the CAA's website does not include this alleged amendment to article 50
Perhaps there is loss of communication between the CAA and the AAIB. How unusual...
Really Mr AAIB, you should desist from inaccurate propaganda that only serves your views on the way it should be!
To those who think he can only start up after he has gone solo, I would ask whom you think was the commander of the aircraft on his first solo? Maybe you should read article 26 before posting?
HC
a) nothing in the alleged amendment stops a student pilot from starting up on his own - article 26 says that if he holds a medical, is over 16 and on the authorisation of an instructor, can not only start up but of course can fly solo.
b) the ANO as currently published on the CAA's website does not include this alleged amendment to article 50
Perhaps there is loss of communication between the CAA and the AAIB. How unusual...
Really Mr AAIB, you should desist from inaccurate propaganda that only serves your views on the way it should be!
To those who think he can only start up after he has gone solo, I would ask whom you think was the commander of the aircraft on his first solo? Maybe you should read article 26 before posting?
HC