Shirley Bassey & Night Flying (UK)
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: West Midlands, UK.
Age: 73
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would some kind person explain to me the difference between "in sight of the surface" and "with the surface in sight".
Insight of the surface means you have an intimate familiarity and very probably some technical knowledge regarding the surface.
With the surface insight means you are acting or doing something that requires the above insight.
Regards
Cron
Insight of the surface means you have an intimate familiarity and very probably some technical knowledge regarding the surface.
With the surface insight means you are acting or doing something that requires the above insight.
Regards
Cron
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirlybird
Not sure I can give you a definitive answer.
Firstly, I refer you to my answer above concerning "with the surface in sight".
Secondly, you will recall the A109E crash that occurred whilst approaching Bournemouth Airport on 3 March 2004. A recommendation of the AAIB was that:
"[the CAA] should review the Rules of the Air and relevant regulations in their applicability to helicopters and should consider imposing minimum visibility requirements for day and night. These minima should afford an effective safety margin to prevent inadvertent flight in instrument meteorological condition or loss of adequate external visual references. The requirement for a clearly defined horizon, particularly over water or featureless terrain should also be considered".
I am not aware of the previous definition (if, indeed, one existed) of "in sight of the surface" having considered the requirement for a "clearly defined horizon" and certainly there seems to be no mention of any form of forward visibility requirement. If there is no horizon, this implies that the ability of the pilot to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument (as required by the new definition) is unlikely to be possible.
Just my interpretation, you understand.
Not sure I can give you a definitive answer.
Firstly, I refer you to my answer above concerning "with the surface in sight".
Secondly, you will recall the A109E crash that occurred whilst approaching Bournemouth Airport on 3 March 2004. A recommendation of the AAIB was that:
"[the CAA] should review the Rules of the Air and relevant regulations in their applicability to helicopters and should consider imposing minimum visibility requirements for day and night. These minima should afford an effective safety margin to prevent inadvertent flight in instrument meteorological condition or loss of adequate external visual references. The requirement for a clearly defined horizon, particularly over water or featureless terrain should also be considered".
I am not aware of the previous definition (if, indeed, one existed) of "in sight of the surface" having considered the requirement for a "clearly defined horizon" and certainly there seems to be no mention of any form of forward visibility requirement. If there is no horizon, this implies that the ability of the pilot to maintain the aircraft in a desired attitude without reference to any flight instrument (as required by the new definition) is unlikely to be possible.
Just my interpretation, you understand.
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
Insight of the surface means you have an intimate familiarity and very probably some technical knowledge regarding the surface
Cheers
Whirls
Be fair Bravo - most of us don't do jokes in Dutch and I am assuming that 91205's location may also be his nationality so he could be excused for not understanding Cron's banter
I don't know what Ivor's excuse is............
I don't know what Ivor's excuse is............
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see no difference between "In sight of the surface" and "the surface in sight". They are the same thing.
I guess (and it is only a guess) that the Authority wished to emphasise that there are now more stringent criteria to be applied to VMC (hence VFR) flight which may not be apparent if existing terminology was used and amended.
My 2 groats worth.
I have not studied the publication that contained the proposal to make these changes so I offer my view of what it intended to achieve.
It does seem rather a pity that the CAA codified their intent and did not just spell it out.
A recent UK research report that examined all UK VFR accidents - by day or by night -which had a Loss of Control (LOC) element, clearly indicated that most resulted from the pilot being in a position where visual cues were not sufficient to permit visual flight; this could have been the result of: a reduction of light sources (or no visual horizon) at night; or entry into low visibility condition during the day (most likely when IIMC).
Although helicopters generally have a better Field of View (FOV) than fixed wing they are inherently unstable. To fly visually, the FOV must contain sufficient visual cues to permit the pilot to control the helicopter.
At night when there is no visual horizon, as the light sources are reduced, control cannot be maintained. Both by day and night, if there is no horizon and the visibility reduces such that the visual cues are taken out of the FOV - for example if the slant horizon containing the cues drops 'out of sight' below the instrument panel - unless the pilot reduces the height of the helicopter, control cannot be maintained (this can be aggravated by a reduction of speed, with the associated nose up attitude, which itself 'reduces' the FOV). (In fact the reduction of height in poor visibility more often results from this necessity to keep visual cues in the FOV than from a reduction in cloud base.)
There are basically two ways to address this problem: (1) the handling qualities of the helicopter can be improved - thus allowing more concentration to be applied to to obtaining visual cues; or (2) flight should only be conducted in conditions where suitable cues for visual flight can be maintained.
Solution (1) is already applied when certification for flight on instruments is sought (clearly indicating that flying without visual cues itself requires an improvement in handling qualities) - this offloads the pilot's workload and, even in visual flight, would permit reduction in the visual cue environment to be tolerated.
Solution (2) can only be applied subjectively because it depends upon: the equipment contained in the helicopter; the skill of the pilot (the more skillful the pilot the less visual cues are required for visual flight); the FOV of the helicopter; and the amount of workload that is required to perform any task (navigating for example).
It is solution (2) that is being sought by the change in regulatory language. "With the surface in sight" is meant to imply more than just seeing the ground immediately beneath the helicopter out of the side window; it is also intended to imply a consideration of all the elements in the previous paragraph.
In addition to the considerations above, there is nearly always an underpinning visibility requirement - sometime tied to license qualifications, and sometimes to task.
Jim
It does seem rather a pity that the CAA codified their intent and did not just spell it out.
A recent UK research report that examined all UK VFR accidents - by day or by night -which had a Loss of Control (LOC) element, clearly indicated that most resulted from the pilot being in a position where visual cues were not sufficient to permit visual flight; this could have been the result of: a reduction of light sources (or no visual horizon) at night; or entry into low visibility condition during the day (most likely when IIMC).
Although helicopters generally have a better Field of View (FOV) than fixed wing they are inherently unstable. To fly visually, the FOV must contain sufficient visual cues to permit the pilot to control the helicopter.
At night when there is no visual horizon, as the light sources are reduced, control cannot be maintained. Both by day and night, if there is no horizon and the visibility reduces such that the visual cues are taken out of the FOV - for example if the slant horizon containing the cues drops 'out of sight' below the instrument panel - unless the pilot reduces the height of the helicopter, control cannot be maintained (this can be aggravated by a reduction of speed, with the associated nose up attitude, which itself 'reduces' the FOV). (In fact the reduction of height in poor visibility more often results from this necessity to keep visual cues in the FOV than from a reduction in cloud base.)
There are basically two ways to address this problem: (1) the handling qualities of the helicopter can be improved - thus allowing more concentration to be applied to to obtaining visual cues; or (2) flight should only be conducted in conditions where suitable cues for visual flight can be maintained.
Solution (1) is already applied when certification for flight on instruments is sought (clearly indicating that flying without visual cues itself requires an improvement in handling qualities) - this offloads the pilot's workload and, even in visual flight, would permit reduction in the visual cue environment to be tolerated.
Solution (2) can only be applied subjectively because it depends upon: the equipment contained in the helicopter; the skill of the pilot (the more skillful the pilot the less visual cues are required for visual flight); the FOV of the helicopter; and the amount of workload that is required to perform any task (navigating for example).
It is solution (2) that is being sought by the change in regulatory language. "With the surface in sight" is meant to imply more than just seeing the ground immediately beneath the helicopter out of the side window; it is also intended to imply a consideration of all the elements in the previous paragraph.
In addition to the considerations above, there is nearly always an underpinning visibility requirement - sometime tied to license qualifications, and sometimes to task.
Jim
well Cron - I thought it was funny - in a 'how many times has this little gem been discussed before post accident' sort of way.................
is that enough words to get posted?
is that enough words to get posted?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL
Not like the good old days, eh Jim? Remember when you used to recover your trusty old S61N to Aberdeen totally illegally down the ILS with an unqualified copilot? Things are so much more complicated for the young guys coming up the ladder nowadays. I wonder who managed to make it so complicated?
Incidentally, what have you been up to since you went on strike?
Incidentally, what have you been up to since you went on strike?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Over the hills and far away
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What was the outcome of this (if any)?
Previous postings mainly concentrate on the weather on the day, and rightly so. However, are we to believe that no money changed hands as it was a PPL flight? Did the CAA investigate?
I'm raising this as on a recent airing of the 'Tonight' programme, Mark Austin flew in an MD of some description in the south west, which reminded me of the Shirley Bassey flight.
The two are likely to be completely unrelated and I am not making any accusations, but there aren't many MD AOC operators out there, are there?
Previous postings mainly concentrate on the weather on the day, and rightly so. However, are we to believe that no money changed hands as it was a PPL flight? Did the CAA investigate?
I'm raising this as on a recent airing of the 'Tonight' programme, Mark Austin flew in an MD of some description in the south west, which reminded me of the Shirley Bassey flight.
The two are likely to be completely unrelated and I am not making any accusations, but there aren't many MD AOC operators out there, are there?
There is a lot of flying passengers out there that is not aoc . Shirley Bassey was flown by a friend and many people chose to lease helicopters rather than charter thereby making their flights private ....hence you can fly a single at night etc Nothing new there , been going on since god was a boy . Unless you are actually trying to sh*t stir ??!!!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Over the hills and far away
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Hughes500, that's all I wanted to know.
I am aware that there are shared ownership (lease) groups out there operating under private use.
I also know that AOC operators pay a small fortune each year for the privilege of operating Public Transport flights.
So, regarding Mark Austin's flight: 1) A legitimate AOC operator? 2) Mr Austin a shared/lease owner? 3) Or a friend who owns the aircraft?
"sh*t stir?" nigelh - no, just asking a question and I'd be delighted if the answer is 1.
I am aware that there are shared ownership (lease) groups out there operating under private use.
I also know that AOC operators pay a small fortune each year for the privilege of operating Public Transport flights.
So, regarding Mark Austin's flight: 1) A legitimate AOC operator? 2) Mr Austin a shared/lease owner? 3) Or a friend who owns the aircraft?
"sh*t stir?" nigelh - no, just asking a question and I'd be delighted if the answer is 1.
Wooka
tell me about the costs ! Just applied for an AOC, wow, £ 6500 application fee, then £ 10500 a year to run for one single engine machine !!!
Have to do a lot of work to cover the costs let alone make any money on it !!!
Tempting not to bother and stick to training and loadlifting !
tell me about the costs ! Just applied for an AOC, wow, £ 6500 application fee, then £ 10500 a year to run for one single engine machine !!!
Have to do a lot of work to cover the costs let alone make any money on it !!!
Tempting not to bother and stick to training and loadlifting !
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Over the hills and far away
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree, hence why some don't bother and others take a risk.
The crux of the matter is the AOC charges which are crippling smaller legitimate operators.
The crux of the matter is the AOC charges which are crippling smaller legitimate operators.
I know we have covered this loads of times but you cannot make it pay having just one or two machines on your own aoc , much better to use somebody elses and pay them for the privilege on a cost per hr OR just build up a client list who are happy to become the operator themselves , lease them the heli and get them to make their own contract with the pilot . This is then private flying and accepted as such by the CAA . You have to do it properly ie no recharging to individual pax etc There has never been a prosecution by the CAA of a properly conducted lease flight ...period. If you want to do small ad hoc flights , weddings etc then it is aoc but these flights tend to be small and not worth the trouble anyway . Also make sure your insurance covers you for all commercial lease flights in writing and if in any doubt check with the caa , as i have done . Of course if they brought in a sensible aoc for the small operator that would work we would all go in to make life simpler , but that is not their way