McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: here
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sentiments
DOUBLE BOGEY, i couldn`t agree with you more. As tragic an accident as it was for all concerned, not only in aviation, even driving cars, motorbikes etc we`ve all taken risks and been lucky to have gotten away with it. The bucket of luck and experience applies to everyone, even those who write on here! None of us are perfect, maybe a bit wiser as we get older.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the real message here is that any of us doing very low level flying have to be very, very careful. Yes it is fun, and can be, correctly, quite legal. And safe. But the eroded safety margins must be compensated for by much greater awareness of the risks, and big allowances made for them.
Of course these include engine failures, obstructions, whether wires or trees, terrain profile, the effects of the wind (and I agree with NoD that a 20kt + tail wind was probably a big factor and not allowed for enough), and the physical limits of the aircraft, whether servo transparency or other. I very much doubt that Colin was conscientious enough about his flying to be sufficiently aware of the latter, for example, and his height and trajectory would have left him much reduced opportunity to handle it, even if recognised quickly enough, before he hit obstructions.
But before anyone gets too pious and thinks one should never fly below 500ft, we should remind ourselves that most of us drive within 10ft of other cars on roads with a closing speed of 120mph almost every day. And consider it perfectly safe. And Colin used to drive within 3ft of trees (and spectators!) on mud and gravel at 120 mph, and consider it perfectly normal.
It is hard to conclude anything other than tragically, it was pilot error that caused this accident. Colin just didn't have enough margin, given his skill and knowledge of the aircraft, to do what he did safely. But I've little doubt that if he was just 100ft higher it would have been as safe as our every day drive to work.
Of course these include engine failures, obstructions, whether wires or trees, terrain profile, the effects of the wind (and I agree with NoD that a 20kt + tail wind was probably a big factor and not allowed for enough), and the physical limits of the aircraft, whether servo transparency or other. I very much doubt that Colin was conscientious enough about his flying to be sufficiently aware of the latter, for example, and his height and trajectory would have left him much reduced opportunity to handle it, even if recognised quickly enough, before he hit obstructions.
But before anyone gets too pious and thinks one should never fly below 500ft, we should remind ourselves that most of us drive within 10ft of other cars on roads with a closing speed of 120mph almost every day. And consider it perfectly safe. And Colin used to drive within 3ft of trees (and spectators!) on mud and gravel at 120 mph, and consider it perfectly normal.
It is hard to conclude anything other than tragically, it was pilot error that caused this accident. Colin just didn't have enough margin, given his skill and knowledge of the aircraft, to do what he did safely. But I've little doubt that if he was just 100ft higher it would have been as safe as our every day drive to work.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hi Gents, Thanks for your appreciation on my last post. Let me share something else with you.
A good few years ago Bob Tempest gave me a display authorisation for the AS355 for the Sunderland Air Show. Now the 355 is a machine I can fly with my eyes closed. Many, many hours of hard flying for Police and HEMs had honed my skills to the absolute limit.
The manouvres I devised for that display were not even in the book, pure flying skill, done for pure enjoyment.
Now to the crux, the first real display I did I pushed each manouvre as far as I dared to provide maximum fun for the audience, taking the machine right to the "Display Line Limit" and much back slapping at the end.
The second year, having practised hard, I pushed everything a little bit further, espicially in my version of the elphinstone loop, trying to find the limit each time. Nothing went wrong!!
In the third year, I approached the task with a deepening sense of forboding thoughout the practise sessions. What was wrong with me, had I lost my nerve, nothing had yet gone wrong, why was I reluctant to do it.
And then, in a blinding epiphany, I saw my future laid out as clear as day. If left unchecked, I would continue to push myself and the machine not just to the limit, but eventually beyond it. Maybe not this year, maybe not the next, but eventually it would happen.
I learnt a very crucial lesson about myself that day. The harder I push, the further I go, and eventually I WILL FIND THE LIMIT.
That third season I declined the task of the Display and convinced the Powers that be that it would be far better to simply display our true flying role, that of HEMs and we did a very nice simulated casualty extraction from the centre of the arena.
I have never flown an air display since that day!!
My experience may only prove the fact that maybe display flying is not my "Bag", but I try not to over anylize it too much.
Suffice to say that I "found" my limit that day and luck, judgement, skill, call it what you like, meant I found it without being actually in the air. Maybe this is the very best kind of "Limit" we can expect to find.
A good few years ago Bob Tempest gave me a display authorisation for the AS355 for the Sunderland Air Show. Now the 355 is a machine I can fly with my eyes closed. Many, many hours of hard flying for Police and HEMs had honed my skills to the absolute limit.
The manouvres I devised for that display were not even in the book, pure flying skill, done for pure enjoyment.
Now to the crux, the first real display I did I pushed each manouvre as far as I dared to provide maximum fun for the audience, taking the machine right to the "Display Line Limit" and much back slapping at the end.
The second year, having practised hard, I pushed everything a little bit further, espicially in my version of the elphinstone loop, trying to find the limit each time. Nothing went wrong!!
In the third year, I approached the task with a deepening sense of forboding thoughout the practise sessions. What was wrong with me, had I lost my nerve, nothing had yet gone wrong, why was I reluctant to do it.
And then, in a blinding epiphany, I saw my future laid out as clear as day. If left unchecked, I would continue to push myself and the machine not just to the limit, but eventually beyond it. Maybe not this year, maybe not the next, but eventually it would happen.
I learnt a very crucial lesson about myself that day. The harder I push, the further I go, and eventually I WILL FIND THE LIMIT.
That third season I declined the task of the Display and convinced the Powers that be that it would be far better to simply display our true flying role, that of HEMs and we did a very nice simulated casualty extraction from the centre of the arena.
I have never flown an air display since that day!!
My experience may only prove the fact that maybe display flying is not my "Bag", but I try not to over anylize it too much.
Suffice to say that I "found" my limit that day and luck, judgement, skill, call it what you like, meant I found it without being actually in the air. Maybe this is the very best kind of "Limit" we can expect to find.
NigelonDraft
If you actually read the report you will see that he was crosswind (fig 10) which affected his expected radius of turn and would have made it difficult to see the tree (the tree was hit at 30' below the top and is not thought to be just the result of an error in height assessment - that means he didn't see it).
Like Double Bogey I have done my fair share of wazzing and zooming in a green suit and the one thing you must always give yourself is a margin for error rather than believing you are invincible. I don't suppose Colin would have taken children in the back of a rally car at 120mph down a wooded track but he did it in a helicopter - why?
I suspect if you actually read the report, you might find:
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit
In fact, both elements are specifically discussed
A Downwind could well have been relevant
B They probably did see the tree well before they hit
In fact, both elements are specifically discussed
Like Double Bogey I have done my fair share of wazzing and zooming in a green suit and the one thing you must always give yourself is a margin for error rather than believing you are invincible. I don't suppose Colin would have taken children in the back of a rally car at 120mph down a wooded track but he did it in a helicopter - why?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some very interesting and valid points raised here by military and professional pilots. Excitement and enjoyment in flying are of course part of the fun especially when trained to do it as part of your job or as an extension to a PPL.
This was very different though. The pilot in this instance was a PPL(H), not in any way trained to undertake some of the activities he carried out on his last flight. He took three passengers ,who could not possibly be expected to know the risks involved but who trusted him completely - and he killed them.
The PPL(H) or (A) may be the lowest license on the totem pole but the level of responsibility to passengers is one of the highest given that, if we have our own aircraft, we operate outside of any military or commercial oversight. If there is anything good that can come out of this tragedy then maybe it will be because it makes us think again about that responsibility.
This was very different though. The pilot in this instance was a PPL(H), not in any way trained to undertake some of the activities he carried out on his last flight. He took three passengers ,who could not possibly be expected to know the risks involved but who trusted him completely - and he killed them.
The PPL(H) or (A) may be the lowest license on the totem pole but the level of responsibility to passengers is one of the highest given that, if we have our own aircraft, we operate outside of any military or commercial oversight. If there is anything good that can come out of this tragedy then maybe it will be because it makes us think again about that responsibility.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 53
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paperwork
I've not read the report, so could be well off the mark here.
I guess anyone can let paper-work or licenses lapse inadvertently, but the more serious implication then is that no assessment by an instructor of the pilots flying has been carried out in that time.
I guess anyone can let paper-work or licenses lapse inadvertently, but the more serious implication then is that no assessment by an instructor of the pilots flying has been carried out in that time.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Crab, I would have thought that he might have been aware of the tree for the simple reason that it was well and truly on his home territory (from the photo and the 50,000) it looks like it is just 150 metres from his own helipad.
I think he simply got himself too deep into the valley and the airframe just didn't respond as quickly as he thought it would.
An RAF ex-colleague of mine infamously did a similar thing in a Wessex at Bishop's Court and badly injured a crew member. An ex-student of mine, a Canadian exchange officer, was nearly killed in an Alouette accident by an over-confident Belgian Army pilot doing a wingover with passengers on board. There is a video on YouTube of a Jetranger series aircraft similarly coming close to grief at a grass strip in Germany - its skids bounced off the grass and carried on but I would not like to have flown it afterwards.
The lesson is that helicopters can bite if abused and bite very hard indeed.
I think he simply got himself too deep into the valley and the airframe just didn't respond as quickly as he thought it would.
An RAF ex-colleague of mine infamously did a similar thing in a Wessex at Bishop's Court and badly injured a crew member. An ex-student of mine, a Canadian exchange officer, was nearly killed in an Alouette accident by an over-confident Belgian Army pilot doing a wingover with passengers on board. There is a video on YouTube of a Jetranger series aircraft similarly coming close to grief at a grass strip in Germany - its skids bounced off the grass and carried on but I would not like to have flown it afterwards.
The lesson is that helicopters can bite if abused and bite very hard indeed.
Shy, you might be right about getting too deep into the valley but it looks to me like a case of being blown too wide by the crosswind, belly up to the obstacle (tree), in the same fashion that we used to show students at Shawbury when teaching low level.
That Bishop's Court episode was just someone using a Chinook wingover technique on a Wessex and porking it very badly.
I guess I was lucky - 1000 hours on a first tour in NI with 90% at low level, heavy and fast (well for a Wessex anyway) often in poor weather - about the best post-graduate training you could get as far as pure helicopter handling goes.
AndyJB32 - a fundamental problem for PPLs is the lack of post graduate training available - once the licence is endorsed they are effectively self-policing and self regulating - the majority are sensible but there will always be those who think they are better and have to prove it.
That Bishop's Court episode was just someone using a Chinook wingover technique on a Wessex and porking it very badly.
I guess I was lucky - 1000 hours on a first tour in NI with 90% at low level, heavy and fast (well for a Wessex anyway) often in poor weather - about the best post-graduate training you could get as far as pure helicopter handling goes.
AndyJB32 - a fundamental problem for PPLs is the lack of post graduate training available - once the licence is endorsed they are effectively self-policing and self regulating - the majority are sensible but there will always be those who think they are better and have to prove it.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"prohibits any aircraft from being flown closer than 500 feet flight from any person vehicle, obstacle or structure"......"except for the purposes of take-off and landing".
Page 78 of the report (page 8 of the pdf) refers: http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...HL%2002-09.pdf
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 431 Likes
on
227 Posts
Moggiee, your quote isn't quite correct.
This is copied directly from CAP 393:
The word "Obstacle" isn't included in the regulations for VFR. 
The aircraft was illegally low over the farmhouse but probably NOT illegally low in the valley, unless his own house was closer than 500 feet and he wasn't intending to land as part of the manoeuvre.
This is copied directly from CAP 393:
(b) The 500 feet rule:
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
Except with the permission in writing of the CAA, an aircraft shall not be flown
closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle or structure.
The aircraft was illegally low over the farmhouse but probably NOT illegally low in the valley, unless his own house was closer than 500 feet and he wasn't intending to land as part of the manoeuvre.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
moggiee said:
Quote:
The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.
Where exactly does the report state this?
Quote:
The report makes the point that the flight broke Rule 5 of the Rules of the Air which:.
Where exactly does the report state this?
During the periods of flight captured on the video recording, the helicopter did not fly above 500*ft*agl, and it was considerably lower for most of the time. Other aspects of the pilot’s handling of the aircraft were noteworthy: these included instances of very low flying, valley flying and other manoeuvres, as described below.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft.
On the outbound flight the helicopter flew as low as 155 ft over open farmland, as indicated by the altimeter and, at one point, it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft.
Shy, you might be right about getting too deep into the valley but it looks to me like a case of being blown too wide by the crosswind, belly up to the obstacle (tree), in the same fashion that we used to show students at Shawbury when teaching low level.
If you actually read the report you will see that he was crosswind (fig 10) which affected his expected radius of turn
They probably did see the tree well before they hit
at such high speed and low level if you don't see the tree
The impact track would have taken the aircraft across the line of the valley towards rising wooded ground, which is unlikely to have been the pilot’s desired or intended track.
As a FW pilot, I have no idea about "servo transparency" / "jack stall". I get the impression the AAIB are syaing the "tight turn required" may have led to this phenomenon occurring
With the onset of servo transparency in this case predicted to have been at 2.1 g (with maximum continuous power set), even a modest increase in turn rate over that shown at Figure 10, if accompanied by a power increase, would have caused the helicopter to encounter the phenomenon. Any turbulence in the valley could have caused transient additional loading of the rotor disc, which would further increase the likelihood of an encounter.
In this case, the helicopter’s natural reaction will cause the angle of bank to increase which, together with a possible pitch-up, will cause an increased rate of turn.
I will leave to you RW experts as to how likely this "servo transparency" is to occur, and/or if the AAIB have highlighted it as a possible cause, and maybe written more about it than they wished as a result of "pressure" prior publication. Interested in your thoughts...
NoD
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DOUBLE BOGEY - your posts are on the button.
I have always maintained a healthy respect for the inherrent dangers in this profession, or hobby for some, and re-visited that respect each time someone I know, knew, or knew of, has come to grief, whatever the cause - and I reckon that's averaged one a year over the last 30 years.
The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits, and that of our aircraft, at some stage. In many respects it's a sensible boundary to discover - if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it. I know I have reached (and possibly exceeded) the limits of both at one time or another . . . but it's finding the limits of both at the same time that I'm pleased not to have had to recover from!
The comments about experience & luck buckets also strike a chord - I'd suggest that the experience bucket has unlimited capacity, whereas the not-very-easy-to-re-fill luck bottle should always be marked "Use Sparingly".
I have always maintained a healthy respect for the inherrent dangers in this profession, or hobby for some, and re-visited that respect each time someone I know, knew, or knew of, has come to grief, whatever the cause - and I reckon that's averaged one a year over the last 30 years.
The bottom line is that the psychology of pilots invariably leads to us trying to find both our limits, and that of our aircraft, at some stage. In many respects it's a sensible boundary to discover - if you don't know where the line is, you'll never know when you're getting close to it. I know I have reached (and possibly exceeded) the limits of both at one time or another . . . but it's finding the limits of both at the same time that I'm pleased not to have had to recover from!
The comments about experience & luck buckets also strike a chord - I'd suggest that the experience bucket has unlimited capacity, whereas the not-very-easy-to-re-fill luck bottle should always be marked "Use Sparingly".
I am not a pilot but I have been allowed to fly an aircraft when the pilot wanted to look at a dubious map marked 'uncharted' when we were in SE Borneo. "Servo transparency" is surely heavy feedback and the instinctive response must be to pull harder on the controls.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cheshire
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recent report said incident occured attempting a difficult manoeuvre and Colin's Licence was out of date. Any further info? How long expired?
I feel sorry that the other lad's parents now deem it 'an avoidable accident'.
I suppose it was for them, they could have said 'No' to their son going.
I wonder how the parents of the 2 S Wales Air Cadets feel about letting them join?
Any untimely death is sad.
I feel sorry that the other lad's parents now deem it 'an avoidable accident'.
I suppose it was for them, they could have said 'No' to their son going.
I wonder how the parents of the 2 S Wales Air Cadets feel about letting them join?
Any untimely death is sad.
Location, Location, Location
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If it moves, watch it like a hawk: If it doesn't, hit it with a hammer until it does...
Age: 60
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report is here;
Air Accidents Investigation: Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel, G-CBHL
The reason and implications are sadly clear.
Air Accidents Investigation: Eurocopter AS350B2 Squirrel, G-CBHL
The reason and implications are sadly clear.
I think the issue of out of date licence and LPC are a bit of a red herring in terms of the cause of this accident.
The licence - definitely, its need for renewal is just a vehicle for revenue raising.
The LPC - its purpose is to demonstrate continuing competance and so is clearly a "good thing", however consider whether he would have passed an LPC should he have taken it - answer, judging from the report, is almost certainly yes as its formulaic and doesn't test ability and attitudes to "flamboyant flying".
In other words, had he renewed his licence and been in date for an LPC, would the accident still have happened - answer "Yes".
Its part of the ICAO annex 13 standard accident report to include licensing issues, but in this case largely irrelevant. It does however give the press and the lawyers a field day!
Was the accident about breaking Rule 5? - no, the fact that he flew low over the farmhouse was irrelevant. Flying low over a wooded area with no persons, vehicles, vessels or structures is not illegal, even though he couldn't have known whether or not there were any people hiding in the trees. Neither is doing steep turns and pullups illegal.
This accident, as others have said, is more about perception of risk than the beaurocracy. As a rally driver he was used to taking risks that would from time to time result in crashing. In a rally car you will mostly get away with that.
In a helicopter, probably not, as he found out.
Unfortunately he seems to have exceeded his skill limit by a small but critical amount. Perhaps it was jack stall at low level, distraction or something else - perhaps it doesn't matter that much exactly what it was.
His failing was to leave insufficient (or zero) safety margin whilst carrying passengers. His failing was not to have yet had the flash of light that Double Bogey so eloquently describes. He was still in the "pushing the boundaries" phase when his luck bucket ran dry.
But don't hate him for it - surely most of us have been there but got away with it, learnt from it? Unfortunately humans in general are not good at evaluating risks and consequences in a variety of situations. All we can do is to try to think about it and learn from other's mistakes.
HC
The licence - definitely, its need for renewal is just a vehicle for revenue raising.
The LPC - its purpose is to demonstrate continuing competance and so is clearly a "good thing", however consider whether he would have passed an LPC should he have taken it - answer, judging from the report, is almost certainly yes as its formulaic and doesn't test ability and attitudes to "flamboyant flying".
In other words, had he renewed his licence and been in date for an LPC, would the accident still have happened - answer "Yes".
Its part of the ICAO annex 13 standard accident report to include licensing issues, but in this case largely irrelevant. It does however give the press and the lawyers a field day!
Was the accident about breaking Rule 5? - no, the fact that he flew low over the farmhouse was irrelevant. Flying low over a wooded area with no persons, vehicles, vessels or structures is not illegal, even though he couldn't have known whether or not there were any people hiding in the trees. Neither is doing steep turns and pullups illegal.
This accident, as others have said, is more about perception of risk than the beaurocracy. As a rally driver he was used to taking risks that would from time to time result in crashing. In a rally car you will mostly get away with that.
In a helicopter, probably not, as he found out.
Unfortunately he seems to have exceeded his skill limit by a small but critical amount. Perhaps it was jack stall at low level, distraction or something else - perhaps it doesn't matter that much exactly what it was.
His failing was to leave insufficient (or zero) safety margin whilst carrying passengers. His failing was not to have yet had the flash of light that Double Bogey so eloquently describes. He was still in the "pushing the boundaries" phase when his luck bucket ran dry.
But don't hate him for it - surely most of us have been there but got away with it, learnt from it? Unfortunately humans in general are not good at evaluating risks and consequences in a variety of situations. All we can do is to try to think about it and learn from other's mistakes.
HC
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From The Times today
"Mc Rae, 39, died instantly when his...Twin Squirrel helicopter"...
And:
"His "type rating", which allows an individual to serve as pilot in command of commercial helicopter operations such as passenger transport..."
Where do they get this nonsense from? Is it that self-styled 'aviation expert' Jim Ferguson again?
And:
"His "type rating", which allows an individual to serve as pilot in command of commercial helicopter operations such as passenger transport..."
Where do they get this nonsense from? Is it that self-styled 'aviation expert' Jim Ferguson again?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: www.chinook-justice.org
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HeliComparator, you are correct in one respect - pieces of paper don't fly aircraft, pilots do. However the repeated lack of concern for possessing these bits of paper does perhaps give an insight into the attitude of the pilot in question.
As sportsman Colin McRae was a hero to millions - myself included. As a sometime competitor and event organiser I met him on a number of occasions and have watched him flying G-CBHL. The flying I witnessed Colin McRae doing however was entirely in keeping with his ability in a rally car - 110% self-confidence and commitment, little or no margin for error, along with an absolute lack of fear - the qualities which made him one of the greatest rally drivers ever but which also led to his death and that of three others.
Sadly, this accident was no surprise.
As sportsman Colin McRae was a hero to millions - myself included. As a sometime competitor and event organiser I met him on a number of occasions and have watched him flying G-CBHL. The flying I witnessed Colin McRae doing however was entirely in keeping with his ability in a rally car - 110% self-confidence and commitment, little or no margin for error, along with an absolute lack of fear - the qualities which made him one of the greatest rally drivers ever but which also led to his death and that of three others.
Sadly, this accident was no surprise.