McRae Crash & Fatal Accident Inquiry
The old sweats, including Bill Miller, will have seen this.
However, for those who haven't - there are two circles which should govern your flying. Imagine one (the first) fixed circle which is the aircraft's limitations.
Now imagine another circle, centred on the first one but smaller, which is YOUR limitations. It grows outwards with your experience.
In the early days, if you go outside the bounds of your "experience" circle, you'll probably have an accident.
Once your "experience" circle grows outside the aircraft circle, if you exceed the aircraft circle, you'll probably have an accident.
Whether the "aircraft" or the "experience" circle was the one broached on this occasion I'm not worthy enough to tell, but one of them was and four people died.
However, for those who haven't - there are two circles which should govern your flying. Imagine one (the first) fixed circle which is the aircraft's limitations.
Now imagine another circle, centred on the first one but smaller, which is YOUR limitations. It grows outwards with your experience.
In the early days, if you go outside the bounds of your "experience" circle, you'll probably have an accident.
Once your "experience" circle grows outside the aircraft circle, if you exceed the aircraft circle, you'll probably have an accident.
Whether the "aircraft" or the "experience" circle was the one broached on this occasion I'm not worthy enough to tell, but one of them was and four people died.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Is it that self-styled 'aviation expert' Jim Ferguson again?
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He is trotted out regularly and usually appears to be filmed in some sort of spotters bedroom (aircraft posters on the wall, aircraft models, etc). It's probably his own !!
I can't find anything which lists his qualifications for being an expert anywhere.
I can't find anything which lists his qualifications for being an expert anywhere.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NigelOnDraft said:
I'm not happy with your answer. It still does not state the flight broke rule 5 anywhere. Least of all on page 8.
Quote:
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?
p8 Quote:
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.
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?
p8 Quote:
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.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It depends whether the helicopter was flown exactly overhead at 275 feet, or in close proximity to the buildings at a height of 275 feet PLUS any horizontal component. In the latter case, the minimum actual distance from the building could well be in excess of 500' quite comfortably. To acheive the 500' Rule, the aircraft at 275' above the building would also need to be 417' horizontally displaced.
The AAIB report does not specify which was the case, so any jumping to conclusions about this aspect is perhaps premature, at least by anyone on here who does not have the appropriate evidence.
The AAIB report does not specify which was the case, so any jumping to conclusions about this aspect is perhaps premature, at least by anyone on here who does not have the appropriate evidence.
Chopjock is right.
The farm reference is from the first flight.
There is no specific reference relating to a possible Rule 5 infringement in the second accident flight.
However looking at the plotted path vs OS map + commentary/desription of the accident flight, an infringement may have been possible against the mill building as he dropped into the valley. The report makes no comment re the pax video recordings of overflown buildings on the accident flight, so I imagine there was insufficient evidence to conclude an infringement had actually occurred.
Regretably I imagine all involved would far rather be arguing the toss regarding a rule 5 infringement or possible infringement than semantics over a fatal accident report.
The farm reference is from the first flight.
There is no specific reference relating to a possible Rule 5 infringement in the second accident flight.
However looking at the plotted path vs OS map + commentary/desription of the accident flight, an infringement may have been possible against the mill building as he dropped into the valley. The report makes no comment re the pax video recordings of overflown buildings on the accident flight, so I imagine there was insufficient evidence to conclude an infringement had actually occurred.
Regretably I imagine all involved would far rather be arguing the toss regarding a rule 5 infringement or possible infringement than semantics over a fatal accident report.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do we know the actual height? In order to show rule 5 has been broken, something more than "...it flew over farm buildings at a height estimated from the video to be 275ft" will be needed. An ESTIMATE is not enough. Also how do we know that the pilot did not intend to land near the farm buildings? Sinse we are not able to read his mind, we can not show he broke rule 5, hence why the report does not state that rule 5 was broken. (and this was a different flight than the flight of the crash)
I suspect there will be those that want to interpret it differently though. and sensationalise it
I suspect there will be those that want to interpret it differently though. and sensationalise it
Last edited by chopjock; 15th Feb 2009 at 19:52.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will of course agree that there is no specific statement or evidence that Rule 5 was broken... and rarely would the AAIB stick their necks out in this area anyway (?) - it is the CAA who tend to enforce prosecutions, and need to gather and present the evidence. For the obvious sad reasons, there is no point in doing so in this case, assuking the evidence was there anyway...
From the report:
So the flights took "about" 5 mins each, and about half that total was recorded on video - and all that period was <500'. Take a look at the maps on p7 and decide if, in all probability, Rule 5 was broken. It can depend on your definition of course of "structure", which at a recent FI seminar I attended was put as "man made with vertical extent" i.e. not a runway, but would include a fence. Can you really cross that many roads (including seemingly an A road), and edges of built up areas at <500' for all the recorded time (50% of the total), and never fly over a person, vehicle or structure 
So I do agree that Rule 5 has not been stated/proven to be broken. However, the AAIB have gone to some lengths to make statments regarding the conduct of the flight, including the heights flown, and the proximity to buildings and estimated heights. These portions of the flight were not immediately prior to the accident, hence not directly related to the accident... yet were seen fit to mention. Each will draw their own conclusions then as to why those statements were included
NoD
From the report:
The adult passenger’s camcorder had recorded a total of 5.3 minutes of video and sound track from the two flights. The video was all taken from his seat within the cabin, and ended about 55 seconds before the accident
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.
The radar track of the accident flight started at 1500:29 hrs and ended at 1504:32 hrs.
So I do agree that Rule 5 has not been stated/proven to be broken. However, the AAIB have gone to some lengths to make statments regarding the conduct of the flight, including the heights flown, and the proximity to buildings and estimated heights. These portions of the flight were not immediately prior to the accident, hence not directly related to the accident... yet were seen fit to mention. Each will draw their own conclusions then as to why those statements were included
NoD
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum Height
As long as you are not over a built-up area, you can fly as low as you like in the UK, provided you don't fly nearer than 500' to a person, vessel, vehicle or structure. This 500' can be vertical, lateral, or a combination of both (slant range).
Hard to determine exactly what constitutes a built-up area as this would include a golf course as it is primarily used for leisure/recreational activities.
I would ask myself whether I would be flying in this manner and at this height if my passenger was a CAA Ops inspector. And then be thankful that he's not.
P.S.
Come on Jim, I'm sure you are reading this. Show us some qualifications. A PPL would be a start. Or even just a trial-lesson certificate!
Rumour has it that you're a carpet salesman with a hobby of spotting (allegedly).
Hard to determine exactly what constitutes a built-up area as this would include a golf course as it is primarily used for leisure/recreational activities.
I would ask myself whether I would be flying in this manner and at this height if my passenger was a CAA Ops inspector. And then be thankful that he's not.
P.S.
Come on Jim, I'm sure you are reading this. Show us some qualifications. A PPL would be a start. Or even just a trial-lesson certificate!
Rumour has it that you're a carpet salesman with a hobby of spotting (allegedly).
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having appeared in one of Mr Ferguson's "expert articles" I sincerely hope that this time he has stuck to the known facts and not spouted his usual load of utter c***. Mr Ferguson is normally dragged out by the Aberdeen Depressing Journal as their "aviation expert."
Total Aviation Ignoramous is more accurate.
As for the 500' rule, when CM enrered the valley he may have known he was clear of structures by 500', he would not have known about persons as they would not have been visible. According to my FOI if you fly below 500' without permission then it is the people the authority are concerned about, not any structures.
Anybody involving themselves in this type of flying has a duty to themselves, their passengers and anyone else around that they have an escape route, and that they know what the hell they are doing. A 950 hour pilot is likely to believe that they know a lot more than in fact they do. A purely personal perspective is that pilots who have been succesful in one area of their lives believe they can be succesful in all areas. They tend to take greater risks, with little thought for the outcomes. They may be the most talented banker, racing driver, actor or businessman, but they need to know that their talents as pilots will be tested far faster and to a greater degree than in any other walk of life.
When you run out of talent in helicopter aviation a bad fright is the best you will get a bloody great smash is quite likely.
VH
Total Aviation Ignoramous is more accurate.
As for the 500' rule, when CM enrered the valley he may have known he was clear of structures by 500', he would not have known about persons as they would not have been visible. According to my FOI if you fly below 500' without permission then it is the people the authority are concerned about, not any structures.
Anybody involving themselves in this type of flying has a duty to themselves, their passengers and anyone else around that they have an escape route, and that they know what the hell they are doing. A 950 hour pilot is likely to believe that they know a lot more than in fact they do. A purely personal perspective is that pilots who have been succesful in one area of their lives believe they can be succesful in all areas. They tend to take greater risks, with little thought for the outcomes. They may be the most talented banker, racing driver, actor or businessman, but they need to know that their talents as pilots will be tested far faster and to a greater degree than in any other walk of life.
When you run out of talent in helicopter aviation a bad fright is the best you will get a bloody great smash is quite likely.
VH
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
In my humble Opinion, the argument as to whether Rule 5 was, or was not broken is immaterial as the rule itsself actually permits extremely low flight and therefore is a contributory factor in the accident AS THERE IS NOTHING IN THE RULE TO PREVENT IT HAPPENING.
As I alluded to in an earlier post, CAT operatives are required to provide firm guidance in the OM as to what are acceptable minimum cruise heights, and more importantly, detail the circumstances where flight at a lower altitude than the cruise is acceptable. These are ussually limited to flight in marginal (but acceptable) VMC minima.
For GA there are no such provisions other than Rule 5.
Gentlemen, if we are serious about our business, assuming that every fatal nasty like Colins probably puts 100 people off ever going near a heli, then I believe we must take some responsibility for ourselves and others and encourage the CAA to introduce some very firm rules regarding intentional low flying.
I am not a rule maker so I have no real idea where to start. But I do believe the beginning of the process is to really recognise that we have a problem with this aspect of our activities which far to often now leads to loss of life.
Inexperienced pilots are just like children, the Military have recognised this since the beginning with their 500, 1000 hour "Danger" datums leading to very close supervision of the individuals involved.
Just like children we need stirct guidelines and rules to stay safe.
If we are going to debate the minutae then the message and Colins legacy left to us is probably lost. If the CAA read this, lets have some development of the acceptable vertical flight profile that will serve to reduce these horrible events.
As I alluded to in an earlier post, CAT operatives are required to provide firm guidance in the OM as to what are acceptable minimum cruise heights, and more importantly, detail the circumstances where flight at a lower altitude than the cruise is acceptable. These are ussually limited to flight in marginal (but acceptable) VMC minima.
For GA there are no such provisions other than Rule 5.
Gentlemen, if we are serious about our business, assuming that every fatal nasty like Colins probably puts 100 people off ever going near a heli, then I believe we must take some responsibility for ourselves and others and encourage the CAA to introduce some very firm rules regarding intentional low flying.
I am not a rule maker so I have no real idea where to start. But I do believe the beginning of the process is to really recognise that we have a problem with this aspect of our activities which far to often now leads to loss of life.
Inexperienced pilots are just like children, the Military have recognised this since the beginning with their 500, 1000 hour "Danger" datums leading to very close supervision of the individuals involved.
Just like children we need stirct guidelines and rules to stay safe.
If we are going to debate the minutae then the message and Colins legacy left to us is probably lost. If the CAA read this, lets have some development of the acceptable vertical flight profile that will serve to reduce these horrible events.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Oh, and another thing, picking on poor old Mr Ferguson who is trying to make living like the rest of us brings absolutley nothing to the debate.
Quite frankly some of the utter drival we all manage to produce on occasion (and I include myself) more than balances out any minor inaccuracies poor old Mr F ends up touting whilst trying to explain what are quite complex issues to a wider public.#
Give the man a break!!!
Quite frankly some of the utter drival we all manage to produce on occasion (and I include myself) more than balances out any minor inaccuracies poor old Mr F ends up touting whilst trying to explain what are quite complex issues to a wider public.#
Give the man a break!!!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAIB Investigators hired a helicopter and flew the route(s) at a similar height and track.( I believe that the GPS surrendered some data) I suspect that they know damn well what the heights were but are not prepared to put it in writing. I'm sure the CAA legal department have been over that report with a fine tooth comb as I'm sure this aint over yet.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether Rule 5 was broken in this case is irrelevant. It's probable that the accident would have occurred regardless of the number of 'persons, vehicles, vessels or structures' that were or weren't overflown.
Along with the facts that the pilot held an out of date licence and was not current on type, the Rule 5 issue just adds to the point that the pilot's attitude to flying was flawed.
Along with the facts that the pilot held an out of date licence and was not current on type, the Rule 5 issue just adds to the point that the pilot's attitude to flying was flawed.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give the man a break!
You explain complex issues to the public by simplifying them. What is the point in talking complete bull? Just after the accident he stated that the AAIB were looking for the missing drive-belt to the rotor system. What has anyone learnt from that?
Simplify the truth by all means, but make sure that you know what you are talking about. You surely can't use the excuse of making a living to justify carrying on making money out of any means possible.
I was simply asking a question.
Jim Ferguson is described as an aviation expert. What does it take to acquire that title? I'm an ATPL(H) with numerous thousands of hours spent line-flying, instructing and examining but I wouldn't describe myself as an aviation, or helicopter, expert.
So what does it take, other than phoning around the rags offering your services as an aviation expert, to be an aviation expert?
I'm keen to find out as I can see a money making opportunity arising - subject to gaining the appropriate qualifications, of course.
And just consider this; how would you feel after having had an accident that perhaps wasn't your fault to have somebody with no knowledge of what had happened give their expert opinion?
Let me know when you have a bump. I'll be only too happy to tell you what caused it.
Simplify the truth by all means, but make sure that you know what you are talking about. You surely can't use the excuse of making a living to justify carrying on making money out of any means possible.
I was simply asking a question.
Jim Ferguson is described as an aviation expert. What does it take to acquire that title? I'm an ATPL(H) with numerous thousands of hours spent line-flying, instructing and examining but I wouldn't describe myself as an aviation, or helicopter, expert.
So what does it take, other than phoning around the rags offering your services as an aviation expert, to be an aviation expert?
I'm keen to find out as I can see a money making opportunity arising - subject to gaining the appropriate qualifications, of course.
And just consider this; how would you feel after having had an accident that perhaps wasn't your fault to have somebody with no knowledge of what had happened give their expert opinion?
Let me know when you have a bump. I'll be only too happy to tell you what caused it.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the beater;
Well said that man. They day I consider myself to be an expert I'll quit, and like you I've got thousands of hours and many years of rotary flying behind me.
The so called experts from the media rarely simplify anything, more often they put their own spin on known or unknown facts and present that as the truth.
A genuine debate amongst professional helicopter pilots on the subject of Colin McRae's crash is difficult on a forum such as this. I believe many of us share the same opinion, but are frightened to state it due to media attention and the opprobrium that will be heaped upon us by other forum members who don't necessarily have either the same level of experience, or who can't believe that the pilot could in fact be fallible.
This accident was utterly needless. Even if it had been caused by mechanical failure then as far as I'm concerned the pilot put himself into an unrecoverable position by flying into the valley with no escape route. As to the lack of LPC and license currency, that was as unforgivable as not puting oil in the many places an AS350 needs or taking off without enough fuel.
I flew with Colin several times. I make no comment on his abilities. I just wonder what the hell he thought he was doing that day.
VH
Awaiting opprobrium
Well said that man. They day I consider myself to be an expert I'll quit, and like you I've got thousands of hours and many years of rotary flying behind me.
The so called experts from the media rarely simplify anything, more often they put their own spin on known or unknown facts and present that as the truth.
A genuine debate amongst professional helicopter pilots on the subject of Colin McRae's crash is difficult on a forum such as this. I believe many of us share the same opinion, but are frightened to state it due to media attention and the opprobrium that will be heaped upon us by other forum members who don't necessarily have either the same level of experience, or who can't believe that the pilot could in fact be fallible.
This accident was utterly needless. Even if it had been caused by mechanical failure then as far as I'm concerned the pilot put himself into an unrecoverable position by flying into the valley with no escape route. As to the lack of LPC and license currency, that was as unforgivable as not puting oil in the many places an AS350 needs or taking off without enough fuel.
I flew with Colin several times. I make no comment on his abilities. I just wonder what the hell he thought he was doing that day.
VH
Awaiting opprobrium
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Hi Mr Beater,
I take your point about being an "Expert" but the press exists and the reality is that they will report something. At least Jim has some background in Aviation.
The point to my post is it is important (in my view) to recogise that maybe the rules, as they stand at the moment, permit the kind of flying Colin carried out, flying which when undertaken by a pilot who exceeds his skill-set, or by simply a nasty dose of bad luck, bad things are the result!!
I feel we must by far more inward looking than we are at present. We must accept that taking a very expensive machine, laden with the most precious cargo (that we carry) close to the ground, at speed, jiggling it all about, is inherently dangerous, when compared to doing the same flying at a sensible height.
The rules as they currently stand continue to allow this sort of thing and some (possibly even many) pilots exploit these rules in the pursuit of an "Exilerating Experience" as we have all probably done in the past.
Rules have to be sensible but above all they have to protect the innocent from the stupid and the stupid from themselves!!!!
Like I said before I am not a rule-maker, there are experts for that, but I am convinced, and become moreso after every similar accident, that the Low Flying rules need serious attention. If this means reviewing the VMC limits (again) that would also go a long way to reducing CFIT and WX related accidents.
Also those of us who instruct, or supervise flying activities must be vociferous in pointing out the dangers inherent in "Exhilerating" flying activities.
Mr Ferguson is just doing his job as he sees it. We must make sure we do ours before we start throwing stones at him.
I take your point about being an "Expert" but the press exists and the reality is that they will report something. At least Jim has some background in Aviation.
The point to my post is it is important (in my view) to recogise that maybe the rules, as they stand at the moment, permit the kind of flying Colin carried out, flying which when undertaken by a pilot who exceeds his skill-set, or by simply a nasty dose of bad luck, bad things are the result!!
I feel we must by far more inward looking than we are at present. We must accept that taking a very expensive machine, laden with the most precious cargo (that we carry) close to the ground, at speed, jiggling it all about, is inherently dangerous, when compared to doing the same flying at a sensible height.
The rules as they currently stand continue to allow this sort of thing and some (possibly even many) pilots exploit these rules in the pursuit of an "Exilerating Experience" as we have all probably done in the past.
Rules have to be sensible but above all they have to protect the innocent from the stupid and the stupid from themselves!!!!
Like I said before I am not a rule-maker, there are experts for that, but I am convinced, and become moreso after every similar accident, that the Low Flying rules need serious attention. If this means reviewing the VMC limits (again) that would also go a long way to reducing CFIT and WX related accidents.
Also those of us who instruct, or supervise flying activities must be vociferous in pointing out the dangers inherent in "Exhilerating" flying activities.
Mr Ferguson is just doing his job as he sees it. We must make sure we do ours before we start throwing stones at him.
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: Europe
Posts: 3,228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take your point about being an "Expert" but the press exists and the reality is that they will report something. At least Jim has some background in Aviation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re Mr Ferguson, what enlightened aviation background does he have ? He clearly had nothing of any value to say when the accident happened and yet still came on national TV to tell us that the aircraft was previously operated in Canada.Is that the work of an Aviation Expert or an Aviation Chancer ? Let's face it, any monkey can punch a reg into G-INFO and find out previous reggies. Who is he ? What are his Qualifications ? and why do the BBC spend taxpayer's money on him? 