CAA Paper - Helicopter Flight in Reduced Visibility
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 326
Likes: 2
From: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Bravo 73 you make a very valid point. Navigation has never ever been easier and has never been so available. Very few pilots launch today without GPS on board. It is a great aid and certainly eases the workload when the weather gets bad.
I would be interested to know how many of these aircraft were equipped with GPS.
I just read Table 1 again and the question that jumps out at me for most of these accidents is "Why were they there in the first place?" Here we go back to Dennis's comment about the Irishman and the bog.
Regardless of the availability of modern equipment for stability and navigation/approaches, there has to be a point in any DVE where the pilot/crew address the question above. At the same time, the decision to continue/postpone/abort has to be addressed.
What I read from most, though not all, of the accidents listed, is that the decision to turn around or vacate the environment was not addressed soon enough. It was left right up until there was no option, I think this is where the solution lies. Sure, lets get the best infrastructure that is practical and affordable, lets put the right equipment on board, but we as pilots have to address this most basic decision to continue in deteriorating weather.
I have to go and fly - at least its sunny here.
tam
I would be interested to know how many of these aircraft were equipped with GPS.
I just read Table 1 again and the question that jumps out at me for most of these accidents is "Why were they there in the first place?" Here we go back to Dennis's comment about the Irishman and the bog.
Regardless of the availability of modern equipment for stability and navigation/approaches, there has to be a point in any DVE where the pilot/crew address the question above. At the same time, the decision to continue/postpone/abort has to be addressed.
What I read from most, though not all, of the accidents listed, is that the decision to turn around or vacate the environment was not addressed soon enough. It was left right up until there was no option, I think this is where the solution lies. Sure, lets get the best infrastructure that is practical and affordable, lets put the right equipment on board, but we as pilots have to address this most basic decision to continue in deteriorating weather.
I have to go and fly - at least its sunny here.
tam
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 326
Likes: 2
From: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Malabo,
"May also be one of the drawbacks of training in Florida and then being unprepared to deal with that dreadful English weather."
I am not aware of any evidence that supports this and without evidence, I would be very reluctant to take that one any further.
You are, however, quite right about the British weather. It is the interaction between the pilots and the weather that is the common denominator in most of these accidents and that has to be where we focus the required improvement.
The term - Clear of cloud with the surface in sight - IMHO is a very poor term when it comes to flight safety. It seems to conjure the impression that provided you maintain it, you will come to no harm. Of course, that should be the way but it isn't.
Whilst I would not want to see unneccessary restrictions applied as a reaction to the paper, perhaps there is room for the introduction of DVE phase awareness. Probably something most do sub-consciously.
This could be introduced at company level or school level without any major effort. Many organisations already have something similar, the military certainly do.
I'm suggesting a countdown something like -
CAVOK - No DVE response required
Visibility/cloud lower than 10km or 1500 ft agl - VFR Flt Plan required
Visibility/cloud lower than 3km or 700 ft agl - positively address options of diversion, reduce speed, call ATC to inform of poor weather encounter and your plan.
Visibility/cloud lower than 1km or 500 ft agl - inform ATC of intentions, if unable, divert or land.
OK OK, before you all lash me to death, I'm not suggesting the above as regulation, I'm just trying to identify specific points as DVE is entered and the need for a positive response at each point. Maybe that way, we'll increase the conspicuity of DVE and realistically, if everyone did that, the term IIMC would all but go away.
We have to do something to ensure pilots stop flying to the limit of "Clear of cloud with the surface in sight." I would like to see a conscious countdown to that limit. Most pilots have an alert/awareness system, for those that don't, maybe it needs legislation.
"May also be one of the drawbacks of training in Florida and then being unprepared to deal with that dreadful English weather."
I am not aware of any evidence that supports this and without evidence, I would be very reluctant to take that one any further.
You are, however, quite right about the British weather. It is the interaction between the pilots and the weather that is the common denominator in most of these accidents and that has to be where we focus the required improvement.
The term - Clear of cloud with the surface in sight - IMHO is a very poor term when it comes to flight safety. It seems to conjure the impression that provided you maintain it, you will come to no harm. Of course, that should be the way but it isn't.
Whilst I would not want to see unneccessary restrictions applied as a reaction to the paper, perhaps there is room for the introduction of DVE phase awareness. Probably something most do sub-consciously.
This could be introduced at company level or school level without any major effort. Many organisations already have something similar, the military certainly do.
I'm suggesting a countdown something like -
CAVOK - No DVE response required
Visibility/cloud lower than 10km or 1500 ft agl - VFR Flt Plan required
Visibility/cloud lower than 3km or 700 ft agl - positively address options of diversion, reduce speed, call ATC to inform of poor weather encounter and your plan.
Visibility/cloud lower than 1km or 500 ft agl - inform ATC of intentions, if unable, divert or land.
OK OK, before you all lash me to death, I'm not suggesting the above as regulation, I'm just trying to identify specific points as DVE is entered and the need for a positive response at each point. Maybe that way, we'll increase the conspicuity of DVE and realistically, if everyone did that, the term IIMC would all but go away.
We have to do something to ensure pilots stop flying to the limit of "Clear of cloud with the surface in sight." I would like to see a conscious countdown to that limit. Most pilots have an alert/awareness system, for those that don't, maybe it needs legislation.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
From: UK
It's very hard to make a judgement. The most common time when I start to see a problem is the 'wall' of mist that appears maybe 3km in the distance going from the current cloud base all the way to the ground, and you can't see past it.
I slow down, and the wall rolls back as I progress towards it, drizzle hitting the canopy. I'm normally at over 1500ft above the ground, but I would progress in this situation as low as about 600ft. If the wall stopped rolling back, I wouldn't go into it.
Anyone got any rules of thumb about when to say stop? I think it's likely that the people who have accidents saw scenarios not unlike this prior to their incident - the degradation always seems slow, anyone got a magic trick which can help make the decision?
BW
I slow down, and the wall rolls back as I progress towards it, drizzle hitting the canopy. I'm normally at over 1500ft above the ground, but I would progress in this situation as low as about 600ft. If the wall stopped rolling back, I wouldn't go into it.
Anyone got any rules of thumb about when to say stop? I think it's likely that the people who have accidents saw scenarios not unlike this prior to their incident - the degradation always seems slow, anyone got a magic trick which can help make the decision?
BW
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Yes - err on the side of caution and abort early. It's not magic, it's common sense but there are those who think they are beyond the rules and believe they are good enough pilots to push on right up to the point where they realise they aren't.
Some just won't listen and until you find a way of making them learn without killing themselves (and others) or stopping them getting into a cockpit in the first place, then we will continue to have CFIT/UCFIT/IIMC fatalities.
As hihover says, many use COCISOS (clear of cloud and in sight of the surface) as a shield of righteousness and protection and blunder on with very marginal visual cues. Special VFR is another misnomer as it implies good weather but in reality is often a COCISOS clearance in all but name.
Some just won't listen and until you find a way of making them learn without killing themselves (and others) or stopping them getting into a cockpit in the first place, then we will continue to have CFIT/UCFIT/IIMC fatalities.
As hihover says, many use COCISOS (clear of cloud and in sight of the surface) as a shield of righteousness and protection and blunder on with very marginal visual cues. Special VFR is another misnomer as it implies good weather but in reality is often a COCISOS clearance in all but name.
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
From: Kings Caple, Ross-on-Wye.orPiccots End. Hertfordshire
Heli accidents & IMC
Another 'pennorth please ... can I endorse Hi-Hover's 'stage by stage' bad wx assessment system. A series of cloud & viz numbers is something positive we could teach. Also endorse the GPS trap as I've sat alongside pilots who have actually said, we are OK ... I've got our position exactly.
Pity the Skyforce 111 doesn't have precise height info.
I've found the instrument handling ability doesn't necessarily rely on flying experience either, since one of my party pieces is to have my testee fly straight & level on instruments for a minute or two, then ask him to reduce speed. As translational lift lost, I squeeze in progressive pedal, usually right and too many lose control in seconds. A/H shows level, speed is minimum, DG is whizzing and skip ball dives out of the cabin. Okay at 1500 feet, but a potential disaster at 500!
Until something better is agreed, my view is we continue to train 'the dangers of low level' IMC flying. 'Irishman Bog principle !
PS ... No reflection on my many super customers & pilots in the Irish Repulic of course. Fly safely over there lads.
DRK
Pity the Skyforce 111 doesn't have precise height info.
I've found the instrument handling ability doesn't necessarily rely on flying experience either, since one of my party pieces is to have my testee fly straight & level on instruments for a minute or two, then ask him to reduce speed. As translational lift lost, I squeeze in progressive pedal, usually right and too many lose control in seconds. A/H shows level, speed is minimum, DG is whizzing and skip ball dives out of the cabin. Okay at 1500 feet, but a potential disaster at 500!
Until something better is agreed, my view is we continue to train 'the dangers of low level' IMC flying. 'Irishman Bog principle !
PS ... No reflection on my many super customers & pilots in the Irish Repulic of course. Fly safely over there lads.
DRK
