Pilot Exiting While Rotors Turning
Also legal in Australia for skid helicopters with the controls locked (and a few other provisos). St Jack's scenario would certainly meet the requirements here for a skid helicopter: but in regards to which country's legislation is he asking?
CAO 95.7
CAO 95.7
7 Exemption from general requirement for pilot to be at controls
7.1 If the condition set out in paragraph 7.2 is complied with, a helicopter is exempt from compliance with subregulation 225 (1) (but not subregulation 225 (2)) and subregulation 230 (2) of the regulations.
7.2 The exemption given by paragraph 7.1, in relation to a helicopter, is subject to the condition that a pilot must, from the time of starting the engine or engines until the time of stopping the engine or engines at the end of the flight, be at the controls of the helicopter unless:
(a) the helicopter is fitted with skid type landing gear; and
(b) the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls; and
(c) if a passenger occupies a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls or is seated in a position where he or she is able to interfere with such controls, the controls are locked and the pilot is satisfied that the passenger will not interfere with the controls; and
(d) the pilot considers that his or her absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons on, or in the vicinity of, the helicopter; and
(e) the pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
7.1 If the condition set out in paragraph 7.2 is complied with, a helicopter is exempt from compliance with subregulation 225 (1) (but not subregulation 225 (2)) and subregulation 230 (2) of the regulations.
7.2 The exemption given by paragraph 7.1, in relation to a helicopter, is subject to the condition that a pilot must, from the time of starting the engine or engines until the time of stopping the engine or engines at the end of the flight, be at the controls of the helicopter unless:
(a) the helicopter is fitted with skid type landing gear; and
(b) the helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking the cyclic and collective controls; and
(c) if a passenger occupies a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls or is seated in a position where he or she is able to interfere with such controls, the controls are locked and the pilot is satisfied that the passenger will not interfere with the controls; and
(d) the pilot considers that his or her absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of the persons on, or in the vicinity of, the helicopter; and
(e) the pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the quick replies guys.
SayItIsntSo: Fully understand and agree with your sentiments. I'm leaning towards advising the pilot to ensure that a small handful of 'competant persons' at every possible location he may find himself be given 'awareness instruction' with regards to personnel movement around helicopters with turning rotors and proper operation of doors etc. Not full-fledged handlers perhaps, but competant to ensure safe passenger embarkation and disembarkation. Or simply shut-down the helicopter wherever possible. However, there is an Asian way of thinking that that insists a mechanic be carried if a shut-down away from base is anticipated. Ever seen a 206B with 2 crew and a mechanic turn-up for a pleasure flight? Happens regularly in one Asian country.
Yes, I do remember the Dauphin accident at Penang. It was in the local newspapers dated Saturday, 1st April 2006 and despite the date it was certainly no joke. On that occasion, the Dauphin was giving joyrides to local children and immediately prior to what would have been the fifth flight the person handling the children during the rotors-running change, not the pilot who was at the controls, inexplicably walked forward away from the helicopter "...and a thud was heard..." I still have a cutting of the newspaper article, complete with a very graphic colour photograph, and regularly use it to illustrate the dangers of turning rotors, particularly when I'm visiting an S76 location.
paco: Thanks, do you know the actual JAA/EASA reference?
John Eacott: Thanks also, the helicopter is a privately-owned 206L4 on the Indian register.
SayItIsntSo: Fully understand and agree with your sentiments. I'm leaning towards advising the pilot to ensure that a small handful of 'competant persons' at every possible location he may find himself be given 'awareness instruction' with regards to personnel movement around helicopters with turning rotors and proper operation of doors etc. Not full-fledged handlers perhaps, but competant to ensure safe passenger embarkation and disembarkation. Or simply shut-down the helicopter wherever possible. However, there is an Asian way of thinking that that insists a mechanic be carried if a shut-down away from base is anticipated. Ever seen a 206B with 2 crew and a mechanic turn-up for a pleasure flight? Happens regularly in one Asian country.
Yes, I do remember the Dauphin accident at Penang. It was in the local newspapers dated Saturday, 1st April 2006 and despite the date it was certainly no joke. On that occasion, the Dauphin was giving joyrides to local children and immediately prior to what would have been the fifth flight the person handling the children during the rotors-running change, not the pilot who was at the controls, inexplicably walked forward away from the helicopter "...and a thud was heard..." I still have a cutting of the newspaper article, complete with a very graphic colour photograph, and regularly use it to illustrate the dangers of turning rotors, particularly when I'm visiting an S76 location.
paco: Thanks, do you know the actual JAA/EASA reference?
John Eacott: Thanks also, the helicopter is a privately-owned 206L4 on the Indian register.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1968 in Iran an AB206A on pop-out flotation gear, (High skids etc), landed on the metal heli-deck of a rig and all pax got out and disappeared down the stairs, leaving the pilot with a heavy HF radio, (or similar), in the baggage bay and the helicopter out of balance. The rule was, 'never shut down on a helideck if there is only room for one', the logic being that if you couldn't get a start you were stuck until sea born help arrived.
The captain frictioned down and went round to get the piece of equipment out but the 206 started to move, (metal skids over a metal deck), and the helicopter eventually went over the side. Luckily it went into the sea and no one was injured.
The captain frictioned down and went round to get the piece of equipment out but the 206 started to move, (metal skids over a metal deck), and the helicopter eventually went over the side. Luckily it went into the sea and no one was injured.
I have to say on many occasions we left the Scout (single pilot) running at GI in (single) jungle clearings; sometimes for as much as 30 minutes whilst disappearing into the ulu.
Twas also not uncommon to get out on the jungle platform and unload the back whilst running!
Wonderful days.
Twas also not uncommon to get out on the jungle platform and unload the back whilst running!
Wonderful days.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sat on Bobs Peak in Queenstown , New Zealand last week and watched Squirrels coming and going all day with the a/c brought to ground idle (rotors running) and the Pilot letting pax in/out, no one at the controls. Pilot walking the pax safely to the edge of the heli pad before returning to the cab.
Saint Jack,
JAR-OPS 3.210(d) (CAT):
ICAO Annex 6 Part III, Section II, Chapter 2.2.4.2 (CAT):
ICAO Annex 6 Part III, Section III, Chapter 2.17 (GA):
Jim
JAR-OPS 3.210(d) (CAT):
(d) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of flight without a qualified pilot at the controls
2.2.4.2 A helicopter rotor shall not be turned under power, for the purpose of flight, without a qualified pilot at the controls. The operator shall provide appropriately specific training and procedures to be followed for all personnel, other than qualified pilots, who are likely to carry out the turning of a rotor under power for purposes other than flight.
A helicopter rotor shall not be turned under power for the purpose of flight without a qualified pilot at the controls.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: swansea, wales
Age: 66
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
did hear a horror story about a close miss when the pilot of a bolkow heli on a rock lighthouse got off after making the controls safe but with the rotors turning under power, heli began to skip accross the pad as a resuolt of the wind updraught in that area, a quick thinging lighthouse keeper saved the day by throwing himself accross the skid until the pilot seeing what was happeneing jumped back in and took control
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Just for the record, here is the CARS reference:
Starting and Ground Running of Aircraft Engines
602.10 (1) No person shall start an engine of an aircraft unless
(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control the aircraft;
(b) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving; or
(c) in the case of a seaplane, the aircraft is in a location from which any movement of the aircraft will not endanger persons or property.
(2) No person shall leave an engine of an aircraft running unless
(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control the aircraft; or
(b) where no persons are on board the aircraft,
(i) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving, and
(ii) the aircraft is not left unattended.
Phil
Starting and Ground Running of Aircraft Engines
602.10 (1) No person shall start an engine of an aircraft unless
(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control the aircraft;
(b) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving; or
(c) in the case of a seaplane, the aircraft is in a location from which any movement of the aircraft will not endanger persons or property.
(2) No person shall leave an engine of an aircraft running unless
(a) a pilot's seat is occupied by a person who is competent to control the aircraft; or
(b) where no persons are on board the aircraft,
(i) precautions have been taken to prevent the aircraft from moving, and
(ii) the aircraft is not left unattended.
Phil
Here in the U.S. you can get it written into your 135 ops specs to allow the pilot to leave the controls. I had it in Hawaii when I flew there. We had FAA approved procedures for it, and also had procedures for ground crew to do a "control hold" if we needed to run to the "blue room".
It read words to the effect of:
"Exiting the aircraft with engine running. The pilot may leave the pilots seat and remain within the immediate vicinity of the helicopter in order to check for fuel levels, oil levels, seat belts, headsets, etc."
In fact, my op specs required the pilot to "visually inspect the fuel level in the tank", so one was in violation if you did not get out and check.
I still have copies of them somewhere in my office, they are standard for all tour helicopters in Hawaii that conduct engines running re-fueling.
It read words to the effect of:
"Exiting the aircraft with engine running. The pilot may leave the pilots seat and remain within the immediate vicinity of the helicopter in order to check for fuel levels, oil levels, seat belts, headsets, etc."
In fact, my op specs required the pilot to "visually inspect the fuel level in the tank", so one was in violation if you did not get out and check.
I still have copies of them somewhere in my office, they are standard for all tour helicopters in Hawaii that conduct engines running re-fueling.
This is one of "those topics" that always sets off a firestorm of emotional outbursts. One school shouts, "DON'T GET OUT!" while another says, "Eh, what's the big deal?"
As Gordy points out, the U.S. FAA doesn't seem to have a problem with it. They've even issued one of those non-binding Advisory Circulars about how to do it "safely" (AC91-32b which still uses images of a Bell 47J so that tells you how old it is).
Anecdotally, we hear horror stories...some awfully questionable...like the one about a person who threw himself over a skid to stop a sliding Bolkow? Uhhh...not! Once a mighty Bo105 gets sliding, no mere mortal is going to stop it. If it stopped, it stopped on its own.
Then someone mentioned an AB206 that got blown off an oil platform in...what?...1968? Oh, how timely! Haven't we had a more recent example than that?
Look, getting out of a running helicopter is not dangerous in and of itself. In all my years of flying helicopters for money (28 so far), I've never been in one on the ground at idle rpm that did anything wierd that I could do anything about other than hang on. And I worked for PHI offshore for 13 years. I've never had one catch on fire or blow up. The controls are ineffective at idle.
Legal or not in your particular country, the problem with "getting out while running" is that it requires common sense. And that is something that is strangely lacking among our peer pilot group, evidently. Common sense items would include (but are not limited to):
IDLE RPM!
Light winds
IDLE RPM!
Stable surface
IDLE RPM!
Controls frictioned
IDLE RPM!
Low likelihood of a Chinook or Skycrane landing next to you
Seems simple enough, no? If you cannot vouch for all of the above, don't get out! Shut down. Alas, we are not as a group known for 100% expert judgment, as evidenced by the continuation of accidents as time marches on.
My helicopter has components that are cycle- as well as hour life-limited. In fact, it's a toss-up as to whether my #1 and #2 wheels time-out or cycle-out first. It is patently absurd to suggest that my passengers will -every time, mind you- sit through a complete two-minute cooldown and then rotor coastdown to a stop (no rotor brake). Me? I get out when it's appropriate. I take all the precautions, and I don't think that I'm doing anything horribly unsafe or even needlessly risky. I know that idling helicopters do not spontaneously explode or roll over on their own. But passengers do walk into tail rotors. Seen that happen once for real. Wasn't pretty, is all I'll say.
Obviously, others will have an opposing viewpoint. And that's cool. The debate rages on...
As Gordy points out, the U.S. FAA doesn't seem to have a problem with it. They've even issued one of those non-binding Advisory Circulars about how to do it "safely" (AC91-32b which still uses images of a Bell 47J so that tells you how old it is).
Anecdotally, we hear horror stories...some awfully questionable...like the one about a person who threw himself over a skid to stop a sliding Bolkow? Uhhh...not! Once a mighty Bo105 gets sliding, no mere mortal is going to stop it. If it stopped, it stopped on its own.
Then someone mentioned an AB206 that got blown off an oil platform in...what?...1968? Oh, how timely! Haven't we had a more recent example than that?
Look, getting out of a running helicopter is not dangerous in and of itself. In all my years of flying helicopters for money (28 so far), I've never been in one on the ground at idle rpm that did anything wierd that I could do anything about other than hang on. And I worked for PHI offshore for 13 years. I've never had one catch on fire or blow up. The controls are ineffective at idle.
Legal or not in your particular country, the problem with "getting out while running" is that it requires common sense. And that is something that is strangely lacking among our peer pilot group, evidently. Common sense items would include (but are not limited to):
IDLE RPM!
Light winds
IDLE RPM!
Stable surface
IDLE RPM!
Controls frictioned
IDLE RPM!
Low likelihood of a Chinook or Skycrane landing next to you
Seems simple enough, no? If you cannot vouch for all of the above, don't get out! Shut down. Alas, we are not as a group known for 100% expert judgment, as evidenced by the continuation of accidents as time marches on.
My helicopter has components that are cycle- as well as hour life-limited. In fact, it's a toss-up as to whether my #1 and #2 wheels time-out or cycle-out first. It is patently absurd to suggest that my passengers will -every time, mind you- sit through a complete two-minute cooldown and then rotor coastdown to a stop (no rotor brake). Me? I get out when it's appropriate. I take all the precautions, and I don't think that I'm doing anything horribly unsafe or even needlessly risky. I know that idling helicopters do not spontaneously explode or roll over on their own. But passengers do walk into tail rotors. Seen that happen once for real. Wasn't pretty, is all I'll say.
Obviously, others will have an opposing viewpoint. And that's cool. The debate rages on...
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Plymouth, UK
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leaving the rotors running
Paco, those rules contain a lot of 'and' and 'or'. I don't see how they prohibit leaving an idling helicopter.
Part (1): let's assume the engine was started by the pilot, sitting in the pilot's seat. All good so far. Then he decides he wants to get out - either before or after committing aviation.
Part (1) no longer applies, so we're into part (2) - leaving an engine running. Assuming he's going to fail 2(a) by leaving the pilot's seat empty: as long as he complies with ALL of (b), (i) and (ii), then he's in the clear to get out - as long as nobody else is on board, precautions have been taken to prevent the a/c from moving (frictioning the controls perhaps?) and somebody is keeping an eye on the a/c (obviously not from on board!)
Benet
Part (1): let's assume the engine was started by the pilot, sitting in the pilot's seat. All good so far. Then he decides he wants to get out - either before or after committing aviation.
Part (1) no longer applies, so we're into part (2) - leaving an engine running. Assuming he's going to fail 2(a) by leaving the pilot's seat empty: as long as he complies with ALL of (b), (i) and (ii), then he's in the clear to get out - as long as nobody else is on board, precautions have been taken to prevent the a/c from moving (frictioning the controls perhaps?) and somebody is keeping an eye on the a/c (obviously not from on board!)
Benet
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F1100
Then someone mentioned an AB206 that got blown off an oil platform in...what?...1968? Oh, how timely! Haven't we had a more recent example than that?
When it is metal, (skids), against a metal heli-deck even with the RPM at idle and the controls frictioned down there is enough torque to cause the aircraft to move of it's own accord, nothing to do with being,' blown off!
parabellum:
Well gee, I wonder why then, in the 13 years and oh...7,000 hours or so of flying 206's (and Bo105's) offshore onto metal oil platform decks, did this never happen to me? Not once did my aircraft "torque" itself around on its own. If that were the case, one would expect that a helicopter on fixed floats would spin "on its own" on the water at idle. But, um, they don't. They just sit there with neutral pedals. They translate sideways due to tail rotor thrust, but they don't spin. Try it sometime. And water doesn't even have as much friction as metal!
To get a 206 sliding on metal deck, you must be parked crosswind. PHI's wind limit for offshore operation was 40 knots. Let me tell you, that's a-blowing. Through years of experimentation, I found out exactly how much of a crosswind B-models and L-models can take before they slide. If you're dumb enough get out of a 206 that's parked in a crosswind on an wet, metal offshore platform, you deserve your fate.
Parked into the wind, at idle rpm, a helicopter will not move "of its own accord." Not even on a metal deck. Roll your eyes at that, sport.
When it is metal, (skids), against a metal heli-deck even with the RPM at idle and the controls frictioned down there is enough torque to cause the aircraft to move of it's own accord, nothing to do with being,' blown off!
To get a 206 sliding on metal deck, you must be parked crosswind. PHI's wind limit for offshore operation was 40 knots. Let me tell you, that's a-blowing. Through years of experimentation, I found out exactly how much of a crosswind B-models and L-models can take before they slide. If you're dumb enough get out of a 206 that's parked in a crosswind on an wet, metal offshore platform, you deserve your fate.
Parked into the wind, at idle rpm, a helicopter will not move "of its own accord." Not even on a metal deck. Roll your eyes at that, sport.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks a lot guys, a lot of very useful information recieved.
parabellum: The AB206A that went over the side of a rig in Iran was an early model (obviously) and was almost certainly equipped with a hydraulically-boosted tail rotor. If the tail rotor controls were not rigged properly with the proper minimum friction and bias-spring tension etc, the pedals had a tendancy to 'creep' if you took your feet off them. Older pilots who flew early 206's will remember the 'tap' check on the pedals to check for this condition. Also, remember this was 1968 when the JetRanger was a new type and both pilots and mechanics were unfamiliar. I'm not saying this was the cause of this particular accident, but the condition was known to exist. By the way, the French pilots radio call from the rig to base reporting the loss of the virtually new helicopter, "....ze 'elicopter, ze is gone..." is now part of Bristow folklore.
JimL: Thanks, great stuff - just what I wanted. However, I can't help feeling that the wording of the regulations "An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of flight without a qualified pilot at the controls" could open up that old debate of engineers/mechanics performing engine ground-runs. Or was the wording chosen to specifcally permit this - but this will be for another thread.
Finally, I think FH110 Pilot, in his first post, gets it essentially correct when he states that the prime ingredient here is simple old fashioned common sense (for each specific event and circumstances). But, as he goes on to say, common sense can be conspicuously uncommon. Couldn't agree more.
parabellum: The AB206A that went over the side of a rig in Iran was an early model (obviously) and was almost certainly equipped with a hydraulically-boosted tail rotor. If the tail rotor controls were not rigged properly with the proper minimum friction and bias-spring tension etc, the pedals had a tendancy to 'creep' if you took your feet off them. Older pilots who flew early 206's will remember the 'tap' check on the pedals to check for this condition. Also, remember this was 1968 when the JetRanger was a new type and both pilots and mechanics were unfamiliar. I'm not saying this was the cause of this particular accident, but the condition was known to exist. By the way, the French pilots radio call from the rig to base reporting the loss of the virtually new helicopter, "....ze 'elicopter, ze is gone..." is now part of Bristow folklore.
JimL: Thanks, great stuff - just what I wanted. However, I can't help feeling that the wording of the regulations "An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of flight without a qualified pilot at the controls" could open up that old debate of engineers/mechanics performing engine ground-runs. Or was the wording chosen to specifcally permit this - but this will be for another thread.
Finally, I think FH110 Pilot, in his first post, gets it essentially correct when he states that the prime ingredient here is simple old fashioned common sense (for each specific event and circumstances). But, as he goes on to say, common sense can be conspicuously uncommon. Couldn't agree more.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you cannot vouch for all of the above, don't get out! Shut down
Anything short of shutting down is a tradeoff - yes, you can get away with it many times, but the next time may be different.
Alas, we are not as a group known for 100% expert judgment, as evidenced by the continuation of accidents as time marches on.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 72
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL
Jim, the wording also leaves it wide open for a pilot to leave the controls if he has stopped the engine(s) and the blades are no longer being turned under power.
This relates to the original post on this thread where a pilot left his machine with the blades still turning after shutting down the engine.
BT
This relates to the original post on this thread where a pilot left his machine with the blades still turning after shutting down the engine.
BT
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For all your bluster F1100 the fact is it did happen, it didn't happen to me, thank God. Since the rig was in a shallow part of the Gulf the platform, on top of a leg, was totally unobstructed and about 100 to 150 feet above the sea, landing into wind assured, I had been on the same operation only a month earlier. The pilot also had several thousand hours on helicopters and had no option other than shutting down, a definate SOP 'no-no' at the time. You have obviously been fortunate, it is not a common practice though, as the posts here show.
