Really going out on a limb here RE:Accidents
Really going out on a limb here RE:Accidents
Okay, so I have to say i'm impressed with the amount of time since we read of a UK GA accident on here. In this, I mean accidents which could be avoided, with unfortunate injuries and fatalities, not the ones where you have no say in the matter ie mech failure.
I know I shouldn't tempt fate, but I wonder if this year will be the lowest recorded accident year for UK. Nice thought.
Let's not read of wire strikes (my personal pet hate) at all please.
Fly safe.
I know I shouldn't tempt fate, but I wonder if this year will be the lowest recorded accident year for UK. Nice thought.
Let's not read of wire strikes (my personal pet hate) at all please.
Fly safe.
Last edited by helimutt; 20th Apr 2008 at 15:03. Reason: to keep people happy :-)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sox, my thoughts exactly. Curiously, I note that when looking at that thread again that Helimutt has removed his various comments - maybe something to do with a realisation that they were ill founded given that
(but that is not meant to be a Mutt bashing comment: good for you for deleting)
I'm not sure that 'Devil's Advocate' is the correct expression - that tends to imply a counter argument to a widely held proposition. I think 'tempting fate' would be more appropriate.
I guess the main word of caution, when considering non-mechanical related accidents, is that we are in a period of unprecedented change in terms of new aircraft introduction in the last two years (BHL have 3 new types and CHC have 5!), with 'experience on type' levels at an all time low and many new methods of operating coming into play with new digital aircraft. Extra vigilance is required by all.
As a low time co-pilot Southern North Sea
I'm not sure that 'Devil's Advocate' is the correct expression - that tends to imply a counter argument to a widely held proposition. I think 'tempting fate' would be more appropriate.
I guess the main word of caution, when considering non-mechanical related accidents, is that we are in a period of unprecedented change in terms of new aircraft introduction in the last two years (BHL have 3 new types and CHC have 5!), with 'experience on type' levels at an all time low and many new methods of operating coming into play with new digital aircraft. Extra vigilance is required by all.
...and add to that the fact some bases still have no new aircraft ordered for 2010 yet and no-one even being trained on any new types.
212man, I think your comment on 'experience on type' being at a low level, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
All of my comments on the 365 incident removed for specific reasons, but yes, talking to the pilot, engineers and others, maybe I posted in haste.
212man, I think your comment on 'experience on type' being at a low level, it's going to get worse before it gets better.
All of my comments on the 365 incident removed for specific reasons, but yes, talking to the pilot, engineers and others, maybe I posted in haste.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
accidents which could be avoided
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here is a talk about accident prevention that I gave at Heli Expo. Tell me what you think!
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/HeliExpoTalk.pdf
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/HeliExpoTalk.pdf
I can only talk about the flying environment I know. Not off-shore,
but I am quite sure, that flying IFR is not the one single cure for CFIT accidents.
Unfortunately CFIT accidents come in a lot of different flavors. Not all, and I would say not even most of them are high speed accidents while in cruise. Spraying, long lining, observation, even SAR and EMS, are not possible under IFR most of the time, but most - I suppose and it would definitely be true for any mountainous region - CFIT accidents happen at slow flight with high workload under VFR and you can not change that.
Second
You are flying a class of helicopters, most pilots will never fly (ok now at Bell you see the world of us simple guys). Most fly single engine VFR only machines. Right now there is no way that the Sikorsky S76 autopilot will find it's way in a JetRanger or MD500. I rather suppose, that one day probably Frank will use the very good garmin autopilot for SE and extend its capabilities. Right now we have the big ones with expensive equipment which are talking about stuff, which will be hardly useful for small operators.
Anything that lowers the workload is good, but there will not be the technology due to cost for small helicopters for a long time and therefore we can not fix it with technology.
As we tell the Brits all the time, there isn't just the north sea and there aren't just big helicopters flying out there either. And that brings me to ...
Third
I think you are also missing a point (or did I?) in the pilot training part. Yes train, train, train.... is certainly true. It is done in a lot of companies but the curve where you gain additional safety with additional training for the average pilot is almost flat. If we want make the curve steeper again we have to change training towards more realistic scenarios and focus more on the personality side of the pilot. Change of behavior is the way to go.
Train the way you fly and fly the way you train is not a concept that found it's way in helicopter basic training. The pilot should also have a realistic view of his profession. People look up to us which is good for our ego, but we must make new pilots understand, that a monkey can hover, but it is the decision making part that keeps us alive and not the superior stick fumbling skills. We (ok, probably not you) are average people with average skills and therefore we should not try things a test pilot would not do. Which is a bigger problem then with FW. Therefore we should bring in more knowledge about decision making and human behavior and how to avoid being dead by not doing stupid stuff.
but I am quite sure, that flying IFR is not the one single cure for CFIT accidents.
Unfortunately CFIT accidents come in a lot of different flavors. Not all, and I would say not even most of them are high speed accidents while in cruise. Spraying, long lining, observation, even SAR and EMS, are not possible under IFR most of the time, but most - I suppose and it would definitely be true for any mountainous region - CFIT accidents happen at slow flight with high workload under VFR and you can not change that.
Second
You are flying a class of helicopters, most pilots will never fly (ok now at Bell you see the world of us simple guys). Most fly single engine VFR only machines. Right now there is no way that the Sikorsky S76 autopilot will find it's way in a JetRanger or MD500. I rather suppose, that one day probably Frank will use the very good garmin autopilot for SE and extend its capabilities. Right now we have the big ones with expensive equipment which are talking about stuff, which will be hardly useful for small operators.
Anything that lowers the workload is good, but there will not be the technology due to cost for small helicopters for a long time and therefore we can not fix it with technology.
As we tell the Brits all the time, there isn't just the north sea and there aren't just big helicopters flying out there either. And that brings me to ...
Third
I think you are also missing a point (or did I?) in the pilot training part. Yes train, train, train.... is certainly true. It is done in a lot of companies but the curve where you gain additional safety with additional training for the average pilot is almost flat. If we want make the curve steeper again we have to change training towards more realistic scenarios and focus more on the personality side of the pilot. Change of behavior is the way to go.
Train the way you fly and fly the way you train is not a concept that found it's way in helicopter basic training. The pilot should also have a realistic view of his profession. People look up to us which is good for our ego, but we must make new pilots understand, that a monkey can hover, but it is the decision making part that keeps us alive and not the superior stick fumbling skills. We (ok, probably not you) are average people with average skills and therefore we should not try things a test pilot would not do. Which is a bigger problem then with FW. Therefore we should bring in more knowledge about decision making and human behavior and how to avoid being dead by not doing stupid stuff.
