212 accident offshore Dubai
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: N/A
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
From: Indonesia
Final Report
An O ring beat me to it but here it is again.......
http://www.gcaa.ae/en/ePublication/a...-%20A6-ALV.pdf
http://www.gcaa.ae/en/ePublication/a...-%20A6-ALV.pdf
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
"Pilot mistakes are always possible no matter how good a pilot is.. "
True, but highly unlikely in this case, and let's not forget Luis, who, apart from being a nice guy was also a Mr Safety. If it was anything like that, it would rather be "the Human Factor" than "Pilot Error".
Uncommanded cyclic movements due to failed tarsyns are not impossible, neither are failed artificial horizons, and this is no reflection on the maintenance dept at Aerogulf, who are second to none, IMHO. They do an outstanding job.
Phil
True, but highly unlikely in this case, and let's not forget Luis, who, apart from being a nice guy was also a Mr Safety. If it was anything like that, it would rather be "the Human Factor" than "Pilot Error".
Uncommanded cyclic movements due to failed tarsyns are not impossible, neither are failed artificial horizons, and this is no reflection on the maintenance dept at Aerogulf, who are second to none, IMHO. They do an outstanding job.
Phil
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
I'm guessing SASless would know........
How does this relate to the accident in question? During the hover and take-off phase the 212 is as stable as most types out there, I'd say. Or, are you suggesting the risk of a pitch trim actuator runaway is greater on am old type?
Surely old 212s offshore at night is not smart
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
From: The Netherlands
212man:- It certainly is an aging airframe which must make the chance of a system failure greater. I take it Aerogulf would not be doing routine night flights with passengers in 212s.
Smell Management:- I very much doubt Shell would use Aerogulf or that they had the sort of safety management of a 'major' helicopter operator. From what I recall at the time even life insurance wasn't apparently in place.
Smell Management:- I very much doubt Shell would use Aerogulf or that they had the sort of safety management of a 'major' helicopter operator. From what I recall at the time even life insurance wasn't apparently in place.
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,383
Likes: 1
From: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Mmmm ....
Actually .... that is exactly what Griffo and myself were alluding too .... that in fact UAE operators WERE sending 212s regularly offshore at night! (and some were unstabilised VFR machines AND in the UAE there is NO such thing as NGT VFR ... sort off!).
Happily Aerogulf are now about to put AW139s into service and the other operator has seen the light and no longer uses the 212 offshore (much!).
Actually .... that is exactly what Griffo and myself were alluding too .... that in fact UAE operators WERE sending 212s regularly offshore at night! (and some were unstabilised VFR machines AND in the UAE there is NO such thing as NGT VFR ... sort off!).
Happily Aerogulf are now about to put AW139s into service and the other operator has seen the light and no longer uses the 212 offshore (much!).
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
From: texas
Ah! Night flights in an unstabalized 212. Single pilot with an engineer along for the ride. Taking off and landing in the Zakum field with the engineer holding the log book to shield your eyes from the flares. Ah - the good old days.
Joined: Mar 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 659
Likes: 13
From: Under my coconut tree
js0,
That would be the good old day's when there was never a recorded over torque on winch moves, single pilot...
Funny, when we went 2 crew, there were many...
That would be the good old day's when there was never a recorded over torque on winch moves, single pilot...
Funny, when we went 2 crew, there were many...
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 4,328
Likes: 74
From: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
"Surely old 212s offshore at night is not smart"
I've flown a lot worse at night, landing on crossed headlights and all.... I don't see much wrong with using the 212 for that, if the rest of the system is OK - at least the tail doesn't fall off. And, of course, if there is no evidence of equipment failure, it can't be included in the report.
Just to set the record straight, Aerogulf tried to get the customer concerned to use the 412 in 1993, and Bell even loaned them the machine for the demo, but the customer simply didn't want to pay for it. Now, of course, they're very happy to upgrade. Funny that. And to put things in perspective, I believe that was their only loss in over 30 years of operation - better than an airline, I think.
Phil
I've flown a lot worse at night, landing on crossed headlights and all.... I don't see much wrong with using the 212 for that, if the rest of the system is OK - at least the tail doesn't fall off. And, of course, if there is no evidence of equipment failure, it can't be included in the report.
Just to set the record straight, Aerogulf tried to get the customer concerned to use the 412 in 1993, and Bell even loaned them the machine for the demo, but the customer simply didn't want to pay for it. Now, of course, they're very happy to upgrade. Funny that. And to put things in perspective, I believe that was their only loss in over 30 years of operation - better than an airline, I think.
Phil
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
Yes, I agree with Phil - there is nothing intrinsically bad about flying a 212 at night. Other concerns that may exist are equally valid in daytime too. The 212 is a damn sight easier to fly offshore landings and takeoffs than the 76, for example!
Off topic, but they use a strange set of ATA numbers when referring to the deferred defects - anyone know why? AFCS should be ATA-22 and GPS should be ATA-34, surely?
Off topic, but they use a strange set of ATA numbers when referring to the deferred defects - anyone know why? AFCS should be ATA-22 and GPS should be ATA-34, surely?