Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Helicopter Crash In Bettystown Ireland

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Helicopter Crash In Bettystown Ireland

Old 23rd Sep 2008, 17:34
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 34
Eh......are we having reading problems??

S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.

hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (It wasnt....)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures. ( it did )
Robino is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 18:59
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: uk
Age: 44
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by SASless
However, a review of his time card, payroll sheet, job description, evaluations, letter of appointment, all better point out how the piloting was "not" his primary function at the firm. The flying part better be way..way..way...down the list of responsibilities in importance, pay, time, and compensation.
Whats that? I thought pilots fly for the love of flying.

JAA CPL with FAA PPL, workin commercially within a JAA state on FAA private machine? would this be considered a technicality?

better than FAA PPL, no JAR licence workin commercially?

maybe to leave pandora and her box alone?
noblades is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 20:22
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,530
If the aircraft has been out of the US for more than 6 months or doesn't do at least 60% of it's flying in the US, it may not actually qualify as being a US aircraft.

The "grey" may become more "black and white".
RVDT is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2008, 20:51
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 54
Robino:
I'm asking about a hypothetical situation:

S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.

hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.

Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.

My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.
ketchup is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 11:15
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
As the B model has EAPS fitted sand off the beach shouldn't have been a problem.. Assuming of course it was switched on at the time.

I was taught gear down EAPS - ON, and GEAR UP EAPS OFF.. Seemed to work for me for several years without incident
magbreak is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 14:57
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 232
Very recent advert??

Is this the same company and have changes happened so soon?

.............Successful applicants should hold a UK/JAA ATPLH (IR) and ideally be S76 type rated. A Minimum of 3000 hours flying time with at lease 500 Twin PLC hours essential. Type rating training may be offered to suitable applicants. ...

Job Position: Permanent | Location: Global | Company: Haughey Air Limited | Published Date: 2008-09-26 16:05:24

No mention of Confined area landing experience/training.....
NRDK is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 16:45
  #127 (permalink)  
RotorHead
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,007
Job Position: Permanent | Location: Global | Company: Haughey Air Limited | Published Date: 2008-09-26 16:05:24
Were did you come across this??

Floater, i must of heard correctly then about him looking a pilot??
206Fan is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2008, 18:08
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 166
NRDK, Different company to the crashed aircraft.

The position advertised is in the North of Ireland.

Davy07 try an international flight website
magbreak is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 08:11
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The South
Age: 54
Posts: 430
Davy,

Looks like you were right.

Helicopter Captain - 200198839 - Flight Jobs

Took a while to find it as it isn't listed in the usual places.

The ink can't be dry on their type ratings. Not unexpected seeing as one of the pilots has been emailing his CV around.

They don't make pilots as robust as they used to or as thick skinned.

FNW
FloaterNorthWest is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 11:31
  #130 (permalink)  
RotorHead
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,007
Il be curious to see now will he fill the position quickly. Haven't seen the ship around here in 2 or 3 months, must be over in the england!
206Fan is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 13:57
  #131 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,504
I am pleased to hear there were no injuries...

I'm wondering...

Early in the thread, there was mention of marine regulations which would restrict operation of the helicopter on the beach, which has an obvious open area, and presumably a suitable arrival/departure path which would enabel safe flight. For reasons of his own, the pilot chose not to use the beach (I'm presuming, based upon what I've read here).

If the government of Ireland has realized the need for regulation of aircraft operations on beaches, I would presume that the regulation of helicopter operations in car parks would already have been addressed. In Canada, we have this regulation:

602.13 (1) Except if otherwise permitted under this section, section 603.66 or Part VII, no person shall conduct a take-off, approach or landing in an aircraft within a built-up area of a city or town, unless that take-off, approach or landing is conducted at an airport, heliport or a military aerodrome.
(amended 2007/06/30; previous version)

to consider.

During my helicopter training, (and I'm certain that I would not be alone in this) instructors were constantly temping me to land into unsuitable or non-conforming landing areas, and "bullying" me into justifying why I would not. The aforementioned regulation was one of my reasons, and I got satisfied smiles when I quoted it.

The regulation of landing in built up areas in Ireland is much less restrictive than Canada (for comparison only) but the beaches are locked up tight?

Pilot DAR
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 14:22
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 54
DAR,

My question is on the same line, when you go to an event in Ireland, of more then 1000 people, you must have an exemption to Rule 3. This was defined to me be John Steel: '1000 people, 1000 meters' regardless of AOC, Commercial or Private operations.
During the Galway races, Punchestown, Irish Open, a blanket exemption to Rule 3 is submitted to the IAA, but when I looked through the SI's and OAM's, I couldn't find it, other then recommend distance from buildings for landing site construction. Certainly, if this accident had been a machine on an AOC, The OAM is very clear on landing sites.
My take on it would be: If I was planning to land on Dollymount strand in Dublin, I would have to seek approval from the IAA OSD in writting for an exemption to Rule 3 and from Dublin City County Council as they are in charge for the beeches in Dublin.
I have meet many pilots who have received MOR's from the IAA for not having exemptions so it is enforced.

Last edited by ketchup; 28th Sep 2008 at 14:34.
ketchup is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 14:36
  #133 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,504
Ketchup, I had seen your comments....

Without putting too fine a point on it, the "public interest" would probably play a role in the decision making process as to allowing helicopter operations in non-heliport areas in built up areas. The quoted Canadian regulation does go on to state exemptions for police type operations.

It does not sound to me that the operation in this discussion met the terms of police operations.

So, some passengers, who can afford to beckon a helicopter, are unwilling to walk to a suitable landing area, or hire a car to take them there? Are those passengers being fair to the pilot, and assuring that he is not feeling pressured to conduct an operation which might not comply with the spirit of a regulation, or a risk of reduced safety?

I think that sometimes passengers fail to adequately imagine the possible consequenses of what they are requesting, and pilots are too eager to please to tell them.

Pilot DAR
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 14:53
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 54
DAR,
This is certainly a strong issue that may or may not have had an input into this accident. The IAA and CAA (UK) have strict guide lines for the operation of Public Transport to safe guard the passengers, and pilot, hence if the OAM says the site is too small, you legally can not land there or if you do, you AOC can be revoked.
Pressure from passenger or commercial pressure is a hot topic. What defines it, what causes it, the characteristic of you pax, owners, respect received and given all have a vital roll into how situations are dealt with. But this is why we should always fall back to the rules and laws set out. They are gospel.
ketchup is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 15:07
  #135 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,504
Yes,

An operator I work with recently endured complaints from passengers, in the case where the pilot refused to let them off in the toe in/hover on a mountain side, because the pilot thought that it was not safe. He very simply felt that there was an unacceptable risk that they would fall down the mountain. He let them off elsewhere. They complained. The company supported the pilot all the way, and reminded all of the pilots that they would be similarly supported, should they have to make that decision in the future.

Responsible management at work before regulators have to step in and do it for them! Aviation safety as it should be!

Pilot DAR
Pilot DAR is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 15:15
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 54
Sounds like a fantastic company to work for to have such vital support from management to the pilot.
Unfortunately, if your a private operator, you just don't have this type of support, and more then likely, you have low hours, it's your first real job in the industry and you need the money. No matter what you have learnt in class or read in any book, at that one moment in time, you are determined to keep you new boss happy.
I do wonder what the authorities could do or will do to help this.
ketchup is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 16:02
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 870
Some years ago when a working group was providing regulations for General Aviation (i.e. that which is not Air Transport nor AW) in the JAA, we produced this text (which is from ICAO Annex 2 - with a little twist):
JAR-OPS 0.485 Performance and compliance with the Rules of the Air

(a) The commander shall satisfy himself that aircraft performance is adequate to enable compliance with the rules of the air, and any restrictions applicable to the airspace in which the flight is being conducted; and shall ensure that an aircraft is:

(1) Except when necessary for take-off or landing at an approved landing site, or except where permitted by the appropriate Authority, not flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons, unless at such a height as will permit, in the event of an emergency arising, a landing to be made without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
This may (or may not) have found its way into EASA Ops but I'm not quite sure. It was provided exactly for the case that is being discussed here.

Jim
JimL is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 16:19
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,530
Ahh the rules and regs!

"Will permit" - during the operation right up to the event of the emergency arising, it probably did. Nobody here has any idea yet of the nature of the emergency that arose.

"Undue" - Excessive - as compared to what? A petrol tanker driving into the same place?

"Hazard" - used as a Noun, Literary Noun or Verb?

I am not defending anything, just pointing out that the legal fraternity will have a field day here.

I guess Flying Lawyer can't comment any more on this type of thing due to his current position.
RVDT is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 16:31
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 50
Posts: 227
Ah yes, I see the knives are out from the holier than thou helicopter pilots of Ireland as usual. Perhaps we could split the thread between kicking the pilot versus useful comment?
tu154 is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2008, 16:56
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
How about:

JAR-OPS 0.485 Performance and compliance with the Rules of the Air

(a) The commander shall satisfy himself (without fear that any one else will disagree with hindsight) that aircraft performance is adequate to enable compliance with the rules of the air and any restrictions applicable to the airspace in which the flight is being conducted; and shall ensure that an aircraft is:

(1) Except when necessary for take-off or landing at an approved landing site, or except where permitted by the appropriate Authority, not flown over the congested areas of cities, towns or settlements or over an open-air assembly of persons if, in the event of an emergency arising, they will cause injury & / or damage to property on the ground.
zalt is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.