Suspected heli crash, Gloucestershire (Nov 2008)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: london
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MD, Am I right in thinking that the AAN is a bit like a Type Certificate for non-certified aircraft, with the issuing of a Permit to Fly being subject to having one (and obviously complying with it)?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pilot needs to comply with the permit to fly certificate which will be with the aircraft certificate papers in the POH or tech log
i doubt if any pilots or even owners will have ever seen the permit to test or the aan these are usually looked after by the maintence co and test pilot
also there has been slight changes to the permit to fly paperwork over the years and the permit to fly certificate has changed . looking at old paperwork like this could give you the wrong information i have old copies of the certificate to fly for gazelle and they are all different
i doubt if any pilots or even owners will have ever seen the permit to test or the aan these are usually looked after by the maintence co and test pilot
also there has been slight changes to the permit to fly paperwork over the years and the permit to fly certificate has changed . looking at old paperwork like this could give you the wrong information i have old copies of the certificate to fly for gazelle and they are all different
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...XT%2010-09.pdf
Worth a read, with a reminder to all about declaring medical conditions.
Although it seems that the cause of the incident was not related to any medical condition, failing to declare may have invalidated any insurance
Coconutty
Worth a read, with a reminder to all about declaring medical conditions.
Although it seems that the cause of the incident was not related to any medical condition, failing to declare may have invalidated any insurance
Coconutty
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other aspect worth a reminder is the operation of the aircraft under a Permit rather than a C of A. As the AAIB report points out, carriage of the passengers who were in the aircraft was outside the terms of the permit. I would think that the insurance company concerned will be able to wiggle out completely from any payout.
I have often wondered whether the people who fly in Permit helicopters are aware of the limitations. I suspect frequently not. It is all fine until some terrible incident like this happens.
I have often wondered whether the people who fly in Permit helicopters are aware of the limitations. I suspect frequently not. It is all fine until some terrible incident like this happens.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other aspect worth a reminder is the operation of the aircraft under a Permit rather than a C of A. As the AAIB report points out, carriage of the passengers who were in the aircraft was outside the terms of the permit. I would think that the insurance company concerned will be able to wiggle out completely from any payout.
It is after all, at the discretion of the pilot to take ground crew or not, isn't it?
Therefore "crew" is open to interpretation.
The insurance company would have to prove a violation was made in order to not pay out. Besides, what a ridiculous rule anyway, apparently a permit to fly aircraft is considered safe enough for crew in the back, but not for pax?
Who thinks these rules up? someone against aviation perhaps?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chopjock,
We'll have to differ about our interpretation of what the AAIB said and its effect. As I read the report, it spelt out the limitation over passengers from the Permit, and then stated evidence that the people in the aircraft other than the pilot could not have been one of the classes of "permitted" people. It did not draw the conclusion, but that is just a formality and some conclusions are unavoidable.
However, I agree with what you say about the stupidity of the limitation. Just typical of the restrictive regime we operate under. These days the UK CAA have been pretty much squeezed out of policy making by EASA. But where they do still have an input, you can pretty much guarantee it will be more restrictive and complicated than anything anyone else could think of.
As I was told many years ago, the first few active words of the ANO says it all about the mindset of the regulator:
"An aircraft shall not fly........."
We'll have to differ about our interpretation of what the AAIB said and its effect. As I read the report, it spelt out the limitation over passengers from the Permit, and then stated evidence that the people in the aircraft other than the pilot could not have been one of the classes of "permitted" people. It did not draw the conclusion, but that is just a formality and some conclusions are unavoidable.
However, I agree with what you say about the stupidity of the limitation. Just typical of the restrictive regime we operate under. These days the UK CAA have been pretty much squeezed out of policy making by EASA. But where they do still have an input, you can pretty much guarantee it will be more restrictive and complicated than anything anyone else could think of.
As I was told many years ago, the first few active words of the ANO says it all about the mindset of the regulator:
"An aircraft shall not fly........."
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chopjock,
Which part of this is unclear:
Which part of this is unclear:
The passengers had no flying qualifications and the helicopter was en-route to a maintenance facility where there were sufficient qualified engineering staff to assist with the handling of the helicopter. The passengers were thus not required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base and should not therefore have been on board.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which part of this is unclear: Quote:
The passengers had no flying qualifications and the helicopter was en-route to a maintenance facility where there were sufficient qualified engineering staff to assist with the handling of the helicopter. The passengers were thus not required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base and should not therefore have been on board.
The passengers had no flying qualifications and the helicopter was en-route to a maintenance facility where there were sufficient qualified engineering staff to assist with the handling of the helicopter. The passengers were thus not required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base and should not therefore have been on board.
Does the restriction to the permit state the ground crew in the back have to be qualified?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad Ending for My Favorite Helicopter
I am really late to this thread (nearly five years) but I just found the story as I was researching the current whereabouts of the finest helicopter I ever flew, XW898.
From April 1973 through September 1976 I was posted to RAF Ternhill as the helicopter member of the USAF/RAF Exchange Program. I was a USAF Captain at the time. I did the Central Flying School (H) course on the Whirlwind and taught as a B2/B1 instructor on #2 Squadron for a year. At the end of that year the Gazelle had replaced the Whirlwind as the tutorial helicopter at CFS(H). Although the #2 Squadron position that was the normal place for the USAF exchange instructor to do his whole three year tour, I was invited to check out in the Gazelle and join the tutorial staff of #1 Squadron. I remained on #1 Squadron for the rest of my tour and achieved my A2 rating with about a year to go.
In 1974, while I was still flying the Whirlwind on #2 Squadron, the Air Staff invited CFS(H) to form a helicopter formation demonstration team. That team flew an abbreviated airshow schedule that year and became the Gazelles. I joined #1 Squadron at the end of the 1974 display season for the Gazelles. As soon as the Air Staff announced that the had approved the Gazelles for a full display season for 1975 I was invited to try out for the team. I was lucky enough to be selected to fly the #2 (right wing) slot for that season. During the work up for the 1975 season, all four team members flew as many of the Ternhill Gazelle aircraft as we could and were allowed to choose the bird we wanted to fly as our permanent display aircraft. I did not hesitate to choose XW898 as my partner.
Our first display of the 1975 season was the opening display for both days of the Paris Air Show and it only got better from there. As it happened, I was supposed to return to the USAF before the start of the 1976 Gazelle display season but the RAF asked me if I would stay on for a second season if they could get it approved by the USAF. I told them I would love to stay, providing I would be able to keep my good friend, XW898 as my steed.
In doing my research for the whereabouts of my favorite Gazelle helicopter, I was excited to learn that, although it had been assigned the civilian designation of G-CBXT when it left the RAF, the new owner kept the CFS paint scheme and the XW898 number on the tail. That joy turned to great sadness when I learned of the tragic crash in November 2008 that took the lives of three people and destroyed a mechanical piece of art. I am just glad that I got share 2 of the 23 years that XW898 flew for the Royal Air Force. It was a real privilege.
From April 1973 through September 1976 I was posted to RAF Ternhill as the helicopter member of the USAF/RAF Exchange Program. I was a USAF Captain at the time. I did the Central Flying School (H) course on the Whirlwind and taught as a B2/B1 instructor on #2 Squadron for a year. At the end of that year the Gazelle had replaced the Whirlwind as the tutorial helicopter at CFS(H). Although the #2 Squadron position that was the normal place for the USAF exchange instructor to do his whole three year tour, I was invited to check out in the Gazelle and join the tutorial staff of #1 Squadron. I remained on #1 Squadron for the rest of my tour and achieved my A2 rating with about a year to go.
In 1974, while I was still flying the Whirlwind on #2 Squadron, the Air Staff invited CFS(H) to form a helicopter formation demonstration team. That team flew an abbreviated airshow schedule that year and became the Gazelles. I joined #1 Squadron at the end of the 1974 display season for the Gazelles. As soon as the Air Staff announced that the had approved the Gazelles for a full display season for 1975 I was invited to try out for the team. I was lucky enough to be selected to fly the #2 (right wing) slot for that season. During the work up for the 1975 season, all four team members flew as many of the Ternhill Gazelle aircraft as we could and were allowed to choose the bird we wanted to fly as our permanent display aircraft. I did not hesitate to choose XW898 as my partner.
Our first display of the 1975 season was the opening display for both days of the Paris Air Show and it only got better from there. As it happened, I was supposed to return to the USAF before the start of the 1976 Gazelle display season but the RAF asked me if I would stay on for a second season if they could get it approved by the USAF. I told them I would love to stay, providing I would be able to keep my good friend, XW898 as my steed.
In doing my research for the whereabouts of my favorite Gazelle helicopter, I was excited to learn that, although it had been assigned the civilian designation of G-CBXT when it left the RAF, the new owner kept the CFS paint scheme and the XW898 number on the tail. That joy turned to great sadness when I learned of the tragic crash in November 2008 that took the lives of three people and destroyed a mechanical piece of art. I am just glad that I got share 2 of the 23 years that XW898 flew for the Royal Air Force. It was a real privilege.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: IOW
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Fleet Air Arm of Australia article:
Three Australian couples attended the weekend - Jeff and Wendy Konemann from Sydney [standing left in group picture], Trevor and Judy Rieck [standing centre] who moved to London four years ago, and Bomber and Meryl Brown from Perth [at right]. Trevor, with the little help from three RNers, organised the reunion.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it is Phil Stinson, now Lt. Col. USAF (Ret). I had nothing to do with the Sharks but I am connected by history.
Flt. Lt. Rob Howley was the Gazelles narrator for the 1975 season and was Gazelle Lead for the 1976 season. After I came back to the States, Rob was posted to Culdrose for an exchange tour with the Royal Navy. While there, he was selected to lead the Sharks for the 1977 season. While I was flying the UH-1H simulator at Fort Rucker, Alabama, I received a telegram from my former Station Commander at RAF Tern Hill, Group Captain David Toon. He advised me that Rob and at least two others had been killed in a mid-air collision while practicing for the 1977 Sharks display season. That is probably the worst telegram I have ever received as Rob Howley was more than just a formation leader to me, he was a close and dear friend.
Flt. Lt. Rob Howley was the Gazelles narrator for the 1975 season and was Gazelle Lead for the 1976 season. After I came back to the States, Rob was posted to Culdrose for an exchange tour with the Royal Navy. While there, he was selected to lead the Sharks for the 1977 season. While I was flying the UH-1H simulator at Fort Rucker, Alabama, I received a telegram from my former Station Commander at RAF Tern Hill, Group Captain David Toon. He advised me that Rob and at least two others had been killed in a mid-air collision while practicing for the 1977 Sharks display season. That is probably the worst telegram I have ever received as Rob Howley was more than just a formation leader to me, he was a close and dear friend.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Niceville, Florida, USA
Age: 81
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference my previous posts concerning my connection to G-CBXT when she was RAF Gazelle XW898, callsign Golf.
This photo was taken at RAF Church Fenton on July 4, 1976 just before we took off to fly an airshow there. In honor of the 200th birthday of the USA, the ground crew took it upon themselves to add my name and a few other decals to the side of the bird.
This photo was taken at RAF Church Fenton on July 4, 1976 just before we took off to fly an airshow there. In honor of the 200th birthday of the USA, the ground crew took it upon themselves to add my name and a few other decals to the side of the bird.
