Bad weather accidents and GPS
Guest
Posts: n/a
What about sticking to personal limitations AND VFR met minimas?
If you get close to hitting either one of those you should stay on the ground or look to land BEFORE you get beyond your limits or become illegal by breaking the rules.
Arnt The rules are there to try to prevent these accidents happening.
If you get close to hitting either one of those you should stay on the ground or look to land BEFORE you get beyond your limits or become illegal by breaking the rules.
Arnt The rules are there to try to prevent these accidents happening.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gps and accidents
JJ,
we've discussed this face to face and you know I agree with your basic theory.
But there is as ever the other side to your question which is:
How many accidents has GPS prevented?
Of course, we'll never know, since they don't become statistics or get reported.
Post-PPL training is what it is all about. The system is crap, and will remain so until someone with a bit of innovation and commitment decides that that's enough.
And, by the way, I include pre-CPL AND post-CPL training in my last paragraph - we all start with a PPL.
Big Ls
we've discussed this face to face and you know I agree with your basic theory.
But there is as ever the other side to your question which is:
How many accidents has GPS prevented?
Of course, we'll never know, since they don't become statistics or get reported.
Post-PPL training is what it is all about. The system is crap, and will remain so until someone with a bit of innovation and commitment decides that that's enough.
And, by the way, I include pre-CPL AND post-CPL training in my last paragraph - we all start with a PPL.
Big Ls
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One other item to throw in while flying in the states is the Geography. Probably falls best within situational awareness. Pilots who train in one part of the states and then take up a job in another part while not being familiar with the area could be in trouble. Weather in California is different than new York as is the Geography, same difference between Alaska and Puerto Rico.
As said it all should be brought together when starting the PPL.
Fly Safe.
As said it all should be brought together when starting the PPL.
Fly Safe.
Thread Starter
I was hoping my theory would be the catalyst for some interesting discussion when I posted the thread. In the main it seems to be working and most have refrained from the usual slagging matches.
I think the consensus thus far seems to be that training needs to be improved - be that structured and regulated or through individuals like JTobias who have taken it upon themselves to get help.
The other point with which I agree wholeheartedly is that it comes down to pilot decision making. This is a hugely complex subject which whole university departments regularly engage studies upon - I cannot hope to comment in any qualified way other than to say it needs improving for some.
Finally, and referring back to my previous two posts; Does anyone concur with my theory that the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin-Squirrel tragedy would not have occurred had the pilot not had GPS moving map displays?
Keep it coming.
JJ
I think the consensus thus far seems to be that training needs to be improved - be that structured and regulated or through individuals like JTobias who have taken it upon themselves to get help.
The other point with which I agree wholeheartedly is that it comes down to pilot decision making. This is a hugely complex subject which whole university departments regularly engage studies upon - I cannot hope to comment in any qualified way other than to say it needs improving for some.
Finally, and referring back to my previous two posts; Does anyone concur with my theory that the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin-Squirrel tragedy would not have occurred had the pilot not had GPS moving map displays?
Keep it coming.
JJ
HillerBee
The site you linked to has some interesting stuff on another page Interactive Safety Courses a set of mini course some of which relate to what we are talking about here.
I haven't had time to look at them all so they may be crap, but an initial glance they seem ok.
Biggles99 the post PPL training is the bit I am trying to get people to look at as I can't force syllabus changes (nor am I the person to do so) we are building a rough syllabus for those who are interested of suggested advanced training subjects, but as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water etc. The good news is that this suggested syllabus is not just my opinions but those of people like JJ and others like him. Pre and Post CPL training is a valid point also a CPL holder is not necessarily the holder of infinite wisdom or experience as we discussed on the phone the other week.
[RANT with a bit of thread creep ]
If you learn to fly at a school,hour build there and then do your CPL with them, do not accept a "just go flying thats what everyone else does" kind of attitude from them during your hourbuilding expect some guidance form them, in return you should be willing to pay to fly with an instructor every now and again to increase your skills, find a new school if they take no interest in you.
[/RANT]
Cheers
Gary
The site you linked to has some interesting stuff on another page Interactive Safety Courses a set of mini course some of which relate to what we are talking about here.
I haven't had time to look at them all so they may be crap, but an initial glance they seem ok.
Biggles99 the post PPL training is the bit I am trying to get people to look at as I can't force syllabus changes (nor am I the person to do so) we are building a rough syllabus for those who are interested of suggested advanced training subjects, but as the saying goes you can lead a horse to water etc. The good news is that this suggested syllabus is not just my opinions but those of people like JJ and others like him. Pre and Post CPL training is a valid point also a CPL holder is not necessarily the holder of infinite wisdom or experience as we discussed on the phone the other week.
[RANT with a bit of thread creep ]
If you learn to fly at a school,hour build there and then do your CPL with them, do not accept a "just go flying thats what everyone else does" kind of attitude from them during your hourbuilding expect some guidance form them, in return you should be willing to pay to fly with an instructor every now and again to increase your skills, find a new school if they take no interest in you.
[/RANT]
Cheers
Gary
Sorry JJ I posted my last while you were posting yours.
I don't know if the G-BYPA accident would have occured if not for MM GPS, but I am sure that most of us who operate in the corporate world would not undertake alone some of the trips we do at night if it were not for that equipment. I know I wouldn't sometimes, just as sometimes I wouldn't undertake some IMC trips to private sites and let down without it (can of worms opened, but it is what happens in the real world as you know), Admittedly having a firmly attached yellow streak down my back (and kids at home) I wouldn't undertake those trips without the traditional kit (VOR, DME, ADF) on board to back up what the occasionally untruthful GPS is telling me.
And before anyone asks I am talking about all of the above in an IFR Twin,
You have indeed incited an interesting and informative debate !
GS
I don't know if the G-BYPA accident would have occured if not for MM GPS, but I am sure that most of us who operate in the corporate world would not undertake alone some of the trips we do at night if it were not for that equipment. I know I wouldn't sometimes, just as sometimes I wouldn't undertake some IMC trips to private sites and let down without it (can of worms opened, but it is what happens in the real world as you know), Admittedly having a firmly attached yellow streak down my back (and kids at home) I wouldn't undertake those trips without the traditional kit (VOR, DME, ADF) on board to back up what the occasionally untruthful GPS is telling me.
And before anyone asks I am talking about all of the above in an IFR Twin,
You have indeed incited an interesting and informative debate !
GS
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Levo
Firstly, 5 hours training is never a waste of time - so I'll qualify my statement.
If 5 hours instrument training on foggles is supposed to be some form of appreciation of flying in IMC i.e. in cloud, then it simply isn't. It does not in any way prepare a pilot for entering zero visibilty conditions. The physcologicial impact isn't there and nor are the changes in actual flight characteristics (updraughts/downdraughts, turbulence etc).
The foggles (certainly the type typically in use for training) do not re-create the IMC environment. You still have the ability to obtain some form of visual reference with the outside world which then allows you to adjust your flying accordingly.
I have found myself in cloud and can categorically testify that it goes pear shaped rapid - and by that I mean in seconds. I fly fixed wing and rotary wing extensiveley as a PPL and the 5 hour instrument appreciation is simply not apropriate. It is more likeley to lead a recently qualified pilot into believeing that he has the ability to perform a 180 deg turn out of cloud if he finds himself in it inadvertantly.
Anyway, I think we've moved away from the original thread here, but suffice to say, that there simply is nowehere near enough encouragement for pilots to undertake regular "advanced" training.
There should be courses on bad weather appreciation, an IMC course, navigational aids, common emergencies, etc etc etc.
Nigel
Thanks for the agreement - I haven't read the other thread (I don't think) that seems to have been controversial, but I'm with you. There is room for introducing a mechanism for taking PPL's to the next stage of reduced visibility flying. Whether that be through a simulator or by flying it for real.
Helimutt
Sorry - I don't want a head to head with you, but Nigel's opinion and others is just as valid as yours. I believe that we should be able to take apropriateley experienced pilots into IMC conditions for training. After all, if I embark on a PPL of any sort, the first lesson usually involves flying the aircraft - so there is little difference. As long as the environment is controlled. Sorry, the fact that you fly 600 hours a year and/or you get paid to do it does not in any way mean what you are doing is OK. I drive every day of the week and thankfully I haven't had an RTA in many, many years - but it doesn't mean I'm a good driver. (I am though!!
) I also can't see anywhere that Nigel is advocating flying into cloud or that he's trying to exceed his limitations (certainly not from this thread) I think what he is pushing for is more opportunities, through training, to become a better pilot.
As for what JJ considers to be lunacy, it's best not to quote him. Ask him for his opinion!
Helimutt, absoluteley no offence or arrogance intended.
Safe flying
Joel
Why is 5 hours instrument training on foggles a waste of time?
If 5 hours instrument training on foggles is supposed to be some form of appreciation of flying in IMC i.e. in cloud, then it simply isn't. It does not in any way prepare a pilot for entering zero visibilty conditions. The physcologicial impact isn't there and nor are the changes in actual flight characteristics (updraughts/downdraughts, turbulence etc).
The foggles (certainly the type typically in use for training) do not re-create the IMC environment. You still have the ability to obtain some form of visual reference with the outside world which then allows you to adjust your flying accordingly.
I have found myself in cloud and can categorically testify that it goes pear shaped rapid - and by that I mean in seconds. I fly fixed wing and rotary wing extensiveley as a PPL and the 5 hour instrument appreciation is simply not apropriate. It is more likeley to lead a recently qualified pilot into believeing that he has the ability to perform a 180 deg turn out of cloud if he finds himself in it inadvertantly.
Anyway, I think we've moved away from the original thread here, but suffice to say, that there simply is nowehere near enough encouragement for pilots to undertake regular "advanced" training.
There should be courses on bad weather appreciation, an IMC course, navigational aids, common emergencies, etc etc etc.
Nigel
Thanks for the agreement - I haven't read the other thread (I don't think) that seems to have been controversial, but I'm with you. There is room for introducing a mechanism for taking PPL's to the next stage of reduced visibility flying. Whether that be through a simulator or by flying it for real.
Helimutt
Sorry - I don't want a head to head with you, but Nigel's opinion and others is just as valid as yours. I believe that we should be able to take apropriateley experienced pilots into IMC conditions for training. After all, if I embark on a PPL of any sort, the first lesson usually involves flying the aircraft - so there is little difference. As long as the environment is controlled. Sorry, the fact that you fly 600 hours a year and/or you get paid to do it does not in any way mean what you are doing is OK. I drive every day of the week and thankfully I haven't had an RTA in many, many years - but it doesn't mean I'm a good driver. (I am though!!
) I also can't see anywhere that Nigel is advocating flying into cloud or that he's trying to exceed his limitations (certainly not from this thread) I think what he is pushing for is more opportunities, through training, to become a better pilot.As for what JJ considers to be lunacy, it's best not to quote him. Ask him for his opinion!
Helimutt, absoluteley no offence or arrogance intended.
Safe flying
Joel
Last edited by JTobias; 16th Nov 2008 at 10:21.
Joel .... a sensible , non biased and objective post ...what a delight 
Our friend Helimutt is obsessed with my comments about getting people into actual imc even for a few seconds . I threw a curved ball ( just to get people thinking , as i knew the cost factor of a twin would come in ) and suggested possibility of TRAINED IFR pilots taking them into bits of cloud at safe height in a cheaper single . Apparently it is a daft idea that anybody can fly in cloud in a single . Maybe that IS the case and i am wrong .
but i know of many pilots i respect who believe it can be perfectly safe to go into cloud ( not in all cases ie where ils may be needed ) en route where there is lower ground ahead and good cloud base in a single with a proper i panel . Remember there are fully legal ifr singles out there on the N. Are they dangerous ? I am sure he means well but he aint half bossy 
Even daft ideas should be looked at as they may move the debate to an area that DOES have merit . I stick with my view that ALL pilots should HAVE to have exoerienced actual cloud . I also agree with dunker training , night training and to a small extent eol,s , albeit they are our least threat imho. And JJ you know i would be lost without my gps !!!
Our friend Helimutt is obsessed with my comments about getting people into actual imc even for a few seconds . I threw a curved ball ( just to get people thinking , as i knew the cost factor of a twin would come in ) and suggested possibility of TRAINED IFR pilots taking them into bits of cloud at safe height in a cheaper single . Apparently it is a daft idea that anybody can fly in cloud in a single . Maybe that IS the case and i am wrong .
but i know of many pilots i respect who believe it can be perfectly safe to go into cloud ( not in all cases ie where ils may be needed ) en route where there is lower ground ahead and good cloud base in a single with a proper i panel . Remember there are fully legal ifr singles out there on the N. Are they dangerous ? I am sure he means well but he aint half bossy Even daft ideas should be looked at as they may move the debate to an area that DOES have merit . I stick with my view that ALL pilots should HAVE to have exoerienced actual cloud . I also agree with dunker training , night training and to a small extent eol,s , albeit they are our least threat imho. And JJ you know i would be lost without my gps !!!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,596
Received 448 Likes
on
237 Posts
Finally, and referring back to my previous two posts; Does anyone concur with my theory that the Liverpool - Thornaugh Twin-Squirrel tragedy would not have occurred had the pilot not had GPS moving map displays?
If the pilot had planned and flown a more helpful GPS plan he might have realised that the first set of ground lights was not what and where he thought. Had he not had the GPS he might still have misidentified the IP and the outcome might well have been the same.
Basically, it seems he tried to follow a VMC plan into IMC and became disorientated to the point that terrain separation and/or control was lost.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VMC at night...
I am not a helicopter pilot but I sometimes go where the helicopter pilots go...
One obvious problem is that VMC can very suddenly change to IMC at night, when reading that recent accident report suggests that might be what happened. You are busy looking outside when suddenly all visual reference is lost. What now? You had better have a real good ability to make that sudden transition to instrument flight, perhaps even a quick recovery from an un-noticed unusual attitude. Thrilling stuff!
Another thing that report suggests that the pilot would have been in much better shape if he had pre-programmed his GPS with some user waypoints that would have put him on a safe track to his destination, sort of building himself a little non-precision approach if you will. That might have let him identify some visual reference points and keep oriented so that if he had to "throw it away" he could do that in a reasonably safe manner. The report reads as if the pilot became a bit lost and mis-identified his nearby destination.
I have noticed that when I do that then I get all wrapped up in trying to make what I see fit with where I "know" I am. Once I was becoming very indignant about those crazy Nigerians having planted a big tree right in the middle of a dirt airstrip, when it turned out to be growing on the main street of the village not far away. Oh. It sounds so stupid telling about that now but it made perfect sense to me at the time!
One obvious problem is that VMC can very suddenly change to IMC at night, when reading that recent accident report suggests that might be what happened. You are busy looking outside when suddenly all visual reference is lost. What now? You had better have a real good ability to make that sudden transition to instrument flight, perhaps even a quick recovery from an un-noticed unusual attitude. Thrilling stuff!
Another thing that report suggests that the pilot would have been in much better shape if he had pre-programmed his GPS with some user waypoints that would have put him on a safe track to his destination, sort of building himself a little non-precision approach if you will. That might have let him identify some visual reference points and keep oriented so that if he had to "throw it away" he could do that in a reasonably safe manner. The report reads as if the pilot became a bit lost and mis-identified his nearby destination.
I have noticed that when I do that then I get all wrapped up in trying to make what I see fit with where I "know" I am. Once I was becoming very indignant about those crazy Nigerians having planted a big tree right in the middle of a dirt airstrip, when it turned out to be growing on the main street of the village not far away. Oh. It sounds so stupid telling about that now but it made perfect sense to me at the time!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
Thanks for your comments. I do my best to be objective. I'm sure Helimutt is just being cautious. But here's another curve ball.
IMC in a single!
flying over a congested area in a single!
transitioning out of the bloody hover in a single.!
Everything is about a single.
How many engine failures are there that I have to be worried about my engine stopping? Don't get me wrong I fly with Rule 5 in mind all the time. But as far as I can remember (correct me if i'm wrong) you can get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York. The yanks don't expect that everytime they defy gravity it's going to end with an engine failure.
We're obsessed with the bloody engine stopping. Sure it's going to be a real s**t situation if it happens and I sure hope it never happens to me, but i'm fairly confident that there's more chance of me entering IMC than of my engine going quiet.
And what's more - i would rather my engine go quiet than enter IMC!
I don't drive down the road expecting my tyre to burst, or my engine to stop. I know there's a difference, but there is risk with many things. I don't get in my helicopter expecting the bloody engine to fail. I would never fly. I do however ensure that I am reasonably prepared for some form of malfunction, on the off chance that it happens.
People often sayto me that I'm bonkers for flying a heli. I look at them and tell them that it's perfectly safe and I explain why. Autorotations and all that ....
Last year I took up scuba diving. If you think flying is dangerous, get your snorkel out. There's a million different ways to kill yourself SCUBA diving. You can get the bends, run out of oxygen, get trapped below water - all sorts. I was sat in lectures thinking to myself that I must be absoluteley bloody mad. And the worst thing is this. They are all, slow, loneley and painful ways to go.
Personally if it's all going to go pear shaped. I want it to be quick and spectacular!!
Joel
Thanks for your comments. I do my best to be objective. I'm sure Helimutt is just being cautious. But here's another curve ball.
IMC in a single!
flying over a congested area in a single!
transitioning out of the bloody hover in a single.!
Everything is about a single.
How many engine failures are there that I have to be worried about my engine stopping? Don't get me wrong I fly with Rule 5 in mind all the time. But as far as I can remember (correct me if i'm wrong) you can get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York. The yanks don't expect that everytime they defy gravity it's going to end with an engine failure.
We're obsessed with the bloody engine stopping. Sure it's going to be a real s**t situation if it happens and I sure hope it never happens to me, but i'm fairly confident that there's more chance of me entering IMC than of my engine going quiet.
And what's more - i would rather my engine go quiet than enter IMC!
I don't drive down the road expecting my tyre to burst, or my engine to stop. I know there's a difference, but there is risk with many things. I don't get in my helicopter expecting the bloody engine to fail. I would never fly. I do however ensure that I am reasonably prepared for some form of malfunction, on the off chance that it happens.
People often sayto me that I'm bonkers for flying a heli. I look at them and tell them that it's perfectly safe and I explain why. Autorotations and all that ....
Last year I took up scuba diving. If you think flying is dangerous, get your snorkel out. There's a million different ways to kill yourself SCUBA diving. You can get the bends, run out of oxygen, get trapped below water - all sorts. I was sat in lectures thinking to myself that I must be absoluteley bloody mad. And the worst thing is this. They are all, slow, loneley and painful ways to go.
Personally if it's all going to go pear shaped. I want it to be quick and spectacular!!
Joel
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or am I just being an old fart?
Joel you are speaking my language . A lot of the commercial pilots here ( not all )do have a "thing" about singles and dont approve of night or across water in them ....dont get me wrong the modern twins with a capability to fly/climb on one engine would give you a good feeling at night or over water ....but you still only have one of quite a few other things !!! Xmission etc Our obsession with engine failures stems from many years ago and takes up far too much of the training time imho. CFIT is the main killer and i think we all agree something has to be done . I feel a lot better now knowing that there are some excellent pilots on here such as JJ , VeeAny etc who look like they are ACTUALLY going to try to do something rather than just pontificate on this site 
We all await some news on this .
On the subject of gps , i see the new generation can have weather , terrain with msa and ALSO an AH overlaid over synthetic vision . I gather that this means that what you see on the screen is what you would see thru the windshield if there was viz . Sounds fantastic but could be opening a whole new can of worms re jj,s points ...can one test this on a sim with low hr pilots and see if it has a beneficial effect ? I am told it would greatly reduce the effect of spacial disorientation if you can see a picture of the outside view on the screen . Weather updates would however be great if accurate .
We all await some news on this .On the subject of gps , i see the new generation can have weather , terrain with msa and ALSO an AH overlaid over synthetic vision . I gather that this means that what you see on the screen is what you would see thru the windshield if there was viz . Sounds fantastic but could be opening a whole new can of worms re jj,s points ...can one test this on a sim with low hr pilots and see if it has a beneficial effect ? I am told it would greatly reduce the effect of spacial disorientation if you can see a picture of the outside view on the screen . Weather updates would however be great if accurate .
Thread Starter
EN48
I'm with you when you say "wouldnt want to go back to the (not so) good old days for anything".
I'd hate to have to do my job without a GPS Moving Map as it leaves me so much more mental RAM to deal with other issues. And that basically is the very point of this thread.........
I put myself in situations now that I would never have considered when I was required to do 'proper navigation'. Other pilots do the same. And on the whole that's no bad thing as more is acheivable with a greater degree of safety than before. The price for this imrovement in capability however, is that we can now push further into worsening weather conditions until we reach our mental capacity but for other reasons than simply navigating. The skill, is suppose, is in recognising when you are reaching your mental capacity threshold and doing something positive to reduce the workload.
JJ
I'm with you when you say "wouldnt want to go back to the (not so) good old days for anything".
I'd hate to have to do my job without a GPS Moving Map as it leaves me so much more mental RAM to deal with other issues. And that basically is the very point of this thread.........
I put myself in situations now that I would never have considered when I was required to do 'proper navigation'. Other pilots do the same. And on the whole that's no bad thing as more is acheivable with a greater degree of safety than before. The price for this imrovement in capability however, is that we can now push further into worsening weather conditions until we reach our mental capacity but for other reasons than simply navigating. The skill, is suppose, is in recognising when you are reaching your mental capacity threshold and doing something positive to reduce the workload.
JJ
Nigel,
You seem intent on ignoring answers on other threads and misinterpreting what has been said in reply to your posts.
From the first thread where you advocated punching up into IFR instead of scud running to the latest of deliberately flying into cloud in an uncertificated helicopter for experience, the main argument against what you are advocating has been that there exists a system for flight under IFR which encompasses: airspace requirements, equipment, training and operational procedures - with a qualified helicopter.
In the first thread, after you introduced the subject of single engine helicopters, you were informed that ICAO Annex 6 Part III had been amended to include the Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARPs) for SEIMC (Section II Chapter 3.4 and Appendix 2). There is no international barrier to controlled access to IFR by adequately qualified singles!
The difficulty of flying in cloud relates to instrument flying skills (the currency of which degrades faster than any other) which is directly related to the stability of the helicopter and its handling qualities. These aspects of flying are not related to the number of engines and that has never been an issue.
You have now moved the discussion to this thread and re-introduced the subject of the number of engines. Flying in singles is adequately addressed in State's Operational Rules (I would question JTobias' suggestion that you can 'get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York'; Part 91.119(a) appears to preclude that practice) and doesn't enter into this discussion.
All of those who routinely fly IFR will tell you that the first encounter with IMC on a departure at night when close to T/O minima - after a summer where little low cloud has been encountered - is a spine chilling event.
Control can be lost extremely quickly in an unstabilised helicopter once the visual cues are degraded; flying in cloud is almost always associated with some degree of turbulence and no visual cues. To advocate deliberately doing this - even with an experienced pilot on board - in an unstabilised platform is exposing both crew members to a risk that is unwarranted.
Jim
You seem intent on ignoring answers on other threads and misinterpreting what has been said in reply to your posts.
From the first thread where you advocated punching up into IFR instead of scud running to the latest of deliberately flying into cloud in an uncertificated helicopter for experience, the main argument against what you are advocating has been that there exists a system for flight under IFR which encompasses: airspace requirements, equipment, training and operational procedures - with a qualified helicopter.
In the first thread, after you introduced the subject of single engine helicopters, you were informed that ICAO Annex 6 Part III had been amended to include the Standards and Recommended Procedures (SARPs) for SEIMC (Section II Chapter 3.4 and Appendix 2). There is no international barrier to controlled access to IFR by adequately qualified singles!
The difficulty of flying in cloud relates to instrument flying skills (the currency of which degrades faster than any other) which is directly related to the stability of the helicopter and its handling qualities. These aspects of flying are not related to the number of engines and that has never been an issue.
You have now moved the discussion to this thread and re-introduced the subject of the number of engines. Flying in singles is adequately addressed in State's Operational Rules (I would question JTobias' suggestion that you can 'get in a single and fly between skyscrapers in New York'; Part 91.119(a) appears to preclude that practice) and doesn't enter into this discussion.
All of those who routinely fly IFR will tell you that the first encounter with IMC on a departure at night when close to T/O minima - after a summer where little low cloud has been encountered - is a spine chilling event.
Control can be lost extremely quickly in an unstabilised helicopter once the visual cues are degraded; flying in cloud is almost always associated with some degree of turbulence and no visual cues. To advocate deliberately doing this - even with an experienced pilot on board - in an unstabilised platform is exposing both crew members to a risk that is unwarranted.
Jim
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,596
Received 448 Likes
on
237 Posts
The skill, is suppose, is in recognising when you are reaching your mental capacity threshold and doing something positive to reduce the workload.
Thread Starter
****e
You are indeed correct. You must always have a Plan 'B'.......and maybe C and D too.
Given that in the real world the job simply has to get done sometimes (at least that's how it sometimes feels!), pushing on with Plan A in deteriorating conditions is quite acceptable to a point, provided one can recognise when to revert to Plan B.
As regards the Twin-Squirrel, the flight profile adopted after the initial orbit and descent over the haulage yard looks to me like a classic case of 'Direct to'. I don't think I would have attempted this if I was relying on a map, stopwatch and compass - though I may have with a good Moving Map.
JJ
You are indeed correct. You must always have a Plan 'B'.......and maybe C and D too.
Given that in the real world the job simply has to get done sometimes (at least that's how it sometimes feels!), pushing on with Plan A in deteriorating conditions is quite acceptable to a point, provided one can recognise when to revert to Plan B.
As regards the Twin-Squirrel, the flight profile adopted after the initial orbit and descent over the haulage yard looks to me like a classic case of 'Direct to'. I don't think I would have attempted this if I was relying on a map, stopwatch and compass - though I may have with a good Moving Map.
JJ
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,596
Received 448 Likes
on
237 Posts
JJ, if you mean "direct to" the LS, I don't see how; according to the AAIB report the actual LS location apparently wasn't in the GPS as a waypoint.
ShyTorque
It was in one of the GPSs they just don't know if it was in use.
Gary
It was in one of the GPSs they just don't know if it was in use.
The Skymap IIIC had a waypoint marked for the intended destination. However, selected flight plans, ‘direct-to’ activations and map zoom levels are not recorded, so it was not possible to determine if, or how, this information was being used.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,596
Received 448 Likes
on
237 Posts
Veeany, yes thanks for that. I was in the process of re-reading the report. Having re-read it he may have elected to do a "direct to", albeit at a very late stage, as JJ said. Perhaps the visual cue of the ground lights was so strong that the GPS was disbelieved during the initial descent.
Helimutt, your input isn't wasted.
However, someone in UK seems happy to fly an R-44 in solid cloud, or did in the not too distant past. I saw him go by in cloud about a hundred feet or less beneath me. I was in cloud to the northwest of Elstree at 2400 feet, on a day when the local cloudbase was about 1200 feet. Presumably he chose not to use mode C or obtain a radar service that day as it would have alerted ATC to the fact that he was undoubtedly in solid IMC. He was probably out of Denham (that's where his mode A appeared on the TCAS and from where Heathrow spotted him) and was heading northeast. If there's a next time I'll report it to the CAA; in retrospect I should have done so at the time.
Helimutt, your input isn't wasted.
However, someone in UK seems happy to fly an R-44 in solid cloud, or did in the not too distant past. I saw him go by in cloud about a hundred feet or less beneath me. I was in cloud to the northwest of Elstree at 2400 feet, on a day when the local cloudbase was about 1200 feet. Presumably he chose not to use mode C or obtain a radar service that day as it would have alerted ATC to the fact that he was undoubtedly in solid IMC. He was probably out of Denham (that's where his mode A appeared on the TCAS and from where Heathrow spotted him) and was heading northeast. If there's a next time I'll report it to the CAA; in retrospect I should have done so at the time.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 16th Nov 2008 at 20:07.