Lack of support from aerodrome
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UK
Age: 47
Posts: 1,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lack of support from aerodrome
I was stunned to read in Phil Croucher's article in Heliops this month that a certain aerodrome south of London was very reluctant to help a pilot in need.
To refuse landing clearance when the 109 had an emergency of not being able to extend his gear, for starters was mindboggleing but then to offer, if I to believe the article to be true which knowing Phil it most certainly is, no further assistance not even fuel is beyond me. It's not like having an emergency isn't stressful enough but to then load the plate further by ATC adding to your woes and limiting your options.
There must have been further circumstances behind the scenes we don't know about which made people make decisions which common sense would tell you are not thought through fully.
I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone with this but I thought we are all working together supporting each other not planning Gotchas for one's early demise.
I know I have been living a sheltered life but this surely must be a hick up.
Cheers BS
To refuse landing clearance when the 109 had an emergency of not being able to extend his gear, for starters was mindboggleing but then to offer, if I to believe the article to be true which knowing Phil it most certainly is, no further assistance not even fuel is beyond me. It's not like having an emergency isn't stressful enough but to then load the plate further by ATC adding to your woes and limiting your options.
There must have been further circumstances behind the scenes we don't know about which made people make decisions which common sense would tell you are not thought through fully.
I am sorry if I am upsetting anyone with this but I thought we are all working together supporting each other not planning Gotchas for one's early demise.
I know I have been living a sheltered life but this surely must be a hick up.
Cheers BS
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Sydney
Age: 74
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
them & us
A coroner's report into the death of an inexperienced civilian pilot some years ago here in Oz was critical of the less than helpful role played by military air traffic control. ATC are normally very good but there is always an element of disconnectedness between them & what's going on in your cockpit.
The westerly approach into my pad takes me up to 4000' & into controlled airspace. On less than good weather days, when I just want to get home, I'll track out of my way just to avoid the yakity yak with ATC & keep my cockpit workload down. Seems those buggers always want you to talk them over some triviality just when your busiest with the actual task of flying.
The westerly approach into my pad takes me up to 4000' & into controlled airspace. On less than good weather days, when I just want to get home, I'll track out of my way just to avoid the yakity yak with ATC & keep my cockpit workload down. Seems those buggers always want you to talk them over some triviality just when your busiest with the actual task of flying.
The SATCO is/was an experienced CPL(H) - is he still there?
Not sure it's a reasonable request to expect an inflight refuel - HIFR is not exactly a daily event. It's hard enough to get a rotors running refuel on your wheels with the parking brake on, at most airfields!
I think the "tyres from a couple of Rolls Royces" is using a bit of writer's licence
Not sure it's a reasonable request to expect an inflight refuel - HIFR is not exactly a daily event. It's hard enough to get a rotors running refuel on your wheels with the parking brake on, at most airfields!
I think the "tyres from a couple of Rolls Royces" is using a bit of writer's licence
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was stunned to read in Phil Croucher's article in Heliops this month that a certain aerodrome south of London was very reluctant to help a pilot in need.
Couple of the controllers there can be awkward, others are top notch though.
Guess the lunatics are really running the asylum
I think its about time I piped up as I was initmately involved with this incident and am probably one of Pacos sources for the article.
You may want to get a pipe and slippers and settle down comfortably for this as we may be sometime.
The incident referred to is the one from this thread earlier in the year http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/325...eaps-a109.html
What Phil says in his article is as far as I can ascertain pretty close to the truth, the only points I would question are
The refusal of a landing clearance, I believe it was suggested to the pilot that he should goto Biggin if he wanted to deplane his passengers in the hover.
Whether or not Redhill was the only place to go is debatable but that decision lies purely with the captain, his maintenance base is Redhill and he did have contact with one very experienced engineer there by phone.
212man the rolls royce tyres isn't writers licence its the truth the engineers knew where to go to get some tyres and they were all that was available from a nearby source who had them and charged accordingly, they took no more than 5 minutes from getting on the truck to getting back with the tyres. The SATCO is still the man you are thinking of but he was elsewhere on the day.
I am the idiot referred to in Phils article who was running around trying to get the wheels down along with one of the engineers, and who offered to refuel the aircraft in the hover etc.
The airfield did refuse permission for the deplane and the passengers were deplaned anyway by another 109 pilot who is a friend of mine, this was all completed without incident.
A refuel was requested to buy some time and was refused on the grounds that the fuel crew were in the fire engines. I offered to do it and was turned down, if I could have got the bowser keys and started it I'd have done it anyway but at this point he was down to about 15 minutes of fuel remaining.
The engineers laid out the tyres and were told to move them (I assume, I was off the radio at that point) by the airfield as they had been laid out near to where the helicopter was hovering, and they were moved to the south side of the field away from all the onlookers, who had gathered to watch.
The landing itself was uneventful and the engineer who was with me tying to get the wheels down deserves a medal as he stood and watched the 109 down onto the tyres at very close range. I was at this point stuck in a car on the way around from the other side of the field with the DSATCO.
Even with the SATCOs prior heli experience the airfield had never considered the option of deplaning in the hover, and have learned a lession having had it pointed out to them in CAP 475, a good thing to come out of this is that with the SATCOs contacts in the ATC world he has been instrumental in putting this message across to several other local airfields.
The SATCO and I discussed at length the idea of refuelling in the hover and we agree to to disagree (nicely) and can see each others point in the whole thing, I believe that if you might ever find yourself in the situation of needing to be fuelled in the hover you must be willing to help someone else out who might need it and do it yourself. I am aware of the risks involved to the fueller, the bowser, the aircraft and the pilot, I would suggest that if the people concerend are willing to try then sod the equipment. There are a lot of people who disagree with me and their opinion seems to be that at least the risk is confined to one aircraft and one person if you let him run out of fuel or land just before he does.
I don't beleive the controller on duty on the day deserves criticism, it must have been difficult trying to coordinate a group of people who are effectively not listening to you and speaking amongst themselves to sort out the problem. This is were Pacos argument for "There are some occasions when the rule book really needs to be thrown out of the window" comes in, you cannot train for every eventuality and some circumstances can be dealt with in non standard ways, thats what we get paid for as pilots surely !
It is worth noting that of the other two incidents involving 109 undercarriage problems that I know of the airfields concerned have refused fuel and assistance with the gear.
I can see the argument for the fire crew or fuellers not necessarily wanting to get intimately involved with 2.5 tonnes of helicopter hovering at 3 feet and trying to pull wheels down or put fuel in them, but if there are willing volunteers should they be prevented from doing so ?
It is my belief (I have no evidence for, but hearsay) that airfield management got involved in process at the controllers end and because of the prominence of the passengers, they were doing everything by the book when they should have been thinking outside it.
Some lessons have been learned, and important lesson to us all who fly thing s with retractable undercarriages seems to be that until you have actually crashed in the UK, you are on your own unless you have local contacts who are willing to try and help you.
I've tried to keep this as balanced as possible, I hope it comes across that way, we all know how bad I can be at thinking while typing !
Gary
You may want to get a pipe and slippers and settle down comfortably for this as we may be sometime.
The incident referred to is the one from this thread earlier in the year http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/325...eaps-a109.html
What Phil says in his article is as far as I can ascertain pretty close to the truth, the only points I would question are
The refusal of a landing clearance, I believe it was suggested to the pilot that he should goto Biggin if he wanted to deplane his passengers in the hover.
Whether or not Redhill was the only place to go is debatable but that decision lies purely with the captain, his maintenance base is Redhill and he did have contact with one very experienced engineer there by phone.
212man the rolls royce tyres isn't writers licence its the truth the engineers knew where to go to get some tyres and they were all that was available from a nearby source who had them and charged accordingly, they took no more than 5 minutes from getting on the truck to getting back with the tyres. The SATCO is still the man you are thinking of but he was elsewhere on the day.
I am the idiot referred to in Phils article who was running around trying to get the wheels down along with one of the engineers, and who offered to refuel the aircraft in the hover etc.
The airfield did refuse permission for the deplane and the passengers were deplaned anyway by another 109 pilot who is a friend of mine, this was all completed without incident.
A refuel was requested to buy some time and was refused on the grounds that the fuel crew were in the fire engines. I offered to do it and was turned down, if I could have got the bowser keys and started it I'd have done it anyway but at this point he was down to about 15 minutes of fuel remaining.
The engineers laid out the tyres and were told to move them (I assume, I was off the radio at that point) by the airfield as they had been laid out near to where the helicopter was hovering, and they were moved to the south side of the field away from all the onlookers, who had gathered to watch.
The landing itself was uneventful and the engineer who was with me tying to get the wheels down deserves a medal as he stood and watched the 109 down onto the tyres at very close range. I was at this point stuck in a car on the way around from the other side of the field with the DSATCO.
Even with the SATCOs prior heli experience the airfield had never considered the option of deplaning in the hover, and have learned a lession having had it pointed out to them in CAP 475, a good thing to come out of this is that with the SATCOs contacts in the ATC world he has been instrumental in putting this message across to several other local airfields.
The SATCO and I discussed at length the idea of refuelling in the hover and we agree to to disagree (nicely) and can see each others point in the whole thing, I believe that if you might ever find yourself in the situation of needing to be fuelled in the hover you must be willing to help someone else out who might need it and do it yourself. I am aware of the risks involved to the fueller, the bowser, the aircraft and the pilot, I would suggest that if the people concerend are willing to try then sod the equipment. There are a lot of people who disagree with me and their opinion seems to be that at least the risk is confined to one aircraft and one person if you let him run out of fuel or land just before he does.
I don't beleive the controller on duty on the day deserves criticism, it must have been difficult trying to coordinate a group of people who are effectively not listening to you and speaking amongst themselves to sort out the problem. This is were Pacos argument for "There are some occasions when the rule book really needs to be thrown out of the window" comes in, you cannot train for every eventuality and some circumstances can be dealt with in non standard ways, thats what we get paid for as pilots surely !
It is worth noting that of the other two incidents involving 109 undercarriage problems that I know of the airfields concerned have refused fuel and assistance with the gear.
I can see the argument for the fire crew or fuellers not necessarily wanting to get intimately involved with 2.5 tonnes of helicopter hovering at 3 feet and trying to pull wheels down or put fuel in them, but if there are willing volunteers should they be prevented from doing so ?
It is my belief (I have no evidence for, but hearsay) that airfield management got involved in process at the controllers end and because of the prominence of the passengers, they were doing everything by the book when they should have been thinking outside it.
Some lessons have been learned, and important lesson to us all who fly thing s with retractable undercarriages seems to be that until you have actually crashed in the UK, you are on your own unless you have local contacts who are willing to try and help you.
I've tried to keep this as balanced as possible, I hope it comes across that way, we all know how bad I can be at thinking while typing !
Gary
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks to VeeAny to putting across the some of the facts.
The situation was not handled as I would have wished however if pilots alerted ATC to a problem in good time it would be easier to provide them with a better service. If there is time to get a message to an engineer surely the same info can be passed to ATC.
This incident occurred shortly after the aerodrome owners had contacted a third party to provide a General Manager, this introduced an additional level of back covering.
Having discussed this incident with another GA Aerodrome and a heliport, neither considered that deplaning pax in the hover was an option. They do now!
As with any incident all involved have looked at what happened and have learnt form it. Next time we will do better.
The situation was not handled as I would have wished however if pilots alerted ATC to a problem in good time it would be easier to provide them with a better service. If there is time to get a message to an engineer surely the same info can be passed to ATC.
This incident occurred shortly after the aerodrome owners had contacted a third party to provide a General Manager, this introduced an additional level of back covering.
Having discussed this incident with another GA Aerodrome and a heliport, neither considered that deplaning pax in the hover was an option. They do now!
As with any incident all involved have looked at what happened and have learnt form it. Next time we will do better.
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The other side of Redhill:
Back in the summer ops booked me into Biggin for an early Sunday morning charter. Biggin had forgotten the booking and were shut. ATC at Redhill were in, but not yet open. Fraser blessd him took me in before normal opening, jacked up fuel and got me away. As a result I was only ten minutes late for my pax and still made the destination on time.
For ten years of operating in and out of Redhill I have never encountered anything but courtesy, friendship and proffesionalism.
VH
Back in the summer ops booked me into Biggin for an early Sunday morning charter. Biggin had forgotten the booking and were shut. ATC at Redhill were in, but not yet open. Fraser blessd him took me in before normal opening, jacked up fuel and got me away. As a result I was only ten minutes late for my pax and still made the destination on time.
For ten years of operating in and out of Redhill I have never encountered anything but courtesy, friendship and proffesionalism.
VH
SInce faulty under carriage is not an isolated incident, why not make an emergency landing area for helicopters mandatory at larger airfields?
Fixed wing aircraft are provided for with under and over shoot areas, at great expense.
A few tyres pre-positioned in the corner of a field isn't asking a lot?
Design ideas for such a facility?
Mickjoebill
Fixed wing aircraft are provided for with under and over shoot areas, at great expense.
A few tyres pre-positioned in the corner of a field isn't asking a lot?
Design ideas for such a facility?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: May 2008
Location: london
Age: 62
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tyres
Question from dumb bloke who knows nothing about retractables time – why did the helicopter need tyres to land on? Can it not put down on the grass? I bet there's something really so bloody obvious about the answer that I am preparing to shrink into a corner of humiliation.
Cheers
Sean
Cheers
Sean
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The idea is to put it down on something with a bit of "give". Mattresses or pillows would do a similar job to take up the shape of the underside of the aircraft, so the least damage is done. You probably cant avoid bending the odd pipe or antenna, but you dont want to find that because of the C of G position, or the slightly uneven ground under the grass etc that you have trashed too much of the fabric of the aircraft.
Also, you want to reduce the chance of the aircraft rolling over when you shut the rotors down. I guess any slight rotor imbalance is going to feel magnified when you land on the solid belly of an aircraft rather than an oleo strut or a flexible skid.
Also, you want to reduce the chance of the aircraft rolling over when you shut the rotors down. I guess any slight rotor imbalance is going to feel magnified when you land on the solid belly of an aircraft rather than an oleo strut or a flexible skid.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get inflatable car "jacks" that are used to lift a vehicle on soft or uneven ground. They are just inflatable bags. My recollection is that they are inflated at low pressure using the exhaust of a motor vehicle runing at idle.
They would surely be cheaper than a set of tyres from a Rolls Royce, and less likely to do damage.
They would also be useful for helping to recover a plank that overan a runway into soft ground too.
No, I am not on commision (not yet anyway)
They would surely be cheaper than a set of tyres from a Rolls Royce, and less likely to do damage.
They would also be useful for helping to recover a plank that overan a runway into soft ground too.
No, I am not on commision (not yet anyway)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can get inflatable car "jacks" that are used to lift a vehicle on soft or uneven ground. They are just inflatable bags.
Tyres, particularly heavy RR size take a bit of moving, and once they are in position everyone except maybe one marshaller can get well clear.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
#14
SInce faulty under carriage is not an isolated incident, why not make an emergency landing area for helicopters mandatory at larger airfields?
Fixed wing aircraft are provided for with under and over shoot areas, at great expense.
A few tyres pre-positioned in the corner of a field isn't asking a lot?
Design ideas for such a facility?
SInce faulty under carriage is not an isolated incident, why not make an emergency landing area for helicopters mandatory at larger airfields?
Fixed wing aircraft are provided for with under and over shoot areas, at great expense.
A few tyres pre-positioned in the corner of a field isn't asking a lot?
Design ideas for such a facility?
In RAF Pumas we used to carry a "sandbag plan" made of fabric sheets and tapes which could be laid out on the ground and piles of sandbags laid thereon, according to the instructions with it and which gear had failed.
In the Cold War we had sandbags everywhere but I suppose they aren't so common these days. Failing that we would land on the crewman, Eh Baldrick?
