UK AAIB October 2009
Thread Starter
UK AAIB October 2009
G-CBXT Gazelle 1 Nov 2008
Continued into IMC enroute and crashed while turning back.
Raises issues of who can be carried in Permit Aircraft.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...XT%2010-09.pdf
G-TTHC R22 14 February 2009
Probable cause only Left Magneto selected , that magneto then failed in flight causing the engine to stop. Pilot allowed RRPM to droop beyond recoverable limit, possibly due to his inexperience.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...HC%2010-09.pdf
G-CLPR R44 May 2009
Student Pilot rolled over during landing, shrapnel hit and seriously injured workman on the airfield.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...PR%2010-09.pdf
Continued into IMC enroute and crashed while turning back.
Raises issues of who can be carried in Permit Aircraft.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...XT%2010-09.pdf
G-TTHC R22 14 February 2009
Probable cause only Left Magneto selected , that magneto then failed in flight causing the engine to stop. Pilot allowed RRPM to droop beyond recoverable limit, possibly due to his inexperience.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...HC%2010-09.pdf
G-CLPR R44 May 2009
Student Pilot rolled over during landing, shrapnel hit and seriously injured workman on the airfield.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...PR%2010-09.pdf
Last edited by VeeAny; 9th Oct 2009 at 08:19. Reason: Clarification
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB Monthly reports.... so predictable, depressing and sad.
Another 'copter flies into IMC and crashes, killing all occupants. Another Robbo has its tail chopped off. On the fixed-wing side, 3 wheels-up landings and another fatal following low-level aerobatics/extreme manoeuvres. In several cases documentation, maintenance, licences, medicals invalid/expired. What can be done? Such a tragic waste. 
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 454 Likes
on
241 Posts
The Gazelle accident highlights a glaring deficiency in the medical examination / licensing scheme for a PPL.
I wonder how many other pilots are illegally flying with invalid medicals, and therefore invalid licences?
Also, why did this pilot take passengers with him, when he would certainly have known that this was specifically disallowed?
Next time I see this occur, I'll be very much inclined to report it to the authority, rather than just passing comment on it at the time. I did see what appeared to be passengers disembarking from another ex Shawbury Gazelle only a fortnight ago. I do recall the registration of that one, I looked up the aircraft to see if it's in my logbook, from my time instructing on these aircraft, and it is.
Presumably, either, or both, of these illegalities could invalidate the aircraft insurance.
I wonder how many other pilots are illegally flying with invalid medicals, and therefore invalid licences?
Also, why did this pilot take passengers with him, when he would certainly have known that this was specifically disallowed?
Next time I see this occur, I'll be very much inclined to report it to the authority, rather than just passing comment on it at the time. I did see what appeared to be passengers disembarking from another ex Shawbury Gazelle only a fortnight ago. I do recall the registration of that one, I looked up the aircraft to see if it's in my logbook, from my time instructing on these aircraft, and it is.
Presumably, either, or both, of these illegalities could invalidate the aircraft insurance.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There but for the Grace of God....
Re the Gazelle.
ShyTorque -- I doubt whether the medical, or the passengers contributed to this accident.
A classic case, as we've said so many times before of a pilot flying "in conditions beyond his capability". One bad decision, that's all it takes.
Re the R44 on take off.
I know of FOUR similar accidents in 2009. There could be more. All in R44s. All with the same result. Written off aircraft, no or minor injuries to the people inside the aircraft. But it won't be long before someone gets hurt or killed.
Could it be the way the pre-flight checks are being done that set up these accidents? Could it be that it newish "GOVERNOR ON" method is actually contributing to a loss of control - ie the aircraft getting airbourne before the pilot was ready?
Re the R22 on one Magneto.
A long, long time ago I flew from Shobdon to Redhill. It's about a 2 hour trip.
On the way down I noticed that the aircraft was flying a bit slower, using more power and sounding a bit rougher than usual.
When I did the post-flight mag check, I clicked left, and yes, you've guess it, the engine cut straight away.
So I'd flown all the way one one Mag, and even noted that the aircraft wasn't flying quite right, but still I didn't notice or check that I had "Mags on both".
Would I have survived had the engine quit? Probably, I had a few hundred hours by then. Would I have crashed? Almost certainly.
My bag of luck was obviously not yet empty, unlike the poor soul in the accident report, but I can attest that a mistake like that is very, very easy to make.
Hope this helps you all take extra care on your pre-flights.
Big Ls.
ShyTorque -- I doubt whether the medical, or the passengers contributed to this accident.
A classic case, as we've said so many times before of a pilot flying "in conditions beyond his capability". One bad decision, that's all it takes.
Re the R44 on take off.
I know of FOUR similar accidents in 2009. There could be more. All in R44s. All with the same result. Written off aircraft, no or minor injuries to the people inside the aircraft. But it won't be long before someone gets hurt or killed.
Could it be the way the pre-flight checks are being done that set up these accidents? Could it be that it newish "GOVERNOR ON" method is actually contributing to a loss of control - ie the aircraft getting airbourne before the pilot was ready?
Re the R22 on one Magneto.
A long, long time ago I flew from Shobdon to Redhill. It's about a 2 hour trip.
On the way down I noticed that the aircraft was flying a bit slower, using more power and sounding a bit rougher than usual.
When I did the post-flight mag check, I clicked left, and yes, you've guess it, the engine cut straight away.
So I'd flown all the way one one Mag, and even noted that the aircraft wasn't flying quite right, but still I didn't notice or check that I had "Mags on both".
Would I have survived had the engine quit? Probably, I had a few hundred hours by then. Would I have crashed? Almost certainly.
My bag of luck was obviously not yet empty, unlike the poor soul in the accident report, but I can attest that a mistake like that is very, very easy to make.
Hope this helps you all take extra care on your pre-flights.
Big Ls.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The R44 was landing, not taking off.
Just like we've all done when students, he blew it setting down when solo and it got to be a handful, it's a scary place to be with limited experience and nobody to help you.
He just didn't get lucky like most of the rest of us did.
Lafite.
Just like we've all done when students, he blew it setting down when solo and it got to be a handful, it's a scary place to be with limited experience and nobody to help you.
He just didn't get lucky like most of the rest of us did.
Lafite.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy
where does it say on the permit that it was disallowed ? you are allowed to carry ground crew for assistance in moving the helicopter on the ground
item 5 on the gazelle permit to fly states
maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried[ including crew] FOUR ,two flight crew and 2 ground crew
just because prior to the flight there was assistance available on the ground to help manhandle the helicopter into the hangar what would happen if they were busy at the time ,Called out on breakdown , or gone to lunch [ or tiffin ]
i have spoken to the maintenance organisation about this very same matter and they told me there was someone available when the pilot left but it would not be guaranteed that they would be available when he arrived if he had his own helpers it would be guaranteed that the helicopter would be able to be put away safely
Also, why did this pilot take passengers with him, when he would certainly have known that this was specifically disallowed
item 5 on the gazelle permit to fly states
maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried[ including crew] FOUR ,two flight crew and 2 ground crew
just because prior to the flight there was assistance available on the ground to help manhandle the helicopter into the hangar what would happen if they were busy at the time ,Called out on breakdown , or gone to lunch [ or tiffin ]
i have spoken to the maintenance organisation about this very same matter and they told me there was someone available when the pilot left but it would not be guaranteed that they would be available when he arrived if he had his own helpers it would be guaranteed that the helicopter would be able to be put away safely
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The arrogance of an individual who feels that it is pefectly OK to fly with passengers without a valid medical and licence is also the arrogance that causes flight into IMC and shortly afterwards into a hillside.
I doubt whether the medical, or the passengers contributed to this accident.
Could it be the way the pre-flight checks are being done that set up these accidents? Could it be that it newish "GOVERNOR ON" method is actually contributing to a loss of control - ie the aircraft getting airbourne before the pilot was ready?
What some folks do is carry on with other tasks after the aircraft is at operating RRPM, with their eye off the ball and cyclic friction on. Losing control here can happen easily with or without governor. As you say, the aircraft is ready for flight but the pilot isn't.
In fact, the risk of losing control may well be greater without the governor as the RRPM would be higher with an uncommanded increase in pitch due to correlation error: You'd be getting a even more rotor thrust
A high rate of roll-overs in R44s in a short period of time would point towards a training/refresher training defecit.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 454 Likes
on
241 Posts
Re the Gazelle.
ShyTorque -- I doubt whether the medical, or the passengers contributed to this accident.
ShyTorque -- I doubt whether the medical, or the passengers contributed to this accident.
The pilot ignored those regulations in two major respects.
If he hadn't taken the pax with him, in breach of the Permit to Fly, they wouldn't have been in the accident.
According to his GP he was taking medication for migraine attacks which occurred once a week (that's a lot of migraines). The CAA, had they known about it, would have suspended him from flying until clear of these atacks and off medication for at least two months. Migraines can be brought on by stress - he was undoubtedly quite stressed on this flight, due to the poor weather he encountered. My son is an occasional migraine sufferer - I've seen how suddenly and how badly he can be affected by a migraine attack.
If he had been honest with his medical declaration, he probably wouldn't have been flying at all that day. In that event the accident would not have occurred.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy
the permit to fly says he can take them with him. .When when did he breach the permit ?
i didnt disagree with the other item at all
If he hadn't taken the pax with him, in breach of the Permit to Fly, they wouldn't have been in the accident
i didnt disagree with the other item at all
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Shy:
is more likely, given the two-month rule quoted.
Frankly you wonder why all CAA medicals are not carried out with full, but confidential access to the applicant's GP's notes. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, surely?
If he had been honest with his medical declaration, he probably wouldn't have been flying at all [and not therefore on] that day
Frankly you wonder why all CAA medicals are not carried out with full, but confidential access to the applicant's GP's notes. Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, surely?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,598
Received 454 Likes
on
241 Posts
MD600,
That's really down to who constitutes "ground crew" and who is a "passenger", in the true meaning of the definitions. Those of us in the profession know this has regularly been exploited, as a perceived loophole in the Permit to Fly for the Gazelle.
So, were these 'passengers' or 'groundcrew' prior to the flight?
Read the CAA's own definition of 'ground crew' given in the report, page 59, lined box, top right. Were the other two occupants "engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base"?
Was their attendance required for the 25 hour inspection, or could it have been carried out without their presence?
If not, both were passengers on the flight and should not have been carried. The report stated that neither passenger had any engineering qualifications in this respect. I noted that the term "passenger" was used, not "ground crew", for both of them.
We used to move Gazelles around with only two people, btw. One to steer whilst holding the tail, the other to push on a rear skid tube. Including this particular aircraft when it was still XW898, in it's previous, RAF use.
That's really down to who constitutes "ground crew" and who is a "passenger", in the true meaning of the definitions. Those of us in the profession know this has regularly been exploited, as a perceived loophole in the Permit to Fly for the Gazelle.
So, were these 'passengers' or 'groundcrew' prior to the flight?
Read the CAA's own definition of 'ground crew' given in the report, page 59, lined box, top right. Were the other two occupants "engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base"?
Was their attendance required for the 25 hour inspection, or could it have been carried out without their presence?
If not, both were passengers on the flight and should not have been carried. The report stated that neither passenger had any engineering qualifications in this respect. I noted that the term "passenger" was used, not "ground crew", for both of them.
We used to move Gazelles around with only two people, btw. One to steer whilst holding the tail, the other to push on a rear skid tube. Including this particular aircraft when it was still XW898, in it's previous, RAF use.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
shy
i will agree that its all in the defination of ground crew and that it gets stretched and misused
this isnt the caa definition as you state , it is the wording that is on that aircrafts permit to fly issued by the CAA
it would be helpfull to know if the caa has a differerent defination for ground crew than the oxford dictionary
here is the wikipedia /oxford dictionary defination
In aviation, the groundcrew is the support crew supplying the aircraft with fuel and maintenance, as opposed to the aircrew.
In airlines, ground crew members include
Airframe and powerplant technicians
Avionics technicians
Baggage handlers
Rampers
Gate agents
Ticket agents
Passenger service agents (such as airline lounge employees)
Flight dispatchers
Some ground crew members are responsible for clearing the runway and gate area of any debris or garbage, in order to prevent Foreign Object Damage by an object being sucked into an engine.[citation needed] The crew visually inspects the tarmac and removes any items found; this is typically called a "FOD Walk" and is done prior to aircraft arrival and departure
i know that in the raf you may have pushed the aircraft into the hangar but it would depend on the lenth you was pushing if you was pushing 100 mtrs you may would want additional help
i was refering to the written permit to fly that is issued by the caa ,not the accident report , as the aircraft is flown to conditions that are in the permit to fly
not what is written in a accident report
i will agree that its all in the defination of ground crew and that it gets stretched and misused
Read the CAA's own definition of 'ground crew' given in the report, page 59, lined box, top right. Were the other two occupants "engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base"?
it would be helpfull to know if the caa has a differerent defination for ground crew than the oxford dictionary
here is the wikipedia /oxford dictionary defination
In aviation, the groundcrew is the support crew supplying the aircraft with fuel and maintenance, as opposed to the aircrew.
In airlines, ground crew members include
Airframe and powerplant technicians
Avionics technicians
Baggage handlers
Rampers
Gate agents
Ticket agents
Passenger service agents (such as airline lounge employees)
Flight dispatchers
Some ground crew members are responsible for clearing the runway and gate area of any debris or garbage, in order to prevent Foreign Object Damage by an object being sucked into an engine.[citation needed] The crew visually inspects the tarmac and removes any items found; this is typically called a "FOD Walk" and is done prior to aircraft arrival and departure
i know that in the raf you may have pushed the aircraft into the hangar but it would depend on the lenth you was pushing if you was pushing 100 mtrs you may would want additional help
i was refering to the written permit to fly that is issued by the caa ,not the accident report , as the aircraft is flown to conditions that are in the permit to fly
maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried[ including crew] FOUR ,two flight crew and 2 ground crew
Last edited by md 600 driver; 8th Oct 2009 at 15:57.
Permit flying.
Carrying 'passengers' in ex mil aircraft namely Gazelle and Scout is nothing new and I am sure the CAA know it goes on but have turned a blind eye perhaps until now.
I remember seeing a Scout on the front page of a heli mag being flown with a child in the back. Now that surely cannot be classed as a ground crew!
A question for the legal buffs out there. Would the insurance company try and prove that a passenger(s) onboard such an aircraft cannot be classed as part of that flight in light of a pay out of some description?
We all know it goes on and 9 times out of ten it goes unoticed.
I remember seeing a Scout on the front page of a heli mag being flown with a child in the back. Now that surely cannot be classed as a ground crew!
A question for the legal buffs out there. Would the insurance company try and prove that a passenger(s) onboard such an aircraft cannot be classed as part of that flight in light of a pay out of some description?
We all know it goes on and 9 times out of ten it goes unoticed.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: england
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gazelle accident
Shy,
you make a cogent and compelling case, and I can see exactly what you mean.
I still don't think the passengers were a factor in causing the accident. Of course you are correct about the medical, or lack of it, but this is an attitude of mind.
Yet again, is this not a classic case of the Law of Unforeseen Consequence?
If the rules are so stringent for keeping your medical that for some people it becomes impossible, you drive the problem underground.
Some will simply flaunt the law and others will find work-arounds.
Surely the authorities need to encourage pilots to come forward and get checked out without them dreading that they will be grounded?
Please note, my views here are primarily relating to Class II medicals, but the principles are the same for both Class I and Class II.
I say all this not to be contentious, but rather to fuel the debate.
Big Ls
(Class I medical holder)
you make a cogent and compelling case, and I can see exactly what you mean.
I still don't think the passengers were a factor in causing the accident. Of course you are correct about the medical, or lack of it, but this is an attitude of mind.
Yet again, is this not a classic case of the Law of Unforeseen Consequence?
If the rules are so stringent for keeping your medical that for some people it becomes impossible, you drive the problem underground.
Some will simply flaunt the law and others will find work-arounds.
Surely the authorities need to encourage pilots to come forward and get checked out without them dreading that they will be grounded?
Please note, my views here are primarily relating to Class II medicals, but the principles are the same for both Class I and Class II.
I say all this not to be contentious, but rather to fuel the debate.
Big Ls
(Class I medical holder)
Given the AAIB's inclusion of both its definition of 'Ground Crew':
and the specific reference to the the maintenance organisation's confirmation that it had sufficicient resources to manoeuvre the machine:
the inference (thanks Whirls 
) is that the AAIB believes the two passengers were not authorised occupants. The CAA does seem to have turned a blind eye to the frequent flouting of this regulation, presumably because it has no material affect on the safe flight of an aircraft and, I imagine, because of the burden of proof. I can't see how carrying passengers in this case contributed to the accident, unless the pilot had a 'macho' attitude that was fuelled by his passengers' presence.
The lack of disclosure of certain (and potentially serious) medical conditions and the ease of concealment IS a worry and i agree with Big Ls that unless changes are made, pilots may continue to risk their lives and others unless better checks are put in place. I don't know how quickly a migraine can develop in a stressed environment, but it seems to me that this pilot's medical condition could very well have contributed to the accident.
TTB
5.1 Maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried (including crew): Four (Two flight crew and two ground crew, i.e. engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base).’
The maintenance organisation stated that G-CBXT was coming to them for a 25 hr inspection. They added that they had sufficient personnel to manoeuvre the helicopter into the hangar to complete this.
) is that the AAIB believes the two passengers were not authorised occupants. The CAA does seem to have turned a blind eye to the frequent flouting of this regulation, presumably because it has no material affect on the safe flight of an aircraft and, I imagine, because of the burden of proof. I can't see how carrying passengers in this case contributed to the accident, unless the pilot had a 'macho' attitude that was fuelled by his passengers' presence.The lack of disclosure of certain (and potentially serious) medical conditions and the ease of concealment IS a worry and i agree with Big Ls that unless changes are made, pilots may continue to risk their lives and others unless better checks are put in place. I don't know how quickly a migraine can develop in a stressed environment, but it seems to me that this pilot's medical condition could very well have contributed to the accident.
TTB
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ttb
this is not the aaib inclusion of both its definition of 'Ground Crew' it is the limitations that is written on the aircrafts permit to fly i cant see anywhere a defination by the aaib ior the caa
Given the AAIB's inclusion of both its definition of 'Ground Crew':
Quote:
5.1 Maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried (including crew): Four (Two flight crew and two ground crew, i.e. engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base).
Quote:
5.1 Maximum number of occupants authorised to be carried (including crew): Four (Two flight crew and two ground crew, i.e. engineering staff required for the maintenance of the aircraft away from base).
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Age: 56
Posts: 591
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi All,
Just so I understand this correctly. Are we saying that it was illegal (or whatever) to carry passengers in the aircraft full stop or simply that it was illegal to carry passengers on the flight to the maintenance company.
Joel
Just so I understand this correctly. Are we saying that it was illegal (or whatever) to carry passengers in the aircraft full stop or simply that it was illegal to carry passengers on the flight to the maintenance company.
Joel
Joel
Illegal full stop, unless the pax were bone fide Ground Crew. The report states that there were sufficient Ground Crew at the aircraft's destination to manoevre the machine. Given that the passengers were not qualified in any other relevant way, there was no legitimate reason for them to be on board.
TTB
Illegal full stop, unless the pax were bone fide Ground Crew. The report states that there were sufficient Ground Crew at the aircraft's destination to manoevre the machine. Given that the passengers were not qualified in any other relevant way, there was no legitimate reason for them to be on board.
TTB