R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?

[inditrees]

Dear crab,

If that is the case then please explain night deck landings

[[email protected]]

inditrees - don't you use the horizon bar and patter/con then?

[9Aplus]

small assistance

[Bondu121]

1. Tom Cruise shades - Check
2. Know it all after 20 hours - Check
3. Start Check List - Nah, don't need that (see 2)
4. Ah sh*t, destroyed a/c - Blame instructors/FTO/CAA/etc blah, blah
5. Tom Cruise shades - Check
6. War stories in the pub/club - Check

[biggles99]

FAO Keepitup and chopper.al

Keepitup -- it is important to broaden the topic of discussion.

The hardware alone in these 5 or (as Veeany says) 7 accidents was worth well over a million quid, all of which has been written off.

I own quite a lot of R22s and R44s at the moment, and my insurance premiums next year may well be more next year due (partly) to these crashes.

And I don't think that any of these ones accidents have yet to pay out a personal injury claim.

So I have a vested interest in wanting to reduce the accident rate.

Chopper.al,

although these accidents are all with low time pilots, I know of many others. The following accidents are just from my local airfield.

in 2004 there was this one:

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...GRR%209-05.pdf

in 2007 an instructor bent the tail on a AS355 while practicing single engine landings/take offs

in July 2008 an instructor wrote off a R22 while auto-ing into a field,

in 2008 an instructor allowed a student to overspeed a R22 on start-up

There was also a birdstrike that put a student in hospital as it smashed the screen of a AS355. Now, before you say "hardly anyone's fault" and mindful of the Hudson River incident, I've been in a R44 that also suffered a bird-strike -- and poor look-out (for which I accept TOTAL responsibility) was definately a factor.

and now we have this one.

So that's six expensive accidents, and one terrible fatality just at one airfield. How many more are there that I don't know about? LOADS, I'm sure.

Chopper.al. I'm afraid I disagree with you. Unless the pilot is suicidal (yes, it does happen) we've all got the self-preservation instinct. Bad judgement, bad decisions and "flying in conditions beyond the capability of the pilot" is at the heart of the problem.

Helping to establish the causes of the problem is the key to saving lives, reducing legislation and minimising insurance premiums.

On-line debates such as this one should help, I hope.

Even if all it does is make you think a little about some of the comments that you may or may not agree with, just as you turn the key/press the button.

Big Ls.

[chopper.al]

biggles,

that is what I'm actually saying. We should have the 'self preservation' not to let ourselves get into that situation, ie. listen to the instructors, listen to your peers and above all, take this flying malarky as seriously as possible. It's the same set of rules (and laws of physics) whether you've flown 20 hours or 2000 hours.

As I said, I am low hours but every flight I have is as well thought out and pre planned as possible. I read all the AAIB circulars, take the weight and balance thing seriously (I'm 6' 6'' and weigh 18 stone so I need to!!!) and brief my passengers on all aspects before flight. I take these things very seriously but I'm sure there are plenty of low hours guys who think 'it'll never happen to me' and end up in that very situation where they are flying outwith their capabilities.

If i have any problems with any area of my flying I am not too proud to go and ask for some tuition from those in the know but i wonder just how many people would? I passed my GFT in minimum hours so was happy with my progress as I was being instructed (and Dave Young was my instructor, he certainly expected the best from you) but I knew that there was plenty more to learn. I think this is the attitude to have if you want to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'.

Thanks, Alan.

[Jarvy]

Well put biggles99.
I aways find it is better to learn from other peoples mistakes than my own.

[hover Motivator]

I do not believe all instructors do it just for money, some do, some just want to build experience and move on to bigger aircraft, but I do believe alot of them do it for the satisfaction of seeing people that had never flown before, walk out of the door, tall and proud, qualified as a helicopter pilot. Its a great and very rewarding feeling. Its similar to Richard Branson's old primary school teacher who secretly says to himself, I helped make that man successful, credit where credits due, he couldn't have made a fortune if he didn't know his times tables and percentages for all that profit.

Frank Robinson identified two important things many many years ago when he produced his first helicopters.

The first was that the inital assesments of accidents in his aircraft pointed to High time fixed wing, Low time rotary, as people being the most likely to crash his aircraft.

The second is that he always believes that it is not the experience or skill of the pilot that may cause the accident, but the attitude which the pilot has towards flying the helicopter.

Frank is right and pyschometric testing of students prior to starting training (and turning them away if they fail) is probably the best way of reducing the accident rate.

[Torquetalk]

A rigorous psychometric assessment didn't stop a medical services helicopter pilot in JAR-land flying his aircraft under a bridge for kicks, crashing and killing one of his crew. Or the crew of the Puma accident in the media lately flying like dickheads (and who presumably passed similar RAF tests). So how valid, objective and reliable can such methods be?

Somebody instructed and authorised the pilot who lost control at Shobdon. If his attitudes were assessed by several people to be hazardous, how did he get to solo/pass LST/SFH? People instructing, examining and chartering out aircraft also need to assess risk and STOP someone flying if necessary.

[ShyTorque]

People instructing, examining and chartering out aircraft also need to assess risk and STOP someone flying if necessary.

Torquetalk

I agree, but it's not in the syllabus

[Senior Pilot]

.


This thread has been split from a thread about a particular accident so that people can discuss whether there is a general problem and, if there is, what can/should be done about it.

[Helinut]

I haven't instructed for many years but I used to. It was probably the most satisfying part of my flying career, so far, and I wanted my students to be the best possible pilots, which I think was the common position.

In the PPL market the individual instructor can have a significant impact but he is not in control, and much less so, since JAR-FCL. PPL students (in the main) are self-selecting. The only aptitude they have is the desire to learn to fly and (hopefully) the budget to do it. There is a disincentive for the school and instructor to be too heavy about the effort needed when a prospect arrived at the flying school. They very often do not have an ideal training schedule and I recall that some did not present themselves optimally. Often they were stressed or fatigued by some other aspect of their life and they had just driven around the M25 to get to the airfield as well.

I still recall one or two students who made very slow/zero progress. The instructors used to spend a lot of time worrying about them and how to deal with them. People do progress at a different rate, for a variety of reasons. Some did eventually progress to a PPL (after a large number of hours). Some went elsewhere, got their licences and then crashed damaged aircraft. When students did transfer, we were happy to send copies of our training notes.

The authorities designate the syllabus not the instructor, nor the flying school. Helicopter training is expensive, so you would have to be very persuasive to persuade most students to do much more than the minimum. A weakness in the UK system was that the instructor (and flying school) got paid by the flying hour: I guess it is still the same. I recall doing extra ground school when I thought it sensible and the opportunity arose. However, I also recall that some students just glazed over and you were wasting your time.

As some have already said, the PPL syllabus (indeed any flying training syllabus that I have come across) does not actually spend much or indeed any time addressing the main factors that cause accidents. These are not the ability to control the aircraft, but things such as attitude, character and decision making. As those of us who have been involved in CRM know, the people who most need that sort of education are the ones least likely to accept it.

Pre-JAR, there were some real problems with the "system". The one that I recall was that once private owners had acquired their licence, they did not need to EVER fly with an instructor or examiner again. We used to try and persuade them to do continuation training. When you succeeded, you were made well aware why they were reluctant - a number were so slow and hesitant at anything out of the normal (e.g. entering auto) that a real engine failure would have had a most terminal outcome.

As those of us who have taken our careers beyond the PPL know, practice and currency are very important at maintaining, let alone improving standards. PPL (post their licence training) will frequently be or be close to being out of practice. Whose fault is that?

Mind you, there are/were some flying schools whose pads and manoeuvering areas were a disgrace. Any attempt to raise concerns would be futile, until after the accident (maybe).

[manfromuncle]

A weakness in the UK system was that the instructor (and flying school) got paid by the flying hour: I guess it is still the same. I recall doing extra ground school when I thought it sensible and the opportunity arose. However, I also recall that some students just glazed over and you were wasting your time.

Hear, hear. Paying instructors by the hour doesn't encourage good teaching practices/methods.

Most students I taught just treated the groundschool as an annoying hurdle to get out of the way. They didn't have time, nor the commitment for it. Most helicopter students are "cash rich time poor".

To be fair though, the JAA PPL exams are a joke. How is a knowledge of induced flow, bus bars and ICAO annexes going to help you when you get lost/the engine quits/the weather turns poor?

The FAA system is much better, one exam, covering a general level of detail in all subject areas.

There needs to be more emphasis on decision making, power-on forced landings, weather diversions/planning etc. in the PPL syllabus, and daft things like downwind quickstops should be removed.

[topendtorque]

a number were so slow and hesitant at anything out of the normal (e.g. entering auto) that a real engine failure would have had a most terminal outcome.

This quote got me going as I had a real experience of this recently, even though the OZ training fraternity have done a lot of work in recent years to improve the syllabus and standards of training.

I noted recently in Heli-ops an excellent article titled “core knowledge” which referred to the core of this thread. I was amazed I must say, with all the talk of the high standards of JAR land that such a situation could exist. So far the thread seems to have concentrated mainly on the existence of the ‘problem’, not a cure for it.

I don’t see how the phantom learner will achieve much, by the very nature of this activity he is there in an unofficial capacity, and he has to dumb down to do it???? OZ regs state that CASA people must identify themselves upon first contact.

A scheme of random audits of the finished product should be a major incentive for excellence. If a problem is encountered then an exhaustive program of checking of instructors and other students should ensue at that school. If this uncovers major defects then the stiff penalty of licence pull must be contemplated.

No one should be aggrieved at that as with the exhaustive approach, there is plenty of opportunity to demonstrate competence and fairness. This must surely achieve heaps more, everything neat and legal, not sneaky and underhand and up there to be talked about to the students as well as the instructors.

Surely that will contribute greatly to a higher standard of self regulation, which is the desired outcome.

The aspect of cost will be raised, I suggest that cost will be minimal as once a couple of examples are made that word will quickly spread.

Perhaps a scheme of competition for the best student pilot, each year should be initiated from each school, with a national winner. After all many forms of the hospitality trade participate in these activities. Those with the best chefs sell the most meals. “People always remember the taste long after they have forgotten the price."

From my own first PPL licence I remember with pain just how much money that I wasted because every time that I made a few dollars, er quid back then, I would rush of and do an hour or two, the first third of which was wasted by recurrency work. A structured continuous program is much more ecenomical and better for learning.

From an operation training perspective the most problems that we used encounter focus easily on the very basic;

1) Take off and land smoothly and slowly, as already mentioned,

2) Smooth transition to forward flight, with a barely discernible nose lower attitude change and,

3) Correct and expedient reaction to emergencies at any time.

There are only a few emergencies discussed in the syllabus, they are what we need to see as a commercial operator to be done correctly. Pretty much all other manoeuvres stem from these basics.

Just recently there was a helicopter written off at Wave Hill station by a pilot who “lost it” whilst doing a simple approach to land at a fuel bowser. How’ you ask?

There have been several instances of people doing sling work and after depositing the load catching their strop / net etc on an obstacle because of an idiotic fast translation.

I can say that it is the area that gave me the most trouble in doing sling endorsements. It was brought about for two reasons on the pilots that I trained;

1) An inherent failure to have been taught properly at ab-initio stage and,

2) A developed practice of jerking off the ground and fast translation because of either, perceived dust evasion problems and or general personal slackness. (bad attitude)

One will never learn to make the best use of available power for sling work unless one exhibits strict discipline in the translation stage. The tricks that help and enhance that we will teach.

As far as progressing the politics of checking standards, then your structured organisations, such as the Guild perhaps, must be a good starting point, to actively lobby with.

The odd article here and there won’t change much, but the use of those good articles put together by respected people such as Phil Croucher, will be important when one approaches the directors of CAA and the Minister and shadow minister responsible for matters aviation.

I picked up a little and long circulated quip from a recent email which I shall pass on for the students.

Represent the numbers of the alphabet by the numbers one to twenty six and collate the numeric results of examined words as an expression of achievement on a percentage scale up to a maximum of 100%.

Examine the three words, Hardwork, Knowledge, and Attitude. You will see that whilst Hardwork and Knowledge will nearly get you there it is Attitude which will get you over the line.

All the best, tet

[Sky Sports]

Going back to the original question, is there a pattern? I would suggest there is and that pattern when all the variables are taken out of the equation is the aircraft. Job done.

[Whirlygig]

when all the variables are taken out of the equation is the aircraft.

Or the soft, squidgy, carbon-based lifeform sitting in the cockpit?

Cheers

Whirls

[chopper.al]

I would reckon the only reason the aircraft is still there after you remove all the variables is because it's the cheapest, and therefore only, training option for most civillian pilots.

I wonder what the military statistics read for pilots with the same number of hours as the civillian guys who have these accidents. Although, this may not give a true reflection as military guys will get more flying time per week than their GA counterparts which would give better continuity to the training. It took me the best part of a year to get 45 hours when I trained, I bet military pilots do that in a few weeks.

Is it possible that having a more focused period ie. 6 months maximum training time, would help with training in that it would be easier for new pilots to get a feel for the aircraft quicker and not lose their 'touch' in extended periods between each training flight? For example, if you have just got the hang of hovering and have to stop flying for a few weeks, it usually takes you a bit of time to get back into the swing of things, but if the syllabus required that you fly almost every week, but preferably two or three hours a week, this could make the learning a bit more progressive.

Discuss......

[topendtorque]

Going back to the original question, is there a pattern?

YES

Do you lack observational skill? It is screaming at you from not only my post but many others, read them again.

It is the Lack of standards.

Tightening the timeframe makes it easier and cheaper to learn and, less beneficial for the instructor and the school who is paid by the hour.

Tighten the standard and the people will stop crashing.

Standards setting comes from political will, nowhere else. Political will is generated from within your CAA or it should be directed by the politicians to generate it if it is found lacking in the top end of the CAA.

If industry says that the standards are slack then they must approach and lobby those responsible to fix them.

R22's and 44's aren't twitchy beasts, in fact they are so ridiculously easy to fly and operate that it is not funny.

I must add a well known fable; "It's a very poor tradesman that blames his tools." Keep them sharp and keep yourself sharp.

[tony 1969]

my thoughts

chopper.al
Its a great idea but how would you police such a thing, most PPL's take somewhere between 6 months to two years to complete due to work, family, or finances or whatever else gets in the way. Its just not practical to make some one do it in six months (or even a year come to that).
military training is completely different to civvy, the military will test and weed out people before they even get near an aircraft.
It seems strange that we seem to be laying the blame at schools/instructors, we all know that some people are better pilots than others, it comes down to age, ability and what kind of a day they are having as well as training and aircraft.
Not every instructor is just there for the money and to move on to a "proper job", but being paid by the hour and poorly at that sucks. Some FI's may fly when they feel the weather is not really suitable, that trial lesson that just wants to look at the view, take pictures (this is classed as AOC work in the UK), when knackered, pissed off and really shouldnt be in the air.
I have come across an FI (luckily not rotary) who was a liability, poorly taught students, turns up pissed, sits in the aircraft and lets students infringe controlled airspace.....

Veeany said "Is it right for examiners to fly over MAUW rather than split LSTs in two because they would need to refuel ? I suggest not, but it is happening. What message is that sending to the new pilots ?"

No its not right, sometimes they are overweight for an LPC let alone an LST....

I still dont see the sense in a system that will not let you land off an airfield in a helicopter, thats what they are for....

[biggles99]

crashing

Hear hear, TET. Or is it Here, here? I never was sure.

It's not the only solution, but it's definitely one of them.

If as much time was spent teaching decision and judgement skills as opposed to engine/tail rotor failure procedural skills, then I'm convinced we'd see a reduction in the CFIT accidents.

CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) is just as pertinent if it is a hangar door on a still clear day as it is into a hill on a foggy day. Only the last couple of seconds in either type of accident doesn't really consitute the "C" bit but the rest of the "FIT" certainly er.... fits.

Look at the stats. How many people have killed themsleves, injured thenselves, or damaged the aircraft due to engine or other equipment failure? I don't consider carb icing or engine failures due running on one mag as engine failure. It is pilot induced.

Compare this to the accidents caused by practising emergencies, and by people crashing into things on landing and take off (ie the flat ground beneath their skids) and flying in weather conditions beyond their capability.

Is the practicing of auto after auto after auto really the best way to spend time spent with an instructor? The engines don't fail these days, if you believe the stats.

And, ask any newly qualified pilot whether they think they could walk away from an undamaged aircraft in the event of a genuine engine failure in a R22. The honest ones will say "no".

So maybe it would be better to get the basic skills sorted, instill the concept that if the aircraft has failed, for whatever reason, then the only relevant thing is to stay alive. Sod the aircraft.

Then spend the time instilling the ability to land in a sensible place safely with the engine still running (should the weather turns nasty), and to get the student or early hours pilot to learn what constitutes a sensible landing site -- be this next to a hangar door, in a tennis court or on the apron of a very large airfield.

The sensible place will vary with the pilot, the time of day, the weather conditions and aircraft type -- but the understanding and interpretation of these factors remain a constant.

What do you think, Hover Motivator?

Big Ls.