R44 accidents: Is there a pattern?
TTB
The Macclesfield pilot did his conversion "a few years back" (ref. Float Test's post) so he may not be part of that pattern. But the Harrogate accident certainly was.
Think the points being raised with regard to ensuring quality in training are bang on-the-money but it's hard to see where change is going to come from if not from training providers and their customers. The general problems with the UK training market are well-known: poor conditions of employment, high turnover, poor prospects for development as instructors for most involved. If that doesn't change, we can't really expect anything other than patchy quality. Few companies have anything like the resources, experience and philosophy needed to deliver a consistently good training product.
TT
The Macclesfield pilot did his conversion "a few years back" (ref. Float Test's post) so he may not be part of that pattern. But the Harrogate accident certainly was.
Think the points being raised with regard to ensuring quality in training are bang on-the-money but it's hard to see where change is going to come from if not from training providers and their customers. The general problems with the UK training market are well-known: poor conditions of employment, high turnover, poor prospects for development as instructors for most involved. If that doesn't change, we can't really expect anything other than patchy quality. Few companies have anything like the resources, experience and philosophy needed to deliver a consistently good training product.
TT
I don't think that the emphasis is right in the UK civilian training/testing regime. It's all about filling in the paperwork correctly and flying to a pre-defined set of parameters in a known environment (ie; licensed aerodrome). There's insufficient emphasis placed upon decision-making and good old-fashioned captaincy. Being able to manipulate the controls to put the aircraft where you want doesn't make you a pilot. (However, in these recent R44 roll-overs it seems the 'pilots' couldn't even do that).
I think that the CAA, rather than audit FTOs/TRTOs (and maybe soon RTFs too) in a pre-arranged manner should consider random spot-checks. Furthermore, not only the paperwork should be auditted. How about 'mystery shopper' type checks? The industry is quite small, but it's big enough to have 'anonymous' individuals turn up at a school for a trial lesson or ask for an LPC. By flying with the people imparting the training, or conducting the tests, in a covert manner, they'll soon be able to assess accurately who's doing the job properly and responsibly. The school / examiner would get paid their normal fee so nobody has anything to lose; except maybe the dodgy operators.
Could it work?
JJ
I think that the CAA, rather than audit FTOs/TRTOs (and maybe soon RTFs too) in a pre-arranged manner should consider random spot-checks. Furthermore, not only the paperwork should be auditted. How about 'mystery shopper' type checks? The industry is quite small, but it's big enough to have 'anonymous' individuals turn up at a school for a trial lesson or ask for an LPC. By flying with the people imparting the training, or conducting the tests, in a covert manner, they'll soon be able to assess accurately who's doing the job properly and responsibly. The school / examiner would get paid their normal fee so nobody has anything to lose; except maybe the dodgy operators.
Could it work?
JJ
JJ
Couldn't agree more.
The mystery shopper idea was suggested a short while ago by one of the good guys, I don't know if it got anywhere but if it could be made to work it might sort some of them out.
From a safety and standards point of view Auditing RTFs is almost a no brainer, the financials may make it a non starter but I for one hope it goes ahead.
There is a preponderance of teaching students how to manipulate controls using a script someone else wrote that doesn't always fit the helicopter in question without teaching them how to be pilots.
GS
Couldn't agree more.
The mystery shopper idea was suggested a short while ago by one of the good guys, I don't know if it got anywhere but if it could be made to work it might sort some of them out.
From a safety and standards point of view Auditing RTFs is almost a no brainer, the financials may make it a non starter but I for one hope it goes ahead.
There is a preponderance of teaching students how to manipulate controls using a script someone else wrote that doesn't always fit the helicopter in question without teaching them how to be pilots.
GS
JJ
Given how [over-]regulated most areas of the UK's GA industry is, I was gob smacked when I read in the 'Harrogate gazelle' AAIB report that RTFs need do nothing more than fill some forms in to qualify
The controls around qualifying as a FTO/TRTO seem weak anyway, but why not apply what little there is to RTF's as well 
"To become an RTF no approval needs to be granted; organisations are only required to register with the CAA and certify that they comply with certain required conditions. No inspections are carried out and no training or operations manuals are required. Registration remains valid until either the CAA is informed that PPL training is to cease or the CAA establishes that training is not being carried out safely or is not in compliance with JAR-FCL. In these instances the registration may be revoked."
Currently, for FTO/TRTOs, an initial CAA inspection is made after one year, then it's another three years before anyone's troubled with having to prove standards are being maintained - that's ridiculous.
As Gary says, auditing not just the paperwork, but the quality of training/testing, would seem to be a no brainer. I think the mystery shopper idea would work really well; the only organisations that are likely to object are those that are not up to scratch.
TTB
Given how [over-]regulated most areas of the UK's GA industry is, I was gob smacked when I read in the 'Harrogate gazelle' AAIB report that RTFs need do nothing more than fill some forms in to qualify
The controls around qualifying as a FTO/TRTO seem weak anyway, but why not apply what little there is to RTF's as well "To become an RTF no approval needs to be granted; organisations are only required to register with the CAA and certify that they comply with certain required conditions. No inspections are carried out and no training or operations manuals are required. Registration remains valid until either the CAA is informed that PPL training is to cease or the CAA establishes that training is not being carried out safely or is not in compliance with JAR-FCL. In these instances the registration may be revoked."
Currently, for FTO/TRTOs, an initial CAA inspection is made after one year, then it's another three years before anyone's troubled with having to prove standards are being maintained - that's ridiculous.
As Gary says, auditing not just the paperwork, but the quality of training/testing, would seem to be a no brainer. I think the mystery shopper idea would work really well; the only organisations that are likely to object are those that are not up to scratch.
TTB
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The R44 has a big change in attitude with varying pilot/passenger weights and fuel states, much bigger than the Jetranger.
Solo with full fuel slightly nose up, four up with low fuel very pronounced nose down attitude.
Normally dressed I exceed the minimum pilot weight by only only ten pounds and whilst this conforms with the POH I always carry ballast in the form of six standard house bricks in a canvas holdall under the left seat. My bricks weigh seven pounds each.
Solo with full fuel slightly nose up, four up with low fuel very pronounced nose down attitude.
Normally dressed I exceed the minimum pilot weight by only only ten pounds and whilst this conforms with the POH I always carry ballast in the form of six standard house bricks in a canvas holdall under the left seat. My bricks weigh seven pounds each.
HeliFirst
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lincoln & Norwich
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with VeeAny, who concluded with
"Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him."
Does one further conclude that the system i.e. the CAA are thus completely to blame?
"Sometimes people fly outside their own abilites, sometimes they are taught badly and sometimes they are tested badly. The repsonsibility does not always lie with the guy at the controls, if he knows no better because the training and testing system has failed him."
Does one further conclude that the system i.e. the CAA are thus completely to blame?
Join Date: May 2006
Location: uk
Age: 59
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everything in the R44 is easy, provided you positively land it, otherwise hello PIO.....
I wonder if this is the issue?
The first 7 landings were rubbish, but the 8th was a doodie, now, go and repair the tarmac!
I wonder if this is the issue?
The first 7 landings were rubbish, but the 8th was a doodie, now, go and repair the tarmac!
Sorry thought this was about an incident
Right, so we have slated the R44, Flying Schools, Instructors, Pilots, CAA.
I thought this forum was not a forum for a bunch of old women moaning.
I thought this forum was not a forum for a bunch of old women moaning.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: West Wales and Zug, Switzerland
Age: 63
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true Keepitup, but we need to understand why these accidents happen and how to prevent them happening again. So is it the training, the helicopter, or something else that is at fault. Maybe its just bad luck but we should try to find out.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I soloed students in the R22 we would calculate a weight and balance with about 30 pounds of lead shot in the at the base of the left seat. I would explain in as much detail as I could what the aircraft would feel like and that the initial pick up should be done very, very slowly as it is the first time that the student has to work things out in the machine on their own. As the solo flights progressed we would reduce the balast, thereby weaning them and eventually everyone flew with no ballast.
Some may view this as overkill, but I didn't want anyone to experience my first solo adventure when my instructor simply got out and told me to have at it. The first pick up was one of the scariest moments of my career as I launched off sideways.............
I always teach that a pick up to a hover should be very slow and controlled. Anyone who rushes it is told to land and do it again. If this taught from the first flight then you can pick any helicopter up to a hover regardless of experience.
Some may view this as overkill, but I didn't want anyone to experience my first solo adventure when my instructor simply got out and told me to have at it. The first pick up was one of the scariest moments of my career as I launched off sideways.............
I always teach that a pick up to a hover should be very slow and controlled. Anyone who rushes it is told to land and do it again. If this taught from the first flight then you can pick any helicopter up to a hover regardless of experience.
Out of interest, how many pilots are being taught to hover using the 2 o'clock daisy technique instead of using hover attitude? Students quickly learn that they can stop wandering so much in the hover if they use the daisy but it does them no good in the long run and is absolutely hopeless for lifting to the hover and landing.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
It's an old girlfriend of Crab's (so to speak).
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: scotland
Age: 48
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, I'm a relatively low hours PPL holder and I learned to fly at Scotia Helicopters in Cumbernauld who gave me, in my opinion, excellent training (I've had a bit of instruction at other schools in England). Everything was clearly explained and each exercise thoroughly taught until I and the instructor was satisfied that it had sank in.
I believe that these rollovers, in most cases, can be avoided if people start to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'. I heard of one incident ( not at Scotia!!!) that had a student at the controls waiting on his instructor and he decided to get the machine (R44) wound up for action. When he was checking the Low RRPM buzzer he had one hand on the collective and one holding the checklist, he pulled the collective as the RRPM was at 97% up about 6 inches or so and, as he was not holding the cyclic, ended up on his ribs in a scrapyard.
I believe that these rollovers, in most cases, can be avoided if people start to exercise a bit of 'self preservation'. I heard of one incident ( not at Scotia!!!) that had a student at the controls waiting on his instructor and he decided to get the machine (R44) wound up for action. When he was checking the Low RRPM buzzer he had one hand on the collective and one holding the checklist, he pulled the collective as the RRPM was at 97% up about 6 inches or so and, as he was not holding the cyclic, ended up on his ribs in a scrapyard.
MG has it right - despite the best efforts of instructors to get the student to look ahead for hover references, especially the hover attitude, many believe they can hold a better hover by looking down in the 2 o'clock position at a close ground reference. Whilst it can be a good place to scan to pick up fore and aft drift, it is no use as a primary hover reference and certainly no good for assessing pitch, roll and yaw changes during take off and landing.