ABZ pilots are we flying tomorrow?
I don't think any Halifax guys will argue that Newfoundland gets worse weather far more often than we do. Alot of those storms that miss us nail you guys on a regular bases.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Moved
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bladestrike spoke about "icing-kit-on-full ILS's in full-on blizzards with tower calling 1/8th and 100 with 80 knots quartering headwinds"
I expected Diddums (sorry, Ground Flight) to comment on what defines "extreme" for a North Sea pilot but there has been no response. Has anyone looked under the duvet?
I expected Diddums (sorry, Ground Flight) to comment on what defines "extreme" for a North Sea pilot but there has been no response. Has anyone looked under the duvet?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which makes it all the more strange that SS6 floats were not specified for the Newfoundland S92s until after their accident this year.
ppng - is their a culture of pressing on in bad weather in Newfoundland? (asking not accusing)
ppng - is their a culture of pressing on in bad weather in Newfoundland? (asking not accusing)
I don't think it's a case of pushing on in bad weather, we have our minimum departure and arrival criteria, we need to have a legal alternate, we need to have the legal requirement for fuel on board....those conditions being met, if there's no freezing precipitation, or severe turbulence, line of thunderstorms, what-have-you, away you go. What typically keeps us on the ground is not having a legal alternate, or not being able to carry enough fuel due to high winds, and of course freezing precipitation (of course there are many other considerations, but those are the main ones). Thunderstorms are not too common here. We just have a great deal of fog and poor weather, often accompanied by high winds, as low level jets often rip through here, and 80 knots of wind down to 500 to 1000 feet or so not overly uncommon. And there's always the unforecast crap you run into. Tower calling 100 and an 1/8 isn't uncommon, but with RVRs fluctuating above and below 1200, we can continue and at the speeds we fly, I can honestly claim I've always had lights at 200' (we have 100 feet DH but I haven't needed it yet, some have). I don't think anyone would hesitate to turn around in bad weather, or to decide to not launch, but I do know that my definition of bad weather has changed significantly after flying here. Personally the most difficult thing I think we do is the transition to visual on a mins ILS in heavy snow, hence the aforementioned scenario, but it actually doesn't happen that often.
Guest
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What has keen got to do with it?
And how can anybody question anybody else over the decision to fly or not?
You don't know anything about their destination for a start. They might have been tech for all you know.
Didn't realise Aberdeen had turned into a flying competition. Glad I left the place.
<ducking for cover>
And how can anybody question anybody else over the decision to fly or not?
You don't know anything about their destination for a start. They might have been tech for all you know.
Didn't realise Aberdeen had turned into a flying competition. Glad I left the place.
<ducking for cover>
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: La La Land
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad to see todat that only two of the Aberdeen EC225 operators were prepared to fly today. One firm just had their aircraft parked-up til lunchtime.
Just as well some of us 225 operators are keen to fly
Last edited by TTFD; 9th Jan 2010 at 16:31.
What were the conditions that precluded flying today ? I know in the last few weeks there have been days even within the same crew room where some pilots were willing to fly and others not. Wouldn't want to see this become a bravado thing - There shouldn't be any doubt in these matters, and its a pity rules aren't a bit more black and white, but I guess thats just the nature of weather, rules and interpretation.
We're all flying the same aircraft in the same airspace - Perhaps it should be up to the CP's at each company to assess the situation and together make a decision whether it is a fly or 'no fly' day. That way, no company gets a competitive advantage in the eyes of the clients and secondly, pilots taking an objective look a the conditions don't feel pressure when they see another operators aircraft taxying out.
Obviously all pilots must always get the final say as to whether they are willing to fly, but if the rules prohibit flying, then this vague 'shall we / shan't we' mentality just looks unprofessional.
We're all flying the same aircraft in the same airspace - Perhaps it should be up to the CP's at each company to assess the situation and together make a decision whether it is a fly or 'no fly' day. That way, no company gets a competitive advantage in the eyes of the clients and secondly, pilots taking an objective look a the conditions don't feel pressure when they see another operators aircraft taxying out.
Obviously all pilots must always get the final say as to whether they are willing to fly, but if the rules prohibit flying, then this vague 'shall we / shan't we' mentality just looks unprofessional.
Those that took off today from Abz before late morning were in breach of the EC225 Flight Manual limitations section - the limitation on density altitude is there as a result of the risk of divergent oscillation in the cyclic control, which could probably lead at best to overstressing the transmission mountings, and at worst to main transmission detachment.
Its not something that you would nearly get and "whoops - felt it going but just managed to avoid it". You would either get it and not know what hit you, or not get it by the skin of your teeth but have no idea how close you were to disaster. In this case, fortunately it seems to be the latter scenario.
Pilots would not intentionally exceed Vne, torque limits etc, why do they exceed flight envelope limits? I suspect the answer is "out of ignorance of the limits". Its true that some limits are there just because no-one has bothered to test any further, but in the case of this limit, it was tested and found to be potentially catastrophic outside the limit.
Unprofessional is an understatement!
HC
Its not something that you would nearly get and "whoops - felt it going but just managed to avoid it". You would either get it and not know what hit you, or not get it by the skin of your teeth but have no idea how close you were to disaster. In this case, fortunately it seems to be the latter scenario.
Pilots would not intentionally exceed Vne, torque limits etc, why do they exceed flight envelope limits? I suspect the answer is "out of ignorance of the limits". Its true that some limits are there just because no-one has bothered to test any further, but in the case of this limit, it was tested and found to be potentially catastrophic outside the limit.
Unprofessional is an understatement!
HC
RFM density altitude limit is -2000'. Aberdeen got below that?
And you are only at sea level. What happens when someone tries to fly an EC225 in middle-asia from below sea level in the wintertime?
And you are only at sea level. What happens when someone tries to fly an EC225 in middle-asia from below sea level in the wintertime?
Ignorance is bliss, but did those in the smug knowledge of these facts bother to telephone the other operators to advise them of this 'impending disaster' ? Surely it is every pilots responsibility to watch everyone elses back. Just watching them fly outside of the Specified Flight Envelope and not advising them of the fact is worse than the original error.
Hopefully you will strengthen my belief in our 'system' and advise me that you did make all efforts to communicate with the other operators.
Hopefully you will strengthen my belief in our 'system' and advise me that you did make all efforts to communicate with the other operators.
malabo - actually rfm min density altitude for those aircraft with FADEC v11 (I suspect the entire N Sea fleet) is -3500'. Abz was -3800' until mid morning, caused by fairly high pressure and -14C.
Hopefully this is the last winter that we will have this problem, we are promised V12 with new temperature probes, AFCS and VMS software that I think will allow -6000' density altitude. Its supposed to be arriving in the Spring!
HC
Hopefully this is the last winter that we will have this problem, we are promised V12 with new temperature probes, AFCS and VMS software that I think will allow -6000' density altitude. Its supposed to be arriving in the Spring!
HC
Special - I resent you use of the word "smug". Horrified more like. Unfortunately the other operators are not in the habit of advising us before they fly. The problem with the DA limit is that it is (of course!) worst near the ground because as you go up both the pressure altitude and (on days like these) the temperature go up. Having just seen a 225 take off, the worst thing to do would be to call it back down into the low density altitude air again. Better for it to fly around for a few hours whilst the air warms up.
And do you think we should telephone the other operators every time we see one of their's taking off to remind them not to exceed Vne etc? Or should we assume that they are professional type-rated pilots who are familiar with the basic limitations of their aircraft.
Personally I was at home but I dispute the fact that its another operator's responsibility to supervise an operator's flying. That should be the job of the CAA and perhaps those of the oil companies that understand aviation!
HC
And do you think we should telephone the other operators every time we see one of their's taking off to remind them not to exceed Vne etc? Or should we assume that they are professional type-rated pilots who are familiar with the basic limitations of their aircraft.
Personally I was at home but I dispute the fact that its another operator's responsibility to supervise an operator's flying. That should be the job of the CAA and perhaps those of the oil companies that understand aviation!
HC
HeliComparator et al,
Avoidance of the exceedance of RFM limits (under specific environmental conditions) is not the responsibility of the CAA or the oil companies, it is matter of 'dispatch criteria' and 'operational control' and is completely within the competence of the operator.
I find it quite bizarre that anyone should suggest that management of operations should be part of some informal system of communication. It is good that such matters are discussed openly but it is no substitute for the appropriate procedures in the operations manuals.
Those who fly types with this limitation should be looking at the OM and, if the dispatch criteria is not specified, bring it to the attention of the operational management or, better still, file an ASR. Any operator worthy of the title will immediately rectify this omission and bring it to the attention of its staff.
Jim
Avoidance of the exceedance of RFM limits (under specific environmental conditions) is not the responsibility of the CAA or the oil companies, it is matter of 'dispatch criteria' and 'operational control' and is completely within the competence of the operator.
I find it quite bizarre that anyone should suggest that management of operations should be part of some informal system of communication. It is good that such matters are discussed openly but it is no substitute for the appropriate procedures in the operations manuals.
Those who fly types with this limitation should be looking at the OM and, if the dispatch criteria is not specified, bring it to the attention of the operational management or, better still, file an ASR. Any operator worthy of the title will immediately rectify this omission and bring it to the attention of its staff.
Jim
Jim
I didn't quite say that, I said operational supervision (on a general level) was, and I stick by that. Surely that is what we have FOIs for? Isn't that why some oil companies have aviation divisions?
We have no "despatch criteria" in our OM. Some time ago the CAA forced us to align our OM with JAR-OPS 3 (even to the extent of labelling the paras with the corresponding JAR-OPS para number) and there is no requirement in JAR-OPS for a specific section on despatch criteria. My view is that was done to make the matter of compliance with JAR-OPS easy for the CAA to audit, rather than to make the OM a useful document. "Despatch criteria" in terms of weather minima etc are scattered around the OM in a very user unfriendly way, but we were forced into that format.
Anyway, I think pilots should be familiar with the RFM. What is the point in repeating RFM limitations in the OM?
HC
Avoidance of the exceedance of RFM limits (under specific environmental conditions) is not the responsibility of the CAA or the oil companies
We have no "despatch criteria" in our OM. Some time ago the CAA forced us to align our OM with JAR-OPS 3 (even to the extent of labelling the paras with the corresponding JAR-OPS para number) and there is no requirement in JAR-OPS for a specific section on despatch criteria. My view is that was done to make the matter of compliance with JAR-OPS easy for the CAA to audit, rather than to make the OM a useful document. "Despatch criteria" in terms of weather minima etc are scattered around the OM in a very user unfriendly way, but we were forced into that format.
Anyway, I think pilots should be familiar with the RFM. What is the point in repeating RFM limitations in the OM?
HC
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL I'm not sure you have grasped the situation and the banter in the last few posts. It would appear the people who realised the apparent significance of the days DA required a pause in operations belong to one operator who didn't fly. Those who didn't realise belong to the other two and did fly.
People don't stop doing (or ASR) what they don't realise is wrong.
No doubt this thread will cause some reflection and study in two operators.
Incidentally, isn't it the job of the CAA to regulate the current rules and requirements? I assume that means something more than just writing nice rules. Or is it CAA policy to bury their heads in the sand (snow?) and forget who granted the AOCs?
Added: I'm shocked that a CAA inspector would meddle with an OM to make it simply match a generic model and remove safety related information. What sort of irresponsible, lazy, third world regulation is that? Could this explain why the UK CAA's new safety head is an experienced safety / HF professional brought in from outside?
On the subject of rules, by the way, a happy 2010 to all of JARland from the Netherlands!
People don't stop doing (or ASR) what they don't realise is wrong.
No doubt this thread will cause some reflection and study in two operators.
Incidentally, isn't it the job of the CAA to regulate the current rules and requirements? I assume that means something more than just writing nice rules. Or is it CAA policy to bury their heads in the sand (snow?) and forget who granted the AOCs?
Added: I'm shocked that a CAA inspector would meddle with an OM to make it simply match a generic model and remove safety related information. What sort of irresponsible, lazy, third world regulation is that? Could this explain why the UK CAA's new safety head is an experienced safety / HF professional brought in from outside?
On the subject of rules, by the way, a happy 2010 to all of JARland from the Netherlands!
Last edited by sox6; 9th Jan 2010 at 09:26. Reason: Having read HC's simultaneous post
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which temperature are you using for this envelope calculation? Is it the temperature as stated on the actual taken at about 4' above the ground, or the temperature displayed in the aircraft? If it is an in-flight calculation then I would assume you use the aircraft temperature.