SAR Heli down in Almeria
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Anywhere I can fly
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi verticalflight,
I'm with you, but in this case I think they could push for an Interim report.
The ICAO rules it's clear but as you know many times the rules have been made for nothings...
Mak
I'm with you, but in this case I think they could push for an Interim report.
The ICAO rules it's clear but as you know many times the rules have been made for nothings...
Mak
All three bodys have been recovered and the national accident investigation agency is in possesion of the FDR and CVR.
(According to them...) A preliminary accident report will be released in the next days.
(According to them...) A preliminary accident report will be released in the next days.
Survivor statement
The survivor (Alberto Elvira) has reported:
1. They had finished the training sortie with the boat. Swimmer was back in his seat, strapped in. Door was close, and he was tidying up the cabin after the exercise.
2. There was no emergency or warning in the cockpit/cabin prior to the impact. All of a sudden he just found himself in the water, while the helicopter was underwater, going down.
Actual fact? Post-traumatic amnesia?
3. Then there was little he could do in terms of attempting to rescue anybody else in the sinking fuselage, so eventually he jumped into one raft that had deployed (during the impact?). Fired flares and awaited to be rescued. He had developed hypothermia by the time he was rescued.
Alberto was discharged from hospital on 24th Jan 2010
verticalflight
1. They had finished the training sortie with the boat. Swimmer was back in his seat, strapped in. Door was close, and he was tidying up the cabin after the exercise.
2. There was no emergency or warning in the cockpit/cabin prior to the impact. All of a sudden he just found himself in the water, while the helicopter was underwater, going down.
Actual fact? Post-traumatic amnesia?
3. Then there was little he could do in terms of attempting to rescue anybody else in the sinking fuselage, so eventually he jumped into one raft that had deployed (during the impact?). Fired flares and awaited to be rescued. He had developed hypothermia by the time he was rescued.
Alberto was discharged from hospital on 24th Jan 2010
verticalflight
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cayuse take off your tin foil hat for a moment. The 'national authorities' are reported to have the CVR FDR not Agusta. Not everything is a conspiracy.
I recall an accident in the US were 2 months after the NTSB were still missing key evidence because they had washed it off the wreckage.
I recall an accident in the US were 2 months after the NTSB were still missing key evidence because they had washed it off the wreckage.
Manufacturers don't normally "get their hands on" data recorders. The investigating authority of the State of Registration (in this case) is responsible for getting the data read.
Normally (but not always) it will go to the closest laboratory that is set up to extract and analyse the data (P&G UK would be a good place to send it, after all, they made it!).
Agusta will have a representative on the investigation, if the local authority has asked for them to supply someone, but when it comes to FDR/CVR data, Agusta will have to wait just like the rest of us.
WHEN they get access to the data, then they can make any necessary decisions with respect to flight or maintenance procedures, if they need to.
IF anything needs to be said now, then they will say something.
IF there is no definitive cause staring them in the face, they will not say anything to prevent mindless pointless speculation, which does not help the investigation any.
"They" being the investigating authority, or Agusta.
Normally (but not always) it will go to the closest laboratory that is set up to extract and analyse the data (P&G UK would be a good place to send it, after all, they made it!).
Agusta will have a representative on the investigation, if the local authority has asked for them to supply someone, but when it comes to FDR/CVR data, Agusta will have to wait just like the rest of us.
WHEN they get access to the data, then they can make any necessary decisions with respect to flight or maintenance procedures, if they need to.
IF anything needs to be said now, then they will say something.
IF there is no definitive cause staring them in the face, they will not say anything to prevent mindless pointless speculation, which does not help the investigation any.
"They" being the investigating authority, or Agusta.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Norway
Age: 44
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are a few threads about lack of training and standards in Inaer, can you say a little more about that?
I'm quite interested in SAR-ops, and have had Inaer as one possible option, since we don't have civil SAR in Norway.
I have also visited Inaer's bases in Bilbao and Albacete during a ferry-flight of a AS 350 B3 they were going to dry-lease from my company, and I remember beeing impressed by the amount and level of training I saw at those bases. But that was VFR emergencies, I suppose the comments in this thread concerns IFR training and CRM-training?
Please explain what you mean by low standards.
I'm quite interested in SAR-ops, and have had Inaer as one possible option, since we don't have civil SAR in Norway.
I have also visited Inaer's bases in Bilbao and Albacete during a ferry-flight of a AS 350 B3 they were going to dry-lease from my company, and I remember beeing impressed by the amount and level of training I saw at those bases. But that was VFR emergencies, I suppose the comments in this thread concerns IFR training and CRM-training?
Please explain what you mean by low standards.
Inaer training standard
Hi CharlieDontSurf,
The following are facts about INAER training and operation standards (SASEMAR / Coastguard contract).
Now I leave it up to you to decide whether that’s high or low standard. If you wish to find more about these facts, you can PM me.
Regards,
verticalflight
The following are facts about INAER training and operation standards (SASEMAR / Coastguard contract).
- Pilot initial training is completed at either AgustaWestland Training Academy or INAER TRTO. In both cases, pilots are issued with a Single Pilot Type Rating. No further Multi-Crew training is completed at a subsequent stage.
- Although the initial (Single Pilot) type rating includes the IR, neither AgustaWestland nor INAER conduct the Instrument Flight section of the skill test in the aircraft under real or simulated IMC (no IF screens or hood). Therefore giving the mild weather of the locations, candidates are checked on their instrument flight skills while they can look out through the window in VMC. But they still receive a type rating that will allow them to fly a AW139 down on an ILS to minima.
- Pilots or crewmen do not receive Helicopter Underwater Escape Training (HUET), despite the fact that SASEMAR contract calls for this to be in place. Could this training ahve made a difference in this accident?
- Pilots do not receive MCC training in accordance to JAR-FCL2, hence no Multi crew type rating is in place.
- Pilots do not receive CRM or SAR CRM training (management may argue that CRM training is completed during the initial SAR training, but read below and ask yourself whether that's feasible).
- SAR initial training is limited to five to seven days of training. During these days, you spend a few hours in the crew room with a trainer that tends to be the Commander on-duty, thus his attention to the training tends to be limited. In terms of flight hours, you may complete 7 to 8 hours of training, during which they will try to cover all missions that the SAR service should be prepared for, day and night. After that, you will be on duty with any commander (no a line trainer or SAR instructor) at your new base. No additional training (base familiarisation or line training) is given other than the recurrent training (see below).
- Monthly recurrent training is limited to 2.5 hours day and 2.5 hours night (flown with normal crew members, with no SAR instructors or line trainers). These training hours may be reduced if actual missions are completed. The average pilot logs around 90 flight hours per year.
Now I leave it up to you to decide whether that’s high or low standard. If you wish to find more about these facts, you can PM me.
Regards,
verticalflight
Last edited by verticalflight; 9th Feb 2010 at 20:12.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Uranus
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Verticalflight is right.
Average annual flight hours are less than 90 hours per pilot.
NO MCC.
NO CRM.
NO proper SAR Course.
There are copilots with few hours (<500 flight hours) with no IR experience. Many captains have no experience on overwater operations.
Average annual flight hours are less than 90 hours per pilot.
NO MCC.
NO CRM.
NO proper SAR Course.
There are copilots with few hours (<500 flight hours) with no IR experience. Many captains have no experience on overwater operations.
Dantruck
Dantruck,
I'm deeply sorry for your loss. I would never use a sad situation like the present to ‘spin’ some rumours or unfounded information. These are facts that could be easily proven, by simply asking pilots about their ratings, the length of the training completed to date, and whether IF screens were used during IF training / checking or not.
I have refrained from commenting about the quality of the training, because that opens a can of worms that would distract us from the facts. If somebody is willing to go that route, then I could comment on that area as well.
The above list is just a few of the many problems that Inaer operations have. As ‘Perrito Piloto’ has done, I’m certain that other Spaniards in this forum could confirm my statement.
Why this hasn’t come up before? I personally (and now this is my personal opinion) believe that it is due to the very comfortable position that Inaer enjoys within the Spanish market. They have a monopoly of the helicopter industry in Spain, which works against both pilots and customers.
Pilots that in other operations / countries would not get any close to the machine due to the lack of training, SOPs, etc. have no option but to put up with the deficiencies of the system, do the job, get their pay cheque (SASEMAR pilots are relatively well paid), and go home.
Most of the pilots are extremely hard workers and have a big heart for the job (as most SAR pilots would), however they cannot develop their professionalism due to the above-mentioned problems.
Again, if you wish to know more about these problems, or if the moderator of this forums believes that giving the severity of this statements I should support my position with additional information, please PM me.
Best regards,
verticalflight
I'm deeply sorry for your loss. I would never use a sad situation like the present to ‘spin’ some rumours or unfounded information. These are facts that could be easily proven, by simply asking pilots about their ratings, the length of the training completed to date, and whether IF screens were used during IF training / checking or not.
I have refrained from commenting about the quality of the training, because that opens a can of worms that would distract us from the facts. If somebody is willing to go that route, then I could comment on that area as well.
The above list is just a few of the many problems that Inaer operations have. As ‘Perrito Piloto’ has done, I’m certain that other Spaniards in this forum could confirm my statement.
Why this hasn’t come up before? I personally (and now this is my personal opinion) believe that it is due to the very comfortable position that Inaer enjoys within the Spanish market. They have a monopoly of the helicopter industry in Spain, which works against both pilots and customers.
Pilots that in other operations / countries would not get any close to the machine due to the lack of training, SOPs, etc. have no option but to put up with the deficiencies of the system, do the job, get their pay cheque (SASEMAR pilots are relatively well paid), and go home.
Most of the pilots are extremely hard workers and have a big heart for the job (as most SAR pilots would), however they cannot develop their professionalism due to the above-mentioned problems.
Again, if you wish to know more about these problems, or if the moderator of this forums believes that giving the severity of this statements I should support my position with additional information, please PM me.
Best regards,
verticalflight
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
According to the JAA definitions, if you are operating an aircraft (even one certified for single-crew operation) in a multi-crew operation, as defined by the ops manual or by national regulations, then it is de facto a multi-pilot helicopter, and you need a multi-pilot type rating.
Surely the operators knew this... why did the national authority inspectors not pick it up?
Surely the operators knew this... why did the national authority inspectors not pick it up?
Last edited by Non-PC Plod; 10th Feb 2010 at 15:57.
Non-PC Plod,
Anybody with experience in a well regulated environment would think as you do. I do. However in Spain the case is different.
The ‘Dirección de Aviación Civil’ has granted all sort of exemptions to the helicopter industry (you can read ‘Inaer’ if you wish, since they are ‘the Spanish Helicopter Industry’).
For instance, since 2003 operators are exempt from producing (and obviously using) a MEL. So pilots are only left with the MMEL which is useless since much of the equipment that you may have on board (specially on a SAR aircraft), is not mentioned. Pilots then rarely refer to this MMEL since it doesn’t give you any answer. They simply make up their mind on whether they’ll ‘go or not go’ based on their common sense. But nobody will dare to write a MEL that may say ‘no go’.
In terms of licensing, in mid 2009, some of the operations that Inaer have, including SASEMAR (Coastguard) were taken off the category of ‘Aerial Work’ to a category of ‘pseudo-government operation’. That move exempted all those operations from complying with JAR-OPS 3 and JAR-FCL 2. The other piece of legislation that Spain has, the ‘Reglamento de Circulación Aérea’ has little to do with this category as well. So, with this legal frame, operators are left to write their own rules.
So, to answer your question, the authority is indeed aware that the SASEMAR SAR AW139s are being flown by pilots with Single-Pilot type rating, with no CRM, no MCC, and some with no IR.
Furthermore, most of the commanders and SAR trainers of the SASEMAR operation only hold a CPL(H). Only a handful of them (I could count them with the fingers of one hand) have an ATPL(H).
Since JAR-OPS 3 doesn’t apply, there is no OM Part B, or Part E for the AW139. It is a fact that the SAR Manual does not mention the AW139 at all. So no SOPs for the aircraft, other than a few photocopies of some ‘guides and ideas’ left by the SAR trainer during his last visit 6 months ago. No SOPs, obviously you cannot train on MCC, neither you can run a Multi-Crew Type Rating course. It doesn’t matter… it’s not required by the authority.
In terms of HUET, obviously it is not a JAR requirement. However it is a SASEMAR requirement in the contract technical specifications, but everybody has turned a blind eye to this clause. Sadly, it may have been too late for some.
How can this happen? ‘Ministerio de Fomento’ is in charge of ‘Dirección de Aviación Civil’ and ‘SASEMAR’. And 66% of Inaer operations come from one customer: The government. (Please refer to the links in my previous post if you want to confirm this information). I leave up to you to draw your own conclusions.
The union is up in arms but they have very little negotiating power, pilots talk about this everyday in private, but in the outside world silence is deafening!
As usual, if you with to know more about this, please PM me.
Regards,
verticalflight
Anybody with experience in a well regulated environment would think as you do. I do. However in Spain the case is different.
The ‘Dirección de Aviación Civil’ has granted all sort of exemptions to the helicopter industry (you can read ‘Inaer’ if you wish, since they are ‘the Spanish Helicopter Industry’).
For instance, since 2003 operators are exempt from producing (and obviously using) a MEL. So pilots are only left with the MMEL which is useless since much of the equipment that you may have on board (specially on a SAR aircraft), is not mentioned. Pilots then rarely refer to this MMEL since it doesn’t give you any answer. They simply make up their mind on whether they’ll ‘go or not go’ based on their common sense. But nobody will dare to write a MEL that may say ‘no go’.
In terms of licensing, in mid 2009, some of the operations that Inaer have, including SASEMAR (Coastguard) were taken off the category of ‘Aerial Work’ to a category of ‘pseudo-government operation’. That move exempted all those operations from complying with JAR-OPS 3 and JAR-FCL 2. The other piece of legislation that Spain has, the ‘Reglamento de Circulación Aérea’ has little to do with this category as well. So, with this legal frame, operators are left to write their own rules.
So, to answer your question, the authority is indeed aware that the SASEMAR SAR AW139s are being flown by pilots with Single-Pilot type rating, with no CRM, no MCC, and some with no IR.
Furthermore, most of the commanders and SAR trainers of the SASEMAR operation only hold a CPL(H). Only a handful of them (I could count them with the fingers of one hand) have an ATPL(H).
Since JAR-OPS 3 doesn’t apply, there is no OM Part B, or Part E for the AW139. It is a fact that the SAR Manual does not mention the AW139 at all. So no SOPs for the aircraft, other than a few photocopies of some ‘guides and ideas’ left by the SAR trainer during his last visit 6 months ago. No SOPs, obviously you cannot train on MCC, neither you can run a Multi-Crew Type Rating course. It doesn’t matter… it’s not required by the authority.
In terms of HUET, obviously it is not a JAR requirement. However it is a SASEMAR requirement in the contract technical specifications, but everybody has turned a blind eye to this clause. Sadly, it may have been too late for some.
How can this happen? ‘Ministerio de Fomento’ is in charge of ‘Dirección de Aviación Civil’ and ‘SASEMAR’. And 66% of Inaer operations come from one customer: The government. (Please refer to the links in my previous post if you want to confirm this information). I leave up to you to draw your own conclusions.
The union is up in arms but they have very little negotiating power, pilots talk about this everyday in private, but in the outside world silence is deafening!
As usual, if you with to know more about this, please PM me.
Regards,
verticalflight
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Good Grief! Why arent the tabloid newspapers clamouring for government and regulator resignations? Is this all common knowledge in Spain?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: holland
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xperience
pretty horific what you are saying VF. I can see how they can work around jar-ops by calling it government work, but still.....In Holland the military are obeying to a military version of jar-ops. Why? Because the people who thought of writing the jar-ops had really good reasons for it (safety for 1 of the primary reasons).
One can only hope that the crews who fly on the SASEMAR contract have sh*t lot's of xperience to fall back on to. 90 hours a year is by far not enough to build xperience in a demanding role as SAR!
regards ND
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Faroe Island
Age: 56
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
reading this treads points the accident to a pilot or crew error, is there any news regarding the accident and what really happen ??
The crew could be very high skilled reg. hours, courses, previous flying/training etc. so isn't it to soon to say it's lack of skills/training.
The crew could be very high skilled reg. hours, courses, previous flying/training etc. so isn't it to soon to say it's lack of skills/training.