SAR Heli down in Almeria
Very sad, very shocking and amazing the winch-op survived!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the company who, when I asked to see the ops manual to check the 18 hour flight duty period they had given me for FDTL restrictions, told me that the manual was 'in Spain' and that if I had any questions I should 'call the CP and ask for clarification'. Needless to say he wasn't in.
The co-pilot that they sent to work with me was also not type rated! I was told that as it was a single pilot helicopter this was 'normal' - even though the customer required a two-crew operation.
My LPC with the company on this aircraft that I had not flown for 3 years was a 15 minute flight where the TRE got lost and we did no emergencies or OEI work.
I didn't stay long.
The co-pilot that they sent to work with me was also not type rated! I was told that as it was a single pilot helicopter this was 'normal' - even though the customer required a two-crew operation.
My LPC with the company on this aircraft that I had not flown for 3 years was a 15 minute flight where the TRE got lost and we did no emergencies or OEI work.
I didn't stay long.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Epiphany - very enlightening! It seems this company was an accident waiting to happen. It just goes to show that JAA/EASA does not necessarily mean a common standard applies throughout Europe. There are corners which still appear very third world in terms of safety standards.
No, it is deliberately excluded on the basis that SAR differs substantially between States and it would be difficult to establish a single standard. (Any standard would have to be at the lowest common denominator or be riddled with exemptions.)
There are a number of reasons for this:
Under these conditions, it is much more effective if the State takes responsibility for its own SAR activities. However States are expected (by ICAO and EASA) to provide a sound/safe basis for operations; under circumstances where SAR is conducted exclusively by a civilian operator, it would therefore be expected to meet the highest standard possible. This would probably include CRM, licensing provisions and an SMS (which stipulated compliance with established SOPs) for multi-crew operations.
Without prejudice to this accident; flights which are designated as multi-crew under operational regulations, have to meet the multi-crew provisions (irrespective of the basis for certification). (A well known example of this would be the requirement for two pilots when operating under IFR with more than 9 passengers.)
Jim
There are a number of reasons for this:
- SAR is an activity that is usually undertaken by the military under ICAO State Aircraft designation and excluded from the Chicago convention - i.e. it does not have to meet SARPs - even when conducted by aircraft with a civil registration operating alongside the military.
- Operations may be over water in one state but over an onshore hostile environment in another.
- SAR may be provided primarily for military aircraft with civil aircraft as a secondary resonsibility.
- Most States do not conduct this as an aerial work activity but have separate provisions (and in any case, ICAO does not have SARPs for Aerial Work).
Under these conditions, it is much more effective if the State takes responsibility for its own SAR activities. However States are expected (by ICAO and EASA) to provide a sound/safe basis for operations; under circumstances where SAR is conducted exclusively by a civilian operator, it would therefore be expected to meet the highest standard possible. This would probably include CRM, licensing provisions and an SMS (which stipulated compliance with established SOPs) for multi-crew operations.
Without prejudice to this accident; flights which are designated as multi-crew under operational regulations, have to meet the multi-crew provisions (irrespective of the basis for certification). (A well known example of this would be the requirement for two pilots when operating under IFR with more than 9 passengers.)
Jim
Last edited by JimL; 9th Jan 2011 at 13:59.
sox6 So what is the status of civil operated, privately funded SAR units (like Bond Jigsaw?) or mutual SAR (like Cougar in New Foundland)?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in this topic:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/461...ml#post7495348
I'd put the direct link to Ministerio de Fomento web site:
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/461...ml#post7495348
I'd put the direct link to Ministerio de Fomento web site:
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night flying over the sea on a calm, dark night with one display inoperative and every transition down to the hover done in manual without using the SAR modes. It's a wonder the sortie lasted as long as it did.
Will the winners of the son of SARH contract in the UK please take note, especially given the minimum hours and experience required for co-pilots in the DfT documents.
I can tell you we were lucky that we had only one accident, and I can tell you that because I was there from day one.
Sadly I even remember how before the accident, some of us were talking about something serious could happen.
Inaer is lowering the experience requirements again, they did that when introducing the aw139, releasing crews without experience in the machine, not enough total time or in the operation.
Now, after that dozens of pilots are going abroad in the last years Inaer is trying to find pilots desperately, even thinking they can find foreign 139 Spanish speaking pilots (a requirement to do SAR)
It's a horribly coincidence that I wrote an article about it, just before the report got out pointing the crew experience as one of the factors.
This is a link using google translator
Google Translate
Regards and fly safe
Sadly I even remember how before the accident, some of us were talking about something serious could happen.
Inaer is lowering the experience requirements again, they did that when introducing the aw139, releasing crews without experience in the machine, not enough total time or in the operation.
Now, after that dozens of pilots are going abroad in the last years Inaer is trying to find pilots desperately, even thinking they can find foreign 139 Spanish speaking pilots (a requirement to do SAR)
It's a horribly coincidence that I wrote an article about it, just before the report got out pointing the crew experience as one of the factors.
This is a link using google translator
Google Translate
Regards and fly safe
Targatop - I would have thought my concern is obvious - a low-time co-pilot with minimal SAR experience in the LHS of a SAR helicopter.
Lack of exposure to a demanding environment, insufficient CRM training and a big cockpit gradient - add to that underuse of the helicopter's SAR programs and you have some holes in the swiss cheese beginning to line up.
The coup de grace is an experienced captain becoming fatigued and making errors of judgement (no height hold or briefed return to base height).
This is what happens when you try to do SAR on the cheap.
Lack of exposure to a demanding environment, insufficient CRM training and a big cockpit gradient - add to that underuse of the helicopter's SAR programs and you have some holes in the swiss cheese beginning to line up.
The coup de grace is an experienced captain becoming fatigued and making errors of judgement (no height hold or briefed return to base height).
This is what happens when you try to do SAR on the cheap.
