Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Poor weather options

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Poor weather options

Old 22nd Mar 2010, 20:36
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Left of the middle
Posts: 141
If I recall correctly, and I'm sure I'll get barked at if I'm wrong...


No barking but I'd suggest you look at:

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/2008901...ficationV3.pdf

Even in class F and G airspace - "Helicopters at a speed which, having regard to the visibility is reasonable: clear of cloud with the surface in sight in a flight visibility of at least 1500 metres"

TTT

Ps Now what about that height AGL that you're prepared to go down to remain VFR?

Last edited by Talk the Torque; 22nd Mar 2010 at 20:38. Reason: Typo
Talk the Torque is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 20:52
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 908
I got a little confused there with the question. Of course the VFR limits below 3000 feet for a helicopter includes a vis of 1500m. My point was that my personal limit is to look out the window and only fly as far as I can see. That could be more or less than 1500m, but how do you measure that?
Ps Now what about that height AGL that you're prepared to go down to remain VFR?
Don't know, I suppose it depends on the terrain (probably 200 ft.). I have landed on several occasions when it got too bad. Nice of you to ask.
chopjock is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 21:26
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Left of the middle
Posts: 141
I fear, as I am sure that many on this thread do, that you are ill prepared for flights such as in Crab's account.

At 200 feet AGL and poor visibility, how do you plan to keep within the 500 foot rule whilst navigating and trying to keep VMC? (let alone maintaining ATC contact to try and avoid any other aircraft)

Right now I would be asking myself why I am in the minority on this thread thinking that this is acceptable, especially considering the company we're keeping.

I would ask you to reconsider whether those limits that you have indicated are legal, safe, or suitable for a VFR flight. If you consider that they are acceptable, I would then ask that you fly alone and not over any populated areas (of course you won't be in accordance with the 500 foot rule) and I would wish you the very best of luck, because you will need it.

TTT
Talk the Torque is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 21:32
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: In a control room with no radar...
Posts: 179
Originally Posted by chopjock View Post
Yes, with a safety pilot whilst doing an instrument awareness course. Scared the hell out of me and I won't go there.
Really? With the attitude you're showing I wouldn't be so quick to shunt that aside.
Scott Diamond is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 21:48
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 908
Thanks for the advice TTT
chopjock is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 22:46
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
I have read this thread with interest and conclude that the AAIB will only get busier with attitudes such as that demonstrated by Chopjock.
Fly_For_Fun is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 23:02
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 908
I have read this thread with interest and conclude that the AAIB will only get busier with attitudes such as that demonstrated by Chopjock.
An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one. The "piston jockey" mentioned in the first post apparently had a similar attitude and did he crash in IMC? I think not, because he flew skillfully within his limitations and experience. Did he wish he was somewhere else? probably yes. Did he complete his journey safely? probably yes. Was he legal? probably yes. Will there be an AAIB investigation? Probably not.
chopjock is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 23:18
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Near the bottom
Age: 60
Posts: 1,333
chopjock - your arrogance is extraordinary. It's that same arrogance that will get you and your unfortunate pax into some scary flying (if you're lucky) and dead (if you're not).

I think you should re-read this thread from the top and instead of trying to respond with half-baked, smart-arse sarcasm, you should at least acknowledge the vast experience of the many contributors to this thread who know what they're talking about. Judging from flingingwing's post #38 in this thread (which I note you chose to ignore), you haven't learned from your mistakes. Worse still, you're not prepared to learn from others' mistakes either.

As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.

TTB
toptobottom is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 23:19
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: upyours
Posts: 294
Chopjock, I do not aim to change your attitude, that is clearly impossible reading this thread, I mearly point out that the AAIB may be busier because of it.
Fly_For_Fun is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 23:24
  #50 (permalink)  
TRC
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 506
Chopjock

In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.

They are all dead.

I wish you - and your passengers - the best of luck.
TRC is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2010, 23:49
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one.
Not directly, but it does create the conditions by which you outfly your abilities, and that hurts people.

Someone who's (apparently) only satisfied the requirements for the PPL(H) perhaps should consider that the path of prudence is likely not telling the numerous ATPL, CPL, Instructors both Civil and Military, and SAR Professionals on this forum about the direct and indirect effects of "attitude".
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 00:39
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 908
TTB
As someone else pointed out, you really are an accident waiting to happen, but your arrogance won't let you see it.
You are right, I don't see why. But accidents may happen to the best of us, whether we are arrogant or not.

FFF
I do not aim to change your attitude, that is clearly impossible reading this thread, I mearly point out that the AAIB may be busier because of it.
I can't for the life of me figure why the AAIB would be busier as a result of reading this thread or because I may have a bad attitude.

TRC
In the 37 years of my involvement in civil helicopters in the UK, I have met several people with your attitude to aviation.

They are all dead.
Why did they die? because of a bad attitude? or they flying beyond their limitations?

um lifting

Not directly, but it does create the conditions by which you outfly your abilities, and that hurts people.
I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.

But I apologise for having a different point of view to all of you on here. It is a forum and I usually like to be controversial and argue the "other corner".
Kind of a wind up if you didn't guess.
chopjock is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 00:52
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 415
I disagree, my "attitude" does not create conditions by which I outfly my abbilities. I have all ready stated I fly within my limitations.
Then we agree to disagree. In a few decades of professional flying, every person I've met with an attitude like yours has left flying, either because they were sacked, bent metal, or changed their attitude.

I daresay my observations are probably more comprehensive than yours. Professionally, I wouldn't fly with you.
Um... lifting... is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 01:08
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Where I'm pointing...
Posts: 583
Originally Posted by chopjock View Post
An "attitude" doesn't hurt any one.
I will go one step beyond Um.. and say that it does.

Being fit to fly depends on more than just a pilot’s physical condition and recency of experience. Having a Hazardous attitude, and being in an accident can land you in hot water, not just risking the safety of yourself or others.

So much so that the FAA and NTSB explicitly identify Five Hazardous attitudes that would deem you not fit to fly, and if you are not fit to fly, you are highly likely to hurt someone, including yourself.

1. Anti-Authority:
"Don't tell me."

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, "No one can tell me what to do." They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary. However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.

2. Impulsivity:
"Do it quickly."

This is the attitude of people who frequently feel the need to do something, anything, immediately. They do not stop to think about what they are about to do; they do not select the best alternative, and they do the first thing that comes to mind.

3. Invulnerability:
"It won't happen to me."

Many people feel that accidents happen to others, but never to them. They know accidents can happen, and they know that anyone can be affected. They never really feel or believe that they will be personally involved. Pilots who think this way are more likely to take chances and increase risk.

4. Macho:
"I can do it."

Pilots who are always trying to prove that they are better than anyone else are thinking, "I can do it –I'll show them." Pilots with this type of attitude will try to prove themselves by taking risks in order to impress others. While this pattern is thought to be a male characteristic, women are equally susceptible.

5. Resignation:
"What's the use?"

Pilots who think, "What's the use?" do not see themselves as being able to make a great deal of difference in what happens to them. When things go well, the pilot is apt to think that it is good luck. When things go badly, the pilot may feel that someone is out to get me, or attribute it to bad luck. The pilot will leave the action to others, for better or worse. Sometimes, such pilots will even go along with unreasonable requests just to be a "nice guy."
I would gather that repeatedly demonstrating Hazardous attitudes could land one in trouble with your regulator. (Flying Lawyer, could you comment on the CAA?)

chopjock, there is no reason to be defensive in this, I certainly can't see an upside for you, on the forum or in real life.

My experience with Rotorheads vs. rest of PPRuNe on balance is a good group of participants with a sense of camaraderie and support. (And a healthy tolerance of private pilots like myself)

This is definitely a situation where I would not fight their advice on this definition.
birrddog is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 01:34
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 62
Posts: 908
Birrddog
I see you have come up with quite a list of Hazardous attitudes, do you also have a list of positive attitudes?

Either way, they are still attitudes.
I've just apologised and now you have me going again. Sorry.

I suppose I do suffer from "anti-authority" sometimes,

However, it is always your prerogative to question authority if you feel it is in error.
chopjock is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 03:19
  #56 (permalink)  
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 1,643
I think CJ wins one of two awards here;

1. Most successful wind up of the professional fraternity of rotary pilots.

or:

2. Rotary pilot most likely to arrive at his own smoking hole any time soon.

He should wear either award with pride...
Two's in is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 03:42
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AFRICA
Posts: 153
Devil

Without full details this thread is completly stupid

1500 m VIS is enough for special VFR in most countries, then 200ft OVC is the minimum for an ILS

Is the aircraft IFR certified ? single crew ?

With this weather conditions you have nothing to do there in VFR (stay in bed or in your favorite bar), if you are IFR where is the problem, just do what the company pay you for you have minimums for the approach

If you were in VFR flight you should have landed long before weather get that bad, when pilots will know and follow official rules then the sky will be a safe place...

Just follow the rules, simple

Last edited by froggy_pilot; 23rd Mar 2010 at 03:48. Reason: Added the last line
froggy_pilot is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 04:27
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 53
Posts: 4,599
Without wishing to stir up a hornet's nest, and with the greatest of respect for all the private owners on this forum, it's a fact that to privately own and operate a helicopter requires a degree of wealth that most people would consider to be rich. I think most of us agree that money doesn't grow on trees and that, by-and-large, 'normal' occupations do not allow one to become 'rich.' It is generally true that those who become rich through their own endeavours (as opposed to inheritance or lottery wins) do so because of their strong characters and personalities enabling them to succeed in their chosen enterprise - be it business or sports or entertainment.

Sadly, some of the character traits that lead to such success are mutually incompatible with the traits required of a safe pilot. Steve Hislop and Colin McCrae stand out as well known examples, but there are many more less well known owner/pilots who have met similar ends.

I do not wish to tar every owner with the same brush, of course, and many many owners on this forum demonstrate excellent commitment to safety and understanding. I even know of one owner (of an EC-155) who paid for a CPL/IR and then flew periodically with an operator to 'professionalise' himself (admitedly he also had a full time pilot employee.)

Flame me if you wish, but from a basic human factors perspective, I believe the above to be true.
212man is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 07:51
  #59 (permalink)  

Hovering AND talking
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 55
Posts: 5,711
Like many threads in which chopjock has participated, I suspect (or should that be "hope") it's a wind-up. Otherwise ...



Cheers

Whirls
Whirlygig is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2010, 08:48
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 865
Whilst not accepting the arguments put forward by Chopjock, he does have a correct understanding of the (somewhat liberal and soon to be replaced) regulations of the UK.

Sadly, they do not agree with those provided in the pamphlet referenced by Talk The Torque; they are also not in compliance with ICAO Annex 2 - Rules of the Air:
Flight outside controlled airspace

28.—
(1) Subject to paragraph (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace at or above flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 8 km.

(2) Subject to paragraphs (3), (4), (5) and (6), an aircraft flying outside controlled airspace below flight level 100 shall remain at least 1,500 metres horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically away from cloud and in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.

(3) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(c)is in a flight visibility of at least 5 km.
(4) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to an aircraft which is not a helicopter and which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, according to its air speed indicator, is 140 knots or less;
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight; and
(d)is in a flight visibility of at least 1,500 metres.
(5) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which—
(a)flies at or below 3,000 feet above mean sea level;
(b)flies at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable; and
(c)remains clear of cloud with the surface in sight.
(6) Paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not apply to a helicopter which is air-taxiing or conducting manoeuvres in accordance with rule 6(i)
JimL is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.