Bristow mating exercise : fail
Thread Starter
Bristow mating exercise : fail
From The Stuart News:
STUART, FL — During what was to be a helicopter routine shutdown after landing at Witham Field, a pilot-in-training unexpectedly lifted off and began rotating just above the ground at 5:10 p.m. Saturday, according to reports released Tuesday.
The helicopter moved south and the tail rotor swung toward the instructor pilot who had just exited the aircraft — leaving a 24-year-old pilot to shut down the helicopter. But the ground crew shoved the instructor pilot out of harms way, according to a Martin County Sheriff's report.
Then the aircraft hit the ground, turned left and clipped the fuel tank of another training helicopter — causing fuel to spill out. Finally the first helicopter rolled on its right side. The pilot-in-training, Adeniyi Akinuli, of Titusville, was treated and released from Martin Memorial North, according to the report.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident.
Both helicopters are from the Bristow Flight Academy in Brevard County and were on cross-country flight trainings when they landed for refueling at Galaxy aviation service company at Witham Field, according to the sheriff's report.
No further details were released Tuesday. Akinuli or a flight academy spokesman couldn't be reached for comment.
STUART, FL — During what was to be a helicopter routine shutdown after landing at Witham Field, a pilot-in-training unexpectedly lifted off and began rotating just above the ground at 5:10 p.m. Saturday, according to reports released Tuesday.
The helicopter moved south and the tail rotor swung toward the instructor pilot who had just exited the aircraft — leaving a 24-year-old pilot to shut down the helicopter. But the ground crew shoved the instructor pilot out of harms way, according to a Martin County Sheriff's report.
Then the aircraft hit the ground, turned left and clipped the fuel tank of another training helicopter — causing fuel to spill out. Finally the first helicopter rolled on its right side. The pilot-in-training, Adeniyi Akinuli, of Titusville, was treated and released from Martin Memorial North, according to the report.
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the incident.
Both helicopters are from the Bristow Flight Academy in Brevard County and were on cross-country flight trainings when they landed for refueling at Galaxy aviation service company at Witham Field, according to the sheriff's report.
No further details were released Tuesday. Akinuli or a flight academy spokesman couldn't be reached for comment.
Why is it I assume the student pilot really only "temporarily" resides in Titusville?
....and there I wuz thinking about buying a house in Stuart!
....and there I wuz thinking about buying a house in Stuart!
Hmmmm..... unless the "student" had a license or at least a solo sign off, I can see some trouble for the "instructor"..... Leaving the controls of a running helicopter in the hands of a non-pilot..... Be interesting to see the FAA response on this one.
Surely he would have gone solo already, prior to commencing cross-country training?
He's probably one of the many contract students from Bristow Nigeria and YES he had the solo endorsement so it was ok for the instructor to get out of the helicopter. I experienced myself that some of the Schweizers have the tendency to get light on the skids because the collectives of some machines are a bit "jumpy" and want to rise by themselfes slowly.
That's why every instructor teaches "never let go of the controls when rotors are turning unless enough friction is on". I'm not saying this was the cause in this case though.
Greetings
That's why every instructor teaches "never let go of the controls when rotors are turning unless enough friction is on". I'm not saying this was the cause in this case though.
Greetings
This is not the first time this sort of thing has happened and it will not be the last!
Remember when the MV-22 was doing a ground run....one of the FADEC's decided to go high side.....the system increased pitch on the prop rotor to control prop rotor RPM and the old girl jumped six-eight feet into the air....the FADEC's swapped over...and she came crashing back down...breaking off one wing in the process.
I reckon with sophistication it only gets more interesting when things go wrong!
Remember when the MV-22 was doing a ground run....one of the FADEC's decided to go high side.....the system increased pitch on the prop rotor to control prop rotor RPM and the old girl jumped six-eight feet into the air....the FADEC's swapped over...and she came crashing back down...breaking off one wing in the process.
I reckon with sophistication it only gets more interesting when things go wrong!
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spread that Rumor!
Ahh Gordy - PPrune at its best - so you don't really know what certification the student pilot held? Do you? 
And you are just stirring the pot? I suppose when you see the FAA response you will know the facts! Won't you?
And you are just stirring the pot? I suppose when you see the FAA response you will know the facts! Won't you?
autoranger:
I do not believe I did claim to know....here is what I put:
I actually asked the question not to stir the pot, but maybe as a "hint" to some newer instructors who do in fact get out and allow the "student" to shut down the aircraft.
Do you really want me to start on some of the things that went on.... Removed because it would only embarrass your school.... I could carry on, but then again we don't want "Pprune at its best" now do we????
Ahh Gordy - PPrune at its best - so you don't really know what certification the student pilot held? Do you?
unless the "student" had a license
Do you really want me to start on some of the things that went on.... Removed because it would only embarrass your school.... I could carry on, but then again we don't want "Pprune at its best" now do we????
Last edited by Gordy; 20th Jan 2011 at 03:49. Reason: Removed big chunk---served no purpose other than to embarrass
autoranger:
Just to throw this one out there:
1. Assuming the "student" holds a solo sign off---this will still fall back onto the CFI, as the "student" is effectively operating on the CFI's signature until such times as he has been deemed competent by the FAA to act as PIC after being issued at a minimum a private license.
2. Now let us assume the "student" has a private license. The "instructor" was "presumed" to be giving instruction by the fact that he holds a CFI license, (I am assuming this for the purpose of this discussion---under certain circumstances he could give instruction without holding a CFI license). So, now he gets out and tells the "student" to shut down the aircraft....one assumes that the "instructor" will normally log the time as instruction given----thereby making himself liable, AND being the PIC for the purpose of the flight in the eyes of the FAA.
Let us assume that the "instructor" holds a CFI license and that this was an "instruction" flight. Determining who is the PIC on such a training flight is a factual issue depending upon the stories of the parties involved, (one of the parties being Bristow Academy). If a CFI gives, or agrees to give dual, then in the event of an accident or enforcement action for a violation, the FAA will probably go after the CFI, using the rationale in the Walkup decision below, (which I have cited before), emphasis added by me:
In determining whether the CFI aboard the aircraft was the PIC (in this case, subsequent to an accident, the CFI denied it) the judge in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988) said:
"... Similarly, the amount of time or whether the person is current and qualified would not in and of itself be dispositive. You could have a 15,000 hour Captain for one of the major airlines but if he's transitioning up to a 767, when he's being given instruction, he is still the student and the instructor pilot is the individual who is pilot-in-command of the aircraft." ...
"... Even if one is current and qualified, if you don't feel comfortable about doing particular types of maneuvers, whether its take-offs and landings or chandelles or whatever if you ask the flight instructor to check you out and to give you comments to improve your performance you are receiving flight instruction."
In perhaps the most important reasoning of the case (for CFI's), The judge in Walkup continued:
"... The mere fact of holding designation as certificated flight instructor doesn't mean that you are, ipso facto, pilot-in-command if you're aboard the aircraft. That is, possession of that certificate doesn't magically convert you into pilot-in-command as soon as you step aboard any particular aircraft, even if it is one in which you are type rated or current in. What makes the flight instructor the pilot-in-command is when he assumes that position as pilot-in-command by giving or agreeing to give flight instruction. "
This case is still valid precedent and has been cited at least twice since then in other FAA certificate enforcement actions.
So, YES, I stand by my original statement:
There is a way the "instructor" would NOT be liable and NOT face enforcement action, but alas is probably too late as I am sure he/she has given statements to the contrary by now..... but, IF, the purpose of the flight was for the student to log time, and that "student" held at least a private license in rotorcraft/helicopter, was flying in the designated "pilot seat", and the "person in the left seat" was there purely as a passenger, and this had been agreed upon BEFORE the flight, and NOBODY, (including Bristow Academy), were to dispute this, and it was preferably in writing---then the "person in the left seat" would not be liable regardless of what certificate or rating they held. And yes---as some people on here know---I am studying law, and am infinitely familiar with FAA enforcement actions. Feel free to "donate" to my education fund for the advice given........
Just to throw this one out there:
1. Assuming the "student" holds a solo sign off---this will still fall back onto the CFI, as the "student" is effectively operating on the CFI's signature until such times as he has been deemed competent by the FAA to act as PIC after being issued at a minimum a private license.
2. Now let us assume the "student" has a private license. The "instructor" was "presumed" to be giving instruction by the fact that he holds a CFI license, (I am assuming this for the purpose of this discussion---under certain circumstances he could give instruction without holding a CFI license). So, now he gets out and tells the "student" to shut down the aircraft....one assumes that the "instructor" will normally log the time as instruction given----thereby making himself liable, AND being the PIC for the purpose of the flight in the eyes of the FAA.
Let us assume that the "instructor" holds a CFI license and that this was an "instruction" flight. Determining who is the PIC on such a training flight is a factual issue depending upon the stories of the parties involved, (one of the parties being Bristow Academy). If a CFI gives, or agrees to give dual, then in the event of an accident or enforcement action for a violation, the FAA will probably go after the CFI, using the rationale in the Walkup decision below, (which I have cited before), emphasis added by me:
In determining whether the CFI aboard the aircraft was the PIC (in this case, subsequent to an accident, the CFI denied it) the judge in Administrator v. Walkup, 6 NTSB 36 (1988) said:
"... Similarly, the amount of time or whether the person is current and qualified would not in and of itself be dispositive. You could have a 15,000 hour Captain for one of the major airlines but if he's transitioning up to a 767, when he's being given instruction, he is still the student and the instructor pilot is the individual who is pilot-in-command of the aircraft." ...
"... Even if one is current and qualified, if you don't feel comfortable about doing particular types of maneuvers, whether its take-offs and landings or chandelles or whatever if you ask the flight instructor to check you out and to give you comments to improve your performance you are receiving flight instruction."
In perhaps the most important reasoning of the case (for CFI's), The judge in Walkup continued:
"... The mere fact of holding designation as certificated flight instructor doesn't mean that you are, ipso facto, pilot-in-command if you're aboard the aircraft. That is, possession of that certificate doesn't magically convert you into pilot-in-command as soon as you step aboard any particular aircraft, even if it is one in which you are type rated or current in. What makes the flight instructor the pilot-in-command is when he assumes that position as pilot-in-command by giving or agreeing to give flight instruction. "
This case is still valid precedent and has been cited at least twice since then in other FAA certificate enforcement actions.
So, YES, I stand by my original statement:
Be interesting to see the FAA response on this one.
And I was wondering why I get more and more reluctant to send students solo as I get older...
SOmetimes I wonder what the heck I was thinking.
Thankfully now we have a rule that NOONE goes solo without a minimum of 20 hours, and I don't let any of my instructors step out until the student is qualified to do the job at hand (i.e. shut down as the case may be).
STILL gives food for thought tho..
Cheers Gordy, wish we could sit down over a beer one day, next time you are in Michigan, let me know, I'm just across the border into Canada...
SOmetimes I wonder what the heck I was thinking.
Thankfully now we have a rule that NOONE goes solo without a minimum of 20 hours, and I don't let any of my instructors step out until the student is qualified to do the job at hand (i.e. shut down as the case may be).
STILL gives food for thought tho..
Cheers Gordy, wish we could sit down over a beer one day, next time you are in Michigan, let me know, I'm just across the border into Canada...
Winnie:
You are welcome. Many years ago I instigated similar rules. All students had to pass a "stage check" with a senior instructor prior to going solo. This check allowed us to maintain standards and was also a check of the instructors abilities.
I head out on contract in two weeks---Missouri first and will be headed ti Michigan on April 20th again....
Cheers Gordy, wish we could sit down over a beer one day, next time you are in Michigan, let me know, I'm just across the border into Canada...
I head out on contract in two weeks---Missouri first and will be headed ti Michigan on April 20th again....
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: bermuda
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good time for an inaugural post...
I agree with Gordy, I wonder how the FAA will resolve this, I believe the "student" was at least a PPL holder to go on long cross countries in the first place, and the schweizer does have a jumpy collective at times but the point of interest comes up in determining who is PIC, and hence who gets the waterboarding from the FAA. I don't think there's any pre flight signed document as to who's in command when it comes to flights like the one reported, there wasn't any when I was in flight school at least. It leaves a gap through which it seems the "instructor" can escape by claiming he wasn't in the aircraft. Guess the poor student will have to go this one on his own. I hear those FAA question sessions can be quite unnerving...
...and like SASless pointed out, freak incidents do happen but the schweizer is a pretty basic machine with no electric gizmatazz prone to popping a fuse and giving the chopper a mind of its own. I hear the controls were down and centered and frictions on at the post crash inspection.
I agree with Gordy, I wonder how the FAA will resolve this, I believe the "student" was at least a PPL holder to go on long cross countries in the first place, and the schweizer does have a jumpy collective at times but the point of interest comes up in determining who is PIC, and hence who gets the waterboarding from the FAA. I don't think there's any pre flight signed document as to who's in command when it comes to flights like the one reported, there wasn't any when I was in flight school at least. It leaves a gap through which it seems the "instructor" can escape by claiming he wasn't in the aircraft. Guess the poor student will have to go this one on his own. I hear those FAA question sessions can be quite unnerving...
...and like SASless pointed out, freak incidents do happen but the schweizer is a pretty basic machine with no electric gizmatazz prone to popping a fuse and giving the chopper a mind of its own. I hear the controls were down and centered and frictions on at the post crash inspection.
SasLess
