Cumbria Helicopter crash discussion
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Boundary Layer
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with TC that the accident report should be standard reading for CRM/TEM purposes but the AAIB publish the detail maintaining anonymity with the intention that others should focus on the circumstances, not the individual and that we may all learn from the mistakes. Rather than using the forum to attack the deceased, shouldn't we all focus on the lessons to be learned - in this case the dangers of complacency.
Complacency is one of the biggest threats to pilots and is a contributor in some degree to most accidents. When under pressure we are working at high levels of capacity and all the time we are hacking it, the message to self is you're doing great ! Who can honestly say that they have never overstepped the mark and pushed it a bit further than may have been wise and scared themselves. Those still here have obviously got away with it so far. Rather than use this forum to slag off individuals, wouldn't it be better to think how we might identify moments of complacency in our own flying careers and share how we changed our mind set to eliminate it.
Complacency is one of the biggest threats to pilots and is a contributor in some degree to most accidents. When under pressure we are working at high levels of capacity and all the time we are hacking it, the message to self is you're doing great ! Who can honestly say that they have never overstepped the mark and pushed it a bit further than may have been wise and scared themselves. Those still here have obviously got away with it so far. Rather than use this forum to slag off individuals, wouldn't it be better to think how we might identify moments of complacency in our own flying careers and share how we changed our mind set to eliminate it.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
I've been to the slate mine, he did a great job getting things on course, commendable. Friends of mine who knew Mark spoke very highly of him as a businessman and as a real character. However, I am with TC on this one, any member of the public who reads this report, aviation knowledge or not, would not find comments libellous. Just obvious. So So Sooo sad, but true.
JT2: Thanks for your support - coming from someone who has actually been closer to the hub than most in this instance having visited the site etc. Appreciate it.
I am going to make one more comment about this issue (and then I'm done with this debacle) as I feel there is STILL some element of sympathy out there with MW:
This individual didn't simply have a bad day, or drop his guard, or fall foul of some external circumstances beyond his control.
This man (in his aviation guise) was a serial gambler with complete and utter disregard for conformity/legislation/rules. His attitude as a PILOT was completely and utterly unprofessional in EVERY respect. He genuinely believed he was above reproach. For him - it was all one big adventure and rules were for lesser mortals. He cuffed it at every twist and turn. This was NOT a man who was unlucky occasionally.
He was a clever calculating strategist in business which made him appear "successful" on face value. I'm sure it's true.
When he entered the world of aviation, his safety nets were removed and whilst employing the same tactics, it meant he was on borrowed time and nothing or no-one could alter the outcome.
Please don't confuse this man with other pilots who occasionally 'get it wrong', miscalculate the weather sometimes, misjudge a technique etc. These people normally have their house in order whilst they are experiencing a temporary glitch. Most pilots who make mistakes - learn from them! For MW each survivable 'mistake' simply fuelled his invincibility.
Look at the Gazelle display video.
Look at the para-jumper video.
Look at the digger being dragged up the slope video (where he nonchalantly leans up against the bucket whilst the cab was in a precarious position on the slope). MW had probaly never heard of H&S.
He's invincible and the laws of physics don't apply to him.
This man was unique - let's hope aviation stays that way.
I am going to make one more comment about this issue (and then I'm done with this debacle) as I feel there is STILL some element of sympathy out there with MW:
This individual didn't simply have a bad day, or drop his guard, or fall foul of some external circumstances beyond his control.
This man (in his aviation guise) was a serial gambler with complete and utter disregard for conformity/legislation/rules. His attitude as a PILOT was completely and utterly unprofessional in EVERY respect. He genuinely believed he was above reproach. For him - it was all one big adventure and rules were for lesser mortals. He cuffed it at every twist and turn. This was NOT a man who was unlucky occasionally.
He was a clever calculating strategist in business which made him appear "successful" on face value. I'm sure it's true.
When he entered the world of aviation, his safety nets were removed and whilst employing the same tactics, it meant he was on borrowed time and nothing or no-one could alter the outcome.
Please don't confuse this man with other pilots who occasionally 'get it wrong', miscalculate the weather sometimes, misjudge a technique etc. These people normally have their house in order whilst they are experiencing a temporary glitch. Most pilots who make mistakes - learn from them! For MW each survivable 'mistake' simply fuelled his invincibility.
Look at the Gazelle display video.
Look at the para-jumper video.
Look at the digger being dragged up the slope video (where he nonchalantly leans up against the bucket whilst the cab was in a precarious position on the slope). MW had probaly never heard of H&S.
He's invincible and the laws of physics don't apply to him.
This man was unique - let's hope aviation stays that way.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: An ATC centre this side of the moon.
Posts: 1,160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thomas Coupling......I followed your comments shortly after Mark's accident, I also follow them now, I have also followed your comments made in various post's on other subjects previous to all of this. What can I say but sadly your comments often show arrogance and contempt towards your fellow human's....I guess there are folk out there that think your a star and love you dearly but sadly I have to say I am not one of them.
So I think it would be fair to both Mark's family and friends (and yes I am one of those) that you can now leave Mark in peace...I for one would be glad if you could do that.
So I think it would be fair to both Mark's family and friends (and yes I am one of those) that you can now leave Mark in peace...I for one would be glad if you could do that.
. Sadly.............. - VFR
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBW;
You queried an attitude towards AJ's crash in an earlier post, he was a great mate who like Mark Weir had an accident. Unlike Mark he had a good idea of the rules and regs. The AAIB report brings utter disgrace on MW. He had already brought himself to the attention of the CAA on more than one occasion for stepping outside the rules. His behaviour with this helicopter was utterly indefensible. Stupid, arrogant risk taking has no place in aviation, in my view he was little better than Vince of Dundee Golf Course fame. As for those who feel guilt that they should have said something (or something more to him) don't, he obviously knew it all and I doubt he would have listened.
As for his experience level, when on earth did a few hundred hour pilot count as very experienced, there are pro's on this forum with tens of thousands of hours who count themselves merely experienced.
SND
You queried an attitude towards AJ's crash in an earlier post, he was a great mate who like Mark Weir had an accident. Unlike Mark he had a good idea of the rules and regs. The AAIB report brings utter disgrace on MW. He had already brought himself to the attention of the CAA on more than one occasion for stepping outside the rules. His behaviour with this helicopter was utterly indefensible. Stupid, arrogant risk taking has no place in aviation, in my view he was little better than Vince of Dundee Golf Course fame. As for those who feel guilt that they should have said something (or something more to him) don't, he obviously knew it all and I doubt he would have listened.
As for his experience level, when on earth did a few hundred hour pilot count as very experienced, there are pro's on this forum with tens of thousands of hours who count themselves merely experienced.
SND
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
FBW,
As a businessman (him, not me), I admire folks like MW. I could be in business too, but decided for the sake of my family that a steady salary was my better option and I've stayed flying full time for a living, for thirty five years.
However, "corner cutting" in business does not carry the same ultimate risks as those taken in aviation,and in particular with regard to helicopters.
Some of us here have taken calculated risks in aviation, including myself, but for far better reasons than simply getting home quicker than by car.
He was a big risk taker in helicopter aviation (whether he realised it or not) and paid the ultimate price, simple as that.
If there are lessons to be learned from this tragedy, let others learn from that.
As a businessman (him, not me), I admire folks like MW. I could be in business too, but decided for the sake of my family that a steady salary was my better option and I've stayed flying full time for a living, for thirty five years.
However, "corner cutting" in business does not carry the same ultimate risks as those taken in aviation,and in particular with regard to helicopters.
Some of us here have taken calculated risks in aviation, including myself, but for far better reasons than simply getting home quicker than by car.
He was a big risk taker in helicopter aviation (whether he realised it or not) and paid the ultimate price, simple as that.
If there are lessons to be learned from this tragedy, let others learn from that.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
FBW - not that TC needs any help from me, but that particular machine was spotted not too far before the incident concerned by a very experienced examiner who happened to be in Dunsfold at the same time, who took photos of the large cracks in the rotor blades, the clumsy wiring that held the cowlings and stabiliser together etc etc. On being asked where to get fuel, said examiner asked where the helicopter had come from, because surely fuel could be obtained at the same place on the way back.
It hadn't stopped, but had come all the way from Honiston with five hefty people on board. The comment was "You don't know anything about Gazelles, mate, they will haul anything you throw at them".
Not surprising there were cracks in the blades, then (ones that you could put several matchsticks in at once). This kind of mindest is not welcome in aviation.
Phil
It hadn't stopped, but had come all the way from Honiston with five hefty people on board. The comment was "You don't know anything about Gazelles, mate, they will haul anything you throw at them".
Not surprising there were cracks in the blades, then (ones that you could put several matchsticks in at once). This kind of mindest is not welcome in aviation.
Phil
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
paco
i am surprised at you
surely you know the fuel burn in a gazelle honister to dunsfold is 225 nm, he should be able to go 120 mph , as also his was a ex faa spec gazelle it should have had a add tank as they came standard, which would give him more than enough fuel for what should have been a 2 hour journey
also you must not have met mark i would never in a month of sundays called him hefty or was it him and 5 hefty people ?
if they were hefty he could have been overloaded
the verticle stabiliser is held on by a screw and the horizontal by a bolt i couldnt see how that could be held on by wire
cowlings could be lockwired or even wired together
the rotor blades having cracks in as he said i couldnt see that at all knowing how the blades are made maybe it was the plastic blade tape?
i am surprised at you
surely you know the fuel burn in a gazelle honister to dunsfold is 225 nm, he should be able to go 120 mph , as also his was a ex faa spec gazelle it should have had a add tank as they came standard, which would give him more than enough fuel for what should have been a 2 hour journey
also you must not have met mark i would never in a month of sundays called him hefty or was it him and 5 hefty people ?
if they were hefty he could have been overloaded
the verticle stabiliser is held on by a screw and the horizontal by a bolt i couldnt see how that could be held on by wire
cowlings could be lockwired or even wired together
the rotor blades having cracks in as he said i couldnt see that at all knowing how the blades are made maybe it was the plastic blade tape?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Him + 5 I am told, but I don't know the particular gazelle involved, or whether it had seats for that many. The stabiliser was held on by a crooked bolt. The point I was making wasn't about fuel burn, it was whether it was overloaded and the general state of the machine considering it was likely working hard for its living. Does the landing site at Honiston allow for a decent takeoff or would it have been vertical?
It certainly wasn't blade tape.
phil
It certainly wasn't blade tape.
phil
Last edited by paco; 16th Oct 2012 at 17:21.
MD - its kind of irrelevant now isn't it?
Previously you asked
Yet in the official report it says
No current pilot, engine or airframe logbooks were
found in the UK, preventing confirmation of the flight hours accrued. The total hours counter on the instrument panel did not match the recorded hours supplied by the Hungarian operator.
Doesn't this sum up the attitude to things?
Previously you asked
Where does it say the tech log wasn't filled in ?
No current pilot, engine or airframe logbooks were
found in the UK, preventing confirmation of the flight hours accrued. The total hours counter on the instrument panel did not match the recorded hours supplied by the Hungarian operator.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Escrick York england
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pitts
i would have expected the engine log book and the airframe books to be out of the uk ,at the maintainance company in hungary [where are your engine and airframe books? ]
the pilot log book may have been in the helicopter and blown away it was a bleak night very windy
paco
the gazelle has 2 front seats and you can fit 3 people in back it would be very cosy with 3 hefty people ,with 4 hefty people impossible but it is a 5 person helicopter inc pilot
at honister it would be a normal takeoff not verticle
No current pilot, engine or airframe logbooks were
found in the UK, preventing confirmation of the flight hours accrued. The total hours counter on the instrument panel did not match the recorded hours supplied by the Hungarian operator
found in the UK, preventing confirmation of the flight hours accrued. The total hours counter on the instrument panel did not match the recorded hours supplied by the Hungarian operator
i would have expected the engine log book and the airframe books to be out of the uk ,at the maintainance company in hungary [where are your engine and airframe books? ]
the pilot log book may have been in the helicopter and blown away it was a bleak night very windy
paco
the gazelle has 2 front seats and you can fit 3 people in back it would be very cosy with 3 hefty people ,with 4 hefty people impossible but it is a 5 person helicopter inc pilot
at honister it would be a normal takeoff not verticle
IPS should give around 120 kts at 2.5 kg/min or 150 kg/hour so somewhere around 300 Kg for the trip plus 5 x 90kg pilot and pax = 750 kg.
If he kept inside the 1800kg MAUM - perhaps there are variations on the civ ones but mil std was 1800kg with the optimised fenestron and 1900kg for AAC NI use - the dry weight of the aircraft would have to be 1050 kg. Given that even he is unlikely to have arrived with no fuel left on board - 40kg used to be the MLA for brit mil, that gives just over 1000kg which is quite light for a mil Gaz IIRC but the advertised dry weight is circa 950kg. So it is feasible that he wasn't actually overloaded on that trip but he must have got airborne very close to MAUM.
However, since we know the sort of operator he was I wouldn't be surprised if he spent his cruise time at MPS since he wouldn't have the torquemeter light flashing at him as it didn't have a bulb.
God only know what state the rotor blade tie bars were in with no servicing and lots of abuse.
If he kept inside the 1800kg MAUM - perhaps there are variations on the civ ones but mil std was 1800kg with the optimised fenestron and 1900kg for AAC NI use - the dry weight of the aircraft would have to be 1050 kg. Given that even he is unlikely to have arrived with no fuel left on board - 40kg used to be the MLA for brit mil, that gives just over 1000kg which is quite light for a mil Gaz IIRC but the advertised dry weight is circa 950kg. So it is feasible that he wasn't actually overloaded on that trip but he must have got airborne very close to MAUM.
However, since we know the sort of operator he was I wouldn't be surprised if he spent his cruise time at MPS since he wouldn't have the torquemeter light flashing at him as it didn't have a bulb.
God only know what state the rotor blade tie bars were in with no servicing and lots of abuse.
MD600 - you are just taking the mickey now. I fly a rented helicopter but own a fixed wing aircraft. Its "G" registered with maintenance in the UK. Its not complicated and there is no attempt by me to find any "work around" with regard to either my own or my aircrafts licencing.
I can't be bothered to cut and paste all of the damning comments in the AAIB report when it comes to the shed this guy was flying and given the AAIB comments regarding his flying hours in 2007 and 2009 if his personal flying logbook had been in the helicopter then it was little more than a random number generator.
I can't be bothered to cut and paste all of the damning comments in the AAIB report when it comes to the shed this guy was flying and given the AAIB comments regarding his flying hours in 2007 and 2009 if his personal flying logbook had been in the helicopter then it was little more than a random number generator.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one shall be supporting any effort by the UK CAA to:
a) Ensure that any privately owned and operated helicopter domiciled within the borders of the United Kingdom for more than 12 months be registered here.
b) Offer a dispensation to the above for an additional 12 months provided there is justifiable cause and that the helicopter be removed from the borders of the United Kingdom before the expiry of the additional 12 months. Helicopters utilising this maximum 24 month stay shall not be permitted remain within the United Kingdom (on future visits) for a period exceeding 5 days thereafter.
c) Promote private pilot competency through an annual flight test with a CAA certified examiner who possess a minimum of 5000 hours total time and a minimum of 500 hours on the type in which the flight test is conducted.
I am writing to the CAA with the above recommendation.
Anyone wishing to support this recommendation can similarly write to the CAA at:
The Safety Regulation Group
United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex
RH6 0YR
Action not words.
GF
a) Ensure that any privately owned and operated helicopter domiciled within the borders of the United Kingdom for more than 12 months be registered here.
b) Offer a dispensation to the above for an additional 12 months provided there is justifiable cause and that the helicopter be removed from the borders of the United Kingdom before the expiry of the additional 12 months. Helicopters utilising this maximum 24 month stay shall not be permitted remain within the United Kingdom (on future visits) for a period exceeding 5 days thereafter.
c) Promote private pilot competency through an annual flight test with a CAA certified examiner who possess a minimum of 5000 hours total time and a minimum of 500 hours on the type in which the flight test is conducted.
I am writing to the CAA with the above recommendation.
Anyone wishing to support this recommendation can similarly write to the CAA at:
The Safety Regulation Group
United Kingdom Civil Aviation Authority
Aviation House
Gatwick Airport South
West Sussex
RH6 0YR
Action not words.
GF
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GF
Talk about a knee jerk reaction 
What about the hundreds of law abiding owners then?
I am writing to the CAA with the above recommendation.
Anyone wishing to support this recommendation can similarly write to the CAA at:
Anyone wishing to support this recommendation can similarly write to the CAA at:
What about the hundreds of law abiding owners then?
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are saying that law abiding owners object to having their helicopter placed on the UK register and in performing a quality flight test once a year?
Tough is my answer.
Tough is my answer.
The suggestion that if aircraft were registered and maintained in the UK this type of thing wouldn't happen is sadly far from the truth.
Talk to any of the maintenance engineers who have been around for a while and you will hear horror stories from all of them related to UK owned and registered aircraft.
I give just a few examples.
Aircraft owner who went on at length about the amount of time he was flying in preparation for the helicopter championships. Aircraft came in for annual and not a single minute recorded for the period.
Owner who inadvertantly left his log book where it could be read. Discrepancy of over a 100% between it and the aircraft log book.
Owner who believed the starting performance wasn't good enough, as soon as the aircraft was away from maintenance he installed a second battery and home made cabling which he removed again before returning the aircraft to maintenace.
Gazelle with a log card for a gearbox support where it was clear that the serial number on the log card had been changed (different type face).
Enstrom where the owner had replaced the rubber sleeves at the tail drive shaft bearings with garden hose!!!!!!!!
Fatal accident in which the AAIB were unable to determine where the main rotor thrust bearing had come from. not a factory part.
Owner found adjusting the autopilot after the aircraft had left maintenace
Owner who had car phone installed in aircraft by local car spares shop who drilled holes all over the structure to accomodate cables and aerial.
Accident in which the tail rotor was not recovered, shortly after the owner had contacted maintenace asking about how to remove the tail rotor.
Sadly a number of private owners lack the "culture" of safety and honesty that is a requirement to safely operate helicopters. They certainly dont care about the next guy who buys the aircraft. In addition it is clear they have no consideration for the maintenance engineers who have a legal responsibilty for the work they carry out and are the first port of call for the AAIB and the CAA when a smoking hole appears in the ground.
And just one more
Owner who was advised to bring in a maintenace engineer as no qualified engineer was on site. Flew aircraft away and it crashed on route due to the mechanical problem he had complained about.
"Only one careful owner mate and really low hours, a bargain"
Talk to any of the maintenance engineers who have been around for a while and you will hear horror stories from all of them related to UK owned and registered aircraft.
I give just a few examples.
Aircraft owner who went on at length about the amount of time he was flying in preparation for the helicopter championships. Aircraft came in for annual and not a single minute recorded for the period.
Owner who inadvertantly left his log book where it could be read. Discrepancy of over a 100% between it and the aircraft log book.
Owner who believed the starting performance wasn't good enough, as soon as the aircraft was away from maintenance he installed a second battery and home made cabling which he removed again before returning the aircraft to maintenace.
Gazelle with a log card for a gearbox support where it was clear that the serial number on the log card had been changed (different type face).
Enstrom where the owner had replaced the rubber sleeves at the tail drive shaft bearings with garden hose!!!!!!!!
Fatal accident in which the AAIB were unable to determine where the main rotor thrust bearing had come from. not a factory part.
Owner found adjusting the autopilot after the aircraft had left maintenace
Owner who had car phone installed in aircraft by local car spares shop who drilled holes all over the structure to accomodate cables and aerial.
Accident in which the tail rotor was not recovered, shortly after the owner had contacted maintenace asking about how to remove the tail rotor.
Sadly a number of private owners lack the "culture" of safety and honesty that is a requirement to safely operate helicopters. They certainly dont care about the next guy who buys the aircraft. In addition it is clear they have no consideration for the maintenance engineers who have a legal responsibilty for the work they carry out and are the first port of call for the AAIB and the CAA when a smoking hole appears in the ground.
And just one more
Owner who was advised to bring in a maintenace engineer as no qualified engineer was on site. Flew aircraft away and it crashed on route due to the mechanical problem he had complained about.
"Only one careful owner mate and really low hours, a bargain"
Last edited by ericferret; 17th Oct 2012 at 10:28.
A couple of comments:------
1). "Hard cases make bad law"........ Always feel it wise to sit down and consider before rushing into promulgating new law i.e. avoid knee jerk reaction.
2). As in many aspects of life these days it is not more laws and regulations that is required, but rather apply rigorously those that we already have. There is a very high probability MW would still be with us had he stuck to the existing rules.
Planemike
1). "Hard cases make bad law"........ Always feel it wise to sit down and consider before rushing into promulgating new law i.e. avoid knee jerk reaction.
2). As in many aspects of life these days it is not more laws and regulations that is required, but rather apply rigorously those that we already have. There is a very high probability MW would still be with us had he stuck to the existing rules.
Planemike
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hassocks, Mid-Sussex
Age: 67
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to get this straight, the consensus is that there is no difference in terms of actual safety whether or not a helicopter is operated according to UK rules and regulations and say, for example, Hungarian rules and regulations and that there is no benefit whatsoever of bringing long-staying UK domiciled aircraft under British law?
In other words, John Smith who has a British registered helicopter is under no obligation to do anything different than Fred Bloggs who has a Hungarian registered helicopter? And both helicopters (UK based) will be required to meet identical standards of airworthiness and both helicopters will be exposed to identical levels of aviation authority compliance?
I find this difficult to believe.
In other words, John Smith who has a British registered helicopter is under no obligation to do anything different than Fred Bloggs who has a Hungarian registered helicopter? And both helicopters (UK based) will be required to meet identical standards of airworthiness and both helicopters will be exposed to identical levels of aviation authority compliance?
I find this difficult to believe.
Last edited by Grenville Fortescue; 17th Oct 2012 at 10:39.