Mid-Summer Madness
Fair point Flying Lawyer (as your points invariably are).
I was referring to the comments by Chopjock and Carsickpuppy that seemed to be directed at JJ directly.
I agree that i don't think we should go around reporting people to the CAA (at least not without exploring other avenues first). Apart from anything else, it is likely to be the least effective means of remedying whatever infraction you consider them guilty of. As i said in my earlier post, a call to the AOC holder or flying club is much more likely to result in a change in the offending practice than a call to the CAA.
Safe and sensible flying to one and all!
OH
I was referring to the comments by Chopjock and Carsickpuppy that seemed to be directed at JJ directly.
I agree that i don't think we should go around reporting people to the CAA (at least not without exploring other avenues first). Apart from anything else, it is likely to be the least effective means of remedying whatever infraction you consider them guilty of. As i said in my earlier post, a call to the AOC holder or flying club is much more likely to result in a change in the offending practice than a call to the CAA.
Safe and sensible flying to one and all!
OH
.
Ho hum, with the benefit of some non-aviation skills my interpretation of that which drives such a question (and which, not knowing JJ, can only use generalisations) is that such a query would usually reveal a person interested in aviation (hence his presence at the airfield). His reference to enjoying a 'cuppa' would (in generic terms) suggest his desire to be viewed as 'normal' or 'one of the crowd' ie. he is keen to be viewed as a 'friend'.
The double use of the adverb 'very' suggests potential partiality and in any formal analysis would bring into question the dimensions described thereafter with the potential for them to either be inaccurate or exaggerated. Reference to rotor tips and tail booms disclose an acute interest in helicopters reinforcing the initial supposition.
While there are no obvious emotional inflections in his description of the process of hot-refuelling the references (in the following sentence) to the leg out the door, 'chopping' the throttle and 'immediately' jumping out of the aircraft while the rotors were running down at 'high speed' would leave no uncertainty in the minds of any professional analyst that the writer held strong views regarding the actions of the pilot.
The fact that the author went to speak with pilot of the other aircraft and uses the title Captain with a capital 'c' both confirms his 'interest' in the event as well as his regard for pilots in general.
Regarding an overall summary, you may draw your own conclusions.
On a side note; most professionals who fly regularly would never 'dob' a fellow pilot in with the authorities. That is an extreme measure for extreme circumstances. I will confess to my fellow Rotorheads that among those I have employed over the years I quickly discovered an aversion to 'snitches' and those who would come to me to 'report' on one of their colleagues were meet with the foulest of receptions commencing with 'Why didn't you take this up with the individual concerned!'
My recommendation to JJ: Watch Al Pacino's sterling performance in the closing scenes of 'The Scent of A Woman'
Ho hum, with the benefit of some non-aviation skills my interpretation of that which drives such a question (and which, not knowing JJ, can only use generalisations) is that such a query would usually reveal a person interested in aviation (hence his presence at the airfield). His reference to enjoying a 'cuppa' would (in generic terms) suggest his desire to be viewed as 'normal' or 'one of the crowd' ie. he is keen to be viewed as a 'friend'.
The double use of the adverb 'very' suggests potential partiality and in any formal analysis would bring into question the dimensions described thereafter with the potential for them to either be inaccurate or exaggerated. Reference to rotor tips and tail booms disclose an acute interest in helicopters reinforcing the initial supposition.
While there are no obvious emotional inflections in his description of the process of hot-refuelling the references (in the following sentence) to the leg out the door, 'chopping' the throttle and 'immediately' jumping out of the aircraft while the rotors were running down at 'high speed' would leave no uncertainty in the minds of any professional analyst that the writer held strong views regarding the actions of the pilot.
The fact that the author went to speak with pilot of the other aircraft and uses the title Captain with a capital 'c' both confirms his 'interest' in the event as well as his regard for pilots in general.
Regarding an overall summary, you may draw your own conclusions.
On a side note; most professionals who fly regularly would never 'dob' a fellow pilot in with the authorities. That is an extreme measure for extreme circumstances. I will confess to my fellow Rotorheads that among those I have employed over the years I quickly discovered an aversion to 'snitches' and those who would come to me to 'report' on one of their colleagues were meet with the foulest of receptions commencing with 'Why didn't you take this up with the individual concerned!'
My recommendation to JJ: Watch Al Pacino's sterling performance in the closing scenes of 'The Scent of A Woman'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calm down children, nobody is reporting anybody to the CAA. It was my aircraft sitting on the pumps, so no point anyone accusing JackJack of being a lazy arse!
I have had a word with the airport manager and that's the end of it.
However, just to clear up a few points from Phoenix's post -
Rather than waste Charity money on two expensive start cycles, we often leave the aircraft on the pumps unless and / or until we are informed that another aircraft will be coming in for fuel. Airport management are familiar with this. Did the 206 pilot call ahead and inform the airport he was coming in for fuel or just turn up ad-hoc?
RR refuel is not an approved SOP for our unit.
We cannot see the refuelling area from our hut, so were unaware at the time how close the 206 was to our aircraft, or that single-manned rotors running refuelling was taking place.
We did not know the pilot was the sole occupant of the aircraft was, and even if we had done, nobody would have been helping him with an RRR (see above). Not to mention the fact that they are employed as paramedics not airfield refuellers, and I'm sure that YAS H+S would be overjoyed to hear they were refuelling private individual's aircraft in works time...
It was only after the 206 had departed that we became fully aware of what had actually happened, so talking to the pilot at the time wasn't an option.
I think there are two parts to this - firstly was the actual incident safe / legal / sensible and secondly what should be done about it (if anything)?
Now I can see that leaving my aircraft on the pumps was a contributory factor here. So apologies to the 206 pilot if that put him under any pressure.
For the sake of this discussion, here's my thoughts at the time.
I see a helicopter turning and burning with no-one at the controls 10 feet from my £3m helicopter and a 20,000 litre tanker of fuel with no-one to help if anything goes wrong. No-one at the controls is in contravention of what is clearly stated in the RFM therefore IF there was an accident there would be no way in hell that the insurance would be paying out. It doesn't matter how small the risk of an accident, surely we have to plan on the worst-case scenario at all times? I personally don't think that this was a safe and legal thing to do, or that it was justifiable on the basis that the pumps were blocked. Feel free to disagree!!
As to what should be done about it. I admit that my first thoughts, whilst still concerned about the possible consequences of the incident, were to report it to someone. In the end that someone was the Airport Manager, informally, and it is now up to him to have a quiet word or do whatever he feels fit.
That then is my take on it. I'm sure there are as many opinions out there as there are Ppruners. I think that JackJack's post, rather than be a "whistleblower" event has provoked a nice little debate here.
In true Pprune style there are supporters, opposers, don't have a cluers, and everything in between. I understand that there will always be a split about whether or not an incident like this should be reported, but it does concern me that we can't even agree on here sometimes on what are pretty basic principles of flight safety or airmanship. But better people than me have struggled with that one, no doubt.
As a small example, reference to the foot out of the door , I was in Long Beach airport many years ago and a 206L was being ground run on a dolly.The pilot was talking to the engineer who was stood alongside. The
pilot was sat with his backside in the seat, and feet dangling over the side, no belts on etc. I don't know whether he caught the collective with his sleeve, or it popped up on its own, but the heli spun to the right and fell of the dolly, scattering pieces of 206L all over the pad and through the adjacent office windows. Explain that to your boss / insurance company..Now, I'm obviously not saying that the same would happen with a running-down 206, but bad habits etc etc. Moral - the SIMPLEST of things can catch us out the minute we drop our guard. Don't hasten the day of your departure by being sloppy!!
FF
I have had a word with the airport manager and that's the end of it.
However, just to clear up a few points from Phoenix's post -
Rather than waste Charity money on two expensive start cycles, we often leave the aircraft on the pumps unless and / or until we are informed that another aircraft will be coming in for fuel. Airport management are familiar with this. Did the 206 pilot call ahead and inform the airport he was coming in for fuel or just turn up ad-hoc?
RR refuel is not an approved SOP for our unit.
We cannot see the refuelling area from our hut, so were unaware at the time how close the 206 was to our aircraft, or that single-manned rotors running refuelling was taking place.
We did not know the pilot was the sole occupant of the aircraft was, and even if we had done, nobody would have been helping him with an RRR (see above). Not to mention the fact that they are employed as paramedics not airfield refuellers, and I'm sure that YAS H+S would be overjoyed to hear they were refuelling private individual's aircraft in works time...
It was only after the 206 had departed that we became fully aware of what had actually happened, so talking to the pilot at the time wasn't an option.
I think there are two parts to this - firstly was the actual incident safe / legal / sensible and secondly what should be done about it (if anything)?
Now I can see that leaving my aircraft on the pumps was a contributory factor here. So apologies to the 206 pilot if that put him under any pressure.
For the sake of this discussion, here's my thoughts at the time.
I see a helicopter turning and burning with no-one at the controls 10 feet from my £3m helicopter and a 20,000 litre tanker of fuel with no-one to help if anything goes wrong. No-one at the controls is in contravention of what is clearly stated in the RFM therefore IF there was an accident there would be no way in hell that the insurance would be paying out. It doesn't matter how small the risk of an accident, surely we have to plan on the worst-case scenario at all times? I personally don't think that this was a safe and legal thing to do, or that it was justifiable on the basis that the pumps were blocked. Feel free to disagree!!
As to what should be done about it. I admit that my first thoughts, whilst still concerned about the possible consequences of the incident, were to report it to someone. In the end that someone was the Airport Manager, informally, and it is now up to him to have a quiet word or do whatever he feels fit.
That then is my take on it. I'm sure there are as many opinions out there as there are Ppruners. I think that JackJack's post, rather than be a "whistleblower" event has provoked a nice little debate here.
In true Pprune style there are supporters, opposers, don't have a cluers, and everything in between. I understand that there will always be a split about whether or not an incident like this should be reported, but it does concern me that we can't even agree on here sometimes on what are pretty basic principles of flight safety or airmanship. But better people than me have struggled with that one, no doubt.
As a small example, reference to the foot out of the door , I was in Long Beach airport many years ago and a 206L was being ground run on a dolly.The pilot was talking to the engineer who was stood alongside. The
pilot was sat with his backside in the seat, and feet dangling over the side, no belts on etc. I don't know whether he caught the collective with his sleeve, or it popped up on its own, but the heli spun to the right and fell of the dolly, scattering pieces of 206L all over the pad and through the adjacent office windows. Explain that to your boss / insurance company..Now, I'm obviously not saying that the same would happen with a running-down 206, but bad habits etc etc. Moral - the SIMPLEST of things can catch us out the minute we drop our guard. Don't hasten the day of your departure by being sloppy!!
FF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savoia
People say lawyers make things unnecessarily complicated. Blimey!
JJ clearly knows more than Joe Public about flying helicopters. He's unlikely to be a professional pilot, given that he bothered to post the 'incident' here, but he's familiar with the jargon so probably works in the helicopter industry.
eg An air ambulance paramedic.
People say lawyers make things unnecessarily complicated. Blimey!
JJ clearly knows more than Joe Public about flying helicopters. He's unlikely to be a professional pilot, given that he bothered to post the 'incident' here, but he's familiar with the jargon so probably works in the helicopter industry.
eg An air ambulance paramedic.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the SIMPLEST of things can catch us out the minute we drop our guard
As to reporting inappropriate pilot actions, I wouldnt do it except my own to NASA ASRS if appropriate, or to possibly have an informal discussion with another pilot. I treat these as a learning experience. As to talking to the offender, each time I have done so, I have gotten the bird or a "f*** you" in response, so I am more inclined to let these guys hang themselves - and they will someday.
I also would not leave my acft "sitting on the pumps" for any longer time than needed to refuel - quite inconsiderate IMHO, and, it would seem, a contributing factor to the incident discussed here.
Last edited by EN48; 9th Jul 2011 at 13:11.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I don't really like the rotors running refuel, I personally would never call the Authorities to report a fellow pilot. Nobody is perfect.
As to reporting inappropriate pilot actions, I wouldnt do it except my own to NASA ASRS if appropriate, or to possibly have an informal discussion with another pilot. I treat these as a learning experience.
Perhaps if we were to have a few more words in ears, simply to make people aware that they may need to think a little more about what they consider safe practises, pilots such as Mark Weir would still be with us. Isn't it always the things that we always do day in, day out, that turn and bite us. A lot of pilots out there might not have to cover CRM in order to keep flying, but we can still do our bit to make sure something else doesn't stop them.
As to talking to the offender, each time I have done so, I have gotten the bird or a "f*** you" in response, so I am more inclined to let these guys hang themselves - and they will someday.
They may well end up hanging themselves, but that doesn't mean that we should build the gallows for them, by not saying anything to anyone.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/446...iscussion.html
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/445...ndolences.html
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They may well end up hanging themselves, but that doesn't mean that we should build the gallows for them, by not saying anything to anyone.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Putting it into effective practice is easier said than done.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere in the FIR
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer & Overthawk
Ok Ok Ok, maybe "calling the authorities" was a bit extreme! But i had a splitting sore head yesterday and maybe wasn't at my best to give my view on this event. 
I actually thought i had an incline who would be at the controls though and knew it wouldn't be the first, or last time, incidents of this type would occur.
The airport manager would have been my first port of call. Having a word with the pilot these days, tends to lead to an argument and that would have spoiled my "Cup of tea"!
They may well end up hanging themselves, but that doesn't mean that we should build the gallows for them, by not saying anything to anyone.
On that above statement i agree whole heartedly with Silo Sid,,
I actually thought i had an incline who would be at the controls though and knew it wouldn't be the first, or last time, incidents of this type would occur.
The airport manager would have been my first port of call. Having a word with the pilot these days, tends to lead to an argument and that would have spoiled my "Cup of tea"!
They may well end up hanging themselves, but that doesn't mean that we should build the gallows for them, by not saying anything to anyone.
On that above statement i agree whole heartedly with Silo Sid,,
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why's that then?
.
FL: Greetings. I've certainly heard of you - though not sure if we've met. When I signed-up to PPRuNe a year ago I trawled various back-threads and came across an image you had posted at someones funeral (can't remember who) but David Boyce and co. were present. David knew my godfather (Col. Bob Smith) fairly well. In 1980 Bob helped form Aviation Consultants International along with Norman Todd (British Airways) and David Scott the astronaut as well as others whose names escape my memory but it is possible that you may have known some of these characters.
Re: Today's post; a pedantic affair I admit!
Rotors Turning - Unsupervised
I've not employed the search facility (apologies SP) but I'm sure this must be a well-worn subject on Rotorheads. From my utility-flying days in Africa and Papua New Guinea I can relate that abandoning the controls to supervise passenger embarkation/disembarkation (as well as the loading of various small items of cargo) was, with the smaller craft such as 206s and 350s etc., a necessity. In fact, to have remained at the controls would, in many circumstances, have resulted in disaster. Anyone who has flown small aircraft on intensive utility ops (landing everywhere [usually the middle of nowhere] all the time) would, I am sure, agree. It is simply unfeasible to remain at the controls as the external risks far outweigh those of abandoning the controls.
In 1988 while with Rotorwork I engaged the PNG DCA over this issue with the view to obtaining an exemption from following the recommended flight manual procedures based on the 'extenuating' circumstances so prevalent in PNG. I don't know where this dialogue ended-up but I recall hearing that neighbouring Australia's CASA had approved something similar (can anyone confirm?) and in which case 'bravo' to the ever-pragmatic Aussies!
In Europe and the US (and doubtless elsewhere) there is perhaps far less need to 'jump out' in order to attend to external duties as, presumably, one is (in most cases) in a position to make prior arrangements for ground support. Failing that (and in non-urgent circumstances) one can always shut down.
A 206L LongRanger III belonging to Sweden's 'FiskFlyg' turns and burns 'unsupervised' in the Padjelanta National Park on 12th July 2010 (Photo: Anton Asplund)
FL: Greetings. I've certainly heard of you - though not sure if we've met. When I signed-up to PPRuNe a year ago I trawled various back-threads and came across an image you had posted at someones funeral (can't remember who) but David Boyce and co. were present. David knew my godfather (Col. Bob Smith) fairly well. In 1980 Bob helped form Aviation Consultants International along with Norman Todd (British Airways) and David Scott the astronaut as well as others whose names escape my memory but it is possible that you may have known some of these characters.
Re: Today's post; a pedantic affair I admit!
Rotors Turning - Unsupervised
I've not employed the search facility (apologies SP) but I'm sure this must be a well-worn subject on Rotorheads. From my utility-flying days in Africa and Papua New Guinea I can relate that abandoning the controls to supervise passenger embarkation/disembarkation (as well as the loading of various small items of cargo) was, with the smaller craft such as 206s and 350s etc., a necessity. In fact, to have remained at the controls would, in many circumstances, have resulted in disaster. Anyone who has flown small aircraft on intensive utility ops (landing everywhere [usually the middle of nowhere] all the time) would, I am sure, agree. It is simply unfeasible to remain at the controls as the external risks far outweigh those of abandoning the controls.
In 1988 while with Rotorwork I engaged the PNG DCA over this issue with the view to obtaining an exemption from following the recommended flight manual procedures based on the 'extenuating' circumstances so prevalent in PNG. I don't know where this dialogue ended-up but I recall hearing that neighbouring Australia's CASA had approved something similar (can anyone confirm?) and in which case 'bravo' to the ever-pragmatic Aussies!
In Europe and the US (and doubtless elsewhere) there is perhaps far less need to 'jump out' in order to attend to external duties as, presumably, one is (in most cases) in a position to make prior arrangements for ground support. Failing that (and in non-urgent circumstances) one can always shut down.
A 206L LongRanger III belonging to Sweden's 'FiskFlyg' turns and burns 'unsupervised' in the Padjelanta National Park on 12th July 2010 (Photo: Anton Asplund)
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is simply unfeasible to remain at the controls
Last edited by EN48; 9th Jul 2011 at 16:52.
.
As mentioned, anyone who has worked intensive utility (especially in remote areas where multiple landings are required over relatively short distances) would understand the challenges. Everything from pax trying to walk into the t/r to feeding all manner of objects through the m/r to breaking the passenger doors! And .. in some nations .. it makes no difference how many briefings the pax receive or in which language .. even if its signing!
As mentioned, anyone who has worked intensive utility (especially in remote areas where multiple landings are required over relatively short distances) would understand the challenges. Everything from pax trying to walk into the t/r to feeding all manner of objects through the m/r to breaking the passenger doors! And .. in some nations .. it makes no difference how many briefings the pax receive or in which language .. even if its signing!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: 'oop North
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an interesting dilemma...the only way to guarantee as near as possible to complete safety is to shut down between every sector, load your kit, and give all the passengers a briefing before loading them in and checking the belts are fastened, the doors are closed etc. However, if you did that working utility you would never get the job done.
So there may be pressure on you as a pilot to hot load, leave the cab with the rotors running and do all the other things we instinctively know are not the most sensible options, to get the job done.
Savoia..IF you had an accident operating like this, would your authority throw the book at you or support you? I ask this as one member of my authority was trying to tell us recently that we had to brief the crew between every flight - i.e we fly to a HEMS tasking, pick up a patient and before we take-off we have to give the paramedics and doctors a pre-flight brief...
FF
So there may be pressure on you as a pilot to hot load, leave the cab with the rotors running and do all the other things we instinctively know are not the most sensible options, to get the job done.
Savoia..IF you had an accident operating like this, would your authority throw the book at you or support you? I ask this as one member of my authority was trying to tell us recently that we had to brief the crew between every flight - i.e we fly to a HEMS tasking, pick up a patient and before we take-off we have to give the paramedics and doctors a pre-flight brief...
FF
.
Flaxton, again (as mentioned above) I engaged the local aviation authority on this issue in 1988 (this was Papua New Guinea) and which initiative was taken over once I moved on. The concensus among the majority of operators that I was in touch with was that there was no way of avoiding occasions where the PIC abandoned the controls. In many cases the drop-off and recovery locations for geologists, seismic crews etc. were so remote and so numerous there was simply no alternative but to supervise the ground activities once the aircraft had landed.
This was an issue for the smaller ships only. 212s, Pumas, Vertols and the Russian aircraft would carry a loadmaster who was kept busy whenever the aircraft touched the ground.
Flaxton, again (as mentioned above) I engaged the local aviation authority on this issue in 1988 (this was Papua New Guinea) and which initiative was taken over once I moved on. The concensus among the majority of operators that I was in touch with was that there was no way of avoiding occasions where the PIC abandoned the controls. In many cases the drop-off and recovery locations for geologists, seismic crews etc. were so remote and so numerous there was simply no alternative but to supervise the ground activities once the aircraft had landed.
This was an issue for the smaller ships only. 212s, Pumas, Vertols and the Russian aircraft would carry a loadmaster who was kept busy whenever the aircraft touched the ground.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
FiskFlyg, an interesting safety record;
Fiskflyg AB - Sweden - an unofficial history!
Crashed 1963-08-03. 4 people killed.
Crashed 1965-06-18.
Destroyed by fire 1989-09-22.
Crashed 1974/75?
Crashed 1976-08-?? Tysfjord, Norway.
Crashed 2005-08-23
Crashed 1980-09-04 Ritjemokk.
Crashed?
Ok, so its out of the companies total lifetime fleet of 21 and only 2 were rotary, but...
Fiskflyg AB - Sweden - an unofficial history!
Crashed 1963-08-03. 4 people killed.
Crashed 1965-06-18.
Destroyed by fire 1989-09-22.
Crashed 1974/75?
Crashed 1976-08-?? Tysfjord, Norway.
Crashed 2005-08-23
Crashed 1980-09-04 Ritjemokk.
Crashed?
Ok, so its out of the companies total lifetime fleet of 21 and only 2 were rotary, but...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The concensus among the majority of operators that I was in touch with was that there was no way of avoiding occasions where the PIC abandoned the controls. In many cases the drop-off and recovery locations for geologists, seismic crews etc. were so remote and so numerous there was simply no alternative but to supervise the ground activities once the aircraft had landed
I'm confused as to how a location can be safe enough to leave the ac rotors running but not safe enough to close down
