Crash near Bude, Cornwall: 24th July 2011
A local television news report
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cause.... for debate ?
One aspect of this which I personally find incredibly sad is my view that there is a basic mis-understanding about the cause of this class of accident.
I have studied this problem at great length and I am fairly certain that I have identified a major contributing factor which, sadly, is not accepted in general.
How to maintain VMC is not taught - often it does not need to be taught because it is obvious to many (70%-80%). If you are someone to whom it is obvious then you will conclude that the person who has this accident was reckless / disregarded the bad weather / didn't have the captaincy to make a decision to stop or return / was asking for it / was disrespectful of the limits ....
If you are such a person then please take a moment to run this possible scenario through your mind: You are using techniques which you do not realise are techniques ... If a conscientious person with good will and good intent does not possess the required techniques then regardless of the fact that he does not intend to loose his visual references he inevitably will do so REGARDLESS OF THE WEATHER - and many pilots have, some then obviously kill themselves in the process. It is an insult to the pilot to start talking about his 'willful disregard' etc. if it is actually a case of the fellow just not understanding what he needs to do.
I estimate that 20%-30% of pilots do not possess the techniques required to effectively guard and maintain their visual references. Even if the weather is relatively good - they are still at great risk. There is not a set of conditions criteria which will prevent the pilot's loss of visual references at some stage.
The required technique is called VRF Visual Reference Flight
In IMC flight is performed under a set of rules called IFR, and IRF is used to do it. Instrument Reference Flight is the technique.
In VMC the rules are VFR and the technique is VRF - a major part of VRF is to guard ones Visual References - this is TOO OBVIOUS to many for them to grasp that there are actually some techniques being used. Techniques which some people do not possess. It is a tragic insult to 'blame' these dead pilots who may well have been highly conscientious but just unequipped.
There is nothing wrong with teaching people some basic IRF skills as long as it is not taught instead of teaching how keep Visual References. IRF is not the solution to keeping Visual References.
Until pilots know how to stay visual they'll keep doing IIMC - the I is not Inadvertent it is Inevitable !
(Someone said it was understandable that IIMC might be encountered at night - but I beg to differ - the key technique required is to guard Visual References especially at night.... )
I have studied this problem at great length and I am fairly certain that I have identified a major contributing factor which, sadly, is not accepted in general.
How to maintain VMC is not taught - often it does not need to be taught because it is obvious to many (70%-80%). If you are someone to whom it is obvious then you will conclude that the person who has this accident was reckless / disregarded the bad weather / didn't have the captaincy to make a decision to stop or return / was asking for it / was disrespectful of the limits ....
If you are such a person then please take a moment to run this possible scenario through your mind: You are using techniques which you do not realise are techniques ... If a conscientious person with good will and good intent does not possess the required techniques then regardless of the fact that he does not intend to loose his visual references he inevitably will do so REGARDLESS OF THE WEATHER - and many pilots have, some then obviously kill themselves in the process. It is an insult to the pilot to start talking about his 'willful disregard' etc. if it is actually a case of the fellow just not understanding what he needs to do.
I estimate that 20%-30% of pilots do not possess the techniques required to effectively guard and maintain their visual references. Even if the weather is relatively good - they are still at great risk. There is not a set of conditions criteria which will prevent the pilot's loss of visual references at some stage.
The required technique is called VRF Visual Reference Flight
In IMC flight is performed under a set of rules called IFR, and IRF is used to do it. Instrument Reference Flight is the technique.
In VMC the rules are VFR and the technique is VRF - a major part of VRF is to guard ones Visual References - this is TOO OBVIOUS to many for them to grasp that there are actually some techniques being used. Techniques which some people do not possess. It is a tragic insult to 'blame' these dead pilots who may well have been highly conscientious but just unequipped.
There is nothing wrong with teaching people some basic IRF skills as long as it is not taught instead of teaching how keep Visual References. IRF is not the solution to keeping Visual References.
Until pilots know how to stay visual they'll keep doing IIMC - the I is not Inadvertent it is Inevitable !
(Someone said it was understandable that IIMC might be encountered at night - but I beg to differ - the key technique required is to guard Visual References especially at night.... )
The fundamental problem is that there is no mandated post-graduate training for PPLs once they have their licence. It is all very well being shown something once during your initial flying training but it needs to be repeated (whether it is PFLs, instrument appreciation or weather avoidance) regularly until a reasonable level of competence and experience is achieved - even then currency is always the big issue.
Once a PPL has his/her licence they can pretty much do what they like - we wouldn't let junior pilots in the mil fly without supervision, why let it happen in GA?
Once a PPL has his/her licence they can pretty much do what they like - we wouldn't let junior pilots in the mil fly without supervision, why let it happen in GA?
AnFI
Thank you for that concise and pertinent contribution which many at-risk pilots will think long and hard about. For the benefit of even more ppruners, could you repeat it in English?
Thank you for that concise and pertinent contribution which many at-risk pilots will think long and hard about. For the benefit of even more ppruners, could you repeat it in English?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI - Cause for debate????
AnFI,
I hear what you say about the root cause of this type of accident, however, I believe you are over-simplifying things and feeding excuses to those who will put themselves in harm's way. Every pilot has been taught the dangers of flying in or near bad weather, and they have been given a number of tools to stop them getting themselves into that position. Upon finding themselves in that position, they have also been given a set of tools to get them out of that position, and if none of these tools are used, they have the final option of landing the helicopter anywhere (it doesn't get any better than that).
Yet, some keep on going.
Sadly (depending on how you look at it), in uncontrolled airspace, VFR minimum weather requirements are at THE absolute minimum, ie, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.........to some, it seems acceptable to fly to those limits. It is not acceptable, except under dire circumstances.
Even military helicopter pilots (regardless of experience) who have had the best training available, are limited to a minimum visibility of 1km for VFR flight, and if they have to fly to that limit they may well have to convince a senior pilot/authorisor before he lets them launch.
You may well have something in your teminology (VRF) by covering how to maintain visual reference, for those pilots who are not able to figure it out for themselves. The problem, however, started way before that pilot needed to maintain visual reference. Unless he is at war or performing life-critical flight then he should be nowhere near those limits. This is what pilots need to understand....thankfully, most do.
Your VRF solution to the "cause" of this type of accident is too simplistic, in my opinion. I think it is a tool, a valuable tool, and it should be with the other tools, ready for use when common sense, airmanship and captaincy have already failed.
Tam
I hear what you say about the root cause of this type of accident, however, I believe you are over-simplifying things and feeding excuses to those who will put themselves in harm's way. Every pilot has been taught the dangers of flying in or near bad weather, and they have been given a number of tools to stop them getting themselves into that position. Upon finding themselves in that position, they have also been given a set of tools to get them out of that position, and if none of these tools are used, they have the final option of landing the helicopter anywhere (it doesn't get any better than that).
Yet, some keep on going.
Sadly (depending on how you look at it), in uncontrolled airspace, VFR minimum weather requirements are at THE absolute minimum, ie, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.........to some, it seems acceptable to fly to those limits. It is not acceptable, except under dire circumstances.
Even military helicopter pilots (regardless of experience) who have had the best training available, are limited to a minimum visibility of 1km for VFR flight, and if they have to fly to that limit they may well have to convince a senior pilot/authorisor before he lets them launch.
You may well have something in your teminology (VRF) by covering how to maintain visual reference, for those pilots who are not able to figure it out for themselves. The problem, however, started way before that pilot needed to maintain visual reference. Unless he is at war or performing life-critical flight then he should be nowhere near those limits. This is what pilots need to understand....thankfully, most do.
Your VRF solution to the "cause" of this type of accident is too simplistic, in my opinion. I think it is a tool, a valuable tool, and it should be with the other tools, ready for use when common sense, airmanship and captaincy have already failed.
Tam
I am not a pilot so read my opinion as you will.
After a fatal accident, would it not be a good idea for the AAIB to send a paper copy of the report to every pilot qualified on a similar type of aircraft? I definitely find them quite sobbering to read. I feel it might just hit home to some pilots how easy things can go from okay to seriously bad. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Gordon
After a fatal accident, would it not be a good idea for the AAIB to send a paper copy of the report to every pilot qualified on a similar type of aircraft? I definitely find them quite sobbering to read. I feel it might just hit home to some pilots how easy things can go from okay to seriously bad. Just a thought.
Cheers,
Gordon
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
Sadly (depending on how you look at it), in uncontrolled airspace, VFR minimum weather requirements are at THE absolute minimum, ie, clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.........to some, it seems acceptable to fly to those limits. It is not acceptable, except under dire circumstances.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sending Reports
Yes Gordon, it would be a good idea, unfortunately, by then, the accident may have lost relevance to some pilots and the reports tend to be lengthy and very specific, making them a challenging read in some cases. Nonetheless, they are an interesting read and you can often see things from a different perspective afterwards.
We used a very good system when I was in training with the Army. Each day we had a selected incident report read to the course, and we all had our chance to put ourselves in that pilot's position and ask ourselves what we would have done....or not done, in order to avoid being there in the future.
I found those short sessions to be very useful for me, but I don't think you could make the same use out of them without a classroom environment full of your peers and your superiors, with the chance to discuss/listen/learn.
Good idea though, I wonder how we could implement something like that outside the classroom environment???!!!
Tam
We used a very good system when I was in training with the Army. Each day we had a selected incident report read to the course, and we all had our chance to put ourselves in that pilot's position and ask ourselves what we would have done....or not done, in order to avoid being there in the future.
I found those short sessions to be very useful for me, but I don't think you could make the same use out of them without a classroom environment full of your peers and your superiors, with the chance to discuss/listen/learn.
Good idea though, I wonder how we could implement something like that outside the classroom environment???!!!
Tam
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Crab, much of the GA private market does not have the budget to provide continuation training like the Mil have.
If you made it law to have a 100+ hour PPL course then you would not get many people through the system.
Don't forget that even a fresh CPL does not have a great deal extra in terms of flying training than a PPL so you would then be increasing the CPL route also.
Accidents like these are always tragic but if we start on the thread of increasing the ability of VFR pilots (generic) then you could apply that to many other walks of life like driving. If we were all trained to advanced standard (IAM) then there would be less accidents.
RIP to the victim and regards to his friends and family.
If you made it law to have a 100+ hour PPL course then you would not get many people through the system.
Don't forget that even a fresh CPL does not have a great deal extra in terms of flying training than a PPL so you would then be increasing the CPL route also.
Accidents like these are always tragic but if we start on the thread of increasing the ability of VFR pilots (generic) then you could apply that to many other walks of life like driving. If we were all trained to advanced standard (IAM) then there would be less accidents.
RIP to the victim and regards to his friends and family.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not forgetting, in UK, an in-flight minimum visibility of 1500 metres.
Last edited by EN48; 27th Jul 2011 at 18:49.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good idea though, I wonder how we could implement something like that outside the classroom environment???!!!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oversimplistic?
Yes hihover - I think it really is very simple - and I suspect you are of course a pilot (like the majority) who can look out of the window and understand what you are seeing ... and then of course it's easy do do the appropriate thing....
I'm not talking about how to fly in 200meters - I'm talking about pilots who become IIMC in 10k vis - it happens often it is pathetic but true !
You would have to see it to believe it and perhaps then you would see that it's not all about pilots deliberately exceeding personal limits but often pilots who just are not equipped with the basic necessary skill set to survive long term...
Please don't be blind to this I've seen it often and it's around 20% of new pilots - until this is studied / investigated / understood / addressed this high level of this class of accident will continue - often to really nice conscientious pilots who are trying to do the right thing but just don't know what they are doing - it is unacceptable!
... it's a training issue - everybody agrees - but that means different things to different people....
I'm not talking about how to fly in 200meters - I'm talking about pilots who become IIMC in 10k vis - it happens often it is pathetic but true !
You would have to see it to believe it and perhaps then you would see that it's not all about pilots deliberately exceeding personal limits but often pilots who just are not equipped with the basic necessary skill set to survive long term...
Please don't be blind to this I've seen it often and it's around 20% of new pilots - until this is studied / investigated / understood / addressed this high level of this class of accident will continue - often to really nice conscientious pilots who are trying to do the right thing but just don't know what they are doing - it is unacceptable!
... it's a training issue - everybody agrees - but that means different things to different people....
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pilots who just are not equipped with the basic necessary skill set to survive long term...
If they don't understand something as basic as maintaining sufficient visual reference to ensure the safety of the flight let alone compliance to the rules, they have no business being in control of a helicopter that will kill them due to the lack of skills.
I have been around long enough to be surprised by a lack of skills displayed by people I have flown with, and no doubt some have shaken their heads at my performance. But this is basic stuff.
Perhaps not everybody with the money to buy the hours should gain a licence at the end?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry AnFI,
Your argument suggests that, of the 1000 LSTs I have performed, somewhere between 200 and 300 of those pilots do not possess the skills to maintain visual reference......I think you may be looking too deeply into this.
If a pilot is unable to "sense" the dangers in his immediate vicinity, then he can simply apply some numbers to the danger zones, eg. stay 500 feet below cloud, 1000 feet above ground, slow down when the vis gets below 5km, go back home at 3km......simple big numbers that can be modified as necessary, depending on factors like - recency, total number of hours, total number of children etc etc.
In an unsupervised environment, a solution is almost impossible without draconian regulation.....and nobody wants to go there.
From a professional pilot's point of view, the solution is less complex. If a pilot does not adhere to sensible personal limits/Ops manual, then the word will get around and he will be identified as a risk, not always, but mostly, and he will treated accordingly by his peers and his supervisors.
I wish I knew the solution.
Tam
Your argument suggests that, of the 1000 LSTs I have performed, somewhere between 200 and 300 of those pilots do not possess the skills to maintain visual reference......I think you may be looking too deeply into this.
If a pilot is unable to "sense" the dangers in his immediate vicinity, then he can simply apply some numbers to the danger zones, eg. stay 500 feet below cloud, 1000 feet above ground, slow down when the vis gets below 5km, go back home at 3km......simple big numbers that can be modified as necessary, depending on factors like - recency, total number of hours, total number of children etc etc.
In an unsupervised environment, a solution is almost impossible without draconian regulation.....and nobody wants to go there.
From a professional pilot's point of view, the solution is less complex. If a pilot does not adhere to sensible personal limits/Ops manual, then the word will get around and he will be identified as a risk, not always, but mostly, and he will treated accordingly by his peers and his supervisors.
I wish I knew the solution.
Tam
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
But this is the sort of thing that could be easily taught in a Flight Training Device (FNPT for the Europeans).
No need for an expensive sim, just good visuals and a well trained instructor to set up the scenario.
No need for an expensive sim, just good visuals and a well trained instructor to set up the scenario.
Heathrow Director
With respect, I don't think you comprehend the likely scenario of someone gripping the cyclic - with the PTT switch on it - for dear life whilst rapidly losing control and in mortal danger!
My understanding is that the crew of the Bond AS332 L2 that lost its head and free fell from 2000 ft, also held the PTT in all the way down - but I don't think anyone would accuse them of anything
It's senseless and dangerous to jam a frequiency.
My understanding is that the crew of the Bond AS332 L2 that lost its head and free fell from 2000 ft, also held the PTT in all the way down - but I don't think anyone would accuse them of anything
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man;
It has to be the most awful sound on earth, I heard it coming from a helicopter, and again from an aeroplane, in the background on the plane I could hear the pilot's son and daughter pleading with him to make it stop, the helicopter pilot just broadcast his gasping breath, I never want to hear it again.
As a very scared trainee, crap weather and high ground I blocked Luton approach the same way, a ploughed field has never looked so good.
VH
It has to be the most awful sound on earth, I heard it coming from a helicopter, and again from an aeroplane, in the background on the plane I could hear the pilot's son and daughter pleading with him to make it stop, the helicopter pilot just broadcast his gasping breath, I never want to hear it again.
As a very scared trainee, crap weather and high ground I blocked Luton approach the same way, a ploughed field has never looked so good.
VH
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: here
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A controversial opinion follows:
The crunch is - how many schools/CFIs will throw away $/£k's income and tell a student that they are dangerous and should take up flower arranging/etc. Even if they have a conscience and do will the (wannabe) pilot of the attitude I can do it because...take any notice and give up or will they just move to a school that isn't as ethical in trying to stop the 'wrong' type of people learning to fly?
HTC
- Clearly as several have said this is a mindset/mentality issue with the pilot.
- Yes the AAIB/NTSA reports are good reading but those that bother to learn from them are probably those that least need to.
- I am sure that the likely candidates for this type of accident are fairly easily identified by the CFI (I'm not a CFI so might be wrong).
The crunch is - how many schools/CFIs will throw away $/£k's income and tell a student that they are dangerous and should take up flower arranging/etc. Even if they have a conscience and do will the (wannabe) pilot of the attitude I can do it because...take any notice and give up or will they just move to a school that isn't as ethical in trying to stop the 'wrong' type of people learning to fly?
HTC
HTC,
I have done so twice, after having other instructors try their magic on said students first.
£s and $s should not get in the way of doing the job properly.
I know there are some schools around who will just keep taking the money.
GS
I have done so twice, after having other instructors try their magic on said students first.
£s and $s should not get in the way of doing the job properly.
I know there are some schools around who will just keep taking the money.
GS