Crash near Bude, Cornwall: 24th July 2011
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
AnFI
I find your strange habitual use of wording in pink hard on the eyes, to the point of being annoying and at times confusing.
Quotations from previous posts would be better made using the quote function.
Thanks.
Poor use of colour!
Quotations from previous posts would be better made using the quote function.
Thanks.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the definition of experience is very simple: those who have have made mistakes, been scared, and have the balanced attitude to reflect on them, and decided not to repeat the mistake. More experiece means a greater 'bank of scares'. Some pilots have had the scare but are too arrogant to heed it, i.e. nothing learned.
A 10,000 hr pilot has had scares and made mistakes that a 2,000 hr pilot has not yet experienced. The same goes for me at 800 hrs when I think of the mistakes I made at 300 hrs.
To distill the problem: we could all have made a list of the pilots we knew that were most likely to perish. That generally came true. They were the ones that after the warning, didn't learn and repeated the mistake.
Experience is having made mistakes once and being frightened by them - it's not, as generally thought, just greater precision in your flying technique. You simply can't legislate for those that don't learn the lesson from the first warning.
But, the PPL syllabus is severly wanting as it doesn't address in any way that flying is about decision making, not the physical skill of controlling the machine. When to fly or not is the most basic of these. Plenty of met theory but nothing about how to read a weather chart and assess likely conditions for the return flight! The 5hrs wasted on instrument flying plus dozens of hours practising engine failures is far better spent skirting bad weather with an experinced instructor in order to at least attempt to get across the fact that poor decisions will kill you, and more importantly your passengers, ten times more frequently than any other cause. I realise that the flaw in this is that many instructors don't have enough hours to have had sufficient experience 'scares' either. This is not the snobbery of more hours means you're better than those with less - simply that you've made more mistakes, hopefully small ones, and survived them.
If the PPL syllabus is to attempt to equip the PPL with the skill to exit IMC then the experience of my night rating taught me that 15 hrs is pretty much the minimum, plus the constant need for at least 90 days currency.
Do the legislators really care? I think not, especially now they are in Brussells not Gatwick. A couple of dozen deaths doesn't really figure in the aviation bigger picture. The rotary community is alone in this - it has to find a way of influencing the mindset of the 'it'll never happen to me' types. If it doesn't, there will be constant rate of deaths that will not change.
There is only one opportunity to do this and that is before handing someone a shiny new license. After that, whoopee, they are a helicopter pilot! and invincible. I always thought the non-syllabus rule of thumb for FIs and FE's was 'would I let my family fly with this person?' I've seen many signed off that clearly didn't pass this test. The FE has the student for an hour and can't possibly assess this other than in respect of their physical skill. The key is FI's being ruthless about those with the wrong attitude. They know - they really do.
A 10,000 hr pilot has had scares and made mistakes that a 2,000 hr pilot has not yet experienced. The same goes for me at 800 hrs when I think of the mistakes I made at 300 hrs.
To distill the problem: we could all have made a list of the pilots we knew that were most likely to perish. That generally came true. They were the ones that after the warning, didn't learn and repeated the mistake.
Experience is having made mistakes once and being frightened by them - it's not, as generally thought, just greater precision in your flying technique. You simply can't legislate for those that don't learn the lesson from the first warning.
But, the PPL syllabus is severly wanting as it doesn't address in any way that flying is about decision making, not the physical skill of controlling the machine. When to fly or not is the most basic of these. Plenty of met theory but nothing about how to read a weather chart and assess likely conditions for the return flight! The 5hrs wasted on instrument flying plus dozens of hours practising engine failures is far better spent skirting bad weather with an experinced instructor in order to at least attempt to get across the fact that poor decisions will kill you, and more importantly your passengers, ten times more frequently than any other cause. I realise that the flaw in this is that many instructors don't have enough hours to have had sufficient experience 'scares' either. This is not the snobbery of more hours means you're better than those with less - simply that you've made more mistakes, hopefully small ones, and survived them.
If the PPL syllabus is to attempt to equip the PPL with the skill to exit IMC then the experience of my night rating taught me that 15 hrs is pretty much the minimum, plus the constant need for at least 90 days currency.
Do the legislators really care? I think not, especially now they are in Brussells not Gatwick. A couple of dozen deaths doesn't really figure in the aviation bigger picture. The rotary community is alone in this - it has to find a way of influencing the mindset of the 'it'll never happen to me' types. If it doesn't, there will be constant rate of deaths that will not change.
There is only one opportunity to do this and that is before handing someone a shiny new license. After that, whoopee, they are a helicopter pilot! and invincible. I always thought the non-syllabus rule of thumb for FIs and FE's was 'would I let my family fly with this person?' I've seen many signed off that clearly didn't pass this test. The FE has the student for an hour and can't possibly assess this other than in respect of their physical skill. The key is FI's being ruthless about those with the wrong attitude. They know - they really do.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand why some are advocating that the PPL syllabus is changed to include what they feel is more relevant. If you work in that field then I'm sure you have a good grasp on what you'd like to do, so include more stuff. The 45 hour course is the minimum time, it's not a target.
I cannot subscribe to taking pilots out into bad weather to scare the crap out of them to demonstrate superior decision making. Most instructors nowadays don't have the experience in any case, so including bad weather flying in any syllabus is asking for disaster, all that would be achieved is launching into weather on a flight you plan to abort.....I don't see a lesson there, other than a bad one.
This thread started after an accident with a PPL, for that reason, it seems to point towards a PPL issue. It is not a PPL issue. Can we please stop trying to cure a "PPL issue" by changing the PPL syllabus.
There have been several accidents in helicopters in the past few months which happened in bad weather, as far as I am aware, this is the only one with a PPL at the controls.
This is a widespread problem which has nothing to do with unstabilised, single-engine helicopters, it is about not allowing it to happen in the first place. Why not introduce a "Stop-and-think" point. For example, when you get to within 500 feet of the cloudbase....stop and think....what are my options, why am I pushing on?? Or perhaps at 5km or 3 km visibility, stop and think.....
This is probably what most of us do subconsciously.
Tam
I cannot subscribe to taking pilots out into bad weather to scare the crap out of them to demonstrate superior decision making. Most instructors nowadays don't have the experience in any case, so including bad weather flying in any syllabus is asking for disaster, all that would be achieved is launching into weather on a flight you plan to abort.....I don't see a lesson there, other than a bad one.
This thread started after an accident with a PPL, for that reason, it seems to point towards a PPL issue. It is not a PPL issue. Can we please stop trying to cure a "PPL issue" by changing the PPL syllabus.
There have been several accidents in helicopters in the past few months which happened in bad weather, as far as I am aware, this is the only one with a PPL at the controls.
This is a widespread problem which has nothing to do with unstabilised, single-engine helicopters, it is about not allowing it to happen in the first place. Why not introduce a "Stop-and-think" point. For example, when you get to within 500 feet of the cloudbase....stop and think....what are my options, why am I pushing on?? Or perhaps at 5km or 3 km visibility, stop and think.....
This is probably what most of us do subconsciously.
Tam
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most instructors nowadays don't have the experience in any case
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not introduce a "Stop-and-think" point. For example, when you get to within 500 feet of the cloudbase....stop and think....what are my options, why am I pushing on?? Or perhaps at 5km or 3 km visibility, stop and think.....
Here is a useful review of ADM: http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/a...apter%2017.pdf
EN48 has hit it on the head for me. Changing a syllabus, introducing post licence training/checks, IIMC avoidance training, etc. won't have a material impact on the statistics. IMHO, most of these accidents have much more to do with the pilot's attitude and personality. Even having been previously scared in seriously dangerous situations, I know pilots who habitually gamble with their (and their pax's)lives in similar avoidable situations. Their arrogance and ego take over and the "I'll be alright - been here before" attitude overules all training and common sense. It's just another challenge and each successful outcome pumps up the arrogance even more, fuelling over-confidence and the feeling of invincibility.
It would be interesting to compare personality profiles of those pilots who thought they were better than all the others who also shared that arrogance and paid the price. I don't think many would be surprised by the common theme.
RIP. My condolences to the pilot's friends and family.
It would be interesting to compare personality profiles of those pilots who thought they were better than all the others who also shared that arrogance and paid the price. I don't think many would be surprised by the common theme.
RIP. My condolences to the pilot's friends and family.
TC mentioned about his son getting his licence but not having any experience of motorways , icy roads etc etc I was lucky , as my son has been , to have had a father who took me round race tracks etc so a skid was controllable and not the start of a crash . I know i will be shot down ...but flying in poor viz just has to be taught to be done safely . I genuinely believe it can be done safely if done in the correct way but of course it is not something that is taught . You can drive a car safely in fog if you slow right down . You can fly a helicopter safely in poor wx if you slow down , even down to 20 knots if you have to . Sling load is difficult and v dangerous performed by a pilot without the correct training ....i see no difference with this . There are many many pilots who spend most of the year flying vfr in crap wx , and manage to do it safely .
Before someone bites my head of i am saying you should NOT fly in very poor viz without the proper training ...
Before someone bites my head of i am saying you should NOT fly in very poor viz without the proper training ...
Nigel
You're a brave man to risk incurring the wrath of the PPRuNe community with a post like that
I think there's a huge difference between learning to cope with 'crap wx' (an occupational hazard in most of northern Europe) and learning how to avoid avoidable situations where the canopy suddenly goes white. I've heard stories of experienced PPLs flying perfectly well for 10 minutes on foggles, then inexplicably initiating a 90 degreee roll, totally oblivious to the instrument readings they're staring at. JohnR81's approach is spot on; if it gets sticky, don't be a hero. Get it down and be thankful your maturity kept you out of the AAIB statistics.
You're a brave man to risk incurring the wrath of the PPRuNe community with a post like that
I think there's a huge difference between learning to cope with 'crap wx' (an occupational hazard in most of northern Europe) and learning how to avoid avoidable situations where the canopy suddenly goes white. I've heard stories of experienced PPLs flying perfectly well for 10 minutes on foggles, then inexplicably initiating a 90 degreee roll, totally oblivious to the instrument readings they're staring at. JohnR81's approach is spot on; if it gets sticky, don't be a hero. Get it down and be thankful your maturity kept you out of the AAIB statistics.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTB please clarify..
TopToBottom:
Please could you explain or expand ?
This issue needs to be pinned down...
I think there's a huge difference between learning to cope with 'crap wx' (an occupational hazard in most of northern Europe) and learning how to avoid avoidable situations where the canopy suddenly goes white.
Please could you explain or expand ?
This issue needs to be pinned down...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am wondering how many auto pilots are available for single engine helicopters in the UK, so that when this happens again you simply flick a switch, turn into wind, reduce speed and slowly descend. 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does that auto-pilot also light-up a fag for you in the slow descent?
However, a band aid fix for the real problem!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Helisas looks like a very useful piece of kit, but it is not a solution for the problem being discussed in this thread. The problem we are addressing is keeping pilots out of weather that is beyond their ability level.
Although Chopjock's switch would be a nice to have item, I think it is only available from Harry Potter Helicopters at the moment.
Tam
Although Chopjock's switch would be a nice to have item, I think it is only available from Harry Potter Helicopters at the moment.
Tam
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Johe02 - unhelpful
a - I wasn't asking you
b - that's not a helpful answer
c - if you are not helping you are making it worse
d - I am not asking because I don't understand - I am asking because I want to understand TTB's thinking more...
e - would you please point out to me what you think the huge difference is
b - that's not a helpful answer
c - if you are not helping you are making it worse
d - I am not asking because I don't understand - I am asking because I want to understand TTB's thinking more...
e - would you please point out to me what you think the huge difference is
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No ... wrong!
"anti-authority, invulnerability and macho"
No !
try:
"conciencious, fastidious, niave, well intentioned and untrained"
Wake up please ... how many more need to die before someone understands what the true cause is?
I find this constant insult to the dead grossly distasteful, unfounded and unfair.
A guy who learnt in blue sky - had his flight test in clear weather, doesn't understand parallax and who has never seen a cloud up-close from a moving helicopter may well not know how to keep himself out of the cloud... it does not mean he 'deserves' to die !! He was just let down by a system which couldn't make up its mind how to advise a VMC pilot how to maintain Visual References ... treats IMC as something can 'just happen' and gives them 30minutes (or maybe even 5hrs) in some 'foggles' (which don't even limit the peripheral vision) of pseudo IMC ...and expects them to save their live this way.
Disgusting.
Pilots must be shown how to maintain Vis Ref and perhaps even be tested on it... simply because it does not come naturally to some pilots.
(.... who made the Darwin comment? Tasteless! families and children and lovers read this.... Heartless, thoughtless, B'tard - Apologise!)
time for a beer....
No !
try:
"conciencious, fastidious, niave, well intentioned and untrained"
Wake up please ... how many more need to die before someone understands what the true cause is?
I find this constant insult to the dead grossly distasteful, unfounded and unfair.
A guy who learnt in blue sky - had his flight test in clear weather, doesn't understand parallax and who has never seen a cloud up-close from a moving helicopter may well not know how to keep himself out of the cloud... it does not mean he 'deserves' to die !! He was just let down by a system which couldn't make up its mind how to advise a VMC pilot how to maintain Visual References ... treats IMC as something can 'just happen' and gives them 30minutes (or maybe even 5hrs) in some 'foggles' (which don't even limit the peripheral vision) of pseudo IMC ...and expects them to save their live this way.
Disgusting.
Pilots must be shown how to maintain Vis Ref and perhaps even be tested on it... simply because it does not come naturally to some pilots.
(.... who made the Darwin comment? Tasteless! families and children and lovers read this.... Heartless, thoughtless, B'tard - Apologise!)
time for a beer....
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFi,
Having read all this, as far as I can see your theory is based on your own subjective assessment that 20-30% of people can't process visual references normally and therefore need showing techniques that they should use to guard these references whereas the rest of us learn through experience how to do this (helped or hindered by the 5 hours basic IF)
My problem with this is the only source for this info is you and who knows if you are right or not, you sound like a doctor defining a new illness with no peer reviewed evidence to back it up.
I just don't buy the idea that 20-30% of pilots out there have got their brains wired differently, I think we just have many people of different abilities and that the current IF training is not vigorous or relevant enough and suggests to the student that a 180 turn is all you need, and that cloud avoidance is undertaught as a skill. That's it really.
Having read all this, as far as I can see your theory is based on your own subjective assessment that 20-30% of people can't process visual references normally and therefore need showing techniques that they should use to guard these references whereas the rest of us learn through experience how to do this (helped or hindered by the 5 hours basic IF)
My problem with this is the only source for this info is you and who knows if you are right or not, you sound like a doctor defining a new illness with no peer reviewed evidence to back it up.
I just don't buy the idea that 20-30% of pilots out there have got their brains wired differently, I think we just have many people of different abilities and that the current IF training is not vigorous or relevant enough and suggests to the student that a 180 turn is all you need, and that cloud avoidance is undertaught as a skill. That's it really.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good progress
Camp Freddie:
Having read all this, as far as I can see your theory is based on your own subjective assessment that 20-30% of people can't process visual references normally and therefore need showing techniques that they should use to guard these references whereas the rest of us learn through experience how to do this (helped or hindered by the 5 hours basic IF)
Having read all this, as far as I can see your theory is based on your own subjective assessment that 20-30% of people can't process visual references normally and therefore need showing techniques that they should use to guard these references whereas the rest of us learn through experience how to do this (helped or hindered by the 5 hours basic IF)
Camp Freddie:
My problem with this is the only source for this info is you and who knows if you are right or not, you sound like a doctor defining a new illness with no peer reviewed evidence to back it up.
My problem with this is the only source for this info is you and who knows if you are right or not, you sound like a doctor defining a new illness with no peer reviewed evidence to back it up.
Yes my observation is indeed merely a hypothesis - (based on my experience(s) and analytical skills) - requiring investigation ....... and then peer review.
Camp Freddie:
I just don't buy the idea that 20-30% of pilots out there have got their brains wired differently,
I just don't buy the idea that 20-30% of pilots out there have got their brains wired differently,
Camp Freddie:
I think we just have many people of different abilities and that the current IF training is not vigorous or relevant enough and suggests to the student that a 180 turn is all you need, and that cloud avoidance is undertaught as a skill.
I think we just have many people of different abilities and that the current IF training is not vigorous or relevant enough and suggests to the student that a 180 turn is all you need, and that cloud avoidance is undertaught as a skill.
.... correct:
"IF training is not ... relevant"
....but it is of course not addressing the issue of VRF - How to avoid IIMC - call it 'cloud avoidance' if you like ... but really there is more to it than that - including techniques to interpret what you see.
(like the first time a pilot sees a ship floating above the horizon in a grey sky when he crosses the channel in 'ONLY' 15km visibility. etc etc etc)
CF : this is good news... I am suggesting perhaps you investigate / will be surprised / are in a position to make a serious contribution to saving the misery caused.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AnFI
I'm not sure whether you're living proof that bull**** baffles brains, just having a laugh or really have got a very wierd take on all this.
Maintaining visual reference is a pretty simple concept that doesn't need some pyscho-babble analysis, guaranteed to confuse those you're supposedly trying to help. Can you see the ground clearly? And if not, do something about it so you can, such as turn or descend.
Frankly if you can't grasp that you shouldn't be flying. Or driving on the roads in wet, misty or foggy conditions that reduce visibility and present similar challenges in terms of maintaining adequate visual reference.
I'm not sure whether you're living proof that bull**** baffles brains, just having a laugh or really have got a very wierd take on all this.
Maintaining visual reference is a pretty simple concept that doesn't need some pyscho-babble analysis, guaranteed to confuse those you're supposedly trying to help. Can you see the ground clearly? And if not, do something about it so you can, such as turn or descend.
Frankly if you can't grasp that you shouldn't be flying. Or driving on the roads in wet, misty or foggy conditions that reduce visibility and present similar challenges in terms of maintaining adequate visual reference.