Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Three killed in South Australia Helicopter crash

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Three killed in South Australia Helicopter crash

Old 14th Nov 2013, 11:14
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,882
If anyone will get the blame it will be the pilot as he did not meet recency requirements. CASA's hands are clean. He was only doing what he was allowed to do. PS: Aus NVFR is 10 hours these days FYI.
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 12:43
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 69
Posts: 1,835
RVDT:
Part of the problem is that a basic certification for Part 27 does not require an attitude indicator - the requirement for an attitude indicator is often (depends on country) in the operational rules - and only then for commercial operations.
Ditto for things like gyro compass. Look at the baseline 'top drawing' of most light helicopters cockpits to see what is the minimum. Some light single engine machines, particularly of European extraction had to have a complete refit of night lighting to operate in North America as the country of origin did not allow single engine aircraft to fly at night - because in that country night flying is IFR, and the original night lighting was just the wander light...

Look deeply for a definition of VFR - at the most fundamental level it will say something like '…ability to orient the aircraft position (in this case meaning not just geographical position, but height above ground and pitch and roll attitude) by use of visual references from the ground or water.

There are lots of times when this isn't possible in daylight (3 miles vis in a milk-bowl day with no discernable horizon over a lake that's 5 miles wide, or on a overcast day with 1 mile vis over a snow-covered lake are just two examples) and people have paid with their lives to learn, too late, that it wasn't VFR.
Shawn Coyle is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2013, 05:14
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,179
via Shawn Cole:
Part of the problem is that a basic certification for Part 27 does not require an attitude indicator - the requirement for an attitude indicator is often (depends on country) in the operational rules - and only then for commercial operations.
Ditto for things like gyro compass...
Been near 20 years though when i got a helicopter done up for private NVFR it required the full six pack. My understanding at the time a six pack wasn't required for US night heli ops ?






.
Flying Binghi is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 08:42
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 864
One of the problems with this subject is that most regulations are written in the language of visibility – where visibility is defined in the context of an object (from ICAO Annex 2):

Visibility. Visibility for aeronautical purposes is the greater of:
(a) the greatest distance at which a black object of suitable dimensions, situated near the ground, can be seen and recognized when observed against a bright background;

(b) the greatest distance at which lights in the vicinity of 1 000 candelas can be seen and identified against an unlit background.
When the subject is more associated with flight in a 'usable cue environment' (or more correctly, 'in degraded visual conditions') – a far more complex issue.

Although the certification code contains a hook for addressing such issues:

27/29.141 The rotorcraft must--
(a) Except as specifically required in the applicable section meet the flight characteristics requirements of this subpart


(c) Have any additional characteristic required for night or instrument operation, if certification for those kinds of operation is requested. Requirements for helicopter instrument flight are contained in Appendix B of this Part.
it is unusual for any additional characteristics to be specified for ‘night flight’ - when it relies upon the visual cue environment for maintenance of stability/control.

For that reason, CASA might be well advised to refer to CAA Paper 2007/03 ‘Helicopter Flight in Degraded Visual Conditions’ - an extremely good treatise, dealing with this very subject, and which contains appropriate recommendations.

Jim
JimL is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.