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, 04:17
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The ABC has temporarily banned night flights in choppers until it has absorbed the findings of this report.

ABC to ban night chopper flights
VH-XXX is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 08:22
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: After all, what’s more important than proving to someone on the internet that they’re wrong? - Manson
Posts: 1,837
Received 49 Likes on 35 Posts
Finally some light is shed on the problem.

Australian NVFR is totally flawed and has been for years.

All that is required is to look at what others are doing or have done in the past on the planet.

Nah nah yeah nah - lets reinvent the wheel mate.

As it stood if you had "flight instruments" and radio nav to take you where you wanted to go, you were good.

Nowhere did it state that you required adequate celestial or terrestrial lighting to establish your orientation.

So therefore because it sez Civil Aviation SAFETY Authority the assumption was it was safe.

After just 5 hours of training you could launch in an unstable aircraft, single pilot, IMC. It must be IMC because you cant see enough to tell if it's not by default.

I always asked the question - If its VFR why do you need "flight instruments"?

The knee jerk reaction proposed is kind of strange as well.

Two pilots? Does the aircraft need to be configured 2 pilot. i.e. duplicated flight instruments and dual controls and certified as such?

Autopilot? IFR, SPIFR, VFR, certified? Or just any old autopilot?

Why not just say IFR capable?

NGT VFR should be like anywhere else. Basic flight instruments and a wet compass. As it says on most type certified aircraft in the world on the placard in the cockpit except Australia if it does not have flight instruments. The onus is on the pilot to operate at night in visual conditions by looking out the window, not some myth that because it has "flight instruments" everything is good.

THere are numerous times when there is adequate lighting to fly at night without flight instruments and of course the opposite applies.

The Bell 206 night flight kit used to have a placard stating that with the kit flight by sole reference to instruments was prohibited but apparently not in Australia. Who knew?

If you look at it from another angle if this aircraft did not have "flight instruments" and the supposedly safe legal framework to allow the segment of flight to be conducted it possibly wouldn't have happened. The other indiscretions well.................

Flight by reference to "flight instruments" is not VFR. Flight at night in visual conditions to orientate yourself can be conducted quite adequately without "flight instruments". You just don't fly in the black bits the same as you don't fly into cloud.

If anyone is to lay blame 50% should be on CASA's shoulders and the stats are there to prove it. They are listed in the report.

The myth persists that if it is legal it must be safe. CASA once again are suffering from their own delusion.
RVDT is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2013, 11:14
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 14 Posts
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, 01:23
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
casa reply to the atsb

This is the first time I have seen a response to atsb occur so quickly.

But will the response just "flutter away"??

Project OS 14/01 - Night Visual Flight Rules - amendment to require a discernible external horizon during flights under NVFR

Issue

In response to a recent Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigation report into a visual flight rules (VFR) flight conducted in dark night conditions, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advised the ATSB of a number of safety actions being undertaken, including the clarification of the term 'visibility' in dark night conditions and the provision of further guidance on night VFR flight planning.

Dark night conditions


The ATSB report outlines that dark night visual meteorological conditions (VMC) are effectively the same as instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). "The only real difference is that, if there are lights on the ground, they can be seen in VMC. In remote areas where there are no lights or ambient illumination, there is no difference. Pilots cannot see the ground and have no external cues available to assist with their orientation".
Visibility is defined in regulation 2 of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) as "visibility means the ability, as determined by atmospheric conditions and expressed in units of distance, to see and identify prominent unlighted objects by day and prominent lighted objects by night."

Flight visibility is defined as "the average range of visibility forward from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight". Further, regulation 174 of CAR 1988 requires that flight visibility shall be determined by the pilot in command from the cockpit of the aircraft while in flight; and the pilot in command of an aircraft operating under the VFR is responsible for determining the visibility for the take-off and landing of the aircraft. In determining visibility for the purposes of these regulations, the pilot in command shall take into account the meteorological conditions, sun-glare and any other condition that may limit his or her effective vision through his or her windscreen; this would include dark night conditions.

In the context of dark night conditions being encountered and the lack of any other lighted objects as outlined by the ATSB above, it would be very difficult for the pilot to determine inflight visibility.

Helicopter night visual flight certification issues


There is a significant difference between a helicopter's certification for VMC and IMC operations, which centres on both the static and dynamic longitudinal stability of the helicopter. Unlike most aeroplanes, in VMC a helicopter can be certified with highly unstable static longitudinal stability characteristics provided it can comply with basic requirements for correct control sense of motion criteria.
However in IMC, where there is reduced external visual cues for orientation, the certification standards provide for further longitudinal stability requirements, both statically and dynamically. This is significant as outlined above, the reduced visual cue environment as experienced in dark night conditions effectively constitutes IMC and to operate a rotorcraft in such an environment would require the rotorcraft to be capable of meeting the additional IMC stability requirements.

Objective


The project will review the NVFR requirements in the current rule set and future CASR definitions to ensure it limits the visual environment to that in which a defined external horizon is available for aircraft attitude control. The project will examine the night VMC requirements for both rotorcraft and aeroplanes. However the outcome of the project may limit the change to the night VMC requirements to rotorcraft only in recognition of the difference in certification requirements between the categories. The project will also amend the guidance provided in CAAP 5.13-2 to emphasise the importance of maintaining a discernible external horizon at night particularly in light of the certification basis for NVFR rotorcraft.

Rules affected


CAR 2, 172, 174
CASR 91

Status


This project was approved by Rick Leeds, A/g Executive Manager on 16 December 2013.

Project management


Project Leader/s: Damien Fing, Standards Officer, Rotorcraft, Flight Standards Branch

Project Sponsor/s:
Peter Boyd, Executive Manager, Standards Division

Standards Officer/s:


Priority


High

Documents


  • No documents
Consultation Document History

View the project history.

SCC


SCC - Operational Standards
Up-into-the-air is offline  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 08:42
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Europe
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
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  
Old 8th Jan 2014, 10:02
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
atsb is out of touch with the Aviation Industry and so is dolan

Great catch JimL

A pity the OZ atsb did not get it:

VFR Flight Report from CAA UK 2007 Helicopters
Why was this not used in the ABC Chopper Report??
| Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Up-into-the-air 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 © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.