CAA UK prosecutions
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
I have not posted on this forum for a while but I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed at the attitudes towards the regulator by some posters on this thread.
If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!
If you believe a rule to be flawed....campaign to have it reveiwed and amended. There are well established procedures that enable this to happen.
The history of aviation is littered with fatal accidents caused by individuals who chose not to follow the rules.
Substituting previous experience in lieu of risk assessment allows individuals to believe that operating inside the prohibited sector of the height-velocity curve (for example) is an acceptable practice. Vertical operations in a single is not only prohibited by JAR-OPS 3 but contradicts the limitations in the AFM, for good reason. In my view there is no acceptable reason for operating in this manner unless you are saving a life, and even then there is nearly always a field next door that can be used. 3 years of dedicated HEMS taught me that!!
Operating safely generally means employing procedures that are designed to minimise the risks of an undesirable event. It takes determination, skill, knowledge and judgement. In the old days we called this "Airmanship".
It is precisley becuase certain individuals think they know better, that the regulator has had to be more prescriptive in its rule making as clearly common sense is lacking amongst some of out brethren.
There are rules that seem illogical and maybe some of them are even inappropriate. As aviators we are compelled to review these issues disspassioinatley and lobby/campaign/feedback the regulator using the established review procedures to tidy these areas up.
All the CAA regulators I have met have the same goal as me. Safe, compliant operations. As such my views are fully aligned with those of the regulator.
Our passengers deserve nothing less!!
Rant over.
If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!
If you believe a rule to be flawed....campaign to have it reveiwed and amended. There are well established procedures that enable this to happen.
The history of aviation is littered with fatal accidents caused by individuals who chose not to follow the rules.
Substituting previous experience in lieu of risk assessment allows individuals to believe that operating inside the prohibited sector of the height-velocity curve (for example) is an acceptable practice. Vertical operations in a single is not only prohibited by JAR-OPS 3 but contradicts the limitations in the AFM, for good reason. In my view there is no acceptable reason for operating in this manner unless you are saving a life, and even then there is nearly always a field next door that can be used. 3 years of dedicated HEMS taught me that!!
Operating safely generally means employing procedures that are designed to minimise the risks of an undesirable event. It takes determination, skill, knowledge and judgement. In the old days we called this "Airmanship".
It is precisley becuase certain individuals think they know better, that the regulator has had to be more prescriptive in its rule making as clearly common sense is lacking amongst some of out brethren.
There are rules that seem illogical and maybe some of them are even inappropriate. As aviators we are compelled to review these issues disspassioinatley and lobby/campaign/feedback the regulator using the established review procedures to tidy these areas up.
All the CAA regulators I have met have the same goal as me. Safe, compliant operations. As such my views are fully aligned with those of the regulator.
Our passengers deserve nothing less!!
Rant over.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
If you read the flight manually carefully, you'll see that for Part 27 ('Normal' category') single engine helicopters, the H-V curve is not, repeat NOT a limitation.
It's in the performance section.
And you can't have 100% safe operations ever. A good deal of risk assessment needs to be done - saving a life by hovering in the H-V area for a short while is a good example.
It's in the performance section.
And you can't have 100% safe operations ever. A good deal of risk assessment needs to be done - saving a life by hovering in the H-V area for a short while is a good example.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
When a rule or regulation is written as a result of an accident, it is often a question of a*se-covering instead of protecting since the regulatory body must be seen to do something rather than accept that those particular holes in the swiss cheese are ever likely to line up again.
It is the same mentality that allowed the unrestricted growth of Health and Safety legislation - it started out as a good idea to protect workers in the workplace and has ended up as an unwieldy series of rules and regs that hamstring the emergency services on a daily basis and make most normal people's lives far more difficult than they need to be.
Life is not zero-risk and never will be (thank God) and some of the jobs that need to be undertaken in aviation will always involve some element of risk.
If the CAA were really serious about safety, they would have mandated post-graduate training for PPLs many years ago. Without further training, a pilot only has his experience to go on and, if that experience is based on luck rather than skill (getting away with flying in marginal weather for example)then it should come as no surprise that eventually a few get caught out.
Rules don't make things safer - good training makes things safer.
It is the same mentality that allowed the unrestricted growth of Health and Safety legislation - it started out as a good idea to protect workers in the workplace and has ended up as an unwieldy series of rules and regs that hamstring the emergency services on a daily basis and make most normal people's lives far more difficult than they need to be.
Life is not zero-risk and never will be (thank God) and some of the jobs that need to be undertaken in aviation will always involve some element of risk.
If the CAA were really serious about safety, they would have mandated post-graduate training for PPLs many years ago. Without further training, a pilot only has his experience to go on and, if that experience is based on luck rather than skill (getting away with flying in marginal weather for example)then it should come as no surprise that eventually a few get caught out.
Rules don't make things safer - good training makes things safer.
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,529
Likes: 2
From: yorkshire uk
DB ....im not at all surprised by your post . You are the jobsworth who agreed it was unsafe to fly in gin clear air because the experts thought the ash cloud was over you. You were wrong ...and they were . You assumed they were experts ....they werent . 
I guess it takes all sorts and some are just "by the book " merchants ...luckily for all of us some people ( from high time pilots to test pilots ) have used their own common sense and sometimes pushed the boundary and created new techniques and ways to use helicopters . This is how we got SAR etc in the first place . I have never flown with a pilot like you who believes ALL rules ,daft or not , need to be stuck to in order to be safe . Your idea of the HV curve is a good example . That would mean banning most sling load ops , heli skiing , and confined area landings would be a tad tricky also . Obviously there is no point in sitting in that curve regularly just for the hell of it .
I agree with Crab ( which im sure will horrify him !!!)
ps Out of interest how many rules have YOU tried to change and suceeded ?
or do you think all the rules are correct ?
I guess it takes all sorts and some are just "by the book " merchants ...luckily for all of us some people ( from high time pilots to test pilots ) have used their own common sense and sometimes pushed the boundary and created new techniques and ways to use helicopters . This is how we got SAR etc in the first place . I have never flown with a pilot like you who believes ALL rules ,daft or not , need to be stuck to in order to be safe . Your idea of the HV curve is a good example . That would mean banning most sling load ops , heli skiing , and confined area landings would be a tad tricky also . Obviously there is no point in sitting in that curve regularly just for the hell of it .I agree with Crab ( which im sure will horrify him !!!)
ps Out of interest how many rules have YOU tried to change and suceeded ?
or do you think all the rules are correct ?
Last edited by nigelh; 1st November 2012 at 15:54.
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 429
Likes: 38
From: England
Helicopters are versatile, that's why we fly them.
I always tell people it's an area where we do not want to operate unless we have to but always take on board the issues when operating in here, after all we fly helicopters and that is what helicopters do.
DB, do you agree with all the CAA rules?
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 917
Likes: 0
From: UK
DB
A lot more individuals who chose not to follow the rules have not had accidents !
Also I should think there are a lot more accidents to individuals who do follow all the rules too!
The history of aviation is littered with fatal accidents caused by individuals who chose not to follow the rules.
Also I should think there are a lot more accidents to individuals who do follow all the rules too!
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
Pitts - it is not what is in the report now that Jelly contests but what has been removed because it was inaccurate and possibly defamatory.
Jelly didn't get the CAA to rewrite history but got them to keep to the facts rather than their assumptions I believe.
NigelH - not horrified - pleasantly surprised
Jelly didn't get the CAA to rewrite history but got them to keep to the facts rather than their assumptions I believe.
NigelH - not horrified - pleasantly surprised
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
From: England & Scotland
NigH and Crabb
I find you each to have a vald basis for the things that you post - that's why I always read your comment, sometimes more carefully than I read (or skip) some others.
You do both have an "individual" style in which you publish.
Viv la difference!
I find you each to have a vald basis for the things that you post - that's why I always read your comment, sometimes more carefully than I read (or skip) some others.
You do both have an "individual" style in which you publish.
Viv la difference!
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
NigelH. You are a rude ignorant man. The very reason why I have declined/resisted/avoided posting on this forum for several years and you left me wishing I had not.
For your information only, not that I give much of a toss, I have spent a considerable part of my aviation career flying HEMs and Police, both of which are afforded risk based alleviations from the more prescriptive rules that are designed to provide a framework from which majority of us try to operate safely. I have used those alleviations in my best judgement to hopefully, make a small difference to some of the peoples lives we touched in the course of our duties.
I doubt you would be capable of understanding the relevance of risk based rule making seeing as you would prefer the anarchy of the freedom to make up the rules as they suit you.
In respect of the ash-cloud crisis. I flew every offshore mission allocated to me IAW the Company guidelines and the MET information avaible. Did you???
As I am neither a meteorologist NOR a manager responsible for overall safety, I place my trust initially in such individuals and their guidance. What other option do you think is available OR do you, in your misguided arrogance, believe you are better placed to determine what is safe than the METs or the CAA???
There is no place for attitudes like your in the modern grown up aviation world. Your anti-establishmentariasm (OK - that might not be a real word!!) paints a poor example to the rest of us.
CRAB - I am dissapointed in the first line of your post!!! I hope if you re-read it you may see the naivity of your statement that filling in swiss cheese holes should be viewed in a cynical light. It should be applauded.
DB
For your information only, not that I give much of a toss, I have spent a considerable part of my aviation career flying HEMs and Police, both of which are afforded risk based alleviations from the more prescriptive rules that are designed to provide a framework from which majority of us try to operate safely. I have used those alleviations in my best judgement to hopefully, make a small difference to some of the peoples lives we touched in the course of our duties.
I doubt you would be capable of understanding the relevance of risk based rule making seeing as you would prefer the anarchy of the freedom to make up the rules as they suit you.
In respect of the ash-cloud crisis. I flew every offshore mission allocated to me IAW the Company guidelines and the MET information avaible. Did you???
As I am neither a meteorologist NOR a manager responsible for overall safety, I place my trust initially in such individuals and their guidance. What other option do you think is available OR do you, in your misguided arrogance, believe you are better placed to determine what is safe than the METs or the CAA???
There is no place for attitudes like your in the modern grown up aviation world. Your anti-establishmentariasm (OK - that might not be a real word!!) paints a poor example to the rest of us.
CRAB - I am dissapointed in the first line of your post!!! I hope if you re-read it you may see the naivity of your statement that filling in swiss cheese holes should be viewed in a cynical light. It should be applauded.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 5th November 2012 at 17:37.
Joined: Jan 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 57
From: UK
Got to say when you read the AAIB report behind this tale I don't think anyone involved comes out of it looking all that clever.
With a relaxed attitude to the rules.... at what point does it become reckless?
With a relaxed attitude to the rules.... at what point does it become reckless?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
DB
Sorry you are way off the mark with your comments i am afraid. If you follow your logic about the HV curve ( which incidentally is NOT a limitation) then you would never ever have been taught to fly.
I would assume you are probably an ex mil pilot, if so you would have been taught on a 341, if a civy then a piston single. In both cases you would have been taught double angle and vertical landings, both within the HV curve. Presumably with your logic they are a limitations so in which case you would not have been taught them ???????
Lets us look at the rules on JAR Ops 3, I have a Hughes 500 on an AOC, take off distance to 100 ft is 231m with fare paying pax on board. Put the same aircraft with the same people on board with the same pilot but pax are all cost sharing the aircraft then it can take off vertically quite legally. Now tell me what is the difference from a safety point of view ?? Why do the rules differ if all rules are there for safety ???
I think you need to look at the bigger picture, you are more likely to be killed driving on the M1 than in a helicopter. Oh better send down the boys in blue as i am teaching quickstops today in a single engine piston and as i am sure you are aware I will be in the H/V curve doing so !
Sorry you are way off the mark with your comments i am afraid. If you follow your logic about the HV curve ( which incidentally is NOT a limitation) then you would never ever have been taught to fly.
I would assume you are probably an ex mil pilot, if so you would have been taught on a 341, if a civy then a piston single. In both cases you would have been taught double angle and vertical landings, both within the HV curve. Presumably with your logic they are a limitations so in which case you would not have been taught them ???????
Lets us look at the rules on JAR Ops 3, I have a Hughes 500 on an AOC, take off distance to 100 ft is 231m with fare paying pax on board. Put the same aircraft with the same people on board with the same pilot but pax are all cost sharing the aircraft then it can take off vertically quite legally. Now tell me what is the difference from a safety point of view ?? Why do the rules differ if all rules are there for safety ???
I think you need to look at the bigger picture, you are more likely to be killed driving on the M1 than in a helicopter. Oh better send down the boys in blue as i am teaching quickstops today in a single engine piston and as i am sure you are aware I will be in the H/V curve doing so !
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
DB - no, I don't agree with your view on safety - you seem to believe that flying should be made 100% safe and that isn't possible other than not flying at all.
There are some accidents which are clearly avoidable but others are just accidents, and no matter how many rules and regulations you write you won't ever get those circumstances occurring together (swiss cheese holes) again - the process hasn't made anything safer, just added another layer of bureaucracy.
Take the Air France crash into the South Atlantic - a perfectly serviceable air craft flown into the water because of a poor decision made by the captain to fly through the top of a CB with a pitot heater that wasn't cleared for that environment and iced up. Do you write a rule saying 'don't fly through CBs' or do you acknowledge that most pilots don't and any that have thought of it are very likely to have been put off it by that sad accident?
Nanny doesn't always know best - as proved with the ash cloud debacle - but sometimes people in power feel they have to be seen to do something, even if it is the wrong thing.
There remain, sadly, some people who will always be a danger to themselves, regardless of what rules and regs are there to try and protect them - the mine owner in Cumbria was a classic example as was Mr Macrae.
Most of us go about our business being mindful of, but not necessarily slavishly devoted to, rules and regs because it is ones own personal safety l margins that will keep you out of trouble, not what it says in a book.
I get to fly with quite a few people who can quote me chapter and verse of the rule books but are unable to perform the sort of manoeuvres that might save their lives because they are perpetually risk-averse and chained to the rule-book.
There are some accidents which are clearly avoidable but others are just accidents, and no matter how many rules and regulations you write you won't ever get those circumstances occurring together (swiss cheese holes) again - the process hasn't made anything safer, just added another layer of bureaucracy.
Take the Air France crash into the South Atlantic - a perfectly serviceable air craft flown into the water because of a poor decision made by the captain to fly through the top of a CB with a pitot heater that wasn't cleared for that environment and iced up. Do you write a rule saying 'don't fly through CBs' or do you acknowledge that most pilots don't and any that have thought of it are very likely to have been put off it by that sad accident?
Nanny doesn't always know best - as proved with the ash cloud debacle - but sometimes people in power feel they have to be seen to do something, even if it is the wrong thing.
There remain, sadly, some people who will always be a danger to themselves, regardless of what rules and regs are there to try and protect them - the mine owner in Cumbria was a classic example as was Mr Macrae.
Most of us go about our business being mindful of, but not necessarily slavishly devoted to, rules and regs because it is ones own personal safety l margins that will keep you out of trouble, not what it says in a book.
I get to fly with quite a few people who can quote me chapter and verse of the rule books but are unable to perform the sort of manoeuvres that might save their lives because they are perpetually risk-averse and chained to the rule-book.
Joined: Jan 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 57
From: UK
Hughes/Crab - I understand the sentiment and agree the point that its silly to become a slave to rules and regs with a disregard to common sense; but you can't have a beef with someone just because they have a harder limit than you.
In the end for any regulation to have a meaning there has to be some hard limit or else it becomes a free for all.
However I think in the context of what has happened here I don't think we are talking about minor oversights but perhaps systemic, willful oblivion.
In the end for any regulation to have a meaning there has to be some hard limit or else it becomes a free for all.
However I think in the context of what has happened here I don't think we are talking about minor oversights but perhaps systemic, willful oblivion.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 557
Likes: 27
From: At home
Pitts,
DB starts with
For this kind of attitude, I think he deserves to get some replies. He follows up with reference to what he thinks is prohibited and his perception of the rules, which is wrong, and then you can just immagine how things can go when people with powers interpret ''silly rules and regs'' allready in place, let alone even more to be made.... ref what has been mentioned regards ''VolcanoGate'' 2 years back....
FFS In Norway the CAA even grounded Hanggliders!!!
As Crab says: the ultimate safetymeasure would be to stop flying alltogether! But even if that was to happen, I'm sure there would be a "need'' for the CAA. Lets not allow common sence to be an option.
DB starts with
I have not posted on this forum for a while but I have to say that I am somewhat dismayed at the attitudes towards the regulator by some posters on this thread.
If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!
If you have a disposition that is naturally adverse to abiding by rules, regulations and procedures you have no place in aviation!!!
FFS In Norway the CAA even grounded Hanggliders!!!
As Crab says: the ultimate safetymeasure would be to stop flying alltogether! But even if that was to happen, I'm sure there would be a "need'' for the CAA. Lets not allow common sence to be an option.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
Pittsextra
His sentiment migt be in the right place but I cant believe he has the experience quoted, if he did he would know the HV curve that used to be called the avoid curve ( hint there) and when I started The dead mans curve is not a limitation.
We might take him more seriously if he knew what he was talking about, it is a bit of a schoolboy error to assume the avoid curve is a limitation !
His sentiment migt be in the right place but I cant believe he has the experience quoted, if he did he would know the HV curve that used to be called the avoid curve ( hint there) and when I started The dead mans curve is not a limitation.
We might take him more seriously if he knew what he was talking about, it is a bit of a schoolboy error to assume the avoid curve is a limitation !
Joined: Jan 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 57
From: UK
Agree with all of that however I think in the context of this particular case there is a greater point.
Perhaps I've missed the point and perhaps the guy Jellycopter is known and personal friends to some but really I don't see what the CAA have really done to take issue with.
My own personal view is that there was a great to take issue with - from reading this:- Air Accidents Investigation: Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle, YU-HEW
Quite honestly its total amatuer hour and there seems to be a continual desire by it seems all involved to short cut and work around things. Its a case study into the idiocy of such a mindset and no surprise people suffered.
Perhaps I've missed the point and perhaps the guy Jellycopter is known and personal friends to some but really I don't see what the CAA have really done to take issue with.
My own personal view is that there was a great to take issue with - from reading this:- Air Accidents Investigation: Aerospatiale/Westland SA 341G Gazelle, YU-HEW
Quite honestly its total amatuer hour and there seems to be a continual desire by it seems all involved to short cut and work around things. Its a case study into the idiocy of such a mindset and no surprise people suffered.