CAA UK prosecutions
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
I think Jelly, as the examiner, was somewhat seen off by his 'mate' who was the main instructor. It was the mate who incorrectly logged (or failed to log) the training hours and it was he who was responsible for ensuring the pilot covered all the exercises.
In the end, it was a poor decision by the pilot to go flying in poor weather, just to wave at his family in Knaresborough, that put him in the position of running out of skill and knowledge trying to return to the hotel.
In the end, it was a poor decision by the pilot to go flying in poor weather, just to wave at his family in Knaresborough, that put him in the position of running out of skill and knowledge trying to return to the hotel.
Joined: Jan 2012
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 57
From: UK
Crab - quite.
I think I've fallen into the trap of reading the AAIB report and assuming the link/mateyness between the two instructors was stronger than perhaps it is/was.
I think I've fallen into the trap of reading the AAIB report and assuming the link/mateyness between the two instructors was stronger than perhaps it is/was.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 2
From: UKdom
DB - Please don't forget that not every aspect of aviation is governed by public transport regulations - they exist to protect members of the public who are considered to be 'unaware' of risks associated with aviation. Because of this Public Transport Regulations such as the now defunct JAR OPS 3 were evolved.
There's a lot of flying that is not PT though! Even some of the North Sea boys fly around in the avoid curve lifting flare stacks etc.
HEMS was also PT at times. when I flew HEMS, given our operating area, it was near on impossible not to be in the avoid curve at times - sometimes it is safer to hang about at a height in the avoid curve to check the landing area was clear than dropping in quick, risking lamp posts and wires to avoid operating in the avoid curve! Or your departure may be straight up and out as the site was not suited to a Helipad or Clear Area departure.
Crab - couldn't agree with you more - people will always continue to die in WHATEVER they do because every day is an exposure to risk. All we can do is manage risk but accept it at the same time - if we don't accept there is a risk then we are less likely to be aware of it!
Introducing MORE paperwork and MORE rules is not always the right approach - you just end up flying around worrying about what you've forgotten - and then you might hit those wires whilst flying a Performance Class 3 departure through a wide enough gap in the trees (the trees that hide the poles).
But then a vertical departure may hit wires above you. Arrghhh - what to do. Crikey, crumbs, I should just give up flying. Oh no, wait a minute. Clear head, sensible mindset, take your time, have a good look around and DON'T take anything for granted.
There's a lot of flying that is not PT though! Even some of the North Sea boys fly around in the avoid curve lifting flare stacks etc.
HEMS was also PT at times. when I flew HEMS, given our operating area, it was near on impossible not to be in the avoid curve at times - sometimes it is safer to hang about at a height in the avoid curve to check the landing area was clear than dropping in quick, risking lamp posts and wires to avoid operating in the avoid curve! Or your departure may be straight up and out as the site was not suited to a Helipad or Clear Area departure.
Crab - couldn't agree with you more - people will always continue to die in WHATEVER they do because every day is an exposure to risk. All we can do is manage risk but accept it at the same time - if we don't accept there is a risk then we are less likely to be aware of it!
Introducing MORE paperwork and MORE rules is not always the right approach - you just end up flying around worrying about what you've forgotten - and then you might hit those wires whilst flying a Performance Class 3 departure through a wide enough gap in the trees (the trees that hide the poles).
But then a vertical departure may hit wires above you. Arrghhh - what to do. Crikey, crumbs, I should just give up flying. Oh no, wait a minute. Clear head, sensible mindset, take your time, have a good look around and DON'T take anything for granted.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
HUGHES 500 - If the H/V curve appears in the limitations sections of the RFM (and it does not for all types) it is a limitation. Aircraft are issued with a CofA. It states on the CofA that the aircraft shall be operated IAW the limitations in the RFM. I did not make the rules I just follow them when I am required to do so OR indeed, not alleviated from them.
I have not been involved in HEMS since 1996 so I am not up to speed with current operations - however, In my time we had alleviations from RoA Rule 5(1)(b), which enabled us to operate at a height and speed that did not provide for a safe forced landing without the possibility of endangering persons and/or property on the ground.
I do not agree at all that we should be allowed to operate inside the H/V avoid curve for any passenger operations. If the H/V chart is in the limitations section of the RFM, without a suitable alleviation, it must be adhered to for all operations regardless. If the manufacturer has decreed that the H/V curve prohibvited area is likley to cause me harm WHY would I ever want to deliberatley put myself in it without a very compelling reason to do so???
CRAB - The Air France accident you refer to, in my opinion, based solely on watching the ACI TV programme, would seem to be the result of poor interpretation of the Flight Instruments AND failure to adopt a sensible aircraft attitude and power setting for stable cruise flight during a malfunction of the ASI indication. TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING - in my opinion!!
It is unsettling that the pair of you seem so keen to leap down the throat of anyone who expresses a desire to follow the rules. What message are you trying to send. Is it:
(a) You do not like rules
(b) You do not follow rules
(c) You think there is no need for rules
(d) You know better!!
I follow the rules as best as I can. I have not come across a rule that caused me too much grief to comply with OR that I though was unnecessary. I am struggling to understand why you would not do the same.
I have not been involved in HEMS since 1996 so I am not up to speed with current operations - however, In my time we had alleviations from RoA Rule 5(1)(b), which enabled us to operate at a height and speed that did not provide for a safe forced landing without the possibility of endangering persons and/or property on the ground.
I do not agree at all that we should be allowed to operate inside the H/V avoid curve for any passenger operations. If the H/V chart is in the limitations section of the RFM, without a suitable alleviation, it must be adhered to for all operations regardless. If the manufacturer has decreed that the H/V curve prohibvited area is likley to cause me harm WHY would I ever want to deliberatley put myself in it without a very compelling reason to do so???
CRAB - The Air France accident you refer to, in my opinion, based solely on watching the ACI TV programme, would seem to be the result of poor interpretation of the Flight Instruments AND failure to adopt a sensible aircraft attitude and power setting for stable cruise flight during a malfunction of the ASI indication. TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING - in my opinion!!
It is unsettling that the pair of you seem so keen to leap down the throat of anyone who expresses a desire to follow the rules. What message are you trying to send. Is it:
(a) You do not like rules
(b) You do not follow rules
(c) You think there is no need for rules
(d) You know better!!
I follow the rules as best as I can. I have not come across a rule that caused me too much grief to comply with OR that I though was unnecessary. I am struggling to understand why you would not do the same.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
HUGHES 500 - If you are teaching quickstops properly, why would you end up in the prohibited part of the H/V curve??? Surely the object of the exercise is remain in the safe sector. However, the last quickstop I did in anger was a few years ago so maybe things have changed!!
PS - Before you question someones experience you should do a little research - but just for you - ME (my favourite subject) as follows:
Army Pilots Course
15,500 hours Rotary
5 years Police/HEMS
17 Years offshore
UK TRI/TRE MPH(IR)
EX-FOI(H) with ICAO Regulatory Authority
How about you??????
I will concede that the least experience I actually have is in SE helicopters, all turbine I am afraid. But you may be enlightened to know that in the MEH world we also have H/V Charts. In both of my current types they are in the limitations section and in the CAT A Helipad section it states that the chart does not apply.
Please tell me why you wnat to be in the H/V??
PS - Before you question someones experience you should do a little research - but just for you - ME (my favourite subject) as follows:
Army Pilots Course
15,500 hours Rotary
5 years Police/HEMS
17 Years offshore
UK TRI/TRE MPH(IR)
EX-FOI(H) with ICAO Regulatory Authority
How about you??????
I will concede that the least experience I actually have is in SE helicopters, all turbine I am afraid. But you may be enlightened to know that in the MEH world we also have H/V Charts. In both of my current types they are in the limitations section and in the CAT A Helipad section it states that the chart does not apply.
Please tell me why you wnat to be in the H/V??
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 2
From: UKdom
From the Single Engine Flight Manuals;
The Height-Velocity Diagram defines the conditions from which a
safe landing can be made on a smooth, level, firm surface following an
engine failure. The Height-Velocity Diagram is valid only when the
helicopter gross weight does not exceed the limits of the Altitude
Versus Gross Weight for Height-Velocity Diagram.
Robinson R44 - H/V Curve is in section 5 (Performance) not Section 2 (Limitations)
Bell 206A - Same.
Bell 47 - Same but with added 'avoid CONTINUOUS' operation in the shaded area.
As for some Twins;
AS365 - H/V is in section 2 (Limitations) however operation inside the avoid curve permitted as long as you are below certain weights prescribed in the accompanying graph.
AS355 - H/V is in section 5 (Performance). As above, below certain weight it doesn't apply. Above the size of the avoid area changes.
DB - from a teaching point of view you might not want to be in the Avoid Curve but sometimes you just have to - not every student is as capable as those carefully selected by HM Forces! But if the instructor confines the student too much then he/she will never learn from their mistakes and may never fully appreciate the dangers of ending up high in the hover. It's actually quite useful when a student gets it wrong because you can discuss the situation with them, the danger and, MORE importantly, the recovery action needed.
Lifting Pilots are in the Avoid Curve for hours on end - should we stop lifting?!?
Out of interest - how high are the oil rig platforms and what weights do you guys go in and out at?
H500 is not saying he WANTS to be there. He's saying you CAN be there if the conditions are RIGHT. The rules say for PT that you cannot be there -fair enough - 'thems the rules' but as you can see from AAIB reports - accidents have happened to pilots flying 'a normal' PC3 departure including wire strikes and even a fence.
I suppose we could all just swap to flying Aeroplanes - then there would be no Avoid Curve...! Oh, I remember - I fly helicopters because I can go to lots of different places to land - not just prescribed places, A to B, in straight lines .
The Height-Velocity Diagram defines the conditions from which a
safe landing can be made on a smooth, level, firm surface following an
engine failure. The Height-Velocity Diagram is valid only when the
helicopter gross weight does not exceed the limits of the Altitude
Versus Gross Weight for Height-Velocity Diagram.
Robinson R44 - H/V Curve is in section 5 (Performance) not Section 2 (Limitations)
Bell 206A - Same.
Bell 47 - Same but with added 'avoid CONTINUOUS' operation in the shaded area.
As for some Twins;
AS365 - H/V is in section 2 (Limitations) however operation inside the avoid curve permitted as long as you are below certain weights prescribed in the accompanying graph.
AS355 - H/V is in section 5 (Performance). As above, below certain weight it doesn't apply. Above the size of the avoid area changes.
DB - from a teaching point of view you might not want to be in the Avoid Curve but sometimes you just have to - not every student is as capable as those carefully selected by HM Forces! But if the instructor confines the student too much then he/she will never learn from their mistakes and may never fully appreciate the dangers of ending up high in the hover. It's actually quite useful when a student gets it wrong because you can discuss the situation with them, the danger and, MORE importantly, the recovery action needed.
Lifting Pilots are in the Avoid Curve for hours on end - should we stop lifting?!?
Out of interest - how high are the oil rig platforms and what weights do you guys go in and out at?
H500 is not saying he WANTS to be there. He's saying you CAN be there if the conditions are RIGHT. The rules say for PT that you cannot be there -fair enough - 'thems the rules' but as you can see from AAIB reports - accidents have happened to pilots flying 'a normal' PC3 departure including wire strikes and even a fence.
I suppose we could all just swap to flying Aeroplanes - then there would be no Avoid Curve...! Oh, I remember - I fly helicopters because I can go to lots of different places to land - not just prescribed places, A to B, in straight lines .
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
MISTERBONKERS
Thank you for information and I understand your predicament in the training environment. I commend your committment to teach the students the potential danger of being in the avoid curve if the critical power unit fails.
To answer your question about offshore operations - majority of current offshore operations are permitted with "Exposure" during take-off and landing. By that it means should an engine fail - a safe forced landing would not be available. In the extreme, deck edge contact could occur that carries the risk of a serious accident.
Unfortunatley it is proved extremely difficult to produce a predictive, practical offshore performance model for multi-engine helicopters that works in the obstacle strewn offshore environment, though many have tried and indeed still are trying. In JAR-OPS this subject was addressed by looking at the prime causal factor of the potential accident, the failure of the engine. As such the risks of an incident are currently mitgated by additional maintenance, airworthiness and operating requirements to reduce, in so far as possible, the risks of an engine actually failing.
Some offshore types operate IAW specific performance profiles that either define, limit or remove the exposure during take-off or landing but the penalties imposed on less capable types are too limiting for all of these procedures to be practically applied.
It is a complex subject, but the reality is that for most of us in the offshore industry, "Exposure" is a risk we readily accept whilst basking comfortably in the knowledge that there has not been an attributable performance based accident offshore (certainly in the ICAO regulated environment) and to a degree, the risks are mitigated by additional requirements and procedures.
So there you go. I am not actually risk averse. I accept when it is necessary or mitigated BUT always within the operating rules applicable at the time.
For H500 - What is a "Double Angle" approach??? Maybe I was asleep during that particular lesson.
DB
Thank you for information and I understand your predicament in the training environment. I commend your committment to teach the students the potential danger of being in the avoid curve if the critical power unit fails.
To answer your question about offshore operations - majority of current offshore operations are permitted with "Exposure" during take-off and landing. By that it means should an engine fail - a safe forced landing would not be available. In the extreme, deck edge contact could occur that carries the risk of a serious accident.
Unfortunatley it is proved extremely difficult to produce a predictive, practical offshore performance model for multi-engine helicopters that works in the obstacle strewn offshore environment, though many have tried and indeed still are trying. In JAR-OPS this subject was addressed by looking at the prime causal factor of the potential accident, the failure of the engine. As such the risks of an incident are currently mitgated by additional maintenance, airworthiness and operating requirements to reduce, in so far as possible, the risks of an engine actually failing.
Some offshore types operate IAW specific performance profiles that either define, limit or remove the exposure during take-off or landing but the penalties imposed on less capable types are too limiting for all of these procedures to be practically applied.
It is a complex subject, but the reality is that for most of us in the offshore industry, "Exposure" is a risk we readily accept whilst basking comfortably in the knowledge that there has not been an attributable performance based accident offshore (certainly in the ICAO regulated environment) and to a degree, the risks are mitigated by additional requirements and procedures.
So there you go. I am not actually risk averse. I accept when it is necessary or mitigated BUT always within the operating rules applicable at the time.
For H500 - What is a "Double Angle" approach??? Maybe I was asleep during that particular lesson.
DB
Last edited by DOUBLE BOGEY; 7th November 2012 at 15:09.
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 2
From: UKdom
DB - a double angle approach is also known as a steep approach i.e twice the angle as the normal site picture approach technique (taught to all pilots). To stay out of Vortex Ring territory you generally fly the approach a lot slower in the later stages to reduce the rate of decent.
With regards to the helipads and oil rigs - what height are the decks at? Are you CAT A for the departure/arrival at the rigs? I understand that the CAA issued some guidance a while back stating the Helideck height should not exceed 60m AMSL? So potentially there's a lot of operation in the avoid curve? Certainly for the older types that you may have flown in 17 years of offshore flying?
Your acceptance of 'Exposure' is potential misguided - just because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean it won't and it doesn't make it any safer. The offshore environment has risks, so does the onshore. If you accept the risk (as stated) then you can't easily say to someone else they can't do a similar thing.
Interestingly if H500 fitted HUMS to his singles (you can now put it on AS350) he would gain up to 12seconds exposure which he could use, perfectly legally, to take of vertically or depart/arrive at a site that doesn't meet the minimum dimensions. He could also fly through the Specified Area.
It would be very interesting if there were statistics on number of onshore movements and H/V accidents/incidents.
Perhaps Helmets should be the next topic (thread creep) - which is something that we have to wear when operating low level, and, potentially in the Avoid Curve.
With regards to the helipads and oil rigs - what height are the decks at? Are you CAT A for the departure/arrival at the rigs? I understand that the CAA issued some guidance a while back stating the Helideck height should not exceed 60m AMSL? So potentially there's a lot of operation in the avoid curve? Certainly for the older types that you may have flown in 17 years of offshore flying?
Your acceptance of 'Exposure' is potential misguided - just because it hasn't happened it doesn't mean it won't and it doesn't make it any safer. The offshore environment has risks, so does the onshore. If you accept the risk (as stated) then you can't easily say to someone else they can't do a similar thing.
Interestingly if H500 fitted HUMS to his singles (you can now put it on AS350) he would gain up to 12seconds exposure which he could use, perfectly legally, to take of vertically or depart/arrive at a site that doesn't meet the minimum dimensions. He could also fly through the Specified Area.
It would be very interesting if there were statistics on number of onshore movements and H/V accidents/incidents.
Perhaps Helmets should be the next topic (thread creep) - which is something that we have to wear when operating low level, and, potentially in the Avoid Curve.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
DB
When I did my Army pilots course ( 1988 )I was taught and I teach today a double angle, it is the following. Landing area not large enough to do a constant angle approach, but does not warrant a vertial landing( ie high hover) say a large clearing. Fly the approach to miss the near edge tree line by about 20 ft ( if you continued the angle you would be in the trees the other side ) as you have passed over the trees reduce power steepening the angle. Hence double angle, gives the advantage of using less power as one is keeping the helicopter moving forwards. Now depending on the height of the trees you would be in the avoid curve, but by using double angle it is safer than a true vertical landing.
Yes I agree with you about not wishing to be in the avoid curve, but even in the pplh teaching course you have to enter it at times. Otherwise how would we be able to teach ! When longline lifting, in the curve for rather longer than I would like but it is sometimes safer to use a longline than any other method.
Quickstop in a Hu 269 will involve going into the bottom curve of the h/v diagram as we will be exceeding 40 kts at 20 ft !
You must have done quickstops with her majesty in a 341 ( as i dont know you might have been on a B47 so difficult to get to 70kts I suppose !!! ) at a speed greater than 70 kts which puts you into the 341's avoid curve ????
Have fun, produces an excellent discussion, fly safe
H
When I did my Army pilots course ( 1988 )I was taught and I teach today a double angle, it is the following. Landing area not large enough to do a constant angle approach, but does not warrant a vertial landing( ie high hover) say a large clearing. Fly the approach to miss the near edge tree line by about 20 ft ( if you continued the angle you would be in the trees the other side ) as you have passed over the trees reduce power steepening the angle. Hence double angle, gives the advantage of using less power as one is keeping the helicopter moving forwards. Now depending on the height of the trees you would be in the avoid curve, but by using double angle it is safer than a true vertical landing.
Yes I agree with you about not wishing to be in the avoid curve, but even in the pplh teaching course you have to enter it at times. Otherwise how would we be able to teach ! When longline lifting, in the curve for rather longer than I would like but it is sometimes safer to use a longline than any other method.
Quickstop in a Hu 269 will involve going into the bottom curve of the h/v diagram as we will be exceeding 40 kts at 20 ft !
You must have done quickstops with her majesty in a 341 ( as i dont know you might have been on a B47 so difficult to get to 70kts I suppose !!! ) at a speed greater than 70 kts which puts you into the 341's avoid curve ????
Have fun, produces an excellent discussion, fly safe
H
Avoid imitations
Joined: Nov 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 15,110
Likes: 1,083
From: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
DB - a double angle approach is also known as a steep approach i.e twice the angle as the normal site picture approach technique (taught to all pilots). To stay out of Vortex Ring territory you generally fly the approach a lot slower in the later stages to reduce the rate of decent.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
The double angle approach can be used when you can't see the bottom of the far side of the clearing so a constant angle (unless very steep) won't do. It is a halfway house between a single angle approach and an approach to an OGE hover from which you then vertically descend having selected your markers.
The idea is that you fly towards what you can see of the far side of the clearing (halfway up the trees for example) using your normal approach angle, then once the floor of the clearing becomes visible and you are confident of tail clearances, you can steepen the approach angle to get to the middle of the clearing.
DB - re: the AF crash, you are looking at the symptoms only and ignoring the underlying cause. Yes, the AF pilots just needed to go back to basics and fly an attitude and a power and that might have been achieved had the control of the side stick been transferred to the other co-pilot who was trying corrective action. You also saying that a major airline didn't do enough training to deal with this emergency.
If the Captain hadn't told the co-pilot to drive them through the top of the CB then the flight would have been uneventful so making a rule requiring extra training might help a bit but educating Captains not to make crap decisions (although a more difficult process) would have prevented those extra-honed skills being needed.
As for rules - I just don't think that all rules are good. There are plenty of good and sensible rules written to protect us and prevent accidents but there are also those knee-jerk regulations brought in to be seen to do something.
After all, if legislation was so successful then we wouldn't still be seeing accidents happening - the more rules (and the more complex they become) the more they are open to interpretation and exploitation or worse, they become so difficult to understand that they just get ignored.
Whilst some legislation is good, it does not follow that more legislation is better.
The idea is that you fly towards what you can see of the far side of the clearing (halfway up the trees for example) using your normal approach angle, then once the floor of the clearing becomes visible and you are confident of tail clearances, you can steepen the approach angle to get to the middle of the clearing.
DB - re: the AF crash, you are looking at the symptoms only and ignoring the underlying cause. Yes, the AF pilots just needed to go back to basics and fly an attitude and a power and that might have been achieved had the control of the side stick been transferred to the other co-pilot who was trying corrective action. You also saying that a major airline didn't do enough training to deal with this emergency.
If the Captain hadn't told the co-pilot to drive them through the top of the CB then the flight would have been uneventful so making a rule requiring extra training might help a bit but educating Captains not to make crap decisions (although a more difficult process) would have prevented those extra-honed skills being needed.
As for rules - I just don't think that all rules are good. There are plenty of good and sensible rules written to protect us and prevent accidents but there are also those knee-jerk regulations brought in to be seen to do something.
After all, if legislation was so successful then we wouldn't still be seeing accidents happening - the more rules (and the more complex they become) the more they are open to interpretation and exploitation or worse, they become so difficult to understand that they just get ignored.
Whilst some legislation is good, it does not follow that more legislation is better.
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,111
Likes: 118
crab and Shy I suppose i could have put my description slightly better thanks for filling in the gaps !
MrB didnt realise that with Hums ? Can you point me in the right direction here as I would desperately like to shorten the 231m, mind you thank god i have a 500 if i had an eC120 that distance is over 500m I believe !
MrB didnt realise that with Hums ? Can you point me in the right direction here as I would desperately like to shorten the 231m, mind you thank god i have a 500 if i had an eC120 that distance is over 500m I believe !
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 31
From: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Our American exchange officers at Shawbury in the 90s did not like the teaching of double angle approaches. They told me that the USA teaching is single angle, ie, don't approach until you can see the LP. If they teach this, then many other forces around the world will do the same. Just because we do it doesn't mean it is the best way????????????????
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 5
Likes: 2
From: UKdom
Hughes 500 - your friendly Ops Inspector should be able to point you i the right direction.
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear with my description of double angle. EASA have been very good and produced the following from the European Helicopter Safety Team. It describes and shows the double angle.
Interesting to note how it describes arrivals and departures IN the 'avoid curve' such as Vertical & Towering...
http://easa.europa.eu/essi/ehest/wp-...ations-v10.pdf
I'm sorry I wasn't very clear with my description of double angle. EASA have been very good and produced the following from the European Helicopter Safety Team. It describes and shows the double angle.
Interesting to note how it describes arrivals and departures IN the 'avoid curve' such as Vertical & Towering...
http://easa.europa.eu/essi/ehest/wp-...ations-v10.pdf
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
CRAB - Despite 15,500 hours I can confirm that I have either never heard of a "Double Angle" approach OR I was asleep during that lesson OR I am suffering from Dementia. I did my Army Pilots course in 1986 so maybe we called it something different then.
H500 - When I was doing quickstops in the Army (I never rose to the dizzy heights of QHI unfortunatley) I seem to remember being far more concerned with the jaunty angle of my fancy new flying helmet and the smart cut of my olive green flight suit replete with "Dinghy Stabbing" knife than being in the the "Dead Mans Curve".
You see, I am became a pilot to have more sex, a big watch and in time...a moustache like a privot hedge. None of this actually happened despite some considerable effort on my part!!!
Somewhere along the way I sort of accidently became a "Proffessional Aviator", Instructor, Examiner and eventually a Regulator which of course anybody in this business knows only happens when we fail to either - have more sex, get a big watch or indeed develop a moustache like a privot hedge.
Now I find myself on PPRUNE trying to comnvince myself (and a hand full of others) that my life was actually worth living by scribbling garbage down in a vain attempt to prove that I actually "Learned" something along the way.
Then BAM!! you pop up with your "Double Angle Approach" and burst my bubble like the big boy in the playground with acne and a good looking sister who stabbed my football with a penknife just because I had no real pubic hair to write home about!!
MISTERBONKERS - I love your single minded view of risk and the simplicity with which you describe PC3+Exposure and maybe yesterday (before H500 stabbed my ball) I would have rattled on for ages about reliability programmes, OEM OEI statistical data, drank a few whiskies and retired to my scratcher happy in the knowledge that I "Showed Them".
But alas I think I am getting old and a little bit tired and I find myself wanting now to be "Liked" rather than "Feared" and am a little ashamed to admit that I started My Movember "MO" on the 1st, looked in the mirror on the 4th and promptly despatched the straggly spider pubes down the sink plughole and with it my last longing dream of that "Privot Hedge"!!
But boy the memories of my first Army Flying helmet with its "Double Angle" visor and my Olive green growbag + knife with it "Constant Attitude" zip will keep me warm and fuzzy as I gently slide into the confusion of realising that I probabaly have not really learned much at all!!
DB
H500 - When I was doing quickstops in the Army (I never rose to the dizzy heights of QHI unfortunatley) I seem to remember being far more concerned with the jaunty angle of my fancy new flying helmet and the smart cut of my olive green flight suit replete with "Dinghy Stabbing" knife than being in the the "Dead Mans Curve".
You see, I am became a pilot to have more sex, a big watch and in time...a moustache like a privot hedge. None of this actually happened despite some considerable effort on my part!!!
Somewhere along the way I sort of accidently became a "Proffessional Aviator", Instructor, Examiner and eventually a Regulator which of course anybody in this business knows only happens when we fail to either - have more sex, get a big watch or indeed develop a moustache like a privot hedge.
Now I find myself on PPRUNE trying to comnvince myself (and a hand full of others) that my life was actually worth living by scribbling garbage down in a vain attempt to prove that I actually "Learned" something along the way.
Then BAM!! you pop up with your "Double Angle Approach" and burst my bubble like the big boy in the playground with acne and a good looking sister who stabbed my football with a penknife just because I had no real pubic hair to write home about!!
MISTERBONKERS - I love your single minded view of risk and the simplicity with which you describe PC3+Exposure and maybe yesterday (before H500 stabbed my ball) I would have rattled on for ages about reliability programmes, OEM OEI statistical data, drank a few whiskies and retired to my scratcher happy in the knowledge that I "Showed Them".
But alas I think I am getting old and a little bit tired and I find myself wanting now to be "Liked" rather than "Feared" and am a little ashamed to admit that I started My Movember "MO" on the 1st, looked in the mirror on the 4th and promptly despatched the straggly spider pubes down the sink plughole and with it my last longing dream of that "Privot Hedge"!!
But boy the memories of my first Army Flying helmet with its "Double Angle" visor and my Olive green growbag + knife with it "Constant Attitude" zip will keep me warm and fuzzy as I gently slide into the confusion of realising that I probabaly have not really learned much at all!!
DB
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
DB - I did my RAF pilot's course in 1983 and my QHI course in 1989 and taught on the Army Pilot's course whilst on exchange in the 90s and it was called a double angle approach in all three iterations I cannot comment on which of the 3 causes you have suggested might be the one
If you remember quickstops finished at 30 ft in the hover on the Gazelle which is firmly inside the H-V curve (which of course wasn't a limitation in the RTS or ACM). Most of the military stuff on the APC (CAs, Obs and Recce etc) involved operating in the 'avoid curve' but, as we said earlier, there are many jobs that must be completed in helicopters that involve risk.
In your offshore job, most of the time is spent straight and level in the cruise with the AP engaged with the only risky bits being the arrival and departure at the rig (and these are well prescribed and regulated manoeuvres to maximise passenger safety). It is pretty straightforward to apply rules and regs to such ops because there is little need for dynamic risk assessment whereas those of us whose jobs involve constantly changing scenarios, too many rules and regs get in the way of pragmatic safety and airmanship decisions.
I cannot comment on which of the 3 causes you have suggested might be the oneIf you remember quickstops finished at 30 ft in the hover on the Gazelle which is firmly inside the H-V curve (which of course wasn't a limitation in the RTS or ACM). Most of the military stuff on the APC (CAs, Obs and Recce etc) involved operating in the 'avoid curve' but, as we said earlier, there are many jobs that must be completed in helicopters that involve risk.
In your offshore job, most of the time is spent straight and level in the cruise with the AP engaged with the only risky bits being the arrival and departure at the rig (and these are well prescribed and regulated manoeuvres to maximise passenger safety). It is pretty straightforward to apply rules and regs to such ops because there is little need for dynamic risk assessment whereas those of us whose jobs involve constantly changing scenarios, too many rules and regs get in the way of pragmatic safety and airmanship decisions.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,303
Likes: 23
From: UK and MALTA
CRAB - I think you will find in the light of recent events, that even cruising with the AP engaged on our way to the Rig can be a little bit risky!!
I won't bore you with the WX/Fuel connundrum that most NS Offshore crews manage every day. Operating to limits over the open ocean where only 30 minutes of fuel remain after a 500Nm sea trek is only possible by the application of sensible rules that allow us to plan and execute our missions with a defined safety margin.
Just as you think what we do is easy we laugh at the suggestion that trundling over the land trying to avoid the "Avoid" curve seems somewhat vexing for you!!
There is no quarter given by me for Pilots who do not want to follow the rules cos they know better. It's b***st in anyones language.
The first step to safety is compliance. There is not a safety system of any kind in world that does not recognise and advocate this simple strategy. Your poor view of rules and legislation does not make you hard or trendy!!
Give it up.
I won't bore you with the WX/Fuel connundrum that most NS Offshore crews manage every day. Operating to limits over the open ocean where only 30 minutes of fuel remain after a 500Nm sea trek is only possible by the application of sensible rules that allow us to plan and execute our missions with a defined safety margin.
Just as you think what we do is easy we laugh at the suggestion that trundling over the land trying to avoid the "Avoid" curve seems somewhat vexing for you!!
There is no quarter given by me for Pilots who do not want to follow the rules cos they know better. It's b***st in anyones language.
The first step to safety is compliance. There is not a safety system of any kind in world that does not recognise and advocate this simple strategy. Your poor view of rules and legislation does not make you hard or trendy!!
Give it up.
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
So you will be the guy who ALWAYS travels at or below the speed limit on the roads then
30 mins fuel reserve - luxury!! Try the same 500nm round trip into the Atlantic with no-one to come and get you, no other places to get fuel, nowhere to land and an uncertain scenario at the far end because the casualty might be in the hold rather than on the deck or that nasty weather conundrum gives you 30' seas, 50 kt winds and a small fishing boat in the dark.
Or night mountains in poor weather with no other fuel available, a bleeding casualty and max Tq in the hover due to the downdraughting.
If only all I had to worry about was the H-V curve!
As I said, you can't legislate for everything - you must train pilots to use common-sense and airmanship, even if it means ignoring some rules and regs because otherwise people might die.
Would you be like those policemen in the Midlands who watched someone drown because they weren't trained (read allowed by the rules) to enter the lake?
30 mins fuel reserve - luxury!! Try the same 500nm round trip into the Atlantic with no-one to come and get you, no other places to get fuel, nowhere to land and an uncertain scenario at the far end because the casualty might be in the hold rather than on the deck or that nasty weather conundrum gives you 30' seas, 50 kt winds and a small fishing boat in the dark.
Or night mountains in poor weather with no other fuel available, a bleeding casualty and max Tq in the hover due to the downdraughting.
If only all I had to worry about was the H-V curve!
As I said, you can't legislate for everything - you must train pilots to use common-sense and airmanship, even if it means ignoring some rules and regs because otherwise people might die.
Would you be like those policemen in the Midlands who watched someone drown because they weren't trained (read allowed by the rules) to enter the lake?