Paul McCartney near death experience
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Sir Korsky,
The quote you gave .... is that from the C++ manual, or the earlier C+? I remember it as the latter (but not flown the old girl for quite some years now). Is the C++ (which I've not flown), with its more powerful 2S1 engines, limited to the same maximum torque figures?
The quote you gave .... is that from the C++ manual, or the earlier C+? I remember it as the latter (but not flown the old girl for quite some years now). Is the C++ (which I've not flown), with its more powerful 2S1 engines, limited to the same maximum torque figures?
Two feet clearance off the trees? He's getting soft, his previous wife only had one foot.
Arm out the Window...
chirp of the year.........and everyone missed it 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Up here, but not for long
Posts: 315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not familiar with the S76 FADEC system but I would not like to think that if a pilot demands excessive power from the gearbox to get his aircraft out of "trouble" that the FADEC would over-ride his demand when the manufacturers Tq limits are reached!
In fact the aircraft I flew until quite recently would allow both engines to supply OEI LO power at the same time in just this event; the transmission will get trashed but everybody lives to tell the tale
In fact the aircraft I flew until quite recently would allow both engines to supply OEI LO power at the same time in just this event; the transmission will get trashed but everybody lives to tell the tale
In fact the aircraft I flew until quite recently would allow both engines to supply OEI LO power at the same time in just this event; the transmission will get trashed but everybody lives to tell the tale
Lucky, lucky chaps who only just got away with it. Another example of CRM breakdown where the co-pilot knew what was wrong but let the experienced captain nearly kill them all.
until this oft-abused loophole is closed, there will continue to be CFIT accidents like this one very nearly was
Safety Recommendation 2014-35
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It leapt out at me too.
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
When interviewed by the AAIB, the co-pilot recalled informing the commander of his concerns that the helicopter was below the safety altitude without sufficient visual references. However, the co-pilot believed that, rather than pressing this point, his better option was to support the commander as effectively as he could, even though he believed that the commander’s actions were flawed.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Crab, out of interest, how do you, as a SAR pilot, descend from IMC into a situation at an ad-hoc location?
Crab, out of interest, how do you, as a SAR pilot, descend from IMC into a situation at an ad-hoc location?
Crab, out of interest, how do you, as a SAR pilot, descend from IMC into a situation at an ad-hoc location?
Overwater, we have dispensation to descend below MSA using our internal radar (330 degree with a dedicated radar operator and no overflying of contacts below 1000') and AFCS/FPC letdown modes (TD to hover etc).
So, overland (day or night) you either find a hole, get a cloudbreak at or above Safety Alt or use an ILS (or similar) then low level grovel as required. Near the coast - get overwater and let down using radar/FPC then grovel as above.
What we absolutely do not do is descend IMC below Safety Alt over land like these guys did. Someone needs to legislate far more tightly about the act of landing - that is what you are doing from DA/MDA onwards, not from the cruise down to DA/MDA (if you even have one which they didn't). On a non-instrument approach you are not really landing until the last 50' or so - why are you allowed get down to that IMC because your 'eventual intent' is to land?
I should clarify, before anyone points it out, that I am no longer either a. military or b. a SAR boy
Yes I am slowly letting go
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
Crab, (I had heard...it's a small world, innit, good luck in the future).
However, to further the discussion,
I'd suggest that it's used because it's always been allowed by the regulations, not an "abused loophole", which I'd suggest are your own words, not from the report or from the CAA.
Second point for possible discussion: Why is 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5 nms the "sacred figure" used for MSA?
However, to further the discussion,
Quote:
Safety Recommendation 2014-35
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
Safety Recommendation 2014-35
It is recommended that the Civil Aviation Authority review the regulations that permit a helicopter engaged in public transport operations to descend below MSA for the purpose of landing, when flying in instrument meteorological conditions but not on a published approach procedure.
Second point for possible discussion: Why is 1,000 feet above the nearest obstacle within 5 nms the "sacred figure" used for MSA?
Thanks Shy
Yes the 'abused loophole' terminology is just my take on lax legislation/regulation but it takes a certain (high-risk) mentality to deliberately descend IMC below something that is a guaranteed safe altitude when you have little idea what is beneath or ahead of you. Some people seem determined to worship the God of GPS (as they are with satnav in their cars) without really thinking through what they are trying to achieve and what they are risking if it goes wrong.
An emergency letdown due to malfunction, icing etc is a completely different thing but then the risk of not going down is outweighed by the risk of staying up.
With fare-paying pax on board, what excuse was there for not going straight to their planned alternate when it was clear that they could not replicate the first arrival as they were solid IMC at MSA?
As for the 1000' - it takes into account inaccurate flying by allowing a safety margin, all manner of altimeter errors, any likely obstructions and has the advantage of being a nice round figure to work to. Can't really see any reason to change it.
Yes the 'abused loophole' terminology is just my take on lax legislation/regulation but it takes a certain (high-risk) mentality to deliberately descend IMC below something that is a guaranteed safe altitude when you have little idea what is beneath or ahead of you. Some people seem determined to worship the God of GPS (as they are with satnav in their cars) without really thinking through what they are trying to achieve and what they are risking if it goes wrong.
An emergency letdown due to malfunction, icing etc is a completely different thing but then the risk of not going down is outweighed by the risk of staying up.
With fare-paying pax on board, what excuse was there for not going straight to their planned alternate when it was clear that they could not replicate the first arrival as they were solid IMC at MSA?
As for the 1000' - it takes into account inaccurate flying by allowing a safety margin, all manner of altimeter errors, any likely obstructions and has the advantage of being a nice round figure to work to. Can't really see any reason to change it.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 413 Likes
on
218 Posts
As for the 1000' - it takes into account inaccurate flying by allowing a safety margin, all manner of altimeter errors, any likely obstructions and has the advantage of being a nice round figure to work to. Can't really see any reason to change it.
It seems to me that this incident would have been prevented if a stable approach had been flown, with a timely go-around at a pre-planned MDA, rather than an attempt to press on into unsuitable conditions. Thankfully the crew learned the lesson without further penalty. I know they do read this forum and they are only too aware they obviously pushed things too far. We've all learned our limits... few professional pilots would come out of the wash totally whiter than white - even those now running the authority.
If aircraft are to be prohibited from ever descending below the arbitrary "safe 1,000 feet above and not one foot below", the manufacturers are totally wasting their time developing better and far more capable systems than we have been used to in our relatively archaic military helicopters. The technology is already out there; the "modern" military are years behind, mainly because of budgetary and procurement time limitations.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they are only too aware they obviously pushed things too far
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy
Agree entirely that the 1000 ft above anything within 5 miles rule for MSA is a definition from a bygone age and quite inappropriate now. A modern IFR equiped helicopter is sure to have at least one GPS with RAIM and frankly I would trust the accuracy of this more even than a pressure altimeter - I've had failures of these and unlike the RAIM GPS there can be no warning indications. But it's not just believing the GPS - it's often very easy to verify it's accuracy to say at least a mile by cross referencing with a radar fix and VOR/DME position, particularly at Peasmarsh with the LYD next door.
I'd guess the MSA at this Peasmarsh site might be 1300ft QNH - a quite ridiculously high MDA for this site. MSA is fine and very appropriate for knowing your safe cruise altitude en route, when you're not focussed on a specific location, but it would be very and unnecessarily restrictive to IFR helicopter operations doing let downs where there is no published approach.
And let's be clear, this incident had nothing to do with the crew believing there were somewhere they were not - their GPS was accurate and they were where they thought they were, horizontally at least. It happened because they tried to fly visually without adequate references and lost orientation. Agree with Shy again what they should have done is not tried to cling on to vague visual reference at night, but after the initial approach down to a height of 300ft failed, simply gone around and climbed straight ahead back into IMC. And then gone to Lydd.
This was an incident essentially about loss of control in IIMC, not from the initial let down. They probably descended too low on that, but that phase didn't cause the incident - which was clearly very close to being Haughey style catastrophic.
Crab - do you still really think IMC let downs should never be below MSA in IFR helicopters? I guess if you have rarely operated in such a way you have little experience to draw on.
Of course what we really want is much faster and simpler CAA approvals of submitted formal IMC let down procedures.
Agree entirely that the 1000 ft above anything within 5 miles rule for MSA is a definition from a bygone age and quite inappropriate now. A modern IFR equiped helicopter is sure to have at least one GPS with RAIM and frankly I would trust the accuracy of this more even than a pressure altimeter - I've had failures of these and unlike the RAIM GPS there can be no warning indications. But it's not just believing the GPS - it's often very easy to verify it's accuracy to say at least a mile by cross referencing with a radar fix and VOR/DME position, particularly at Peasmarsh with the LYD next door.
I'd guess the MSA at this Peasmarsh site might be 1300ft QNH - a quite ridiculously high MDA for this site. MSA is fine and very appropriate for knowing your safe cruise altitude en route, when you're not focussed on a specific location, but it would be very and unnecessarily restrictive to IFR helicopter operations doing let downs where there is no published approach.
And let's be clear, this incident had nothing to do with the crew believing there were somewhere they were not - their GPS was accurate and they were where they thought they were, horizontally at least. It happened because they tried to fly visually without adequate references and lost orientation. Agree with Shy again what they should have done is not tried to cling on to vague visual reference at night, but after the initial approach down to a height of 300ft failed, simply gone around and climbed straight ahead back into IMC. And then gone to Lydd.
This was an incident essentially about loss of control in IIMC, not from the initial let down. They probably descended too low on that, but that phase didn't cause the incident - which was clearly very close to being Haughey style catastrophic.
Crab - do you still really think IMC let downs should never be below MSA in IFR helicopters? I guess if you have rarely operated in such a way you have little experience to draw on.
Of course what we really want is much faster and simpler CAA approvals of submitted formal IMC let down procedures.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: in a skip
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was an incident essentially about loss of control in IIMC, not from the initial let down. They probably descended too low on that, but that phase didn't cause the incident - which was clearly very close to being Haughey style catastrophic
The fact that they only descended without hitting anything being down to luck was ok?