AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
SAS, I'm tired now, long day teaching IVRS 
To refresh some memories of what has been discussed before......
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/279...g-alt-vsi.html
Well, I think you'll find (a) I haven't changed my tune since 2007 and (b) most of the posts including NP's agree with what I have been saying. Shot yourself in the hand there methinks.
TC.....until the AAIB issues a final report and definitively states exactly what they "think" caused the crash.....and it turns out to be VRS in their professional opinion......any categorical statement to that effect is premature.
Do you genuinely believe the AAIB are going to change their conclusion between now and the final report?? Honestly??
Do tell us why you think IVRS would cause the Crash would you?
FFS SAS: Turn your hearing aid up old man: Once in IVRS (as concluded by the AAIB) they were finished because they didn't have enough height to recover, remember? Nothing they could do, would remedy the situation. What is there not to understand in that statement. Perhaps it needs translating into yankee........
"Incipient" must mean something completely different in your English than it does in mine.
incipient [ɪnˈsɪpɪənt]
adj
just starting to be or happen; beginning
[from Latin incipiēns, from incipere to begin, take in hand, from in-2 + capere to take]
Please stop being downright awkward and stubborn, accept that sometimes others are atleast as knowledgeable as you and occasionally more so
It hurts, I know but you'll get over it once you recover from your jet lag and drinking session with Tudor and Nick
To refresh some memories of what has been discussed before......
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/279...g-alt-vsi.html
Well, I think you'll find (a) I haven't changed my tune since 2007 and (b) most of the posts including NP's agree with what I have been saying. Shot yourself in the hand there methinks.
TC.....until the AAIB issues a final report and definitively states exactly what they "think" caused the crash.....and it turns out to be VRS in their professional opinion......any categorical statement to that effect is premature.
Do you genuinely believe the AAIB are going to change their conclusion between now and the final report?? Honestly??
Do tell us why you think IVRS would cause the Crash would you?
FFS SAS: Turn your hearing aid up old man: Once in IVRS (as concluded by the AAIB) they were finished because they didn't have enough height to recover, remember? Nothing they could do, would remedy the situation. What is there not to understand in that statement. Perhaps it needs translating into yankee........
"Incipient" must mean something completely different in your English than it does in mine.
incipient [ɪnˈsɪpɪənt]
adj
just starting to be or happen; beginning
[from Latin incipiēns, from incipere to begin, take in hand, from in-2 + capere to take]
Please stop being downright awkward and stubborn, accept that sometimes others are atleast as knowledgeable as you and occasionally more so
It hurts, I know but you'll get over it once you recover from your jet lag and drinking session with Tudor and Nick
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Below Escape Velocity
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imagine that, Lonewolf_50, it would appear that only you and I received that PS/SWP/VRS/IVRS training at that little airfield at the south end of USS Enterprise Street in Milton. Those 3500 or so people between us clearly didn't, if TC is to be believed.
Apparently the 6500 or so who followed me before I started instructing it at that self-same airfield didn't get it either.
Apparently the 6500 or so who followed me before I started instructing it at that self-same airfield didn't get it either.
Um......if you had just gone through the Five Coloured Pencil Course.....you would have become an Expert in all this!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
TC - yet again you post with the sole aim of upsetting as many people as possible.
I have over 12k on Pumas 332/332L2/225 and also instruct for a living. In my opinion, from 300 feet, with slowly decaying airspeed, I feel this is more to do with inertia than IVRS However, the key issue here is it does not matter.
The prime causal factor is failure to maintain airspeed in the descent until insufficient height remained to recover. The origin of this factor is mismanagement of the AFCS on an instrument approach. The pilots who fly these types in this environment know it. We do not need your bombastic bollocks about IVRS/VRS.
DB
I have over 12k on Pumas 332/332L2/225 and also instruct for a living. In my opinion, from 300 feet, with slowly decaying airspeed, I feel this is more to do with inertia than IVRS However, the key issue here is it does not matter.
The prime causal factor is failure to maintain airspeed in the descent until insufficient height remained to recover. The origin of this factor is mismanagement of the AFCS on an instrument approach. The pilots who fly these types in this environment know it. We do not need your bombastic bollocks about IVRS/VRS.
DB
With the "flare effect" rapidly disappearing as the speed fell right off, I don't think the pitch attitude change made that much difference and was clearly the right thing to do to avoid the helicopter going backwards, if far too late.
More significant is that it took 8 seconds between the copilot low airspeed call and getting the lever right up. That's a very long time in the heat of the moment and makes me wonder if there wasn't some issue with incapacitation, or disorientation at the very least.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Missing Page???
I must apologise to my colleagues for I need some help to find the missing page in the AAIB report on the Shetland 332L2 accident.
I got the bit about VRS but couldn't for the life of me find the bit that said something like-
"We have examined the issues surrounding the teaching of autopilot systems to helicopter pilots and we found them to be totally inadequate. In fact we are forced to conclude that the decades long campaign by the UK CAA against the use of autopilots to be a contributory factor in the inadequate understanding of the man/machine interface by flight crews. Moreover we observe that the lack of any requirement for a helicopter pilot to demonstrate competency in the management of AP/FD/FMS systems to be a contributory factor in this accident. We will insist that the CAA lobby EASA with a view to introducing a requirement for all such systems to be included in all future LSTs based on the principle that all on board equipment MUST be included in the LST if it is considered essential to the normal management of flight operations. As the use of AP/FD/FMS systems is becoming more and more widespread and is indeed the very heart of such aircraft as the AW139, AW189, S92A and EC225 we are at a loss to understand how we, the guardians of public safety 'after the fact' have not mentioned it before. In fact I'm going to give myself a very strong talking to and stand in a corner for at least a day... well an hour then. Can anyone get me a cup of coffee, I feel a bit tired.
G.
PS. This recommendation was made in an AAIB report in 2002. One has to ask the question "what changed?"
I got the bit about VRS but couldn't for the life of me find the bit that said something like-
"We have examined the issues surrounding the teaching of autopilot systems to helicopter pilots and we found them to be totally inadequate. In fact we are forced to conclude that the decades long campaign by the UK CAA against the use of autopilots to be a contributory factor in the inadequate understanding of the man/machine interface by flight crews. Moreover we observe that the lack of any requirement for a helicopter pilot to demonstrate competency in the management of AP/FD/FMS systems to be a contributory factor in this accident. We will insist that the CAA lobby EASA with a view to introducing a requirement for all such systems to be included in all future LSTs based on the principle that all on board equipment MUST be included in the LST if it is considered essential to the normal management of flight operations. As the use of AP/FD/FMS systems is becoming more and more widespread and is indeed the very heart of such aircraft as the AW139, AW189, S92A and EC225 we are at a loss to understand how we, the guardians of public safety 'after the fact' have not mentioned it before. In fact I'm going to give myself a very strong talking to and stand in a corner for at least a day... well an hour then. Can anyone get me a cup of coffee, I feel a bit tired.
G.
PS. This recommendation was made in an AAIB report in 2002. One has to ask the question "what changed?"
Recommendation 2002 - 50
The CAA should review the Police Air Operators Manual (PAOM) to ensure that training in the use of autopilot systems is required to be covered by the operator during initial and recurrent line training and the PAOM Part II contains instructions for the use of autopilot systems by pilots during normal operations.
The CAA should review the Police Air Operators Manual (PAOM) to ensure that training in the use of autopilot systems is required to be covered by the operator during initial and recurrent line training and the PAOM Part II contains instructions for the use of autopilot systems by pilots during normal operations.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 7th Nov 2013 at 10:59.
Geoffers, have faith, they just haven't got to that bit yet! I'm sure it will be in the final report. Mind you, they also have to bear in mind the possible loss of all those free lunches at Aviation House if they upset CAA too much!
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
Well that's not entirely true. You can also recover from VRS by removing the applied power.
The pilot will not be capable of recovering from the fully developed state unless and until the nose dips sufficiently
Geoffers......are you suggesting such training and testing is not being done by the Operators as a result of there being no requirement to do so?
If you are.....it ain't just the free lunch you risk losing!
If you are.....it ain't just the free lunch you risk losing!
It may or may not be being done (depends on the operator) but certainly there is no "legal" requirement for it other than in the most general terms. As we know, use of the automation during pilot's checks (initial and recurrent) was actively discouraged or even prohibited for many years and is only now being "tolerated" by the authority, rather than promoted.
HC,
Can we expect to see that "attitude" changed within CAA and EASA?
The situation you describe demonstrates exactly why I am the advocate of an Industry wide "Shields Down" Review of how we do things.
Evolution is fine.....but sometimes Revolution is needed.
Can we expect to see that "attitude" changed within CAA and EASA?
The situation you describe demonstrates exactly why I am the advocate of an Industry wide "Shields Down" Review of how we do things.
Evolution is fine.....but sometimes Revolution is needed.
One would certainly hope so, however with so many different reviews going on, and so much vested interest, it is unlikely IMO that a revolution will be created. It does seem unlikely that CAA's investigation would come out in strong criticism of their own policies! This is why I am in favour of an independent review along the lines of Cullen.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Joking aside...
... I think I can say without fear of contradiction that our AAIB is, and deserves to be, a highly respected organisation around the globe but I am hoping that in this instance they will recognise that one, seemingly minor helicopter crash just over 10 years ago in the Scottish hills could have brought about a revolution that HC, myself and similarly minded people crave. It didn't. Maybe it didn't because the investigators confined their comments to Police operations. Had they lifted their eyes to what was happening in the wider industry, extrapolated there findings to include the offshore world in particular, then maybe they could have nudged a recalcitrant CAA into dealing with the realities of the latest generation of helicopters and not their distant memories.
I hope they will forgive me having a little fun at their expense, sometimes a bit of black humour can pull down any barriers that might exist, real or imagined.
G.
I hope they will forgive me having a little fun at their expense, sometimes a bit of black humour can pull down any barriers that might exist, real or imagined.
G.
Chopjock / Helicomparator
I give up
Stew in your own juices and I'll come back in when the final report confirms and backs up the interim. You'll have enough time to have calmed down and accept the conclusion.
Chopjock - My decision is made - you are a professional wind up merchant, well done
I give up
Stew in your own juices and I'll come back in when the final report confirms and backs up the interim. You'll have enough time to have calmed down and accept the conclusion.
Chopjock - My decision is made - you are a professional wind up merchant, well done
Or by going backwards. Or sideways.
Or something like that.
TC, if you (or more accurately, someone on the AAIB) are in the end correct about VRS/IVRS contributing to this accident, I shall be interested to find out. Until then, I'll make sure to send my Christmas card to you properly addressed: which flat in the High Dudgeon development is your?
I see it as being quite simple.....a complete loss of control of the aircraft....with a recovery effort that just did not have time/height to work out.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Geoffers, are you referring to an EC 135 accident where the pilot was so unfamiliar with the AP that he began to fight with it and eventually lost control? If so, the aircraft ended up on it's side after a relatively hard impact.