AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: A
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as incident/ accident causes are concerned, human error will increase as technology becomes more complex and more reliable. Better training can of course help to offset this to some extent. I only fly fixed wing but have clearly seen a reduction in pilot skills as the technology has become better. More reliance on automation etc. Especially with new guys.
Mechta, apologies for not responding. In my defence I've just got home after a rather convoluted journey from the Borgsten. Your proposal is clearly the way forward, and gets my full support.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Sussex and Asia
Posts: 334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's obvious where Eurocopter is pointing fingers.
Helicopter bosses say all the indications show the helicopter crash off Shetland was not the result of a mechanical failure.
Four people died after the L2 aircraft went down in the water a few miles from Sumburgh airport.
Helicopter Manufacturer Eurocopter say the accident could be as a result of a number of factors - including environment, maintenence or human error.
It comes as the suspension on Super Puma flights to and from the UK North Sea is lifted.
But the Air Accident Investigaton Branch say it's too early to know the cause, and only recovered the black box recorder this evening.
Eurocopter is helping the AAIB with the investigation.
Four people died after the L2 aircraft went down in the water a few miles from Sumburgh airport.
Helicopter Manufacturer Eurocopter say the accident could be as a result of a number of factors - including environment, maintenence or human error.
It comes as the suspension on Super Puma flights to and from the UK North Sea is lifted.
But the Air Accident Investigaton Branch say it's too early to know the cause, and only recovered the black box recorder this evening.
Eurocopter is helping the AAIB with the investigation.
I wonder if now is the time to have a survey of all the NS pilots to see what they want to see on each flat screen, what autopilot functions they need and how easy it is to activate them and avoid secondary problems if the function is used/activated in an in appropriate way.
It seems from what I hear that the S92 system is not as user friendly as the 225. Why?
I have, unfortunately, not flown glass cockpit so may be a luddite
but I have flown with several types of GPS systems - some of which were impossible to use without deep understanding of the manual and constant practice and others which seem to work as the human mind does so are intuitive to use.
I had the opportunity to fly a RAF Jaguar, (in the sim) a head up display ILS - it was very simple - you had a circle on the screen and so long as the dot (ILS beam) was kept in the centre of the circle you were on localiser and glideslope, the circle calculated drift for you. DME, height and speed were on the side of the display with the ability to set DH as an alarm. I was told approach and threshold speed and it was very easy to fly a good stabilised approach - and a good landing
So I can see how correct development of new ways of displaying can make the pilot's work load less.
HF
It seems from what I hear that the S92 system is not as user friendly as the 225. Why?
I have, unfortunately, not flown glass cockpit so may be a luddite
but I have flown with several types of GPS systems - some of which were impossible to use without deep understanding of the manual and constant practice and others which seem to work as the human mind does so are intuitive to use.I had the opportunity to fly a RAF Jaguar, (in the sim) a head up display ILS - it was very simple - you had a circle on the screen and so long as the dot (ILS beam) was kept in the centre of the circle you were on localiser and glideslope, the circle calculated drift for you. DME, height and speed were on the side of the display with the ability to set DH as an alarm. I was told approach and threshold speed and it was very easy to fly a good stabilised approach - and a good landing
So I can see how correct development of new ways of displaying can make the pilot's work load less.
HF
Last edited by Hummingfrog; 30th Aug 2013 at 10:59.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A reminder of where the CAA stood on automation couple of years ago
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2011017.pdf
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SafetyNotice2011017.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satsuma thanks for this.
The above incident has no doubt been discussed already but could someone remind me how an L2 losses airspeed in this situation. The driver punches in a desired ROC (is that normal, why wouldn't he simply select altitude) and the system doesn't mind how much airspeed is traded-off? Doesn't the AP have a parameter which prevents airspeed from dropping below a certain minimum irrespective of the ROC selected?
in May 2011 an AS 332L2 under instrument flight rules unexpectedly pitched up and lost airspeed to capture and maintain the demanded rate of climb
AS the L2 doesn't have the flight envelope protection of the 225. I can't remember what, if anything, it does have in this respect, but I do know that when you use Altitude Aquire, it doesn't command the aircraft to climb or descend. So you have to arm Alt.A first, then use VS mode to actually initiate the climb or descent.
And to think, I used to think the L2 was quite good - then I flew the 225!
And to think, I used to think the L2 was quite good - then I flew the 225!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: East of 20° E
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting to note in that same CAA doc that two other Eurocopters simply dropped out of the sky at night just because the AFCS was deselected and the aircraft was transferred back into manual! 
"survey of all the NS pilots" After decades of flying with "steam driven" round instruments, I converted to the EC225 many years ago. The conversion training we got from HC was thorough, to say the least. He and the other trainers/line trainers didn't unleash us to fly as line crew until they and we were comfortable.
Having said the above and after comparing impressions with several colleagues, I can safely say that it took most of us some months of having to concentrate on the EFIS presentations before they became second nature. As HC has mentioned, it was a bit of a challenge going back from EFIS in the EC225 to round dials in the AS332L/L1.
Now I must assure all doubters that the way Eurocopter (Airbus) presents the information on the screens is nothing short of brilliant. The concept of having most of the essential information arranged along a horizontal lubber line seems to me like "why isn't this made compulsory for all aircraft?"
For reasons best known to themselves, Sikorsky chose to spurn the opportunity presented by new technology and "wasted" their S92 flat screens by reproducing essential flight information in the old round analogue dials format. Why bother with screens at all, in that case?
If any of our passengers are still following this thread, the most safety you're likely to get for years to come is in the EC225 with its VERY sophisticated autopilot which caters for almost all pilot errors and the biggest escape windows of all 19 seat helicopters.
Having said the above and after comparing impressions with several colleagues, I can safely say that it took most of us some months of having to concentrate on the EFIS presentations before they became second nature. As HC has mentioned, it was a bit of a challenge going back from EFIS in the EC225 to round dials in the AS332L/L1.
Now I must assure all doubters that the way Eurocopter (Airbus) presents the information on the screens is nothing short of brilliant. The concept of having most of the essential information arranged along a horizontal lubber line seems to me like "why isn't this made compulsory for all aircraft?"
For reasons best known to themselves, Sikorsky chose to spurn the opportunity presented by new technology and "wasted" their S92 flat screens by reproducing essential flight information in the old round analogue dials format. Why bother with screens at all, in that case?
If any of our passengers are still following this thread, the most safety you're likely to get for years to come is in the EC225 with its VERY sophisticated autopilot which caters for almost all pilot errors and the biggest escape windows of all 19 seat helicopters.
Last edited by Colibri49; 30th Aug 2013 at 19:49.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Accra
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that 'is' the SP fleet flying the next thing of course will be that every time there is the slightest tech fault with any of them, it's going to be reported through the media like wildfire causing more panic and unsettled pax.
Guys. Stop trying to kid yourself. The exact figures may be debatable, but if anyone thinks the standard of pilots, drivers, maintenance has not declined - you are reacting exactly as I expected.
Add in known maintenance issues that have cause fatal/non fatal accidents and for good effect add the internet (787 fiasco).
Suspect your view is primarily driven by two well documented human traits: rose tinted hindsight and fear increasing with age. Anyone that is more afraid of commercial transport now than in the 60's or 70's has not seen the rate of hull losses and fatalities plotted over those 40 years. GA accidents - well that's a whole different kettle of fish where the technology can't compensate for the singular points of failure and compromises made at the price point.
Last edited by Non-Driver; 30th Aug 2013 at 13:00. Reason: typo
A thought
I've never bveen a NS pilot but I am a RW pilot elsewhere.
A question though, do you think that the automation of systems and new technology is making people go flying when they otherwise wouldn't. For me I think the answer is yes - all instrument and procedural flying spring to mind.
Do these enhancements in pilot/ ac capability mean that people think they can fly safely when they should otherwise say no and thus put themselves into situations where a crash is a very reasonable possibility. If the industry regularly puts itself into a position where a crash is a reasonable possibility, statistically you will get accidents.
Keen to hear the thoughts of my bewinged and more experienced brethern?
Edited to add, please don't take this as me saying I think we should scrap PF and IF, merely that flying without visual references is inherently more risky than being able to see all the time.
A question though, do you think that the automation of systems and new technology is making people go flying when they otherwise wouldn't. For me I think the answer is yes - all instrument and procedural flying spring to mind.
Do these enhancements in pilot/ ac capability mean that people think they can fly safely when they should otherwise say no and thus put themselves into situations where a crash is a very reasonable possibility. If the industry regularly puts itself into a position where a crash is a reasonable possibility, statistically you will get accidents.
Keen to hear the thoughts of my bewinged and more experienced brethern?
Edited to add, please don't take this as me saying I think we should scrap PF and IF, merely that flying without visual references is inherently more risky than being able to see all the time.
Last edited by nowherespecial; 30th Aug 2013 at 13:00.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Essex
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I must say there is a lot of good discussion on here and not so much bickering as on certain FB pages i have been following.
Been on PPRuNe for years but haven't posted in over 10, felt compelled to do so today.
I am now an offshore worker (gave up my pilot dreams in 2001) and currently sitting out on the WilHunter.
What comes across as knee jerk from a lot of posts on FB is a lack of understanding and transparency about the incident last friday.
Any time we get a minute on the rig, all that is being discussed is the SP situation and a lot of varied opinions on the subject. What I must say is that most (but not all) guys/girls are saying they dont want to fly SP. Some say "ever again", some say "unless we hear the report", some just nod heads.
For me, I have never had an issue with the SP but have started to question my position on this.
The Eurocopter spokesman was very vague in his statement but, at the same time, very confident that it wasn't mechanical.
I am writing here to see what you, the guys in the driving seats, the guys in the hangers, think to the statement.
Obviously, the data recorders need to be analysed before a lot of the investigation can be done so not asking for hypothesis but what are the facts on this.
Thank you in advance for any/all replies.
PS. I read this back and dont think I wrote anything that would cause offense. If you disagree, please accept my apologies as none has been intended.
I must say there is a lot of good discussion on here and not so much bickering as on certain FB pages i have been following.
Been on PPRuNe for years but haven't posted in over 10, felt compelled to do so today.
I am now an offshore worker (gave up my pilot dreams in 2001) and currently sitting out on the WilHunter.
What comes across as knee jerk from a lot of posts on FB is a lack of understanding and transparency about the incident last friday.
Any time we get a minute on the rig, all that is being discussed is the SP situation and a lot of varied opinions on the subject. What I must say is that most (but not all) guys/girls are saying they dont want to fly SP. Some say "ever again", some say "unless we hear the report", some just nod heads.
For me, I have never had an issue with the SP but have started to question my position on this.
The Eurocopter spokesman was very vague in his statement but, at the same time, very confident that it wasn't mechanical.
I am writing here to see what you, the guys in the driving seats, the guys in the hangers, think to the statement.
Obviously, the data recorders need to be analysed before a lot of the investigation can be done so not asking for hypothesis but what are the facts on this.
Thank you in advance for any/all replies.
PS. I read this back and dont think I wrote anything that would cause offense. If you disagree, please accept my apologies as none has been intended.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just found this snippet on the BBC News webpage...
Didn't think Bristow had any L2's, especially not in ABZ.
Bristow said passenger sensitivities played a part in its decision but it intended to resume services using Super Puma AS332 L2s - the type which crashed - very soon.
DJS - For both you guys and us, its very hard to know anything for sure until a preliminary report is released into the public domain. However, those guys at the HSSG, Eurocopter and the senior management at the helicopter operators will know a lot more than we do at this stage.
As I said, we can't be sure, but the indications, taking into account the press statements, lack of technical action from CAA or EASA or EC, all point to the fact that the accident occured when there was nothing wrong with the helicopter. From that you can infer some sort of pilot error, but please lets not jump the gun on that one until the report comes out.
What is termed "pilot error" can arise from sheer stupidity, incompetance, negligence and general daftness of the pilots. However it is very rarely like that. More often it is a result of a series of relatively minor events coming together, with the saviour of last resort (the pilots) for some reason failing to act just as they should. There can often be systemic faults in procedures, SOPs, training and company culture that are contributory factors, not to mention the pilot being sub-optimal on that day due to a row with the wife or a colleague, some minor ailment etc etc.
If I was given the opportunity to fly tommorow, I wouldn't hesitate, although I would much rather fly in an EC225 than a 332L or L2, since the former is so much more technologically advanced and pilot friendly.
For you, it is your choice, but there is no logical nor technological reason why you shouldn't be just as safe as always in a helicopter. That is, you can never be totally safe in anything you do from lying in bed, crossing the road etc, but the probability of anything happening on your flight is extremely small. You are going to die sometime, its highly, highly unlikely that it will be in a helicopter.
As I said, we can't be sure, but the indications, taking into account the press statements, lack of technical action from CAA or EASA or EC, all point to the fact that the accident occured when there was nothing wrong with the helicopter. From that you can infer some sort of pilot error, but please lets not jump the gun on that one until the report comes out.
What is termed "pilot error" can arise from sheer stupidity, incompetance, negligence and general daftness of the pilots. However it is very rarely like that. More often it is a result of a series of relatively minor events coming together, with the saviour of last resort (the pilots) for some reason failing to act just as they should. There can often be systemic faults in procedures, SOPs, training and company culture that are contributory factors, not to mention the pilot being sub-optimal on that day due to a row with the wife or a colleague, some minor ailment etc etc.
If I was given the opportunity to fly tommorow, I wouldn't hesitate, although I would much rather fly in an EC225 than a 332L or L2, since the former is so much more technologically advanced and pilot friendly.
For you, it is your choice, but there is no logical nor technological reason why you shouldn't be just as safe as always in a helicopter. That is, you can never be totally safe in anything you do from lying in bed, crossing the road etc, but the probability of anything happening on your flight is extremely small. You are going to die sometime, its highly, highly unlikely that it will be in a helicopter.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 30th Aug 2013 at 13:37.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Derek,
The main problem with any incident/accident these days is the ease of 'communication' via 'social media'. News is almost immediately being broadcast, usually without any facts being available. The 'Facebook' thread is a prime example of an idea being generated and spread without any hard evidence. As pilots, we tend to want hard facts before we make decisions - not always, but usually.
A lot of emphasis in the media reporting was based on second-hand 'eye witness' reports. Ask any policeman or lawyer about the accuracy of eye witnesses! Any delay in producing hard facts will inevitably result in a vacuum which will be filled by uncertainty and apprehension. That's the world we live in today.
Logically, waiting for the interim report from the AAIB is the only sensible thing to do, but that does leave that vacuum and people will jump in to fill it.
I've been flying the AS3322L/EC225 for 21 of the past 26 years - over 10,000 hours. I am confident in the aircraft. The EC225 is perhaps the best machine to have flown on the North Sea, closely followed by the S92. The next types - AW189, EC175 - will no doubt be even better.
As aircrew we all have wives/husbands/children etc that we want to go home to - we would not knowingly climb into an aircraft we thought was not fit for purpose. There is a very old saying, "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old bold pilots". I and I'm sure all my colleagues want to be old pilots, drawing our pensions and looking back on our safe careers.
I hope this might go some way to allay your fears and apprehensions, but feel free to ask any other questions, either on this thread or by private message.
bondu
The main problem with any incident/accident these days is the ease of 'communication' via 'social media'. News is almost immediately being broadcast, usually without any facts being available. The 'Facebook' thread is a prime example of an idea being generated and spread without any hard evidence. As pilots, we tend to want hard facts before we make decisions - not always, but usually.
A lot of emphasis in the media reporting was based on second-hand 'eye witness' reports. Ask any policeman or lawyer about the accuracy of eye witnesses! Any delay in producing hard facts will inevitably result in a vacuum which will be filled by uncertainty and apprehension. That's the world we live in today.
Logically, waiting for the interim report from the AAIB is the only sensible thing to do, but that does leave that vacuum and people will jump in to fill it.
I've been flying the AS3322L/EC225 for 21 of the past 26 years - over 10,000 hours. I am confident in the aircraft. The EC225 is perhaps the best machine to have flown on the North Sea, closely followed by the S92. The next types - AW189, EC175 - will no doubt be even better.
As aircrew we all have wives/husbands/children etc that we want to go home to - we would not knowingly climb into an aircraft we thought was not fit for purpose. There is a very old saying, "there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old bold pilots". I and I'm sure all my colleagues want to be old pilots, drawing our pensions and looking back on our safe careers.
I hope this might go some way to allay your fears and apprehensions, but feel free to ask any other questions, either on this thread or by private message.
bondu
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
DJS the Eurocopter Spokesman is the CEO of Eurocopter. He is a Flight Test Engineer and was head of the EC225 Design Team. I cannot think of a better CV for a man to lead Eurocopter right now.
"Do these enhancements in pilot/ ac capability mean that people think they can fly safely when they should otherwise say no and thus put themselves into situations where a crash is a very reasonable possibility. If the industry regularly puts itself into a position where a crash is a reasonable possibility, statistically you will get accidents."
No. The weather I launched in 3 and 4 axis AP SPs and 139s for years is no worse than the weather I launched in non-ap equipped S61s for nearly a decade. Canada East Coast/North Atlantic 4 hour sorties with no APs was a challenge and automation has only improved safety significantly.
No. The weather I launched in 3 and 4 axis AP SPs and 139s for years is no worse than the weather I launched in non-ap equipped S61s for nearly a decade. Canada East Coast/North Atlantic 4 hour sorties with no APs was a challenge and automation has only improved safety significantly.