AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Space
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'What we do know is that a helicopter ended up in the drink with both engines operative'
Does that categorically mean the Heli still had enough fuel?
I mean you can run off the road on a car with fuel in the lines still pulling you until impact but that doesn't mean it can take you another 10 miles.
How accurate are the gauges, does inaccurate weights have much of an impact.
From my time offshore in the past, the truth is figures passed on weights are rarely accurate
Does that categorically mean the Heli still had enough fuel?
I mean you can run off the road on a car with fuel in the lines still pulling you until impact but that doesn't mean it can take you another 10 miles.
How accurate are the gauges, does inaccurate weights have much of an impact.
From my time offshore in the past, the truth is figures passed on weights are rarely accurate
If there had been an issue with fuel quantities, there would have been a PAN and then a MAYDAY declared (depending on planned and actual fuel loads).
It has already been reported (on day one), that there was not even a MAYDAY call.
It has already been reported (on day one), that there was not even a MAYDAY call.
'What we do know is that a helicopter ended up in the drink with both engines operative'
Does that categorically mean the Heli still had enough fuel?
I mean you can run off the road on a car with fuel in the lines still pulling you until impact but that doesn't mean it can take you another 10 miles.
How accurate are the gauges, does inaccurate weights have much of an impact.
From my time offshore in the past, the truth is figures passed on weights are rarely accurate
Does that categorically mean the Heli still had enough fuel?
I mean you can run off the road on a car with fuel in the lines still pulling you until impact but that doesn't mean it can take you another 10 miles.
How accurate are the gauges, does inaccurate weights have much of an impact.
From my time offshore in the past, the truth is figures passed on weights are rarely accurate
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: UK
Age: 63
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GJM ,Shut up.
JA. last line is so true.
Etap was not CFIT(W) not with the high ROD and high Q.
Fly into a hill when you think you are somewhere else is CFIT.
Did the crew start to recover too late! Level in pitch right wing low. Nose down dump the pole.
Lets not forget it's a crash not a ditching ( not CFIT(w) ) A Crash!
How do we move on and try to reduce the risk?
JA. last line is so true.
Etap was not CFIT(W) not with the high ROD and high Q.
Fly into a hill when you think you are somewhere else is CFIT.
Did the crew start to recover too late! Level in pitch right wing low. Nose down dump the pole.
Lets not forget it's a crash not a ditching ( not CFIT(w) ) A Crash!
How do we move on and try to reduce the risk?
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Canada
Age: 53
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slowing below Vy seems a bad idea to me - on the back of the drag curve its very easy to lose too much speed. Then the regulatos will want to know what you will do if an engine fails in IMC below Vy, etc etc.
Personally I think even slowing to Vy can be too much if there is a significant crosswind, since the drift angle can become significant, resulting in pilots looking in the wrong place for the lights and possibly rendering one pilot unsighted at the moment its decided to go visual.
Yes, a helicopter can do both these things but the primary aim should be a safe landing somewhere, not a landing at the nominated destination but with reduced safety margin.
Aggressive visual manoeuvring at low speed in marginal weather (big flare to slow down) just seems a recipe for disaster, and for what benefit?
Personally I think even slowing to Vy can be too much if there is a significant crosswind, since the drift angle can become significant, resulting in pilots looking in the wrong place for the lights and possibly rendering one pilot unsighted at the moment its decided to go visual.
Yes, a helicopter can do both these things but the primary aim should be a safe landing somewhere, not a landing at the nominated destination but with reduced safety margin.
Aggressive visual manoeuvring at low speed in marginal weather (big flare to slow down) just seems a recipe for disaster, and for what benefit?
1) everyone keeps stating the 225 autopilot, or EC standard autopilot, is perfect. Bull$hit. It was designed by people, there are places it will not be adequate. Forgot this at your own risk! You may not have seen them yet, but eventually someone will!
2) when at true minimums on the approach, one pilot is on the dials and the other is looking out. If the weather was good enough for both to be looking for visual references (outside) then it wouldn't be an approach to minimums! One pilot decides. The other maintains a back-up on instruments. There is no aggressive manouevering (sp?, i don't care really). There is a whole runway, or rig, in front of you.
And CDFA/dive-and-drive (what a crap term!), is it really that hard to see the differences? Or are all the endless questions on here from people who fly neither helicopters or IFR?
If you are actually planning to successfully land an approach in minimum weather, these are things you should have thought about long ago!
I am afraid, Pilot and Apprentice, that there are many on this forum who have never flown an ARA, Localizer or any non precision approach nor for that matter a helicopter in an offshore environment.
Many who critize the PUMA, 225 and / or the 92 have never even been in one.
Still this is a rumour network so you have to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Notice for example that many seem to think that an ARA is a straight in and completely ignore the offset which is going to put the rig at either the 1030 or 1330 position at mimima. Excepting of course where a visual has been attained earlier and a 'visual continue' call made with perhaps a heading change made from the offset back towards the rig.
I too dispise the term "Dive and Drive."
Don't worry about the spelling. On some threads the rule seems to be "if you can not argue against the logic -attack the grammar, spelling or syntax even when the person's first language is not english."
Having stated that there are some here who are very experienced and knowledgeable.
We will not change the world on this forum but some folks have some very good ideas and it is worth waiting for some gem of wisdom to heave over the horizon.
Many who critize the PUMA, 225 and / or the 92 have never even been in one.
Still this is a rumour network so you have to seperate the wheat from the chaff.
Notice for example that many seem to think that an ARA is a straight in and completely ignore the offset which is going to put the rig at either the 1030 or 1330 position at mimima. Excepting of course where a visual has been attained earlier and a 'visual continue' call made with perhaps a heading change made from the offset back towards the rig.
I too dispise the term "Dive and Drive."
Don't worry about the spelling. On some threads the rule seems to be "if you can not argue against the logic -attack the grammar, spelling or syntax even when the person's first language is not english."
Having stated that there are some here who are very experienced and knowledgeable.
We will not change the world on this forum but some folks have some very good ideas and it is worth waiting for some gem of wisdom to heave over the horizon.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know if there will be another interim AAIB report on this, and if so about when? Or is that it for official info now until the full report comes out in presumably a year or so?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Age: 79
Posts: 1,086
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another interrim will usually only happen if they find something that needs action.
This generally implies that a hazard has been identified which should be addressed before the full report is complete.
This generally implies that a hazard has been identified which should be addressed before the full report is complete.
In any case, if the engine was "running but with insufficient fuel" aka losing power, there would be a report of low rotor rpm which there wasn't. The scenario does in no way fit running out of fuel. Why not make another post suggesting that the pilots were beamed out of the cockpit by aliens? After all, they survived when some passengers didn't. Maybe they weren't aboard when the heli hit the sea?
Now.....Now HC.....the wee callow fellow does have a point.....not much...but a point.
They could have arrived with out their planned reserve fuel....or something akin to that.....but even then both engines would be happy as Clams as they would not know it until they did in fact get a sudden and complete injection of either air or sea water.
Is he reluctant to state he thinks they were short of fuel and thus were doing something in extremis to ensure they made visual contact with the surface so they would not have to do a Missed Approach?
If that is what he is saying....he should either say that or keep his musing to himself I would suggest.
How he would arrive at that view is a topic that I would dearly love to hear him explain.
That would beat CSI and Criminal Minds best episodes combined into one wouldn't it?
They could have arrived with out their planned reserve fuel....or something akin to that.....but even then both engines would be happy as Clams as they would not know it until they did in fact get a sudden and complete injection of either air or sea water.
Is he reluctant to state he thinks they were short of fuel and thus were doing something in extremis to ensure they made visual contact with the surface so they would not have to do a Missed Approach?
If that is what he is saying....he should either say that or keep his musing to himself I would suggest.
How he would arrive at that view is a topic that I would dearly love to hear him explain.
That would beat CSI and Criminal Minds best episodes combined into one wouldn't it?
I am sure that eventually the engines did get an injection of seawater but the report states engines running normally and producing power on impact - if there was a fuel starvation/interruption issue they wouldn't have written that phrase and we wouldn't be speculating how the crew managed to fly a serviceable helicopter into the water.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS
That (remote) scenario wouldn't make sense. Apart from anything else, if they knew they were low on fuel they would surely have gone for best glide range speed (? 80kts ish) on the approach, not got behind the drag curve. And if they didn't know, the approach would have been with normal speed and profile until a sudden departure from both as it ran out.
That (remote) scenario wouldn't make sense. Apart from anything else, if they knew they were low on fuel they would surely have gone for best glide range speed (? 80kts ish) on the approach, not got behind the drag curve. And if they didn't know, the approach would have been with normal speed and profile until a sudden departure from both as it ran out.
I understand that the 'run out of fuel scenario' is still a popular rumour amongst some of the offshore community. This might be the reasoning behind GJM's ill informed posts.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me we've pretty much exhausted this discussion. The answers are on the CVR
Either they were aware of their situation, in which case it'll be on the CVR, or they weren't aware, so an equally significant absence of infromation on the CVR.
Either way, it's likely to be a long time before any such evidence sees the light of day. M'learned friend will see to that.
Either they were aware of their situation, in which case it'll be on the CVR, or they weren't aware, so an equally significant absence of infromation on the CVR.
Either way, it's likely to be a long time before any such evidence sees the light of day. M'learned friend will see to that.
Having read and taken part in this thread it seems to me that the autopilot/coupler/FMS fitted to modern helicopters has become too complicated!
The talk of which control does what function at a particular time - upper and lower modes seems to to over complicate what should be simple evolutions.
What do we want the coupler to do in the simple IFR environment of NS offshore flying?
We want it to fly:-
1. A coupled ILS down to DH where if not countermanded it will carry out a missed approach.
2. A LOC/DME approach horizontal profile where it will level at the set MDH and when commanded carry out a missed approach.
3. A VOR/DME approach horizontal profile where it will level at the set MDH and when commanded carry out a missed approach.
4. A Rig Radar approach horizontal profile where it will offset at 5deg at 1.5nm, 10deg at 1nm and if commanded at 0.75nm a 45deg turn away from the rig and climb to SA or preselected altitude.
6. A visual night approach as prescribed in the company Ops Manual
5. A system for maintaining altitude and navigating along a pre-programmed route with easy access to how much fuel there will be at each way-point and destination/diversion.
Certain safety features can also be programmed into the coupler - such as min speed for a certain type of approach.
These simple functions should be easy to program and activate from one control panel and it should be obvious what approach has been selected.
I am sure that a simpler coupler would be welcomed by NS crews but I am afraid it will never happen as the "geeks" who design these systems always want to add more and more capabilites - a bit like buying a laptop - it always has far more capabilities than you require!!
It was quite telling that DB found the S92 display confusing even though he is one of the pilots pushing more and more automation.
My view is that the coupler is there to help you fly the a/c - more accurately if required - not to take over the flying of the a/c!
HF
The talk of which control does what function at a particular time - upper and lower modes seems to to over complicate what should be simple evolutions.
What do we want the coupler to do in the simple IFR environment of NS offshore flying?
We want it to fly:-
1. A coupled ILS down to DH where if not countermanded it will carry out a missed approach.
2. A LOC/DME approach horizontal profile where it will level at the set MDH and when commanded carry out a missed approach.
3. A VOR/DME approach horizontal profile where it will level at the set MDH and when commanded carry out a missed approach.
4. A Rig Radar approach horizontal profile where it will offset at 5deg at 1.5nm, 10deg at 1nm and if commanded at 0.75nm a 45deg turn away from the rig and climb to SA or preselected altitude.
6. A visual night approach as prescribed in the company Ops Manual
5. A system for maintaining altitude and navigating along a pre-programmed route with easy access to how much fuel there will be at each way-point and destination/diversion.
Certain safety features can also be programmed into the coupler - such as min speed for a certain type of approach.
These simple functions should be easy to program and activate from one control panel and it should be obvious what approach has been selected.
I am sure that a simpler coupler would be welcomed by NS crews but I am afraid it will never happen as the "geeks" who design these systems always want to add more and more capabilites - a bit like buying a laptop - it always has far more capabilities than you require!!
It was quite telling that DB found the S92 display confusing even though he is one of the pilots pushing more and more automation.
My view is that the coupler is there to help you fly the a/c - more accurately if required - not to take over the flying of the a/c!
HF