AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Sounds like a bit of a whitewash - clear negligence by the crew!
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Sounds like a bit of a whitewash - clear negligence by the crew!
They made a mistake, but not from lack of interest or lack of workload. They were concentrating on the approach and doing their best, but clearly they were not concentrating on the right things and as it turns out, their best wasn’t good enough. You can call that negligence if you like, but to most people negligence is associated with not bothering or caring. If they had been texting their wives/girlfriends at the time then I would cry “negligence”. But otherwise, “negligence” is just an emotive word for “they got it wrong” and would only be uttered by someone who thinks it could never happen to them.
Of course it is pathetically easy to call it negligence, but it requires a bit of intelligence, effort and insight to work out WHY they made the mistakes they did. Which is necessary if there is any interest in preventing a recurrence.. But of course some people are just happy to blame the pilots and that be an end to it.
Why is it harsh to be critical?
Should there only be criticism when there was some form of intent? Who actually intends to have an accident?
Negligence is about failing to take proper care to operate an aircraft, it doesn't require intent.
If anyone fails to do their job properly, for whatever reason, it is still considered negligence, as difficult as that is to swallow.
The families of the deceased won't feel any better because the crew just made a mistake and didn't mean to.
Should there only be criticism when there was some form of intent? Who actually intends to have an accident?
Negligence is about failing to take proper care to operate an aircraft, it doesn't require intent.
If anyone fails to do their job properly, for whatever reason, it is still considered negligence, as difficult as that is to swallow.
The families of the deceased won't feel any better because the crew just made a mistake and didn't mean to.
who’s casting stones?
Most people probably won’t care what gets said after an accident, it comes with the territory.
If you don’t want to be the subject of discussion then don’t have an accident.
It is of course not that easy but part of avoiding one is not mincing around the bush when dissecting performance.
We are all fallible and most accidents are a result of making errors, we need to own that.
Most people probably won’t care what gets said after an accident, it comes with the territory.
If you don’t want to be the subject of discussion then don’t have an accident.
It is of course not that easy but part of avoiding one is not mincing around the bush when dissecting performance.
We are all fallible and most accidents are a result of making errors, we need to own that.
One pilot having an off day is completely understandable but that is why you have two crew for these operations - PF and PM - neither of whom did their jobs properly.
Helicomparator - you cant defend them by saying they were concentrating on the approach - every pilot does that or they shouldn't be in the seat.
Of course I have made mistakes - mine just didn't cost the lives of 4 people directly - it is a fatuous argument.
If you can't acknowledge the errors - from the choice of approach profile to the mindset they were going to get in to the complete lack of CRM and monitoring of the aircraft - then perhaps you were part of the problem in the N Sea..
According to your logic, I could have a blade strike on a mountain SAROP, roll down the hill and kill several occupants and then claim I wasn't negligent but I was concentrating on the wrong thing!!!
A straightforward instrument approach turned into a horrendous - yet completely preventable - accident costing lives with 2 pilots holding professional commercial licences at the controls. How is that not negligent?
Helicomparator - you cant defend them by saying they were concentrating on the approach - every pilot does that or they shouldn't be in the seat.
Of course I have made mistakes - mine just didn't cost the lives of 4 people directly - it is a fatuous argument.
If you can't acknowledge the errors - from the choice of approach profile to the mindset they were going to get in to the complete lack of CRM and monitoring of the aircraft - then perhaps you were part of the problem in the N Sea..
According to your logic, I could have a blade strike on a mountain SAROP, roll down the hill and kill several occupants and then claim I wasn't negligent but I was concentrating on the wrong thing!!!
A straightforward instrument approach turned into a horrendous - yet completely preventable - accident costing lives with 2 pilots holding professional commercial licences at the controls. How is that not negligent?
A bit harsh, but I suppose a reasonable response from someone who has never made a mistake.
They made a mistake, but not from lack of interest or lack of workload. They were concentrating on the approach and doing their best, but clearly they were not concentrating on the right things and as it turns out, their best wasn’t good enough. You can call that negligence if you like, but to most people negligence is associated with not bothering or caring. If they had been texting their wives/girlfriends at the time then I would cry “negligence”. But otherwise, “negligence” is just an emotive word for “they got it wrong” and would only be uttered by someone who thinks it could never happen to them.
Of course it is pathetically easy to call it negligence, but it requires a bit of intelligence, effort and insight to work out WHY they made the mistakes they did. Which is necessary if there is any interest in preventing a recurrence.. But of course some people are just happy to blame the pilots and that be an end to it.
They made a mistake, but not from lack of interest or lack of workload. They were concentrating on the approach and doing their best, but clearly they were not concentrating on the right things and as it turns out, their best wasn’t good enough. You can call that negligence if you like, but to most people negligence is associated with not bothering or caring. If they had been texting their wives/girlfriends at the time then I would cry “negligence”. But otherwise, “negligence” is just an emotive word for “they got it wrong” and would only be uttered by someone who thinks it could never happen to them.
Of course it is pathetically easy to call it negligence, but it requires a bit of intelligence, effort and insight to work out WHY they made the mistakes they did. Which is necessary if there is any interest in preventing a recurrence.. But of course some people are just happy to blame the pilots and that be an end to it.
SimonK - would you feel the same if it had been a friend or relative in the back who didn't make it out?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
SimonK - would you feel the same if it had been a friend or relative in the back who didn't make it out?
They made a mistake - some was their fault (most?) and some was organisational. They very very nearly died themselves and a colleague at their company told me how they only just got out of that cockpit with extreme difficulty.
I wonder how many near misses you, me and the other posters here have had over the years which were stopped at some stage by a shout from the Winchop or an intervention from the other pilot and there but for the grace of god go most of us.
I wonder how many near misses you, me and the other posters here have had over the years which were stopped at some stage by a shout from the Winchop or an intervention from the other pilot and there but for the grace of god go most of us.
It's all very well saying they were 'well respected' as if this somehow confers an absolution for blame - Harold Shipman was a 'well respected' doctor - need I say more.
The fact that the crew only just got out is an emotional offering as well - it is irrelevant because their mistakes meant 4 people didn't.
If you run up the back of another car at a roundabout because you were looking at the traffic on the roundabout and didn't notice the car in front of you had stopped - would that be driving without due care and attention (negligence in other words)?
You can't blame the driving test or the training you took to pass it it - it is your mistake for not concentrating on the right thing at the right time and you have to own that error 100%.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
One pilot having an off day is completely understandable but that is why you have two crew for these operations - PF and PM - neither of whom did their jobs properly.
Helicomparator - you cant defend them by saying they were concentrating on the approach - every pilot does that or they shouldn't be in the seat.
Of course I have made mistakes - mine just didn't cost the lives of 4 people directly - it is a fatuous argument.
If you can't acknowledge the errors - from the choice of approach profile to the mindset they were going to get in to the complete lack of CRM and monitoring of the aircraft - then perhaps you were part of the problem in the N Sea..
According to your logic, I could have a blade strike on a mountain SAROP, roll down the hill and kill several occupants and then claim I wasn't negligent but I was concentrating on the wrong thing!!!
A straightforward instrument approach turned into a horrendous - yet completely preventable - accident costing lives with 2 pilots holding professional commercial licences at the controls. How is that not negligent?
Helicomparator - you cant defend them by saying they were concentrating on the approach - every pilot does that or they shouldn't be in the seat.
Of course I have made mistakes - mine just didn't cost the lives of 4 people directly - it is a fatuous argument.
If you can't acknowledge the errors - from the choice of approach profile to the mindset they were going to get in to the complete lack of CRM and monitoring of the aircraft - then perhaps you were part of the problem in the N Sea..
According to your logic, I could have a blade strike on a mountain SAROP, roll down the hill and kill several occupants and then claim I wasn't negligent but I was concentrating on the wrong thing!!!
A straightforward instrument approach turned into a horrendous - yet completely preventable - accident costing lives with 2 pilots holding professional commercial licences at the controls. How is that not negligent?
The copilot was 6 months in from getting his first job. In that time he had been flipped between the L2 and the 225 several times. Yes the same type, but completely different helicopters to operate. During typical type rating courses and differences courses, nearly all the focus is on the role of pilot flying. Pilot monitoring barely gets a look-in except for the offshore radar approach. And yet here he was acting as PM for an onshore approach in very marginal weather. It is obvious that he didn’t really understand the most important role of PM. Was he stupid? No I don’t thing so. Was he given clear parameters to monitor for? No. So how is he expected to monitor?
Was he a product of the training system that prioritises PF role and fatuous things like engine failures that virtually never happen, as opposed for training for the “day job” of what happens 99.99% of the time. Yes i would say so. Was he, 6 months into a rather disorganised career, to blame for not understanding the primary role of PM during an onshore instrument approach? No I don’t think so, I would say he was a victim as much as any of the passengers, of a training system little changed from the dark ages.
These are the sorts of questions one has to consider if any attempt to improve things is the aim. To just blame the pilots is ignorant and futile, although I will agree it is in the culture of unthinking people trained in the military who think they are so superior.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were the pilots carrying out the approach in accordance with normal practice for their company? Yes. A bad practice IMO, but normal for their company’s culture. Whose fault was that?
The copilot was 6 months in from getting his first job. In that time he had been flipped between the L2 and the 225 several times. Yes the same type, but completely different helicopters to operate. During typical type rating courses and differences courses, nearly all the focus is on the role of pilot flying. Pilot monitoring barely gets a look-in except for the offshore radar approach. And yet here he was acting as PM for an onshore approach in very marginal weather. It is obvious that he didn’t really understand the most important role of PM. Was he stupid? No I don’t thing so. Was he given clear parameters to monitor for? No. So how is he expected to monitor?
Was he a product of the training system that prioritises PF role and fatuous things like engine failures that virtually never happen, as opposed for training for the “day job” of what happens 99.99% of the time. Yes i would say so. Was he, 6 months into a rather disorganised career, to blame for not understanding the primary role of PM during an onshore instrument approach? No I don’t think so, I would say he was a victim as much as any of the passengers, of a training system little changed from the dark ages.
These are the sorts of questions one has to consider if any attempt to improve things is the aim. To just blame the pilots is ignorant and futile, although I will agree it is in the culture of unthinking people trained in the military who think they are so superior.
The copilot was 6 months in from getting his first job. In that time he had been flipped between the L2 and the 225 several times. Yes the same type, but completely different helicopters to operate. During typical type rating courses and differences courses, nearly all the focus is on the role of pilot flying. Pilot monitoring barely gets a look-in except for the offshore radar approach. And yet here he was acting as PM for an onshore approach in very marginal weather. It is obvious that he didn’t really understand the most important role of PM. Was he stupid? No I don’t thing so. Was he given clear parameters to monitor for? No. So how is he expected to monitor?
Was he a product of the training system that prioritises PF role and fatuous things like engine failures that virtually never happen, as opposed for training for the “day job” of what happens 99.99% of the time. Yes i would say so. Was he, 6 months into a rather disorganised career, to blame for not understanding the primary role of PM during an onshore instrument approach? No I don’t think so, I would say he was a victim as much as any of the passengers, of a training system little changed from the dark ages.
These are the sorts of questions one has to consider if any attempt to improve things is the aim. To just blame the pilots is ignorant and futile, although I will agree it is in the culture of unthinking people trained in the military who think they are so superior.
Im sure he was old enough and big enough to speak up if he didn’t receive the correct training or if he felt something wasn’t right?
Or is this the old adage where he’s got a new job, I don’t want to say anything and ruffle feathers and go with the flow?
Not too sure where you get the 6 months experience from for the Copilot? He had been an instructor before this for around 8 years and a TRE for a couple of years with an onshore AOC operator with over 2000hrs 🤔
Im sure he was old enough and big enough to speak up if he didn’t receive the correct training or if he felt something wasn’t right?
Or is this the old adage where he’s got a new job, I don’t want to say anything and ruffle feathers and go with the flow?
Im sure he was old enough and big enough to speak up if he didn’t receive the correct training or if he felt something wasn’t right?
Or is this the old adage where he’s got a new job, I don’t want to say anything and ruffle feathers and go with the flow?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes sorry you are right, I should have said first offshore job. I think it was also his first multi-pilot job but not sure? Aviation is very role-specific, for example you could have thousands of hours as an ab-initio instructor and no clue what offshore IFR flying is all about.
I know the first officer well. He took me through my ppl h @ Perth. I was a current airline pilot at the time and Alan nursed me through my ham fisted attempts at hovering. All I will say is that he is a gent, a fantastic pilot and instructor. If he reads this I send him my very best wishes.
I know the first officer well. He took me through my ppl h @ Perth. I was a current airline pilot at the time and Alan nursed me through my ham fisted attempts at hovering. All I will say is that he is a gent, a fantastic pilot and instructor. If he reads this I send him my very best wishes.
To just blame the pilots is ignorant and futile, although I will agree it is in the culture of unthinking people trained in the military who think they are so superior.
If they had been military pilots I would be equally critical.
The fact that they are nice guys is irrelevant too as is much of the guff about hours and training - when you fly a perfectly serviceable helicopter into the water because you weren't paying attention to the IAS (and kill several pax) you can blame as many of the contributory factors as you like but the main cause is pilot (both PF and PM) error, plain and simple.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Oh dear we are back to that bitter note again.
If they had been military pilots I would be equally critical.
The fact that they are nice guys is irrelevant too as is much of the guff about hours and training - when you fly a perfectly serviceable helicopter into the water because you weren't paying attention to the IAS (and kill several pax) you can blame as many of the contributory factors as you like but the main cause is pilot (both PF and PM) error, plain and simple.
If they had been military pilots I would be equally critical.
The fact that they are nice guys is irrelevant too as is much of the guff about hours and training - when you fly a perfectly serviceable helicopter into the water because you weren't paying attention to the IAS (and kill several pax) you can blame as many of the contributory factors as you like but the main cause is pilot (both PF and PM) error, plain and simple.
Anyway back to the point, the cause was as you say, and as the report says, pilot error. The pertinent question for anyone not living in a 1960s aviation culture, is why did they make that error. I have tried to address that question but it seems you aren’t interested.
Regardless, if a pilot is rated on type, then they should definitely know the airspeed limitations of that type and I would argue that minimum IFR speed is high on that list when you're hard IMC, so that either of them let the aircraft fall below V min IFR is not excusable because "pilots make mistakes", particularly when lives were lost as a result.
In my view, if the PF did not brief the PM properly and state clear parameters to monitor during the approach (especially airspeed), then there is a share of responsibility for the PM to request those parameters so that both are on the same page. As stated, pilots are fallible and forgetting to state at which IAS you plan to fly the approach at may be a simple mistake - easily forgiven, however the PM should pick up on this missing information and request it. (I cannot remember if this was a factor in this accident and I cannot re-read the report and check right now. This is more of a response to what's quoted.)
Regardless, if a pilot is rated on type, then they should definitely know the airspeed limitations of that type and I would argue that minimum IFR speed is high on that list when you're hard IMC, so that either of them let the aircraft fall below V min IFR is not excusable because "pilots make mistakes", particularly when lives were lost as a result.
Regardless, if a pilot is rated on type, then they should definitely know the airspeed limitations of that type and I would argue that minimum IFR speed is high on that list when you're hard IMC, so that either of them let the aircraft fall below V min IFR is not excusable because "pilots make mistakes", particularly when lives were lost as a result.
