AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were they approaching into the prevailing wind?
Wouldn't they have been monitoring airspeed and ground speed (the latter by means of their progressive approach) at that time?
What would be a "normal" approach speed two miles out and what would take the a/c from approach/cruise speed to a speed which could make them susceptible to VRS?
Last edited by Anthony Supplebottom; 29th Aug 2013 at 11:27.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Royal Leamington Spa
Age: 78
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, IF VRS was a factor, per Beaucoup's post, wouldn't Sumburgh Approach have contacted G-WNSB when they saw their approach speed dropping-off from whatever it was to something significantly lower or it is not in their remit to monitor this?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure, the AAIB will have extensively interviewed the pilots. If it was human error (CFIW) why would the aircraft be grounded? That makes no sense to me. Surely grounding only makes sense if there are technical issues?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: U.K.
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...because as is so often the case there may be many links in this chain including perhaps some technical issues that led to indication or control problems. Lets face it, even IF this is the case, the pilots surely didn't intentionally cause the accident so their version of events would need to be corroborated by AAIB before aircraft could be released to fly.
AB,
They're not grounded. There has been no communication to that effect from any regulator or the manufacturer.
Due to a lack of any real information the operators have, in consultation with the HSSG, elected not to fly the Pumas until there is something to go on.
The AAIB may well already be sure, from the pilots' accounts, that this is a CFIT accident, but will not say for sure until they have the CVFDR. If they were to put something out to the effect of : " there is nothing wrong with the aircraft, this was pilot error" the operators may very well start flying again.
Imagine then retrieving the CVFDR data and realising that there was in fact something very wrong with the aircraft but the pilots hadn't noticed (for all the reasons alluded to earlier in this thread).
The AAIB would be in deep sh*t for jumping the gun.
They're not grounded. There has been no communication to that effect from any regulator or the manufacturer.
Due to a lack of any real information the operators have, in consultation with the HSSG, elected not to fly the Pumas until there is something to go on.
The AAIB may well already be sure, from the pilots' accounts, that this is a CFIT accident, but will not say for sure until they have the CVFDR. If they were to put something out to the effect of : " there is nothing wrong with the aircraft, this was pilot error" the operators may very well start flying again.
Imagine then retrieving the CVFDR data and realising that there was in fact something very wrong with the aircraft but the pilots hadn't noticed (for all the reasons alluded to earlier in this thread).
The AAIB would be in deep sh*t for jumping the gun.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Luton
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey & others
Re. the S92 event, yes it is standard practice not to go up with a warning light on, but unless it was something the crew did during pre-flight checks that created/provoked the warning, then it's slightly semantic to say that this was not risk. If the warning light was due to a time-related event, which equally could have happened after take-off, then it definitely was risk in my book. It was only luck that the warning came before take off.
Fully agree about the inflammatory wording "grounded", but then it's what we expect from our Press
Re. the S92 event, yes it is standard practice not to go up with a warning light on, but unless it was something the crew did during pre-flight checks that created/provoked the warning, then it's slightly semantic to say that this was not risk. If the warning light was due to a time-related event, which equally could have happened after take-off, then it definitely was risk in my book. It was only luck that the warning came before take off.
Fully agree about the inflammatory wording "grounded", but then it's what we expect from our Press
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Agaricus, the AAIB report came out this morning. Upto that point there was no indication at all as to what caused this accident. The report states what happens but does not explain why.
However, with the crew available, for the sake of safety, if they had intimated any technical malfunction at all, surely the report would include this. The express omission of any reference to technical issues is evident.
As it stands it implies there was no technical error.
PITTS - yet again your emotion clouds your judgement. We know the crew personally and you do not. Knowing them as friends and colleagues does not absolve our desire or responsibility to seek the truth.....for the sake of safety.
However, with the crew available, for the sake of safety, if they had intimated any technical malfunction at all, surely the report would include this. The express omission of any reference to technical issues is evident.
As it stands it implies there was no technical error.
PITTS - yet again your emotion clouds your judgement. We know the crew personally and you do not. Knowing them as friends and colleagues does not absolve our desire or responsibility to seek the truth.....for the sake of safety.
DB steady on...
Like I said you've thrown the drivers under the bus whilst also being able to make some good PR for the 225. As I said nice work.
Agaricus, the AAIB report came out this morning. Upto that point there was no indication at all as to what caused this accident. The report states what happens but does not explain why.
However, with the crew available, for the sake of safety, if they had intimated any technical malfunction at all, surely the report would include this. The express omission of any reference to technical issues is evident.
As it stands it implies there was no technical error.
PITTS - yet again your emotion clouds your judgement. We know the crew personally and you do not. Knowing them as friends and colleagues does not absolve our desire or responsibility to seek the truth.....for the sake of safety.
However, with the crew available, for the sake of safety, if they had intimated any technical malfunction at all, surely the report would include this. The express omission of any reference to technical issues is evident.
As it stands it implies there was no technical error.
PITTS - yet again your emotion clouds your judgement. We know the crew personally and you do not. Knowing them as friends and colleagues does not absolve our desire or responsibility to seek the truth.....for the sake of safety.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTNABZ
Don't know any of the specifics of the S92 'grounding', but it's software is written so that there are some 'no dispatch' faults that are not visible to the pilots in flight (don't want to worry the poor dears). The warning only occurs after landing where it is assumed that maintenance support is available. Obviously this is less than helpful if the fault occurred on the climbout from the home base and you are then stranded on a rig.
Don't know any of the specifics of the S92 'grounding', but it's software is written so that there are some 'no dispatch' faults that are not visible to the pilots in flight (don't want to worry the poor dears). The warning only occurs after landing where it is assumed that maintenance support is available. Obviously this is less than helpful if the fault occurred on the climbout from the home base and you are then stranded on a rig.
Out of interest, how often are NS pilots required to fly a manual instrument approach - ie no coupled autopilot modes just stabilisation?
Due to a lack of any real information the operators have, in consultation with the HSSG, elected not to fly the Pumas until there is something to go on.
The AAIB may well already be sure, from the pilots' accounts, that this is a CFIT accident, but will not say for sure until they have the CVFDR. If they were to put something out to the effect of : " there is nothing wrong with the aircraft, this was pilot error" the operators may very well start flying again.
Imagine then retrieving the CVFDR data and realising that there was in fact something very wrong with the aircraft but the pilots hadn't noticed (for all the reasons alluded to earlier in this thread).
The AAIB would be in deep sh*t for jumping the gun.
The AAIB may well already be sure, from the pilots' accounts, that this is a CFIT accident, but will not say for sure until they have the CVFDR. If they were to put something out to the effect of : " there is nothing wrong with the aircraft, this was pilot error" the operators may very well start flying again.
Imagine then retrieving the CVFDR data and realising that there was in fact something very wrong with the aircraft but the pilots hadn't noticed (for all the reasons alluded to earlier in this thread).
The AAIB would be in deep sh*t for jumping the gun.
If in fact that is the case
Last edited by Pittsextra; 29th Aug 2013 at 12:27. Reason: edited to add "if in fact the drivers did drop it"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab;
I don't know the UK requirements, but CHC HS do have requirements to fly manual approaches. That be both precision and non-precsion, and also ARA's. There is also a req to fly x number of coupled approaches which is relevant to me beeing stationed offshore (EC225 SAR).
It has to be done within every sim session (6month).
I don't know the UK requirements, but CHC HS do have requirements to fly manual approaches. That be both precision and non-precsion, and also ARA's. There is also a req to fly x number of coupled approaches which is relevant to me beeing stationed offshore (EC225 SAR).
It has to be done within every sim session (6month).
My take on the AAIB report differs from most of you. I read "the aircraft was intact and upright when it hit the water" to mean just that and nothing more.
They mention the aircraft was severely damaged by the bashing it got while washing up against the shoreline Rocks.
The mention of the "decrease in speed and increase in Rate of Descent" means just that and nothing more.
They offer no explanations of any kind as to the cause, likely cause, or line of thought about the cause of the crash.
The PR is absolutely neutral in my view and very carefully written to convey only that information they can safely provide without entering into speculative language.
HC,
There is no evidence of any kind at this point to describe what kind of impact the aircraft experienced upon entering the water.....but the PR Release does clearly state the aircraft experience lots of damage while being pounded against the Rocks by the surf.
Folks,
We are no closer to knowing the actual cause(s) of the accident so anything said about a cause remains pure speculation.
I do tire of VRS always being the imagined cause.....that drum needs far less beating....as the empty drum makes the most noise.
They mention the aircraft was severely damaged by the bashing it got while washing up against the shoreline Rocks.
The mention of the "decrease in speed and increase in Rate of Descent" means just that and nothing more.
They offer no explanations of any kind as to the cause, likely cause, or line of thought about the cause of the crash.
The PR is absolutely neutral in my view and very carefully written to convey only that information they can safely provide without entering into speculative language.
HC,
There is no evidence of any kind at this point to describe what kind of impact the aircraft experienced upon entering the water.....but the PR Release does clearly state the aircraft experience lots of damage while being pounded against the Rocks by the surf.
Folks,
We are no closer to knowing the actual cause(s) of the accident so anything said about a cause remains pure speculation.
I do tire of VRS always being the imagined cause.....that drum needs far less beating....as the empty drum makes the most noise.
The rig worker, who did not want to be named, said:
“On approach to Sumburgh the chopper shook severely from side to side before lurching over to the left and plummeting from the air into the water and went over instantly."
“This all happened in a heartbeat. There was no ‘brace, brace, brace’ or mayday as it was so quick.”
“On approach to Sumburgh the chopper shook severely from side to side before lurching over to the left and plummeting from the air into the water and went over instantly."
“This all happened in a heartbeat. There was no ‘brace, brace, brace’ or mayday as it was so quick.”
My point is that before people start hanging others out to dry, then maybe we should wait just a bit longer for the cvdr info?
Just because a statement doesn't say something in particular, you can't then just say well because it doesnt say one thing it MUST mean another.
Last edited by helimutt; 29th Aug 2013 at 12:37.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helialan may have a good point.
Does anybody know for sure if the crew have actually given their accounts to the AAIB?
The AAIB report doesn't actually say that much that couldn't be got from sources other than the crew.
"Preliminary information indicates that the approach proceeded normally until approximately three miles from the runway when there was a reduction in airspeed accompanied by an increased rate of descent. The helicopter struck the sea approximately two miles west of the Runway 09 threshold." could easily be extracted from ATC information and
"The evidence currently available suggests that the helicopter was intact and upright when it entered the water" could be survivor testimony.
If the crew are not talking yet, perhaps on legal advice, the AAIB could be just as in the dark as the rest of us.
No inside knowledge from me at all, and no criticism of anyone intended, just wild speculation.
Does anybody know for sure if the crew have actually given their accounts to the AAIB?
The AAIB report doesn't actually say that much that couldn't be got from sources other than the crew.
"Preliminary information indicates that the approach proceeded normally until approximately three miles from the runway when there was a reduction in airspeed accompanied by an increased rate of descent. The helicopter struck the sea approximately two miles west of the Runway 09 threshold." could easily be extracted from ATC information and
"The evidence currently available suggests that the helicopter was intact and upright when it entered the water" could be survivor testimony.
If the crew are not talking yet, perhaps on legal advice, the AAIB could be just as in the dark as the rest of us.
No inside knowledge from me at all, and no criticism of anyone intended, just wild speculation.
