AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The Authority may wish to consider the suitability of operating from Ad-Hoc sites at night or in poor met conditions without proper approved met facilities at the point of departure.Police a/c operate from both airfields and heliports, but for a long time now it has been a requirement to have approved wx facilities at all these bases, I always found the finger held up to the wind less than satisfactory,at night when there is full cloud cover and the site is in trees,studying the nearest metars and tafs indicate the wx but still do not accurately indicate local conditions, whilst driving to a properly regulated site may be slightly inconvenient to the very few, it would provide a much needed additional safety to the public.
Privately operated aircraft do not have to comply with many of those quite strict rules, imho rightly so, in the same way that the government should not step in and tell you exactly when, how and from where you could operate your private car or motorcycle. After all, there are many fatal road accidents every day in UK and no-one asks for more regulations in that respect, such as not driving in bad weather. We are not living in a Draconian state quite yet; let's hope things continue to be so.
Crab,
Say after me....Zero/Zero IMC Take Off.
If you had read my post carefully you would have seen my explanation for the Take Off from the Ground....there is no transition from external references (however good or few they are) thus the maneuver is done completely by reference to instruments.
You get the the aircraft light on the skids...stablilized....and if you think about it....that is going to be pretty much the hovering attitude (assuming a level surface)....then you apply Take Off Power and off you go.
That is why we call it an Instrument Take Off.
Say after me....Zero/Zero IMC Take Off.
If you had read my post carefully you would have seen my explanation for the Take Off from the Ground....there is no transition from external references (however good or few they are) thus the maneuver is done completely by reference to instruments.
You get the the aircraft light on the skids...stablilized....and if you think about it....that is going to be pretty much the hovering attitude (assuming a level surface)....then you apply Take Off Power and off you go.
That is why we call it an Instrument Take Off.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those crazy yanks with their vertical IR take offs and flying imc at night in a single it's no wonder they are falling out of the sky left right and centre ! Oh no wait a sec ... They don't ! I was trying to read the ANO this afternoon but as I am lacking a law degree I gave up , if only our regs were a bit more simple we might actually know what they where and have more chance of complying with them
You were right first time round CrazyB: crazy they are.
For SAS who is my hero, he seems to think that hovering just off the ground is the same as the take off profile. Of course he conveniently forgot about tail rotor drift and having to select left or right wing low (a/c dependant) to maintain straight during the vertical departure. Or did he........after all he's our duty gung ho yank.....
For SAS who is my hero, he seems to think that hovering just off the ground is the same as the take off profile. Of course he conveniently forgot about tail rotor drift and having to select left or right wing low (a/c dependant) to maintain straight during the vertical departure. Or did he........after all he's our duty gung ho yank.....
SAS - I did read you post and this is what you said
it is the 'after doing the Hover Check' part I am questioning.
Even in cloud or fog, you can still see enough to get the aircraft to a low hover using external references which will be far safer than trying to do it purely on instruments. Are you sure you didn't peek just a little bit doing these under the hood?
There is no problem going from external to internal references because you are doing it in a premeditated manner in a stable condition.
Since you will need to be in the hover attitude for the first 100' going straight up it seems far more sensible to be stable in that attitude before you pull climbing power - that is not exactly skids light because that would still be wings level (assuming level ground). If you mean you ease the aircraft up to a hover attitude with the back of one skid still on the ground then you might as well be properly in the hover at 1 or 2'.
I have taught a 'from the ground' instrument take off but only for dust/snow conditions where you are in the dust/snow cloud as soon as you raise the lever.
Your technique doesn't seem to match either a dust/snow departure or a fog/cloud takeoff.
The US Army did much the same except we did all takeoffs from the ground after doing the Hover Check.
Even in cloud or fog, you can still see enough to get the aircraft to a low hover using external references which will be far safer than trying to do it purely on instruments. Are you sure you didn't peek just a little bit doing these under the hood?
There is no problem going from external to internal references because you are doing it in a premeditated manner in a stable condition.
Since you will need to be in the hover attitude for the first 100' going straight up it seems far more sensible to be stable in that attitude before you pull climbing power - that is not exactly skids light because that would still be wings level (assuming level ground). If you mean you ease the aircraft up to a hover attitude with the back of one skid still on the ground then you might as well be properly in the hover at 1 or 2'.
I have taught a 'from the ground' instrument take off but only for dust/snow conditions where you are in the dust/snow cloud as soon as you raise the lever.
Your technique doesn't seem to match either a dust/snow departure or a fog/cloud takeoff.
Yes Crab.....and you fly for the RAF.....I flew for the US Army and that explains why we differ and as in so many of these discussions with you in the past....we shall have to agree to disagree.
Our way worked for us....and your way works for you.
So there we are.
Different techniques that work.....amazing isn't it?
Our way worked for us....and your way works for you.
So there we are.
Different techniques that work.....amazing isn't it?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My word.
I find myself agreeing strongly with Shy, Thomas and crab. But understand where SAS is coming from. Whether tail rotor roll is significant in a 'vertical' climb or not, is up for debate. (Unless of course you are flying a CH46/47 or Kamov!) Seems obvious to me to establish a hover attitude first, but if a large organisation has a different technique, then fair enough! Most importantly as Shy has alluded to, is that the incident in question was NOT a Public Transport flight. It was Private, and so in just the same way as military flying, there is no criteria for how the aircraft must perform having lost an engine at a critical moment.
There are ways of launching into shallow fog at an 'ad hoc' site, in private or military ops, but those techniques don't require any performance guarantees. Those techniques would likely not be legal for Public Transport.
I have no idea if that was significant in this case?
From the little that is known, perhaps a 'helipad' type take off was attempted? In weather that possibly wasn't entirely suitable? On the other hand, perhaps that is complete fantasy?
I find myself agreeing strongly with Shy, Thomas and crab. But understand where SAS is coming from. Whether tail rotor roll is significant in a 'vertical' climb or not, is up for debate. (Unless of course you are flying a CH46/47 or Kamov!) Seems obvious to me to establish a hover attitude first, but if a large organisation has a different technique, then fair enough! Most importantly as Shy has alluded to, is that the incident in question was NOT a Public Transport flight. It was Private, and so in just the same way as military flying, there is no criteria for how the aircraft must perform having lost an engine at a critical moment.
There are ways of launching into shallow fog at an 'ad hoc' site, in private or military ops, but those techniques don't require any performance guarantees. Those techniques would likely not be legal for Public Transport.
I have no idea if that was significant in this case?
From the little that is known, perhaps a 'helipad' type take off was attempted? In weather that possibly wasn't entirely suitable? On the other hand, perhaps that is complete fantasy?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The USN taught pretty much as you describe SAS, though can't recall whether it was initiated from the hover or the ground. As we were being trained in the H-34 the take off was made with feet off the pedals until reaching 60 knots and in the climb, letting heading hold do its thing. In practice always did them from the hover, as always had a hover reference ie not in snow etc. Not legal in the civil world of course, but .........
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
The two pilots in this accident were not actually trained to fly by the military, btw.
When I started two-crew EMS my training captains were a couple of old offshore guys, and they preached exactly the profile Crab et al refer to: from a stable hover, pull power, hold heading, and then pitch attitude followed by level attitude until you have airspeed and are climbing away at Vmini/Vy. Pulling from the ground always gave me the heebie jeebies for a dynamic rollover or unstable hover, though I know some 139 guys do it now offshore.
When it's dark out it doesn't much matter what the visibility is, may as well be zero. Still, this situation looks like it would have been a real challenge, even for a trained and experienced 0/0 crew. Too many obstacles too close.
When it's dark out it doesn't much matter what the visibility is, may as well be zero. Still, this situation looks like it would have been a real challenge, even for a trained and experienced 0/0 crew. Too many obstacles too close.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
I recall an infamous accident in Northern Ireland. An RAF Wessex took off from a hilltop security base at night. It drifted off to one side and hit a radio mast. It rolled partway down the hill, with tragic results. Ithe main cause was put down to the pilot not adopting the correct hover attitude, with one wheel low. Training was changed to emphasise the importance of achieving this in conditions of poor visibility.
Just to clarify, I don't have a civ IR but do have a mil one with several hundred hours IF under my belt.
It appears to me that the crew of the AW139 were faced with a choice; IFR or VFR?
It seems probable that they couldn't 'legally' depart VFR as, in the UK at least, a minimum visibility of 3000m is required.
An IFR departure was legal, according to my understanding of the ANO Rules 32 to 34. However, the inference I get from this thread, given their non-mil background, is that they probably had little or no initial or recurrent training in the necessary techniques.
Is it reasonable to assume that 'zero/limited' vis take-offs are occasionally carried out, quite legally, on Private category flights by potentially 'untrained' crews? Given that the required technique isn't brain surgery - the mil do it - but it is a skill that requires careful instruction and recurrent training. Is their not a case for including it the civilian IR syllabus and recurrent IRTs?
JJ
It appears to me that the crew of the AW139 were faced with a choice; IFR or VFR?
It seems probable that they couldn't 'legally' depart VFR as, in the UK at least, a minimum visibility of 3000m is required.
An IFR departure was legal, according to my understanding of the ANO Rules 32 to 34. However, the inference I get from this thread, given their non-mil background, is that they probably had little or no initial or recurrent training in the necessary techniques.
Is it reasonable to assume that 'zero/limited' vis take-offs are occasionally carried out, quite legally, on Private category flights by potentially 'untrained' crews? Given that the required technique isn't brain surgery - the mil do it - but it is a skill that requires careful instruction and recurrent training. Is their not a case for including it the civilian IR syllabus and recurrent IRTs?
JJ
Shy - just to clarify, that accident happened pre-NVG and the captain had elected to depart lights-out - not an unusual scenario given the tactical situation but he had gone in lights-on. The attempt to put some blame on the crewman, who was fatally injured, was the tacky part.
I flew the board of inquiry into the site the next day - not a pretty sight.
Jelly - worse still they might have tried to utilise a Cat A style of departure for which the site was unsuitable.
I flew the board of inquiry into the site the next day - not a pretty sight.
Jelly - worse still they might have tried to utilise a Cat A style of departure for which the site was unsuitable.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, I can't help feeling that all this talk of zero/zero take-offs is leading us away from, perhaps, a more pertinent topic - flight supervision.
Of course helicopters can take off in zero/zero, something that is practiced in various militaries to provide a solution for certain circumstances, but really, it is not the norm, and is very rarely used in anger.
I was ex-military, now I'm not, and in that interim period as a fully fledged civvy with my own AOC, I was amazed at the things I saw other pilots doing, and the lack of flight supervision from their organisations was always the common denominator. For most military flights, a flight supervisor must be briefed.
The flight supervisor is often the guy who helps the pilot to take certain things into consideration. Things that the pilot may have overlooked in his desire to get airborne. In my mind he is indispensable and I am wondering if some form of flight supervisor may be worth following up, or even do-able in the private aviation world.
Crab - "why would you land again after doing a hover check......" You should know better than to ask a civil question like that mate!!
TM
Of course helicopters can take off in zero/zero, something that is practiced in various militaries to provide a solution for certain circumstances, but really, it is not the norm, and is very rarely used in anger.
I was ex-military, now I'm not, and in that interim period as a fully fledged civvy with my own AOC, I was amazed at the things I saw other pilots doing, and the lack of flight supervision from their organisations was always the common denominator. For most military flights, a flight supervisor must be briefed.
The flight supervisor is often the guy who helps the pilot to take certain things into consideration. Things that the pilot may have overlooked in his desire to get airborne. In my mind he is indispensable and I am wondering if some form of flight supervisor may be worth following up, or even do-able in the private aviation world.
Crab - "why would you land again after doing a hover check......" You should know better than to ask a civil question like that mate!!
TM
We flew the entire procedure on Instruments....whence our take off from the ground....no need to transition from looking out side to looking back in during a critical phase of the maneuver.
We held Hover Attitude while adding Take Off Power to 100 feet AGL or well clear of Obstacles
We held Hover Attitude while adding Take Off Power to 100 feet AGL or well clear of Obstacles
"Flying the entire procedure on instruments" got my attention, because as a back seat passenger I thought most of the instruments were crap until you had some forward speed.
So how do you factor and correct for drift caused by wind if you can't see the ground? Or do you stabilise at a few feet whilst you can still see the ground?
Mickjoebill
Are you sure that applies to a private helicopter being flown by a CPL(H)? I've just been through the ANO and I'm struggling to find the reference. Have you got one, please?
Surely for private operations:
https://www.caa.co.uk/docs/64/VFR_Guide_2011_update.pdf
For helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable:
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
Surely for private sites Part 10 paragraph 3 covers it all, especially given the proximity of flora and fauna. Missing the same suggests you have a repeatable plan beyond "it will be ok". Any plan might include planning for failures as could be reasonably expected to occur which don't include collecting things on the way out.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man - the night VFR rules are in CAA information notice IN-2012/145
Introduction of Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at Night in the UK
Choice of Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules
1) The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under article 242 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 (ANO), exempts any aircraft from the requirement to be flown in accordance with Rule 20(2) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007, that provides for flight at night to be conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3.
2) The aircraft must be flown in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) except that:
a) the deeming provisions in Rule 27(3) do not apply;
b) the exception at Rule 28(4) must not be relied upon; and
c) the exception at Rule 28(5) must not be relied upon unless the flight visibility is at least 3,000 metres.
Nothing to do with AOC or private.
Introduction of Visual Flight Rules (VFR) at Night in the UK
Choice of Visual Flight Rules or Instrument Flight Rules
1) The Civil Aviation Authority, in exercise of its powers under article 242 of the Air Navigation Order 2009 (ANO), exempts any aircraft from the requirement to be flown in accordance with Rule 20(2) of the Rules of the Air Regulations 2007, that provides for flight at night to be conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), subject to the conditions set out in paragraphs 2 and 3.
2) The aircraft must be flown in accordance with the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) except that:
a) the deeming provisions in Rule 27(3) do not apply;
b) the exception at Rule 28(4) must not be relied upon; and
c) the exception at Rule 28(5) must not be relied upon unless the flight visibility is at least 3,000 metres.
Nothing to do with AOC or private.