AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
satsuma
We already have a safety management system - more regulations than anyone ever knows, let alone remembers, a rigorous aircraft maintenance system and a training and qualification system for pilots. And it is the pilot who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. The fact is, however defensive people get on this forum of particularly commercial pilots, most accidents are ultimately due to pilot error, as I suspect the Sumburgh Super Puma accident, the Glasgow 135 and probably this 139 accident will turn out to be. Yes there will be contributory factors, but they will be just that, contributory not causual.
I said before that I thought if owners are pressurising crew too much maybe a system licensing employers of pilots should be implemented, when such owners can be instructed on responsibilities, limitations, accidents and causes etc, and be made aware that their entitlement to continue to employ pilots relies upon them not developing a valid reputation from reports for endangering the safe operation of an aircraft.
Apart from that, I think as pilots we should all look primarily to ourselves to ensure we do not make the bad decisions that have lead to accidents in the past.
I'm really not sure what you mean by the need for a further 'Safety Management System' that corporate and private owners would need to implement - perhaps you could expand on what you see this would involve that is not required by legislation or common sense already? I certainly do not believe that we need more administration, flight record keeping or reporting, for example.
We already have a safety management system - more regulations than anyone ever knows, let alone remembers, a rigorous aircraft maintenance system and a training and qualification system for pilots. And it is the pilot who is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. The fact is, however defensive people get on this forum of particularly commercial pilots, most accidents are ultimately due to pilot error, as I suspect the Sumburgh Super Puma accident, the Glasgow 135 and probably this 139 accident will turn out to be. Yes there will be contributory factors, but they will be just that, contributory not causual.
I said before that I thought if owners are pressurising crew too much maybe a system licensing employers of pilots should be implemented, when such owners can be instructed on responsibilities, limitations, accidents and causes etc, and be made aware that their entitlement to continue to employ pilots relies upon them not developing a valid reputation from reports for endangering the safe operation of an aircraft.
Apart from that, I think as pilots we should all look primarily to ourselves to ensure we do not make the bad decisions that have lead to accidents in the past.
I'm really not sure what you mean by the need for a further 'Safety Management System' that corporate and private owners would need to implement - perhaps you could expand on what you see this would involve that is not required by legislation or common sense already? I certainly do not believe that we need more administration, flight record keeping or reporting, for example.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorspeed
Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient. It doesn't have to be an SMS but they're usually pretty comprehensive. It has to make the captain's decision bulletproof and modern Safety Management Systems, if implemented properly, will contain words or phrases that do just that. We simply can't allow a situation to continue where a guy is in fear for his employment if he goes against the wishes of the big boss man. Helicopters are developing a notorious reputation with the public and it's only going to get worse if it is discovered that sensible aviation decisions are being overruled by fear of upsetting the owner and being shown the door.
Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient. It doesn't have to be an SMS but they're usually pretty comprehensive. It has to make the captain's decision bulletproof and modern Safety Management Systems, if implemented properly, will contain words or phrases that do just that. We simply can't allow a situation to continue where a guy is in fear for his employment if he goes against the wishes of the big boss man. Helicopters are developing a notorious reputation with the public and it's only going to get worse if it is discovered that sensible aviation decisions are being overruled by fear of upsetting the owner and being shown the door.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I already have a Safety Management System. It's me. It's an intrinsic part of the responsibility of the job.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no knowledge if what I am about to say had any impact whatsoever on the accident under discussion, however...
I feel an employer should indeed have the ultimate right to hire and fire employees. There are rules to protect individuals from unscrupulous employers. They protect pilots in just the same way anyone else is protected.
It is perfectly correct to say that the most important tool in any pilot's (not just captain's!) armoury, is the ability to say 'no'. The innate sense of self preservation must never come second to any other consideration. Ever.
However, in the field of corporate/private operations I have to assume (because I have never done it!) that the ability to explain one's decisions, emphasising the paramount importance of safety must also be a pre-requisite for the job.
Nobody wants to come a cropper. Not even the super rich. Some actually like having key individuals around them who are prepared to prevent them forcing a dangerous situation. But it is their right to have each occasion explained to them in however much detail they require. Because some pilots can equally be over-cautious/obstructive/under confident.
I feel an employer should indeed have the ultimate right to hire and fire employees. There are rules to protect individuals from unscrupulous employers. They protect pilots in just the same way anyone else is protected.
It is perfectly correct to say that the most important tool in any pilot's (not just captain's!) armoury, is the ability to say 'no'. The innate sense of self preservation must never come second to any other consideration. Ever.
However, in the field of corporate/private operations I have to assume (because I have never done it!) that the ability to explain one's decisions, emphasising the paramount importance of safety must also be a pre-requisite for the job.
Nobody wants to come a cropper. Not even the super rich. Some actually like having key individuals around them who are prepared to prevent them forcing a dangerous situation. But it is their right to have each occasion explained to them in however much detail they require. Because some pilots can equally be over-cautious/obstructive/under confident.
I think that the latest little spat in the last few posts is quite illustrative of the problem.Of course the person flying the aircraft SHOULD be the one to make the decision but in real life subtle pressures are applied in all manner of ways.
Back o=in the 70's working for a US rig construction company in the North Sea a colleague and myself used to joke that the ultimate sanction was "To be badly thought of" by the company.Now we were a pair of pisstakers and significantly we both ended up self employed,but a lot of our colleagues was worried by this ultimate sanction.
In any Master/servant relationship it is the former who carries the responsibility to ensure the safety of employee,customer and public.But rich businessman probably tend towards the can do attitude.it is only when an event such as this occurs that they should realise there are things that they can't do,or at least should not do.
Back o=in the 70's working for a US rig construction company in the North Sea a colleague and myself used to joke that the ultimate sanction was "To be badly thought of" by the company.Now we were a pair of pisstakers and significantly we both ended up self employed,but a lot of our colleagues was worried by this ultimate sanction.
In any Master/servant relationship it is the former who carries the responsibility to ensure the safety of employee,customer and public.But rich businessman probably tend towards the can do attitude.it is only when an event such as this occurs that they should realise there are things that they can't do,or at least should not do.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Some businessmen also have a flying licence of their own and their personal risk assessment process may be at odds with that of the professional pilot. A successful businessman may be a risk taker; that is how they make money.
My personal SMS system will not allow me to work for such people.
My personal SMS system will not allow me to work for such people.
I worked for a fairly large company with a range of different helicopters. The Chairman's son was on the same type of helicopter as I was. We were having a bit of trouble with them and they were subject to various preventive checks. The call came from on high. He was to be transferred to another type as he was not going to have his son fly a dodgy aircraft.
He didn't seem to worry about us.
He didn't seem to worry about us.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque
Your references to your personal SMS is below your usual standard of posts. You may well have the strength of character, experience and financial security to make the decisions that in an ideal world every pilot should make but that's not always going to be the case. Younger, less experienced, less confident pilots who may be in financial difficulty also operate within this industry. It is they that need to be protected.
Your references to your personal SMS is below your usual standard of posts. You may well have the strength of character, experience and financial security to make the decisions that in an ideal world every pilot should make but that's not always going to be the case. Younger, less experienced, less confident pilots who may be in financial difficulty also operate within this industry. It is they that need to be protected.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satsuma
Fine words. Can you just explain exactly how you will protect people, essentially from themselves? Because I can't imagine any effective mechanism.
Tragically people such as the theoretical ones you describe, would have positioned themselves in the wrong segment of the wrong industry.
Fine words. Can you just explain exactly how you will protect people, essentially from themselves? Because I can't imagine any effective mechanism.
Tragically people such as the theoretical ones you describe, would have positioned themselves in the wrong segment of the wrong industry.
Individual people's risk assessment is all over the place.A friend of mine,retired schoolteacher wouldn't say boo to a ghost as an employee of mine used to say.Recently turned up at mine on his Honda Fireblade and stripped off his leathers to reveal a tee shirt saying "I've ridden at 150". "Have you?" I asked.Several times apparently and more,up to 170.That is crazy.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
satsuma
You comment: "Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient".
The problem is how to focus effort where it is really required and would be effective. The fact is the vast majority of (corporate) flights are very straightforward and 30 seconds looking at the TAFs and METARs is all that is necessary to know that weather is no problem - and I assume everyone does that at least at the start of a day and often the day before a flight. Any requirement to have to box tick and document what the weather actually was for example would be laborious, tedious and superfluous in these situations. And at the private sites helicopters often operate from there can never be any proof of what the weather actually was anyway, so subjective judgement is required, with contingencies if it proves worse than anticipated.
And surely aircraft serviceability is something that is verified (as far as a pilot reasonably can) by checking the tech log to see it is within maintenance schedules, checking for defects and doing and signing for a Check A. What more could one be sensibly doing?
You comment: "Something, anything that took the form of backing up the pilot's decision making with regard to the weather or aircraft serviceability would be sufficient".
The problem is how to focus effort where it is really required and would be effective. The fact is the vast majority of (corporate) flights are very straightforward and 30 seconds looking at the TAFs and METARs is all that is necessary to know that weather is no problem - and I assume everyone does that at least at the start of a day and often the day before a flight. Any requirement to have to box tick and document what the weather actually was for example would be laborious, tedious and superfluous in these situations. And at the private sites helicopters often operate from there can never be any proof of what the weather actually was anyway, so subjective judgement is required, with contingencies if it proves worse than anticipated.
And surely aircraft serviceability is something that is verified (as far as a pilot reasonably can) by checking the tech log to see it is within maintenance schedules, checking for defects and doing and signing for a Check A. What more could one be sensibly doing?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Satsuma
Fine words. Can you just explain exactly how you will protect people
Fine words. Can you just explain exactly how you will protect people
Thanks.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An SMS can be as complex or as simple as it needs to be for the size of organisation and number of employees concerned. However, if it contains statements that pilots are subsequently able to use to back up their arguments as to why they won't be going flying that day, then they can do so without fear because it could be something that a private owner could be compelled to sign up to before being permitted to employ licenced pilots.
Have a look at Chapter 12 of this ICAO Document, especially Appendix 1, the Sample Safety Policy Statement.
http://legacy.icao.int/osg/isd/afi/R...S%20Manual.pdf
If a private or corporate owner HAD to sign up to this or something similar before they could employ pilots to fly their aircraft, then the pilots would be protected. It would be dead easy to throw it back in their faces if they're applying pressure for you to go flying in poor weather for example.
Apologies for the formatting if it comes out wrong but read what's below and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.
ICAO Sample Safety Policy Statement
Safety is the first priority in all our activities. We are committed to implementing, developing and improving strategies, management systems and processes to ensure that all our aviation activities uphold the highest level of safety performance and meet national and international standards.
Our commitment is to:
a) Develop and embed a safety culture in all our aviation activities that recognizes the importance and value of effective aviation safety management and acknowledges at all times that safety is paramount;
b) Clearly define for all staff their accountabilities and responsibilities for the development and delivery of aviation safety strategy and performance;
c) Minimize the risks associated with aircraft operations to a point that is as low as reasonably practicable/achievable;
d) Ensure that externally supplied systems and services that impact upon the safety of our operations meet appropriate safety standards;
e) Actively develop and improve our safety processes to conform to world-class standards;
f) Comply with and, wherever possible, exceed legislative and regulatory requirements and standards;
g) Ensure that all staff are provided with adequate and appropriate aviation safety information and training, are competent in safety matters and are only allocated tasks commensurate with their skills;
h) Ensure that sufficient skilled and trained resources are available to implement safety strategy and policy;
i) Establish and measure our safety performance against realistic objectives and/or targets;
j) Achieve the highest levels of safety standards and performance in all our aviation activities;
k) Continually improve our safety performance;
l) Conduct safety and management reviews and ensure that relevant action is taken; and
m) Ensure that the application of effective aviation safety management systems is integral to all our aviation activities, with the objective of achieving the highest levels of safety standards and performance.
Have a look at Chapter 12 of this ICAO Document, especially Appendix 1, the Sample Safety Policy Statement.
http://legacy.icao.int/osg/isd/afi/R...S%20Manual.pdf
If a private or corporate owner HAD to sign up to this or something similar before they could employ pilots to fly their aircraft, then the pilots would be protected. It would be dead easy to throw it back in their faces if they're applying pressure for you to go flying in poor weather for example.
Apologies for the formatting if it comes out wrong but read what's below and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.
ICAO Sample Safety Policy Statement
Safety is the first priority in all our activities. We are committed to implementing, developing and improving strategies, management systems and processes to ensure that all our aviation activities uphold the highest level of safety performance and meet national and international standards.
Our commitment is to:
a) Develop and embed a safety culture in all our aviation activities that recognizes the importance and value of effective aviation safety management and acknowledges at all times that safety is paramount;
b) Clearly define for all staff their accountabilities and responsibilities for the development and delivery of aviation safety strategy and performance;
c) Minimize the risks associated with aircraft operations to a point that is as low as reasonably practicable/achievable;
d) Ensure that externally supplied systems and services that impact upon the safety of our operations meet appropriate safety standards;
e) Actively develop and improve our safety processes to conform to world-class standards;
f) Comply with and, wherever possible, exceed legislative and regulatory requirements and standards;
g) Ensure that all staff are provided with adequate and appropriate aviation safety information and training, are competent in safety matters and are only allocated tasks commensurate with their skills;
h) Ensure that sufficient skilled and trained resources are available to implement safety strategy and policy;
i) Establish and measure our safety performance against realistic objectives and/or targets;
j) Achieve the highest levels of safety standards and performance in all our aviation activities;
k) Continually improve our safety performance;
l) Conduct safety and management reviews and ensure that relevant action is taken; and
m) Ensure that the application of effective aviation safety management systems is integral to all our aviation activities, with the objective of achieving the highest levels of safety standards and performance.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Norfolk UK
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was talking last night with a cop who lives in my village and attended the scene.He says the freshly severed tip of the conifer is very close to the take off point,within the grounds of the hall and not on the western side of the A143 where the aircraft impacted.
This article on the Daily Mails website, included several photos;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580477/BREAKING-NEWS-Helicopter-crashes-Beccles-Norfolk.html
One photo, titled “a sheared tree branch near the crash scene” shows the broken top of a conifer.
This conifer is located in a fairly dense copse, on the east side of the A143, and is about 70’ from the road.
The broken section is approximately 20’ long, and the remaining ‘stump’ is still around 30’ tall.
I note the trunk has sheared at a point well below the height of the other trees closely surrounding it.
The X marks the approximate location of this conifer, Are there any others?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facts
When crew are provided with all means to plan their flights and fair warning of upcoming flights, "THE MAN", does not wish to be told at the last moment that their activities will be curtailed due to, for example weather.
The crew therefor have/had the responsibility to monitor weather events and advise and plan accordingly.
The record, on this forum, of the principal in this case is perhaps tainted by reputation rather than experience or facts.
I am not by any means attempting to decry all that has been said thus far, just that there were two guys capable of making decisions for themselves. Whether they made an error of judgement or bowed to some implied pressure it is not known at this time.
The crew therefor have/had the responsibility to monitor weather events and advise and plan accordingly.
The record, on this forum, of the principal in this case is perhaps tainted by reputation rather than experience or facts.
I am not by any means attempting to decry all that has been said thus far, just that there were two guys capable of making decisions for themselves. Whether they made an error of judgement or bowed to some implied pressure it is not known at this time.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additional rules such as suggested will do nothing to change matters. Employers already have a legal duty towards staff. IF the nasty rich man ignores these rules he will ignore yours too.
There is an answer; grow a set and be the captain. If you can't stand up to the nasty rich man on safety matters you are too cowardly for the role. Give up 2 stripes and take a more appropriate job.
There is an answer; grow a set and be the captain. If you can't stand up to the nasty rich man on safety matters you are too cowardly for the role. Give up 2 stripes and take a more appropriate job.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
satsuma
Sorry, but you've got to be kidding with that suggested SMS policy! It might have some relevance in a major AOC organisation with many employees, but it is a complete waste of time for a small corporate or private operation. It's largely just health and safety generalised rhetoric and would probably only provoke disdain and contempt in many operations - and ones that fly with a great safety culture. It basically all just means fly as safely as we reasonably can, and that's what we all try to do.
When it comes to owner pressure, as others have said, we as pilots have got to be sensible and strong enough to say no when conditions are not safe, whatever the reason, and that should be part of the training and suitability appraisal.
Sorry, but you've got to be kidding with that suggested SMS policy! It might have some relevance in a major AOC organisation with many employees, but it is a complete waste of time for a small corporate or private operation. It's largely just health and safety generalised rhetoric and would probably only provoke disdain and contempt in many operations - and ones that fly with a great safety culture. It basically all just means fly as safely as we reasonably can, and that's what we all try to do.
When it comes to owner pressure, as others have said, we as pilots have got to be sensible and strong enough to say no when conditions are not safe, whatever the reason, and that should be part of the training and suitability appraisal.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good afternoon rotorspeed
You'll note my use of the following phrases:
An SMS can be as complex or as simple as it needs to be for the size of organisation and number of employees concerned...........and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.
Best wishes.
You'll note my use of the following phrases:
An SMS can be as complex or as simple as it needs to be for the size of organisation and number of employees concerned...........and adjust to suit the individual owners/organisation.
Best wishes.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John R81
They're not rules. It's about developing a culture. How do people 'grow a set' when they've got significant debts and are fearful for their future? They need some sort of back up, don't they?
They're not rules. It's about developing a culture. How do people 'grow a set' when they've got significant debts and are fearful for their future? They need some sort of back up, don't they?