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 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
The rules are being tightened up, under "part NCC", the new regulations come into force next year.
However, as I keep saying, irrespective of the rules, some owners care little about what is legal or safe. They simply want the flight to go ahead (been there, seen it, got the T shirt, resigned from the job).
For some, it's a case of if one captain refuses to fly, he will eventually move on, or be moved on. There is always a keen or unsuspecting pilot who will go. The problem is, as time passes and reputations become known, it's sometimes relatively inexperienced young "thrusters" who end up in the job.
However, as I keep saying, irrespective of the rules, some owners care little about what is legal or safe. They simply want the flight to go ahead (been there, seen it, got the T shirt, resigned from the job).
For some, it's a case of if one captain refuses to fly, he will eventually move on, or be moved on. There is always a keen or unsuspecting pilot who will go. The problem is, as time passes and reputations become known, it's sometimes relatively inexperienced young "thrusters" who end up in the job.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part NCC was mentioned in the AAIN report and in the link I posted, and it clearly addresses the need for an SMS and Ops Manual. So what else will the CAA study come out with?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
The CAA review will have to address their own lack of manpower to oversee and enforce any future increase in their breadth of regulation.
There are still loopholes in Part NCC, or any other regulations. As far as minimum weather conditions are concerned, at private landing sites, some of which may be used on a "one off" basis, who is to say what the visibility actually was, apart from the pilot on the day? The pilot will still have to take the flak when he tells the aircraft owner that the flight cannot go ahead in conditions that were acceptable in the past. Therein lies the problem.
There are still loopholes in Part NCC, or any other regulations. As far as minimum weather conditions are concerned, at private landing sites, some of which may be used on a "one off" basis, who is to say what the visibility actually was, apart from the pilot on the day? The pilot will still have to take the flak when he tells the aircraft owner that the flight cannot go ahead in conditions that were acceptable in the past. Therein lies the problem.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Europe
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under NCC would the owner, irrespective of what flag of convenience they are using, not be treated as an Accountable Manager or have to employ someone acceptable to their home EU Authority and therefore someone who can stand-up to the most demanding owner?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Surely the basic rule that was broken is starting a flight in IMC below 1000 feet AMSL without the protection of a surveyed site or indeed Instrument Runway.
Climbing IMC from effectively the surface out of an ad hoc field landing site carries risks beyond acceptable for normal pax ops.
We used to do this exercise on the runway at ABZ behind IF screens but only to demonstrate/simulate a departure from a rig in DVE. 'twas never intended to be a land based LVTO.
I have heard this practice is routinely carried out onshore in the private/corporate world but call me a Jessy, its not a practice I would want to be involved in. Imagine OEI prior to VTOSS.
Climbing IMC from effectively the surface out of an ad hoc field landing site carries risks beyond acceptable for normal pax ops.
We used to do this exercise on the runway at ABZ behind IF screens but only to demonstrate/simulate a departure from a rig in DVE. 'twas never intended to be a land based LVTO.
I have heard this practice is routinely carried out onshore in the private/corporate world but call me a Jessy, its not a practice I would want to be involved in. Imagine OEI prior to VTOSS.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
DB, I don't think "below 1,000 feet amsl" comes into the practical equation. The 1,000 foot rule is a legality to ensure en route terrain and obstacle clearance under IFR.
The problem here was that a transition from hovering using external visual cues (whatever they were, most probably very limited), to an instrument climb, wasn't successfully completed.
As I often repeat: Hovering isn't too difficult. Instrument flying isn't too difficult. It's the bit in between that catches people out, time and time again. Both departing from and arriving at terra firma, as recent tragic accidents and recorded incidents have proven.
Strangely enough (or perhaps not), it's also the bit helicopter pilots aren't well trained for, at least, not in the civilian environment, once away from the "luxuries" of an airfield.
This often gets confused amongst the argument for and against Class 1 takeoff performance. Some seem to miss the obvious, i.e. if Class 1 is required, it's obvious that sufficient visual cues must be available in order to allow a Class 1 departure to be made. This requires sufficient visibility to assess an adequate clear departure path and a sufficiently high cloudbase. At TDP the pilot must be able to see the ground and the reject area ahead, in case an engine quits at the most difficult moment (i.e. just before TDP).
In marginal weather conditions, Class 1 performance for departure (and landing!) may have to be sacrificed altogether. But in truth, full Class 1 is seldom available at remote landing sites, at least, at ad hoc ones. And that, unfortunately, is the core business of the onshore corporate helicopter market.
The problem here was that a transition from hovering using external visual cues (whatever they were, most probably very limited), to an instrument climb, wasn't successfully completed.
As I often repeat: Hovering isn't too difficult. Instrument flying isn't too difficult. It's the bit in between that catches people out, time and time again. Both departing from and arriving at terra firma, as recent tragic accidents and recorded incidents have proven.
Strangely enough (or perhaps not), it's also the bit helicopter pilots aren't well trained for, at least, not in the civilian environment, once away from the "luxuries" of an airfield.
This often gets confused amongst the argument for and against Class 1 takeoff performance. Some seem to miss the obvious, i.e. if Class 1 is required, it's obvious that sufficient visual cues must be available in order to allow a Class 1 departure to be made. This requires sufficient visibility to assess an adequate clear departure path and a sufficiently high cloudbase. At TDP the pilot must be able to see the ground and the reject area ahead, in case an engine quits at the most difficult moment (i.e. just before TDP).
In marginal weather conditions, Class 1 performance for departure (and landing!) may have to be sacrificed altogether. But in truth, full Class 1 is seldom available at remote landing sites, at least, at ad hoc ones. And that, unfortunately, is the core business of the onshore corporate helicopter market.
How many Engine Failures have occurred on AW139's during Takeoff before Vtoss ever in the History of the Fleet?
How many AW139's have crashed into the ground during IMC Takeoffs at Night with absolutely no mechanical or avionics failure?
Which risk are we more concerned about?
How many AW139's have crashed into the ground during IMC Takeoffs at Night with absolutely no mechanical or avionics failure?
Which risk are we more concerned about?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Obviously, it's the Captain's responsibility to decide on the day which he ought to be most concerned about, ideally all risks should be totally ameliorated....
(Of course, the risk/fear of losing your job because the aircraft owner is breathing fire at you to depart whatever should make no difference).
(Of course, the risk/fear of losing your job because the aircraft owner is breathing fire at you to depart whatever should make no difference).
Odd....that Boss can be very persuasive in his arguments.
He became the Late....rather than just late.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Surely it is not legal (clearly not safe) to just punch into IMC from anywhere on the face of EASA Land!
The basic IFR rule must apply, absolute minimum height in IMC is 1000' unless flying a published approach/departure procedure. This is why in offshore we have published en-route descent, ARA and rig departures. This is the rules of the air.
This debate should not be about the take off technique causing the accident. It should be about the sensibility of taking off at all when the initial flight trajectory is un surveyed and in IMC. Did he not fly into a tree?
The basic IFR rule must apply, absolute minimum height in IMC is 1000' unless flying a published approach/departure procedure. This is why in offshore we have published en-route descent, ARA and rig departures. This is the rules of the air.
This debate should not be about the take off technique causing the accident. It should be about the sensibility of taking off at all when the initial flight trajectory is un surveyed and in IMC. Did he not fly into a tree?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Double Bogey
DB, the European regulations are prescribed in SERA, notably 5015. To quote:
The important bit is the first few words, 'take-off or landing'. These guys may have done something illogical but there is no evidence that they broke the Rules of the Air.
Except when necessary for take-off or landing, or except when specifically authorised by the competent authority, an IFR flight shall be flown at a level which is not below the minimum flight altitude established by the State whose territory is overflown
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
DB, no he did not fly into a tree. That is made clear in the report from the AAIB.
With regard to your understanding of the legality of departures to IFR from a private site, or departing from an airfield whilst not on a SID. If it wasn't legal, no aircraft intent on transiting under IFR could do so if the the cloud base was below 1,000 ft. That certainly is not the case. It's perfectly legal for an IFR helicopter with an IR'd crew to change between VFR and IFR and back again as required on one flight.
With regard to your understanding of the legality of departures to IFR from a private site, or departing from an airfield whilst not on a SID. If it wasn't legal, no aircraft intent on transiting under IFR could do so if the the cloud base was below 1,000 ft. That certainly is not the case. It's perfectly legal for an IFR helicopter with an IR'd crew to change between VFR and IFR and back again as required on one flight.
Double-Bogey
How do you think a 'Rig Departure' is an 'approved' IFR departure?
The fact that you require a certain 'estimated' vis prior to departure?
The assumption that you can safely resort to OEI profile whilst maintaining good visual references on a dark and stormy night?
SNS atleast, there is no useful radar at rig height to determine clear climb out and RT separation is dubious at best.
The trivia that went into the approach mechanism compared to the simple departure procedure - where it could be argued that the profile changes required upon Engine failure just after TDP are far more hazardous........
I always thought that was taking the urine.
How do you think a 'Rig Departure' is an 'approved' IFR departure?
The fact that you require a certain 'estimated' vis prior to departure?
The assumption that you can safely resort to OEI profile whilst maintaining good visual references on a dark and stormy night?
SNS atleast, there is no useful radar at rig height to determine clear climb out and RT separation is dubious at best.
The trivia that went into the approach mechanism compared to the simple departure procedure - where it could be argued that the profile changes required upon Engine failure just after TDP are far more hazardous........
I always thought that was taking the urine.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont think flying VFR in IMC is allowed just because the aircraft and pilots can do it. Of course one can fly legally and perfectly safe IFR in VMC but flying VFR in IMC will hurt one day, especially close to ground.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
ROTORSPEED I don know the answer to your question but surely the criteria necessary to ensure a safe departure would be prudent allied to appropriate training, checking and recency!
Are you saying on this particular occasion what they did was safe but just poorly executed or were the conditions inherently unsafe?
Are you saying on this particular occasion what they did was safe but just poorly executed or were the conditions inherently unsafe?
Maintain VMC until in Contact with ATC and able to clear obstacles until on an approved IFR Clearance.
UK Rules might be different but good piloting practices should mandate that as minimum standard practice.
UK Rules might be different but good piloting practices should mandate that as minimum standard practice.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Maintain VMC until in Contact with ATC and able to clear obstacles until on an approved IFR Clearance.
Q1. What can ATC physically do to help a pilot successfully transfer from visual references to flight on instruments (as the crew failed to do in this tragic accident)?
A1. Nothing.
Q2. Where are these "approved IFR clearances" in UK?
A2. They don't exist.
There seem to be some "knee jerk" reactions here!
It appears from what has been posted that some expect helicopter pilots wanting to fly in IMC to transit from a remote/private HLS to an airfield under VMC (below 1,000 feet above the surface, in marginal weather) then carry out a SID from there! That is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
What is needed is sufficient forward visibility and sufficiently high cloudbase for a safe transition to a climb clear of obstacles to be made, followed by a safe transfer onto instruments whilst climbing to MSA for the IFR/IMC transit. Provided the takeoff area is clear, with sufficient visual cues for a safe initial departure, it matters not that the aircraft isn't actually at an airport.
It goes without saying that the crew need to be capable of making a safe transition to an instrument climb; that is the most critical part of the manoeuvre.
