AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
This aircraft has got the newer style engine cowlings (less exhaust exposed). Every aircraft that I have seen with the newer cowlings also has the Phase 7 software.
(Although my sample size is relatively small so I obviously stand to be corrected on that detail).
(Although my sample size is relatively small so I obviously stand to be corrected on that detail).
What is it about the engine cowlings that indicates Phase 7 software?
The cowlings on the latest machines are more sculpted and the exhausts are shorter. Whether this has a direct relationship to phase 7 I am unsure.
The cowlings on the latest machines are more sculpted and the exhausts are shorter. Whether this has a direct relationship to phase 7 I am unsure.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In Communicado
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This aircraft has got the newer style engine cowlings (less exhaust exposed). Every aircraft that I have seen with the newer cowlings also has the Phase 7 software.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
Shytorque makes a very good point regarding private flying versus public transport. I was flying police helicopters before the advent of the PAOC. At that time it was simply private flying with one or two exemptions from Rule 5 low flying restrictions. You'd probably be very surprised at how unrestricted it is. Purely as a random example, I recall my record was 27 consecutive days 'on duty'!
I can well see the appeal of the almost totally unrestricted nature of private flying, (I don't know if this was?) rather than PT, to the very wealthy!
Shytorque makes a very good point regarding private flying versus public transport. I was flying police helicopters before the advent of the PAOC. At that time it was simply private flying with one or two exemptions from Rule 5 low flying restrictions. You'd probably be very surprised at how unrestricted it is. Purely as a random example, I recall my record was 27 consecutive days 'on duty'!
I can well see the appeal of the almost totally unrestricted nature of private flying, (I don't know if this was?) rather than PT, to the very wealthy!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
BBC News - Norfolk crash helicopter's flight recorder recovered
I'm surprised how far the crash site is from the grounds of the hall, which I presume was the take off point
I'm surprised how far the crash site is from the grounds of the hall, which I presume was the take off point
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 15th Mar 2014 at 22:33.
The Anglia video shows a better perspective than the photo. There was a report they whacked a tree branch on the way out, but hard to say it that made any difference. They would have been going at a pretty good clip at impact to shred the fuselage like that.
Lots of chest-beating "I would never do that", even by offshore pilots that do exactly that on those dark misty nights coming off a deck pointed at ink. You follow a disciplined profile and it works. Every time.
Hard to imagine being able to keep a 139 anywhere near the ground, but who knows what their takeoff plan was. We'll know soon enough.
Lots of chest-beating "I would never do that", even by offshore pilots that do exactly that on those dark misty nights coming off a deck pointed at ink. You follow a disciplined profile and it works. Every time.
Hard to imagine being able to keep a 139 anywhere near the ground, but who knows what their takeoff plan was. We'll know soon enough.
Tandemrotor,
I fully understand what Shy is talking about as I have operated in a similar situation, however, irrespective of how relaxed the private rules are does one not have their own limits to work within?
What I am getting at is even if the rules say you can't do something like take off in poor weather from a private site that does not mean to say it's okay to do it.
As pilots we all have a duty of care for our crew and passengers, don't we?
Many of us have been in similar situations where we know what we are just about to do could be bending the rules or dodgy in some respect but we then look at the safety aspect from a self preservation point of view, throw in a few other factors and then make a calculated decision taking limitations of the aircraft and crew into account.
Forget the rules just for a minute but can we agree that it's safe and sensible should you be operating VFR to be in sight of the surface (at take off or landing) or if operating IFR then at least remain visual until you have min IF speed.
Before anyone shoots me down this is just a question that may have no bearing on this incident.
One more thing before I get my coat but are there many pilots out there who regularly practice taking off from private sites at night in poor vis weather? In the real aircraft and not the sim.
I fully understand what Shy is talking about as I have operated in a similar situation, however, irrespective of how relaxed the private rules are does one not have their own limits to work within?
What I am getting at is even if the rules say you can't do something like take off in poor weather from a private site that does not mean to say it's okay to do it.
As pilots we all have a duty of care for our crew and passengers, don't we?
Many of us have been in similar situations where we know what we are just about to do could be bending the rules or dodgy in some respect but we then look at the safety aspect from a self preservation point of view, throw in a few other factors and then make a calculated decision taking limitations of the aircraft and crew into account.
Forget the rules just for a minute but can we agree that it's safe and sensible should you be operating VFR to be in sight of the surface (at take off or landing) or if operating IFR then at least remain visual until you have min IF speed.
Before anyone shoots me down this is just a question that may have no bearing on this incident.
One more thing before I get my coat but are there many pilots out there who regularly practice taking off from private sites at night in poor vis weather? In the real aircraft and not the sim.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, here's my input.
(3500hrs helo, 1000N Sea. 12000hrs airline. I'm no expert. but equally no dummy)
I have not had time to read anything on this forum about this accident. I was away from home and the interntet when it occurred until now.
I was staying about a mile from the scene.
On Thursday afternoon I was at my place rather less than a mile from the accident site burning a bonfire at 1700 when I noticed an AW139 passing to the North of me, from W to E. I recognised it as an AW139 and it was clearly slowing and descending towards a landing, helos land at the hall regularly.
I mentioned to my oppo that I thought that they were probably returning from Cheltenham, even though it seemed rather early.
As a helo Professional I listened to the sound as the aircraft disappeared from sight and gained the impression - and here I must stress that what follows is no more than my impression - that the helo slowed and made various manoeuvres for an approach and landed. I then heard - I am quite certain, about three minutes of constant burning and turning, than an increase of noise as it took off again. I thought at the time that the noise then disappeared rather quickly but that is nothing to cause alert at the time.
Note that my sighting of the 139 was at 1700 with the helo travelling W to E to the N of me in perfect vis at my guess and clearly slowing. I soon lost visual but retained audible evidence which suggested an uneventful landing, Wind was Easterly at 3-5 kts, very light.
After c. three minutes burning and turning (as you might expect for a charter stop) I'm pretty certain I heard the helo lift and depart. I wonder if I did in fact? Refuel?
At 1840 I went out for supper and remarked to my oppo that Beccles (some 2 miles distant) had disappeared in the haze, and later on the drive it was clear that it was becoming misty and that fog was forming early. I thought it would be thick. Returning from the pub at 2100 (yes, sad, I know) the fog was very thick indeed. Streetlights in Bungay only visible as you passed the previous one, so 30yards or so to see streetlights. In the Waveny valley 20mph was the max on the lanes. Vis at my place less than a mile from the accident site was the same. The fog was not patchy (8 mile drive) and my place is c. 30 ft above sea level and Gillingham Hall perhaps 20-30ft higher.
As I got out of the car I was immediately aware of at least two helos flying low and slow above and manoeuvering with a lot of blade slap. There was a full moon but it was only intermittently visible as a faint disk. I guess now they were ENG but there's no way they could have seen anything.
(3500hrs helo, 1000N Sea. 12000hrs airline. I'm no expert. but equally no dummy)
I have not had time to read anything on this forum about this accident. I was away from home and the interntet when it occurred until now.
I was staying about a mile from the scene.
On Thursday afternoon I was at my place rather less than a mile from the accident site burning a bonfire at 1700 when I noticed an AW139 passing to the North of me, from W to E. I recognised it as an AW139 and it was clearly slowing and descending towards a landing, helos land at the hall regularly.
I mentioned to my oppo that I thought that they were probably returning from Cheltenham, even though it seemed rather early.
As a helo Professional I listened to the sound as the aircraft disappeared from sight and gained the impression - and here I must stress that what follows is no more than my impression - that the helo slowed and made various manoeuvres for an approach and landed. I then heard - I am quite certain, about three minutes of constant burning and turning, than an increase of noise as it took off again. I thought at the time that the noise then disappeared rather quickly but that is nothing to cause alert at the time.
Note that my sighting of the 139 was at 1700 with the helo travelling W to E to the N of me in perfect vis at my guess and clearly slowing. I soon lost visual but retained audible evidence which suggested an uneventful landing, Wind was Easterly at 3-5 kts, very light.
After c. three minutes burning and turning (as you might expect for a charter stop) I'm pretty certain I heard the helo lift and depart. I wonder if I did in fact? Refuel?
At 1840 I went out for supper and remarked to my oppo that Beccles (some 2 miles distant) had disappeared in the haze, and later on the drive it was clear that it was becoming misty and that fog was forming early. I thought it would be thick. Returning from the pub at 2100 (yes, sad, I know) the fog was very thick indeed. Streetlights in Bungay only visible as you passed the previous one, so 30yards or so to see streetlights. In the Waveny valley 20mph was the max on the lanes. Vis at my place less than a mile from the accident site was the same. The fog was not patchy (8 mile drive) and my place is c. 30 ft above sea level and Gillingham Hall perhaps 20-30ft higher.
As I got out of the car I was immediately aware of at least two helos flying low and slow above and manoeuvering with a lot of blade slap. There was a full moon but it was only intermittently visible as a faint disk. I guess now they were ENG but there's no way they could have seen anything.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 16th Mar 2014 at 12:17.
bering
But we do if you think about it. On a dark night pointing away from any rig structure in your peripheral vision and no other boat/rig ahead of you what do you think your visibility is? You are doing a full instrument takeoff. The only advantage you have is there are no obstructions directly ahead of you.
HF
Not in 50 metres visibilty they don't. That's well below any current north sea company take-off minima.
HF
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeepys
Don't get me wrong. I do agree with what you have just written. I also confess I haven't flown corporate, not least because I may be more cautious than many, and therefore always accepted that my employment in that sector could have been short lived! There must be huge pressures to get the job done. I don't envy those guys.
I have always looked on things such as this as a kind of flow diagram. In order of priority: First might an act or omission cost me my life? Second might it cost me my liberty? Third might it cost me my licence. Fourth might it cost me my employment?
Very easy to run through in the comfort of our own home. Far more difficult when operating in that sector.
I assume the vast majority of helicopter pilots will be ex-mil of one shade or another? I know for a fact in the military world, I will have carried out a 'towering take off' in limited visibility in order to get airborne from a deployed site in shallow fog. Performance A, certainly in my time in the mil, was very much secondary. It worked, (risky shift??) so I can see the temptation to try it in a civvy helicopter if under pressure, and if it weren't ruled out by nature of the category of operation in which I was flying?
But by the look of the pictures provided by SS, this may well have been an a/c unserviceability rather than simply restricted visibility? We don't yet know.
Don't get me wrong. I do agree with what you have just written. I also confess I haven't flown corporate, not least because I may be more cautious than many, and therefore always accepted that my employment in that sector could have been short lived! There must be huge pressures to get the job done. I don't envy those guys.
I have always looked on things such as this as a kind of flow diagram. In order of priority: First might an act or omission cost me my life? Second might it cost me my liberty? Third might it cost me my licence. Fourth might it cost me my employment?
Very easy to run through in the comfort of our own home. Far more difficult when operating in that sector.
I assume the vast majority of helicopter pilots will be ex-mil of one shade or another? I know for a fact in the military world, I will have carried out a 'towering take off' in limited visibility in order to get airborne from a deployed site in shallow fog. Performance A, certainly in my time in the mil, was very much secondary. It worked, (risky shift??) so I can see the temptation to try it in a civvy helicopter if under pressure, and if it weren't ruled out by nature of the category of operation in which I was flying?
But by the look of the pictures provided by SS, this may well have been an a/c unserviceability rather than simply restricted visibility? We don't yet know.
We have had the discussion about Weather Minimums and actual Visibility where there is nothing to look at such as Offshore and no surface lighting (boats, rigs, platforms, Gas Flares) and have to recall the Rule does not necessarily comport with reality when we use "visibility" as part of our Go/No Go decisions. If there is nothing to be seen.....but you have the required visibility...by Rule you are legal but in reality you are IMC despite the Weather being VMC.
It gets rather Dark offshore most nights....especially with an overcast and no celestial lighting....but hey....you are VMC....right? If VMC....why do we have to fly by sole reference to Instruments? Should we not be able to control the aircraft by outside visual reference if we are really VMC?
In the USA....under Part 135 (Air Taxi) surface light reference is required for Night VFR.....but under Part 91 (Non-Commerical Flight)....there is no requirement for Surface Light Reference. Go Figure?
It gets rather Dark offshore most nights....especially with an overcast and no celestial lighting....but hey....you are VMC....right? If VMC....why do we have to fly by sole reference to Instruments? Should we not be able to control the aircraft by outside visual reference if we are really VMC?
In the USA....under Part 135 (Air Taxi) surface light reference is required for Night VFR.....but under Part 91 (Non-Commerical Flight)....there is no requirement for Surface Light Reference. Go Figure?
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
Shy,
I was simply asking you a question which you have assumed was directed at this incident.
I am guessing that your thoughts as to the cause of the accident are not weather related?
I was simply asking you a question which you have assumed was directed at this incident.
I am guessing that your thoughts as to the cause of the accident are not weather related?
At this stage I don't know the cause of the accident. I have my own thoughts and could speculate in public as well as any one else here, especially as I'm in exactly the same line of business as these unfortunate pilots. I spoke to Carl and Lee briefly in the vicinity of this exact airframe just a few days before the accident. I had no direct affiliation to either, by the way, except as professional acquaintances.
But I won't speculate here. I certainly don't like to see others thoughtlessly slagging off deceased pilots, especially even before an interim report is published.
There is absolutely no doubt that the press commonly use this forum for their own ends. I declined a direct request to make contact with a member of the BBC media about this accident shortly after it occurred.
Regarding my own theory, we don't know exactly what visibility the crew found themselves faced with. Fog is notorious for forming in random patches and layers, especially at night. It's quite possible the area they took off from was in reasonable visibility at ground level, but with fog not far above.
There are other reasons why a helicopter might hit the ground shortly after takeoff, even a fully IFR equipped one.
Posting inflammatory expressions about "breaking every rule in the book" etc is highly distasteful, especially as it appears that the bereaved widow of one of the pilots has already made contact here. I know from experience that even dedicated rule followers (and this thread obviously has more than a few self righteous ones) sometimes get caught out and pay the ultimate price.
Discussion of the landing approach capability of this individual airframe seems very strange to me, as the accident occurred during the takeoff phase.
High Spirits,
We are already one of the most highly regulated professions in the world. Let's not go begging for more of it. If you look back at the recent RW accidents which have been discussed in great depth on this forum, I'd make the observation that following the existing regulations, coupled with common sense, might have made all the difference in a high proportion of them.
How you think that publishing details of private landing sites in some book or other would make any difference to safety on takeoff is beyond me. These pilots were the aircraft owner's personal pilots. They would have been aware of the details of the landing site because it was their regular one, the owner's house.
To say that I seem to care more about the industry than aircrew lives is highly offensive. My neck has been directly on the chopping block in aviation for over three and a half decades. During that time I've lost count of the friends and colleagues who have perished in aviation accidents. It's certainly more than two dozen. I've had direct dealings with the dependents of some of them and certainly attended far too many funerals for my liking. My personal priority is to keep my own backside perfectly intact. By doing so, those in the airborne armchairs behind me will stay safe, too.
Helo Regs
Helicopters are able to take off and land almost anywhere. However, it would be very easy to regulate them out of existence for all but government authorities and O&G. Tough enough regs will prevent ALL private helo accidents.
Surely a private operation should be allowed to operate from a private property without regulator surveys being required.
Regs are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. If it is found that this accident happened in conditions below minima, then the law will have its say. If not, it may end up CFIT for no reason other than human error.
Surely a private operation should be allowed to operate from a private property without regulator surveys being required.
Regs are for the blind obedience of fools and the guidance of wise men. If it is found that this accident happened in conditions below minima, then the law will have its say. If not, it may end up CFIT for no reason other than human error.
My personal priority is to keep my own backside perfectly intact. By doing so, those in the airborne armchairs behind me will stay safe, too.
It does not matter a whit to me what the Bloke in the big padded chair thinks when it comes to that decision as he is second in priority after my own precious Tush!
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There seems to be plenty of land around the hall to make a clear area long enough to allow a take off and approach strip.
The crews could have worked out a repeatable procedure, day or night with some defined "gates" to ensure clearance and performance during take off and landing.
While not condoning, if true, a departure in low vis, at least they may all still be alive to tell the tale.
The crews could have worked out a repeatable procedure, day or night with some defined "gates" to ensure clearance and performance during take off and landing.
While not condoning, if true, a departure in low vis, at least they may all still be alive to tell the tale.
However, considering TM's point about the land around the Hall, perhaps common sense has not prevailed regarding obstruction at a location said to be regularly used by a helicopter.
(Which reminds me. There is a hazel tree I need to cut down.)
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Ventura Ca U.S.A.
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets me is the lack of damage to the tail rotor, A main rotor hub showing powered operation & sudden stopage. And the hay bails that it ran through,sad indeed.