AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk

[Boudreaux Bob]

You had made an earlier point about judgment and rules. I remember an infamous line in our "rules" in the OPNAVINST 3710 series: nothing in this manual precludes the exercise of good judgment. (Words to that effect).

Which has been the Point I have always tried to make when discussing "Rules"s, "Regulations", and "Laws".

They all have varying effect, force, and pertinence but are never absolute.

Even The Laws of Gravity can be defied but they too demand a reckoning if you get it wrong.

[[email protected]]

So we have the nonsense situation that a night rig departure, flown without real external references, is legal for public transport ops - despite the fact that the RFM is ignored because most aircraft have a VminI above 40 kts - yet a towering IF takeoff is illegal anywhere else for public transport ops without real external references

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Crab - A night rig departure is conducted over open water starting at a height AMSL of between 50 and 300 feet approx. The risks associated with this procedure are much much less than doing it over land at an unlicensed site.

In addition the potential errors in an offshore departure are captured, documented and trained. The manoeuvre is practised intensively BUT far more important than that is the fact that it is exactly the same procedure in daylight. One procedure, one muscle memory, one picture on the instruments significantly contributing to the success of the procedure.

Please do not compare what happened in this accident to the hundreds of thousands of successful night rig departures each year.

Competence, training and experience. There are no substitutes!

[John Eacott]

A night departure from a ship's deck is also an immediate transition from visual to instrument on many dark nights. Night North Sea rig departures were quite tame in comparison.

But they do need currency and capability, of both the pilot and the machine. Not wishing to detract from this accident and the loss of life but we have been doing many of these procedures for 40-50 years: surely someone must have considered their use in onshore ops?

[rotorspeed]

But surely Crab's point is quite right! DB - Crab's issue was what's legal and presumably the height AMSL of a rig departure is irrelevant to that point. I'm not saying it's wrong - far from it. As you say, with good training and currency it's clearly fine.

But in reality there is surely no real difference to the skills and technique required for a safe night rig departure and those that should have been applied for this 0/0 139 departure, with the only caveat of ensuring no obstacles were too close. Plus as I've suggested before, I'd imagine many rig departures are at close to MTOW, making it harder. Safety standards are surely amonsgt the highest for rig PT too.

So, two points. Firstly how are the regulations complied with for night rig departures when no visual references are ahead? And secondly what's so wrong (regulations - potentially - aside) with land based 0/0 IMC departures, assuming appropriate training and currency?

[Thomas coupling]

It is almost a near certainty that the pilot of G-LBAL wasn't current in 0/0 takeoffs. I would wager he hadn't done one before but thought he could 'manage' it on this occasion. On paper 0/0's seem straight forward..........

On all sorties where IIMC or lack of visual references are expected we would advocate that the NHP must follow through and be prepared for disorientation.
Because this seems to be the cause of this accident.

[tistisnot]

rotorspeed

But offshore or from a raised helipad there is a huge difference. Climbing to 20 to 30 feet, probably with some lit part of the structure visible as a reference for the climb, a rotation that then guarantees you clear the initial ground obstacle and continue forward to try and gain airspeed in order to fly away - the 50 - 300 feet height, above sea level at which you begin is used to do that, and unless operating at a low helideck elevation at max all-up (which your ops manual probably prohibits) then even in the event of OEI you will fly away using slightly more nose down than standard 5 - 10 degrees for departure.

Onshore you have the obstacle of the ground always in front of you, or obstacles around you, and so without the required visual cue during a longer portion of the procedure ..... it quickly goes wrong if you do not follow the profile, or exceed pitch attitude references

It can go wrong offshore too, but there is more time to react / correct / monitor

[Sir Niall Dementia]

One other aspect of night rig take-offs was the susceptibility of the pilot to the "leans". A very current pilot tends to suffer far less, but the NHP needs to be quick in his responses to over-controlling or loss of spatial awareness in the other seat. Add in a minor physical degradation such as unrecognised fatigue or the onset of a head cold and the leans can bite the most current. The manoeuvre is certainly not recommended for any pilot lacking in either currency or training.


Also IIRC off-shore a towering take-off was acceptable because officially all take-offs and landings were visual, no matter what time of day or night.


SND

[Boudreaux Bob]

Also IIRC off-shore a towering take-off was acceptable because officially all take-offs and landings were visual, no matter what time of day or night.

Is the Rule the Rule except when it is not the Rule?

Not wishing to detract from this accident and the loss of life but we have been doing many of these procedures for 40-50 years: surely someone must have considered their use in onshore ops?

The Military using different "Rules" have done just that and have done these kinds of Take Offs both in training and in real life.

How many "Brown Out" Take Off's have Chinook and Black Hawk Pilots done in Afghanistan and Iraq over the past Ten Years, including doing Underslung Loads?

Onshore we are confronted with conforming to the "Rules".

In the USA, we suffer from an FAA that is Fixed Wing focused and who have a system of Rule Making that generally adds to existing Rules rather than going back to a Zero Based Solution and starting over to arrive at a completely new Rule that incorporates improvements and advances in Technology and Science. As a result far too many limitations are placed on Helicopters purely as a result of the "Rule" being crafted around Airplane capabilities and thus limit the versatility of the Helicopter.

Compound that by the lack of "Helicopter" IFR infrastructure such as low altitude airways and ATC capability then the Helicopter Industry is knee capped by the System.

Nick Lappos has done extensive Flight Testing to validate such a capability and has been an advocate for the creation of such a system. I have seen a couple of his Presentations on that Topic and appreciate his forward thinking about the concept.

Lappos is thinking about a complete IFR system and not just a single simple Take Off Technique which would only be a part of the overall program.

One procedure, one muscle memory, one picture on the instruments significantly contributing to the success of the procedure.

Poorly worded I would say but the intent is correct. One Procedure but the rest is full of variables that are known and predictable thus easier to cope with as a result. For an example, lightly loaded Aircraft, 40 knots of wind on the nose compared to a Maw Weight Aircraft and zero Wind. It is the same procedure but much difference in the way the aircraft handles and performs.

[thechopper]

legal vs illegal

On a job like this you're either **** hot or you think you are and then you die;

and give a lot of "experts" a chance to brag about their own skills, the good old

days and how it should/ could have been done.

Human nature to think you are a lot better than you are; and easy to blame the

overpowering owner, life's circumstances and lack of rules, oversight from the

authorities etc. You are in charge, you reap the benefits, you pay the price.

[Boudreaux Bob]

As American Cowboy's used to say, "If you done it, it ain't bragging!".

In the words of a great American folk Hero, Harry Callahan, "A Man must know his own limitations!".

[[email protected]]

My point about the rig takeoffs is the legal operation of the aircraft on instruments (because you have no visual references) below VminI (50 kts in the case of the 139) despite that being in contravention of the RFM - how is that circle squared or is it given a stiff ignoring?

On the Sea King we have a low velocity indicator giving along and across doppler velocities so even below 50 kts you have a reference to work from - presumably NS helos have something similar (inertial nav based) to get round the problem.

But is the use of such devices legislated for and allowed for public transport ops over land?

[Boudreaux Bob]

The situation at worst is only a transient as the aircraft is accelerating with the "Towering" part of the take off only being enough to ensure clearing the Deck Edge and during the Towering portion there is some vision cues until passing over the edge of the deck. After that, it is Instruments only.

Just how much use is the Doppler cue for a Take Off?

Prior to the adoption of all those fancy devices, did not the RAF conduct Takeoffs without them? If the Doppler is so crucial in a Take Off however did the RAF get by in the past as they did?

We are not talking about SAR Ops and hovering about the Oggin, just departing a hell-deck from a Rig or Platform.

Your question is very appropriate since if One is obliged to control the aircraft by solely referring to Instruments exclusive of external cues then that is IMC flight even if it does not meet the definition of IMC which is based upon WEATHER criteria.

The wonderful FAA ignores that distinction as do Operators.

They will tell you to your Face the Weather is VMC/VFR because you have Ten Miles of Visibility underneath an Overcast on a Moonless Night. Granted if there is nothing to see like a ship with lights, an Oil Rig with Lights, or an Oil Platform with lights, there is nothing to be seen other than the Whites of your Eyes shining back from the Wind Screen, but to the FAA it is VFR Weather.

So I submit part of the answer lies in the definition of IMC/VMC/IFR/VFR.

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Crab;


Onshore you are either making an IFR departure from a fully equipped airfield, or you are making a VFR departure from an unlicensed site or unequipped airfield, there is no such thing as an IFR departure from a private site, or unequipped airfield.


Second, when IFR the aircraft should be above the minimum safe altitude (around Gillingham they should have been at least around 2000')How does a pilot fly a visual departure when the cloud base is a few feet and the visibility "tens of metres" and get to his safe altitude without ignoring the requirement to be visual for his departure? Or are we back again to "I paid for an IFR helicopter and pilot, so fly it IFR!" from the bloke in the back? The rules go out the window because the real biggy in every pilot's mind is the engine failure case, which is so rare and the helicopter is so incredibly clever that it will deal with the conditions pertaining, despite the fact that maybe the pilot can't deal with them as he doesn't know how.


I have never seen the low velocity indicator on any onshore IFR machine, and I've flown most types, but in reality that would just be another bit of kit encouraging pilots to break the rules.


SND

[RedWhite&Blue]

Crab,

You said

My point about the rig takeoffs is the legal operation of the aircraft on instruments (because you have no visual references) below VminI (50 kts in the case of the 139) despite that being in contravention of the RFM - how is that circle squared or is it given a stiff ignoring?

This is an interesting one, however that is not quite what the book says.

The 139 RFM says; "Minimum airspeed for flight under IFR (Vmini) ............. 50 KIAS."

So, It does not say you can't fly with sole reference to instruments below 50 KIAS.

It says you will not fly under Instrument Flight Rules with less than 50 KIAS.

We all know we can fly VMC under IFR. But one can't be VFR and IFR, it is one or the other. Therefore it must be VFR below 50 KIAS then VFR or IFR beyond.

Now I'll pull the pin and lob...

Prior to Sept 2012 there was no VFR at night in the UK.

So how did a 139 legally reach the magic 50 KIAS - to continue IFR, the only option then available at night, in winds less that 50 kts?

A bit of a disconnect there!

Now, post Sept 2012, we do have VFR at night. For a helicopter one needs COCISoS & 3km in class G airspace (the typical offshore rig airspace and Gillingham) to conform with VFR.

So now, with less than 3km, how can a AW139 depart at night, in Class G? You need the VMC conditions (3Km +) to be VFR, remember the RFM says no IFR until you reach the magic 50 KIAS (Vmini) not no IMC.

Back to the 50 kts hoolie

See my dichotomy?

I can't believe it is a slip up in the RFM, then again...

Edited to add for clarity, the definition in the AW139 RFM for Vmini is 'Minimum airspeed for flight under IFR'

[[email protected]]

It says minimum speed on instruments.

The semantics around IFR or IMC seems to be a deliberate way to avoid the real question - can you fly below 50 kts by sole reference to instruments or can't you?

The manufacturers appear to have worded the RFM to allow operators and legislators to dance around the issue with each believing they are in the right, despite being (probably) diametrically opposed since the legislators don't wan't people doing it (because it can be dangerous) yet the operators do want the ability to comply with PC1 departures in conditions that are not really VMC.

[TeeS]

Whilst realising that it is an unwise virgin that argues the legislation with JimL, I have to ask whether his definition of VminI is a genuine definition or an interpretation. The reason I ask is that I always ‘assumed’ that minimum speed on instruments was the speed below which you should not reduce to whilst flying on instruments, rather than specifically a speed to which you had to accelerate to before you could achieve safe flight on instruments.
As an example, the S61 (correct me if I’m wrong, it’s been a very long time) had a quoted minimum speed on instruments of 50 kts; however, one of the category A (in those days) take-off profiles had a TDP of 50ft and a minimum cloud base (or vertical visibility) for departure of 50ft. Allowing you to achieve TDP whilst theoretically remaining in visual contact with your rejected take-off area still in sight. This then left you to accelerate from a near vertical climb and an airspeed just registering on the ASI, into forward flight and up to something equating to VminI whilst IMC. Not a million miles from the procedures that are being talked about on this thread, the difference being that we would be carrying out this process from an airfield with a published SID or missed approach procedure to follow.
In my opinion, the important feature of such departures has nothing to do with doppler indicators or anything else that detracts from the primary task of setting an attitude and power setting appropriate to the procedure – to quote my personal guru of instrument flying, “Attitude plus Power = Performance”.
Please don’t confuse this rambling with a defence of departing from an essentially hostile environment (not in the JAR sense of the phrase) with negligible visibility. In my world, operations with an RVR below 400m require specific training and authorisation from the ‘competent authority’.

Cheers

TeeS

[Brian Abraham]

See my dichotomy?

There are dichotomy's aplenty. My favourite is transport helos are not permitted to enter the H-V curve, yet you do it on every rig take off in the helos I'm familiar with.

In my book a rig take off at night is flight on instruments, and is IMC. Raise the old NVFR definition argument.

[[email protected]]

Tees - exactly what I am getting at - can you fly on instruments below 50 kts or not?

The doppler is just a handy way of confirming that your attitude plus power is giving you the desired performance - ie you are accelerating forward and not drifting laterally but it is not an alternative to selecting the correct attitude in the first place or maintaining a good IF scan.

[That SAR Chap]

Originally Posted by Crab

Tees - exactly what I am getting at - can you fly on instruments below 50 kts or not?

The doppler is just a handy way of confirming that your attitude plus power is giving you the desired performance - ie you are accelerating forward and not drifting laterally but it is not an alternative to selecting the correct attitude in the first place or maintaining a good IF scan.

This. There is a lot on here about the rules, but not much on the lack of SOPs for onshore operations.

The VSI works just fine below VminI as does a doppler meter (if fitted - and I'm not saying that it is essential for a safe zero/zero departure). For that reason, departures from the hover and coupled returns to the hover can be done safely. The safety of these manoeuvres relies on 2 components: Training (SOPs, currency etc) and aircraft fit.

Having only one of the above does not make for safe zero/zero ops. If the regulators have to get involved, then these 2 strands must be considered together.