Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover
This is a text on the Australian CASA website
Link
Despite several accidents, including fatals, it's still a common practise in bush work, so I'm told!
P1
Link
Light helicopters continue to be damaged or destroyed in fly-away accidents after they have been left unattended. Their pilots should have read the aircraft flight manuals.
It happens for many reasons: to open a gate for stock, to refuel, to speak with people on the ground, and in one case, a pilot’s urgent need for a ‘relief break’, as the ATSB called it, with characteristic tact. In all these cases, the result was a destroyed helicopter. Light helicopters, such as the Robinson R22 and R44 types that dominate the piston-engine helicopter market, are not safe when unattended, even with control locks.
‘What often happens is that the collective rises after a gust of wind or downwash from another helicopter, and the helicopter goes up’ CASA rotary wing flying operations inspector, David Threlfo, says.
In one case a pilot was killed by the main rotor blade, and in another a passenger was injured by walking into the tail rotor, both times with unattended helicopters.
There seems to be confusion among helicopter operators as to whether leaving a running helicopter unattended is legal or not. For pilots of Robinson R22, R44 and R66 helicopters it is illegal. The aircraft flight manuals (pilot’s operating handbooks) for the R22, R44 and R66 all say ‘never leave helicopter flight controls unattended while engine is running.’ They have said this since at least 2007.
As part of the aircraft flight manual (unless otherwise exempted) this directive trumps the other laws, regulations and orders governing helicopter flight in Australia.
‘Now that Robinson has decided to put that in, it changes the law, because Civil Aviation Regulation 138 says in effect that “you will comply with the manufacturer’s aircraft flight manual”,’ Threlfo says.
For pilots of other types of helicopters with aircraft flight manuals that do not forbid unattended ground running, there are two relevant laws. Civil Aviation Regulation 225, and Civil Aviation Order 95.7 paragraph 7.
CAR 225 (1988) says: ‘... the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to the flight until the engine or engines are stopped at the termination of a flight’.
CAO 95.7, paragraph 7, is one of the many exemptions to the current civil aviation regulations. It sets out the conditions that must be met for a pilot of a single-pilot helicopter to leave the aircraft while it is running.
These are that:
The helicopter is fitted with skid-type landing gear.
The helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking both the cyclic and collective controls. (A lock fitted only to the collective control is insufficient.)
A passenger in a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls cannot interfere with the controls.
The pilot’s absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of someone on or in the vicinity of the helicopter.
The pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
The message is clear: leaving a running helicopter unattended on the ground is dangerous, even with approved control locks fitted. That’s why pilots should only do it for a safety reason that’s stronger than the inherent danger. But not if they fly Robinson helicopters – for them it’s unambiguously illegal.
For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter.
Opening gates, hot refuelling, and talking with ground staff are not valid reasons to leave a running helicopter, Threlfo says. On the subject of ‘immediate vicinity’ he says: ‘If we’re talking 100 metres away to get a fuel drum, that’s not in the immediate vicinity’.
The legal situation is that CAO 95.7 paragraph 7 exempts only parts of CAR 225 and CAR 230. CAR 138, which says that the aircraft flight manual takes precedence, still applies, and if there is a conflict, overrules CAO 95.7.
It happens for many reasons: to open a gate for stock, to refuel, to speak with people on the ground, and in one case, a pilot’s urgent need for a ‘relief break’, as the ATSB called it, with characteristic tact. In all these cases, the result was a destroyed helicopter. Light helicopters, such as the Robinson R22 and R44 types that dominate the piston-engine helicopter market, are not safe when unattended, even with control locks.
‘What often happens is that the collective rises after a gust of wind or downwash from another helicopter, and the helicopter goes up’ CASA rotary wing flying operations inspector, David Threlfo, says.
In one case a pilot was killed by the main rotor blade, and in another a passenger was injured by walking into the tail rotor, both times with unattended helicopters.
There seems to be confusion among helicopter operators as to whether leaving a running helicopter unattended is legal or not. For pilots of Robinson R22, R44 and R66 helicopters it is illegal. The aircraft flight manuals (pilot’s operating handbooks) for the R22, R44 and R66 all say ‘never leave helicopter flight controls unattended while engine is running.’ They have said this since at least 2007.
As part of the aircraft flight manual (unless otherwise exempted) this directive trumps the other laws, regulations and orders governing helicopter flight in Australia.
‘Now that Robinson has decided to put that in, it changes the law, because Civil Aviation Regulation 138 says in effect that “you will comply with the manufacturer’s aircraft flight manual”,’ Threlfo says.
For pilots of other types of helicopters with aircraft flight manuals that do not forbid unattended ground running, there are two relevant laws. Civil Aviation Regulation 225, and Civil Aviation Order 95.7 paragraph 7.
CAR 225 (1988) says: ‘... the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to the flight until the engine or engines are stopped at the termination of a flight’.
CAO 95.7, paragraph 7, is one of the many exemptions to the current civil aviation regulations. It sets out the conditions that must be met for a pilot of a single-pilot helicopter to leave the aircraft while it is running.
These are that:
The helicopter is fitted with skid-type landing gear.
The helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking both the cyclic and collective controls. (A lock fitted only to the collective control is insufficient.)
A passenger in a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls cannot interfere with the controls.
The pilot’s absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of someone on or in the vicinity of the helicopter.
The pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter.
The message is clear: leaving a running helicopter unattended on the ground is dangerous, even with approved control locks fitted. That’s why pilots should only do it for a safety reason that’s stronger than the inherent danger. But not if they fly Robinson helicopters – for them it’s unambiguously illegal.
For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter.
Opening gates, hot refuelling, and talking with ground staff are not valid reasons to leave a running helicopter, Threlfo says. On the subject of ‘immediate vicinity’ he says: ‘If we’re talking 100 metres away to get a fuel drum, that’s not in the immediate vicinity’.
The legal situation is that CAO 95.7 paragraph 7 exempts only parts of CAR 225 and CAR 230. CAR 138, which says that the aircraft flight manual takes precedence, still applies, and if there is a conflict, overrules CAO 95.7.
P1
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:
"Quick Turnaround. Helicopter pilots may use a quick turnaround operation to avoid delays at airport terminals and minimize stop/start cycles of the engine. During the quick turnaround procedure, pilots sometimes leave the cockpit while the engine and rotors are turning. If possible, the pilot should remain at the flight controls whenever the engine is running and rotors are turning; however, if it is necessary for the pilot to leave the controls of a running machine, the pilot should observe the following safety precautions:
(1) Ensure that wind conditions will allow such an operation to be conducted safely.
(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.
(3) Reduce rotor and/or engine rpm to ground idle or minimum recommended settings.
(4) Ensure that all passengers are closely supervised by appropriately trained crew members.
(5) Ensure that no unauthorized person(s) approach the aircraft unless properly escorted."
"Quick Turnaround. Helicopter pilots may use a quick turnaround operation to avoid delays at airport terminals and minimize stop/start cycles of the engine. During the quick turnaround procedure, pilots sometimes leave the cockpit while the engine and rotors are turning. If possible, the pilot should remain at the flight controls whenever the engine is running and rotors are turning; however, if it is necessary for the pilot to leave the controls of a running machine, the pilot should observe the following safety precautions:
(1) Ensure that wind conditions will allow such an operation to be conducted safely.
(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.
(3) Reduce rotor and/or engine rpm to ground idle or minimum recommended settings.
(4) Ensure that all passengers are closely supervised by appropriately trained crew members.
(5) Ensure that no unauthorized person(s) approach the aircraft unless properly escorted."
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid
I have already said that, in my opinion, the period when the accident occurred was not Flight time as defined in FAR 1.1.
I am not prepared say any more about the law, nor to be drawn into an argument about the legality or otherwise of such ops, for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
I am sure you are correct.
My distress would make it very difficult for me to think rationally and impartially. The closer the relationship the more difficult it would be, to the point where it would be impossible. If I needed a legal opinion in such circumstances I would go to a lawyer who was not emotionally involved.
I repeat: I express no opinion about whether the practice is legal in America. I don't know and am not inclined to do the research necessary to find the definitive answer - assuming it exists.
[Edit]
Why not agree to differ with those who disagree with you about the legality under American law and focus upon the safety aspects/inherent risks?
Even if an activity is legal that does not necessarily mean it's safe.
Equally, illegal does not necessarily mean unsafe.
FL
My viewpoint/position is that a helicopter can only be 'at rest after landing', once the rotors and engine(s) have stopped. I would still appreciate your interpretation of 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".
I am not prepared say any more about the law, nor to be drawn into an argument about the legality or otherwise of such ops, for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
I am sure that if you had a family member on board an aircraft that took to the air or moved under it's own power with no-one at the controls, and they were killed or seriously injured, you would have a completely different outlook on the legality of this type of operation.
My distress would make it very difficult for me to think rationally and impartially. The closer the relationship the more difficult it would be, to the point where it would be impossible. If I needed a legal opinion in such circumstances I would go to a lawyer who was not emotionally involved.
I repeat: I express no opinion about whether the practice is legal in America. I don't know and am not inclined to do the research necessary to find the definitive answer - assuming it exists.
[Edit]
Why not agree to differ with those who disagree with you about the legality under American law and focus upon the safety aspects/inherent risks?
Even if an activity is legal that does not necessarily mean it's safe.
Equally, illegal does not necessarily mean unsafe.
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 3rd Jun 2014 at 19:17.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Be careful there JimEli.I wouldn't take an Advisory Circular to mean an explicit authorization to do anything. If that were the case I would be able to refuse to operate to most hospitals that do not have helipads that meet the requirements laid down by an AC on that subject.
I would take guidance from my company's SOP,the type's RFM and,at the end of the day,balance the need versus the risk involved. As I have stated earlier, the AS350 is a poor choice to leave running unattended. Also, there are no good reasons to do so in an average commercial operation.I am sure the company performing long line etc or operating way out on the bush would take these aspects into consideration and appropriately word their GOMs and provide training to the pilots.
EMS,ENG,Tours,O&G,Training, not so much.Hence my use of the word 'average'. You can ,if you will, substitute the word average with 'majority'
Alt3
I would take guidance from my company's SOP,the type's RFM and,at the end of the day,balance the need versus the risk involved. As I have stated earlier, the AS350 is a poor choice to leave running unattended. Also, there are no good reasons to do so in an average commercial operation.I am sure the company performing long line etc or operating way out on the bush would take these aspects into consideration and appropriately word their GOMs and provide training to the pilots.
EMS,ENG,Tours,O&G,Training, not so much.Hence my use of the word 'average'. You can ,if you will, substitute the word average with 'majority'
Alt3
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I think the FAA's definition of flight time is quite clear in this document, produced by the FAA, for the rest of the world.
Model Civil Aviation Regulations (MCARs) Version 2.7
Model Civil Aviation Regulations (MCARs) Version 2.7
(228) Flight time. The period of time that the aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after it is parked, with engine(s) shut down if applicable.
Note: Flight time as here defined is synonymous with the term "block-to-block" time or "chock-to-chock" time in general usage, which is measured from the time an aircraft moves from the loading point until it stops at the unloading point.
(229) Flight time— aeroplane. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
(230) Flight time—helicopter. The total time from the moment a helicopter’s rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped.
(231) Flight time—glider. The total time occupied in flight, whether being towed or not, from the moment the glider first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight.
Note: Flight time as here defined is synonymous with the term "block-to-block" time or "chock-to-chock" time in general usage, which is measured from the time an aircraft moves from the loading point until it stops at the unloading point.
(229) Flight time— aeroplane. The total time from the moment an aeroplane first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it finally comes to rest at the end of the flight.
(230) Flight time—helicopter. The total time from the moment a helicopter’s rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped.
(231) Flight time—glider. The total time occupied in flight, whether being towed or not, from the moment the glider first moves for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote the FAR's, Sid. Those are the Regulations in force. Quit fishing in a mud hole will you?
FAR Part 1.1 is the pertinent regulation as you have been told multiple times over and over.
FAR Part 1.1 is the pertinent regulation as you have been told multiple times over and over.
The definition of flight time has been determined by a legal interpretation by the FAA for the purpose of "Logging" that time.
As for the legality of leaving the controls---yes it is legal in the US if your Ops-Specs, (operational specifications) allow it. I am infinitely familiar with the FAA legal interpretation and argued it. Many years ago, when I worked in Hawaii we would hot re-fuel, hot load and leave the aircraft running under certain conditions listed in our ops-specs. We had trained ground crew who were trained to stand by the helicopter controls while we went to the bathroom. Even without the ground crew, we were permitted to leave the controls and remain in the circle of the helipad to check for "fuel levels, oil levels, seat-belts, headsets, etc".
Our company procedure was to leave the aircraft at ground idle, and turn off the hydraulics, this was in both Jet Ranger and Astar.
I still have a copy of that Ops-spec and can share if anyone really wants it....
As for the legality of leaving the controls---yes it is legal in the US if your Ops-Specs, (operational specifications) allow it. I am infinitely familiar with the FAA legal interpretation and argued it. Many years ago, when I worked in Hawaii we would hot re-fuel, hot load and leave the aircraft running under certain conditions listed in our ops-specs. We had trained ground crew who were trained to stand by the helicopter controls while we went to the bathroom. Even without the ground crew, we were permitted to leave the controls and remain in the circle of the helipad to check for "fuel levels, oil levels, seat-belts, headsets, etc".
Our company procedure was to leave the aircraft at ground idle, and turn off the hydraulics, this was in both Jet Ranger and Astar.
I still have a copy of that Ops-spec and can share if anyone really wants it....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid
The Model Regulations are precisely that; not the law.
The Model Regulations present ICAO standards as regulatory requirements for aircraft expected to operate internationally from and into [STATE]. Where applicable, ICAO recommended standards are included for completeness. Each model regulation presents the standards and recommended practices in the appropriate ICAO Annex supplemented by sections from the United States Federal Aviation Regulations and/or the European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).
Bob
FAR Part 1.1 contains definitions.
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute.
Gordy
Precisely. 
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute - as the rest of your post demonstrates.
FL
The Model Regulations are precisely that; not the law.
The Model Regulations present ICAO standards as regulatory requirements for aircraft expected to operate internationally from and into [STATE]. Where applicable, ICAO recommended standards are included for completeness. Each model regulation presents the standards and recommended practices in the appropriate ICAO Annex supplemented by sections from the United States Federal Aviation Regulations and/or the European Joint Aviation Requirements (JAR).
Bob
FAR Part 1.1 contains definitions.
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute.
Gordy
The definition of flight time has been determined by a legal interpretation by the FAA for the purpose of "Logging" that time.
It is not determinative of the issue in dispute - as the rest of your post demonstrates.
FL
I think it's worth adding the rest of the CASA article...
" Doing their own thing: runaway helicopters from the ATSB archive
1988: The pilot of a Robinson R22 reported that he had landed at the mustering camp and prior to disembarking had placed a rubber strop over the collective lever. This was necessary, as the lever would rise if no restraint was applied to it. He wanted a ‘relief break’ and to deliver a parcel to one of the men at the camp. As he started to walk back, after being out of the helicopter for a few minutes, the aircraft lifted off the ground, rolled, and came to rest on its left side. When he was able to return to the cabin he found that the strop was no longer on the collective lever.
1998: The R22 pilot reported that he disembarked from the helicopter, leaving the engine running and the rotors turning, to talk with a stockman. He was returning to the helicopter when he heard its engine and main rotor RPM increasing. The pilot attempted to reach the throttle control and was at the right skid before being forced to dive away as the helicopter became airborne. The helicopter flew into the ground about five metres from its lift-off point and was destroyed. There were no injuries. Wind conditions were reported by the pilot as being light and variable.
2002: The pilot landed the Robinson R22 helicopter at a cattle yard during mustering operations to talk to the head stockman about some operational matters. The helicopter was on the ground, with the rotors being driven at ground idle, without the pilot at the controls. After the discussion the pilot walked back to the helicopter with a stockman to recommence mustering operations. The pilot assumed that the stockman was following him to the front of the helicopter, but the stockman walked into the tail rotor and sustained injuries to his right arm.
2009: The pilot of a Robinson R22 helicopter left the cockpit of the helicopter, while it was positioned on the ground with the engine running, to perform a task. While walking back to the helicopter, the pilot was struck in the head by the main rotor blade and fatally injured. "
3 accidents in a 21 year period (one was a bystander walking into a TR. Not really a pilot not being at the controls cause) is hardly a regular occurrence.
How many hours flown yearly by the mustering industry in Australia? TET?
Pohm1 "Despite several accidents, including fatals, it's still a common practise in bush work, so I'm told!"
So you never did it back in the day while working at Kings Canyon P1 ....
" Doing their own thing: runaway helicopters from the ATSB archive
1988: The pilot of a Robinson R22 reported that he had landed at the mustering camp and prior to disembarking had placed a rubber strop over the collective lever. This was necessary, as the lever would rise if no restraint was applied to it. He wanted a ‘relief break’ and to deliver a parcel to one of the men at the camp. As he started to walk back, after being out of the helicopter for a few minutes, the aircraft lifted off the ground, rolled, and came to rest on its left side. When he was able to return to the cabin he found that the strop was no longer on the collective lever.
1998: The R22 pilot reported that he disembarked from the helicopter, leaving the engine running and the rotors turning, to talk with a stockman. He was returning to the helicopter when he heard its engine and main rotor RPM increasing. The pilot attempted to reach the throttle control and was at the right skid before being forced to dive away as the helicopter became airborne. The helicopter flew into the ground about five metres from its lift-off point and was destroyed. There were no injuries. Wind conditions were reported by the pilot as being light and variable.
2002: The pilot landed the Robinson R22 helicopter at a cattle yard during mustering operations to talk to the head stockman about some operational matters. The helicopter was on the ground, with the rotors being driven at ground idle, without the pilot at the controls. After the discussion the pilot walked back to the helicopter with a stockman to recommence mustering operations. The pilot assumed that the stockman was following him to the front of the helicopter, but the stockman walked into the tail rotor and sustained injuries to his right arm.
2009: The pilot of a Robinson R22 helicopter left the cockpit of the helicopter, while it was positioned on the ground with the engine running, to perform a task. While walking back to the helicopter, the pilot was struck in the head by the main rotor blade and fatally injured. "
3 accidents in a 21 year period (one was a bystander walking into a TR. Not really a pilot not being at the controls cause) is hardly a regular occurrence.
How many hours flown yearly by the mustering industry in Australia? TET?
Pohm1 "Despite several accidents, including fatals, it's still a common practise in bush work, so I'm told!"
So you never did it back in the day while working at Kings Canyon P1 ....
Last edited by BigMike; 4th Jun 2014 at 08:01. Reason: dodgy spelling...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
JimEli;
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:
(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters:
(2) Ensure that all controls are secured in accordance with the aircraft flight manual and the company operations manual.
JimEli;
The AC clearly outlines the permissibility. To argue the opposite is futile.
You have the last word...
The AC clearly outlines the permissibility. To argue the opposite is futile.
You have the last word...
Because without that, you can't have the 'and'.
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 4th Jun 2014 at 11:26. Reason: bold typed sentence added
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL, Seems Sid is wearing off on you a bit.
I never said FAR 1.1 "settled the issue" except to settle the matter of what "Flight Time" is defined to be by the FAA.
As Sid was making all sorts of other arguments about the Definition of "Flight Time", my reference and yours to FAR 1.1 to Sid, was to remind Sid of the need to reference the pertinent FAA Regulation that applies to the "issue" being discussed,that being the "Leaving of Flight Controls Un-attended" in the United States, by an FAA Licensed Pilot, working for an FAA Certificated Part 135 Sight Seeing Operator, using an FAA certificated and licensed Helicopter, all of which fell under the scrutiny of the FAA Principal Operations Inspector assigned to the Operator by the FAA.
Sid still cannot accept all of that being the sufficient and wants to know the details of the RFM for the aircraft that was involved to know what technique must be used to secure the Collective.
Being a Lawyer, I believe you understand the "Preponderance of Evidence" and "Burden of Proof" concepts under the Law which I am sure does not vary much from the UK and the USA in theory.
Perhaps you might take a moment and explain those to Sid and perhaps find a way to end his quest for the Holy Grail here.
I never said FAR 1.1 "settled the issue" except to settle the matter of what "Flight Time" is defined to be by the FAA.
As Sid was making all sorts of other arguments about the Definition of "Flight Time", my reference and yours to FAR 1.1 to Sid, was to remind Sid of the need to reference the pertinent FAA Regulation that applies to the "issue" being discussed,that being the "Leaving of Flight Controls Un-attended" in the United States, by an FAA Licensed Pilot, working for an FAA Certificated Part 135 Sight Seeing Operator, using an FAA certificated and licensed Helicopter, all of which fell under the scrutiny of the FAA Principal Operations Inspector assigned to the Operator by the FAA.
Sid still cannot accept all of that being the sufficient and wants to know the details of the RFM for the aircraft that was involved to know what technique must be used to secure the Collective.
Being a Lawyer, I believe you understand the "Preponderance of Evidence" and "Burden of Proof" concepts under the Law which I am sure does not vary much from the UK and the USA in theory.
Perhaps you might take a moment and explain those to Sid and perhaps find a way to end his quest for the Holy Grail here.
that being the "Leaving of Flight Controls Un-attended" in the United States, by an FAA Licensed Pilot, working for an FAA Certificated Part 135 Sight Seeing Operator, using an FAA certificated and licensed Helicopter, all of which fell under the scrutiny of the FAA Principal Operations Inspector assigned to the Operator by the FAA.
True or False?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I can see you're tiring Bib, therefore I shall leave the topic with a thought or two;
In the case of a passenger(s) being seriously injured or worse, I would like to believe that the brief would ask the representative of the FAA their definition of 'flight time'. When they quote your 1.1, the reply has to be, " So how is it then, that this document, taken from your website, states the definition to be, 'and the rotor blades are stopped'?"
Why is there this necessity to keep the rotors running?
If the risk is really that bad of not starting up again, why not have an APU at the refuel/pick up point/etc; or maybe there's a strong case for twins here as singles aren't reliable enough, reduces the chance of being stuck with the engine not starting.... but that's a different thread.
Until the next time, because with the frame of mindset shown here, there will be
In the case of a passenger(s) being seriously injured or worse, I would like to believe that the brief would ask the representative of the FAA their definition of 'flight time'. When they quote your 1.1, the reply has to be, " So how is it then, that this document, taken from your website, states the definition to be, 'and the rotor blades are stopped'?"
Why is there this necessity to keep the rotors running?
If the risk is really that bad of not starting up again, why not have an APU at the refuel/pick up point/etc; or maybe there's a strong case for twins here as singles aren't reliable enough, reduces the chance of being stuck with the engine not starting.... but that's a different thread.
Until the next time, because with the frame of mindset shown here, there will be
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be interested to learn, if anyone knows, for each of the recorded incidents of helicopters departing sans-crew and wrecking themselves: did the insurance company pay-out on the hull loss?
In CAA land, as noted, this activity would be banned. For Robinson machines, it is against the PoH. I would have thought that an insurance company would deny a claim for hull loss if there were grounds - such as these - to rely upon.
In CAA land, as noted, this activity would be banned. For Robinson machines, it is against the PoH. I would have thought that an insurance company would deny a claim for hull loss if there were grounds - such as these - to rely upon.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RVDT,
Do you think all of the People and Organizations, Pilots and Operator, the FAA, the Operator's Insurance Provider, would ignore the dictates of the RFM if it prohibited the practice?
I guess it is possible as most things are in Life but it would prove to be one of those rare events in Aviation where a whole lot of Holes would have to line up just right for it to happen, wouldn't it?
This whole debate kicked off when some spoke very harshly and rudely about the Poor Dead Pilot and made comments that were way over the Top.
We finally have arrived at a place where we should have been all along, waiting to hear from the NTSB and FAA about what happened that day down in the Grand Canyon.
In the process we proved those making those overt the top comments did not care to deal with facts or reason but preferred to make false allegations based upon incorrect assumptions.
Some making those bogus charges were taking the exact opposite view of matters when it was someone close to them having suffered a comparable fate but were not hesitant to levy charges against this fellow who they knew nothing about.
In the past, there has been some comments by very senior folks here at pprune about the apparent zealousness of some in the UK to take every opportunity to malign others when an accident or mishap occurs. It is not that you folks in the UK hold a monopoly on that but it sure does seem the majority who do are British.
When that was being said, it was asked why that might be so but no one really came up with an answer beyond perhaps it is seen as such here due to the majority of Posters being British.
If we read back through this Thread we can identify those who made those harsh comments and flawed arguments, and tried to levy Rules and Regulations from one Jurisdiction upon all of the others in the Aviation World while giving no thought what so ever to the fallacy of that.
I would suggest some reflection is in order for those who started out making those crass comments with a view towards learning a bit of thought about leaping to conclusions long before any evidence is made public.
Yes, Sid, I am tired. I am tired of self appointed experts passing judgement on others and and entire groups of Pilots. It is one thing to hold an opinion and feel that is both valid and correct but in telling of that, One should do so in a polite and respectful manner. Far too often that does not happen here.
No one system is perfect and no one National Authority gets it completely right.
But we have to remember and accept that there are very valid reasons why Authorities vary on their view of how things should be done. We have the ICAO concept of doing this Aviation thing but each Nation State is allowed to have variances and all do.
That does not make one Nation right and all the others wrong.
Do you think all of the People and Organizations, Pilots and Operator, the FAA, the Operator's Insurance Provider, would ignore the dictates of the RFM if it prohibited the practice?
I guess it is possible as most things are in Life but it would prove to be one of those rare events in Aviation where a whole lot of Holes would have to line up just right for it to happen, wouldn't it?
This whole debate kicked off when some spoke very harshly and rudely about the Poor Dead Pilot and made comments that were way over the Top.
We finally have arrived at a place where we should have been all along, waiting to hear from the NTSB and FAA about what happened that day down in the Grand Canyon.
In the process we proved those making those overt the top comments did not care to deal with facts or reason but preferred to make false allegations based upon incorrect assumptions.
Some making those bogus charges were taking the exact opposite view of matters when it was someone close to them having suffered a comparable fate but were not hesitant to levy charges against this fellow who they knew nothing about.
In the past, there has been some comments by very senior folks here at pprune about the apparent zealousness of some in the UK to take every opportunity to malign others when an accident or mishap occurs. It is not that you folks in the UK hold a monopoly on that but it sure does seem the majority who do are British.
When that was being said, it was asked why that might be so but no one really came up with an answer beyond perhaps it is seen as such here due to the majority of Posters being British.
If we read back through this Thread we can identify those who made those harsh comments and flawed arguments, and tried to levy Rules and Regulations from one Jurisdiction upon all of the others in the Aviation World while giving no thought what so ever to the fallacy of that.
I would suggest some reflection is in order for those who started out making those crass comments with a view towards learning a bit of thought about leaping to conclusions long before any evidence is made public.
Yes, Sid, I am tired. I am tired of self appointed experts passing judgement on others and and entire groups of Pilots. It is one thing to hold an opinion and feel that is both valid and correct but in telling of that, One should do so in a polite and respectful manner. Far too often that does not happen here.
No one system is perfect and no one National Authority gets it completely right.
But we have to remember and accept that there are very valid reasons why Authorities vary on their view of how things should be done. We have the ICAO concept of doing this Aviation thing but each Nation State is allowed to have variances and all do.
That does not make one Nation right and all the others wrong.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I see it, ground operation of a helicopter without a pilot at the controls is explicitly authorized by the FAA via AC 91-32, Safety in and Around Helicopters: