Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover

[Bronx]

Thomas coupling

What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?

jecottrell is off line but I'm happy to help you.


The first line of para 2.1.2 says 'OCCUPANTS'.
To see what it means you have to read the rest of the paragraph:

The B3 2B1 and B3e are both cleared for single pilot ops.
If B3 2B1 or B3e are operated by a single pilot he/she must occupy the right seat.
The maximum number of occupants in both B3 2B1 and B3e is 6.
If the B3 2B1 or B3e are operated by 2 pilots, the maximum number of pax is 4. (6 - 2 = 4).

All the above applies to both the B3 2B1 and the B3e.

However, if you look at para 2.1.1. TYPE OF OPERATIONS you will see that the B3 2B1 and the B3e have different prohibitions.
(You'll find para 2.1.1 just above para 2.1.2 - the paragraphs are numbered sequentially.)

The important difference in the context of this thread is -

B3 2B1: Leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while the rotor is spinning is forbidden.

B3e: Leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while the rotor is spinning is not forbidden.

Hope that helps your understanding.

[Boudreaux Bob]

If the system had 'the pertinent sentence' continue with the words, "until the rotors have stopped", at least one life may have been saved; and it's future amendment may save others in the future. Having said that, just because you are allowed to do something, doesn't mean you have to!

"If" is the magic word.

Because you are allowed to do something, it means you may.

The question of Risk Management is an all together discussion than what we have focused upon lately in this thread.

Yes there is Risk to "leaving the flight controls un-attended", no question that there is. The real question is if it is going to be done, how best to do it to "minimize" the Risk. That would include a choice of situations, choice of aircraft, choice of best method to prevent problems.

One could even skip over all the analyses and study and merely ban the procedure and eliminate those risks. The question that should follow that is if you increase risks of other problems by restricting the Pilot to the Cockpit if you do a Turn Around with Rotors Turning and you have passengers or Loadies loading and unloading the aircraft and boarding or exiting the helicopter where the Pilot cannot control the situation or see what is going on at the other side of the aircraft?

Do you then ban all such activities until the engines and rotors have stopped which would be the safest situation possible? After all if one is concerned in reducing Risk then why take any chances whatsoever?

How far do you go in writing Rules and Regulations to minimize Risk before you make it impossible for people and companies to operate helicopters?

It must get back to determining the level of risk one is willing to accept after rationally examining the practice under consideration.

[SilsoeSid]

Isn't fair to say that more pilots, passengers, ground staff and onlookers have been killed or injured by helicopters on the ground, at rest with the rotors turning; than helicopters on the ground, at rest with the rotors stopped?

Surely it is everybody's duty to mitigate the dangers found around a helicopter at rest, so why is this practise allowed to continue?
I'd like to think this incident will lead to a change of practise, and company operating procedures to be changed. Who knows, even an amendment to the FLM.


Having just seen Bob's last post, I'd like to know what conditions make it so important to keep the rotors running with noone at the controls, that you are willing to risk not only your own life, but also the lives of those around you by doing it.

Do you then ban all such activities until the engines and rotors have stopped which would be the safest situation possible? After all if one is concerned in reducing Risk then why take any chances whatsoever?

How far do you go in writing Rules and Regulations to minimize Risk before you make it impossible for people and companies to operate helicopters?

How would adding 'until the rotors have stopped' to 1.1 make it impossible for people and companies to operate?

[FH1100 Pilot]

Thomas Coupling:

FH1100 - I seem to recall having trouble from you in the Strathclyde thread.

I don't remember what you do/did for a living but it scares the hell out of me - what you have learned as a result. Zilch / nada / nought / zero.

Welllll....I'll tell ya, Tommy. What do I do for a living? I fly civilian helicopters. I've been a line charter pilot, doing the things that helicopters do...which is mostly going from one off-airport place to another off-airport place. And I've been doing this for money since 1982. And I'm still doing it, by God. So far, my logbook shows 11,000 hours, mostly helicopter but 1,000 hours of f/w. What the f*ck do YOU do?

As to your second statement, about how much I've learned over the years, perhaps it *is* zero/zilch/nada. Sometimes I think so. Then again, I think about all the hundreds and hundreds of hours I've spent in idling helicopters. What do you figure, conservatively, 10%? That would be 1,000 hours sitting in goddam idling helicopters. Not ONE has exploded one me yet. Not ONE has taken off without my permission. Not ONE has rolled over or even tried to.

So get off your high horse and stop thinking that you have the market cornered on what's "safe" and what's "unsafe."

You don't.

And you know what, buddy? Guys like YOU scare me.

[jecottrell]

Originally Posted by Thomas coupling

JeCotterall: Ah, you're new here...

...has as much bearing on the debate at hand as the rest of the constructionists' arguments. Yes Mr. Coupling, some day I want to be a chopper pilot.

What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?

You can read it just as well as I can. My interpretation isn't worth the effort to type it. Debating opinions is a waste of time.

What is your definition of flight crew?

Again, it has no bearing on anything. If you're so set on constructing a parallel universe where the mishap pilot had violated the FM, why do you think my opinions will make that universe exist?

Please - for the audience and those with average intelligence?

I'm still awaiting their arrival.

Originally Posted by SilsoeSid

I would just like to clear up, (as you say there is no prohibition in the B3e manual for leaving the ac with rotors running), what the actions required in doing so are.

So, now are you implying that because there is no specific procedure, then it is not allowed? Using your logic, I shouldn't be allowed to make a left turn, because no where could I find "the actions required" for a left turn in the FM.

Why is there such an endless quest to create a FM violation?

[Soave_Pilot]

I have flown helicopters where they have attempted to get airborne withe collective down and latched at idle.

come on... are you serious?
No helicopter does that unless the control's friction is not working properly.

[SilsoeSid]

So, now are you implying that because there is no specific procedure, then it is not allowed?

JEC, I'm just trying to 'tidy up' JimEli's earlier post;

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.

For JimEli - I would read that to mean that if instructions on how to secure the controls aren't covered in the FM, then the practise isn't authorised because both requirements haven't been made. Is that not the case?

[jecottrell]

Originally Posted by SilsoeSid

I would read that to mean that if instructions on how to secure the controls aren't covered in the FM, then the practise isn't authorised because both requirements haven't been made. Is that not the case?

Well, you aren't employed as an inspector by the FSDO that oversees Papillon's certificate, are you? So, your opinion on the implications of the word "and" in an advisory circular is nothing but tripe.

I'll ask again, why are you so obsessed with creating a violation of policy/procedure/regulation where there clearly isn't one?

[newfieboy]

Jeez
Double Bogey, we don't all have luxury of flying 225 offshore two crew ops...Bit insulting stating flying single engine avec le Arctic not on.....
Time you tried some International hands on no autopilot flying a la longline in said. Ya might change your views in a hurry! Besides ya want to get in peeing match.....2xdonks UK mmm..1xdonk high Arctic.....none of late!!

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Newfieboy its about acceptable risk. You might be slightly surprised to learn that in our IFR two crew wizzcopter we still accept risk during take-off and landing offshore. PC2 with exposure. The risk is mitigated by a few solid control factors but nevertheless it is there...sometimes!! We are not risk free we are just very risk aware.

It seems crazy that on one hand we have experienced pilots claiming the practice is safe and yet the pile of severed limbs, decapitated heads and chopped torsos imply otherwise (yes I am being dramatic but for good reason).

When we all learned to fy we were given huge respect for the spinning rotor. It's very hard to understand why under any circumstances that a shutdown OR escorted pax is not the better, safer solution than leaving the helicopter with rotors turning.

For those of you doing this right now maybe you should develop an imagination and consider the hideous consequences of events like this one.

I am also really interested in how a fluids check can possibly be carried out with the rotors under power, save of looking for tell tale leaks.

I am not sure exactly what this pilot was doing but if it was sightseeing pax flights then surely there should never be any reason to follow this practice except if the operation is so shoddy and under resourced that massive corners are being cut which ultimately led to the death of one of our own kind in terrible circumstances.

In my opinion, no more or no less, this practice should be banned completely from passenger type operations and fr all other operations, a serious review of the appropriation of risk carried out to stop these unnecessary accidents.

Surely some common sense should be applied.

I cannot agree with TCs Darwin Award. Tragically and most tellingly the blasé attitude of some of the posters on this thread, leading to this practice being "normalised" via "Risky Shift" most probably led to this persons death.

Preach conservative, common sense safety. Develop good habits that serve you and others well when tired or under extreme stress and you will contribute to your own and others safety. Normalise unsafe inappropriate behaviours and you will almost certainly contribute the reverse. Both involve "High Horses" but I feel the view from my horse suits me better!

DB

[newfieboy]

DB
Good post Mate.....I just came on line to remove mine...had second thoughts felt sounded offensive.No disrespect at all meant to you N.Sea crews.But Ill leave as is. Hopefully we all learn something

[EBCAU]

SilsoeSid - "I would read that to mean that if instructions on how to secure the controls aren't covered in the FM, then the practise isn't authorised because both requirements haven't been made. Is that not the case?"


I cant find anything in the FM, of any machines I fly, telling me the procedure for fastening seatbelts. So, by the above definition, fastening seat belts isn't authorised? Strange reasoning Sid.

[LASJayhawk]

Double Bogey: Papillon is a 1st class outfit, at least from my dealing with them on the MX side in the last 14 years.

I can't say what they do in the canyon, but at KLAS and now KBVU I have never seen them load or unload SLF on a running bird. Not saying they never do it, just I've never seen it.

I have seen them cancel a whole afternoons flights when the temperature might get to high, but other operators continued to fly.

[[email protected]]

Before the name-calling gets too out of hand just consider:

Would this poor chap have died if he had shut down the aircraft? No. So we have a fatality, grieving relatives and friends, NSTB investigation, insurance claims etc etc.

The reasons for not shutting down (unsafe area, aircraft not starting, safety of loading and unloading pax etc) are all minor inconveniences by comparison as are any extra costs to the operation in terms of time and engine start cycles.

Was it legal? In all likelihood yes.

Are there pilots reading this thread who do it all the time without considering the alternatives because it is an accepted practice (risky shift again)? Clearly.

Will it happen again? Probably not to Papillon but, since it is widespread practice, almost inevitably without better education.

[Freewheel]

Crab, one point.

In the part of the word I regularly operate in, aircraft not starting can be a life threatening event. Not something everybody has experienced, but hardly a minor inconvenience.


Around 8 months of the year the amount of water in the survival pack can be expected to last 3 days. In the remainder of the year drowning is a greater risk. it doesn't mean I leave the controls on a regular basis, but i felt it necessary to put some context on my earlier comment.



Oh and the name calling has been out of hand for about 8 pages now.....

[[email protected]]

Freewheel - I completely agree that there are some operations where not shutting down is essential to safety and yours seems to be one. However, there also seem to be a lot of operations that avoid shutdown for economic convenience, not for safety reasons.

[SuperF]

So of all the times that we have said of the birds flying solo, a few in oz and a few in NZ, (two of NZs where they were left at full RPM in winds, and yes the insurance company paid out), how many other people have died as a result of pilotless helicopters?

If this is the first one, then, yes while tragic, it's hardly cause to ban the practice.

If you ban something due to one death in 70 odd years of helicopter ops, then imagine the case we could put up to ban twin engine, two pilot ops offshore! The same could be said for banning single engined helicopters totally as more than one person has died flying them.

Looks like from your British point of view, we may as well shut down the whole industry.

Now, if Euro/Airbus have written a manual that in some cases says do not leave the controls, and in others it doesn't say it, then by default they are telling you which Helicopter you CAN leave the aircraft while it's running.

The other way of looking at that argument is if Euro/Airbus assume or think that their manuals mean that you must remain at the controls while the blades are spinning, then why would they specifically state it in one manual and not the others? If "minimum 1 Pilot in RHS" means that you cannot get out of a safely secured Helicopter, then why would they even think about putting the, do not get out restriction, into a single manual?

You may get Euro/Airbus to change the RFM, and all that will do once it's highlighted to operators around the world, is make Bell, MD, Agusta, etc very happy as the sales of new Airbus slow down, and the second hand price crashes! Once again, just my opinion.

[[email protected]]

SuperF - I haven't said the practice should be banned at all - just that the risks involved should not be dismissed lightly - whether it is damage to the aircraft or, as in this unfortunate case, a fatality.

It is like any risk we take as pilots, there has to be a good reason for it and you seek to mitigate as much of that risk as possible - it is just being sensible and professional.

There are many more things I and others are called upon to do in our professional lives that are far more risky than leaving a turning helo but you assess them for risk vs reward balance. For some that reward is justified financially (fortunately I don't have to do that in my job) but the desire for money often clouds good judgement.

[SuperF]

Crab, Wasn't aimed at you, further up the line it was recommended...

Risk vs reward is the never ending equation for all of us, even you guys that work for clients that have more money than our clients.

[mickjoebill]

Double Bogey: Papillon is a 1st class outfit, at least from my dealing with them on the MX side in the last 14 years.

I can't say what they do in the canyon, but at KLAS and now KBVU I have never seen them load or unload SLF on a running bird. Not saying they never do it, just I've never seen it.

I put the entire MJB dynasty in their hands last year for a flight into the canyon.
All flights I saw that day were rotors running.
Ground crew demonstrated that they were on the ball.

Is there much difference in the time taken to shut down/startup and unloading and loading six tourists rotors running?
But if it shut down the craft would be on the pad longer which in high frequency 5min long shuttle flights is down time when it is needed the most.

Without detailed accident stats that factor in flight hours per mission type, one could propose that there is more likely the chance of mechanical failure following a restart than if the machine is kept running?

In respect to human performance, better to keep in the zone rotors running or shut down for four minutes?

Mickjoebill