Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover

[handysnaks]

Bob, would you care to re visit your 'all of you over there' quote. The British contributors to Rotorheads are not all of the British helicopter pilots, what's more not all of the helicopter pilots who do contribute to Rotorheads necessarily take the view that we're always right and you're (as in you and your fellow cousins) always wrong .....(that's me drummed out of the country).

[tistisnot]

Bob Boudreaux .... French surname, Cajun food, who cares what else

They drive on the correct side of the road ... for their country ... housing, roadways etc .... it's no different from the driving skill required

You choose to ignore the world norm of metric .... it's effin easier to use than the mickey mouse system you stubbornly stick to .....

At least I like you trying to stick to the judgment in hand ..... but the Glasgow aircraft was in the air .... this latest incident was a choice made on the ground.

Makes me feel I shall in future ignore these pages ............

[jymil]

Training Issue ?

My bet is the collective was not being locked, this is the most likely explanation. Maybe this guy wasn't aware of the significance of this for an AS350. Keep in mind there are no type ratings in the US, so any Robinson pilot can hop into an AS350 and legally fly it. Not sure how much training this guy received on type. Maybe someone working in this area can comment on this.

It's easy to forget an item in a check list (especially when you are in a hurry), but you gotta know the critical ones by heart. Always lock the collective on the ground on any AS350, no matter whether you are inside or outside the helicopter !

[[email protected]]

Bob, now you are tarring everyone with the same brush re the Darwin remark.

There is no need to turn this into a transatlantic squabble and it is quite clear he was operating inside the FAA rules (unless the procedure is not allowed in his RFM).

The whole point of many posters here (especially the Brits) is that just because something is legal, that doesn't make it a good idea in every circumstance - in this sad case it appears, that for whatever reason, he was caught out making an unfortunate choice.

Surely, as an experienced aviator, you should be counselling those less experienced who aren't (or weren't) aware of the possible consequences of leaving the aircraft unattended.

We are supposed to learn from accidents so that others might avoid the same pitfalls in the future - that is how flight safety evolves.

[RVDT]

Third time lucky?

My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.

I would suggest you consider there was no prohibition for him to have done what he did, not in Law, Regulation, or Policy.

More learned folks might disagree.

FAR Part §91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without
complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual,
markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

(b) No person may operate a U.S.-registered civil aircraft—

(1) For which an Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual is required by §21.5 of this chapter unless there is
available in the aircraft a current, approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual.

FLIGHT MANUAL AS 350 B3 Arriel 2B1 EASA APPROVED

SECTION 2
LIMITATIONS

2.1.1 TYPE OF OPERATIONS
The helicopter is approved to operate :
- by day in VFR.
- by night in VFR, when the additional equipment required by
operational regulations are installed and serviceable.
The following are forbidden :
- Aerobatic maneuvers.
- Leave the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while rotor is
spinning.
- Flight in freezing rain or icing conditions.
- (visible moisture and temperatures conducive to producing ice).
- In flight engine power reduction using twist grip control except for
engine failure training, emergency procedures referring to it, or for
a technical flight.
2.1.2 OCCUPANTS
- Minimum flight crew ................. : One pilot in right seat.
- Maximum number of occupants
(including flight crew)................ : Six

[EN48]

And then there is this:

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

Administrative law judge gets to decide if its careless or reckless.

[Boudreaux Bob]

you should be counselling those less experienced who aren't (or weren't) aware of the possible consequences of leaving the aircraft unattended.

I have repeatedly.

Keep in mind there are no type ratings in the US, so any Robinson pilot can hop into an AS350 and legally fly it.

Read your FAR Part 135 Regulations then get back with us on that comment. You are quite wrong.

§ 91.13 Careless or reckless operation.
(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.

if there was no violation of FAR's and the RFM for that particular aircraft did not have a Restriction re Leaving the Controls and the Operator's FAA Approved Training Program and FAR Part 135 OpSpecs did not ban that practice......you would find your Case very weak indeed. Those Administrative Actions are subject to Appeal to Federal Court should the Defendant feel the Judgement is in error.


So getting back to the original argument: Who knows what happened in the Canyon that day? Does anyone know what the RFM for that aircraft had to say? Does anyone know what the Company's Training Program and OpSpecs had to say about Leaving the Controls unattended? Did the poor fellow simply make a mistake somehow although operating within the Operator's SOP's and FAR's?

This happened in the USA thus American Law and Regulations apply, not EASA Rules. Shift gears guys, it really is easy if you try. You may not agree with it, or like it, or think what is permissible is good practice, but apply the Law, Rules, and Regulations that apply.

[SilsoeSid]

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA195
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, May 18, 2014 in Peach Springs, AZ
Aircraft: AMERICAN EUROCOPTER CORP AS350B3, registration: N840PA
Injuries: 1 Fatal.

Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;
http://helicopterindia.com/yahoo_sit....241201933.pdf

FLIGHT MANUAL AS 350 B3 Arriel 2B1

2.1.1 TYPE OF OPERATIONS
The helicopter is approved to operate :
- by day in VFR.
- by night in VFR, when the additional equipment required by
operational regulations are installed and serviceable.
The following are forbidden :
- Aerobatic maneuvers.
- Leave the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while rotor is
spinning.
- Flight in freezing rain or icing conditions.
- (visible moisture and temperatures conducive to producing ice).
- In flight engine power reduction using twist grip control except for
engine failure training, emergency procedures referring to it, or for a technical flight.
2.1.2 OCCUPANTS
- Minimum flight crew ................. : One pilot in right seat.
- Maximum number of occupants
(including flight crew)................ : Six

[Boudreaux Bob]

Find us one that is current and FAA Approved then I will listen.

This happened under FAA Rules as you may recall.

[SilsoeSid]

Can the FAA really override something that the manufacturers have forbidden?
I find that very surprising

[Boudreaux Bob]

Do you accept there might be differences between a CAA approved RFM and an FAA approved RFM?

You reckon the EASA approved RFM would have to comply with EASA Rules and Regulations while the FAA Rules and Regulations might be different thus the FAA Version of a RFM might reflect those Rules exactly in the manner the EASA Approved Version must and does?

I don't know what the FAA Approved RFM for the 350B3 has to say.

I would find it a bit odd for it to be much different than the EASA version but until we see one, how do we know?

[SilsoeSid]

Until we see one then, instead of posting worthless questions, please answer my earlier plain and simple question;

Can the FAA really override something that the manufacturers have forbidden?


I reckon, despite what you may dig up, the all covering FAA paragraph will say something such as;

"A pilot operating a civil aircraft (rotorcraft) must comply with the operating limitations specified in the approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual."

[Boudreaux Bob]

Sid, Answer your own question. Did the Factory forbid it for technical reasons or did they do so because of the EASA Rules?

We have been told by those who fly the things that it varies from Model to Model.

Perhaps someone who knows the right answer will help us out here.

[SilsoeSid]

Ooo, Bob and his Maieutic games .... yawn, night night

[Helilog56]

And the maturity level continues too climb......

[RVDT]

Bob,

The FAA RFM is the same as the EASA one if you believe the FAA TCDS H9EU.

The catch here is the Limitations Section in the B3 RFM.

Why? Obviously someone knows but that may be the hard part.

EASA land is not much different to FAA land.

Contrary to what many perceive you can actually leave the aircraft when it is running
if not overridden by other documents depending on their weight and Ops Manual etc etc.

(d) An operator shall not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power, for the purpose of flight,
without a qualified pilot at the controls

The real reason for this statement and definition thanks to the Swedes back in 2005. Maybe it gets lost in translation with some folks.

Reason(s) for proposed text/comment:
The proposal is an adjustment to the new ICAO Annex 6, Part III and to an applied practice among operators in most countries.
The Swedish Civil Aviation Authority has announced to JAA that we exempt the Swedish operators from the current rule.
There are situations when a pilot has to leave the controls with the rotor spinning for safety reasons or for practical reasons.
With this cognizance we believe it is better to allow pilots to leave the aircrafts while the rotor is spinning provided that the operator
in the Operations Manual has stated the special conditions that should be met and provided that it is not inappropriate because of
the construction of the helicopter. It is better that this is done legally and under stated conditions than illegal and out of control.

Maybe there is something on the B3 that comes under "inappropriate because of the construction of the helicopter"?

I am no stranger to this practice myself, yet maybe more aware of the basis.

[ShyTorque]

I haven't flown the B3 but the collective lock on the twin Squirrel I operated for three years was very basic; it consisted of a spring steel plate with a hole in it which had to engage on a landed steel button on the end of the collective. It was easily disengaged if the lever took a slight bump, which would then move upwards, increasing torque all by itself. This would occur on start also. I developed the habit of trapping the collective lever under my left knee on start, so I could feel any tendency for the lever to move upwards. I still do this today, even though it was thirteen years ago and now fly a totally different type.

[newfieboy]

Yeah I fly 350 series a/c all variants, with quite few 1000's hours on type plus quite few more thou on other products. Most of 350 time remote, mountains, Arctic, High Arctic ya da ya....the 350 across the board totally safe to idle and get out...long as you put friction on AND lock collective. It should be standard training TC, FAA, EASA whatever...if trained properly. That's where your argument BBob falls apart...there be no type ratings below 12000lbs in US.Was pole lock drummed into ya man? Don't know...don't care, is with me every time I land, collective gets the tad extra down and click...simples. This last month was doing ops in high Arctic... At 6500ft in rocks Ellesmere and Baffin long lining...so maybe 10 refuels a day. Hot refuel...yes sir, on own..yes sir, feel comfy shutting down while packing .338 as protection against polar bears....no sir but the risk I have to take. Oh and I'm a Brit....so there goes the Brit/Anglo argument.....Crab et al...yes understand it not legal in UK, bet your life it is done 24/7 elsewhere. A very sad accident...RIP man, could of been any of us. TC yes loser...had respect mate you did Halifax water course...should know better...**** happens, no Darwin...safe aviating boys...fire season just begun!!!

[jecottrell]

Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;

The B3 manual does not have the restriction that the B3 2B1 does. A more appropriate manual would be the B3 manual.

[mickjoebill]

Late last year we flew with Papillon on AS350s into the Canyon, passengers were loaded and unloaded with rotors running, loading was professional and well organised.

I'll cherish the look on my sons face when we dipped into the canyon, such flights give hundreds of passengers a memorable experience of the joys of flight.


Regardless of the legality, or best practice, if a pilot spends all day, every day with passengers loading and unloading with rotors running I could understand why it could be human nature for him to also exit with rotors running.

In the AS350s on our fights the two seater bench was installed beside the pilot, on the flight into the canyon the pilot position was on the right and on the flight out, in a different AS350, the pilot position was on the left.

Is standardising the pilot's position desirable in a multi craft company?
More chance of fouling collective on exit if pilot position is in the left seat?




Mickjoebill