Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there be no type ratings below 12000lbs in US.
The statement was that One could jump into any helicopter and fly it. The statement holds (somewhat) until you get to Commercial Ops under Part 135 then you have Minimum Training Hours and Syllabus and a Check Ride before you can fly for hire.
The Accident occurred on a a Commercial Part 135 Flight thus training both ground and flight required prior to the Check Ride.
http://flightsimaviation.com/data/FA...t_135-244.html
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Until someone comes up with a more appropriate flight manual;
Someone here must have access to one!
And while you're searching, is there a more up to date version of;
http://www.faa.gov/regulations_polic...cumentID/23152
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 2nd Jun 2014 at 08:40.
Crikey - juicy thread eh?
Post 60 says it all really (and DB we must not continue to sing from the same hymn sheet!).
No-one has mentioned this aspect yet:
Let's say this gentleman elected to get out to check the "fluid levels" as advertised and in so doing the cab rolled over killing the pilot AND the shrapnel from the flailing helicopter kills a little boy and his mum who had recently deplaned.
Now can someone tell me the justification (or difference) for doing this?
The implications are beyond comprehension. The FAA would eat the hire company for breakfast. The Insurance company would be slammed with tens of millions of dollars worth of law suit. The pilot would be seen as a complete and utter f**kwit by everyone inside and outside the industry.
What is the difference therefore between what he did that day and what many other solo operators do during their daily job?
The difference is narrow but pertinent:
IF the operator genuinely believes that climbing out of an aircraft with rotors running is necessary to safeguard a situation - fair enough; but if the operator turns a blind eye to their pilots doing it to (a) save time, (b) save money, (c) have a piss......then they too are one and the same as this darwin rep.
Just because it appears the 'norm' for utility pilots in remote areas to practive this daily - doesn't make it SAFE or RIGHT.
We all do things 'differently'. When ONE makes the decision to depart from the guidelines/rules....one MUST accept one either knows better (which is extremely rare) or one has just thrown caution to the wind.
Sadly it appears (based on the reported criteria) this guy came from the latter camp - a definite Darwin candidate....but will ANYONE learn from this....I doubt it
Pilots will cut corner's to make their trade work: There are those out there right now spending inordinate time inside the Dead Man's curve (we've beaten that conversation to death), there are those who take off in below minima weather, etc etc. It's all well and good IF you get away with it time and time again but it doesn't make it RIGHT.....does it? Think about the implications? CAN YOU JUSTIFY WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO -to the authorities? To the next of kin? To your boss? Life is a gamble and many pilots just love gambling..........................
Post 60 says it all really (and DB we must not continue to sing from the same hymn sheet!).
No-one has mentioned this aspect yet:
Let's say this gentleman elected to get out to check the "fluid levels" as advertised and in so doing the cab rolled over killing the pilot AND the shrapnel from the flailing helicopter kills a little boy and his mum who had recently deplaned.
Now can someone tell me the justification (or difference) for doing this?
The implications are beyond comprehension. The FAA would eat the hire company for breakfast. The Insurance company would be slammed with tens of millions of dollars worth of law suit. The pilot would be seen as a complete and utter f**kwit by everyone inside and outside the industry.
What is the difference therefore between what he did that day and what many other solo operators do during their daily job?
The difference is narrow but pertinent:
IF the operator genuinely believes that climbing out of an aircraft with rotors running is necessary to safeguard a situation - fair enough; but if the operator turns a blind eye to their pilots doing it to (a) save time, (b) save money, (c) have a piss......then they too are one and the same as this darwin rep.
Just because it appears the 'norm' for utility pilots in remote areas to practive this daily - doesn't make it SAFE or RIGHT.
We all do things 'differently'. When ONE makes the decision to depart from the guidelines/rules....one MUST accept one either knows better (which is extremely rare) or one has just thrown caution to the wind.
Sadly it appears (based on the reported criteria) this guy came from the latter camp - a definite Darwin candidate....but will ANYONE learn from this....I doubt it
Pilots will cut corner's to make their trade work: There are those out there right now spending inordinate time inside the Dead Man's curve (we've beaten that conversation to death), there are those who take off in below minima weather, etc etc. It's all well and good IF you get away with it time and time again but it doesn't make it RIGHT.....does it? Think about the implications? CAN YOU JUSTIFY WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO DO -to the authorities? To the next of kin? To your boss? Life is a gamble and many pilots just love gambling..........................
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 2nd Jun 2014 at 11:55.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk assessment
OK, TC has a point, whether or not anyone else agrees with it, although it's all about risk, surely?
If the risk is to the individual only, does he value his life enough to loose it?
If the risk is to the machine, does he value his machine enough to save his life & accept risk to the machine.
If there's any risk to others, especially if they've paid for a service, does he value his passengers lives; job; airframe; company; reputation; helicopter industry etc above that of saving a few moments / personal convenience?
Some of us who've been doing this awhile value the idea of landing safely, and getting home to the family at the end of a work period, more highly than anything else - and it's in the back of MY mind every time I consider doing anything that's close to the limits of either my machine or ability. Yes, there's risk inherent in aviation, and it's part of the thrill - or was when we were younger / less experienced. Every self-respecting pilot has, at some stage, looked to find their personal limit, or that of their machine - and probably exceeded one or the other at some stage and got away with it . . . and I know TC's no exception
! It's the ones who aren't aware they've exceeded anything that will not be able to recognise the risk in doing it again, when another parameter may also be testing their skills and the two combine to provide the coup-de-gras. This thread just helps to remind those that remain that the risks are always there, and that ignoring them can be at your peril.
I've referred to the mantra before, but a reminder sometimes helps focus:
"Aviation is, of itself, not inherently dangerous but, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is very unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Just because the pilot in question was a "pilot", does not mean to say he was free of culpability in the manner of his own demise. Maybe he just forgot about the risks?
If the risk is to the individual only, does he value his life enough to loose it?
If the risk is to the machine, does he value his machine enough to save his life & accept risk to the machine.
If there's any risk to others, especially if they've paid for a service, does he value his passengers lives; job; airframe; company; reputation; helicopter industry etc above that of saving a few moments / personal convenience?
Some of us who've been doing this awhile value the idea of landing safely, and getting home to the family at the end of a work period, more highly than anything else - and it's in the back of MY mind every time I consider doing anything that's close to the limits of either my machine or ability. Yes, there's risk inherent in aviation, and it's part of the thrill - or was when we were younger / less experienced. Every self-respecting pilot has, at some stage, looked to find their personal limit, or that of their machine - and probably exceeded one or the other at some stage and got away with it . . . and I know TC's no exception
! It's the ones who aren't aware they've exceeded anything that will not be able to recognise the risk in doing it again, when another parameter may also be testing their skills and the two combine to provide the coup-de-gras. This thread just helps to remind those that remain that the risks are always there, and that ignoring them can be at your peril.I've referred to the mantra before, but a reminder sometimes helps focus:
"Aviation is, of itself, not inherently dangerous but, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is very unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Just because the pilot in question was a "pilot", does not mean to say he was free of culpability in the manner of his own demise. Maybe he just forgot about the risks?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
100% agree with my country's road accident rate, I was actually referring to the legality of driving at 100mph in different countries.
Mick, ref the standardization of aircraft, I'm sure most operators like to do that, however, sometimes you have to play with the cards that you are dealt, if an aircraft is on lease etc, then they may get some with different pilot positions.
While having RHS pilot, might be good for the pilot getting in and out of the aircraft, it isn't as good, if the next day they need to do sling work as lots of us like to lean out the left side. Also depending on AC type, having a RHS pilot, also gives the passengers a chance to mess with the controls(being in the centre of the cabin), whereas LHS pilot position the controls are more protected from the pax(sitting hard against the pilot door).
Mick, ref the standardization of aircraft, I'm sure most operators like to do that, however, sometimes you have to play with the cards that you are dealt, if an aircraft is on lease etc, then they may get some with different pilot positions.
While having RHS pilot, might be good for the pilot getting in and out of the aircraft, it isn't as good, if the next day they need to do sling work as lots of us like to lean out the left side. Also depending on AC type, having a RHS pilot, also gives the passengers a chance to mess with the controls(being in the centre of the cabin), whereas LHS pilot position the controls are more protected from the pax(sitting hard against the pilot door).
Last edited by SuperF; 2nd Jun 2014 at 12:39. Reason: Because auto correct is an a$$
newfie, thanks for that post, puts this in some perspective.
TC's point on crowd/mob reactions based on circumstances is worth pondering.
This is as true on the ground as it is in the air, particularly when those wings are moving at flight rpm.
TC's point on crowd/mob reactions based on circumstances is worth pondering.
"Aviation is, of itself, not inherently dangerous but, to an even greater extent than the sea, it is very unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
This is as true on the ground as it is in the air, particularly when those wings are moving at flight rpm.
Tightgit
The hypocrisy meter is now going into the red!
We all make mistakes, however, if my oppo who I have known for 30 years and who I can assure you is a bl00dy good egg is involved in any sort of incident/accident, then I expect you all to reserve judgement on what might have happened until the final result of whatever investigation takes place and a report is released. Even then, even if it seems that he/she was culpable, I will ask you to think of the families, the mates left behind and previous good character/unblemished record and show a bit of respect with any criticism you may feel you want to publish........
On the other hand, should some johnny foreigner or god forbid, civvy have an incident or accident, then I will go out of my way to be as offensive as possible, as soon as possible I won't need the result of any investigation to tell me what I already know. This is a forum where we discuss this sort of thing without fear or favour. If someone out there feels that I'm being overly hard on them, then tough. We need to learn immediately what the probable cause was and prevent anybody from making the same mistake again. We can only do this by judging the incident on the very limited information that we may glean in the first micro seconds after the incident has occurred.
Does that sum up the current rules of engagement?
We all make mistakes, however, if my oppo who I have known for 30 years and who I can assure you is a bl00dy good egg is involved in any sort of incident/accident, then I expect you all to reserve judgement on what might have happened until the final result of whatever investigation takes place and a report is released. Even then, even if it seems that he/she was culpable, I will ask you to think of the families, the mates left behind and previous good character/unblemished record and show a bit of respect with any criticism you may feel you want to publish........
On the other hand, should some johnny foreigner or god forbid, civvy have an incident or accident, then I will go out of my way to be as offensive as possible, as soon as possible I won't need the result of any investigation to tell me what I already know. This is a forum where we discuss this sort of thing without fear or favour. If someone out there feels that I'm being overly hard on them, then tough. We need to learn immediately what the probable cause was and prevent anybody from making the same mistake again. We can only do this by judging the incident on the very limited information that we may glean in the first micro seconds after the incident has occurred.
Does that sum up the current rules of engagement?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oxford
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we separate out two, for me, very different discussions
a) the discussion about the accident which started this thread. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the accident report which states that the pilot was not following standard operating procedures, did not secure the controls etc.
b) a more general discussion, whether it is permissible in any circumstances to leave an aircraft rotors turning, and if so what those circumstances are.
Matthew
a) the discussion about the accident which started this thread. As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the accident report which states that the pilot was not following standard operating procedures, did not secure the controls etc.
b) a more general discussion, whether it is permissible in any circumstances to leave an aircraft rotors turning, and if so what those circumstances are.
Matthew
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Oxford
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naive question, borne from the fact that my limited experience is with 300, R22 and G2.
In a situation where you are working remotely and concerned about an engine restart, could you not release the clutch and so have the engine still running but the rotor stationary?
Matthew
In a situation where you are working remotely and concerned about an engine restart, could you not release the clutch and so have the engine still running but the rotor stationary?
Matthew
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
No, because there is no clutch.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
jecottrell
I couldn't find any reference that the aircraft was an E model. Where is that?
Surely the most appropriate would be the B3e.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.scribd.com/doc/112285127/...-Flight-Manual
Page 11 shows no prohibition to leaving the controls unattended.
Perhaps this RFM thing needs to be considered more.
The Linked RFM also clearly states each Certifying Authority may vary from other Authorities.
It also notes some information in the RFM requires Authority Approval and some does not. It does not specify how to identify the difference.
Page 11 shows no prohibition to leaving the controls unattended.
Perhaps this RFM thing needs to be considered more.
The Linked RFM also clearly states each Certifying Authority may vary from other Authorities.
It also notes some information in the RFM requires Authority Approval and some does not. It does not specify how to identify the difference.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Handy,
The NTSB preliminary report quoted in post 8 says;
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/Ge...R14FA195&rpt=p
It would appear that the NTSB find this relevant enough to put in the report.
The big question is, what does the FM for this ac actually state about leaving the ac with the ac running?
When we know that, we can answer mdovey's point 'a'.
The NTSB preliminary report quoted in post 8 says;
Witnesses reported that the pilot landed and was planning on exiting the helicopter to perform a "fluid level check." After landing, the pilot exited the running helicopter; shortly thereafter the helicopter became airborne without the pilot at the flight controls. The helicopter subsequently impacted the ground and rolled over. The pilot was struck by one or more of the main rotor blades and was fatally injured.
It would appear that the NTSB find this relevant enough to put in the report.
The big question is, what does the FM for this ac actually state about leaving the ac with the ac running?
When we know that, we can answer mdovey's point 'a'.
As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the accident report which states that the pilot was not following standard operating procedures, did not secure the controls etc.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Post 7 of this thread
A very sad event, and so unexplained.
I have been chewing for a while how those who, 'have slipped the surly bonds', can more easily be remembered or referenced. I note in Ned's thread (the second post here) on the top of his thread you will see memorial thread or words to that effect.
May I humbly suggest that it could be a way to find, -- , for those who knew and cared and could be looking, later here, a similar scenario?
Just a suggestion.tet.
I have been chewing for a while how those who, 'have slipped the surly bonds', can more easily be remembered or referenced. I note in Ned's thread (the second post here) on the top of his thread you will see memorial thread or words to that effect.
May I humbly suggest that it could be a way to find, -- , for those who knew and cared and could be looking, later here, a similar scenario?
Just a suggestion.tet.
Did you mean post number 8, the NTSB quote? If you are, I don't see any reference to a B3E there either.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Bob, apart from not being for the Be, page 11 (manual) page 36 (document) states a minimum crew of one pilot in RH seat.
FAA definition of crew;
"Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time."
FAA Definitions
As flight time doesn't stop until the rotors have stopped ...
FAA definition of crew;
"Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time."
FAA Definitions
As flight time doesn't stop until the rotors have stopped ...
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
jecottrell,
Sorry, it was post 7 when I referred to it.
It is now post 8 as you say. The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version
Sorry, it was post 7 when I referred to it.
It is now post 8 as you say. The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
N840PA
Sure looks like a B3 to me.
All of our AS-350 aircraft' Hobbs meters stop registering flight time when the collective is bottomed out. Where does your definition of flight time originate?
The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version
Sure looks like a B3 to me.
As flight time doesn't stop until the rotors have stopped ...