Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover

[Boudreaux Bob]

Keep grasping at Straws, Sid.....maybe you will find a good one one day!


FAR 1.1 states:

Flight time means:

(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;

You confusing CAA/JAR/EASA rules with FAA Rules.....they are different you should understand.

We log from when the aircraft first moves on Takeoff until the Skids Touch the ground. Each time the Skids leave the ground is a Takeoff and each time the Skids touch the ground afterwards is a Landing. That includes running takeoffs and running landings upon the Aircraft coming to a stop. The Aircraft....not the Rotors.

[evil7]

This is how we see it in our company:

Take off to langing = flight time

Start-up till shut-down (Rotor stop) = PIC (because he is in charge) or operating time

Start shooting

[chopjock]

So the best place to build hours is in EASA land then. Apparently it's legal to climb in, start up, lift off then land immediately
and idle with rotors running for three hours and then log three hours flying time.

[SilsoeSid]

jecottrell;

Did you mean post number 8, the NTSB quote? If you are, I don't see any reference to a B3E there either.

SS;
The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version

Sure looks like a B3 to me.

So what is an AS350 B3 with Ariel 2D engine called



Bobb, no need for any straw grasping;

If I may quite your quote;

Flight time means:

(1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing;

Did I read that right ..... "Comes to rest after landing".

The aircraft lands ... then comes to rest.

So once a helicopter lands, at what point is it considered at rest?

Will you agree that in this incident, the aircraft was indeed still under its own power for the purpose of flight ..... with no pilot at the controls. If not, how was the helicopter able to become airborne as is stated in the report?

[fijdor]

Here are the definitions of "Air time" and "Flight time" from TC (transport Canada).

JD

“air time”

“air time” means, with respect to keeping technical records, the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface until it comes into contact with the surface at the next point of landing; (temps dans les airs)




“flight time”

“flight time” means the time from the moment an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight; (temps de vol)

[SilsoeSid]

If the cap fits.

Just a thought;

[SuperF]

in some countries they have Flight time, ie, when the helicopter is flying, and RIM ie: Rotors In Motion.

I think that we have been down the road of Flight Time/RIM, and get about as much agreement as we do with the idea of getting out of the machine turning and burning.

So again, different countries, different rules.

Chopjock, yes, as long as you can convince someone to let you pay for the gas only, and not flight hours then EASA land is certainly the best way to build hours, probably not the best type of hrs to get...


Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls??

I always read that piece of law as meaning that the person at the controls had to have a Pilot Licence, ie you can't let anyone without a Licence fly the thing, rather than the law stipulating that you must be at the controls while the Rotors are turning, sitting on the ground...

[Devil 49]

Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning, which jibes with my company SOP.

Silsosid, I know pilots who log time as you state (sometimes referred to as "seat time"). I don't see it, but I reckon it's not an unreasonable criteria.

If I'm not manipulating the controls for the purpose of aerial navigation, I'm not flying, whether the rotor is turning or not, so I don't log it. I log from takeoff to landing- coming to rest, which I would see as stability check complete, controls secure, and going about whatever business is required: flight log, deplaning/emplaning pax and cargo, even refueling. Note lack of requirement to shutdown in that list, approved by FAA and company. Yes, I can leave the controls within company policy restrictions, I expect the accident aircraft policy was similar.

[SilsoeSid]

Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls??

But Bob is telling us by both his quotes and links;
"Flight time means: Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing"

"The ac must have a minimum crew of one pilot in RH seat"

(Remember: The FAA state "Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.")

There is no mention anywhere of whether or not there is an intention of flying, just that (by using Bobs own references), once an aircraft is capable of flight under its own power, until the time that it is no longer capable of flight under its own power, it is to be considered to be 'in flight time'.

[SilsoeSid]

Devil;

Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning,

What does one do to a helicopter in order for it to be 'at rest' after landing?

[rantanplane]

Splitting hairs with rotor blades...but it is quite clear, from the wording I would think. The moment an aircraft moves is not the moment the engine starts turning, means the AC is moving from parking position. In this respect the end of flight time is when AC is back on parking position - under its own power of course. Let's have a pushcopter for gaining hours.. Anyhow, does it say aircraft moving or engine moving, or better turning. With some old planes it is common practice to start the engine from outside the cockpit and then jump in, after collecting all the loose screws, spark plugs and being reassured of fluid levels by the number of leaks visible.
Ok now seriously, the question is if leaving the controls can be done safely on that type of Flying machine. Then have a look what went wrong. Then there is a chance to understand why. And a chance to learn something from very own understanding, not just from following - the rules, your religion or older brother.

[jecottrell]

B3e manual makes no prohibition for leaving controls, as the B3 2B1 does.

The inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue but, the pilot in question doesn't appear to be in violation of written guidance as some would assert.

[Thomas coupling]

Bob: Why can't you understand from various posters here (RVDT in particular) that the RFM in any country is gospel?
First you were shown various RFM's for 350's telling the pilot that getting out whilst the rotor is turning is NOT permitted. You wouldn't have it - citing that the national authoriy can over -ride this????
Then you go away and dig up a copy of the 350B3 to prove that this statement is not in this RFM......and yet Section 2.1, Pg 11 categorically states that the MINIMUM crew must be 1 pilot in the RHS. This is tant amount to the same thing.

Yet you refuse to accept the principle? What is it with you?

Which other parts of the limitations section of any RFM - do you pick and choose from:
Let's pull Max Cont for 10 minutes today shall we because the underslng load is a little heavier than normal. Let's ignore that overtorque? Let's se if my sloping round is steeper than the RFM's?

Of course those pilots out there who see the RFM as a target and not a limit (probably USA single pilot bush pilots with no-one for miles to monitor their activities, operating on a shoestring) think it's all in a days work. UNTIL the **** hits the fan. And then they realise they have no friends as everyone arond them thinks they were dumb for getting caught and want nothing to do with their insubordinate professional approach.

This jerk - climbed out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft against RFM policy. All because he couldn't be arsed to shut down safely. He got caught - by the eye in the sky who taught him a lesson he will never forget. RiP sunshine and move over for the next volunteer to the Darwin owners club!

[SilsoeSid]

Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS."
Yet it's not the FAA version we ( Bobb especially) need!

If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew!

It's not a matter of who is right, but who is left!

[rantanplane]

So what does 'flight' mean ?

[Boudreaux Bob]

TC and Sid,

You have lost the argument.

Accept it and move on.

We have discerned that different models of the 350, in different Countries, have different Limitation Sections that variously show a Prohibition against leaving the Flight Controls Unattended. In American English that means even the various Authorities differ in their view of that practice as evidenced by the RFM they each approve.

In the RFM I posted, it stated each Authority would have different requirements in their specific unique RFM. That was in an Approved RFM thus we must assume that is a valid and correct statement by the author of the RFM.

We have folks from many different parts of the World who do in fact undertake the practice of some times leaving the Controls Unattended and they state they do so in full compliance with their Aircraft's Approved RFM, their Authority's Rules and Regulations, and their own Operator's Policies and Procedures.

Now what is it you two refuse to understand about all of this?

Are both of you short course Grads and that is why you are having such difficulty grasping the variances between UK Regulations and the rest of the World?

The Poor Dead Fellow so far has been shown to have acted within the scope of his authority as a PIC and well within his Operator's Policies and the FAR's.

That you two consider leaving the Flight Controls unattended a mortal sin and a crime against humanity, just does not make you right or correct.

How many times, by how many people, will you have to be told all this before you get the message?

As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World.

No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions.

[jecottrell]

If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew!

Well obviously the pilot missed something or several things prior to exiting the aircraft. The aircraft wouldn't have killed him if he had put the twist grip at idle, locked the collective and frictioned the cyclic. Because, under those conditions the aircraft is not "capable of flight under its own power." So, I guess you're agreeing, that if he had done things correctly the aircraft wouldn't have become "airborne without the minimum flight crew" and killed him. And, if he had idle/locked/frictioned the controls prior to exiting the aircraft he wouldn't have allowed the aircraft to violate any rules.


Why would the B3 2B1 specifically prohibit leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while spinning and other models not? You would think that with so many lawyers on every page of the manual, if the manufacturer felt that the aircraft shouldn't be left rotor turning, they would specifically prohibit it. They obviously felt it was necessary for the 2B1.

[rantanplane]

Looks like somebody lost both arms..
"Let's call it a draw"

[fijdor]

Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS

I don't think this has anything to do with the fact of having a pilot a the control while the aircraft is idling but it is more a part of the certification process where they have establish the minimum crew needed to fly that particular aircraft.

Here are two examples of different certifications regarding minimum flightcrew.

First one from the FAA, aircraft is a Bell 214ST and the other one is from the CAA, same aircraft.

FAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS
IFR -Two helicopter pilots.

VFR -One helicopter pilot who shall operate the
helicopter from the right crew seat. The left crew
seat may be used for an additional pilot.
NOTE
Single pilot operations are based on the
standard helicopter instrument panel
and systems.


CAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS

Two suitably qualified pilot.

That's it for CAA, does that mean then, if one pilot exit the aircraft while idling to help out with the pax it would be an illegal action and to a point being considered a dangerous move?

JD

[SilsoeSid]

rantanplane
So what does 'flight' mean ?

I would say that if a helicopter was airborne under its own power, it was performing the art of 'flight'.

You have lost the argument.
Accept it and move on.

Sorry, can you make it clear what 'argument' this is?
Are you saying that the pilot in this incident was right in what he was doing? Because I'm saying that I think what he did was wrong

Just because we may disagree, doesn't make you right!

No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions.

That would only apply if there were specific instructions in the FM that this was permissible and what actions must be undertaken when doing so. If there are no instructions on how to undertake these practises, and it is stated that the minimum crew is one pilot, it must be that when the ac is capable of flight under its own power, the seat must be occupied.

As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World.

You certainly have a huge transatlantic chip on your shoulder!
Could you balance it with a similarly sized transpacific chip?

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA091 - Don?t walk away

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.

‘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.