Grand Canyon Accident: Pilot killed in AS350 rollover
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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?
I refer to my previous post;
"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."
When the pilot jumped out the aircraft was not airborne.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles.
Just to add a little more to the discussion,it is not inconceivable for two authorities to approve the RFM of the same type differently.
Case in point, I believe that in EASA land it is okay to hover an EC135 on one engine.It comes with a proviso that all appropriate WAT calculations have been done,and , it is an unusual operation.The FAA forbids that completely. Many a US pilot has run into trouble for having missed the little black triangle on that page. The little black triangle basically means "Not approved for US Registered aircraft".
Similarly, there is a new Revision (11 ,I think) that has been approved for the EC130.Has not yet made the cut with the FAA. Significant changes are incorporated in the new Revision ,particularly for cold weather operations, but it hasn't been approved for the line yet.I guess ( and I hope) that the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate goes into each RFM and revision with a fine tooth comb just to make sure that the operators of the type in question are not unusually burdened by onerous procedures which are necessary in other countries but not so in the US.
Final word, approving a type for a single pilot operation from one seat only means that the aircraft will not be flown from the other seat for lateral CG considerations.Does not imply that the aircraft will not (or shall not) be left unattended.
Just my 2C.
Alt 3.
Just to add a little more to the discussion,it is not inconceivable for two authorities to approve the RFM of the same type differently.
Case in point, I believe that in EASA land it is okay to hover an EC135 on one engine.It comes with a proviso that all appropriate WAT calculations have been done,and , it is an unusual operation.The FAA forbids that completely. Many a US pilot has run into trouble for having missed the little black triangle on that page. The little black triangle basically means "Not approved for US Registered aircraft".
Similarly, there is a new Revision (11 ,I think) that has been approved for the EC130.Has not yet made the cut with the FAA. Significant changes are incorporated in the new Revision ,particularly for cold weather operations, but it hasn't been approved for the line yet.I guess ( and I hope) that the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate goes into each RFM and revision with a fine tooth comb just to make sure that the operators of the type in question are not unusually burdened by onerous procedures which are necessary in other countries but not so in the US.
Final word, approving a type for a single pilot operation from one seat only means that the aircraft will not be flown from the other seat for lateral CG considerations.Does not imply that the aircraft will not (or shall not) be left unattended.
Just my 2C.
Alt 3.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
a3, "I believe, I think, I guess, I hope ..."
Any chance of a relevant link or something more 'solid'?
Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet?
Any chance of a relevant link or something more 'solid'?
Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SilsoeSid
Correct.
There is no mention of "capable of flight under its own power".
jecottrell
There's a risk of that (interspersed with such vile descriptions of the deceased pilot as 'a candidate for the Darwin Award', 'one less in the gene pool', 'this jerk') although, as alouette3 so rightly says ....
There is no mention anywhere [in the FAR §1.1 definition of Flight time] whether or not there is an intention of flying
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'.
jecottrell
The inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue
I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FL,
I posted the FAR 1.1 Definition of Flight Time for Sid. He ignored that.
I posted a copy of a 350B3 Approved Flight Manual that contained no prohibition on leaving flight controls unattended. He ignored that.
Devil 49 who operates a 350B3 clearly stated his Company legally authorizes the Practice of leaving flight controls unattended. Sid ignored that.
Newfie Boy flying in Canada recounted his very recent experience doing the same thing. Sid ignored that.
RVDT, also recounted his recent experience doing the same thing. Again Sid ignored that.
Alouette3 has also pointed out incorrect statements Sid has made. Of course, Sid ignores that.
What chance do you think you have of convincing Sid he is batting a very sticky Wicket here?
I posted the FAR 1.1 Definition of Flight Time for Sid. He ignored that.
I posted a copy of a 350B3 Approved Flight Manual that contained no prohibition on leaving flight controls unattended. He ignored that.
Devil 49 who operates a 350B3 clearly stated his Company legally authorizes the Practice of leaving flight controls unattended. Sid ignored that.
Newfie Boy flying in Canada recounted his very recent experience doing the same thing. Sid ignored that.
RVDT, also recounted his recent experience doing the same thing. Again Sid ignored that.
Alouette3 has also pointed out incorrect statements Sid has made. Of course, Sid ignores that.
What chance do you think you have of convincing Sid he is batting a very sticky Wicket here?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Flying Lawyer,
Bob quotes FAR 1.1
I would appreciate your interpretation of:
1. How a helicopter with skids, can move under its own power for the purpose of flight, without being capable of flight
2. 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".
Ok bob, you're going to change your mind as much as I am.
You're absolutely right, in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead!
Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again?
Bob quotes FAR 1.1
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;
(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;
I would appreciate your interpretation of:
1. How a helicopter with skids, can move under its own power for the purpose of flight, without being capable of flight
2. 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing".
Ok bob, you're going to change your mind as much as I am.
You're absolutely right, in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead!
Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid
FAR 1.1
The period when the accident occurred was not, in my opinion, Flight time within the meaning of the definition.
Your attempt to introduce the words 'capable of flight' is a red herring, a distraction.
(As is "he didn't ensure that the aircraft couldn't become airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.")
You say (to Bob):
That is not what Bob said.
He said:
Legality
Bob's position:
Your position: The pilot acted unlawfully.
I express no opinion because I haven't researched the FAA legislation nor any relevant appeal court decisions (if they exist), nor do I know all the circumstances. I'm not inclined to do the research, partly because it would take a long time but mainly because I don't regard legality as the primary issue in this discussion.
IMHO by far the most important issue, which Bob and several others have been emphasising and you now appear to accept (?) is set out in your final sentence:
Nothing can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again. There are clearly things that could be done to reduce the number. We've already had some suggestions, mainly from pilots who have experience of, or are familiar with, the sort of ops in which the practice regularly occurs.
Any injury/fatality is obviously a serious matter but I have no reason to believe that it is a major issue relative to the frequency of the practice in many parts of the world.
It may be. I don't know the statistics.
FAR 1.1
The period when the accident occurred was not, in my opinion, Flight time within the meaning of the definition.
Your attempt to introduce the words 'capable of flight' is a red herring, a distraction.
(As is "he didn't ensure that the aircraft couldn't become airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.")
You say (to Bob):
in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead!
He said:
Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice.
Legality
Bob's position:
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 express no opinion because I haven't researched the FAA legislation nor any relevant appeal court decisions (if they exist), nor do I know all the circumstances. I'm not inclined to do the research, partly because it would take a long time but mainly because I don't regard legality as the primary issue in this discussion.
IMHO by far the most important issue, which Bob and several others have been emphasising and you now appear to accept (?) is set out in your final sentence:
Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again?
Any injury/fatality is obviously a serious matter but I have no reason to believe that it is a major issue relative to the frequency of the practice in many parts of the world.
It may be. I don't know the statistics.
FL: I have been immersed in the practice of shutting down SE on innumerable occasions during HEMS (which we were 24/7). Every single time I landed - many of which were in inaccessible and often hostile places - I shut down. Sometimes just to swoop and scoop. Did I consciously decide NOT to shut down because I couldn't be arsed? NO. Why, well because the RFM said NO and also because it made sound sense to shut down (trying to monitor and maintain a safe zone around a chopper burning and turning close to strangers/obstructions/animals etc)...even though I always had the thought that maybe, just maybe she may not start again!
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope. It is very poor airmanship to say the least. How can anyone manage a 2 tonne hand grenade from a distance???
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency). Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.
I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.
Of course, this situation is rare and infrequent (being killed by your own helicopter) but the infrequency is not the issue.
The whole point of this argument is that it may well be practiced a lot in certain parts of the industry's but it isn't RIGHT.
[For the same reason that most people drive above the speed limit most of the time - but it isn't right and if you go there - expect and accept your punishment...but DO NOT defend what you did .
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope. It is very poor airmanship to say the least. How can anyone manage a 2 tonne hand grenade from a distance???
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency). Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.
I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.
Of course, this situation is rare and infrequent (being killed by your own helicopter) but the infrequency is not the issue.
The whole point of this argument is that it may well be practiced a lot in certain parts of the industry's but it isn't RIGHT.
[For the same reason that most people drive above the speed limit most of the time - but it isn't right and if you go there - expect and accept your punishment...but DO NOT defend what you did .
.
TC :
Well, there would be twice less pictures in the "Top of the World" topic ... 
.
TC :
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended
.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
I recall a fairly recent tragic accident not far from here. A man was working on his car, which was on a hydraulic jack. It was not properly supported in that it did not have a secondary method if the jack failed.
He went underneath the car to work on it. Now, we all know that doing this involves a level of risk. Undoubtedly, so did he.
He took the risk, thinking it would probably be all right because the jack had never failed before. But it wasn't. The jack did fail. The car fell on him and crushed him to death. In front of his young son, who frantically tried to lift the car off his father.
My own car is being worked on just now. I jacked it up. I can do as I please with regard to safety because there is no rule telling me what I can and cannot do.
I have axle stands under it. Now it is on axle stands I have lowered and reset the jack, which now backs up the axle stands.
My point here is that safety is about learning from others. No-one should have to make all the mistakes that others have made in the past. If we don't, there is no point having a flight safety system, or training, or regulations and we are, quite frankly, stupid.
The regulations are often there because the authority knows something that others may miss or forget with the passage of time. As wrote earlier, in UK at least it isn't allowed to leave a helicopter's rotors running without a qualified pilot at the controls. Some here consider that rule unnecessary but may have over-riding reasons.
All that can be said now is RIP this poor pilot and the bereaved family. Sadly, something went tragically wrong with what he did, either a human failing, or a mechanical failure of some sort. The report doesn't say which was the ultimate cause of the accident. Hopefully the company involved (and some others) will review their procedures to see if the risk of a further occurrence of this nature can be lowered.
Intensive "Nit picking" and playing with words, merely to try to trip up other contributors, achieves very little except to make those involved look rather silly, imho.
Hopefully a moderator can RIP this thread, too...... because it's achieving nothing
He went underneath the car to work on it. Now, we all know that doing this involves a level of risk. Undoubtedly, so did he.
He took the risk, thinking it would probably be all right because the jack had never failed before. But it wasn't. The jack did fail. The car fell on him and crushed him to death. In front of his young son, who frantically tried to lift the car off his father.
My own car is being worked on just now. I jacked it up. I can do as I please with regard to safety because there is no rule telling me what I can and cannot do.
I have axle stands under it. Now it is on axle stands I have lowered and reset the jack, which now backs up the axle stands.
My point here is that safety is about learning from others. No-one should have to make all the mistakes that others have made in the past. If we don't, there is no point having a flight safety system, or training, or regulations and we are, quite frankly, stupid.
The regulations are often there because the authority knows something that others may miss or forget with the passage of time. As wrote earlier, in UK at least it isn't allowed to leave a helicopter's rotors running without a qualified pilot at the controls. Some here consider that rule unnecessary but may have over-riding reasons.
All that can be said now is RIP this poor pilot and the bereaved family. Sadly, something went tragically wrong with what he did, either a human failing, or a mechanical failure of some sort. The report doesn't say which was the ultimate cause of the accident. Hopefully the company involved (and some others) will review their procedures to see if the risk of a further occurrence of this nature can be lowered.
Intensive "Nit picking" and playing with words, merely to try to trip up other contributors, achieves very little except to make those involved look rather silly, imho.
Hopefully a moderator can RIP this thread, too...... because it's achieving nothing
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope.
It is very poor airmanship to say the least.
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency).
Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.
I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.
It is very poor airmanship to say the least.
I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency).
Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM.
I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty.
So TC, despite the Thousands of Pilots around the World, and the Hundreds of Thousands of times all this has been done with absolutely no problem, that there is no Legal Prohibition against the Practice in the vast majority of Authorities
Surely, you do not think acting in compliance with all the Rules, Regs, Laws, Safety Notices, Approved RFM's and the like within One's own Authority's Jurisdiction constitutes "Poor Airmanship or worse" do you?
If so, where does that leave You when you do that in the UK?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC (and others), your argument is invalid.
From herein I am only referring to exiting a machine while it is running in a place where the country, manufacturer, operator and pilot allow it. Not this particular accident. Also I believe in some situations National Authorities can overrule manufacturers eg. allowing non-genuine parts to be installed.
In your last argument you compare it to driving above the speed limit, I assume where you wouldn't. That is the incorrect analogy to use here.
It is more comparable to driving at 30 in a 30 zone and then as you move into a 60 zone increasing your speed to 60 - yes there is more risk associated with travelling a bit faster but perfectly legal and more importantly more convenient. You may even decide to stay at 30, or only speed up to 58 (I'm picturing you in this group) - that is your choice. But to say everyone who commits this heinous act is demonstrating poor airmanship (poor choice of word given the argument) is just silly.
Have you ever crossed a road? Perfectly legal in most cases. Quite possible to do it safely but I bet you stop, look both ways, make sure it's clear and then cross - as we all do. We have all been taught to do this from a young age, managing and accepting risk at a level we deem safe enough vs convenience.
If it is an increase of risk that is concerning you, please let us know what risk you are willing to accept. Give it to us in odds if you like. I know of about half a dozen machines that have flown away without anybody driving - I am sure there have been more and in all likelihood there will be more. This most recent case, if that is what happened is the only injury/death I have heard of.
I suspect more harm has come from bird strikes, not a lot you can do about them so I suspect you accept that risk. Likewise from the moment you hit the starter you start accepting various levels, some more than others.
You asked for some sound reasons for doing it so I shall try.
Convenience - swapping seats between long-lining and passenger ops, hooking on your long-line, unloading passengers, taking a piss, loading passengers.
Safety - checking for leaks, unloading and loading passengers (I can assure you it is much easier to keep people away if your out of the machine rather than sitting in waiting for the blades to stop). How many times have you noticed people start approaching the helicopter as soon as the engines/noise stop, generally the engines pose no risk at all but the blades will do substantial damage even at slow speeds.
Have all of your passengers always listened to you? Mine haven't, I have literally raced people out of the machine as to stop them getting out and into the spinning bit at the back after being told to wait inside. People get excited and confused and do stupid things.
Also you mention infrequency not being the issue - I think it demonstrates just how safe it actually is. Machines would be left running without pilots, with an educated guess, thousands of times a day. How many times has this happened? I accept those odds.
All I'm saying is it is ok to remain at 30 if that suits you but don't go telling everyone else they are Darwin candidates if they choose to drive at 60.
From herein I am only referring to exiting a machine while it is running in a place where the country, manufacturer, operator and pilot allow it. Not this particular accident. Also I believe in some situations National Authorities can overrule manufacturers eg. allowing non-genuine parts to be installed.
In your last argument you compare it to driving above the speed limit, I assume where you wouldn't. That is the incorrect analogy to use here.
It is more comparable to driving at 30 in a 30 zone and then as you move into a 60 zone increasing your speed to 60 - yes there is more risk associated with travelling a bit faster but perfectly legal and more importantly more convenient. You may even decide to stay at 30, or only speed up to 58 (I'm picturing you in this group) - that is your choice. But to say everyone who commits this heinous act is demonstrating poor airmanship (poor choice of word given the argument) is just silly.
Have you ever crossed a road? Perfectly legal in most cases. Quite possible to do it safely but I bet you stop, look both ways, make sure it's clear and then cross - as we all do. We have all been taught to do this from a young age, managing and accepting risk at a level we deem safe enough vs convenience.
If it is an increase of risk that is concerning you, please let us know what risk you are willing to accept. Give it to us in odds if you like. I know of about half a dozen machines that have flown away without anybody driving - I am sure there have been more and in all likelihood there will be more. This most recent case, if that is what happened is the only injury/death I have heard of.
I suspect more harm has come from bird strikes, not a lot you can do about them so I suspect you accept that risk. Likewise from the moment you hit the starter you start accepting various levels, some more than others.
You asked for some sound reasons for doing it so I shall try.
Convenience - swapping seats between long-lining and passenger ops, hooking on your long-line, unloading passengers, taking a piss, loading passengers.
Safety - checking for leaks, unloading and loading passengers (I can assure you it is much easier to keep people away if your out of the machine rather than sitting in waiting for the blades to stop). How many times have you noticed people start approaching the helicopter as soon as the engines/noise stop, generally the engines pose no risk at all but the blades will do substantial damage even at slow speeds.
Have all of your passengers always listened to you? Mine haven't, I have literally raced people out of the machine as to stop them getting out and into the spinning bit at the back after being told to wait inside. People get excited and confused and do stupid things.
Also you mention infrequency not being the issue - I think it demonstrates just how safe it actually is. Machines would be left running without pilots, with an educated guess, thousands of times a day. How many times has this happened? I accept those odds.
All I'm saying is it is ok to remain at 30 if that suits you but don't go telling everyone else they are Darwin candidates if they choose to drive at 60.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fij, Are you not concerned about damage to that Village over the horizon about a hundred miles away, should something happen?
Gross negligence, Squire!
I guess some would have us carrying an empty plastic milk jug along to Pee in rather than stepping out and taking a quick stretch and pee break like Lorry Drivers do!
Gross negligence, Squire!
I guess some would have us carrying an empty plastic milk jug along to Pee in rather than stepping out and taking a quick stretch and pee break like Lorry Drivers do!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
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 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.
30-May-13 PR-DJC Eurocopter EC130 Guaramiranga, Brazil | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
SGA NOTÍCIAS: Empresário José Carlos Pontes ferido em acidente passa por cirurgia e não corre risco de morte
Acidente com helicóptero deixa empresário ferido - CNEWS
Balada In | Pompeu Vasconcelos | Helicóptero cai em Guaramiranga
Flight Safety should never be allowed to be a matter of luck!
Your position: The pilot acted unlawfully.
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.
30-May-13 PR-DJC Eurocopter EC130 Guaramiranga, Brazil | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
The aircraft was on the ground and the rotors were turning, when the pilot left the cockpit in order to assist the passengers to disembark. The aircraft tumbled to the left, when nobody was in control. One of the passengers already in the helicopter - José Carlos Pontes, 61, president of the group Marquise - suffered serious injuries after one of the main blades amputated his leg
Acidente com helicóptero deixa empresário ferido - CNEWS
Balada In | Pompeu Vasconcelos | Helicóptero cai em Guaramiranga
Flight Safety should never be allowed to be a matter of luck!
"Just a pilot"
Sisloesid-
"At rest" is stationary, no longer moving. Landing is the process of putting a flying aircraft on the ground, as in "landing aircraft have the right of way". An aircraft that has landed might taxi to it's resting position. A helicopter can be at rest with turning rotors.
You might not be able to think of a good reason to leave the pilot's seat with the rotors turning, that doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to do so. Accidents that occur after the pilot left the pilot seat don't prove that the practice is unsafe anymore than accidents that happen with a pilot at the controls prove that unsafe. There are ways of reducing risk in both circumstances, and as far as I know this pilot was blameless, it might have happened with all the best practices complete and in place.
Boudreaux Bob
I don't fly a B3.
"At rest" is stationary, no longer moving. Landing is the process of putting a flying aircraft on the ground, as in "landing aircraft have the right of way". An aircraft that has landed might taxi to it's resting position. A helicopter can be at rest with turning rotors.
You might not be able to think of a good reason to leave the pilot's seat with the rotors turning, that doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to do so. Accidents that occur after the pilot left the pilot seat don't prove that the practice is unsafe anymore than accidents that happen with a pilot at the controls prove that unsafe. There are ways of reducing risk in both circumstances, and as far as I know this pilot was blameless, it might have happened with all the best practices complete and in place.
Boudreaux Bob
I don't fly a B3.
