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
The Airman's Information Manual (AIM) contains "recommended" practices yet during an FAA Investigation into some alleged violation of the FAR's those procedures are often cited by the FAA.
Just as AC's are not obligatory, neither is the AIM but the FAA or a Defense Counsel can make reference to either.
It would be up to the Judge to determine the weight and value the information would hold.
The Regulation trumps both the AC and AIM. OpSpecs also trumps the AC and AIM.
One cannot consider the FAR itself to be as written due to the interpretation of those FAR's by Judges and the FAA Legal Counsel.
Two examples is the "Careless and Reckless" Regulation and the Definition of a "Congested Area". Both have been further defined by Court Cases beyond the mere text of the Regulation.
Just as AC's are not obligatory, neither is the AIM but the FAA or a Defense Counsel can make reference to either.
It would be up to the Judge to determine the weight and value the information would hold.
The Regulation trumps both the AC and AIM. OpSpecs also trumps the AC and AIM.
One cannot consider the FAR itself to be as written due to the interpretation of those FAR's by Judges and the FAA Legal Counsel.
Two examples is the "Careless and Reckless" Regulation and the Definition of a "Congested Area". Both have been further defined by Court Cases beyond the mere text of the Regulation.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be up to the Judge to determine the weight and value the information would hold.
POMPOUS
10 + pages of comments put together in the majority by a bunch of righteous, pompous tossers, engrossed in self-importance citing RFMs, AOPs, legalities, authorities, what have you, fighting on nationalistic differences over an event with a fatality
which probably would not have happened if the principles of airmanship would have been adhered to.
You guys remember what airmanship is? Not cast in stone, nor laid down in legal definitions, but a skill that was applied since whoever it was, first took off. (New nationality bashing looms) And it developped over the decades.
Now we seem to have reached a point in aviation where it is a non-skill, because it is difficult to put it into a manual.
B.t.w. is it clever to put a running chainsaw on the ground next to you?
Is it illegal? Is it done somewhere in the world? On a regular basis?
Beware of tossers.
which probably would not have happened if the principles of airmanship would have been adhered to.
You guys remember what airmanship is? Not cast in stone, nor laid down in legal definitions, but a skill that was applied since whoever it was, first took off. (New nationality bashing looms) And it developped over the decades.
Now we seem to have reached a point in aviation where it is a non-skill, because it is difficult to put it into a manual.
B.t.w. is it clever to put a running chainsaw on the ground next to you?
Is it illegal? Is it done somewhere in the world? On a regular basis?
Beware of tossers.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Bob, when does the bleeding obvious ever register in your risk addled brain?
Leaving a helicopter running, and it subsequently taking off and killing you is VERY OBVIOUSLY fraught with danger otherwise you would not have been killed.
No matter what the ICAO states permits, the overall requirement is to comply with the CofA, upon which it states thou shall operate IAW the Flight Manual.
To operate outside the limitations of the flight manual you would need the agreement of the "Holy Trinity" being, the Type Certificate Holder,the state in which the Type Certificate was issued and of course, the State in which you operate.
Therefore, it does not matter that FAA allow this practice, they are also duty bound to ensure that the practice does not occur on those types with a prohibition in the Flight Manual, unless they have agreed, along with the other two ofthe Trinity.
What you fail to accept is at best, this practice is inherently extremely hazardous, and it worse, people get killed to maimed. Therefore given the experience you have surely you would council against such a practice, to those of us less senior than you, instead of peddling the bush pilot mentality that it is safe. It is not. The family of the pilot you feel the need to support in his excision, would no doubt strongly disagree with you.
The arguments made in support of this practice just go to show the stupidity some people will accept to get a job done. For example, operating a SEH out on a limb in the Artic such that shutting down would cost you your life is just plain stupid when you consider the myriad of malfunctions that could require an immediate landing ( and by your argument) certain death.
The only thing we have to do to ensure these horrible accidents keep happening, which lets face it do nothing to promote our industry, is to do NOTHING. To keep on peddling the bollocks that jobs cannot be done without this risk.
I mean in Oz, the only reason to do the is because time is money. There is no other acceptable reason. Counting cows for Christs sake!
So instead of preaching heresy lets hear you stand up for the progression of safety so that other young men do not get killed because a few old and bold sweats have neither the balls or intelligence to argue against it and tackle the underlying reasons and circumstances that lead you to believe the practice is necessary.
DB
Leaving a helicopter running, and it subsequently taking off and killing you is VERY OBVIOUSLY fraught with danger otherwise you would not have been killed.
No matter what the ICAO states permits, the overall requirement is to comply with the CofA, upon which it states thou shall operate IAW the Flight Manual.
To operate outside the limitations of the flight manual you would need the agreement of the "Holy Trinity" being, the Type Certificate Holder,the state in which the Type Certificate was issued and of course, the State in which you operate.
Therefore, it does not matter that FAA allow this practice, they are also duty bound to ensure that the practice does not occur on those types with a prohibition in the Flight Manual, unless they have agreed, along with the other two ofthe Trinity.
What you fail to accept is at best, this practice is inherently extremely hazardous, and it worse, people get killed to maimed. Therefore given the experience you have surely you would council against such a practice, to those of us less senior than you, instead of peddling the bush pilot mentality that it is safe. It is not. The family of the pilot you feel the need to support in his excision, would no doubt strongly disagree with you.
The arguments made in support of this practice just go to show the stupidity some people will accept to get a job done. For example, operating a SEH out on a limb in the Artic such that shutting down would cost you your life is just plain stupid when you consider the myriad of malfunctions that could require an immediate landing ( and by your argument) certain death.
The only thing we have to do to ensure these horrible accidents keep happening, which lets face it do nothing to promote our industry, is to do NOTHING. To keep on peddling the bollocks that jobs cannot be done without this risk.
I mean in Oz, the only reason to do the is because time is money. There is no other acceptable reason. Counting cows for Christs sake!
So instead of preaching heresy lets hear you stand up for the progression of safety so that other young men do not get killed because a few old and bold sweats have neither the balls or intelligence to argue against it and tackle the underlying reasons and circumstances that lead you to believe the practice is necessary.
DB
Boudreaux Bob: You aren't SASless are you by any chance (
). A bell in every tooth as we say over here (I detect that you are very fond of driving a wedge between us and you at every opportunity, it seems).
So permit me to make several points very clear and in plain 'Americanese':
The ONLY difference I make between us and you in this domain is the assessment of risk. IMHO, yanks push the envelope / interpret the regs much more loosely than we do (generally). Sometimes you get away with it, others - you don't. I tend to believe the UK are more subserviant to the rules/regs/legislation. Could be a good thing, might not.
Secondly - let me try to understand your stance with this irreconcilable episode:
The FAR trumps Ops Specs, (
)
Ops Specs trumps the AC and the AiM. (
)
The RFM limitation section trumps national regs? [That's a question for you].
Notwithstanding all of the above, you quote the following:
For the 350B3, the restriction to stay with the helo while rotors are turning - is removed. (Agreed).
For the 350B3 - the requirement to remain with the helicopter rotors turning during 'flight time' remains. (Agreed).
But are you also saying that:
(a) National regs trump RFM's?
(b) Flight time doesn't include ticking over on the ground rotors running?
(c) Flight time only means: "for the purpose of logging hours" and is an administrative regulation not an operational one?
As the unfortunate recipient of a sharp sudden demise climbed out of the aircraft, did he:
(a) Not understand Section 2, Page 11, 350B3 RFM: Minimum Crew?
(b) Interpret the above as: Min crew is only relevant to flight time and flight time is an admin reg therefore it doesn't apply to what I am doing operationally?
(c) Assume everything would be fine because he'd done it dozen's of times before.
There are two ways of approaching this scenario professionally:
1. Follow the limitations laid down by the manufacturer in the RFM.
2. If no limitations - then as a matter of course - safely secure said aircraft before disembarking.
(Assuming there was no serious malfunction) he appears to have done neither.
So we return to my opening statement: RISK.
RISK = Frequency x Outcome.
Perhaps the left hand side of this formula is more heavily weighted in the US of A than it might be here.
What is indisputable though, is that because of his fallibilities in the decision making department - there was a catastrophic outcome...and it was entirely and categorically avoidable. Thank Allah - no-one else was injured or killed.
I therefore strongly recommend this candidate for the Darwin Trophy. RiP.
DB - one helluva bulls eye post - you old git.
TheChopper - got it in one. - None so blind as those who will not see.........
). A bell in every tooth as we say over here (I detect that you are very fond of driving a wedge between us and you at every opportunity, it seems).So permit me to make several points very clear and in plain 'Americanese':
The ONLY difference I make between us and you in this domain is the assessment of risk. IMHO, yanks push the envelope / interpret the regs much more loosely than we do (generally). Sometimes you get away with it, others - you don't. I tend to believe the UK are more subserviant to the rules/regs/legislation. Could be a good thing, might not.
Secondly - let me try to understand your stance with this irreconcilable episode:
The FAR trumps Ops Specs, (
)Ops Specs trumps the AC and the AiM. (
)The RFM limitation section trumps national regs? [That's a question for you].
Notwithstanding all of the above, you quote the following:
For the 350B3, the restriction to stay with the helo while rotors are turning - is removed. (Agreed).
For the 350B3 - the requirement to remain with the helicopter rotors turning during 'flight time' remains. (Agreed).
But are you also saying that:
(a) National regs trump RFM's?
(b) Flight time doesn't include ticking over on the ground rotors running?
(c) Flight time only means: "for the purpose of logging hours" and is an administrative regulation not an operational one?
As the unfortunate recipient of a sharp sudden demise climbed out of the aircraft, did he:
(a) Not understand Section 2, Page 11, 350B3 RFM: Minimum Crew?
(b) Interpret the above as: Min crew is only relevant to flight time and flight time is an admin reg therefore it doesn't apply to what I am doing operationally?
(c) Assume everything would be fine because he'd done it dozen's of times before.
There are two ways of approaching this scenario professionally:
1. Follow the limitations laid down by the manufacturer in the RFM.
2. If no limitations - then as a matter of course - safely secure said aircraft before disembarking.
(Assuming there was no serious malfunction) he appears to have done neither.
So we return to my opening statement: RISK.
RISK = Frequency x Outcome.
Perhaps the left hand side of this formula is more heavily weighted in the US of A than it might be here.
What is indisputable though, is that because of his fallibilities in the decision making department - there was a catastrophic outcome...and it was entirely and categorically avoidable. Thank Allah - no-one else was injured or killed.
I therefore strongly recommend this candidate for the Darwin Trophy. RiP.
DB - one helluva bulls eye post - you old git.
TheChopper - got it in one. - None so blind as those who will not see.........
It's interesting...funny, really. There are those who absolutely believe (because they've been told?) that leaving a helicopter running without a pilot in the seat is...DANGEROUS!
It is not.
On a solid surface, with the rotor/engine at idle, and with the controls suitably immobilized, a turbine helicopter will happily run all day long until it runs out of fuel. The collective will not "jump up" to full travel. The ship will not spontaneously explode or roll over. Random gusts of wind will not upset it and cause it to destroy itself. Nothing happens. Nothing will happen.
Let me repeat: I have never, ever, EVER been in a helicopter on the ground, at idle when a "gust of wind" caused the rotor to do something...anything...that required a control input from me. With the cyclic stationary, if the rotor flaps it will be brought back to level. That's how the linkage works. I have never, ever, ever had a helicopter roll over while I was in it at idle. And in any event, the cyclic has limited effectiveness with the rotor at idle. If your aircraft begins to roll over while you're sitting there at idle, there is nothing you can do- it's going over. You cannot *snap* the throttle open fast enough. Just ask those New York Airways pilots on the roof of the Pan Am Building what they did when they did when their S-61 rolled over on them.
A pilot in the seat with the rotor turning CANNOT see anyone approaching from the rear, especially the rear quadrant on the opposite side of that which he is sitting. A pilot in the seat CANNOT physically do anything to prevent anyone from approaching the helicopter from any quadrant. He can shout, and even gesture wildly, but there is really nothing he can do.
Leaving a helicopter idling without anyone in the pilot's seat is not "inherently dangerous" or hazardous or risky...IF DONE PROPERLY.
Unfortunately, the FAA is in a quandary here. As already reported, their own definition of pilot flight time is "skids-off to skids-on." So they cannot really say we *must* stay in the seat with the rotors turning. Because if they did we'd say, "Why? Because we are acting as PIC with the rotors turning, hmm? And so then we can log PIC time, hmm?" I assure you they do not want to open that can o'worms.
I say now the same thing as I said before: Let's wait and see what the pilot did or did not do when he got out. Did he do everything "properly"...i.e. did he reduce the power to idle and secure the controls, and was he on solid ground? Because if he actually did all those things, the Astar "shouldn't" have rolled over. So let's wait and see. We'll know soon enough.
It is not.
On a solid surface, with the rotor/engine at idle, and with the controls suitably immobilized, a turbine helicopter will happily run all day long until it runs out of fuel. The collective will not "jump up" to full travel. The ship will not spontaneously explode or roll over. Random gusts of wind will not upset it and cause it to destroy itself. Nothing happens. Nothing will happen.
Let me repeat: I have never, ever, EVER been in a helicopter on the ground, at idle when a "gust of wind" caused the rotor to do something...anything...that required a control input from me. With the cyclic stationary, if the rotor flaps it will be brought back to level. That's how the linkage works. I have never, ever, ever had a helicopter roll over while I was in it at idle. And in any event, the cyclic has limited effectiveness with the rotor at idle. If your aircraft begins to roll over while you're sitting there at idle, there is nothing you can do- it's going over. You cannot *snap* the throttle open fast enough. Just ask those New York Airways pilots on the roof of the Pan Am Building what they did when they did when their S-61 rolled over on them.
A pilot in the seat with the rotor turning CANNOT see anyone approaching from the rear, especially the rear quadrant on the opposite side of that which he is sitting. A pilot in the seat CANNOT physically do anything to prevent anyone from approaching the helicopter from any quadrant. He can shout, and even gesture wildly, but there is really nothing he can do.
Leaving a helicopter idling without anyone in the pilot's seat is not "inherently dangerous" or hazardous or risky...IF DONE PROPERLY.
Unfortunately, the FAA is in a quandary here. As already reported, their own definition of pilot flight time is "skids-off to skids-on." So they cannot really say we *must* stay in the seat with the rotors turning. Because if they did we'd say, "Why? Because we are acting as PIC with the rotors turning, hmm? And so then we can log PIC time, hmm?" I assure you they do not want to open that can o'worms.
I say now the same thing as I said before: Let's wait and see what the pilot did or did not do when he got out. Did he do everything "properly"...i.e. did he reduce the power to idle and secure the controls, and was he on solid ground? Because if he actually did all those things, the Astar "shouldn't" have rolled over. So let's wait and see. We'll know soon enough.
Thanks
Thanks TC
Who cares whether whatever the "boy" did was legal, i.a.w. a manual or whatever; it was not applying airmanship
Sadly! Even if it was legit, it was stupid. If you have the right of way and get killed in the process what does mean to your family but a sad unnecessary loss. Machinery every so often does not act as advertised, live with it and don't blame others. Take responsibility !!!!
Good book around if anybody cares "The death of common sense"
One of my favourites for CRM training
Who cares whether whatever the "boy" did was legal, i.a.w. a manual or whatever; it was not applying airmanship
Sadly! Even if it was legit, it was stupid. If you have the right of way and get killed in the process what does mean to your family but a sad unnecessary loss. Machinery every so often does not act as advertised, live with it and don't blame others. Take responsibility !!!!
Good book around if anybody cares "The death of common sense"
One of my favourites for CRM training
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was stupid.
I therefore strongly recommend this candidate for the Darwin Trophy. RiP.
Therefore, it does not matter that FAA allow this practice...
The arguments made in support of this practice just go to show the stupidity some people will accept to get a job done. For example, operating a SEH out on a limb in the Artic such that shutting down would cost you your life is just plain stupid when you consider the myriad of malfunctions that could require an immediate landing ( and by your argument) certain death.
10 + pages of comments put together in the majority by a bunch of righteous, pompous tossers...
Getting rather drafty up there on that High Horse is it?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
...request to...a link to the page in the B3e FM that states how the controls should be secured?
Lost for words finally Bob?
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.
If you read the thread from beginning to end it is littered with several examples of cabs rolling over/getting airborne "on their own". I have seen a cab roll over without anyone in it and rotors stopped. I have flown helicopters where they have attempted to get airborne withe collective down and latched at idle.
FFS sunshine where have you been all these years. Do you remotely understand any of the basics of dynamic instability? Helo's are by their very nature (under power) UNSTABLE.
Perleeeeze - don't embarass yourself any further and come out with such crass comments. It makes you sound like a dork! Are you from the same gene pool perhaps?
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.
If you read the thread from beginning to end it is littered with several examples of cabs rolling over/getting airborne "on their own". I have seen a cab roll over without anyone in it and rotors stopped. I have flown helicopters where they have attempted to get airborne withe collective down and latched at idle.
FFS sunshine where have you been all these years. Do you remotely understand any of the basics of dynamic instability? Helo's are by their very nature (under power) UNSTABLE.
Perleeeeze - don't embarass yourself any further and come out with such crass comments. It makes you sound like a dork! Are you from the same gene pool perhaps?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
And your point is?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
If you provide the page/paragraph number that you're looking for or an example from any other Airbus Helicopter product manual, I'd be glad to post up what you're looking for.
Unfortunately. Without a manual, I cannot tell you the page/paragraph number on which the method on securing the controls is described. If you have a copy of the B3e manual, I would be grateful if you could have a browse
Bob, let it be known that I mostly criticise the 'system', not the person.
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!
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SilsoeSid
Unfortunately. Without a manual, I cannot tell you the page/paragraph number on which the method on securing the controls is described. If you have a copy of the B3e manual, I would be grateful if you could have a browse
Would you care to try a different bait for your troll?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
JE, sorry to have upset you. All I would like to know is whether or not there are instructions in the B3e FM for the securing of the controls when leaving the rotors running.
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.
Really not that complicated. The B3 2B1 specifically states you can't leave the controls, the B3e does not. Therefore, those of at least average intelligence could surmise that there is no such prohibition in the FM for the B3e.
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: between sun and sand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because somebody is not allowed, doesn't mean others, or the whole world?, shouldn't been allowed as well. In this respect Britain, or some of
my fellow aviators there, would do better looking at other countries to get back a bit of common sense, and perhaps a better accident record; Bob's your uncle
my fellow aviators there, would do better looking at other countries to get back a bit of common sense, and perhaps a better accident record; Bob's your uncle
JeCotterall: Ah, you're new here...
What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?
What is your definition of flight crew?
Please - for the audience and those with average intelligence?
What (to you) then does the first line of para 2.1.2 say and more importantly...mean?
What is your definition of flight crew?
Please - for the audience and those with average intelligence?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find threads like this illuminating.
They remind me that nobody can possibly see it all, yet we all make judgements on others based on the limited prism through which we view the world.
I had a lot more to write, but elect not to post it, no need to add to the ridiculous carry on happening here.
They remind me that nobody can possibly see it all, yet we all make judgements on others based on the limited prism through which we view the world.
I had a lot more to write, but elect not to post it, no need to add to the ridiculous carry on happening here.