Helicopter accidents
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter accidents
There still seems to be far too many fatal accidents around the world, one can understand if it's war time activity but not general flying.
At Flight Safety in Florida some 20 years ago, one of their excellent instructors had done a very comprehensive check on all accidents around the world. His startling finding was that 94 % ( I hope my memory is correct!) were caused by pilot error & only 6 % by mechanical failure. This seemed unbelievable but he showed me the figures & it looked true.
He included in pilot error cases where mechanical failure was incorrectly handled leading to a fatal accident. For example a S 76 had a number 1 engine fire but closed down number 2 & then number 1 failed. Above cloud, over hills, result 14 dead. A Wessex 5 had a number 1 run away up, closed down number 2, number 1 then over speed tripped, result 4 dead.
The accidents in the last few months all look like they could have a pilot problem causing the fatalities. CFIT is common, everyone knows it's dangerous but it still happens too often.
What can be done to avoid these unnecessary deaths? During 45 years of various types of flying in dangerous countries like Borneo, PNG, Tasmania & other places, it struck me it was important to learn to fly in such a manner that you didn't cause an accident, a bit like learning defensive driving when you learn to drive a car.
What do other guys think or am I wasting my time?
At Flight Safety in Florida some 20 years ago, one of their excellent instructors had done a very comprehensive check on all accidents around the world. His startling finding was that 94 % ( I hope my memory is correct!) were caused by pilot error & only 6 % by mechanical failure. This seemed unbelievable but he showed me the figures & it looked true.
He included in pilot error cases where mechanical failure was incorrectly handled leading to a fatal accident. For example a S 76 had a number 1 engine fire but closed down number 2 & then number 1 failed. Above cloud, over hills, result 14 dead. A Wessex 5 had a number 1 run away up, closed down number 2, number 1 then over speed tripped, result 4 dead.
The accidents in the last few months all look like they could have a pilot problem causing the fatalities. CFIT is common, everyone knows it's dangerous but it still happens too often.
What can be done to avoid these unnecessary deaths? During 45 years of various types of flying in dangerous countries like Borneo, PNG, Tasmania & other places, it struck me it was important to learn to fly in such a manner that you didn't cause an accident, a bit like learning defensive driving when you learn to drive a car.
What do other guys think or am I wasting my time?
40 years of recording helicopter accidents in "Accident Spot" in Heli Int tells me that the survey is not far off,Time and time I see the same simple mistakes repeated.
The wise words I took in many years ago were" Don't fly if you've just had a row with the wife" and discipline yourself to always carry out a full preflight check,irrespective of of any previous check done. Bottom line is ,most accidents are caused by pilot inattention,not error?
The wise words I took in many years ago were" Don't fly if you've just had a row with the wife" and discipline yourself to always carry out a full preflight check,irrespective of of any previous check done. Bottom line is ,most accidents are caused by pilot inattention,not error?
CRM, MCC, Human Factors.....where have you been Nigel?
Human error will always be the number one problem because it is completely out of the control of the "system". Everything else is black or white or fixable.
The best pilot in the world can leave for work this morning after a stonking argument with his family and go onto crash the aeroplane.
Human nature. And until pilots are removed from cockpits (which won't be long now) this will never be resolved.
Human error will always be the number one problem because it is completely out of the control of the "system". Everything else is black or white or fixable.
The best pilot in the world can leave for work this morning after a stonking argument with his family and go onto crash the aeroplane.
Human nature. And until pilots are removed from cockpits (which won't be long now) this will never be resolved.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask the authorities to allow more use of simple helicopters, less to go wrong and less for the pilot to have to work out under stress.
eg, single engine and single fuel tank and allow auto pilot use on them.
That way pilot does not shut down the wrong engine, select the wrong fuel tank switch or have to see in the cloud because the auto pilot could take over.
Unfortunately the authorities over regulate and think they know better mandating over complicated machines in the name of safety.
eg, single engine and single fuel tank and allow auto pilot use on them.
That way pilot does not shut down the wrong engine, select the wrong fuel tank switch or have to see in the cloud because the auto pilot could take over.
Unfortunately the authorities over regulate and think they know better mandating over complicated machines in the name of safety.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not wasting your time at all Nigel.
From your residence area in OZ you will have seen a repulsive wave of accidents these last few years in the Mustering Industry.
Not trying to predict anything but there is a determined push from some in Industry and CASA to address these very problems after the previous mentoring programs from the bigger companies all ran down.
I just pray that when I say, watch this space there will be some gaps filled in over the space of the next twelve months or so..
The OZ ag industry has a way to go as well. Jungle talk suggests a couple of years back that we over here had the same number of accidents as in the states but, (drum roll) only one tenth the number of aircraft as is used in the US
cheers tet
From your residence area in OZ you will have seen a repulsive wave of accidents these last few years in the Mustering Industry.
Not trying to predict anything but there is a determined push from some in Industry and CASA to address these very problems after the previous mentoring programs from the bigger companies all ran down.
I just pray that when I say, watch this space there will be some gaps filled in over the space of the next twelve months or so..
The OZ ag industry has a way to go as well. Jungle talk suggests a couple of years back that we over here had the same number of accidents as in the states but, (drum roll) only one tenth the number of aircraft as is used in the US
cheers tet
I think there are a few things that could be improved on the human factors side and actually it wouldn’t take very much effort because the structures already exist.
The first thing that is required is greater resourcing at the AAIB so that they might be able to engage and report in both a timely manner and without having to rely on manufacturer resources. It surely can not be seen as desirable to have the situation, as we saw with the EC225, where we saw effectively an educated punt on the problem until aircraft No.2 ended in the sea. Nor can it be desirable to have the timescales we currently have to produce final reports. The EC135 accident in Glasgow reporting is very odd in so far that the process requires a seemingly additional 6 month delay in making a report public because of the input needed from interested parties.
We await to discover how or if human factors played a part in the Glasgow accident but actually if you do nothing but take PPrune as a window into the pilots of the EC135 years before the accident its fuel pump system was unclear to some. It would be amazing if that situation was oblivious to those engaged in the training and ratings for the type.
The AW139 accident that crashed in Norfolk is another one where red flags were waved consistently over the years, again on this forum. This time over the attitude of the owner/operator.
The findings of the accident in central London would suggest 3rd parties would not have been oblivious to the conditions the accident machine was being operated and failed to recognise or exercise control. Same as the S76 just off the top of trees in Kent, this time the co-pilot, yet despite being so terrified by his ordeal he recognised he become unable to speak “No entry was made in the aircraft’s technical log relating to the go-around and no air safety report or MOR was raised”….. The AAIB report for this event coming out over 2 years later!
Neither is there a co-ordinated, communicated or easily searchable set of military accident reports – which if we are looking to resolve human factors would be of great value. Such as the recent ETPS Gazelle tail strike event which looked at EOL’s or lessons from the Squirrel accident with a student pilot from RAF Shawbury. Even if these lessons are simply to identify that even the best of the military can make mistakes – and how quickly and easily things can go wrong - which allows the humble PPL to renew his focus.
All these things should be easy wins because its not as if pilots don’t like to talk or engage. The oil and gas industry have its own safety body, we have our own CAA, we have bodies/organisations dedicated to aviation from The Honourable Company of Air Pilots to the Royal Aero Society, LAA struts, hundreds of flying clubs topped off with LPC’s, type ratings, company training organisations and forums like this. It shouldn’t be hard, it just needs openness and a lack of ego.
The first thing that is required is greater resourcing at the AAIB so that they might be able to engage and report in both a timely manner and without having to rely on manufacturer resources. It surely can not be seen as desirable to have the situation, as we saw with the EC225, where we saw effectively an educated punt on the problem until aircraft No.2 ended in the sea. Nor can it be desirable to have the timescales we currently have to produce final reports. The EC135 accident in Glasgow reporting is very odd in so far that the process requires a seemingly additional 6 month delay in making a report public because of the input needed from interested parties.
We await to discover how or if human factors played a part in the Glasgow accident but actually if you do nothing but take PPrune as a window into the pilots of the EC135 years before the accident its fuel pump system was unclear to some. It would be amazing if that situation was oblivious to those engaged in the training and ratings for the type.
The AW139 accident that crashed in Norfolk is another one where red flags were waved consistently over the years, again on this forum. This time over the attitude of the owner/operator.
The findings of the accident in central London would suggest 3rd parties would not have been oblivious to the conditions the accident machine was being operated and failed to recognise or exercise control. Same as the S76 just off the top of trees in Kent, this time the co-pilot, yet despite being so terrified by his ordeal he recognised he become unable to speak “No entry was made in the aircraft’s technical log relating to the go-around and no air safety report or MOR was raised”….. The AAIB report for this event coming out over 2 years later!
Neither is there a co-ordinated, communicated or easily searchable set of military accident reports – which if we are looking to resolve human factors would be of great value. Such as the recent ETPS Gazelle tail strike event which looked at EOL’s or lessons from the Squirrel accident with a student pilot from RAF Shawbury. Even if these lessons are simply to identify that even the best of the military can make mistakes – and how quickly and easily things can go wrong - which allows the humble PPL to renew his focus.
All these things should be easy wins because its not as if pilots don’t like to talk or engage. The oil and gas industry have its own safety body, we have our own CAA, we have bodies/organisations dedicated to aviation from The Honourable Company of Air Pilots to the Royal Aero Society, LAA struts, hundreds of flying clubs topped off with LPC’s, type ratings, company training organisations and forums like this. It shouldn’t be hard, it just needs openness and a lack of ego.
Pits
Totally agree but I think there are to many bodies & some with vested interests.
As you say
"The EC135 accident in Glasgow reporting is very odd in so far that the process requires a seemingly additional 6 month delay in making a report public because of the input needed from interested parties".
Totally agree but I think there are to many bodies & some with vested interests.
As you say
"The EC135 accident in Glasgow reporting is very odd in so far that the process requires a seemingly additional 6 month delay in making a report public because of the input needed from interested parties".
Chop jock - you haven't changed have you? 
Nigel has simply raised an age old issue which by definition cannot be engineered out of the system. All the authorities can do is legislate to within an inch of the industry's life and prosecute those who break the rules.
BUT,
automation is coming: AG flying will probably be the first. Already one can purchase driverless tractors and farm machinery. We have pilotless helicopters and of course pilotless aeroplanes have been around for decades.
Give it another 20yrs and you will see the first bulk purchase of pilotless cargo planes and many 'mundane' aerial tasks.
Perhaps human factors can be engineered out after all?
Nigel has simply raised an age old issue which by definition cannot be engineered out of the system. All the authorities can do is legislate to within an inch of the industry's life and prosecute those who break the rules.
BUT,
automation is coming: AG flying will probably be the first. Already one can purchase driverless tractors and farm machinery. We have pilotless helicopters and of course pilotless aeroplanes have been around for decades.
Give it another 20yrs and you will see the first bulk purchase of pilotless cargo planes and many 'mundane' aerial tasks.
Perhaps human factors can be engineered out after all?
I guess this will be interesting on the same topic come November..
http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-...viation-Safety
I know Jim Lyons is on this forum from the rotorcraft group so perhaps in between now and then there might be some input and therefore reflection upon recent helicopter accidents in this conference?
http://aerosociety.com/Events/Event-...viation-Safety
I know Jim Lyons is on this forum from the rotorcraft group so perhaps in between now and then there might be some input and therefore reflection upon recent helicopter accidents in this conference?
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
Perhaps human factors can be engineered out after all?
Engineers and designers aren't human, after all.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting comments to my post. Today there are more medium to large helicopters around than 40 years ago & are generally crewed by two pilots & have fancy equipment fitted. So why do these helicopters so often crash due to pilot error? CRM has been around for a long time too, no longer can the captain tell the co-pilot to sit on his hands on approach. If either make a mistake, & we all do, the non flying pilot must speak up & point out the error.
In single engined helicopters the pilot may be should have done a CRM course too as then he can monitor his performance & quietly talk to himself about what is going on & the options available to get himself out of trouble if need be.
High time pilots can & do make mistakes but often due to their experience can realise they have made a mistake & have time to do something about it that the inexperienced may be too slow to notice.
Something must be wrong with the basic training & maybe more importantly their continuation training in later years. I once flew with a Bell 47 pilot who had 8000 hours of bush flying on type & one night he asked me what VRS was about because there had been a Bell 47 accident caused by VRS & he didn't understand the problem. In other words after getting his license years earlier, he had no more training.
So surely there must be more training in general with more emphasis on how to avoid accidents, like an advanced car driving course.
In single engined helicopters the pilot may be should have done a CRM course too as then he can monitor his performance & quietly talk to himself about what is going on & the options available to get himself out of trouble if need be.
High time pilots can & do make mistakes but often due to their experience can realise they have made a mistake & have time to do something about it that the inexperienced may be too slow to notice.
Something must be wrong with the basic training & maybe more importantly their continuation training in later years. I once flew with a Bell 47 pilot who had 8000 hours of bush flying on type & one night he asked me what VRS was about because there had been a Bell 47 accident caused by VRS & he didn't understand the problem. In other words after getting his license years earlier, he had no more training.
So surely there must be more training in general with more emphasis on how to avoid accidents, like an advanced car driving course.
Nigel,
There are a couple of proactive approaches in the past ten years or so, here in Oz and globally. TEM (Threat and Error Management) is part and parcel of the training system now, and CRM is no longer Cockpit but Crew Resource Management, to account for those SP operations.
There are a couple of proactive approaches in the past ten years or so, here in Oz and globally. TEM (Threat and Error Management) is part and parcel of the training system now, and CRM is no longer Cockpit but Crew Resource Management, to account for those SP operations.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread convergence ?
There may be some mileage in reading the thread I started about the selection and training of all kinds of flight instructors. It's running right now if you are interested.
I point this out for I feel strongly that the future of our industry may well depend on creating an instructor population that knows how to teach, has a lot of experience and is technically sound.
With the aid of modern simulators we can make a difference but only if we make every minute in the box count.
G.
I point this out for I feel strongly that the future of our industry may well depend on creating an instructor population that knows how to teach, has a lot of experience and is technically sound.
With the aid of modern simulators we can make a difference but only if we make every minute in the box count.
G.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi John
I am too old to have done the TEM but I did CRM several times & found it worth it.
Although all these flash programs exist, they don't seem to have lessened the incidents of CFIT & other bad decisions. A good friend of mine ex Hobart, about 8000+ hours, very much a vmc pilot, couldn't handle night nor IMC flying, did his first twin conversion on a Bolkow 105 when about 70 years old in PNG. He flew 2 men to crew change in the mountains, the weather was bad so he landed in a paddock to wait for the weather to improve. It didn't so he decided to return to base. He climbed up several 1000 feet, entered cloud & at cruise speed he flew into a mountain that he knew was there. All 3 were killed. He had 3 options, stay the night in the paddock which was safe, not take the direct route over the mountain but fly around it or take the action he did & crash.
He had stacks of mountain experience in Tassie, Indonesia & PNG but never got of top of instrument flying. After leaving Tassie in 1989, he basically was not exposed to much check & training, just the barest minimum. That is my point, even experienced pilots need to be checked on a regular basis & really taught how to avoid accidents. Pretty flying is all very well, keep with 10 feet of altitude, 2 degrees of heading, 5 knots of air speed but don't worry about the deteriorating weather or last light or many other things.
I am too old to have done the TEM but I did CRM several times & found it worth it.
Although all these flash programs exist, they don't seem to have lessened the incidents of CFIT & other bad decisions. A good friend of mine ex Hobart, about 8000+ hours, very much a vmc pilot, couldn't handle night nor IMC flying, did his first twin conversion on a Bolkow 105 when about 70 years old in PNG. He flew 2 men to crew change in the mountains, the weather was bad so he landed in a paddock to wait for the weather to improve. It didn't so he decided to return to base. He climbed up several 1000 feet, entered cloud & at cruise speed he flew into a mountain that he knew was there. All 3 were killed. He had 3 options, stay the night in the paddock which was safe, not take the direct route over the mountain but fly around it or take the action he did & crash.
He had stacks of mountain experience in Tassie, Indonesia & PNG but never got of top of instrument flying. After leaving Tassie in 1989, he basically was not exposed to much check & training, just the barest minimum. That is my point, even experienced pilots need to be checked on a regular basis & really taught how to avoid accidents. Pretty flying is all very well, keep with 10 feet of altitude, 2 degrees of heading, 5 knots of air speed but don't worry about the deteriorating weather or last light or many other things.
.....coming back to unmanned transport flying machines, I believe that the human issue shall not solved at all .... there will be "pilots" or whatsoever on ground, as well as operations planners, maintenance engineers, systems controllers/software designers ....
Of course, we, "flying" pilots shall not be the last link in the chain anymore but I doubt greatly that the accident ratio would benefit a 94% gain.
It should be interesting to get a feed-back in regard with human factors from drones pilots within the armed forces.
Of course, we, "flying" pilots shall not be the last link in the chain anymore but I doubt greatly that the accident ratio would benefit a 94% gain.
It should be interesting to get a feed-back in regard with human factors from drones pilots within the armed forces.
Nigel, like all changes in procedures (or mindsets) there is usually a delay before effects are seen.
You and I come from a generally Australian flying background where checks have been (to put it bluntly) few and far between, against the UK for instance where a 6 month and 13 month type check is required to be signed off in your licence. CASA are changing the checking requirements, eg the HFR, but it is still generally driven by a company rather than the statutory authority in this part of the world.
Part 61 is an overkill and badly contrived, but the principal of a more regular and comprehensive check isn't a bad thing overall. The HFR (helicopter flight review) being every two years is insufficient, especially as I have to do one every 6 months because of my advancing years At least annually is quite justifiable yet this was overlooked by the Part 61 changes even though low flying checks are now called for annually, despite having never been called for previously!
Anyone able to give an input on the FAA requirements?
You and I come from a generally Australian flying background where checks have been (to put it bluntly) few and far between, against the UK for instance where a 6 month and 13 month type check is required to be signed off in your licence. CASA are changing the checking requirements, eg the HFR, but it is still generally driven by a company rather than the statutory authority in this part of the world.
Part 61 is an overkill and badly contrived, but the principal of a more regular and comprehensive check isn't a bad thing overall. The HFR (helicopter flight review) being every two years is insufficient, especially as I have to do one every 6 months because of my advancing years
At least annually is quite justifiable yet this was overlooked by the Part 61 changes even though low flying checks are now called for annually, despite having never been called for previously!Anyone able to give an input on the FAA requirements?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
John - although the checking is frequent, the quality of TREs in Europe is fairly patchy. You will not get a standard ride from one place to another. Contrast that with Transport Canada where, no matter where you are, you will get the exact same standard ride. TC have their problems, but their standardisation is good. You only have to look at the threads on pprune to see how patchy basic training is - somebody puts up a question, and there are 48 different answers where there should really be only one.
From where I sit, we get a wide variety of students from all backgrounds, and I think that the standard of PPL training is critical. The FAA mandate 60 hours of ground school, which must be signed for in the log book and the FAA randomly inspect the schools. None of that happens in the UK - instead, the schools administer the exams! I think at the very least, if you study at one school, you should be examined at another, or by whichever Authority.
The other part of the pattern is attitude and self-esteem. For some reason, if a fork lift driver says that he cannot lift more than 50 packets, everyone believes him. Why don't they believe us? Because we are too eager to please! We, as an industry take on too many of other peoples' problems.
Phil
From where I sit, we get a wide variety of students from all backgrounds, and I think that the standard of PPL training is critical. The FAA mandate 60 hours of ground school, which must be signed for in the log book and the FAA randomly inspect the schools. None of that happens in the UK - instead, the schools administer the exams! I think at the very least, if you study at one school, you should be examined at another, or by whichever Authority.
The other part of the pattern is attitude and self-esteem. For some reason, if a fork lift driver says that he cannot lift more than 50 packets, everyone believes him. Why don't they believe us? Because we are too eager to please! We, as an industry take on too many of other peoples' problems.
Phil