Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub: final AAIB report

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by jayteeto

Sims are good but you don’t crash if you meet the programmers preset parameters. Many programmers have never flown........

Jayteeto, - its is definitely a problem. However, in my own experience with AH, a lot of input is provided by the Test Flight Department as the flight loop is developed. Each FTSD has an OEM TRI/TRE responsible for ensuring the device performs as best as it can. QTG protocols regularly check the fidelity of the FSTD against a set of known parameters. In my own experience I described above, local TRI/TREs can effect changes if they are justifiable. The software for the systems in a modern AH FSTD comes directly from the aircraft. Of course this has to interfaced with the "simulated" helicopter to ensure the flight loop and displays respond accordingly.

In the end, its a box on legs with a finite range of movement. However, a determination to achieve optimum training value by the team responsible can produce some good results. The bad aspect of FSTD training is when the instructor, either by design or his own poor experience, tells the student its OK to crash because the FSTD is not good enough to simulate the particular exercise. Mostly these scenarios centre around EOLs, UAs and TR Failure conditions. Sadly, these are the very scenarios we simply cannot practice in the real helicopter. It is therefore really important that maximum effort is made to provide positive, sensible training for these events. Quite a few FSTDs I have flown perform better than the local Instructors believe them to be capable of. Rumour and urban legend travels around the local community and is often taken as gospel.

If it is generally accepted that the FSTD doesn't do good EOLs, the amount of training time afforded to Autos and Drills is correspondingly short. In the subject of this accident thread, clearly Dave was a very capable experienced guy. If we breathe out and accept he may not have had sufficient exposure to the conditions he faced that night and therefore his response was not as sharp as it could have been we can start to identify the problem. Regulations and Rules do not generally fix these issues as the people making them are not as experienced as we are in the field. Its up to us to try and extract the juice from these events.

There are not many of us in MEH operations that cannot make a sensible response to CAT A OEI rejects and CTOs. Mainly because these seem to always be the flavour of the day on our OPCs. However, the law allows us, for example, to conduct TR failures once every 3 years if we are dumb enough the accept it. It calls for an Auto every 6 months but no EOL in MEH. I don't want to be radical, but maybe more FSTD time should be apportioned to these unusual handling exercises. EASA is almost there. It demands "Startle" and "Resilience" training during recurrent cycles but it does specify which events lead to these conditions. Its left to the Operator to decide. If we think about it, Startle effect comes from the pilot being unfamiliar with what is happening to the helicopter. Only intensive progressive FSTD training can overcome this effect.
Good pilots, poorly or inadequately trained, are left only with their internal resources to cope. We see time after time, these resources alone don't seem to be enough to ensure survival.

[[email protected]]

With a lot more flying in my logbook than you and I suspect a lot more Aircraft and FSTD Instruction than you. So cut me a bit of slack.

oooh have you got a ladder to that ivory tower of yours or is there an express lift to get you so far above the rest of us?

I've only been instructing since 1989 and only have 3000 plus hours of instructional time including some in the sim so what do I know?

Not only have I flown extensively in many FSTDs over the years and seen the quality of them improve in terms of flying qualities and graphics but I have taken part in handling quality assessments of FSTDs for DVE training and operational SAR training so I'm not a numpty either.

As Sasless has highlighted - and I think he has much more sim experience than you - simulators are not perfect and can lull you into a false ense of security.

FTSDs are excellent for a lot of things but the subtlties of advancing handling isn't one of them.

I agree that confidence is a vital part of flying but false confidence is dangerous. By all means teach people to monitor the rad alt and AI for such exercises as EOLS but don't make them believe it will be that simple in the real case.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by SASless

When you learn to fly the Sim....your performance improves in the flying of the Sim.

That proficiency does not transfer directly to the actual aircraft.

Question for you.....if your aircraft can provide you say.....110% Nr or 120% Nr during autorotation.....would you require the Pilot to drag it down with Collective to 100% during a real EOL?

SAS I would disagree with your first statement above, however, tempered with the fact that I generally take students from the FSTD to the Helicopter during consolidation. I definitely see these skills translate directly to the helicopter especially the Auto entry. Where the "Transport Delay" is most evident is in hovering manoeuvres. If the Transport Delay is large enough, it can ill-prepare the student for the real helicopter.

On your second point...as always you find the sticky nugget at the bottom of the sweety jar. True, FSTDs generally will "Crash" if the NR exceeds a nominal number. In the real world, where the helicopter has already let you down, would it matter if the NR is oversped during the Auto or indeed the EOL? Answers on a postcard please.
On your second aspect, NR is vital at the Flare point I think we all agree on this. Too much.....I am not sure of this matters. Too little, well we can all understand that.
What I recommend is that the NR is at least 100% at the flare point. However, in my last FSTD sabbatical, carrying too much NR into the Flare, caused the FSTD to crash as the flare effect took the NR beyond the FSTD Crash limit. Negative Training???? Maybe. Briefing this out helps but its a feature of the last FSTD I worked on.

I asked for the crash NR limit to be removed for EOLs but was told "there has to be a limit" We learned to training successfully and live with it.

I would be interested on your thoughts on this though.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

oooh have you got a ladder to that ivory tower of yours or is there an express lift to get you so far above the rest of us?

I've only been instructing since 1989 and only have 3000 plus hours of instructional time including some in the sim so what do I know?

Not only have I flown extensively in many FSTDs over the years and seen the quality of them improve in terms of flying qualities and graphics but I have taken part in handling quality assessments of FSTDs for DVE training and operational SAR training so I'm not a numpty either.

As Sasless has highlighted - and I think he has much more sim experience than you - simulators are not perfect and can lull you into a false ense of security.

FTSDs are excellent for a lot of things but the subtlties of advancing handling isn't one of them.

I agree that confidence is a vital part of flying but false confidence is dangerous. By all means teach people to monitor the rad alt and AI for such exercises as EOLS but don't make them believe it will be that simple in the real case.

Crab - I like a bit of willy waving and am glad we agree we are both not numpties. But please do not continue the theme that FSTD training is not valuable....for most items....if the instruction is appropriate.

For example, If I teach Auto to EOL, I am fully confident that what I am presenting will work well in the helicopter. I certainly would not bother to go to such lengths and follow up with...."Well the Helicopter is more difficult so don't go away confident".

If you take a moment....and think about what you have written....the reality is actually...…"If you can do it in the FSTD, you will have no problem in the Helicopter" For the reason you so eloquently state, the FSTD is difficult for these exercises. That does not means its not appropriate or productive in preparing us for these events. In majority of cases, this has been my experience taking candidate directly from the FSTD during ITR to the helicopter. The classic example of this is the high speed reject. Difficult in the FSTD so taught by numbers. Easy in the Helicopter so consolidation no problem.

[[email protected]]

But please do not continue the theme that FSTD training is not valuable....for most items....

you haven't read what I wrote if that is what you think I am doing

...…"If you can do it in the FSTD, you will have no problem in the Helicopter"

No. it will be DIFFERENT in the helicopter

For example, If I teach Auto to EOL, I am fully confident that what I am presenting will work well in the helicopter.

of course, because it is a tried and tested manoeuvre based on plenty of real world experience and feedback - teaching an auto to EOL from the hover at night isn't and this is where you started your argument about FSTD training.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

y
teaching an auto to EOL from the hover at night isn't and this is where you started your argument about FSTD training.

Actually Crab, I started this stating I did not have a solution for an EOL close to TDP following a TR Malfunction. That remains the case.

Maybe you should spend more time reading ALL of what is posted instead of waiting, poised, to pounce on any little indiscretion you believe is being made!

It would be nice for you, for once, to add some value instead of trashing what others post.

Its very easy to criticise. Much harder to produce some original thought.

[[email protected]]

DB - I think you have your threads mixed up - this isn't the TR malfunction at TDP thread.

You were pontificating earlier on this thread about how the certification process meant that pilots were placed in a position where they had to use a Shedbus switch to select the radalt and landing lamp - and then went into your diatribe about teaching pilots to flare using the rad alt to asses the ground (hardly new since that was taught in the Lynx sim in MW in the early 90's) and claiming it was the best way to prepare them for night/IMC/overwater EOLs.

it's not a new technique - although you make it sound like you invented it - and is certainly not original thought - this has been the a topic of crewroom discussion for as long as I can remember.

Despite your protestations, if you are at night with no NVG, judging the flare (not just the height but the amount and rate for the conditions) is far more difficult than a constant attitude where all you have to do is pull the lever in.

In all your 'valuable' teaching (of egg sucking) you have missed the point of this thread - a double engine flameout in the hover with no time for clever switch selections or judging flare height for an EOL - if you can teach pilots to deal with that on a no-notice exercise with repeated success I'll be very surprised indeed.

[nigelh]

Get a room ........

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

You were pontificating earlier on this thread about how the certification process meant that pilots were placed in a position where they had to use a Shedbus switch to select the radalt and landing lamp - and then went into your diatribe about teaching pilots to flare using the rad alt to asses the ground (hardly new since that was taught in the Lynx sim in MW in the early 90's) and claiming it was the best way to prepare them for night/IMC/overwater EOLs. it's not a new technique - although you make it sound like you invented it - and is certainly not original thought - this has been the a topic of crewroom discussion for as long as I can remember.

Despite your protestations, if you are at night with no NVG, judging the flare (not just the height but the amount and rate for the conditions) is far more difficult than a constant attitude where all you have to do is pull the lever in.

In all your 'valuable' teaching (of egg sucking) you have missed the point of this thread - a double engine flameout in the hover with no time for clever switch selections or judging flare height for an EOL - if you can teach pilots to deal with that on a no-notice exercise with repeated success I'll be very surprised indeed.

You are right. I mixed up my threads!
Based on what you write above I think you agree then that references are difficult so use of the RADALT could help?
"Clever switch selections" - this is nothing to do with me. I hope you understand that. Its just the way the EC135 works! However, all emergency descents require some actions. The Bus Shed switch is also required in a B412!
"Constant Attitude Autos" - we are obliged to teach whatever is in the flight manual. Its civvy not Military.
"Egg Sucking" - its taken you two pages to finally agree the value of the RADALT. Maybe we can get you to understand the value of the AI also?
Finally It would be my pleasure to take you to the FSTD and teach you hover EOLS. Maybe you would be the exception to the my normal candidates and not have repeated success and thus prove me wrong!

[[email protected]]

I have to laugh that you are still presenting the use of the rad alt and AI as your 'original thought' and yourself as the be-all and end-all of simulator instruction...

Use of the Rad Alt and AI is basic level instruction for most military pilots - I didn't say it won't help but it isn't a panacea that will help you pull off a night/IMC EOL no matter how many times you can do it in the sim.

Make it realistic if you are going to train people and think outside the realms of the RFM if you want to present 'original thought'.

If you are going to write off the aircraft anyway (double engine fail in the high hover at night for example) why be constrained by the RFM when it is going to be a matter of survival.

Try teaching constant attitude - it allows you to keep a level attitude and then pull hard as the radalt goes through 10' or so - I'm sure it won't work in your sim as the RoD will probably be outside its parameters but its much easier to judge than a flare, especially if you don't have much forward speed to start with.

What do you teach them from the high hover if there is no time to get speed on for the variable flare EOL?

[Sir Niall Dementia]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE BOGEY

On your second point...as always you find the sticky nugget at the bottom of the sweety jar. True, FSTDs generally will "Crash" if the NR exceeds a nominal number. In the real world, where the helicopter has already let you down, would it matter if the NR is oversped during the Auto or indeed the EOL? Answers on a postcard please.
On your second aspect, NR is vital at the Flare point I think we all agree on this. Too much.....I am not sure of this matters. Too little, well we can all understand that.
What I recommend is that the NR is at least 100% at the flare point. However, in my last FSTD sabbatical, carrying too much NR into the Flare, caused the FSTD to crash as the flare effect took the NR beyond the FSTD Crash limit. Negative Training???? Maybe. Briefing this out helps but its a feature of the last FSTD I worked on.

I asked for the crash NR limit to be removed for EOLs but was told "there has to be a limit" We learned to training successfully and live with it.

I would be interested on your thoughts on this though.

Crab;

A question I have asked many times, but no-one has ever come up with an answer that I have found acceptable. If the maths can prove its' a bad thing I'd really like to see the sums. I've long believed that an overspeed early in the manouvre has little relevance, lets face it when the aircraft is eventually down, it will already be carrying the damage that caused the auto in the first place, very few (real) autos leave the aircraft without the need for some serious buffing out and the ground recovery usually does some damage as well. Every FSTD I've ever been in crashes at an Nr overspeed figure built in by the engineers and I suspect that most pilots when first faced with the problem in the sim react the same way, lever down smartly, flare to best speed and on come the lights, red arcs and nasty warning bells and the screens go black. The sims all seem to like a drop on the lever, flare while containing Nr and then turn into wind.

The pilot in the Clutha situation was probably faced with the nightmare of rapidly dropping Nr, no speed to help get it back, night, startle, lots of ambient light and a dark patch and not enough altitude. I've attempted autos from the hover in the 135 (only in the sim) and it takes a very positive reaction when you know it's coming, let alone at night busy with plod taking a look around.

SND

[SASless]

Make it realistic if you are going to train people and think outside the realms of the RFM if you want to present 'original thought'.

If you are going to write off the aircraft anyway (double engine fail in the high hover at night for example) why be constrained by the RFM when it is going to be a matter of survival.

SIM training by its nature is a (or should be) a very tightly structured environment based upon the RFM, SOP's, Regulations and Rules.

The very last thing that should happen is a Sim Instructor inventing or implanting "out of the box techniques" during the formal curriculum being presented.

That being said....once the set course is complete and if time allows then a bit of experimentation is allowable.

One of the things I did was set up a scenario of a pitch black night, complete overcast, a bit of haze....and a Aircraft Carrier steaming away into wind.....take the aircraft to height....sometimes to ten thousand feet and have the pilot tell me when he could autorotate to the deck and land.

Most failed on the first attempt. All most all did once they were reminded of their earliest learning to maintain a constant angle of approach to the landing pad out in the grass....until of course it has to slide under the aircraft in order for the aircraft to land.

It is not that the pilot would ever see an aircraft carrier at night offshore and experience the need to do an EOL to the carrier.....it was a way to remind them that Basics still apply and can be of great value yet to them.

Some used all of the instruments...some only used some of them....and I am sure some did not look inside much.....the key is it got them to thinking!

[[email protected]]

SIM training by its nature is a (or should be) a very tightly structured environment based upon the RFM, SOP's, Regulations and Rules.

Sasless - I agree when you are conducting the mandatory elements of the training but I don't think a double engine failure from a 500' hover at night is one of those - I'm sure DB is using 'freeplay time' at the end of the formal teaching to look at these techniques which is why I am encouraging him to think a bit more freely.

If you can get the forward speed on without compromising your RoD then a variable flare may be your best bet, even with limited references, but if you can't then discounting the option of a constant attitude EOL just because it isn't covered in the RFM is foolish.

SND - I agree, I don't have any problem with an overspeed if you are faced with a real EOL in difficult conditions.

However, when we used to teach on the heavy Army Gazelles at high AuM, we encouraged a small squeeze of lever during the flare, both to contain the Nr (we were only training) but also to use that rotor energy to enhance the effect of the flare in reducing forward speed and RoD. I have used that technique successfully in FSTDs to avoid the 'crash -limit'.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I am open to anything that offers us a greater chance of surviving a serious event. However, when we are faced with a student on a formal package of training, regardless of how much time is left for free play, its extremely problematic attempting to teach something that is not backed up by the OEM manuals regardless how tempting it may be. The SFI/TRI will invariably be outside the regulated package and that leaves him open to criticism and weakens the systems we are supposed to operate within. We are not test pilots. Nor should we try to be.

SAS I wholly agree with your approach that presenting such exercises provokes thought.

We should also keep in mind, that under current regulations, an EOL in a MEH is not required either for ITR or Recurrent Training and Checking even in the FSTD! By teaching and practising candidates in this exercise alone we are already beyond the scope of what EASA require. I have no problem with this but, in my view, places an even greater responsibility on us to remain within at least, the confines of the RFM.

In the light of this accident I know in the EC135 world greater efforts are being made to cover AUTO to EOL. The regulator has yet to catch up.

[[email protected]]

So you ARE teaching things you are not supposed to but you are teaching them iaw the RFM????????

This sounds like the work of someone who has had a good idea but not thought it through fully.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

So you ARE teaching things you are not supposed to but you are teaching them iaw the RFM????????

This sounds like the work of someone who has had a good idea but not thought it through fully.

"Not supposed to" is too strong. We are covering the required syllabi but adding in the EOL......IAW the RFM.

What exactly is wrong with you Crab? Have you got some kind personality disorder that prevents you from communicating in any other way but combative?

I would have thought that a SAR Pilot would need good communication skills. Look back at your posting and ask yourself "What I am trying to achieve"

[Distant Voice]

Going through the single/double engine failure procedures and I can find no instructions to switch the SHED BUS switch to Emergency in either the Manufacturers Flight Reference cards (Appendix A of the AAIB report), or the Emergency Procedures (Appendix G). I note the report says that 'contractor instructs' to carry it out, but that is not the same as having it in front of you as you are going down.

I also question the effectiveness of RADALT over a built up area. What use is the height above nearby buildings during autorotation?

DV

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

[QUOTE=I also question the effectiveness of RADALT over a built up area. What use is the height above nearby buildings during autorotation?DV[/QUOTE]

You make a good point DV.

[[email protected]]

"Not supposed to" is too strong. We are covering the required syllabi but adding in the EOL......IAW the RFM.

so, since the thread is about a double engine flameout in the hover and subsequent fatal EOL then your teaching of the EOL iaw the RFM isn't relevant, even though it might be for other occasions.

Perhaps if you had made that clear before lording it over others, you might not have generated such combative replies - try reading your own posts out loud and see how they sound.

Strangely enough my communication skills were fine today, teaching opportunity deck winching in 30 kts of wind to a large vehicle carrier and yesterday teaching cliff situation winching and coastal searches, and the day before that teaching navigation.............no FSTD required

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

so, since the thread is about a double engine flameout in the hover and subsequent fatal EOL then your teaching of the EOL iaw the RFM isn't relevant, even though it might be for other occasions.

Perhaps if you had made that clear before lording it over others, you might not have generated such combative replies - try reading your own posts out loud and see how they sound.

Strangely enough my communication skills were fine today, teaching opportunity deck winching in 30 kts of wind to a large vehicle carrier and yesterday teaching cliff situation winching and coastal searches, and the day before that teaching navigation.............no FSTD required

Crab this may come as a surprise, but he was not in the hover!