Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub: final AAIB report
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tc
Three fuel tanks, two priming pumps, two transfer pumps and pilot must intervene in order to not run low / out of usable fuel? Oh and don't confuse which switches to switch them on and off according to attitude when low on fuel. That's simple?
They are transfer pumps, not boosters...
As mentioned (for the Nth time) the fuel system couldn't be simpler.
From memory, there was a tendency for some pilots to switch the boosters off to prevent the captions from illuminating after a while sitting nose up. Departing the hover removed this issue but you had to remember to switch the boosters on again during cruise!
From memory, there was a tendency for some pilots to switch the boosters off to prevent the captions from illuminating after a while sitting nose up. Departing the hover removed this issue but you had to remember to switch the boosters on again during cruise!
They are transfer pumps, not boosters...
Last edited by chopjock; 5th Nov 2018 at 19:19.
TC - never said plan to land engine off, said land before engine quits due to fuel starvation.
Pressure is part of the job, people die when help comes to late.
If you are the last resort for them, decision making is a constant process, weather still suitable, when to say stop, plan B possible?
Still no need to kill oneself and the crew trying to help, but going to the limits, if necessary, even if that could result in an outside landing and ordering a fuel truck.
Unconvinient, paperwork but if I can save a life, that’s what I consider an option (Plan B or C)
And you can be sure, the decision wonˋt be just mine, the crew will know what’s going on and be with me.
I (we) have parked helicopters more than once away from base, waited for weather improvement or got a ride with a car back.
As long as the crew and the bird are unharmed, I donˋt see any problems.
We could have waved off earlier and flown back to base but
I would have a problem knowing people died, cause I didnˋt did all I could to save them.
Pressure is part of the job, people die when help comes to late.
If you are the last resort for them, decision making is a constant process, weather still suitable, when to say stop, plan B possible?
Still no need to kill oneself and the crew trying to help, but going to the limits, if necessary, even if that could result in an outside landing and ordering a fuel truck.
Unconvinient, paperwork but if I can save a life, that’s what I consider an option (Plan B or C)
And you can be sure, the decision wonˋt be just mine, the crew will know what’s going on and be with me.
I (we) have parked helicopters more than once away from base, waited for weather improvement or got a ride with a car back.
As long as the crew and the bird are unharmed, I donˋt see any problems.
We could have waved off earlier and flown back to base but
I would have a problem knowing people died, cause I didnˋt did all I could to save them.
Choppie - you've got balls, Ill give you that
I stand corrected, they are Tx pumps. It's been a while.
However, when one qualifies on various helicopter as have several contributers on this forum, one realises certain helos can be categorised very quickly into simple and complex.
The Airbus 135 series couldn't be simpler. The fuel system takes about 30 minutes to read about and digest and about the same to operate confidently. Any 'anomolies' (like captions appearing at certain pitch attitudes can, in this particular incident be put down to the 135 being used for police ops - something the designers didn't exactly have at the top of their wish list.
The 'job' causes these 'digresions' from design and consequently the operator has to accomodate them. Hence the switching off, of the Tx pumps during prolonged hover to avoid masking other warnings and to assist with night vision for eg.
It 'appears' that the pilot forgot about them after departure from a previous hover - possibly because they were busy?
Take it from me Choppie - the fuel system on a 135 is/was a doddle. Now would you like to talk about the 101 or S3 or CH47 fuel systems perhaps?
Radio controlled aircraft don't need fuel and Robbo's have elastic bands so those are even simpler to manage
I stand corrected, they are Tx pumps. It's been a while.
However, when one qualifies on various helicopter as have several contributers on this forum, one realises certain helos can be categorised very quickly into simple and complex.
The Airbus 135 series couldn't be simpler. The fuel system takes about 30 minutes to read about and digest and about the same to operate confidently. Any 'anomolies' (like captions appearing at certain pitch attitudes can, in this particular incident be put down to the 135 being used for police ops - something the designers didn't exactly have at the top of their wish list.
The 'job' causes these 'digresions' from design and consequently the operator has to accomodate them. Hence the switching off, of the Tx pumps during prolonged hover to avoid masking other warnings and to assist with night vision for eg.
It 'appears' that the pilot forgot about them after departure from a previous hover - possibly because they were busy?
Take it from me Choppie - the fuel system on a 135 is/was a doddle. Now would you like to talk about the 101 or S3 or CH47 fuel systems perhaps?
Radio controlled aircraft don't need fuel and Robbo's have elastic bands so those are even simpler to manage
Stop talking Bull, flying bull.
Rules is rules. Police ops is no different from any other form of commercial operation. It isn't the military in a different dress remember.
Scum/crims/missing persons are not worth bending rules for. If you start getting captions or planning to land in a field at night instead of burning the extra fuel to get back home, you're not a pro - bro! You are a risk taker and your crew would not thank you for it long term.
Attempting to land into an unauthorised LZ at night RATHER than going home is far too dangerous an option and you know it.....
In the UK we call this: Pressonitis - and it kills inocent people.
Who knows - this may have been the cause of this crash
Rules is rules. Police ops is no different from any other form of commercial operation. It isn't the military in a different dress remember.
Scum/crims/missing persons are not worth bending rules for. If you start getting captions or planning to land in a field at night instead of burning the extra fuel to get back home, you're not a pro - bro! You are a risk taker and your crew would not thank you for it long term.
Attempting to land into an unauthorised LZ at night RATHER than going home is far too dangerous an option and you know it.....
In the UK we call this: Pressonitis - and it kills inocent people.
Who knows - this may have been the cause of this crash
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Wait to see where the FAI goes. remember the Mull of Kintyre fiasco...........
Dave wasn't a risk taker. The fuel system is simple, but the simple fact is that the probes were not foolproof either.
Its only my personal opinion, nothing to back it up, but we still have some way to go on this crash. The pilot error may have some mitigating circumstances.........
Lets get the FAI started eh??
Dave wasn't a risk taker. The fuel system is simple, but the simple fact is that the probes were not foolproof either.
Its only my personal opinion, nothing to back it up, but we still have some way to go on this crash. The pilot error may have some mitigating circumstances.........
Lets get the FAI started eh??
Take it from me Choppie - the fuel system on a 135 is/was a doddle. Now would you like to talk about the 101 or S3 or CH47 fuel systems perhaps?
How many different fuel quantity numbers did one have to memorize depending upon the various failures?
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Choppie - you've got balls, Ill give you that
The Airbus 135 series couldn't be simpler. The fuel system takes about 30 minutes to read about and digest and about the same to operate confidently. Any 'anomolies' (like captions appearing at certain pitch attitudes can, in this particular incident be put down to the 135 being used for police ops - something the designers didn't exactly have at the top of their wish list.
The 'job' causes these 'digresions' from design and consequently the operator has to accomodate them. Hence the switching off, of the Tx pumps during prolonged hover to avoid masking other warnings and to assist with night vision for eg.
It 'appears' that the pilot forgot about them after departure from a previous hover - possibly because they were busy?
Take it from me Choppie - the fuel system on a 135 is/was a doddle. Now would you like to talk about the 101 or S3 or CH47 fuel systems perhaps?
Radio controlled aircraft don't need fuel and Robbo's have elastic bands so those are even simpler to manage
The Airbus 135 series couldn't be simpler. The fuel system takes about 30 minutes to read about and digest and about the same to operate confidently. Any 'anomolies' (like captions appearing at certain pitch attitudes can, in this particular incident be put down to the 135 being used for police ops - something the designers didn't exactly have at the top of their wish list.
The 'job' causes these 'digresions' from design and consequently the operator has to accomodate them. Hence the switching off, of the Tx pumps during prolonged hover to avoid masking other warnings and to assist with night vision for eg.
It 'appears' that the pilot forgot about them after departure from a previous hover - possibly because they were busy?
Take it from me Choppie - the fuel system on a 135 is/was a doddle. Now would you like to talk about the 101 or S3 or CH47 fuel systems perhaps?
Radio controlled aircraft don't need fuel and Robbo's have elastic bands so those are even simpler to manage
The 355, one tank supplying each engine, but the aft one bigger and the transfer was from aft to forward only? How many new 355 pilots got caught by that? I did by the way.
The S61 with a slightly larger front tank to feed the janitrol heater, and a fuel dump system that could really drop you in the guano? Thanks Geoff L landing on the Charigali and dropping a couple of hundred pounds on the deck.
My only complaints about the 135 system, it’s never got enough, and it’s a prize bugger to fill. And when those pump lights come on you really do need to be looking for some more gas soon.
Before Clutha we were allowed to run down to 60kg total in the supply tanks with mains empty (day, VFR) Immediately after Clutha the min landing fuel was full supply tanks.
The checklist was not IMHO well written, that has also changed, but the 135 course covered the fuel system very well.
Chop; you’re picking an argument with a machine you don’t know, but a lot of us on here do know. You won’t win. And for info, the 135 is the helicopter I have always felt safest in over the last 30 years flying rotary, and about 3500 hours on type, with a good margin of power and simple systems.
SND
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SND
Not picking an argument, just responding to a statement that the fuel system could not be simpler. The CAT A regs make it non simple. A simpler way (but the regs won't allow) would be one tank, one gauge, one boost pump, one lamp, one shut off valve and no pilot intervention necessary...
Chop; you’re picking an argument with a machine you don’t know
Departing the hover removed this issue but you had to remember to switch the boosters on again during cruise!
Chopjock, you obviously don't understand the fuel system requirements for twin engine helicopters.
Three fuel tanks,
two priming pumps, two transfer pumps
They then stay on and are not required to be turned off until all the fuel in the Main tank is used.
Complicated? No. Simple? Yes.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chop;
Works great in singles. Not in twins. There really are only two reasons for a twin to suffer a double engine failure, fuel contamination and running dry. I can’t find where it says it’s a requirement for CAT A for a more complex system. Can you show me the reference?
SND
I am thinking the 105/117/135/145 fuel systems came about to meet Part 29 requirements to include the ability to dump fuel post engine failure to reduce weight.
I stand by to be corrected!
I stand by to be corrected!
Stop talking Bull, flying bull.
Rules is rules. Police ops is no different from any other form of commercial operation. It isn't the military in a different dress remember.
Scum/crims/missing persons are not worth bending rules for. If you start getting captions or planning to land in a field at night instead of burning the extra fuel to get back home, you're not a pro - bro! You are a risk taker and your crew would not thank you for it long term.
Attempting to land into an unauthorised LZ at night RATHER than going home is far too dangerous an option and you know it.....
In the UK we call this: Pressonitis - and it kills inocent people.
Who knows - this may have been the cause of this crash
Rules is rules. Police ops is no different from any other form of commercial operation. It isn't the military in a different dress remember.
Scum/crims/missing persons are not worth bending rules for. If you start getting captions or planning to land in a field at night instead of burning the extra fuel to get back home, you're not a pro - bro! You are a risk taker and your crew would not thank you for it long term.
Attempting to land into an unauthorised LZ at night RATHER than going home is far too dangerous an option and you know it.....
In the UK we call this: Pressonitis - and it kills inocent people.
Who knows - this may have been the cause of this crash
here police helicopters are flown from police officers, having extra rights but due to being a police officer - also extra duties.
Within that frame I have to play it as save as it is possible.
Weatherminima i.e. a should, not a must, it’s up to the crew how far/low we go, even under powerlines, if necessary.
We also donˋt have unauthorized LZ - we are allowed to land nearly everywhere, day and night, only a few cities, where we need extra permissions.
With your limited knowledge about our rules and tasks, I can understand your post, but I donˋt have a deathwish.
I ˋm operating within the borders of our regulations and an outside landing, even with NVG, isnˋt a big deal with at least ⅓ rd of my flying being at night
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SND
You can add pilot confusion / mis management of the fuel system to that list.
I don't have the reference but I read somewhere that CAT A certification requires independent fuel supply to each engine.
There really are only two reasons for a twin to suffer a double engine failure, fuel contamination and running dry
I can’t find where it says it’s a requirement for CAT A for a more complex system. Can you show me the reference?
What were the modifications developed and embodied after the accident? All I know is that it was contracted to a company at Gloucester airport. I seem to recall the contract might have just been with the police. Memory fades.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tucumseh;
There was a change to the checklist to make it clearer and the CAA mandated a higher minimum landing fuel (90kg rather than 60).
We loaned a 135 to the AAIB for some tests and also flew the CAA. There was a test of the systems fleet wide and the aircraft carried on.
Chop; try sitting in a 135. The system is not confusing. But like any system if mishandled it will bite. I’ve had a demo of what the pilot had in front of him that night. It is easily solved.
SND
There was a change to the checklist to make it clearer and the CAA mandated a higher minimum landing fuel (90kg rather than 60).
We loaned a 135 to the AAIB for some tests and also flew the CAA. There was a test of the systems fleet wide and the aircraft carried on.
Chop; try sitting in a 135. The system is not confusing. But like any system if mishandled it will bite. I’ve had a demo of what the pilot had in front of him that night. It is easily solved.
SND
Chopjock's view on the fuel system is supported; it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to provide a system that is resistant to mismanagement. Required pilot intervention during times of high activity should be engineered out of the solution - low fuel state appears to fall within this category.
That is particularly important as cockpits become more complex - for example with the introduction of integrated systems and automation. There is a need to engineer the system so that the pilot is presented with a conceptual model that is both simple and intuitive; as has been done with engine management.
However, the attempt to point a finger at the certification system is unwarranted. The 'Category A' requirement for the fuel system is as follows:
JimL
That is particularly important as cockpits become more complex - for example with the introduction of integrated systems and automation. There is a need to engineer the system so that the pilot is presented with a conceptual model that is both simple and intuitive; as has been done with engine management.
However, the attempt to point a finger at the certification system is unwarranted. The 'Category A' requirement for the fuel system is as follows:
CS 29.953 Fuel system independence
(a) For Category A rotorcraft:
The reference to 29.903(b) resolves as:(a) For Category A rotorcraft:
(1) The fuel system must meet the requirements of CS 29.903 (b); and
(2) Unless other provisions are made to meet sub-paragraph (a) (1) , the fuel system must allow fuel to be supplied to each engine through a system independent of those parts of each system supplying fuel to other engines.
(2) Unless other provisions are made to meet sub-paragraph (a) (1) , the fuel system must allow fuel to be supplied to each engine through a system independent of those parts of each system supplying fuel to other engines.
CS 29.903 Engines
(a) (Reserved)
(b) Category A; engine isolation. For each Category A rotorcraft, the powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow
operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or the failure of any system that can affect any engine, will not –
Redundancy is pointless if the resulting 'system' is subject to a single point of failure. (a) (Reserved)
(b) Category A; engine isolation. For each Category A rotorcraft, the powerplants must be arranged and isolated from each other to allow
operation, in at least one configuration, so that the failure or malfunction of any engine, or the failure of any system that can affect any engine, will not –
(1) Prevent the continued safe operation of the remaining engines; or
(2) Require immediate action, other than normal pilot action with primary flight controls, by any crew member to maintain safe operation.
(2) Require immediate action, other than normal pilot action with primary flight controls, by any crew member to maintain safe operation.
JimL
Local Procedures might cause that "complexity".
In an EC135 if you get a LOW FUEL on the Warning Unit (red light and audio attention getter) you land within 8 or 10 minutes. This is a memory item.
The LOW FUEL indication is independent of the fuel quantity indicating system and should be acted upon regardless of the fuel quantity indicated.
So if you have mismanaged the situation the red warning (one of only nine) catches that and you act accordingly and sort yourself out.
Fairly simple?
The LOW FUEL indication is independent of the fuel quantity indicating system and should be acted upon regardless of the fuel quantity indicated.
So if you have mismanaged the situation the red warning (one of only nine) catches that and you act accordingly and sort yourself out.
Fairly simple?
