Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub: final AAIB report
@Double Bogey,
You ˋre right in most of your statement.
Where I strongly disagree is
„Key to this first aim, is when one engine has failed, the pilot monitors appropriately. This MUST be by reference to the NR Gauge ONLY and not the VMS or other engine instruments. The reason for this is if the muscle memory reactions (collective down) has been carried out, and speed maybe reducing or increasing as required, the remaining engine indications are in constant motion leading to confusion. If the pilot is well practiced in doing all these OEI handling techniques whilst his eyes are fixed on the NR gauge, he stands the best possible chance of reacting to the second engine failing.“
In a twin, if one donk quits, first aim must be to establish Safe OEI conditions, which depends on the actual flight situation- but always has a speed option, either increase from the hover or reduce from cruise, while atempting an increase in altitude, cloudbase permitting, to get free of obstacles and gain options in case No2 quits
With Eurocopter/Airbus helicopters, you pull power, until the Nr droops, which you will hear from two different sources, first the rotor itself, second the audio warning. Then you just reduce the pitch to cancel the audio.
No need to look inside onto a gauge! The eyes are there to look outside, the other senses should be used for Nr!
Outside is, where the dangers are, the wires, poles and outside is also, where your escape route is or your emergency landing area. Looking inside you might miss the only clearing in a wooden area, over which you might want to circle after having established safe single engine conditions while sorting out the problem.
That said, you might catch, why I canˋt go along with your statement about securing engines
„After autorotation has been successfully achieved, the priorities of what he does next are really important.
A RELIGHT consideration is number 1. If a relight is not appropriate due to Height etc. Now the aircraft must be prepared for the EOL.
The RADALT will always help day and night (BUS SHED OVRD SWITCH), the Landing Light good to have at night but nowhere near as important as the RADALT.
All fuel pumps must be OFF to reduce the risks of post impact fire.
Should we waste time securing engines which have already failed…………..I remain unconvinced.“
From normal helicopter operating heights (IFR excluded) a relight would hardly ever be an option.
The RadAlt can be useful over flat Terrain like a desert or water, still, a flare can be adjusted and most pilots really donˋt need it, to junge the height, when to start a flare.
If height permits or a Copilot or crewmember can switch of the fuelpumps, ok, but first aim must be to look outside an fly (autorotate) the helicopter to the chosen landing point, adjusting rate of decent and or path, if necessary, so that a successful landing can be done.
Looking inside doing switches and then bending the bird, cause you missed to see a ditch or that you started to come to short and having no time left to stretch the auto, is what might kill you.
About the fuel pumps - and post crash fire.
The fuel system has
Prime pumps, used during engine start, thereafter they are switched off
Engine driven pumps for sucking the fuel from the supply tanks, which will be of after double engine failure
And transfer pumps, which pump fuel for, the main tanks to the supply tanks, excess flowing back in the main tank.
If you bend the bird that hard, that the bladder tanks burst and the fuel will spill you might not be alive to think, wether it would be a good idea having them off before or after crashing ;-)
I ˋd rather concentrate on getting down safely and securing things only, when I have really time to spare….
You ˋre right in most of your statement.
Where I strongly disagree is
„Key to this first aim, is when one engine has failed, the pilot monitors appropriately. This MUST be by reference to the NR Gauge ONLY and not the VMS or other engine instruments. The reason for this is if the muscle memory reactions (collective down) has been carried out, and speed maybe reducing or increasing as required, the remaining engine indications are in constant motion leading to confusion. If the pilot is well practiced in doing all these OEI handling techniques whilst his eyes are fixed on the NR gauge, he stands the best possible chance of reacting to the second engine failing.“
In a twin, if one donk quits, first aim must be to establish Safe OEI conditions, which depends on the actual flight situation- but always has a speed option, either increase from the hover or reduce from cruise, while atempting an increase in altitude, cloudbase permitting, to get free of obstacles and gain options in case No2 quits
With Eurocopter/Airbus helicopters, you pull power, until the Nr droops, which you will hear from two different sources, first the rotor itself, second the audio warning. Then you just reduce the pitch to cancel the audio.
No need to look inside onto a gauge! The eyes are there to look outside, the other senses should be used for Nr!
Outside is, where the dangers are, the wires, poles and outside is also, where your escape route is or your emergency landing area. Looking inside you might miss the only clearing in a wooden area, over which you might want to circle after having established safe single engine conditions while sorting out the problem.
That said, you might catch, why I canˋt go along with your statement about securing engines
„After autorotation has been successfully achieved, the priorities of what he does next are really important.
A RELIGHT consideration is number 1. If a relight is not appropriate due to Height etc. Now the aircraft must be prepared for the EOL.
The RADALT will always help day and night (BUS SHED OVRD SWITCH), the Landing Light good to have at night but nowhere near as important as the RADALT.
All fuel pumps must be OFF to reduce the risks of post impact fire.
Should we waste time securing engines which have already failed…………..I remain unconvinced.“
From normal helicopter operating heights (IFR excluded) a relight would hardly ever be an option.
The RadAlt can be useful over flat Terrain like a desert or water, still, a flare can be adjusted and most pilots really donˋt need it, to junge the height, when to start a flare.
If height permits or a Copilot or crewmember can switch of the fuelpumps, ok, but first aim must be to look outside an fly (autorotate) the helicopter to the chosen landing point, adjusting rate of decent and or path, if necessary, so that a successful landing can be done.
Looking inside doing switches and then bending the bird, cause you missed to see a ditch or that you started to come to short and having no time left to stretch the auto, is what might kill you.
About the fuel pumps - and post crash fire.
The fuel system has
Prime pumps, used during engine start, thereafter they are switched off
Engine driven pumps for sucking the fuel from the supply tanks, which will be of after double engine failure
And transfer pumps, which pump fuel for, the main tanks to the supply tanks, excess flowing back in the main tank.
If you bend the bird that hard, that the bladder tanks burst and the fuel will spill you might not be alive to think, wether it would be a good idea having them off before or after crashing ;-)
I ˋd rather concentrate on getting down safely and securing things only, when I have really time to spare….
I ˋd rather concentrate on getting down safely and securing things only, when I have really time to spare….
I would suggest eyeballing the Nr on the gauge AND looking out is the better method as Helicopter Pilots live and die by Nr.
Enough....you usually live....not enough....you usually die.
Trusting your ears and a warning tone....is not using the best evidence rule as it takes the Nr gauge, your ears, and the absence of the warning tone to meet that requirement.
One Man's Opinion here....having survived some interesting events over the years where Nr status made all the difference in the world as to the outcome.
I have seen some very low numbers....and had I not looked in to confirm what the Nr WAS.....it might have gotten to a very bad situation as we were dropping turns until I lowered the lever.
Even with both engines running and putting out full power....the lack of Nr can become an issue.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The RADALT will always help day and night (BUS SHED OVRD SWITCH), the Landing Light good to have at night but nowhere near as important as the RADALT.
The more I read this, the more Herrings and Red spring to mind.
Witch EmerShed you supply the main busses with batterypower.
Yes, you need EmerShed to have the high power consumer Landing Light back online, as well, as the RadAlt, same with EC155 or H145
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about when the first engine quits and after establishing safe single engine flight you make a captains decision and select the emer shed bus switch and have the radalt, steerable landing light and vhf1 (which may have been selected as active) working should the 2nd engine quit. Then follow check list items... ??
120 -with you on that unless the engines don't give you the time to do that and fail almost in unison.
Flying Bull - glad you survived the patronising lecture from DB and now know how to suck eggs
Late at night, pushing fuel to minima, apparently operational imperatives to support - then both engines flameout in a hover with no place to go - chances of operating a shedbus switch in that scenario? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.
Poor design unless that shedbus switch is on the collective and a lovely idea that recurrent training in the sim will make that any more survivable........just not realistic.
DB - just how many might EOLS have you actually done using your AI and Rad Alt theory?.........
Flying Bull - glad you survived the patronising lecture from DB and now know how to suck eggs
Late at night, pushing fuel to minima, apparently operational imperatives to support - then both engines flameout in a hover with no place to go - chances of operating a shedbus switch in that scenario? Somewhere between nil and bugger-all.
Poor design unless that shedbus switch is on the collective and a lovely idea that recurrent training in the sim will make that any more survivable........just not realistic.
DB - just how many might EOLS have you actually done using your AI and Rad Alt theory?.........
@120rorque - understanding your helicopter, you can always make a captains decision.
As long as you understand what’s going on, no harm switching the EmerShed in advance after an engine failure, especially at night.
@crab - I ˋ m not that easily destroyed ��
You ˋre absolutely right, without a plan B while entering a night hover even without pushing fuel, a night autorotation from something between 1.000 to 1.500 feet ground is a sporty excercise, not leaving time to operate a switch in the overhead panel.
With about 1.300 hrs at night so far, with lots of hovering, I check on every mission area, where I can put the bird on the ground, in case things go havoc, even if the risk of a double engine failure isnˋt that great, I just like to know the options...
As long as you understand what’s going on, no harm switching the EmerShed in advance after an engine failure, especially at night.
@crab - I ˋ m not that easily destroyed ��
You ˋre absolutely right, without a plan B while entering a night hover even without pushing fuel, a night autorotation from something between 1.000 to 1.500 feet ground is a sporty excercise, not leaving time to operate a switch in the overhead panel.
With about 1.300 hrs at night so far, with lots of hovering, I check on every mission area, where I can put the bird on the ground, in case things go havoc, even if the risk of a double engine failure isnˋt that great, I just like to know the options...
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
how about when the first engine quits and after establishing safe single engine flight you make a captains decision and select the emer shed bus switch and have the radalt, steerable landing light and vhf1 (which may have been selected as active) working should the 2nd engine quit. Then follow check list items... ??
SND
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
120 DB - just how many might EOLS have you actually done using your AI and Rad Alt theory?.........
In the sim or in the real aircraft?
Ah....the old autorotations to the vague surface (Sim style) using a Rad Alt height for your deceleration and final pitch pull keeping the nose on a predetermined heading or near about.
The Sim looks at ROD at touchdown and if within a certain set of parameters then it was a successful landing......is that what you are talking about DB?
The Sim looks at ROD at touchdown and if within a certain set of parameters then it was a successful landing......is that what you are talking about DB?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Banished (twice) to the pointless forest
Posts: 1,558
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB has to be talking either about an "auto" to the hover @ night, or genuine EOL's to land @ night..........in the sim. Surely?
Only a tiny handful of pilots practice engines off to land @ night and they are mainly mil.
I suspect that today, however, that number is much less due to restrictions covering damage to the hardware and risk assessments...
In my total of around 2500 genuine EOl's, only about 10% were @ night...and of those, only 10% were by landing light only (no additional lighting, external or otherwise). It used to scare the "be jesus" out of me, never mind the poor student.
And those were the days where everyone was chucking helos at the ground.
C'mon DB "fess" up?
Only a tiny handful of pilots practice engines off to land @ night and they are mainly mil.
I suspect that today, however, that number is much less due to restrictions covering damage to the hardware and risk assessments...
In my total of around 2500 genuine EOl's, only about 10% were @ night...and of those, only 10% were by landing light only (no additional lighting, external or otherwise). It used to scare the "be jesus" out of me, never mind the poor student.
And those were the days where everyone was chucking helos at the ground.
C'mon DB "fess" up?
Is there a modern twin where the RFM permits full EOLs (day or night)? I doubt it.
And if you did them for real, would you do them from a high hover? Doubt it, though we used to do EOLS in the Gazelle from 1000' hover at Wallop for pre-NI trg.
So the 'realistic' training technique that works in the sim has been validated by real world experiences??????????
It has long been a problem that people believe that if the sim can do it the real aircraft can do it - it just isn't true unless the sim has been very accurately modelled with data from the real aircraft it the specific manoeuvre.
And, unless on NVG, the best option for a night or IMC auto is a constant attitude without flare.
And if you did them for real, would you do them from a high hover? Doubt it, though we used to do EOLS in the Gazelle from 1000' hover at Wallop for pre-NI trg.
So the 'realistic' training technique that works in the sim has been validated by real world experiences??????????
It has long been a problem that people believe that if the sim can do it the real aircraft can do it - it just isn't true unless the sim has been very accurately modelled with data from the real aircraft it the specific manoeuvre.
And, unless on NVG, the best option for a night or IMC auto is a constant attitude without flare.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Guys, off course in the FSTD (SIM). EC225 with OEM Datapack. However, I suspect from your responses that you generally seem to believe this has no value. If that is the case then WHERE and WHEN can we develop these skills. Not allowed in a MEH in EASA and prohibited in most MEH Flight Manuals.
Is it realistic??. Having done many EOLS in the real helicopter during my Army days and 1 for real as a pointless Civvy, I would say its the best possible alternative we have.
Practicing EOLs in the FSTD, as SAS points out, is not easy due to the availability of clear ground references in the final stage. HOWEVER, that is my exact point. The only real way to be successful in the FSTD is to reference to the RADALT and get used to the nose up attitude by reference to the AI as the seat of the pants feeling is not the same. Something interesting begins to happen when you practice and teach this. Pilots begin to develop the ability to EOL by sole reference to the instruments until the nose drops for the final pull.
This skill will certainly prove successful in good Day VMC over a over flat area.
It provides the best possible outcome if IMC or at Night
If IMC or really bad Night conditions then the final outcome is determined from the lay of the land but if you think about it, this is not in the pilots remit. If he can get to the flare point in good shape, on progfile, he will always stand the best possible chance. Lady luck determines the landing area unless height and visibility afford this to the pilot.
My point is, don't be dismissive of the real value FSTD Training in respect of EOLs can provide.
In the last few years I have been trained myself in other FSTDs (B412/EC135), in both cases the TRI/TRE looking after me was sceptical about the value of the FSTD he was using for EOL practice. Often stating its not possible to do a good EOL in the sim due to references, feedback etc. However, I was very fortunate to have had a FSTD at my disposal for several years where I worked hard developing these skillsets. No surprise then, that armed with the optimum descent speed, optimum flare height for each type, I was able to grease EOLs in these FSTDs every time.
Now I am not a highly skilled pilot. I work hard and get good results but I would be honest and say I am not a "Natural". However, the point of my post is I am proof that armed with good knowledge, afforded plenty of practice, EOLS can be successfully taught in most modern FSTDs if the flight loop at the bottom is sufficient.
Wed have nothing else to hang our hat on.
Is it realistic??. Having done many EOLS in the real helicopter during my Army days and 1 for real as a pointless Civvy, I would say its the best possible alternative we have.
Practicing EOLs in the FSTD, as SAS points out, is not easy due to the availability of clear ground references in the final stage. HOWEVER, that is my exact point. The only real way to be successful in the FSTD is to reference to the RADALT and get used to the nose up attitude by reference to the AI as the seat of the pants feeling is not the same. Something interesting begins to happen when you practice and teach this. Pilots begin to develop the ability to EOL by sole reference to the instruments until the nose drops for the final pull.
This skill will certainly prove successful in good Day VMC over a over flat area.
It provides the best possible outcome if IMC or at Night
If IMC or really bad Night conditions then the final outcome is determined from the lay of the land but if you think about it, this is not in the pilots remit. If he can get to the flare point in good shape, on progfile, he will always stand the best possible chance. Lady luck determines the landing area unless height and visibility afford this to the pilot.
My point is, don't be dismissive of the real value FSTD Training in respect of EOLs can provide.
In the last few years I have been trained myself in other FSTDs (B412/EC135), in both cases the TRI/TRE looking after me was sceptical about the value of the FSTD he was using for EOL practice. Often stating its not possible to do a good EOL in the sim due to references, feedback etc. However, I was very fortunate to have had a FSTD at my disposal for several years where I worked hard developing these skillsets. No surprise then, that armed with the optimum descent speed, optimum flare height for each type, I was able to grease EOLs in these FSTDs every time.
Now I am not a highly skilled pilot. I work hard and get good results but I would be honest and say I am not a "Natural". However, the point of my post is I am proof that armed with good knowledge, afforded plenty of practice, EOLS can be successfully taught in most modern FSTDs if the flight loop at the bottom is sufficient.
Wed have nothing else to hang our hat on.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
It has long been a problem that people believe that if the sim can do it the real aircraft can do it - it just isn't true unless the sim has been very accurately modelled with data from the real aircraft it the specific manoeuvre.
And, unless on NVG, the best option for a night or IMC auto is a constant attitude without flare.
And, unless on NVG, the best option for a night or IMC auto is a constant attitude without flare.
On your second point...and I like this very much. Having had my own EC225 FSTD to play with, I did exactly as you suggest. Tried my best to make Constant Attitude EOLs similar to the technique we learned in the Army. It did not work at all. In my frustration I spoke with the OEM Test Pilot, mainly to complain about the FSTD and lack of fidelity in this respect. He admonished me firmly) for trying to fly profiles as a staff Instructor, not described in the FM. He went further to say that, the farther away you are from the FM recommended parameters at the flare point, your life expectancy diminishes exponentially. He explained, that in the case of large helicopters, the is very little "Fat" in the profiles. It has to be flown accurately whether we like it or not.
No surprise then, that armed with the optimum descent speed, optimum flare height for each type, I was able to grease EOLs in these FSTDs every time.
My kids trounce me at computer games including driving ones - why? Because they have played them for hours and have the muscle memory and feedback sorted - in the real world I can drive much better than them because I have real world experience and feedback.
Aceing a EOL in the sim is satisfying because you have beaten the machine but it is not a real world skill - it might put you in the ballpark but, as you know, no matter how well you flare and check (if you use one), the only thing matters is the level attitude for landing and keeping it straight on the run on.
I am very confident that what we were teaching in the FSTD will work well in the helicopter
The only thing you can hope for with an EOL on a twin is that it is survivable - letting pilots believe that they will grease it on and not damage the paintwork is just fanciful.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
and there lies the problem - you can convince yourself you have learned a valuable skill that is transferrable to the real world - in reality you have learned to play a computer game.
My kids trounce me at computer games including driving ones - why? Because they have played them for hours and have the muscle memory and feedback sorted - in the real world I can drive much better than them because I have real world experience and feedback.
Aceing a EOL in the sim is satisfying because you have beaten the machine but it is not a real world skill - it might put you in the ballpark but, as you know, no matter how well you flare and check (if you use one), the only thing matters is the level attitude for landing and keeping it straight on the run on.
every sim instructor in the world believes this - and it is true for manoeuvres that have accurate data from the real aircraft - not likely for EOLs in a twin.
My kids trounce me at computer games including driving ones - why? Because they have played them for hours and have the muscle memory and feedback sorted - in the real world I can drive much better than them because I have real world experience and feedback.
Aceing a EOL in the sim is satisfying because you have beaten the machine but it is not a real world skill - it might put you in the ballpark but, as you know, no matter how well you flare and check (if you use one), the only thing matters is the level attitude for landing and keeping it straight on the run on.
every sim instructor in the world believes this - and it is true for manoeuvres that have accurate data from the real aircraft - not likely for EOLs in a twin.
I realise how easy it is for naysayers to claim that the FSTD is not the real world. However it is all we have for these critical exercises. I take the time to provide the people who pass through my hands with as much practice and information that I can give them.
If the unthinkable ever happens to them or me, I know that we have a solid strategy to deal with it. It may not be exactly the same in the real world but its better to have a solid plan and a skill that represents the best possible outcome for us. It is a confidence building thing. Sometimes, belief in what we are doing is a major advantage when things go wrong.
In fairness, an EOL is a simple exercise when taught properly and practice. Achieve the gate flare height at the correct speed with 100% NR. Execute a reasonable flare and wait until the ground gets close. Check, level and cushion. Its not rocket science. Done with a degree of competence, even a poor surface to touchdown should result in survival.
Often I get a candidate who has no confidence in the FSTD OR that what he is being asked to do is relevant to the real world. Majority of these candidates struggle as they try to judge the flare height and check heights by visual reference. We all know that even the best visual system does not provide enough visual cues for this. Many of them simply overcontrol due to the lack of feedback in the motion system. All of them respond well to direction as to what cues matter and what cues are misleading. Use of the RADALT (if available) is paramount to their success. Careful application of pitch attitude for the flare and level off comes with practice and reference to the AI. ALL of these skills translate directly to the real helicopter.
However, I am yet again interested in your approach to this. If you think FSTD Training has no value, how can we possibly prepare ourselves for these events.
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
Sims are good but you don’t crash if you meet the programmers preset parameters. Many programmers have never flown........
However, I am yet again interested in your approach to this. If you think FSTD Training has no value, how can we possibly prepare ourselves for these events.
I fully understand the benefit and shortcomings of even the most sophisticated Simulator system.
Part of the handling problem is the delay....however short...between the Sim Computer and the Visual Computer....which can often cause PIO's.
Likewise...the Visual lack of cues at the surface becomes an issue due to the lack of detail and texture.
More importantly is the level of care taken by the Sim Operator (Instructor, facility, and owner) in providing effective training.
When you have to start off telling your students to fly the Sim and accept it is not the real aircraft (because of the visual limitations) that alone should tell you something about just how far you can go in thinking the Sim accurately reproduces the characteristics of the Aircraft.
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.
The closer in time you flown the actual aircraft in some ways retards that acclimation to the Sim as your body does not like the absence of feeling it gets replicating maneuvers done recently in the actual aircraft.....some actually get "Sim Sick" somewhat similar to Air Sickness.
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?