Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Bristow S76 Ditched in Nigeria today Feb 3 2016

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Bristow S76 Ditched in Nigeria today Feb 3 2016

Old 11th Feb 2016, 17:58
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"They did, but did not do the proper fuel calculations."

Probably a fair bet that they didn't do a calculation at all.
RyRy is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 00:39
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 27
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Will this be treated as seriously as a wrong deck landing? Plan your flight and fly your plan................................
bh412tt is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 00:55
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: On land
Posts: 212
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
All Bristow (Nigeria) S76 pilots are to receive simulator training before they can resume flying.

This is pointing more to a Human Factors than a MGB issue!
Nescafe is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 01:01
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah, yes. Stick them in a simulator for half an hour each, tick the box and all is cured.
roundwego is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 01:48
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
We do fuel system malfunctions in the simulator, but simulating running out of fuel due to something other than a fuel system malfunction is not something normally covered during expensive simulator time. We always cover emergency landing on water with offshore crews, and I would say about half the time they get it good enough, and all the time they come out better for the training. Assuming this crew had undergone such training they have benefited from it and it was money well spent because the water landing resulted in all passengers making it into a life raft.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 02:41
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: In the middle of freakin nowhere
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Given the utter shroud that has seemingly been thrown over this incident, in spite of the fact no one was injured or killed, one is left to speculate that the probable cause behind this event may quite probably be highly embarrassing for the operator.

And should this event happen to play out in a manner that not only myself, but many of the other posters on this thread are, I am sure, most certainly thinking, it will call into question and cast some seriously uncomfortable light on the most basic competency of some of this operator's air crew.

Given the complete absence of any meaningful information as to cause in the press release of 10 Feb, one might reasonably conclude an awful lot of spin is going to accompany whatever subsequent information gets released.
tasspook is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 04:25
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It may have been an interesting discussion in the life raft whilst waiting for rescue. Although rescue is probably not the right word; had there been a rescue might have implications for Target Zero.
There are instances of helicopter pilots running out of fuel and crashing in 8/8 blue sky after flying past a multitude of suitable landing sites, I just don't recall a ditching due to fuel exhaustion happening in a 2-pilot offshore twin-engine helicopter before. I'd be really surprised if that's what happened here because fuel quantity check is an item in every before take-off checklist I've ever seen. And if by some oversight it's missed in the before take-off check, it should be there in the after take-off and/or top-of-climb check lists as well. So if it turned out you discovered you didn't have enough fuel to get to the destination you just wear the embarrassment and head back to the departure point.
Don't want to be seen to be preaching here, just my way of thinking.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 04:37
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Out there
Posts: 350
Received 8 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tasspook View Post
Given the utter shroud that has seemingly been thrown over this incident,

I believe that this is a problem that is becoming more prevalent and it has implications that reach far further than what may have been otherwise innocuous events (other than in this case).

When there is no information it is human nature to speculate and surmise on what may have happened. This can lead to a kangaroo court of opinion and parties involved in an incident/event being tried and found guilty long before the facts are known.

Last edited by Evil Twin; 12th Feb 2016 at 04:41. Reason: typo
Evil Twin is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 08:43
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 876
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think that the Simulator Training will be about Autopilot malfunctions, how not to mistake them for control malfunctions and how to fly Autopilot degraded or even Autopilot out.
industry insider is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 10:23
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The flight control malfunctions covered in the simulator are hydraulics, tail rotor control, and damper jam. The AP malfunctions don't behave like any of these. In any case, AP malfunctions are easy to diagnose. Just turn off each AP one at a time and see what happens. If the problem goes away then the AP system you just turned off is the culprit. Just leave it turned off and keep flying. The AP only has 5% control authority. There is no AP malfunction that would necessitate "land immediately" or result in loss of control.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 10:25
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
This problem will be solved in a very simple way. Capt Jaiyeola (who is now a hero by the way, let's not forget) will be upgraded to the S92. This way she will never have to worry again about having enough fuel on board. See? Simple!!
tgvbhy15 is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 10:33
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: On land
Posts: 212
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
There is no AP malfunction that would necessitate "land immediately" or result in loss of control.
No, but if as Industry Insider alludes to, you fail to diagnose it as an AP problem and decide it's a flight control issue, (given the fatal S76 crash recently) she might have been in a bit more of a hurry to get out? I guess it comes down to system knowledge, or lack thereof.
Nescafe is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 10:48
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Den Haag/Constanta
Age: 56
Posts: 5,494
Received 41 Likes on 27 Posts
The AP only has 5% control authority
Not sure that's correct for a C++. Typically the SAS will have 5% authority per actuator, with 10% authority in total, but the trim actuators - which the coupled modes will use - will have 100% authority.
212man is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:09
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
If the helicopter does something you don't expect it to, like abrupt disturbance or repretitive oscillation or porpoising (usually in one axis only). Firstly, you still have full control over anything the AP might do wrong (which is the immediate action). Secondly, follow the checklist, there are no memory items with this. The end of the checklist will see one of the AP's turned off. Just tell the passengers there was a minor disturbance, corrective action has been taken, and continue flying to the destination. Certainly, if you somehow end up with both AP turned off, any S76 pilot will know the flight disturbances will be much worse

Getting back to speculation mode, I see it far more likely to have just screwed up on the fuel rather than misdiagnosed an in-flight disturbance. The only control system malfunction that will put you in the water is hydraulics with permanent binding, or a control tube comes undone which will be obvious because you will have no sensible control at all. There was an S76 that might have ended up in the water when a disrupted bolt jamed the cyclic in a forward position. They were lucky that day, couldn't slow below 80 knots and they landed it at that speed. Now that was certainly a hero effort.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:21
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
@212Man what I was trying to explain was the faulty AP will only exert 5% authority through a single linear actuator in the affected channel. And this will be ameliorated to some extent by the good AP channel telling its series actuator to do the opposite thing. The rotary trim actuator has 100% authority, but as soon as you hit the force trim release on the cyclic, or switch off the stick trims, the trim actuator is unpowered and thus taken completely out of the equation.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:26
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: On land
Posts: 212
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I see it far more likely to have just screwed up on the fuel rather than misdiagnosed an in-flight disturbance.
I'm not so sure, do you think they'd send every S76 pilot all the way to the Aberdeen sim for a lesson in fuel management?
Nescafe is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:46
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 9,662
Received 108 Likes on 51 Posts
Maybe now the spin is reducing and some elements of truth are appearing, we might see a few less 'Outraged from Nigeria' posts (which seem to have been deleted).
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 11:52
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
@Nescafe. Not to the sim for practicing fuel management. To the sim for practicing controlled landing on the water in-case they screw up on their fuel management. Do they have a C++ sim in Aberdeen?
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 12:03
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: On land
Posts: 212
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Perhaps, but my sources are all saying misdiagnosed AP/control issues.

l'm sure the truth will out eventually, and yes they do.
Nescafe is online now  
Old 12th Feb 2016, 12:11
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
I've never seen a crew screw up an AP malfunction which is why I'm sceptical in this instance.

What I often see is the crew will just ignore it, pretend nothing is wrong, and keep flying. However if they do decide to deal with it it is straight forward to end up with the correct result. Although in doing so they will often lose SA and end up somewhere geographically they didn't intend to be, or miss something else more important that should be dealt with first (like cancelling a fire tone without confirming a fire whilst continuing to deal with the AP problem).

However in saying all this it is a very long time since I've flown in Nigeria so if there is a Nigeria thing at play here is not factored into my thinking or recent experience.
gulliBell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.