Bristow S76 Ditched in Nigeria today Feb 3 2016
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Finland
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little bird tells me the crew experienced a complete electrical failure.
You need to find a more reliable bird because that one is wildly inaccurate
If they had a complete electrical failure they wouldn't have been able to broadcast a mayday, which they did, and they wouldn't have been able to deploy the floats, which they did. And even if they did have a complete electrical failure, it can still fly no problem at all because you still have a magnetic compass and a clock to get you home.
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: earth
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is obvious it was a crew related problem. If it had been some major problem with the S76, don't you think it would be in Bristow's interest to reveal it asap and perhaps sue Sikorsky. Bristow is a huge customer for them and if the recent accident was due to a major aircraft malfunction we would all know by now and Bristow would sue Sikorsky for damages. Big contracts being lost and 6 lives last august 2015. So, it was a big, huge, crew related cock-up and thus the stalling, the cover ups and the "yes we'll do an internal audit...but why just us and not the others too?"
Nationalization looks great on paper, it's just hard to explain to customers when their workers "narrowly escape death" and even harder when loosing contracts and the big bosses from Huston are calling for an explanation. Wait a minute! Wasn't nationalization Akin's big plan? Isn't he working in Houston now? Why don't they ask him? And ask him about the few mill that went missing too!
Nationalization looks great on paper, it's just hard to explain to customers when their workers "narrowly escape death" and even harder when loosing contracts and the big bosses from Huston are calling for an explanation. Wait a minute! Wasn't nationalization Akin's big plan? Isn't he working in Houston now? Why don't they ask him? And ask him about the few mill that went missing too!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OH no engine flame out!!
So they had an electrical failure!! So i guess they thought the engines would flame out?? Yes it must be those electrically driven engine fuel pumps!! or perhaps the igniters would stop working...???
Next time one of the national crews has a problem with the manifold bypass valve or a carburetor belt they should definitely ditch. anything could happen!!
Try pulling out a map and using your finger!!!!! and looking out the window, has been a tried and proven method of flying for better part of 100 years!!
......
Next time one of the national crews has a problem with the manifold bypass valve or a carburetor belt they should definitely ditch. anything could happen!!
Try pulling out a map and using your finger!!!!! and looking out the window, has been a tried and proven method of flying for better part of 100 years!!
......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Ogba
Age: 53
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nationalization looks great on paper, it's just hard to explain to customers when their workers "narrowly escape death" and even harder when loosing contracts and the big bosses from Huston are calling for an explanation. Wait a minute! Wasn't nationalization Akin's big plan? Isn't he working in Houston now? Why don't they ask him? And ask him about the few mill that went missing too!
Yes Akin is working in Houston now. I guess Bristow would not have promoted him and sent him to a position there if there were any truth behind your libellous accusations about missing money. I'm amazed the moderators have allowed your libellous statements to remain on here when both you and PPruNe could (and should) be taken to court over them
When @tgvbhy15 mentioned about a few mill went missing, I just assumed he meant a few Millers Extra Draught went missing off the bar tab. Clearly a minor oversight, just pass the hat around the bar to cover the shortfall. Nothing too libellous about that I would have thought.
As for any connection between the Nigerian nationalisation program and the accident rate. It doesn't worry me too much that Nigerian crews are having accidents in Nigerian registered helicopters in Nigerian Airspace with Nigerian passengers. It's their train set, if it turns into a train wreck occasionally then so be it. Problem belong them.
We don't see any Nigerian recurrent trainees in our simulator, perhaps we should. I've recently acquainted myself with the OGP requirements for helicopter pilots, particularly Appendix A5B. I've been flying offshore for 20+ years and no company I have ever worked for would accept these experience requirements for offshore Captain. A5B has come to me as a complete surprise. 4 years co-pilot only experience for progression to offshore Captain is a joke IMHO.
And 1000 PICUS is also a joke. ICUS should be about giving a guy some initial experience in a particular role, e.g. 10 hours ICUS on a new aircraft type before letting him/her flying PIC, or 10 hours ICUS in-country for the 1st time. 1000 PICUS is just fake PIC time and in my book worth diddly squat SFA. I'm very surprised it can all be used to get an ATPL.
As for any connection between the Nigerian nationalisation program and the accident rate. It doesn't worry me too much that Nigerian crews are having accidents in Nigerian registered helicopters in Nigerian Airspace with Nigerian passengers. It's their train set, if it turns into a train wreck occasionally then so be it. Problem belong them.
We don't see any Nigerian recurrent trainees in our simulator, perhaps we should. I've recently acquainted myself with the OGP requirements for helicopter pilots, particularly Appendix A5B. I've been flying offshore for 20+ years and no company I have ever worked for would accept these experience requirements for offshore Captain. A5B has come to me as a complete surprise. 4 years co-pilot only experience for progression to offshore Captain is a joke IMHO.
And 1000 PICUS is also a joke. ICUS should be about giving a guy some initial experience in a particular role, e.g. 10 hours ICUS on a new aircraft type before letting him/her flying PIC, or 10 hours ICUS in-country for the 1st time. 1000 PICUS is just fake PIC time and in my book worth diddly squat SFA. I'm very surprised it can all be used to get an ATPL.
Last edited by gulliBell; 29th Feb 2016 at 01:46.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Germany
Age: 56
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I concur
When @tgvbhy15 mentioned about a few mill went missing, I just assumed he meant a few Millers Extra Draught went missing off the bar tab. Clearly a minor oversight, just pass the hat around the bar to cover the shortfall. Nothing too libellous about that I would have thought.
As for any connection between the Nigerian nationalisation program and the accident rate. It doesn't worry me too much that Nigerian crews are having accidents in Nigerian registered helicopters in Nigerian Airspace with Nigerian passengers. It's their train set, if it turns into a train wreck occasionally then so be it. Problem belong them.
We don't see any Nigerian recurrent trainees in our simulator, perhaps we should. I've recently acquainted myself with the OGP requirements for helicopter pilots, particularly Appendix A5B. I've been flying offshore for 20+ years and no company I have ever worked for would accept these experience requirements for offshore Captain. A5B has come to me as a complete surprise. 4 years co-pilot only experience for progression to offshore Captain is a joke IMHO.
And 1000 PICUS is also a joke. ICUS should be about giving a guy some initial experience in a particular role, e.g. 10 hours ICUS on a new aircraft type before letting him/her flying PIC, or 10 hours ICUS in-country for the 1st time. 1000 PICUS is just fake PIC time and in my book worth diddly squat SFA. I'm very surprised it can all be used to get an ATPL.
As for any connection between the Nigerian nationalisation program and the accident rate. It doesn't worry me too much that Nigerian crews are having accidents in Nigerian registered helicopters in Nigerian Airspace with Nigerian passengers. It's their train set, if it turns into a train wreck occasionally then so be it. Problem belong them.
We don't see any Nigerian recurrent trainees in our simulator, perhaps we should. I've recently acquainted myself with the OGP requirements for helicopter pilots, particularly Appendix A5B. I've been flying offshore for 20+ years and no company I have ever worked for would accept these experience requirements for offshore Captain. A5B has come to me as a complete surprise. 4 years co-pilot only experience for progression to offshore Captain is a joke IMHO.
And 1000 PICUS is also a joke. ICUS should be about giving a guy some initial experience in a particular role, e.g. 10 hours ICUS on a new aircraft type before letting him/her flying PIC, or 10 hours ICUS in-country for the 1st time. 1000 PICUS is just fake PIC time and in my book worth diddly squat SFA. I'm very surprised it can all be used to get an ATPL.
Don't see any of them flying the crane either working forest fires or moving drills. ... Hoping one day to get that coveted offshore job?
Best to sit back make the pop corn and enjoy the show! Too bad more lives will be lost before it gets straightened out in the logic free zone.
Just to further extend my previous comments about ICUS.
I'm to understand the Captain of the accident aircraft was a recently minted PIC who came up through that folly ICUS upgrade process. Turn back the clock to when said Captain was a co-pilot undergoing 1000 hours ICUS. I know this is crystal ball gazing a bit, but do you think if faced with the same circumstances which resulted in the ditching, do you think the real Captain would be making the decision to ditch, or the pretend Captain who is really a co-pilot ICUS??
Would they have ended up floating on the big pond if it was an ICUS crew? Perhaps not. Perhaps so. Perhaps we'll never know. Perhaps this aspect is totally irrelevant. As per my usual caveat of ignorance I don't claim to know much about anything.
I'm to understand the Captain of the accident aircraft was a recently minted PIC who came up through that folly ICUS upgrade process. Turn back the clock to when said Captain was a co-pilot undergoing 1000 hours ICUS. I know this is crystal ball gazing a bit, but do you think if faced with the same circumstances which resulted in the ditching, do you think the real Captain would be making the decision to ditch, or the pretend Captain who is really a co-pilot ICUS??
Would they have ended up floating on the big pond if it was an ICUS crew? Perhaps not. Perhaps so. Perhaps we'll never know. Perhaps this aspect is totally irrelevant. As per my usual caveat of ignorance I don't claim to know much about anything.
gulliBell your dinosaur scales are showing. As I mentioned earlier it is standard practice to gain offshore command with minimal P1 time. Including me and most of my colleagues. There is no benefit to droning around SPVFR for hundreds or thousands of hours, it is not relevant and in fact can be counter-productive. Your view makes me think you are one of those arrogant old gits that thinks the way they did things is the only right way. I suspect you are a right pain to fly with.
Presumably you also believe that airline pilots should have hundreds of hours droning around in a Cessna 152. And regardless of whether or not it would be of any benefit, it ain't going to happen so get over it.
Presumably you also believe that airline pilots should have hundreds of hours droning around in a Cessna 152. And regardless of whether or not it would be of any benefit, it ain't going to happen so get over it.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC, after reading some of your posts on this thread and others on this site I suspect it is Gits like you that probably could have benefited from a few thousand hrs of SPVFR, if you actually got that far.
It seems that just because you haven't got hundreds or thousands of SPVFR under your belt you may have a chip on your shoulder about it, and because you came through with minimal P1 that is the only way it should be done.
I would rather have someone up the front if I was a pax that can actually fly as opposed to someone that thinks hand flying IFR is to dangerous or reckless to do with pax onboard (as stated in a post of yours on another thread) than a button pusher that may
Run out of ideas the moment he/she runs out of buttons to push.
But unfortunately you are correct that in this day in age all pilots are going to be like you and come through there respective training and command programs with minimal exposure to anything that is outside there scope of operations and it will be tough luck for all on board when something outside the box happens.
It seems that just because you haven't got hundreds or thousands of SPVFR under your belt you may have a chip on your shoulder about it, and because you came through with minimal P1 that is the only way it should be done.
I would rather have someone up the front if I was a pax that can actually fly as opposed to someone that thinks hand flying IFR is to dangerous or reckless to do with pax onboard (as stated in a post of yours on another thread) than a button pusher that may
Run out of ideas the moment he/she runs out of buttons to push.
But unfortunately you are correct that in this day in age all pilots are going to be like you and come through there respective training and command programs with minimal exposure to anything that is outside there scope of operations and it will be tough luck for all on board when something outside the box happens.
Fd it's interesting how the "thousands of hours SPVFR is the only way to be a real man" comes from the antipodeans. I guess it matches the stereotype!
Anyway trading insults aside you are misquoting me to make your point, that being the easiest way to "score points" but also the most transparent.
I don't have thousands of hours SPVFR, however no chip about it. My way is not the only way, we had plenty in Bristow who did have lots of SPVFR, they were no better or worse as a group than those without. There were a few who were too entrenched in their SPVFR ways to accept such concepts as CRM/MCC and the optimum use of automation. They were problem pilots for the 99.999% of the time when such things were paramount, no doubt they could have been heroes for the 0.001% of the time when things went drastically wrong and they had to reveal their balls - but unluckily for them they never had the chance to show their caveman skills.
Of course there were also a few without lots of SPVFR who also "bumped along the bottom" and were problem pilots. C'est la vie.
The chip lies with those who think that loads of SPVFR is the solution to all ills. Which is clearly BS.
And yes I can hand fly, with or without the autopilot. However I know that in poor conditions the option with the greatest safety margin is to use the automation to its best capability. This is the safest way of doing things for the passengers, even if some are too stupid to realise it.
Your "dissing" of those who understand the advantages of automation merely reveals the depths of your own ignorance. Back to cattle mustering in an R22 for you!
Anyway trading insults aside you are misquoting me to make your point, that being the easiest way to "score points" but also the most transparent.
I don't have thousands of hours SPVFR, however no chip about it. My way is not the only way, we had plenty in Bristow who did have lots of SPVFR, they were no better or worse as a group than those without. There were a few who were too entrenched in their SPVFR ways to accept such concepts as CRM/MCC and the optimum use of automation. They were problem pilots for the 99.999% of the time when such things were paramount, no doubt they could have been heroes for the 0.001% of the time when things went drastically wrong and they had to reveal their balls - but unluckily for them they never had the chance to show their caveman skills.
Of course there were also a few without lots of SPVFR who also "bumped along the bottom" and were problem pilots. C'est la vie.
The chip lies with those who think that loads of SPVFR is the solution to all ills. Which is clearly BS.
And yes I can hand fly, with or without the autopilot. However I know that in poor conditions the option with the greatest safety margin is to use the automation to its best capability. This is the safest way of doing things for the passengers, even if some are too stupid to realise it.
Your "dissing" of those who understand the advantages of automation merely reveals the depths of your own ignorance. Back to cattle mustering in an R22 for you!
HC
Be careful dragging the airline brethren into this as it has been universally acknowledged that if certain pilots had obtained more 'stick n rudder' 152 flying then maybe they might have been able to recognise the symptoms of a stall or cope with flying a missed approach and a lot more passengers would still be alive today.
Technology is great but significant resources have to be spent training with it.
Such resources are traditionally allocated by pilots who are left to guesstimate how much training is deemed adequate.
History of O&G incidents indicate that such guess work has been woefully wide of the mark - possibly a factor of the industry determining what the CAA 'rubber stamps' rather than the other way around?
But that is another story.
I agree with you that it is quality not quantity that attend but invariably it is decision-making which lets the pilot down.
The more exposure to all forms of aviation the more experience to base such decisions on. It is as simple as that. Although in this day and age there is a tendency to think one can short-cut the route.
Consider the reduction of experience in airline cockpits now more and more skippers are flying with pilots qualified to touch the gear and do the radio.
A deliberate decision to fill seats with a 'button pusher' rather than someone the captain can trust to be able to fly the machine without an auto-pilot.
Maybe off-topic but let us not pretend that the deliberate dilution of experience requirements is anything to do with improving safety.
It is difficult for bean-counters to account for the experience whose value is only publically-demonstrated to shareholders on very few occasions.
High-time pilots have their foibles but I have experienced arrogant and over-confident low-time pilots who would be of little use once the button-pressing options were exhausted.
Equally, I have flown with some excellent low-time pilots - and by low-time I mean <5000-hrs total of onshore commercial/utility or <10,000-hrs tracking a radial offshore ;-)
Be careful dragging the airline brethren into this as it has been universally acknowledged that if certain pilots had obtained more 'stick n rudder' 152 flying then maybe they might have been able to recognise the symptoms of a stall or cope with flying a missed approach and a lot more passengers would still be alive today.
Technology is great but significant resources have to be spent training with it.
Such resources are traditionally allocated by pilots who are left to guesstimate how much training is deemed adequate.
History of O&G incidents indicate that such guess work has been woefully wide of the mark - possibly a factor of the industry determining what the CAA 'rubber stamps' rather than the other way around?
But that is another story.
I agree with you that it is quality not quantity that attend but invariably it is decision-making which lets the pilot down.
The more exposure to all forms of aviation the more experience to base such decisions on. It is as simple as that. Although in this day and age there is a tendency to think one can short-cut the route.
Consider the reduction of experience in airline cockpits now more and more skippers are flying with pilots qualified to touch the gear and do the radio.
A deliberate decision to fill seats with a 'button pusher' rather than someone the captain can trust to be able to fly the machine without an auto-pilot.
Maybe off-topic but let us not pretend that the deliberate dilution of experience requirements is anything to do with improving safety.
It is difficult for bean-counters to account for the experience whose value is only publically-demonstrated to shareholders on very few occasions.
High-time pilots have their foibles but I have experienced arrogant and over-confident low-time pilots who would be of little use once the button-pressing options were exhausted.
Equally, I have flown with some excellent low-time pilots - and by low-time I mean <5000-hrs total of onshore commercial/utility or <10,000-hrs tracking a radial offshore ;-)
EEDSL
Yes there seems to be a bit of a trend for airline pilots to be unable to actually fly! However one has to look at the big picture. Before button-pushing was invented, pilots had to have enormous balls and steely eyes, however despite that they still crashed quite a lot.
After button-pushing they now crash a lot less, but when they do crash it does sometimes seem to be due to a lack of basic skills. But as a passenger I don't particularly care if the cause of accidents has shifted slightly, what I do care about is that the probability of an accident has reduced substantially. It is only pilots who are offended when crashery occurs due to lack of basic flying skills, the flying public doesnt give a flying whatsit which bit of human error caused the crash, they just don't want to be in a crash.
Obviously the optimal solution is that pilots are maestros both of button pushing and also manual flying skills. But given that we don't live in a perfect world and we have limited training and experience building time, that time is best spent minimising the risk of an accident rather than satisfying the purist desires of the manualflightfascists. Most pilot-caused accidents or serious incidents that I am aware of in my (ex) company have at their roots lack of technical understanding, poor CRM and decision making. Not lack of basic flying skills.
Bottom line is that you have to direct the resources where they will have the most benefit. And if you are only going to recruit and promote those with thousands of SPVFR hours, you are going to be very limited and obliged to recruit the dross. That is not going to help flight safety.
Yes there seems to be a bit of a trend for airline pilots to be unable to actually fly! However one has to look at the big picture. Before button-pushing was invented, pilots had to have enormous balls and steely eyes, however despite that they still crashed quite a lot.
After button-pushing they now crash a lot less, but when they do crash it does sometimes seem to be due to a lack of basic skills. But as a passenger I don't particularly care if the cause of accidents has shifted slightly, what I do care about is that the probability of an accident has reduced substantially. It is only pilots who are offended when crashery occurs due to lack of basic flying skills, the flying public doesnt give a flying whatsit which bit of human error caused the crash, they just don't want to be in a crash.
Obviously the optimal solution is that pilots are maestros both of button pushing and also manual flying skills. But given that we don't live in a perfect world and we have limited training and experience building time, that time is best spent minimising the risk of an accident rather than satisfying the purist desires of the manualflightfascists. Most pilot-caused accidents or serious incidents that I am aware of in my (ex) company have at their roots lack of technical understanding, poor CRM and decision making. Not lack of basic flying skills.
Bottom line is that you have to direct the resources where they will have the most benefit. And if you are only going to recruit and promote those with thousands of SPVFR hours, you are going to be very limited and obliged to recruit the dross. That is not going to help flight safety.
Agree - and the industry knows of experienced pilots who are not 'experienced' with 4-axis autopilots who would rather disconnect all the wizardry when the situation goes Pete Tong - with dire consequences.
However, experience does not care about the colour of ones skin but does care when scant regard is given to it.
We all know it comes down to ALARP - or what should be called 'As Low As what we can get away with without crashing too many times'
However, experience does not care about the colour of ones skin but does care when scant regard is given to it.
We all know it comes down to ALARP - or what should be called 'As Low As what we can get away with without crashing too many times'
@HC: all I can say is the proof is in the pudding.
Having worked for the likes of Esso and Saudi Armco, which between them over the past 40+ years have had a grand total of one accident in about a million flight hours (which was a Saudi national crew at night many years ago), neither would ever accept a co-pilot to medium-PIC progression model based on co-pilot only + ICUS time. Aramco sponsored national pilots have to do their initial license, followed by years of co-pilot time, followed by a few years of single pilot light ship time, before they are even considered for PIC of a medium twin-offshore helicopter. And once they get to that stage, they have to do a limited ICUS program as the final step of their upgrade. This is the proper use of ICUS, 1000 hours ICUS is totally bollocks. And as for expats, the minimum for entry level co-pilot is 2000 hours PIC and 3500 hours total.
These standards produce results. I just remain sceptical that the Nigerian nationalisation scheme, as enshrined in the OGP Annex 5, produces a well-rounded offshore helicopter Captain.
Now in my role as a training Captain with a major international airline I see recurrent trainees with ATP licences that do such hair-brain stuff in the simulator it leaves me totally bewildered sometimes. To the extent that I seriously wonder how they ever got a PPL let alone ATP. I don't get frustrated by it any more, I'm happy if the trainees manage to get on the right page of the ECL. Whether they can carry out what's written in the ECL is an entirely different matter.
We have a national cadet pilot program as well. Spoiled rich kids aren't typically selected. Prospective cadet pilots are hired based on a rigorous selection process, much like the military. Those selected attend basic flight training, then get a light jet type rating flown in a real aircraft, then they do their training course for their allocated RPT jet type, then they play second officer for a number of years. Then they play FO for many many years. Perhaps 15 to 20 years down the track they get a shot at command.
And my course mates who did 10 years military flying before earning a gig with an Airline as a FO, they have been flying FO for 15+ years and are now only coming to the top of the FO list for command upgrade. So that is 10 years military + 15 years civilian co-pilot flying before they get looked at for a command slot.
So this is my experience, for what it's worth.
Having worked for the likes of Esso and Saudi Armco, which between them over the past 40+ years have had a grand total of one accident in about a million flight hours (which was a Saudi national crew at night many years ago), neither would ever accept a co-pilot to medium-PIC progression model based on co-pilot only + ICUS time. Aramco sponsored national pilots have to do their initial license, followed by years of co-pilot time, followed by a few years of single pilot light ship time, before they are even considered for PIC of a medium twin-offshore helicopter. And once they get to that stage, they have to do a limited ICUS program as the final step of their upgrade. This is the proper use of ICUS, 1000 hours ICUS is totally bollocks. And as for expats, the minimum for entry level co-pilot is 2000 hours PIC and 3500 hours total.
These standards produce results. I just remain sceptical that the Nigerian nationalisation scheme, as enshrined in the OGP Annex 5, produces a well-rounded offshore helicopter Captain.
Now in my role as a training Captain with a major international airline I see recurrent trainees with ATP licences that do such hair-brain stuff in the simulator it leaves me totally bewildered sometimes. To the extent that I seriously wonder how they ever got a PPL let alone ATP. I don't get frustrated by it any more, I'm happy if the trainees manage to get on the right page of the ECL. Whether they can carry out what's written in the ECL is an entirely different matter.
We have a national cadet pilot program as well. Spoiled rich kids aren't typically selected. Prospective cadet pilots are hired based on a rigorous selection process, much like the military. Those selected attend basic flight training, then get a light jet type rating flown in a real aircraft, then they do their training course for their allocated RPT jet type, then they play second officer for a number of years. Then they play FO for many many years. Perhaps 15 to 20 years down the track they get a shot at command.
And my course mates who did 10 years military flying before earning a gig with an Airline as a FO, they have been flying FO for 15+ years and are now only coming to the top of the FO list for command upgrade. So that is 10 years military + 15 years civilian co-pilot flying before they get looked at for a command slot.
So this is my experience, for what it's worth.
Last edited by gulliBell; 29th Feb 2016 at 09:42.
Well my experience is that most offshore pilots have very limited SPVFR time. This is not going to change. So whether you are right or wrong, or (more likely) comparing apples with oranges, you are swimming against the tide and not being realistic. Let's say that the major operators did decide to agree with you and require all offshore pilots to have 1000s of SP hours before getting command, just exactly where are these people going to come from and even if they could be magicked up where is the evidence that, overall, they will be more competent in an airline-type offshore role?
It's all academic because it ain't going to happen. Thank heavens.
It's all academic because it ain't going to happen. Thank heavens.
HC, I'm not sure where your experience is (although Aberdeen is listed as your domicile you no doubt have flown other than the NS?) but to choose to flay 'antipodeans' because not everyone agrees with you is a choice little insult in the midst of a Nigerian accident thread!
Without doubt the management of modern helicopters has changed enormously in the past 20 or so years, and system management has overtaken raw skills to achieve the company objective. But to denigrate those basic skills, especially in the manner that you have chosen in this thread, misses the point entirely.
Should it be found that the loss of the S76 was avoidable had greater basic flying skills been available then it is a valid and valuable issue to be discussed here.
Without doubt the management of modern helicopters has changed enormously in the past 20 or so years, and system management has overtaken raw skills to achieve the company objective. But to denigrate those basic skills, especially in the manner that you have chosen in this thread, misses the point entirely.
Should it be found that the loss of the S76 was avoidable had greater basic flying skills been available then it is a valid and valuable issue to be discussed here.