AAIB January 2017
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a PPL(H) businessman (but one who takes additional training sorties every year, the most recent being this month due to no stick time in December).
I think for the UK Bell Ringer makes a point that resonates for me. In the UK we are rarely hot or high (yes, it is possible but rare). I can see that it is possible to both fail to appreciate the practical application of what you are taught about their impact on performance, or "forget" as you rarely apply the theory. Also, flying mainly solo or two-up in a machine with significant excess power / performance for that weight can also lead to sloppy standards because you don't get punished for your errors. Put those together, and take a trip at MAUW without adequate planning and you can see where that trip will end ........ far short of the planned destination.
I am fairly sure that I don't agree with the "standards of instructor in the UK" complaint; but that is based on my personal experience.
I think for the UK Bell Ringer makes a point that resonates for me. In the UK we are rarely hot or high (yes, it is possible but rare). I can see that it is possible to both fail to appreciate the practical application of what you are taught about their impact on performance, or "forget" as you rarely apply the theory. Also, flying mainly solo or two-up in a machine with significant excess power / performance for that weight can also lead to sloppy standards because you don't get punished for your errors. Put those together, and take a trip at MAUW without adequate planning and you can see where that trip will end ........ far short of the planned destination.
I am fairly sure that I don't agree with the "standards of instructor in the UK" complaint; but that is based on my personal experience.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting debate. I'm another businessman / pilot in the danger zone of 41yo and 102hrs rotary, and probably like all the others consider myself conscientious, cautious and safety minded. I had the luxury of being able to employ my instructor (1200 hrs TT), whom I thought was excellent in terms of flight skills and airmanship, on a full-time basis to fly our company heli when required.
I think one thing that is at issue with businessmen flying is the transition from business head to pilot head. There are definitely occasions after a bruising meeting, where the mindset is not suitable for immediately taking to the skies. Our pilot almost always comes along on this type of trip, sits in the left seat and gives me the luxury of deciding how much of the workload I want.
He also treats each trip as further instruction, and as my confidence in handling the machine increases, he increases the challenges accordingly ("Practice Engine Failure - Go") etc. I know I'm really fortunate with this setup, but it is definitely giving me a focus to continue to learn.
There are, however, some PPLs who have approached me for SFH on our machine, and having flown with them, wouldn't let them loose on their own in a million years. I definitely agree that an hour every couple of months doesn't constitute currency in rotary, and for that reason alone, the really occasional recreational pilot is in my opinion always a greater risk.
FF
I think one thing that is at issue with businessmen flying is the transition from business head to pilot head. There are definitely occasions after a bruising meeting, where the mindset is not suitable for immediately taking to the skies. Our pilot almost always comes along on this type of trip, sits in the left seat and gives me the luxury of deciding how much of the workload I want.
He also treats each trip as further instruction, and as my confidence in handling the machine increases, he increases the challenges accordingly ("Practice Engine Failure - Go") etc. I know I'm really fortunate with this setup, but it is definitely giving me a focus to continue to learn.
There are, however, some PPLs who have approached me for SFH on our machine, and having flown with them, wouldn't let them loose on their own in a million years. I definitely agree that an hour every couple of months doesn't constitute currency in rotary, and for that reason alone, the really occasional recreational pilot is in my opinion always a greater risk.
FF
Flimsy - along with John R81 and others, you have shown that it is too easy to tar everyone with the same brush and make sweeping generalisations about both owners/pilots/businessmen and instructor competence.
You guys clearly have the professional approach to flying which seems to be sadly lacking from quite a few in your 'bracket'.
Not wanting to open the civ vs mil debate again but one of the great advantages we have in mil flying is the supervisory overview and strict currency/competency rules that are imposed on us by our regulators.
No doubt the spectres of cost/infringement of civil liberties/complexity etc would be raised in the event of trying to establish a similar structure for GA.
You guys clearly have the professional approach to flying which seems to be sadly lacking from quite a few in your 'bracket'.
Not wanting to open the civ vs mil debate again but one of the great advantages we have in mil flying is the supervisory overview and strict currency/competency rules that are imposed on us by our regulators.
No doubt the spectres of cost/infringement of civil liberties/complexity etc would be raised in the event of trying to establish a similar structure for GA.
Perhaps part of the PPL course should emphasise the Darwinian nature of post-licence flying - just as with most things in life, if you don't prepare properly you will suffer the consequences. The emphasis should be on what those consequences are - injury or death - because of the very unforgiving nature of the ground/air interface.
Perhaps the CAA could commission some films/case studies/literature highlighting the potential pitfalls of poor continuity of flying coupled with low experience and make seminars to discuss these aspects mandatory for all licence holders.
Again, the mil mandate regular Flight Safety trg and Human Factors training to keep awareness high amongst the aircrew.
There is nothing like analysing other peoples f**kups to make you aware of your own potential to do the same.
ISTR there were voluntary seminars organised by members of this forum a few years ago - do they still happen?
Perhaps the CAA could commission some films/case studies/literature highlighting the potential pitfalls of poor continuity of flying coupled with low experience and make seminars to discuss these aspects mandatory for all licence holders.
Again, the mil mandate regular Flight Safety trg and Human Factors training to keep awareness high amongst the aircrew.
There is nothing like analysing other peoples f**kups to make you aware of your own potential to do the same.
ISTR there were voluntary seminars organised by members of this forum a few years ago - do they still happen?
Those are the ones - last dated 2008! This is what should be mandatory.
Perhaps some of the money we pay for licences, medicals and type ratings should be used for exactly that purpose rather than disappearing into the CAA's coffers.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flimsy - along with John R81 and others, you have shown that it is too easy to tar everyone with the same brush and make sweeping generalisations about both owners/pilots/businessmen and instructor competence.
Alpha
Yes they are taught to do them when one HAS TO DO THEM But not all at the same time . Please tell me where you would wish to come to a high OGE hover at 70 ft down wind with an aircraft over MAUW or even close to MAUW and to cap it all apply full carb heat ??? Really !!!! anyone of my intructor's who taught that would be sacked.
Even in long lining which I do regularly, coming to a high hover at 50 to 150 ft at MAUW is acceptable because that is part of the job, but not downwind unless I want to end up in a smoking hole.
The real nub of the problem is the thought you could/should be doing this, as I said a lack of Airmanship or common sense, what was he taught or not as the case maybe !
Yes they are taught to do them when one HAS TO DO THEM But not all at the same time . Please tell me where you would wish to come to a high OGE hover at 70 ft down wind with an aircraft over MAUW or even close to MAUW and to cap it all apply full carb heat ??? Really !!!! anyone of my intructor's who taught that would be sacked.
Even in long lining which I do regularly, coming to a high hover at 50 to 150 ft at MAUW is acceptable because that is part of the job, but not downwind unless I want to end up in a smoking hole.
The real nub of the problem is the thought you could/should be doing this, as I said a lack of Airmanship or common sense, what was he taught or not as the case maybe !
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: S.E. Asia
Age: 7
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very interesting discussion. No comment about the "accidents".
Perhaps, as a start, all exams should to be invigilated at a CAA exam hall. Then there can be no "helpful invigilators/instructors" to overlook a lack of knowledge. A fail is a fail.
Perhaps, a more demanding test would be appropriate. Not: take off/hover taxi/turn/circuit/land etc but: here is a forest, where shall we land? kind of test. A real life decision making test. I could go on.
Anyway, the margins are small for these flight schools, I appreciate that; but the margins are also very small for the freelance flight instructors.
I say charge the students more and give them a structured training regime. Pass or fail, it's entirely up to them. Frankly, the triers will pass, and the arrogant will fail.
You don't see super cars for sale with a 50 quid margin. So, charge more! And the quality may, just maybe, improve........
It will never happen but, good evening anyway, I'm enjoying the comedy show.
Perhaps, as a start, all exams should to be invigilated at a CAA exam hall. Then there can be no "helpful invigilators/instructors" to overlook a lack of knowledge. A fail is a fail.
Perhaps, a more demanding test would be appropriate. Not: take off/hover taxi/turn/circuit/land etc but: here is a forest, where shall we land? kind of test. A real life decision making test. I could go on.
Anyway, the margins are small for these flight schools, I appreciate that; but the margins are also very small for the freelance flight instructors.
I say charge the students more and give them a structured training regime. Pass or fail, it's entirely up to them. Frankly, the triers will pass, and the arrogant will fail.
You don't see super cars for sale with a 50 quid margin. So, charge more! And the quality may, just maybe, improve........
It will never happen but, good evening anyway, I'm enjoying the comedy show.
Last edited by Cut or Paste; 19th Jan 2017 at 04:50.
Trouble is, there are plenty of arrogant types with deep pockets who buy and crash supercars on a pretty regular basis.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: S.E. Asia
Age: 7
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed crab@, and I know its sounds harsh, but I'm pleased when they do. Unfortunately they usually take innocent people with them.
Anyway, mine were only suggestions, I think the system as it is needs a complete shake up. The Syllabus is there, maybe there should be an enforced time period to let people absorb the knowledge before they can move on? Perhaps a series of progress checks?
Like I said it will never happen, but what do you think?
Anyway, mine were only suggestions, I think the system as it is needs a complete shake up. The Syllabus is there, maybe there should be an enforced time period to let people absorb the knowledge before they can move on? Perhaps a series of progress checks?
Like I said it will never happen, but what do you think?
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training
I know there's many views centred on the (un) airworthiness of the Robbo product, but having attended their safety course in 2016, I think it is a great forum for building awareness.
As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).
For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?
As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).
For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?
I know there's many views centred on the (un) airworthiness of the Robbo product, but having attended their safety course in 2016, I think it is a great forum for building awareness.
As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).
For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?
As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).
For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?
I think any safety course is better than no safety course and the Robinson one does have a good reputation.
Alpha - probably insurance premiums!
Cut or Paste - I'm not holding my breath waiting for any action by the authorities.
Alpha - probably insurance premiums!
Cut or Paste - I'm not holding my breath waiting for any action by the authorities.
Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread! You can pass a driving test that shows you are barely competent to drive, buy a sports car, and crash it due to inexperience. Happens all the time. So what.
If you have newly obtained your helicopter licence and operate in an unsupervised environment, you likewise have a pretty good chance (relatively) of crashing. So what, that is the nature of private flying. Alternatively, we could make PPLs do a couple of thousand hours training prior to being awarded their licences. But guess what, there wouldn't be too many PPLs out there!
Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.
Edited to add that by "you" I mean a fair chunk of those participating in this thread, not just the person whose post preceded mine.
If you have newly obtained your helicopter licence and operate in an unsupervised environment, you likewise have a pretty good chance (relatively) of crashing. So what, that is the nature of private flying. Alternatively, we could make PPLs do a couple of thousand hours training prior to being awarded their licences. But guess what, there wouldn't be too many PPLs out there!
Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.
Edited to add that by "you" I mean a fair chunk of those participating in this thread, not just the person whose post preceded mine.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=HeliComparator;9646165]Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread!
Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.
QUOTE]
Hello HC,
as a PPL with 100hrs, I'm the last to pontificate over someone else's misfortune. It is a fact that in this accident, it was quite a lengthy string of back-to-back no-nos that led to the final impact.
I don't think it is unreasonable to question either the standard of training given, or the level to which that training was interpreted and applied.
I totally agree that a new PPL is a major risk category for the reasons you state, but I still think any new pilot has a responsibility to himself and others to minimise that risk to the greatest possible extent.
Whether or not you think I'm pompous or arrogant for saying this, I don't think the pilot in question did so when he combined so many unfavourable conditions into a single flight.
Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.
QUOTE]
Hello HC,
as a PPL with 100hrs, I'm the last to pontificate over someone else's misfortune. It is a fact that in this accident, it was quite a lengthy string of back-to-back no-nos that led to the final impact.
I don't think it is unreasonable to question either the standard of training given, or the level to which that training was interpreted and applied.
I totally agree that a new PPL is a major risk category for the reasons you state, but I still think any new pilot has a responsibility to himself and others to minimise that risk to the greatest possible extent.
Whether or not you think I'm pompous or arrogant for saying this, I don't think the pilot in question did so when he combined so many unfavourable conditions into a single flight.
Having a bad day Helicomparator?
You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.
No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.
Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.
You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.
No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.
Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Having a bad day Helicomparator?
You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.
No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.
Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.
You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.
No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.
Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.
Of course one can always strive to improve things but when that comes down to "lets not let those silly young people be instructors, lets only allow us terribly experienced, competent and lets face it, awfully clever people to be instructors." that just comes across as arrogant and stupid.
PPL standards, training and competency and ATPL standards are likely to be different. Get over it!
That said, I have encountered some pretty incompetent ATPLs and some pretty competent PPLs - there are always exceptions!
alphanumeric Are you quite new to helicopters
Take the say £50 for instructor out then fuel, insurance for training, landing fees, finance, maintenance + other overheads there is not a lot left & that is if there is no unforeseen events, & there always is I have found
I think on going training "CPD" is a must for all of us we should all aspire to be as professional as possible.
Ongoing training can only be a good thing as Crab says.
Take the say £50 for instructor out then fuel, insurance for training, landing fees, finance, maintenance + other overheads there is not a lot left & that is if there is no unforeseen events, & there always is I have found
I think on going training "CPD" is a must for all of us we should all aspire to be as professional as possible.
Ongoing training can only be a good thing as Crab says.
Last edited by 500e; 19th Jan 2017 at 13:56.