Emergency Helicopter crash in Italy
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Super F & Crab,
I think we all agree that excellent training is the most fundamental tool to avoid accidents, and part of that is CRM & TEM. We can't avoid risk in this environment, but if we can recognise the risks and take steps to mitigate them as far as possible, then we can go a long way to making missions safer (or less dangerous, depending on your standpoint!)
In this type of operation, where I imagine a degraded visual environment is common, you have to ask whether MP operations might go some way to mitigate risk. As far as technology is concerned, maybe a later generation of avionics with a safety/flyup function might provide a last ditch protection in some circumstances. Of course it won't work if you don't engage a collective mode, and of course it won't help if you fly into a cliff, but it might just have saved this helicopter.
There will always be the argument that technology gives you a false sense of security, and that pilots will rely on it when they shouldn't, but if you take that argument to extremes, it would suggest that we should all be flying around in unstabilised helicopters without FD, radalt, etc etc. In fact, if you are trained to use them appropriately, all these things can improve safety in particular environments.
I think we all agree that excellent training is the most fundamental tool to avoid accidents, and part of that is CRM & TEM. We can't avoid risk in this environment, but if we can recognise the risks and take steps to mitigate them as far as possible, then we can go a long way to making missions safer (or less dangerous, depending on your standpoint!)
In this type of operation, where I imagine a degraded visual environment is common, you have to ask whether MP operations might go some way to mitigate risk. As far as technology is concerned, maybe a later generation of avionics with a safety/flyup function might provide a last ditch protection in some circumstances. Of course it won't work if you don't engage a collective mode, and of course it won't help if you fly into a cliff, but it might just have saved this helicopter.
There will always be the argument that technology gives you a false sense of security, and that pilots will rely on it when they shouldn't, but if you take that argument to extremes, it would suggest that we should all be flying around in unstabilised helicopters without FD, radalt, etc etc. In fact, if you are trained to use them appropriately, all these things can improve safety in particular environments.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"but if you take that argument to extremes, it would suggest that we should all be flying around in unstabilised helicopters without FD, radalt, etc etc"
Thats all i fly! But then my work is Longline/Utility/ag etc, and if it gets that bad, i just don't fly... Plus the majority of my flying is in a very friendly environment, with a lot of easy places to land.
Thats all i fly! But then my work is Longline/Utility/ag etc, and if it gets that bad, i just don't fly... Plus the majority of my flying is in a very friendly environment, with a lot of easy places to land.
Non PC Plod - I would not recommend anything but MP crewing for this kind of operation.
With appropriate training, a 4-person SAR crew working well together can mitigate a lot of the risk, with two sets of eyes up front and lots of nav assist/sensor info/lookout input gratefully received from the rearcrew. Situational awareness is everything in that environment.
I suspect sadly that no collective program input would have saved them in this case since they may have been below the min speed for some modes to be engaged and the collective input would have had to have been quite considerable to outclimb the mountain.
With appropriate training, a 4-person SAR crew working well together can mitigate a lot of the risk, with two sets of eyes up front and lots of nav assist/sensor info/lookout input gratefully received from the rearcrew. Situational awareness is everything in that environment.
I suspect sadly that no collective program input would have saved them in this case since they may have been below the min speed for some modes to be engaged and the collective input would have had to have been quite considerable to outclimb the mountain.
Non PC Plod - yes there are some technologies that help but some that hinder - an example would be EGPWS in the mountains where all the alerts could be very distracting and lead you to either disable them or ignore them, both of which completely defeat their addition to the cockpit.
To be honest all the naysayers about HTAWS generally in my experience have been poor instrument pilots, no IF background utility pilots or haven't been trained properly in it's usage and/or have never used it at all. I don't mean to paint groups with the one brush but it's what I've experienced so far.
sandel HTAWS has most definitely saved my butt at least twice, once flying on fires when I zigged when I should have zagged. And the other when I was fairly inexperienced flying on NVG's allowed myself to fly into deteriorating wx/vis. Both inadvertent IMC occurrences were in high mountenous terrain in a 412.
I'm not saying it's a silver bullet to stop CFIT accidents but it is a great tool to have up your sleeve if proficient and properly trained.
SuperF also raises a good point about being disciplined not to press on into conditions that you wouldn't normally just by having HTAWS fitted.
It's also a moot point if icing conditions exist and the aircraft isn't equipped appropriately.
**By the way I have no idea what happened in this accident nor am
I speculating the cause. It could have been anything.
Last edited by havick; 1st Feb 2017 at 13:30.
Any crews from the company operating this service care to comment on the currency training provided? I mean specific, realistic, daily allocation of training hours that the crews can and do utilise?
I am aware that the only training provided by some operators is bi-annual simulator visit and that on job tasking is deemed to fulfill the training requirement. Other operators have a daily training flying hour allocation that crews are encouraged to use.
I am aware that the only training provided by some operators is bi-annual simulator visit and that on job tasking is deemed to fulfill the training requirement. Other operators have a daily training flying hour allocation that crews are encouraged to use.
Same again,
Make up your own mind. Same company (Inaer), different branch but using one of the ex SASEMAR aircraft still on Spanish registration. You'll see on another thread that others are asking about Inaer (and I'm answering).
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf
Make up your own mind. Same company (Inaer), different branch but using one of the ex SASEMAR aircraft still on Spanish registration. You'll see on another thread that others are asking about Inaer (and I'm answering).
http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyr..._002_A_ENG.pdf
If they display the same attitude to mountain SAR training and currency as they did to maritime SAR then the accident report will be quite damning.
Yes - I am very familiar with the INAER offshore SAR accident and the alarming deficiencies in SOP's, knowledge, training and CRM. Just wondering if the situation is comparable with the Italian mountain SAR operation.
NWS/Same Again,
Lets not pre-judge the outcome based on INAER's iffy record, delivering a root cause verdict is the AAIB's job. A loosely related question, but are INAER part of Babcock? They seem to be, but not in the way Bond or Australian have been rebranded.
Lets not pre-judge the outcome based on INAER's iffy record, delivering a root cause verdict is the AAIB's job. A loosely related question, but are INAER part of Babcock? They seem to be, but not in the way Bond or Australian have been rebranded.
Yes; they are.
