Bride Killed in Helicopter Crash

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by Paul Cantrell

aa777888 - Strongly agree with crab - it's simply not the same thing. Don't think we're all picking on you, it's just this conversation resonates with a lot of us.

It's amazing how good your brain is at picking up little cues that you don't realize you're seeing. I've been flying and teaching in Robbies and Bells for 30 years and it's really scary to hear a low time guy say what you just said.

Paul--it's amazing that after all my follow up posts that anyone would think that I would intentionally fly into IMC. I never meant to imply that in any way. There must be a phenomenal number of low timers that do that, given the automatic and emotional responses to my initial post. My primary purpose in posting was simply to point out that an R44 is not uncontrollable on instruments, as some seemed to believe. I should hope that all of my follow up posts have made that clear. The replies made it equally clear that hood time didn't count as "with reference only to instruments". That was somewhat of a revelation.

I will say that I did not have huge difficulty with the simulator, either. But of course that is NO cues (not a motion simulator), not CONFLICTING cues. I would love to try the over water trick, just to experience it.

[[email protected]]

aa777888 - if you are going to try the overwater experience, make sure you have someone with you as a safety pilot. If you really want to mess with your mind, find a sandy beach with breaking waves and the tide fully out and do your turns over the shoreline - your constantly changing visual cues (even from under the hood) will make it rather challenging.

They say a peek is worth a thousand scans - but only if what you see when you peek is useful (like the horizon).

[Paul Cantrell]

Originally Posted by aa777888

Paul--it's amazing that after all my follow up posts that anyone would think that I would intentionally fly into IMC. I never meant to imply that in any way. There must be a phenomenal number of low timers that do that, given the automatic and emotional responses to my initial post. My primary purpose in posting was simply to point out that an R44 is not uncontrollable on instruments, as some seemed to believe. I should hope that all of my follow up posts have made that clear. The replies made it equally clear that hood time didn't count as "with reference only to instruments". That was somewhat of a revelation.

aa777888,

I hope you don't think I was implying that you would intentionally fly into IMC. I was just reacting to the statement about "it's not nearly as difficult as you think". I'm also guilty of responding before reading all 6 pages (at the time) of this thread, so my reply was also somewhat redundant with what some of the other people said.

In any case, you are certainly right that there were a lot of emotional responses, and yeah, because we've seen far too many fatal IMC encounters over the years.

Originally Posted by [email protected]

crab - They say a peek is worth a thousand scans - but only if what you see when you peek is useful (like the horizon).

I hadn't heard that before, but it's certainly true. I was flying the ILS into KHVN (New Haven Connecticut) which brings you in over the water (and directly over what used to be my uncle's farm). I was under the hood, and scanning the instruments, but a little tiny bit of the chin bubble was visible out of the corner of my eye, and the waves going by at an odd angle down by my feet was inducing all kinds of vertigo effects. It's pretty hard to ignore something like that, even though it's way out of the center of your vision.

In any case aa777888, hope you don't feel too picked on, and thanks for starting a very interesting thread-within-a-thread

[Droopystop]

A few thoughts...... Flight in IMC is a degradable skill and therefore there's a big difference to being qualified and being competent.

I think it was JAA that mandated IMC appreciation for the ppl. A one off 2? Hour segment of the ppl which either scares the poo out of you 👍 or shows it can be done 👎. I wonder what the stats say regarding loss of control in IMC after the introduction of this. In my ppl days most aircraft I flew didn't have an AI. IMC was not an option. At all. I wonder if we should go back to VMC only aircraft not having an AI and stop teaching it for the ppl.

[Hughes500]

Droopy

You are indeed correct JAA upped the 40 hour ppl course to 45 hours with 5 hours of instrument appreciation. For the skills test have to make a 180 degree turn +/- 200 ft. This still applies for EASA but do not have to do 5 hours.
Interestingly never really worked out why the 180 degree turn. Most inadvertent IMC is climbing up into it, so what is the point go having to do a 180 degree turn, you are still in it !!!!

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by Droopystop

...In my ppl days most aircraft I flew didn't have an AI. IMC was not an option. At all. I wonder if we should go back to VMC only aircraft not having an AI and stop teaching it for the ppl.

Here in Australia a NGT VFR rated helicopter is required to have basic IF instruments, i.e. The old six pack panel of AH, DG, etc, or modern equivalent. Sufficient dials to get out of inadvertent IF conditions.

Edit to add: IFR Radio or GPS Nav equipment required as well.





.

[Droopystop]

The other aspect that led to this disaster was flying over hostile terrain. Perhaps we are lucky in Europe in that SE flights can mostly be conducted such that a forced landing is always an option and in many if not all cases a legal requirement. Generally we think of a forced landing as being due to an engine failure but of course this case illustrates another reason for having the field to land in option. I don't know if this flight was commercial or a ppl doing it as a favour for a mate. Either way a salutary message - SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

[Droopystop]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Here in Australia a NGT VFR rated helicopter is required to have basic IF instruments, i.e. The old six pack panel of AH, DG, etc, or modern equivalent. Sufficient dials to get out of inadvertent IF conditions.

Edit to add: IFR Radio or GPS Nav equipment required as well.





.

But that's my point. The aircraft is equipped but the pilot may not be current in IMC flight. But having the instruments might just "encourage" the unwary pilot to push on a little bit further than they might have without them.

[[email protected]]

Interestingly never really worked out why the 180 degree turn. Most inadvertent IMC is climbing up into it, so what is the point go having to do a 180 degree turn, you are still in it !!!!

I was called out on SAR from Chivenor a good few years ago to search for a missing Cessna that had left Swansea en route to Halfpenny Green or Shobdon in less than perfect weather.

We picked up their 121.5 beacon and homed to it - hover taxing up the side of a wooded hill in the Neath valley in cloud.

Having got to the top, there was slight break in the cloud and in the direction of the beacon signal there was a chap waving to us from the corner of a wood.

We landed on and discovered that he was the pilot and he and his pax were unhurt.

His Cessna was parked at 45 degrees nose down in the middle of the wood.

It turned out he had inadvertently entered cloud in the valley and attempted a 180 turn on instruments.

Fortunately, his IF skills were poor, he climbed (missing the top of the hill) lost speed and stalled the aircraft into the trees which cushioned the impact!

If he had been practised at IF he probably would have speared into the side of the hill at 90 kts.

[chopjock]

Droopy

Either way a salutary message - SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

Only a small hole though, most crashes are through pilot error, not engine failure!

[John R81]

I thought the whole of Scotland, and much of N England (Pennines, Cumbria, etc) were defined as hostile terrain. If so, then I am frequently SE over hostile terrain.


And I will be SE over hostile terrain this Friday, and possibly again on Sunday.


Not sure I would class this as "one of the Swiss-cheese holes".

[Nubian]

SE over hostile terrain is your first hole in the cheese

This is an ''established truth'' regarding accidents, and I wonder if there is a statistic out there that show the rate of prevented accidents due to having 2 engines, i.e. engine failure with a successful RTB or diversion on single engine instead of having a forced landing or an accident.

Not arguing that 2 engines is a completely waste, but there are quite a few accidents involving twins where the cause is pilot error.... and ironically quite a few in the UK which comes across as the most strict place to fly in Europe. The last one happened not too long ago....

You can argue that having a twin is potentially a greater risk as certain pilots may push out in even worse weather due to the equipment onboard, but not really able to use it. I can think of 3 such accidents with high profile in the UK alone, and I'm sure you know them well.


This is in any case a thread-drift, as there was nothing wrong with the engine in this sorry video!

[newfieboy]

If we couldn't fly SE over hostile environments, we would get bugger all done in Canada.

[Bell_ringer]

How many accidents actually occur due to engine failures in a light turbine and of that over tough terrain?
Doesn't matter what you fly, there are plenty of single points of failure in every machine, not the least of those sit in the pointy end.

[Droopystop]

Ok my mistake regarding hostile terrain. There are plenty of parts of N England and most of Scotland where one could land instead of going IMC. I appreciate that other parts of heavily forested/ desert/polar world won't have that option. When I referred to forced landing I acknowledged that a forced landing might be due to weather and not an engine failure. Im not saying that SE flight where you couldn't land en route shouldn't happen, just that that's one loses that option and therefore cannot be used as mitigation for inadvertently going IMC.

[ShyTorque]

All terrain is hostile if you fly into it, as appears to have been the case here.

[Thomas coupling]

Ferzakerly!