Bride Killed in Helicopter Crash
IFR/IMC/Gold bars.
It would have been illegal and dangerous for a qualified IFR Pilot in a capable and certified IFR machine to have been where that foolish Pilot was. (In IMC, below LSALT and not on a published procedure.)
The simple fact is the Pilot chose to push on into totally unsuitable meteorological conditions and killed his pax. Criminal negligence. Ultimate price paid by all on board.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lured in?
I'm a lowly PPL rated on R44 and R66, but try to be conscientious about understanding the main causes of accidents. That's why I've done the RHC safety course, and diligently read the AAIB reports.
By far the biggest killer in R44s is DVE, and reading some of the reports the deterioration in conditions is almost insidious, as pilots start at good altitude and gradually get pushed down until there's nowhere to go. This is irresponsible, illegal, unforgivable, call it what you want.
There was no insidious build-up of IMC conditions here. He shouldn't have gone, full stop. Totally murderous - there is no excuse for this type of behaviour, and looking at his intended LZ, an R44 in a hot (and high?) climate, 4 up, it hardly appeared a suitable place to land even in good VMC to me. No escape route in any direction, massive HV cables, trees, buildings, very steep descent required. It makes me so angry that he took 3 other lives with him. A disgrace.
This video should be watched by all heli pilots on a regular basis whenever the chance of complacency sets in. I'm stunned that even in full view of this evidence, there is a group of individuals on here (not the pros it seems), who still feel that tackling ILLEGAL flight in IMC is not too frightening.
I had to abandon a flight last week due to unforecasted low cloud, but as I sat in my 120 quid taxi for the completion of my journey, remembered the old adage "Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than the other way round'.
I really hope this accident is worthwhile in reminding us ALL that pushing on into IMC (either without the rating, the certified machine or the MSA) is just not an option. No matter what tech you've got in the panel...
FF
By far the biggest killer in R44s is DVE, and reading some of the reports the deterioration in conditions is almost insidious, as pilots start at good altitude and gradually get pushed down until there's nowhere to go. This is irresponsible, illegal, unforgivable, call it what you want.
There was no insidious build-up of IMC conditions here. He shouldn't have gone, full stop. Totally murderous - there is no excuse for this type of behaviour, and looking at his intended LZ, an R44 in a hot (and high?) climate, 4 up, it hardly appeared a suitable place to land even in good VMC to me. No escape route in any direction, massive HV cables, trees, buildings, very steep descent required. It makes me so angry that he took 3 other lives with him. A disgrace.
This video should be watched by all heli pilots on a regular basis whenever the chance of complacency sets in. I'm stunned that even in full view of this evidence, there is a group of individuals on here (not the pros it seems), who still feel that tackling ILLEGAL flight in IMC is not too frightening.
I had to abandon a flight last week due to unforecasted low cloud, but as I sat in my 120 quid taxi for the completion of my journey, remembered the old adage "Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying, than the other way round'.
I really hope this accident is worthwhile in reminding us ALL that pushing on into IMC (either without the rating, the certified machine or the MSA) is just not an option. No matter what tech you've got in the panel...
FF
Scattercat brings it to the point.
Nothing to do with equipment, routes, rules and so on.
And when looking into things to be changed to reduce accident numbers - we should start at the main problem - the pilot (ego)!
Saying No must become a culture!
Planning with option B a must.
Where you put the figures - depends on area and experience but could be easy done with Radar altimeter or GPS based altitude or even the old Britisch Navy Altitude recognition (if you can sheep legs clearly you´re 200 feet or below)
When cloud brings you below preset figures - no further pressing on, no further cirumnavigate - return or land at the nearest possible spot with no hassle from the authorities playing the game save!
Everybody caught skimming treelines is kindly requested to return his license!
It could be done - but I doubt, that it will become international standard :-(
Nothing to do with equipment, routes, rules and so on.
And when looking into things to be changed to reduce accident numbers - we should start at the main problem - the pilot (ego)!
Saying No must become a culture!
Planning with option B a must.
Where you put the figures - depends on area and experience but could be easy done with Radar altimeter or GPS based altitude or even the old Britisch Navy Altitude recognition (if you can sheep legs clearly you´re 200 feet or below)
When cloud brings you below preset figures - no further pressing on, no further cirumnavigate - return or land at the nearest possible spot with no hassle from the authorities playing the game save!
Everybody caught skimming treelines is kindly requested to return his license!
It could be done - but I doubt, that it will become international standard :-(
On the subject of pilots being put under pressure to fly, here in Ireland we had a recent controversy when a senior Government Minister pressurised an Air Corps pilot to fly when fog was forecast. And to compound the matter his representative phoned up the pilot again to 'rub it in' when the fog didn't materialise. Varadkar defends Coveney?s call to pilot over cancelled flight
The Minister's excuse was "I'm a 'hands on' type of guy". You couldn't make it up.
The Minister's excuse was "I'm a 'hands on' type of guy". You couldn't make it up.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was some discussion of the relative difficulties of instrument flying various types of helicopters with and without various pieces of equipment present or operating. And there was my own "sub-thread" that, while meaning only to say that you can keep an R44 right side up, turned into a discussion of how real IMC is different than simulated/training. But I don't think there's one poster in this topic who would attempt/condone/emulate or any other thing the behavior that lead to the events described in the first post.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aa, I think you were maybe one of them
Not sure whether you're issuing advice, or demonstrating that you're extremely talented, but for the rest of us mere mortals, flight in IMC in an R44 is beyond difficult. It is repeatedly FATAL.
The inference above being that you have tried it... If I misunderstood your post, then I extend my apologies.
FF
The inference above being that you have tried it... If I misunderstood your post, then I extend my apologies.
FF
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Center of the Universe
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something I copied from this forum years ago and have prominently posted in my hangar:
"The least experienced press on while the more experienced turn back, to meet the most experienced who never took off in the first place"
"The least experienced press on while the more experienced turn back, to meet the most experienced who never took off in the first place"
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, you misunderstood the nature of my post.
Definitely not issuing advice! And certainly I do not think I'm extremely talented!
Heck no! No way have I tried it. As we've all discussed here, it would be a) stupid and b) illegal.
I originally posted in response to assertions that I took to mean that flying an R44 solely by reference to instruments was impossible. This seemed an unreasonably harsh point of view to me, as I would venture that nearly all civilian-trained instrument rated helicopter pilots in the US obtain their ratings using an R44. Certainly all the ones I personally know have. Heck, some of them have done it in R22s. And even the lowliest of the low, budding commercial pilots, have to demonstrate the ability to do this for 5 hours, as have I. About half of my 5 hours was in a simulator, the other half in an R44. What I was referring to was that I did not find those 5 hours to be exceptionally difficult. Challenging, to be sure, requiring 110% of my attention, but not impossible.
Now, what I was apparently missing, and unable to appreciate since I have never flown a helicopter in real IFR conditions, legally or otherwise, is that hood time, even at night, is not considered nearly the same thing as real IFR in terms of level of difficulty. This, of course, now begs the question of why R22s and R44s are considered acceptable instrument trainers. Surprisingly, the thread has not yet drifted in that direction.
At any rate, no apology necessary. Emotions are running high in this thread.
Thanks,
aa
Not sure whether you're issuing advice, or demonstrating that you're extremely talented, but for the rest of us mere mortals, flight in IMC in an R44 is beyond difficult. It is repeatedly FATAL.
The inference above being that you have tried it... If I misunderstood your post, then I extend my apologies.
I originally posted in response to assertions that I took to mean that flying an R44 solely by reference to instruments was impossible. This seemed an unreasonably harsh point of view to me, as I would venture that nearly all civilian-trained instrument rated helicopter pilots in the US obtain their ratings using an R44. Certainly all the ones I personally know have. Heck, some of them have done it in R22s. And even the lowliest of the low, budding commercial pilots, have to demonstrate the ability to do this for 5 hours, as have I. About half of my 5 hours was in a simulator, the other half in an R44. What I was referring to was that I did not find those 5 hours to be exceptionally difficult. Challenging, to be sure, requiring 110% of my attention, but not impossible.
Now, what I was apparently missing, and unable to appreciate since I have never flown a helicopter in real IFR conditions, legally or otherwise, is that hood time, even at night, is not considered nearly the same thing as real IFR in terms of level of difficulty. This, of course, now begs the question of why R22s and R44s are considered acceptable instrument trainers. Surprisingly, the thread has not yet drifted in that direction.
At any rate, no apology necessary. Emotions are running high in this thread.
Thanks,
aa
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 419 Likes
on
221 Posts
Shy - I normally agree with pretty much all you say, but whilst it would be great to have proper city heliports, even if we do get a few more, it won't make much of a dent in the accident rate - most happen where helicopters usually go - to ad hoc landing sites. It's not going to happen, at least on any scale. The vast majority of us can fly around perfectly safely to such ad hoc sites. It's not that difficult - and that's the virtue of a helicopter. Back to pilot competence......
I posted to indicate how far we are from the "ideal" situation Nick mentioned, that of being able to fly to and from IFR equipped heliports. We don't even have heliports, or the government will to consider them. In fact the opposite. One only has to look at what is happening to Battersea - London's only licensed heliport - it's gradually being made less safe because it's becoming surrounded by cranes and ever taller high rise buildings. So much for planning permission input with regard to protecting the airspace close to aviation sites.
Obviously without licensed sites (and great numbers of them), we will always have to use ad hoc sites. The ideal is obviously never going to happen. I've used quite a few in my time, btw!
Last edited by ShyTorque; 10th Jul 2017 at 17:07.
I flew in light fog, but was anal in maintaining effective visual reference with the surface.
Secondly, just maintaining reference with the ground rather than retaining a visual horizon, is EXACTLY how this guy killed himself and his pax.
If you are looking at the ground instead of ahead then you will inevitably not appreciate how bad the conditions are in terms of visibility and cloudbase - it is like driving fast on a road in fog looking just over the end of the bonnet and convincing yourself that because you can see the road surface, that it is quite safe to continue.
I am afraid that unless you change your attitude, you could well end up as a statistic.
Crab ... Give it a rest . We all agree on the points made but we don't have to all pretend we always fly in perfect viz !
I am sure he meant poor viz , say 1km by light fog and I am sure he also meant that he kept visual with the ground and horizon. What this pilot did was totally different and illegal whereas flying in " poor viz " is legal but needs to be respected with the pilot knowing minimums and having a plan B . So don't pick a fight , this is not the time .
I am sure he meant poor viz , say 1km by light fog and I am sure he also meant that he kept visual with the ground and horizon. What this pilot did was totally different and illegal whereas flying in " poor viz " is legal but needs to be respected with the pilot knowing minimums and having a plan B . So don't pick a fight , this is not the time .
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aa,
Fair play, good post.
For me what this highlights is a genuine issue with current training methodology.
Seems more emphasis needs placing on giving students an understanding that flying 5 hours under the hood is no substitute for genuine IMC. PPLs who complete a rate 1, 180 degree turn wearing foggles ought to understand this does not give licence to go IMC under any circumstances.
At least if more pilots see that reality through this video, the accident wasn't totally in vain.
Keep out of the white stuff, and happy flying 🚁
FF
Fair play, good post.
For me what this highlights is a genuine issue with current training methodology.
Seems more emphasis needs placing on giving students an understanding that flying 5 hours under the hood is no substitute for genuine IMC. PPLs who complete a rate 1, 180 degree turn wearing foggles ought to understand this does not give licence to go IMC under any circumstances.
At least if more pilots see that reality through this video, the accident wasn't totally in vain.
Keep out of the white stuff, and happy flying 🚁
FF
Nigel - not picking a fight but you read his post one way and I read it another.
If the vis is less than 1km due to suspended water droplets you are either in fog or cloud and neither is suitable for VFR flight - no matter how good you think you are.
The guy in the accident started out in what he considered to be acceptable vis and wasn't revising his weather decision because he was looking down at the ground or in at the GPS - so when it got too bad and he lost ground contact he was stuffed.
If the vis is less than 1km due to suspended water droplets you are either in fog or cloud and neither is suitable for VFR flight - no matter how good you think you are.
The guy in the accident started out in what he considered to be acceptable vis and wasn't revising his weather decision because he was looking down at the ground or in at the GPS - so when it got too bad and he lost ground contact he was stuffed.
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Five hours under the hood"
Five hours!!!
Some consider this sufficient for what, exactly? A CPL in the USA? Bejasus! God help anyone who falls into the hands of a skygod with that sort of "qualification" and thinks he can use it! It barely equips him to undergo a type rating and IR to fly as P2 IMC with a real pilot. Even as such he'd be a liability for some time.
5 hrs, Isn't that about what a UK PPL gets - in order to teach him never to go near IMC and, with luck, survive it if he gets out of it pdq?
Five hours!!!
Some consider this sufficient for what, exactly? A CPL in the USA? Bejasus! God help anyone who falls into the hands of a skygod with that sort of "qualification" and thinks he can use it! It barely equips him to undergo a type rating and IR to fly as P2 IMC with a real pilot. Even as such he'd be a liability for some time.
5 hrs, Isn't that about what a UK PPL gets - in order to teach him never to go near IMC and, with luck, survive it if he gets out of it pdq?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, sir, 5 whole hours for a CPL-H in the USA. And all of it can be in a simulator. And ZERO hours for a PPL-H. Under Part 61 of the FARs.
I'm pretty sure nobody with a one of those ratings in the USA thinks they are qualified to operate a helicopter in IMC. I've never met one that did, anyhow. It's clearly the barest of emergency skills, and a lesson in what not to do.
Seriously, who would even think that someone with only 5 hours of hood time would intentionally fly into IMC? Why would anyone think that? I don't believe even those who get themselves and possibly others killed think that. Surely it is, thankfully, the rarest of the rare idiot who does something like this intentionally.
I'm pretty sure nobody with a one of those ratings in the USA thinks they are qualified to operate a helicopter in IMC. I've never met one that did, anyhow. It's clearly the barest of emergency skills, and a lesson in what not to do.
Seriously, who would even think that someone with only 5 hours of hood time would intentionally fly into IMC? Why would anyone think that? I don't believe even those who get themselves and possibly others killed think that. Surely it is, thankfully, the rarest of the rare idiot who does something like this intentionally.
Scary video. Reading this thread makes it seem like people think this guy happily flew into IMC and tried to fly to his destination on instruments. Seems more likely he felt he could sneak through some low clag on his way to the drop off, maybe even through what looks like a hole in the weather that you can see as in the video. Scud running, and the hole closed around him. I doubt you will find a commercial pilot anywhere in the world with a few hours under their belt that can honestly say they have never consciously snuck under a but of crappy weather and busted a few minimums in doing so. I don't think this pilot even looked at his AH the whole flight, let alone when he needed it. A textbook IIMC event with a textbook out come. The lesson for me from this tragedy is just how easy it can be going from happily stooging through a bit of murkey weather, to a complete IMC mess. Certainly gave me a fright! As to the discussions around the differences between an "unstabilized" R44 flying on instruments. It doesn't matter what you are in if you are VFR and the weather gets worse - land the bloody thing. I recently spent a few hours on the ground in a paddock, with a fully IFR equipped (SAS, Autopilot etc) A109 grand as the weather dropped below an acceptable level (I am not IFR trained). An embarrassing phone call to the boss, but that was about it. Made some nice friends with the locals, and flew the last 10 mins home a few hours later when the front went through.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Midlands
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, sir, 5 whole hours for a CPL-H in the USA.
So there are two possible outcomes from the 5 hours: (a) s**t, that was scary, for sure I'm never going to try and do that (b) cool, that's pretty easy, clouds here we come, nobody will know about it. (a) is evidently preferable to (b) but not certain.
The one surprising thing for me in the R44 was how you have to watch the AI like a hawk, really doing the textbook AI-X-AI-Y-AI-Z-... scan. In my 182 you can pretty much forget about the AI, the instructor I used to fly with for instrument currency would "fail" it in the first 15 minutes of every flight so I got used to flying without it. Doesn't work in the heli (at least not the R44).
Before someone jumps down my throat (again), no, I don't plan on flying the heli into IMC, still less publishing the result on youtube. But I do still think that someone with plenty of heli IMC experience, including hand flying, AND some R44 hood time, ought to be able to (hand) fly an R44 in IMC. I also think that such a person would have enough good sense not to try it. I would be very happy to try it in a faithful R44 sim though, if such a thing exists.