Cumbria - Dauphin in the fog...
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Beverly Hills, CA USA Cannes FR, Manly Bch- Shute Harbour AZ
Age: 60
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been a more than an occasional occurrence during my career, and before GPS it was more crazy with the Risk/Benefit being below 50%
But as I wrote above, the technology is wonderful now. I think between synthetic vision and Infrared cameras plus the radar altimeter and cautions piloting in familiar territory for HEMS or a Hospital organ transplant run, when lives are at stake, it should be at the pilot's discretion and outlined in the TEM. And in the Medivac and HEMS world, it's reasonably if the risk benefit is not too high its part of the job....
JUST DO IT CHARLIE. Otherwise give carnival rides and fly for the news or toff pax for Formula One.
Maybe it's just my sense of duty, but when I'm HEMS those cautious, measured risks are not only part of our jobs, but should be outlined in the TEM. I've flown more than a bit in the Lake District and the weather is like a crap table. I've spent more than one afternoon parked in a pasture up there watching the cows and sheep while the weather cleared... and more than a few pub park lots. too. But I also lost a mate up there too... Way too dangerous for even the best pilot. Mark Weir's fatal up in Cumbria and the Holister Slate mine in 2011 is a good example. Beautiful Gazelle FULL IFR and flying late at night and suddenly there was an obstacle where it wasn't supposed to be.
But I love the technology and would not fly up there these days without it. FULL PANEL. Infrared camera, synthetic vision, Terrain Awareness Display, IFR and autohover... the works.
Love those toys.
But as I wrote above, the technology is wonderful now. I think between synthetic vision and Infrared cameras plus the radar altimeter and cautions piloting in familiar territory for HEMS or a Hospital organ transplant run, when lives are at stake, it should be at the pilot's discretion and outlined in the TEM. And in the Medivac and HEMS world, it's reasonably if the risk benefit is not too high its part of the job....
JUST DO IT CHARLIE. Otherwise give carnival rides and fly for the news or toff pax for Formula One.
Maybe it's just my sense of duty, but when I'm HEMS those cautious, measured risks are not only part of our jobs, but should be outlined in the TEM. I've flown more than a bit in the Lake District and the weather is like a crap table. I've spent more than one afternoon parked in a pasture up there watching the cows and sheep while the weather cleared... and more than a few pub park lots. too. But I also lost a mate up there too... Way too dangerous for even the best pilot. Mark Weir's fatal up in Cumbria and the Holister Slate mine in 2011 is a good example. Beautiful Gazelle FULL IFR and flying late at night and suddenly there was an obstacle where it wasn't supposed to be.
But I love the technology and would not fly up there these days without it. FULL PANEL. Infrared camera, synthetic vision, Terrain Awareness Display, IFR and autohover... the works.
Love those toys.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
342 driver "when lives are at stake, it should be at the pilot's discretion and outlined in the TEM. And in the medevac and HEMS world, it's reasonably if the risk benefit is not too high its part of the job..."
Not in EASA Land! The HEMS operation takes benefit from reduced minima if a second trained crewmember is on board (Pilot or HEMS Technical Crew).
Toys, in any shape or form, do not allow flight in reduced minima in a helicopter. They just increase awareness and hopefully safety.
CRAB - "Not rocket science and no-one would have planned to end up in those conditions but sometimes it just happens and you have to deal with it - calmly, professionally and as safely as possible ie exactly what this crew did. Just because they ended up on someone's dashcam doesn't make them naughty, unsafe or unprofessional."
No! it means they made a mistake that ended up placing members of the public at risk. You believe they were so well trained and highly experienced that they themselves were not at risk. My experience of the same leads me to dispute this. Why Crab can you see this for what it was.
"But if you're experienced enough to follow a stone wall along a road, then you're experienced enough to know the weather patterns for that area"
Oh Dear Crab!
ROUND 6
Not in EASA Land! The HEMS operation takes benefit from reduced minima if a second trained crewmember is on board (Pilot or HEMS Technical Crew).
Toys, in any shape or form, do not allow flight in reduced minima in a helicopter. They just increase awareness and hopefully safety.
CRAB - "Not rocket science and no-one would have planned to end up in those conditions but sometimes it just happens and you have to deal with it - calmly, professionally and as safely as possible ie exactly what this crew did. Just because they ended up on someone's dashcam doesn't make them naughty, unsafe or unprofessional."
No! it means they made a mistake that ended up placing members of the public at risk. You believe they were so well trained and highly experienced that they themselves were not at risk. My experience of the same leads me to dispute this. Why Crab can you see this for what it was.
"But if you're experienced enough to follow a stone wall along a road, then you're experienced enough to know the weather patterns for that area"
Oh Dear Crab!
ROUND 6
No! it means they made a mistake that ended up placing members of the public at risk. You believe they were so well trained and highly experienced that they themselves were not at risk.
They didn't make a mistake unless you believe their superpower and crystal ball should have alerted them to the rapidly changing weather in the pass before they even got airborne.
But if you're experienced enough to follow a stone wall along a road, then you're experienced enough to know the weather patterns for that area" Oh dear Crab!
my only input to add to this is I dont think the weather just rolled in. the road is wet, it appears that it had been like this for some amount of time.
youre grasping at straws and get testy when confronted with alternate opinions.
when i put on my wipers in fog has no bearing on the topic at hand when you can clearly see the absolute wetness of the surrounding area. This fog clearly had not recently appeared.
when i put on my wipers in fog has no bearing on the topic at hand when you can clearly see the absolute wetness of the surrounding area. This fog clearly had not recently appeared.
Please make it stop!
I'd have said 'you couldn't write it' but they keep on coming........
You said it yourself...it could have rained recently...there goes your sudden weather phenemona theory.
i know your head is huge. We all know your head is huge.
but simply because you say you got the inside scoop still does not put you there with any special knowledge. You could be played by your source. Ill bow to your dominance when you post a pic of you behind the controls.
everyone has an opinion. Why you and others have such a vested interest in changing everyones opinion to match yours is one of the reasons this thread keeps going. Everyone sees what they see through different goggles. Its the arrogance of a select few that make this fun. I personally dont give a f*ck what or why they flew that day. Ill simply keep picking away at your arrogance cuz thats my thing. Its my fun. Now im sure the mods will either close the thread, or at minimum delete my post. Whatever.
i know your head is huge. We all know your head is huge.
but simply because you say you got the inside scoop still does not put you there with any special knowledge. You could be played by your source. Ill bow to your dominance when you post a pic of you behind the controls.
everyone has an opinion. Why you and others have such a vested interest in changing everyones opinion to match yours is one of the reasons this thread keeps going. Everyone sees what they see through different goggles. Its the arrogance of a select few that make this fun. I personally dont give a f*ck what or why they flew that day. Ill simply keep picking away at your arrogance cuz thats my thing. Its my fun. Now im sure the mods will either close the thread, or at minimum delete my post. Whatever.
You said it yourself...it could have rained recently...there goes your sudden weather phenemona theory.
Then the water on the road and surrounding countryside starts to evaporate, taking the air in the pass closer to its dewpoint again.
Then a small variation in the wind brings some slightly colder air down the hillside which mixes with the almost saturated air in the pass - what could be the result? Oh yes, the sudden formation of some hill fog in the pass.
This scenario isn't imagination or fanciful pondering - it is the real sequence of events seen regularly in hilly or mountainous terrain where a moist airflow persists - cloud forms, clears and reforms with or without rainfall - ask any walkers who visit the Lake District or Snowdonia and they will recognise how quickly the weather can change in the UK.
Your tone and language tell me the last thing you are having is fun btw.
I am not trying to force people to see my point of view - I have simply tried to explain what happened, as I understand it, on the flight in question - the only blinkered views are from those who can't rid the initial viewing of the video from their minds and understand what the video shows is not a true, contextually correct sequence of events.
You don't want to listen to the facts? Fine, no skin off my nose - the event has been consigned to the dustbin with other non-events in military flying and all the feigned or imagined outrage will not change that.
Good luck with picking away at my arrogance, according to you I have an unlimited supply
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
My Dear Crab, as much as I like your expanded meteorological lesson I would offer some colour. I estimate I have completed around 50 HEMs transfers through, over and around the Lake District taking patients to Whitehaven hospital. I admit, I did not pay as much attention to my met lesson, however, I never managed to get myself in a situation that theses lads found themselves in. We all know hill fog is a b*stard. However, the area forecasts in the UK are very good at predicting this. Knowledge and experience hand in hand and the final backstop being our Mark 1 eyeball looking out the windows. In the end, when the situation deteriorates and we press on, images such as we see in the video are the result.
In regards to the risks to the public! There is surely not a Rotorhead alive that believes flying in this manner does not present risk to the road users. Mainly through distraction and fascination that a helicopters appears suddenly and so close. The RoA are written to try and avoid just such encounters. There are extensive procedures for HEMS and PLOD Helicopters operating near and above carriageways.
To illustrate this, quite a long time ago I was RTB from a police task at night when we were retasked to Skyshout a gentleman on a motorway, leaning on the boot (hood for SAS), of his car while his engine was merrily burning. He had been monitored on the motorway camera system. En-route I briefed the Police that we need to be very careful not to distract other road users and how we could complete the task as safe as possible. We elected to follow our rules and establish at 700 feet and the Skyshout worked a treat. However, less than 30 seconds after that two jam sandwiches arrived and placed a standard cordon of cones for protection and a handover ensued between my crew and the ground Officers. I watched as one of the officers returned to his vehicle tucked in at the "Live" end of the cordon.
In a heartbeat a HGV approaching in the nearside lane, continued as if nothing was in his way. He slammed into the police vehicle containing the officer, causing the fuel tank to explode and the whole ensemble veered into the central reservation. A terrible Police Fatal and awful to watch unfold beneath us.
The terrible months following this accident waiting for the outcome of the court case and in particular, what the HGV Driver (who survived) would say had caused his distraction. Thankfully for us he did not cite the helicopter. However, it highlights just how easily these events can turn bad and when the helicopter we are in is involved, how the switch from adding value to any event, to being the centre stage can occur.
I also recall being told of an incident in AAC where something similar happened and in that case, the driver was distracted by the helicopter.
These risks are real and they have to be managed. RoA, weather minima and sound airmanship all play their part in this. However, in the end it comes down to what we as individuals are prepared to accept when the scenario stops fitting into the template we are used to.
Hundreds of Rotorheads have met an untimely end, some vastly experienced, during events like the topic of this thread.
Like I said previously Crab, I admire your stoic support for the crew and hopefully they deserve it.
What should we think when events like this occur. Its not moral outrage. That I reserved solely for the posters who thought such flying was acceptable and, in some cases, authorised by the Supervision. As a community, culture is the hardest thing to change. I want a culture of compliance. That is the first step to being safe.
Now Crabby, try to be nice!
DB
In regards to the risks to the public! There is surely not a Rotorhead alive that believes flying in this manner does not present risk to the road users. Mainly through distraction and fascination that a helicopters appears suddenly and so close. The RoA are written to try and avoid just such encounters. There are extensive procedures for HEMS and PLOD Helicopters operating near and above carriageways.
To illustrate this, quite a long time ago I was RTB from a police task at night when we were retasked to Skyshout a gentleman on a motorway, leaning on the boot (hood for SAS), of his car while his engine was merrily burning. He had been monitored on the motorway camera system. En-route I briefed the Police that we need to be very careful not to distract other road users and how we could complete the task as safe as possible. We elected to follow our rules and establish at 700 feet and the Skyshout worked a treat. However, less than 30 seconds after that two jam sandwiches arrived and placed a standard cordon of cones for protection and a handover ensued between my crew and the ground Officers. I watched as one of the officers returned to his vehicle tucked in at the "Live" end of the cordon.
In a heartbeat a HGV approaching in the nearside lane, continued as if nothing was in his way. He slammed into the police vehicle containing the officer, causing the fuel tank to explode and the whole ensemble veered into the central reservation. A terrible Police Fatal and awful to watch unfold beneath us.
The terrible months following this accident waiting for the outcome of the court case and in particular, what the HGV Driver (who survived) would say had caused his distraction. Thankfully for us he did not cite the helicopter. However, it highlights just how easily these events can turn bad and when the helicopter we are in is involved, how the switch from adding value to any event, to being the centre stage can occur.
I also recall being told of an incident in AAC where something similar happened and in that case, the driver was distracted by the helicopter.
These risks are real and they have to be managed. RoA, weather minima and sound airmanship all play their part in this. However, in the end it comes down to what we as individuals are prepared to accept when the scenario stops fitting into the template we are used to.
Hundreds of Rotorheads have met an untimely end, some vastly experienced, during events like the topic of this thread.
Like I said previously Crab, I admire your stoic support for the crew and hopefully they deserve it.
What should we think when events like this occur. Its not moral outrage. That I reserved solely for the posters who thought such flying was acceptable and, in some cases, authorised by the Supervision. As a community, culture is the hardest thing to change. I want a culture of compliance. That is the first step to being safe.
Now Crabby, try to be nice!
DB
Gray - I am quite clear what happened to the crew in the video - for reasons I can't go into on this forum. You were the one who was hypothesising about the road wetness and declared that the cloud couldn't possibly have come down quickly, I have tried to indicate that it does exactly that on a regular basis. Try another straw.....
My dear DB - lovely as your story is, it bears no relevance to a low-level transit since all your HEMS work would have been conducted in day VMC conditions at as high (within reason) a height as possible. If you haven't operated at low level in the terrain then your experience can hardly be valid. Remember their flight was a planned low-level transit which gives you a very different view of the approaching weather than being at 1000' - ie much more difficult to anticipate.
Onto your distraction theme - more drivers are distracted by other vehicles and accidents on a daily basis than by hover taxying helicopters - witness the ruber-necking that happens on motorways following an accident in one direction that leads to queues and further accidents in the other. You are making up and inflating risk where it doesn't exist or is so minimal.
The proof is that the car in the video didn't drive into the scenery or another car and there were no accidents on that road for the time the aircraft was there - ergo zero to very minimal distraction.
I have long since feeling the need to defend the crew since they didn't do anything wrong.
There, that was nice
My dear DB - lovely as your story is, it bears no relevance to a low-level transit since all your HEMS work would have been conducted in day VMC conditions at as high (within reason) a height as possible. If you haven't operated at low level in the terrain then your experience can hardly be valid. Remember their flight was a planned low-level transit which gives you a very different view of the approaching weather than being at 1000' - ie much more difficult to anticipate.
Onto your distraction theme - more drivers are distracted by other vehicles and accidents on a daily basis than by hover taxying helicopters - witness the ruber-necking that happens on motorways following an accident in one direction that leads to queues and further accidents in the other. You are making up and inflating risk where it doesn't exist or is so minimal.
The proof is that the car in the video didn't drive into the scenery or another car and there were no accidents on that road for the time the aircraft was there - ergo zero to very minimal distraction.
I have long since feeling the need to defend the crew since they didn't do anything wrong.
There, that was nice
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Gray - I am quite clear what happened to the crew in the video - for reasons I can't go into on this forum. You were the one who was hypothesising about the road wetness and declared that the cloud couldn't possibly have come down quickly, I have tried to indicate that it does exactly that on a regular basis. Try another straw.....
My dear DB - lovely as your story is, it bears no relevance to a low-level transit since all your HEMS work would have been conducted in day VMC conditions at as high (within reason) a height as possible. If you haven't operated at low level in the terrain then your experience can hardly be valid. Remember their flight was a planned low-level transit which gives you a very different view of the approaching weather than being at 1000' - ie much more difficult to anticipate.
Onto your distraction theme - more drivers are distracted by other vehicles and accidents on a daily basis than by hover taxying helicopters - witness the ruber-necking that happens on motorways following an accident in one direction that leads to queues and further accidents in the other. You are making up and inflating risk where it doesn't exist or is so minimal.
The proof is that the car in the video didn't drive into the scenery or another car and there were no accidents on that road for the time the aircraft was there - ergo zero to very minimal distraction.
I have long since feeling the need to defend the crew since they didn't do anything wrong.
There, that was nice
My dear DB - lovely as your story is, it bears no relevance to a low-level transit since all your HEMS work would have been conducted in day VMC conditions at as high (within reason) a height as possible. If you haven't operated at low level in the terrain then your experience can hardly be valid. Remember their flight was a planned low-level transit which gives you a very different view of the approaching weather than being at 1000' - ie much more difficult to anticipate.
Onto your distraction theme - more drivers are distracted by other vehicles and accidents on a daily basis than by hover taxying helicopters - witness the ruber-necking that happens on motorways following an accident in one direction that leads to queues and further accidents in the other. You are making up and inflating risk where it doesn't exist or is so minimal.
The proof is that the car in the video didn't drive into the scenery or another car and there were no accidents on that road for the time the aircraft was there - ergo zero to very minimal distraction.
I have long since feeling the need to defend the crew since they didn't do anything wrong.
There, that was nice
However, you need to get up to speed with the Low Level limits for HEMS! We all fly low level when the need arises. Definitely in the Lakes when the weather was suitable to do so. Also please don't exclude my Military time of which I am proud. We certainly operated in the weedisphere hiding from ze enemy! I feel I have some experience flying low level. Of course, for many reasons, we would often fly higher none the least of which would be to not unnecessarily use our exemptions and lower limits....juts cos we can.
You are not daft so I guess you can see that when approaching the Lakes there are 3 distinct options. Go over, go through or go around. The choice always driven by the weather. Its not a crime to make a poor decision. However it will always remain a poor decision.
Also, back in the nineties, we operated Day/Night HEMS to the applicable limits in an unstabilised twin. It worked but was not ideal. Then JAR came along and gave us a leg up requiring an AFCS with Heading and Altitude hold for night work. We are not all dimbos Crab who spout ****e from the top of our heads. Some of us on Rotorheads have similar experience to you (I am guessing) and some might even have more! God forbid.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Crab, I know you did not like my last stories so I share another one with you. Maybe some sort of cathartic revelation if nothing else. Almost 25 years ago I was tasked to an accident at a tourist spot in on a hill in the South Downs., A young man had managed to get himself caught up in the driveshaft of a steam drive attraction inside a shed. He was severely injured. It took the Paramedic, the Policeman with us and myself almost 2 hours to extract the poor lad. Being younger and enthusiastic I was right there helping out.
However, when we finally exited the building the weather had taken a turn for the worse. Drizzle, low cloud and the dreaded hill fog. Despite a road ambulance now being on scene, I made the decision to fly the patient to the hospital. The wx at low levels being confirmed as within limits. Once airborne I faced the same conditions as this crew found themselves in. I grovelled through the crap, popped out halfway down and made it safely to the hospital. It was not nice. Remember, apart from the crew I was SPVFR.
On review I had some hard thinking to do. Certainly I had breached my wx minima, Certainly I could have declined and he would have gone by road. Certainly the outcome for the patient was better using the helicopter. However, on balance, I made some serious mistakes. The first, allowing myself to become absorbed in the medical task to the detriment of the aviation requirement. (something we were warned about frequently by the Management and the Regulator). The second, not having big enough balls to decline the flight. I got away with it. No one questioned the task. However, I knew what I had done and since that day I have never allowed myself to end up like that again.
Making mistakes is one sure way to learn. However, listening to the mistakes of others and applying them to our own performance is much better.
However, when we finally exited the building the weather had taken a turn for the worse. Drizzle, low cloud and the dreaded hill fog. Despite a road ambulance now being on scene, I made the decision to fly the patient to the hospital. The wx at low levels being confirmed as within limits. Once airborne I faced the same conditions as this crew found themselves in. I grovelled through the crap, popped out halfway down and made it safely to the hospital. It was not nice. Remember, apart from the crew I was SPVFR.
On review I had some hard thinking to do. Certainly I had breached my wx minima, Certainly I could have declined and he would have gone by road. Certainly the outcome for the patient was better using the helicopter. However, on balance, I made some serious mistakes. The first, allowing myself to become absorbed in the medical task to the detriment of the aviation requirement. (something we were warned about frequently by the Management and the Regulator). The second, not having big enough balls to decline the flight. I got away with it. No one questioned the task. However, I knew what I had done and since that day I have never allowed myself to end up like that again.
Making mistakes is one sure way to learn. However, listening to the mistakes of others and applying them to our own performance is much better.
You are not daft so I guess you can see that when approaching the Lakes there are 3 distinct options. Go over, go through or go around. The choice always driven by the weather. Its not a crime to make a poor decision. However it will always remain a poor decision.
Then, because you are operating at low level - not because of the weather but because that is the aim of your training - and you don't see the weather changing until you come round a corner and run into it - is that a poor decision? Again I don't think so
Then having done all the right things - slow down, go down but constrained by the topography - yet end up in the deteriorating weather because turning round at speed isn't an option and come to the hover in sight of decent visual references - is that a poor decision????
Finally, to extricate yourself from this less than ideal situation (where you can't land becuase of the terrain), you turn round and hover taxy back along a good line feature until you clear the weather again and then proceed on a different route home - is that really a poor decision???
Please tell me what you would have done different - and without more pointless HEMS dits which are not relevant. Where was this 'poor decision' you are certain that they made?
As for harking back to the bad old days, we used to mountain fly in UK, Cyprus and Hong Kong without NVG - wouldn't dream of doing it now but it doesn't relate to this thread any more than your move to AFCS equipped twins on HEMS.
BTW, what are the low level limits for UK HEMS? Just so I am educated..........
Now your last story has some interest - still not relevant, but a much better way of teaching the less experienced here how task focussing can get in the way of aviation safety - you could easily have been another statistic. Despite all you had been told, you knew better.......
If you had been trained in RAF SAR, you would have had it drummed into you when and how to say NO.
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: europe
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That's like asking how long is a piece of string. I don't know, I wasn't flying it.
I wasn't flying either, but I find kind of hard to believe that they were merrily flying along in good weather and suddenly they found themselves wrapped in thick fog that came out from nowhere and did not see it happening.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The proof is that the car in the video didn't drive into the scenery or another car and there were no accidents on that road for the time the aircraft was there - ergo zero to very minimal distraction.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Then, because you are operating at low level - not because of the weather but because that is the aim of your training - and you don't see the weather changing until you come round a corner and run into it - is that a poor decision? Again I don't think so
Then having done all the right things - slow down, go down but constrained by the topography - yet end up in the deteriorating weather because turning round at speed isn't an option and come to the hover in sight of decent visual references - is that a poor decision????
Finally, to extricate yourself from this less than ideal situation (where you can't land becuase of the terrain), you turn round and hover taxy back along a good line feature until you clear the weather again and then proceed on a different route home - is that really a poor decision???
If you had been trained in RAF SAR, you would have had it drummed into you when and how to say NO.
Then having done all the right things - slow down, go down but constrained by the topography - yet end up in the deteriorating weather because turning round at speed isn't an option and come to the hover in sight of decent visual references - is that a poor decision????
Finally, to extricate yourself from this less than ideal situation (where you can't land becuase of the terrain), you turn round and hover taxy back along a good line feature until you clear the weather again and then proceed on a different route home - is that really a poor decision???
If you had been trained in RAF SAR, you would have had it drummed into you when and how to say NO.
I cant understand that if you yourself cannot see mistakes for what they are, how could you have trained me to make better aviation judgements. This does not make sense.
Now tell me...have you ever made a mistake with the wx?
Now tell me...have you ever made a mistake with the wx?
DB - I agree that the best way to learn is from other's mistakes and yours is a tale worth repeating but the circumstances were very different and you are trying to impose your 'lessons learned' onto a situation that isn't really comparable - you had a choice to get airborne with the casualty and made the 'poor decision'. The video crew had little choice about their actions once caught out by the weather and made the safest decision.
You can keep stating that because they got caught out by the weather they must therefore have made a mistake somewhere as much as you like but it just doesn't follow.
I cant understand that if you yourself cannot see mistakes for what they are, how could you have trained me to make better aviation judgements. This does not make sense.
Arketip -
Plenty of drunk drivers make it home without a scratch, is that proof that drunk driving does not cause accidents?
I don't understand how anyone could say that an aircraft with lots of whizzy, spinny bits and loaded with fuel isn't a danger to civilians a few meters across the fence.
If an aircraft of that size came to grief it would be a very real danger unless this is one of those super secret squirrel machines that implode and disappear with a poof of smoke.
If an aircraft of that size came to grief it would be a very real danger unless this is one of those super secret squirrel machines that implode and disappear with a poof of smoke.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Having made both mistakes and poor decisions regarding weather and mission focus I can use my experience to educate pilots to recognise the point when to stop - all part of being a SAR training officer and mentoring junior SAR pilots
Arketip - completely agreed, but DB is trying to show that the proximity of the helicopter was a direct threat to the safety to the car - and, since the cars didn't crash, that can't be true either.
Arketip - completely agreed, but DB is trying to show that the proximity of the helicopter was a direct threat to the safety to the car - and, since the cars didn't crash, that can't be true either.
Your second point is not in alignment with the 500 feet MSD rules and the guidance and procedures for HEMS and Police helicopters operating near roads. Both these mechanisms recognise the risks to road users by helicopter being too close in the main part, through distraction of the drivers. You are right, no bad events on this occasion but surely you can agree with all other posters with a like mind here, that operating a helicopter in close proximity to road users is at the very best, not a good idea.
Finally Crab, in my case I had a severely injured patient that had suffered considerable compression injuries. As a SAR man you can appreciate the implied urgency to get to hospital. Still no excuse for my actions. I am not sure but I have inferred from you this crew were simply "Training"
Like I have repeatedly said, the wx and the ground are the same for all of us. The fickle finger of fate does not care whether we are SAR, HEMS, Police or just flying for fun. Its all hurts just the same.
DB