AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed
Winnie, yes ,usually up to 400ft I think; however,in event of a x-wind there is a significant difference in an airliners track v-heading at 150-180 kts off the end of a runway,and a helicopters track at 60kts even starting in mid-field; you may have drifted over a terminal/hangars etc.,and the cleared area only starts from the ends of the runway for obstacles..
There have been discussions on this before,think in `tech log`.....one size does not fit all....and one can always say departure heading is not acceptable until I reach `xxx ft`,I Will fly r/wy track......One can argue that the runway heading is fixed,and therefore it is a `track` as far as an aircraft is concerned...!!..but let`s not fight about it....
There have been discussions on this before,think in `tech log`.....one size does not fit all....and one can always say departure heading is not acceptable until I reach `xxx ft`,I Will fly r/wy track......One can argue that the runway heading is fixed,and therefore it is a `track` as far as an aircraft is concerned...!!..but let`s not fight about it....
How does One maintain "Track" during the initial phases of an Instrument Takeoff...without being able to see the surface?
What is the wind correction angle for a given crosswind take off....at say Ten Knots....varying to 70 knots IAS during the takeoff.
As mentioned...if you begin your takeoff from the end of the runway or even mid-field....how real is the risk of flying into an obstruction ala hangars, other aircraft, wind socks, etc?
FAA Airmen Information Manual (AIM) part 5-2-8 discusses Instrument Takeoffs (particularly airports).
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ.../media/AIM.pdf
Page 684 has the definition of "Maintain Runway Heading" answers part of the questions.
That means fly the magnetic heading of the runway.....(RWY 24 magnetic heading 244....fly 244 not 240) with no drift correction.
Obstacle clearance data on Approach Plates and SIDs is based upon the elevation at the departure end of the runway and assumes the aircraft is at least 35 feet AGL at that point.
What is the wind correction angle for a given crosswind take off....at say Ten Knots....varying to 70 knots IAS during the takeoff.
As mentioned...if you begin your takeoff from the end of the runway or even mid-field....how real is the risk of flying into an obstruction ala hangars, other aircraft, wind socks, etc?
FAA Airmen Information Manual (AIM) part 5-2-8 discusses Instrument Takeoffs (particularly airports).
https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ.../media/AIM.pdf
Page 684 has the definition of "Maintain Runway Heading" answers part of the questions.
That means fly the magnetic heading of the runway.....(RWY 24 magnetic heading 244....fly 244 not 240) with no drift correction.
Obstacle clearance data on Approach Plates and SIDs is based upon the elevation at the departure end of the runway and assumes the aircraft is at least 35 feet AGL at that point.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I appreciate that the ability to maintain a given heading/track fine tolerance is important in certain IMC departures, mainly runway, surely no-one here can actually think this is particularly relevant to this accident? If there was any pilot error from disorientation on climb out/transition it would have almost certainly come from the basics of not keeping wings level and pitch controlled appropriately, would it not, which should have been the main focus.
I am more interested in how this phase would have likely been carried out - was it hand flown or coupled autopilot upper modes? What is the 139 like to hand fly in pretty much zero zero conditions?
I am more interested in how this phase would have likely been carried out - was it hand flown or coupled autopilot upper modes? What is the 139 like to hand fly in pretty much zero zero conditions?
You normally hand fly the 139 with both APs on in ATT mode and it handles very well like that.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
You normally hand fly the 139 with both APs on in ATT mode and it handles very well like that.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Outwest,
I’ve got a copy of TP15099E, 1st Edition from March 2011 on my laptop. It was the last one I used to do a TC monitored ride with a long time ago. It’s the guide specifically for a group 4 instrument rating in a helicopter.
You linked the 2007 PPC and Type rating guide for helicopters in your previous post which isn’t the same. I don’t know if the wording is similar between the two or if there’s a later version of TC’s Group 4 Instrument Rating Guidelines available online?
I’ve got a copy of TP15099E, 1st Edition from March 2011 on my laptop. It was the last one I used to do a TC monitored ride with a long time ago. It’s the guide specifically for a group 4 instrument rating in a helicopter.
You linked the 2007 PPC and Type rating guide for helicopters in your previous post which isn’t the same. I don’t know if the wording is similar between the two or if there’s a later version of TC’s Group 4 Instrument Rating Guidelines available online?
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I appreciate that the ability to maintain a given heading/track fine tolerance is important in certain IMC departures, mainly runway, surely no-one here can actually think this is particularly relevant to this accident? If there was any pilot error from disorientation on climb out/transition it would have almost certainly come from the basics of not keeping wings level and pitch controlled appropriately, would it not, which should have been the main focus.
I am more interested in how this phase would have likely been carried out - was it hand flown or coupled autopilot upper modes? What is the 139 like to hand fly in pretty much zero zero conditions?
I am more interested in how this phase would have likely been carried out - was it hand flown or coupled autopilot upper modes? What is the 139 like to hand fly in pretty much zero zero conditions?
The discussion of heading control was to address the question as to why these types of departures were not included in the IR check asked a few pages back in the thread. We always do low vis runway departures on our PPC’s instead of black hole helipad departures in the sim.
I agree, drifting off the heading would have very little bearing on the outcome of this departure. However, drifting more than 5 degrees off the runway heading or 10 degrees off your assigned heading on an instrument departure on a checkride would most likely end in a fail. That’s where the discussion came from.
I referred to the "Dipped Shoulder Syndrome"....Caution Light illuminates along with a Master Caution....and immediately one crew member reaches for the Emergency checklist. That to me is very bad Karma or bad JuJu....and signals a great failure to "Think" first and act later.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Outwest,
I’ve got a copy of TP15099E, 1st Edition from March 2011 on my laptop. It was the last one I used to do a TC monitored ride with a long time ago. It’s the guide specifically for a group 4 instrument rating in a helicopter.
You linked the 2007 PPC and Type rating guide for helicopters in your previous post which isn’t the same. I don’t know if the wording is similar between the two or if there’s a later version of TC’s Group 4 Instrument Rating Guidelines available online?
This from the 2011 edition:
4. DEPARTURE Aim To determine the candidate’s ability to safely depart in accordance with a clearance given by ATC or a simulated clearance given by the examiner. Description The candidate will complete the departure procedures, including an instrument function check, and establish the helicopter on the enroute course, as cleared in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules. The candidate will control the helicopter solely with reference to flight instruments once in flight and above 200 feet AAE, unless otherwise specified in a departure procedure. Performance Criteria Assessment will be based on the candidate’s ability to: a) select and use the appropriate communications frequencies; b) select and identify the navigation aids associated with the proposed departure phase; c) verify that course indications correspond to the intended navigational equipment; d) perform instrument function check; Note: To avoid the shaded area of the Height Velocity Diagram, the function check of the vertical speed indicator and altimeter will be performed on the initial phase of the climb. e) safely taxi while respecting runway signs and avoiding a runway incursion; f) accomplish the applicable checklist items and perform recommended procedures; g) maintain proper helicopter control and flight within operating configurations and limitations; h) intercept, in a timely manner, all tracks, radials, and bearings appropriate to the procedure, route, or ATC clearances and instructions; i) adhere to departure and transition procedures or ATC instructions; j) maintain assigned headings (±10 degrees); k) maintain assigned tracks and bearings (±10 degrees); and l) climb to and maintain assigned altitudes (±100 feet).
If I'm missing where it says +/- 5 I will surely stand corrected.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks RL, I found that 2011edition. However I still don't see the +/-5 degree limit. The reason I'm interested is in the well over 100 PPC's I have conducted over the years I always used +/- 10 degrees on the runway ITO for grading purposes. If it was +/- 5 I'm afraid there would have been a lot more failures
This from the 2011 edition:
4. DEPARTURE Aim To determine the candidate’s ability to safely depart in accordance with a clearance given by ATC or a simulated clearance given by the examiner. Description The candidate will complete the departure procedures, including an instrument function check, and establish the helicopter on the enroute course, as cleared in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules. The candidate will control the helicopter solely with reference to flight instruments once in flight and above 200 feet AAE, unless otherwise specified in a departure procedure. Performance Criteria Assessment will be based on the candidate’s ability to: a) select and use the appropriate communications frequencies; b) select and identify the navigation aids associated with the proposed departure phase; c) verify that course indications correspond to the intended navigational equipment; d) perform instrument function check; Note: To avoid the shaded area of the Height Velocity Diagram, the function check of the vertical speed indicator and altimeter will be performed on the initial phase of the climb. e) safely taxi while respecting runway signs and avoiding a runway incursion; f) accomplish the applicable checklist items and perform recommended procedures; g) maintain proper helicopter control and flight within operating configurations and limitations; h) intercept, in a timely manner, all tracks, radials, and bearings appropriate to the procedure, route, or ATC clearances and instructions; i) adhere to departure and transition procedures or ATC instructions; j) maintain assigned headings (±10 degrees); k) maintain assigned tracks and bearings (±10 degrees); and l) climb to and maintain assigned altitudes (±100 feet).
If I'm missing where it says +/- 5 I will surely stand corrected.
This from the 2011 edition:
4. DEPARTURE Aim To determine the candidate’s ability to safely depart in accordance with a clearance given by ATC or a simulated clearance given by the examiner. Description The candidate will complete the departure procedures, including an instrument function check, and establish the helicopter on the enroute course, as cleared in accordance with the Instrument Flight Rules. The candidate will control the helicopter solely with reference to flight instruments once in flight and above 200 feet AAE, unless otherwise specified in a departure procedure. Performance Criteria Assessment will be based on the candidate’s ability to: a) select and use the appropriate communications frequencies; b) select and identify the navigation aids associated with the proposed departure phase; c) verify that course indications correspond to the intended navigational equipment; d) perform instrument function check; Note: To avoid the shaded area of the Height Velocity Diagram, the function check of the vertical speed indicator and altimeter will be performed on the initial phase of the climb. e) safely taxi while respecting runway signs and avoiding a runway incursion; f) accomplish the applicable checklist items and perform recommended procedures; g) maintain proper helicopter control and flight within operating configurations and limitations; h) intercept, in a timely manner, all tracks, radials, and bearings appropriate to the procedure, route, or ATC clearances and instructions; i) adhere to departure and transition procedures or ATC instructions; j) maintain assigned headings (±10 degrees); k) maintain assigned tracks and bearings (±10 degrees); and l) climb to and maintain assigned altitudes (±100 feet).
If I'm missing where it says +/- 5 I will surely stand corrected.
You are 100% correct with respect to that version, +/- 10 degrees on assigned headings. Contact your POI for the region you are in and ask what course of action they would recommend if a candidate rotated into wind from the threshold of the runway, on a low vis IFR departure, and immediately took up a heading 9 degrees off the centreline prior to reaching VTOSS? This is on a CAT A PC1 Runway Departure. I can guarantee the answer will be a unanimous failed checkride due to the flight safety being compromised. After VTOSS, +/- 10 degrees all the way.
As an ex TC ACP and a current EASA TRE I have never heard anyone stating RL77CHC's +/- 5 degrees before.
I'm not saying it isn't correct, just not something I have ever come across or applied.
I'm not saying it isn't correct, just not something I have ever come across or applied.
As an ex TC ACP and a current EASA TRE I have never heard anyone stating RL77CHC's +/- 5 degrees before. I'm not saying it isn't correct, just not something I have ever come across or applied.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither did I until I got the tap on the shoulder from TC on a monitored ride in the sim to shut it down for the two guys up front. This was after they continued off the runway and over the infield while trying to accelerate to VBROC on a sketchy low vis departure. They were struggling but still under 10 degrees and visual with the surface. TC had seen enough when the windsock went zipping by the aircraft. “Safety Compromised” was the official language they used in the debriefing. The guys never disagreed and never went to the tribunal. Interesting there’s a difference in standards at the top level. TC’s argument made perfect sense to me after the fact at the time.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Outwest,
You are 100% correct with respect to that version, +/- 10 degrees on assigned headings. Contact your POI for the region you are in and ask what course of action they would recommend if a candidate rotated into wind from the threshold of the runway, on a low vis IFR departure, and immediately took up a heading 9 degrees off the centreline prior to reaching VTOSS? This is on a CAT A PC1 Runway Departure. I can guarantee the answer will be a unanimous failed checkride due to the flight safety being compromised. After VTOSS, +/- 10 degrees all the way.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neither did I until I got the tap on the shoulder from TC on a monitored ride in the sim to shut it down for the two guys up front. This was after they continued off the runway and over the infield while trying to accelerate to VBROC on a sketchy low vis departure. They were struggling but still under 10 degrees and visual with the surface. TC had seen enough when the windsock went zipping by the aircraft. “Safety Compromised” was the official language they used in the debriefing. The guys never disagreed and never went to the tribunal. Interesting there’s a difference in standards at the top level. TC’s argument made perfect sense to me after the fact at the time.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Canada
Age: 46
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. It’s a bit strange though because the inability for the Flight Crew to maintain the runway centreline in low visibility, accelerate and climb away caused the failure yet they maintained their heading within the +/-10 limits.
If I recall the TC form had a column for “Takeoff” or “Departure” and I was told to assess that a 1 and the comment “Flight Safety compromised” was the recommended wording by the TC inspector in the briefing before the candidates entered the room.
I still believe if the departure was done at a generic runway without all of the detail built up, ie. flat field, the guys would have gotten away with a 3. The TC inspector was the one that mentioned the +/-5 at the time keeping visual with the runway until VTOSS or something along those lines. We are talking 8-9 years ago so it’s a bit of a blur.
If I recall the TC form had a column for “Takeoff” or “Departure” and I was told to assess that a 1 and the comment “Flight Safety compromised” was the recommended wording by the TC inspector in the briefing before the candidates entered the room.
I still believe if the departure was done at a generic runway without all of the detail built up, ie. flat field, the guys would have gotten away with a 3. The TC inspector was the one that mentioned the +/-5 at the time keeping visual with the runway until VTOSS or something along those lines. We are talking 8-9 years ago so it’s a bit of a blur.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct. It’s a bit strange though because the inability for the Flight Crew to maintain the runway centreline in low visibility, accelerate and climb away caused the failure yet they maintained their heading within the +/-10 limits.
If I recall the TC form had a column for “Takeoff” or “Departure” and I was told to assess that a 1 and the comment “Flight Safety compromised” was the recommended wording by the TC inspector in the briefing before the candidates entered the room.
I still believe if the departure was done at a generic runway without all of the detail built up, ie. flat field, the guys would have gotten away with a 3. The TC inspector was the one that mentioned the +/-5 at the time keeping visual with the runway until VTOSS or something along those lines. We are talking 8-9 years ago so it’s a bit of a blur.
If I recall the TC form had a column for “Takeoff” or “Departure” and I was told to assess that a 1 and the comment “Flight Safety compromised” was the recommended wording by the TC inspector in the briefing before the candidates entered the room.
I still believe if the departure was done at a generic runway without all of the detail built up, ie. flat field, the guys would have gotten away with a 3. The TC inspector was the one that mentioned the +/-5 at the time keeping visual with the runway until VTOSS or something along those lines. We are talking 8-9 years ago so it’s a bit of a blur.
The heading +/- 10 degrees is in TP15099E issued in 2011, the Instrument Flight Guide. I believe the IFR PPC has to meet those standards. Dis is under Chapter 4, Departures. (Transport Canada rules)
