Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Derwent Valley 17th Oct 2019

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Derwent Valley 17th Oct 2019

Old 18th Oct 2019, 17:11
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
Derwent Valley 17th Oct 2019

Disturbing incident while loadlifting yesterday, I had 3 airprox's in one afternoon with ultra low level fixed wings ( prop ac doing around 150 kts ), one passed overhead lift site over my self at about 100 ft , second hard banking turn to avoid me according to ground crew. All three occasions we were carrying loads 50 ft under helicopter on a longline so unable to manouvre plus coming from dead astern. 2 then flew over drop site then ultra low level down " the dam busters run " in the Derwent valley.
According To Manchester were squawking 7001 which is a military squawk. Anyone out there know where they would have come from as we were very close to a midair Plus flying through a Notam'd area. If you know who please can you tell them to have half a brain, cheers
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 18:02
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,722
Tucanos?






Blah (for the sake of min text)
Bravo73 is online now  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 18:47
  #3 (permalink)  

Better red than ...
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Appleby-in-Westmorland Cumbria England
Posts: 1,403
I’d second Tucs but in 25 years I’ve never seen any in that area. Maybe Grobs or just the same aircraft with a wrongly set 7000?
helicopter-redeye is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 18:57
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: on the edge of a big fall
Posts: 123
The Airprox Board will track them down hopefully.
higthepig is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 19:10
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
They were Grobs looking at the pix 2 different ones a white and blue and an all white one. Both aircraft were wearing 7001 according to Manchester. Just a bit much really i would like to think it wasn't the RAF but having had a similar incident with a Tornado a few years ago in the Derwent valley nothing surprises me !
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 19:14
  #6 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
120tp prefect is the one i saw and it was very close
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2019, 23:03
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 418
Post in the Mil Aircrew forum, if you want to alert fixed wing users.

Last edited by chinook240; 19th Oct 2019 at 07:49.
chinook240 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 13:37
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
Chinook240, as you are obviously from that part of the mil could you please explain the mentality of the RAF instructors ?
1. They either haven't bothered to read the Notams
2. Chosen to ignore the notam and then deliberately fly at a height that would conflict with an aircraft that can't manoeuvre through the middle of the Notam
3. Unlike the RAF helicopter units who actually bother to phone me and ask about the Notam

I am really looking forward to going back to teh same job next week
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 15:36
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 48
Just out of interest, I cannot seem to find a notam for underslung load lifting in that area for either last week nor this upcoming week. Admittedly I’ve only done narrow route briefs EGNX-EGCC and EGBE-EGNM 20nm wide, but it does show pipeline inspections and a formation transit of tucano’s.
Did your notam request get published?
120torque is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 16:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: amongst the clouds
Age: 49
Posts: 14
Is this the notam?

EGTT/QWELW/IV/BO/W/000/025/5329N00147W003
B) FROM: 19/10/16 09:00C) TO: 19/10/18 17:00E) UNDERSLUNG LOADS WILL OPERATE LOW FLYING AREA 8 WI 2NM EITHER SIDE
OF TRACK AND 2NM RADIUS OF 532953N 0014725W TO 532826N 0014604W,
(WOODHEAD PASS, DERBYSHIRE). MAX HEIGHT 500FT AGL. ACFT MAY BE
RESTRICTED IN ABILITY TO MANOEUVRE AND UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH RAC.
OPS CTC 07775533504. 19/10/043/LFBCLOWER: SFC
UPPER: 2457FT AMSL
SCHEDULE: 0900-1700
vee_why is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 18:34
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 914
Originally Posted by Hughes500 View Post
Chinook240, as you are obviously from that part of the mil could you please explain the mentality of the RAF instructors ?
1. They either haven't bothered to read the Notams
2. Chosen to ignore the notam and then deliberately fly at a height that would conflict with an aircraft that can't manoeuvre through the middle of the Notam
3. Unlike the RAF helicopter units who actually bother to phone me and ask about the Notam

I am really looking forward to going back to teh same job next week
In their defence 4) Their mission planning system failed to display the notam for whatever reason. Not entirely impossible, not saying it's what happened though!
pba_target is online now  
Old 19th Oct 2019, 18:48
  #12 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
well it was booked with low flying cell and was on both Skydemon and Runway HD so find it difficult to believe that a part of The RAF didnt have it. If that is the case there is a massive problem within the RAF system which I suggest needs to be fixed asap before someone gets killed
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 13:58
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: In the air with luck
Posts: 993
Hate to loose you H500
Don't worry only max of 20 days to reply
Low Flying Complaints and Enquiries Unit
RAF Wittering
Peterborough
PE8 6HB
Telephone: 01780 417 558
Monday to Friday, 8am to 4pm (excluding bank holidays)
500e is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 14:53
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,435
There is no excuse for any RAF aircraft smashing through a notam - especially not one used for training.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 18:20
  #15 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
500e thanks for that, not really looking forward to going back next week. I have legally according to my barrister partner put the RAF on notice on their investigation. Basically I have notified them that there was a high risk of loss of life through their actions ( or lack of ) so if someone is killed someone will be infront of someone with a white wig on !!

Crab
I have had the same a couple of years ago over the Ladybower reservoir ! Quite something to be at 300 ft over the middle of the reservoir looking down on a 600kgs load on a 50 ft line to see a GR4 Tornado come underneath you. Just as well I didn't drop the helicopters load, nearly dropped mine though. Makes me wonder if the RAF fixed wing branch bother looking at Notams. To be fair the helicopter boys always phone
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 18:59
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 418
Mission planning systems tend to remove the need for individual crews to “check” NOTAMs while at the same time, increasing the effect of a human error, if one gets missed/misplotted on the system. The fact you appear to have had 3 events on the same day with the same aircraft type may suggest they used the same MPS and could have been unaware?
chinook240 is offline  
Old 20th Oct 2019, 19:04
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,435
All LF Booking is done on CADs now but Notams aren't displayed on it which is a disgrace when Runway HD , SkyDemon et al seem to manage perfectly.

Hughes - we used to have mountain flying detachments with a SAR Sea King based in the Wasdale valley which we Notam'd yet still had the pointy fast things whizzing through the middle so it doesn't just happen to civilian helicopters.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2019, 00:35
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 1,618
Well for those who are interested, just finished the job, got home tonight to be greeted by a letter from RAF low flying complaints to say that the 3 airports had been investigated by RAF police and the complaint had been closed as the flights were properly briefed and authorised to take place.
It would appear that the so called professional RAF haven't heard of TEM otherwise why would you fly a training aircraft at the same height as a helicopter that on that day flew over 70 cycles between pick up point and drop off point with a 600kg load 70 ft underneath it ?
What are the instructors teaching the new generation of pilots ??????
I am afraid the RAF has now become in my humble eyes an organisation that pays lip service to safety and quite frankly is not fit for purpose.
Hughes500 is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2019, 08:16
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Someplace else
Posts: 7
And thus it ever was. Over the last 25 years I have had the misfortune of dealing with the RAF on a number of complaints either with or without the involvement of the airprox board. On every occasion the ’briefed and authorised’ line was dragged out and a total denial of culpability. Essentially, the assertion was that, we are the RAF, we are better than a mere commercial operation, we own the skies.
Taranto Knight is offline  
Old 1st Nov 2019, 08:25
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 7,435
Sadly if you look at the calibre of those tasked with investigating they rarely understand aviation and have a box-ticking process to go through.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.