Robinson crash in FL

[megan]

I’m hesitant to recommend an autopilot for a skill you don’t have

B2N2, the problem is a helicopter such as a Robbie has no natural stability such as a fixed wing, the machine is balanced on the head of a pin, a stabilisation system (SAS) endows the helicopter with fixed wing like stability, but costs $$$. Eases the work load no end, but of course you need the skills should it take a holiday.

[Robbiee]

If there one more thing the Robby book tells us. its that some fixed-wing techniques will get you killed in their helicopters.

This idea of taking off at night staring at the artificial horizon until you get to 500' in the hopes that you'll be able to see the ground once you get there, sounds like one of them.

As for Robbys with autopilot? Yeah, that just seems like a recipe for more scudd-running and/or too dark to fly VFR, crashes.

,...in the wrong hands I guess?

[[email protected]]

Robbiee - a night take-off doesn't mean staring at the AI - you can make a normal visual transition if you have a reasonably lit area like an airport, get comfortable in the climb configuration and then use a mixture of visual cues and the AI to confirm them to continue on your flight.

If people are going to scud-run, they will do it anyway whether or not they have the skills to do so and regardless of the handling qualities of their aircraft, that comes down to the person and their attitude to flying- as we keep seeing on these pages, sadly

[B2N2]

The difference is stunning:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/2018/7/...-re-going-down


EC135 hard landing Chicago Area July 7

A professional crew and and a professional machine.

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by B2N2

The difference is stunning:

How are those events in any way relevant to the R44 crash?

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by aa777888

How are those events in any way relevant to the R44 crash?

Not really.
More a fleeting reminder of how a properly trained experienced pilot managed a positive outcome during a night emergency.
Four people saved vs perished.
Feel free to ignore it.

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

In 40 years of flying I have only seen a few nights, some but not many, where you could honestly say you could fly in an unstabilised helicopter with sole reference to external cues and not need to look in at the instruments.

Assuming you mean an AI, AH, T&B, etc., that seems extraordinarily unlikely, or at least extraordinarily your own experience, which perhaps is heavily slanted towards more challenging night VFR conditions. Not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to understand. People have untold thousands (millions?) of hours at night in un-stabilized helicopters with no attitude information in the panel and seem to manage just fine at night under reasonable VFR conditions (not total blackness, but not brilliantly lit urban landscapes either).

If you are referring to airspeed, altitude, etc., heck, don't we all use those in all types of flight conditions?

For any newbies reading this particular thread of discussion, it's important to understand that different countries and different parts of the flying community do things differently. Part 91 operations in the US occur in ways that curl the hair of, say, retired UK military helicopter pilots. Needs must when the devil drives, and since US Part 91 op's are mostly in un-stabilized, un-sophisticated, light singles, as opposed to medium or heavy, fully stabilized, twins, you get the aforementioned un-stabilized singles flying around at night quite successfully, minus the occasional exception like the one being discussed herein.

In other words, it's not inherently evil, but one must understand the conditions they are facing and act accordingly and, most importantly, according to their own risk tolerance (damn, there's that risk thing again!) The risk tolerance of a lot of the Rotorheads on PPRuNe tends to be quite conservative. Nevertheless, remember that accidents (or "negligents") happen not because a helicopter or pilot is intrinsically more or less capable, they happen because someone exceed the capabilities of man and/or machine. Indeed, look at the other relatively recent topic about Rescue 111. If that had been an R44 they might have been dead quite quickly. It just took a bit longer for the far better equipped, trained and experienced crew of Rescue 111.

Anyone can push anything too far. That certainly seems to be the case here, and it's worth discussing the how and the why. But don't let it be an indictment of all VFR night helicopter operations.

[[email protected]]

If all those hours have been flown - not sure how you know who did what and in what conditions - then they were probably over well-lit enough areas to give adequate orientation, as the rule requires.

But, if they did that without being able to see the ground, then they did not fly in accordance with the rules for night VFR - simples.

Do tell how you control your pitch and roll attitude in an unstabilised aircraft without an external reference if you don't have an AI and you can't see the actual horizon. Perhaps the ubiquitous i-pad?

[brett s]

Originally Posted by B2N2

Not really.
More a fleeting reminder of how a properly trained experienced pilot managed a positive outcome during a night emergency.
Four people saved vs perished.
Feel free to ignore it.

Probably not a great example given exactly what caused the emergency in the first place though.

US HEMS EC135P1 Dual Engine Failure: 7 July 2018 - Aerossurance

Years ago as a very low time PPL(H) I was ferrying piston ag ships between job sites to build hours, a fair amount was at night & to/from unlit field sites in rural areas. Being restricted category ag ships a couple didn't even have a compass. But I also had a healthy sense of self-preservation, plus several years of helicopter background as a military enlisted crewmember. Common sense & understanding your limitations goes a long ways.

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

If all those hours have been flown - not sure how you know who did what and in what conditions

You know I'm not spouting hard numbers, but R44s and many other light single, VFR-only helicopters fly at night all the time in the US, and historically this has gone on probably since the beginning of the helicopter. it's just common sense. By way of a single example, once upon a time, that's all police departments flew, before they started squeezing taxpayers for bigger and better.

- then they were probably over well-lit enough areas to give adequate orientation, as the rule requires.

Of course that is the case.

But, if they did that without being able to see the ground, then they did not fly in accordance with the rules for night VFR - simples.

That is not the case.

Do tell how you control your pitch and roll attitude in an unstabilised aircraft without an external reference if you don't have an AI and you can't see the actual horizon. Perhaps the ubiquitous i-pad?

You don't.

Either you and I are not on the same page (as usual), or you are serving up non-sequiturs for some reason.

Bottom line: there are lots of night VFR helicopter op's in the US in un-stabilized, VFR-only light singles, all done 100% legally without reference to instrument flight tools and techniques, without them falling from the sky in droves. It's simply not a big problem in this country, nor is it some sort of anathema, either.

[[email protected]]

Not a non-sequitur - I have said how many nights I have seen where pure VFR flight at night is possible ie not that many but you say night VFR happens all the time in the US.

You can draw 2 possible conclusions from this - 1. There are far more real VFR nights in the US than the UK or 2. People are claiming night VFR when the conditions don't meet the rules

You choose.

As ever you seem to want to trivialise a thread trying to make safety points about an accident because it offends your risk appetite.

[Robbiee]

Well I can say that even in the very well lighted San Francisco Bay Area (where I got most of my night hours) true VFR nights aren't exactly a dime a dozen. Too much frickin' fog!

,...and then when you do finally get a nice fog free one, you can't go to the city because of those damn ballgame TFRs!

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Not a non-sequitur - I have said how many nights I have seen where pure VFR flight at night is possible ie not that many but you say night VFR happens all the time in the US.

You can draw 2 possible conclusions from this - 1. There are far more real VFR nights in the US than the UK or 2. People are claiming night VFR when the conditions don't meet the rules

You choose.

As ever you seem to want to trivialise a thread trying to make safety points about an accident because it offends your risk appetite.

Now that post is on point. Concise and clear.

Taking your points in reverse order:

First, in no way is it my desire to trivialize the issues that likely contributed to the subject accident. I fully agree with the consensus of this topic regarding the likely cause, not that that has been at all proven yet (and may never be given the level of destruction of the aircraft).

However, I completely disagree with the idea that people routinely claim night VFR when the conditions don't meet the rules, at least in the US, and that night VFR flight is an unlikely state of affairs, at least in the US.

There are certainly major differences in weather patterns throughout the world. Perhaps that is part of it. Night VFR flight in all classes and categories of powered aircraft (edited to add: for which it is legal) are de rigueur throughout the US. No doubt some take liberties, but not to the extent that there are a noteworthy number of Part 91 accidents. Indeed, most of those sort of issues seem to plague more complex operations like HEMS. That said, I absolutely agree that, as usual, operations unique to helicopters, particularly off-airport departures and arrivals, represent a substantial increase in complexity and risk.

From a more personal perspective, I have never flown at night when legal VFR was not possible, and that includes off-airport operations. This is not to say some of these flights were not challenging. But in no case did they approach a level of advertent or inadvertent flight into essentially IFR conditions. I believe most US pilots are equally responsible even in the face of the less restrictive rules found in the US. If they were not there would be a substantially higher level of night accidents in the US.

[megan]

For any newbies reading this particular thread of discussion, it's important to understand that different countries and different parts of the flying community do things differently

Never a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/566884...02%20Final.pdf

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by megan

Never a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/566884...02%20Final.pdf

Isn't this one of those countries who require a specific "night rating"?

[Scattercat]

[QUOTE=megan;11169240]Never a truer word, night VFR in my time in Oz was legal in pitch black conditions, all that was needed was VFR weather as defined by regs, and keep clear of cloud, was never said how you do that in pitch black conditions, the following is the report of a fatal night VFR accident by a 16,000 hour pilot. Lessons even learnt by the regulator.

It's been some time since I've flown in Oz, but IIRC, a VFR flight at or below 2000 ft above the ground or water, a pilot is required to be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. I posit that in "pitch black" conditions, this is not possible or legal. Hence additional requirements were in place for NVFR overwater op's. I do agree that Oz NVFR requirements lacked a certain degree of clarity or guidance that sadly attributed to a number of fatal accidents.

[megan]

a VFR flight at or below 2000 ft above the ground or water, a pilot is required to be able to navigate by visual reference to the ground or water. I posit that in "pitch black" conditions, this is not possible or legal.

The requirement is you have to be able to positively fix your position by reference to features on a topographical chart at intervals not exceeding 30 minutes, which on a pitch black night means, in my opinion, a lighted area such as a town, or where I operated, an off shore platform. See page 31 of the report.

[helonorth]

I've flown quite a bit in the area of this accident and it's not that dark there. Plenty of ground lighting and flat terrain. Never heard of "pitch black" in aviation. I've flown all over the US unaided and never had a problem. Over a large body of water is a whole different story, though. The guy most likely went inadvertent. Plenty of fog there at all times of the year.

[Robbiee]

The closest I've seen to "pitch black" was looking out to sea from the Golden Gate on a moonless night. Where you can't tell if the handfull of lights you see are stars, planes, or boats?

You don't need pitch black to get into trouble though. On my ppl night cross country over the desert, all I had was the lights of the skinny little freeway below me. After maybe twenty minutes, or so, I started to feel disoriented. Fortunately, just as I was about to hand the controls to my instructor, the lights of Tuscon came up and the disorientation went away.

Though, if I had been alone on that flight,..?

[aa777888]

Perhaps a little far afield from the original topic, but I'm always more cautious/concerned about potentially getting the leans than flying into zero visibility (clouds or just blackness). At least the latter ought to be unambiguous, or at least should be. I fly in very mixed terrain, from bright urban to dark rural, from flatland to mountains, and over small bodies of water. I always make it a point to correlate what I'm seeing with known terrain features. If it seems "slanted" should it seem "slanted"? That sort of thing. Heck, even in the daytime this issue can come into play, if it's very hazy and an opposite shoreline seems "slanted". I've never had the leans, but how it might happen is definitely obvious.

Getting sucked into "black holes" is also a big one. I was once with another pilot, who was PIC, going into a pretty big airport with a perfectly serviceable PAPI. There was this large, completely black area for a mile or so directly in front of the runway. He kept going below the optical glide slope, entirely fixated on that patch of blackness, even though the PAPI was perfect on that severe clear evening. I could not understand it, but it happens. Experienced it again with someone else PIC at an unimproved, but lighted, LZ. Again, could not understand it. Fixed the problem both times, of course, else I might not be here!

The only time I've personally been spatially disoriented was one night, transitioning through Class C, with a Southwest 737 on approach to that airport. Conditions were severe clear. No problem flying straight and level, it was brilliantly lit urbanization below. But I could swear that 737 was on a collision course, the lights were so bright, and the relative motion was just so, but of course we were well separated by ATC, and he passed 2000 feet above me. That sure was weird! It's never happened again, since, but I remember that feeling like it was yesterday.