November 2nd 2022 - BBC report heli down in Wales
If CAT - AMC2 CAT.OP.MPA.110(b)(2) “For night operations, ground lights should be available to illuminate the runway/final approach and take-off area (FATO) and any obstacles.”
For NCC see AMC3 NCC.OP.110,
For NCO see AMC1 NCO.OP.110.
They all say the same thing, ground lights are required regardless of the type of operation, sufficient to light the FATO and any obstacles.
The only caveat is SPA.HEMS.125(b)(4) which allows the required lighting to come from the aircraft or ground based lights.
Over to you to interpret what is acceptable ‘ground lighting’.
For NCC see AMC3 NCC.OP.110,
For NCO see AMC1 NCO.OP.110.
They all say the same thing, ground lights are required regardless of the type of operation, sufficient to light the FATO and any obstacles.
The only caveat is SPA.HEMS.125(b)(4) which allows the required lighting to come from the aircraft or ground based lights.
Over to you to interpret what is acceptable ‘ground lighting’.
"Private" .... that term which (unless the CAA have at last properly addressed the problem) means all safety rules can be ignored. I wonder just how many passengers are aware of the difference between Private and AOC flights.
If we're now getting into the realms of private vs commercial, then maybe some of you who listen to podcasts may find this one on the Sala crash somewhat interesting. It does go on a bit but episodes 5, 7 and 8 are particularly interesting. The podcast is on BBC and is called 'Transfer'
As pilots, we're the professionals behind the controls so we should be the ones making sure everything we do is to the highest possible standard. Do we think lights are necessary to assist in a night departure from a poorly lit site? Then ask for them. You can buy a set of lights which you can put out for orientation. These can easily be picked up by someone nominated on the ground after departure and posted on to the operator for a few quid!! ( I already know one operator who does this) . Or how about places that are expecting helicopters, spend a few pounds and buy some decent lights. We don't know what the cause of this accident was, or if it was well lit, but the wx conditions certainly appeared to make things more difficult for the pilot.
I wonder just how many passengers are aware of the difference between Private and AOC flights.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I flew my first 14 years in the RAF without NVG Shy and that included CAs and field landings including with a crewman on PNG in NI along with some very challenging RNF flying in Cyprus.
I'm sure you will remember the RAF definition of a CA so that field certainly fits.
My point was that CA's without NVGs ramps the risk up markedly and with fare paying pax on board asks a lot of questions about the legality of it.
Can it be done? Sure, like others I have got the T shirt but is it a sensible thing to do on a commercial operation?
I'm sure you will remember the RAF definition of a CA so that field certainly fits.
My point was that CA's without NVGs ramps the risk up markedly and with fare paying pax on board asks a lot of questions about the legality of it.
Can it be done? Sure, like others I have got the T shirt but is it a sensible thing to do on a commercial operation?
I wasn’t trying the challenge your credentials. I was referring to the fact that the majority of civilian night operations are still carried out under what the RAF began referring to a “reversionary night flying” about thirty years ago, ie without the use of individual night vision devices and compatible lighting.
The rules state that sites used for public transport must be adequately lit by night. Private sites for non public transport nights not necessarily so. For the last twenty years or so, working for non pt operators I’ve sometimes been without the privilege of operating from an adequately lit night site and many that wouldn’t be legal for PT. I have refused some and been castigated for doing so. On one occasion the owner accepted my decision but called in a commercial operator who did the job I’d refused on safety grounds, using a far less experienced pilot…but not from this operator.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
yes, I'm sure most of them just assume because they have paid for the flight that it will come with all the same safety protections as flying off on their hols on BA or other airlines.
Almost in my parish this one and familiar with the estate as my other half has ridden all over it a few times. If the shoot was organized by the Naylor-Leyland owners then I would have thought the obvious LZ would be on their grass strip (my outline) in front of the ‘big house’. It’s certainly long enough for an ultralight and well maintained so no problem for rotary. There are plenty of broadleaf copse low down but the pine trees are on the adjacent higher ground.
NVIS training is not overly onerous, but every penny counts to private helicopter companies, and they will not go to NVIS ops as long as they can get away with not spending the money. Even if NVIS is best practice in our industry (which it unquestionably is), until something is mandated then these sorts of accidents and incidents will happen because its routine for the operator. Currency is not an issue in police ops but even if it was, most medium to big onshore companies either have access to a sim or have their own sim where currency is easily maintained....
On one occasion the owner accepted my decision but called in a commercial operator who did the job I’d refused on safety grounds, using a far less experienced pilot…but not from this operator.
In the onshore world it's ALL about money. Operators will do anything to get the work and anything to try to shave every penny off a job
At a well known onshore IFR operator.. I have witnessed the Operations manager (who was the Chief Pilot's 'partner') shouting in the background "what's wrong with him? he's got an IR, just tell him to get on with the job" when a pilot had phoned in after having to divert due to poor weather (thus wiping out the profit from the job)
That's an example of the kind of thing that goes on.
At a well known onshore IFR operator.. I have witnessed the Operations manager (who was the Chief Pilot's 'partner') shouting in the background "what's wrong with him? he's got an IR, just tell him to get on with the job" when a pilot had phoned in after having to divert due to poor weather (thus wiping out the profit from the job)
That's an example of the kind of thing that goes on.
That's just bonkers, don't these people have any sense of self preservation?
Last edited by hargreaves99; 4th Nov 2022 at 14:26.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That's just bonkers, don't these people have any sense of self preservation?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 433 Likes
on
228 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
That's just bonkers, don't these people have any sense of self preservation?
Possibly not but I always considered it my job as Captain to preserve my own skin and therefore protected them too.
Some successful business people are high risk takers by nature but obviously that characteristic isn’t at all ideal if you’re their helicopter pilot! The big problem comes when having to deal with ebullient and/or aggressive characters where you might be the only person who ever says “NO!” to them. I’ve been there, too. Walked away from that pressure in one employment because I felt it almost every day and it was doing my health no good.
Guaranteed, in the event of an accident (and history proves it), those who applied pressure for the flight to go ahead will likely be the first ones taking very large backward steps, away from accepting any responsibility and dumping it at the pilot’s door.
Paradoxically, prior to flying in the military one has to prove to an authorising officer that the flight can safely be undertaken. In the civilian world, the pilot might find himself having to prove that it cannot!
The following users liked this post:
In Brazil, every aircraft which is commercially operated has to have "TAXI AEREO" above the doors so a passenger can check for themselves and be reassured
Helihub
The problem with AOC v private is the incredible expense that goes with having an AOC against the amount one makes. It is even worse when it comes to single engine VFR AOC where one has to have something like 300m of open space infront of one to take off . Somewhat defeats the object of having a helicopter in a load of instances. When I had an AOC the number of jobs we had to turn down due to the sites not being big enough was a joke. I remember one customer getting very shirty when I said no to a pick up he said "what is wrong with the system, my mate landed his R22 in my garden and it is unsafe to fly a Hughes 500 in and out."
I realise it is all about safety but if an engine is that likely to fail on take off should single engine helicopters be allowed ? There is a risk to everything we do, the probability of an engine failure on take off is so low as to be not worth talking about. I shut down my AOC as one couldn't legally make a profit doing it with all the expense, pointless auditing etc etc. Realistically to stop the Sala case happening Gatwick needs to make the costs and hoop jumping more realistic and then it would be able to control what happens out there. Seeing as that is never going to happen the problem will never go away.The law is the law, It is not illegal for someone to hire a helicopter, it is not illegal for someone to hire a jockey. It is only illegal for a jockey to offer his services, a helicopter and fuel to a punter. It would be almost impossible to draw up a law to prevent Sala case. For instance a CPL can be hired to fly an N reg ac for the" owner", but they are not strictly the owner as in most cases a trust owns the machine , so you start to see the problem for the law makers.
The problem with AOC v private is the incredible expense that goes with having an AOC against the amount one makes. It is even worse when it comes to single engine VFR AOC where one has to have something like 300m of open space infront of one to take off . Somewhat defeats the object of having a helicopter in a load of instances. When I had an AOC the number of jobs we had to turn down due to the sites not being big enough was a joke. I remember one customer getting very shirty when I said no to a pick up he said "what is wrong with the system, my mate landed his R22 in my garden and it is unsafe to fly a Hughes 500 in and out."
I realise it is all about safety but if an engine is that likely to fail on take off should single engine helicopters be allowed ? There is a risk to everything we do, the probability of an engine failure on take off is so low as to be not worth talking about. I shut down my AOC as one couldn't legally make a profit doing it with all the expense, pointless auditing etc etc. Realistically to stop the Sala case happening Gatwick needs to make the costs and hoop jumping more realistic and then it would be able to control what happens out there. Seeing as that is never going to happen the problem will never go away.The law is the law, It is not illegal for someone to hire a helicopter, it is not illegal for someone to hire a jockey. It is only illegal for a jockey to offer his services, a helicopter and fuel to a punter. It would be almost impossible to draw up a law to prevent Sala case. For instance a CPL can be hired to fly an N reg ac for the" owner", but they are not strictly the owner as in most cases a trust owns the machine , so you start to see the problem for the law makers.
Agreed, CAA regs and fees are strangling the industry.
eg
£96 fee to add an expired type rating back onto to your licence, why?
£9 fee to book a CAA medical appointment with your AME. why?
eg
£96 fee to add an expired type rating back onto to your licence, why?
£9 fee to book a CAA medical appointment with your AME. why?
I would think it is because they don't get enough money from the Govt
The following users liked this post:
Under the US FAA system there is no "Fee" paid to the FAA by the Pilot with the only costs being those charged by the Flight Surgeon providing the Examination.
A full description of the system can be found at this Link.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33620822/
A full description of the system can be found at this Link.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33620822/