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

Deadly Stupid Stunt !

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

Deadly Stupid Stunt !

Old 27th Jan 2003, 22:40
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Northern England
Posts: 112
kissmysquirrel;

"Just out of interest, would this aircraft be written off or is it viable to repair and return to use?"

I needed to check the date, and strangely it doesn't appear to be 1st april.
Draco is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2003, 23:19
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 4,145
Arrow

KMS,

Repair would be the call of the insurance company, and the economic viability vs. writing off the airframe. MBB build an exceptionally strong product, witness the pictures, so it would come down to $'s and cents (or Dm's) as to the cost of replacing drivetrain, engines, jigging and repairing fuselage, repair/replace avionics, etc. The insurance company would then decide whether to repair, or pay out the insured value. If they pay out, they (the insurance co.) then own the wreck, and are at liberty to sell to an aviation wrecker, who will then be at liberty to strip and resell items from the wreck. Responsible insurers would have suspect items permanently damaged to ensure that they cannot be sold on as serviceable items.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 00:37
  #23 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,446
S76Heavy,

Are you suggesting that all ex-military pilots are likely to try this sort of thing?
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 06:52
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Desert Rat
Age: 48
Posts: 676
Red face To Chuck K

Alright. we all did stupid mistakes-admitted. But would you fly underneath a bridge? Max headroom about fifteen feet!
alouette is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 08:37
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 50 ft AGL
Posts: 22
@ standto: Be sure, all of their pilots are very expensive CRM-trained.
I think it's not only the pilots who ought to attend
CRM training...I guess that's what standto was referring
to.

Just out of interest, would this aircraft be written off or is it viable to repair and return to use?
lol, I'd guess it's not going to be used again.
Regardless of the obviously pretty intact airframe
(compared to a normal a/c crash)
it would certainly be a risk - also for any insuring
company - it's probably like with cars that had accidents.
I could imagine that its re-usable (or recertifiable)
parts are going to be sold ...maybe you wanna
have a look on www.ebay.com =)

I've been told that the ADAC and DRF prefer to hire former military and police force pilots.
Yes, that's definitely true - but actually mainly because
of their training and experience - there are pretty high
requirements that are generally not that easily met
by non-military pilots.

Perhaps this will make them reconsider their hiring policy?
I think you cannot generalize that - I was actually
referring to the fact that the threshold for such 'risky'
maneuvers is definitely lower if you've been trained
such stuff-but as an untrained (civilian) pilot you
are pretty unlikely to risk something you are not
experienced with - as long as it doesn't turn
out to be absolutely necessary to perform.

Actually, the ADAC would certainly also employ non-military
pilots if they have the necessary background/experience.
But particularly things like IFR-ratings with German Helicopter pilots are not that common among civilan pilots - though being
necessary to work as a rescue pilot for the ADAC.
Hours/PIC-time, IFR/night time are the limiting factors.

So, I totally agree here with tecpilot's posting.

Also, I consider John Eacott's description pretty correct -
though I question if it is indeed going to be an insurance
matter - because of the kind of accident I don't
know if any insurance policy is going to apply in that case.
But he's definitely right in saying that IF any insurance
company is going to pay for the helicopter that the wreckage
would then change the owner.

Are you suggesting that all ex-military pilots are likely to try this sort of thing?
Certainly it would be naive to assume that - there are too
many factors involved, I myself was actually only referring
to the fact that they were trained such maneuvers and
as such are more experienced/- also more likely
to successfully complete something like that.
Someone who's giving thought to do that for the first time
is in my opinion rather unlikely to undergo such an
attempt without proper supervision (for example by
an experienced (military) CFI).

[QUOTE]
Alright. we all did stupid mistakes-admitted. But would you fly underneath a bridge? Max headroom about fifteen feet!
[QUOTE]

I've read it was about 5,30 m compared to the 3,97 m
of the BO 105 (inflight).
Has anybody details about that ?
Since he's crashed obviously 15 m behind the bridge
it was - despite from the fact that he crashed - an
obviously technically well done maneuver...
which certainly wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't
been trained to do such things.
AlphaGolfLima is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 09:49
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Shytorque, I am NOT implying that ALL ex-military pilots would do such a thing. What I am saying, is that I did not know any better than that the ADAC and DRF preference for hiring ex-mil pilots came from the idea that they were somehow better trained for the job.

If that training includes flying underneath bridges and between trees, I say that it creates an additional risk in a single pilot environment, as there is very litle if anything to stop a pilot form performing these stunts he's so familiar with.

I daresay that I know a number of civilian trained professional helicopter pilots who could handle the job just as well, but somehow there seem to be very few that get in. I do know a few, though.

I did not have the experience requirements at hand at the time, but they were provided by one of the contributors. My question would be: where does someone get the 1000 hrs copilot HEMS if most of the A/C are single pilot? These requirements are still biased in favour of ex-mil pilots.

All in all, this individual pilot caused enormous grief for a family for no reason at all. It does not mean that all ex-mil pilots are likely to do the same, it does however mean that this individual was not picked up by the psychological tests that he had to go through to join the ADAC. So I question the effect of those tests and the entry requirements, that's all.
S76Heavy is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 17:29
  #27 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,446
S-76Heavy,

My sharp intake of breath now let out again!

Not all of us would attempt something beyond our capability for no good reason, because most of us grew out of that sort of thing on our first tour...
ShyTorque is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 18:46
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Truly sad. my condolances to those involved and affected.

While cool images of flying under bridges have crossed my mind from time to time, the following things remove the thought:

1. What could be hanging under that bridge when I pass under?
2. what could fall (or be tossed by a person or vehicle) while i pass under (the classic "kill shot through the rotor")
3. How would my bretheren feel about me after learning I had done so?

Getting caught never really entered into it.

Then I think how cool it would look to go over the bridge and traffic instead ...
RW-1 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2003, 21:05
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Shytorque, friends again?

I did not mean to offend in any way with my comment. Just a shame that these things happen for no good reason at all.
S76Heavy is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2003, 06:21
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Having worked in the EMS industry for many years, I believe that the most important thing in an organisation is a safety culture. For every member of the crew to be thinking safety. Every member of our crew has the right to veto any job or part thereof. It may take a little longer but there is always another way to get the job done. If there is ever any doubt about the safety of a mission, I just think about my children waiting for me at home and I,m out of there.
Wallaby is offline  
Old 31st Jan 2003, 09:56
  #31 (permalink)  

There are no limits
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Canada
Age: 62
Posts: 503
Under Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), HEMS Crewmembers should receive training in 'Crew Coordination' and in most of the operators that I fly for, that means CRM.
What Limits is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 05:51
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,445
Whats to prevent a crewie from administering a Five of Clubs to pilot who is doing something incredibly clever? Most courts recognize the concept of self defence.....in the protection of life and limb when confronted with a deadly assault.

I can just see the transcript of the CVR.....

PLT:"Hey Ya'll! Watch This! I am gonna fly under this wee bridgie thing...."

Cockpit: Wallop! (sounds of blunt object striking flesh)

Observer: " Really , dear chap....why is the aircraft wobbling so....can you not see the stars ?"
SASless is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 08:15
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
I would think that the lack of dual controls would be one reason not to bash the pilot's head in when he's about to do something incredibly stupid..

There should be an atmosphere of constructive critisism and good CRM where any of the crew members on board can veto any action. But also, there should be harsh penalties for these sorts of stunts, so they are not worth the (carreer) risk.
S76Heavy is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 10:43
  #34 (permalink)  
crusty scab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
low bridge

Hi,

Are we probably being a little harsh on a man who has yet to be found guilty? As a back seat rescue helo crewman I have flown with both ex-militrary and civilian drivers. I have yet to see a driver who hasn't wanted to show, at least once, how 'good' he is. I believe egos are essential provided they don't exceed ability, and would be very unhappy getting in the 'back' with a man/woman who didn't display a certain amount of confidence.

What I do expect of a driver though, is the ability to listen, to act on CRM, not just to talk about it during training. The company I work for is very proactive in this area, and if I ever thought a pilot was being reckless he would know about it immediately.

Whilst not excusing the driver in this accident, perhaps we should be looking at the history of a company whose crew (doctors and paramedics are part of the crew on helos I fly in) conducted such a 'stunt', and question their training in regard to CRM?
 
Old 1st Feb 2003, 13:37
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: AUS
Posts: 331
I disagree. It doesn't come down to crm or anything else. You hold the stick you take responsibility. The driver in question made 2 bad mistakes.

1. He did something stupid

2. He got caught.

End of story!
overpitched is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 13:57
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
I'd like to add no 3: He got a crewmember killed.

Yes, we are harsh, but that is because there was no excuse whatsoever for him to get a skid caught on the ice or an obstacle in the river, resulting in one fatality, 2 injured and loss of the aircraft. They simply should not have been there.

We're not talking about a rescue attempt against all odds, as with the 737 that crashed into a bridge and fell into the river. We're talking about a gross stupidity that cost a man his life.
S76Heavy is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 17:59
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,684
Manslaughter.................
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 23:45
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: the cockpit
Posts: 1,079
I find it fascinating that this thread does not contain the defending comments that were so prevalent on the B412 V photographer thread.

I see no difference.

"There are no new accidents"
helmet fire is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2003, 23:47
  #39 (permalink)  
crusty scab
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
low bridge

"...It doesn't come down to CRM?... He did this?...He did that?"

Surely when CRM is practiced by pilots, crewmen and medical staff, and is encouraged and supported by check and training, chief pilots and management, a 'crew' will never find themselves in a position where a pilot will attempt such a stunt?

I've no doubt this pilot will be found responsible, but what and who allowed him to believe he could get away with it?
 
Old 2nd Feb 2003, 04:16
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 71
Posts: 16,445
The only difference I can see Helmetfire is that the 412 guy killed a bystander....and not a fellow crewmember. I fully agree with your observation....wonder where the defenders of the other guy are now.....or have the converted taken up the torch?
SASless is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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