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

Steve Hislop killed in helicopter accident: threads merged

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

Steve Hislop killed in helicopter accident: threads merged

Old 30th Apr 2008, 20:18
  #121 (permalink)  

Hovering AND talking
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 59
Posts: 5,705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You could try writing to the publication concerned (either the Editor or the particular journalist) and point out their error to them, requesting that they print an erratum in the next edition.

The five hours probably came from the 5 hours "instrument time" gained at PPL and, after all, the accident did occur in IMC.

Cheers

Whirls
Whirlygig is offline  
Old 1st May 2008, 20:48
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

Gentle People,

As has been said in the past,

LET US AWAIT THE OUTCOME .

scottishterrier is offline  
Old 1st May 2008, 22:31
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Earth.
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Scottish, the AAIB issued a report somoe time ago. A search for G-OUEL on the AAIB website will bring it up for you.

TiP
TiPwEiGhT is offline  
Old 1st May 2008, 22:35
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Let us await the outcome of what!

The AAIB has already spoken. This is about ludicrous sensationalist reporting years after the event for the sake of some column inches.

Yes I did contact the newspaper concerned and they did retract the story from their web site and print a much more accirate report on the following day's court evidence which did a lot to confirm the AAIB report.
Martin Barclay is offline  
Old 1st May 2008, 22:37
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Tipweight. Posts crossed.
Martin Barclay is offline  
Old 2nd May 2008, 14:21
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Much shaking of head

Martin,

Let us await the outcome of what!
I can only think that this was an error of yours, cosidering the previous posts and the fact that The Metro was refering to information given at the Fatal Accident Inquiry in the Scottish courts.

This is about ludicrous sensationalist reporting years after the event for the sake of some column inches.
I think not. I do believe the Metro was reporting the statements that had been made to the court. This would be written by an ill educated Journo or worse a sub - editor who was rushing to fill a space.
Whats more they are entitled to write about this issue considering the ongoing hearing.

Additionally this is the Metro what do you expect of a freebie, Quality journalism. If you really wish to take issue with this why not try the Editor, who's direct email address is on the website.

tipweight,

Thank you, I am well aware of the report from the AAIB.


ST

Last edited by scottishterrier; 3rd May 2008 at 09:02.
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 2nd May 2008, 16:26
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Glasgow Scotland
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
No it was not an error of mine. I am equally well aware of the fatal accident enquiry, conducted by people who are exremely learned but hardly as qualified to establish the cause of an aviation accident as the AAIB or would you have judges etc sifting through wreckage at accident sites
Martin Barclay is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 02:37
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

Would you concede that it is possible the rag took information given ,and then used it out of context ? ( by the way, I am not seeking to defend the media)

Are you also suggesting that there should be no inquiry given that it is something unique to the Scottish Legal System ?


Or are you willing to accept a report from a governmental agency who in their report puts suggestion that attempts to lead the reader to agree with their conclusion?

Evidence given to the inquiry challenges some statements of the AAIB report.

ST

Last edited by scottishterrier; 3rd May 2008 at 03:03.
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 08:33
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Earth.
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Scottish, I did not realise the FAI was happening just now. What items are being challenged in the AAIB report? TiP
TiPwEiGhT is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 09:00
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

Tip,

One item which is worthy of note is the statement regarding the Chinook. It was stated that the crew were experienced and in fact were under training, with the mission commander not in the front. He did show face at the inquiry and was unable to show the court the route they had taken on the day, on a OS map. in the AAIB report the route taken is stated quite definately.

Further evidence by witnesses on the ground stated that the weather was fine. This was given to AAIB who chose not to use it in the report. It was also stated that there were no "Fast Jets" in the vicinity of the accident which was countered by witnesses.

There is more

ST
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 09:25
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Earth.
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ah... this is not good. Thanks for the update, ST. TiP
TiPwEiGhT is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 12:02
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ST

read post 119 - if this is a real witness post then the weather from an aviation point was not good. Ground witnesses are very unreliable sometimes. Fast jets in the area is also a red herring.

What is a Chinook mission commander? The captain of the a/c will always be in the front. Never heard of a mission commander unless he was an army officer in charge of the troops in the back

It is not unusual to be unable to recall a SH route after so much time. They don't fly along defined airways. There is a pick up point and a drop off point how you get between depends on a myriad of factors.

To a dispassionate reader of the events surrounding this tragic accident points to a low time PPL (5hrs on type) getting disorientated in poor viz and being unable to recover before hitting terra firma. It is a tragic way to loose a life but it happens too often. The influence of military traffic can be ruled out after all they would be at least 250ft below his legal transit height iaw rule 5.

AP
AllyPally is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 12:39
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Ally,

Thank you for your input.

This was as stated at the inquiry. Mission Commander or not, the bloke who gave the evidence in court was not in the drivers seat and it was he who gave evidence not the Pilot Flying. Considering how the report stated quite clearly

low cloud beyond this point
caused the experienced RAF helicopter pilot, with his navigator, to decide not to continue south
this is taken directly from the report

The Pilot Flying and the Non flying pilot were not experienced but were under training.

If the Chinook was going from A-B by a non defined route, why is it that for the report the route is very defined as coming from the horses mouth so to speak. And why after giving a clear report to the AAIB would this individual, given that he is military trained and the crew would keep some sort of flight plan, be unable to state what his route was or is it that when one gives evidence to the AAIB regarding an aviation incident you would have a complete brain fade when comes to an inquiry.

With respect, who are you to discredit any witnesses on the ground or suggest the military traffic is a red herring.

As for your rule 5 suggestion, that is bogus.

Why then did the military aircraft in Cumbria wipe out a Bell 206 on a survey whilst operating a see and avoid procedure.

I have had my own personal close calls with military traffic in the scottish borders. I fortunately could see him and i hope he could see me as he flew directly underneath.

An objective report would not need to suggest that someones occupation in some way influenced the accident.

ST
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 12:45
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Post 119

Real witness report my eye.

Considering the accident occured at 10.00 am, a lot can happen between what can be called morning and evening in regard to weather developments in the Scotish Borders.

That evening I was in the area with a VFR only twin Squirrel working my c**k off due to the conditions.
someone needs to get there facts right.

The previous evening was a dreadfull night, which I remember very clearly.

Last edited by scottishterrier; 3rd May 2008 at 12:50. Reason: collating facts
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 14:04
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ST

Where did you get the information that the Chinook crew were inexperienced? And what do you class as inexperienced? Inexperienced on type? By the time a military pilot gets to fly a Chinook with a navigator in the LHS he is well able to make sensible interpretations of the weather.

SH crews do not "keep flightplans" and the way I read the report the Chinook pilot gives what I would expect - a general synopsis of where he would have flown.

The B206 you mention, was I believe, operating under a CAA exemption from rule 5 to allow him to operate below 500ft.

Your comment that a fast jet flew under you reinforces my point that if a FJ was in the area (not shown on radar) then there should be no confliction.

This was a tragic accident my he RIP.

AP
AllyPally is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 15:09
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

This is from testimony given to the FAI.

The crew were under training.

Are you suggesting that if there were fast traffic in the area they would definately be maintaining under 500' AGL.

You are correct regarding the 206. It is also the case that the crew claim to have been unaware of the contact with the helicopter, despite causing it to crash.

The absence of radar returns was
consistent with local terrain masking the helicopter at its relatively low level.
Therefor FJ traffic could well have been in the area without nay record. Additionally and in particular the Tornado has in some models I believe the GR1 has a terrain following radar. As it is the normal practice of military aircraft to avoid radar they would not be recorded in the area.

ST

Last edited by scottishterrier; 3rd May 2008 at 16:12.
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 16:19
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by scottishterrier
It was stated that the (Chinnok) crew were experienced and in fact were under training
I see no contradiction between them being experienced pilots and doing a training mission in a Chinook. We don't know what kind of training was going on, and AFAIK the miliary do a great deal of training beyond 'how to drive a tank' and 'how to fly a Chinook'.
cats_five is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 16:33
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

It is strange then that the crew however experienced did not appear at the inquiry and the MoD thought it neccessary to be represented by a barrister.

The victim's family sadly was not able to have legal representation.

ST
scottishterrier is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 18:52
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Hibernia
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ST

I see you chose your name carefully

Why should the Chinook crew attend an enquiry into an accident in which they played no part? They are probably in Iraq or Afganistan so unable to attend anyway!

"Are you suggesting that if there were fast traffic in the area they would definately be maintaining under 500' AGL."

Yes that is what they train for and do very well.

"Therefor FJ traffic could well have been in the area without nay record"

No they couldn't - they have to book into and out of Low flying areas and none were booked into that area at that time - see AIB report

Your comments about the Tornado GR4 are correct is has TFR but if any jet was using this they would definitely be at 250ft or below.

You seem to be unable to accept that this has all the hallmarks of inadvertant entry into cloud followed by disorientation and a tragic loss of life. The GPS info though not perfect seems to prove this the theory of UFIT.

AP
AllyPally is offline  
Old 3rd May 2008, 19:32
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: west of East Lat
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Inquiry

Ally,

What I meant was that there would be no Radar record of those aircraft in the area. There were infact aircraft booked to or through the area of the AAIA during the period of the incident.

I have considered the fact that historically Robinsons have a history of mishap due to poor weather. The most recent I recall was the two aircraft who inadvertantly flew into IMC near Pole Hill.

It is the testimony of the witnesses on the ground whos information should be accepted and who have been experiencing FJ's in the LFA which has been a contentious issue over the years.

The AAIB went to great length in their report to explain the downside of a teetering rotor system in a low G situation and the why the rotor would strike the tailboom. They were very good at likening the damage to that found on other incidents that were more likely due to inadvertant IMC.
There is also the possibility that over control due to a rapid avoiding manoeuvre or even mis handling.

See AAIB Report

Two fast-jets were booked into the Low Flying Area (LFA) encompassing the accident site.
No apology necessary !
ST
scottishterrier is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.