Accident report ?
 

Today is the second anniversary of this crash.

Has an accident report ever been published ?
Was an investigation carried out ?

Final Report
 

An O ring beat me to it but here it is again.......

http://www.gcaa.ae/en/ePublication/a...-%20A6-ALV.pdf

I don't believe for a minute that Chris B. would have allowed the a/c to move that far aft, the crane they hit was 50m behind them!

RIP Chris, it was a pleasure working with you.

Mmmmm ....


And I ... would have to agree with the above post .... the Chris Brown I knew would NEVER have let it go 5' backwards let alone 50m.


:= := :=

How convenient......... pilot error (no national in the front on this one) :{

From what I know of these parts.... :mad:

May they Rest In Peace.. Pilot mistakes are always possible no matter how good a pilot is..

"Pilot mistakes are always possible no matter how good a pilot is.. "

True, but highly unlikely in this case, and let's not forget Luis, who, apart from being a nice guy was also a Mr Safety. If it was anything like that, it would rather be "the Human Factor" than "Pilot Error".

Uncommanded cyclic movements due to failed tarsyns are not impossible, neither are failed artificial horizons, and this is no reflection on the maintenance dept at Aerogulf, who are second to none, IMHO. They do an outstanding job.

Phil

Surely old 212s offshore at night is not smart.

Sox,

You said it brother....:D

A very nearby operator used to send un-stabilised 212's offshore at night :eek:

FcUking bean counters :ugh:

But Aerogulf are a Shell approved operator with the necessary Safety Case and SMS!

Mmmm ......



....A very nearby operator used to send un-stabilised 212's offshore at night ...


Any one I would know ?? :*

I'm guessing SASless would know........;)

How does this relate to the accident in question? During the hover and take-off phase the 212 is as stable as most types out there, I'd say. Or, are you suggesting the risk of a pitch trim actuator runaway is greater on am old type?

212man:- It certainly is an aging airframe which must make the chance of a system failure greater. I take it Aerogulf would not be doing routine night flights with passengers in 212s.

Smell Management:- I very much doubt Shell would use Aerogulf or that they had the sort of safety management of a 'major' helicopter operator. From what I recall at the time even life insurance wasn't apparently in place.

Mmmm ....

Actually .... that is exactly what Griffo and myself were alluding too .... that in fact UAE operators WERE sending 212s regularly offshore at night! (and some were unstabilised VFR machines AND in the UAE there is NO such thing as NGT VFR ... sort off!).

Happily Aerogulf are now about to put AW139s into service and the other operator has seen the light and no longer uses the 212 offshore (much!).


:eek:

Ah! Night flights in an unstabalized 212. Single pilot with an engineer along for the ride. Taking off and landing in the Zakum field with the engineer holding the log book to shield your eyes from the flares. Ah - the good old days.

js0,

That would be the good old day's when there was never a recorded over torque on winch moves, single pilot...:E

Funny, when we went 2 crew, there were many...:{

Thanks for posting the report.
The fact that they did one at all is a positive step.

"Surely old 212s offshore at night is not smart"

I've flown a lot worse at night, landing on crossed headlights and all.... I don't see much wrong with using the 212 for that, if the rest of the system is OK - at least the tail doesn't fall off. And, of course, if there is no evidence of equipment failure, it can't be included in the report.

Just to set the record straight, Aerogulf tried to get the customer concerned to use the 412 in 1993, and Bell even loaned them the machine for the demo, but the customer simply didn't want to pay for it. Now, of course, they're very happy to upgrade. Funny that. And to put things in perspective, I believe that was their only loss in over 30 years of operation - better than an airline, I think.

Phil

Yes, I agree with Phil - there is nothing intrinsically bad about flying a 212 at night. Other concerns that may exist are equally valid in daytime too. The 212 is a damn sight easier to fly offshore landings and takeoffs than the 76, for example!

Off topic, but they use a strange set of ATA numbers when referring to the deferred defects - anyone know why? AFCS should be ATA-22 and GPS should be ATA-34, surely?