Poor weather options
 

Just happened to be operating with Port Talbot ILB yesterday in Swansea Bay in rather poor weather - vis 1500m OVC at 200' in mist and -DZ - we used an internal radar letdown to get there.

On Swansea's frequency during our time there was a light piston helo grovelling around the coast to get to Pembrey at below 200' and another helo at 2000' planning to do a GPS letdown into Pembrey.

Now is it me or do both of those ideas seem to be accidents waiting to happen? The forecast was poor, the actual was poor - we were working moderately hard in a multi-crew aircraft designed to operate in such conditions - yet both these pilots pushed on instead of cancelling or turning back.

More by luck than judgement - and I assume they got where they were intending to go because D&D didn't call us to search for them - both flights were completed - I wonder if either pilot gave themselves a good talking to after the event.

One can only hope that the 'I learned about flying from that' lessons are actually being passed on.

A GPS letdown over the sea or coast when there is no discernable horizon below and very poor vis and cloudbase is almost suicidal because you have absolutely no idea what is beneath/in front of you, not to mention being illegal. Bimbling around at 200' in the same sh8te weather following a coast is an invitation to CFIT that sadly many have taken up and regretted.

Be professional in your aviating please because I really don't want to have to pick up the pieces.

Rant over.

Not sensible, agreed, but why do you say it's illegal?

My guess is the pilot and/or aircraft was not certified for it.

I don't see why. As you know helicopters can fly slow enough to enable the pilot to see ahead. You gave the vis as 1500 m. More than enough.

So why the rant?

Suggest you read a few AAIB reports Chopjock and you'll see it's not as simple as that.

Cheers

Whirls

Crab - I agree with you. At the risk of being flamed (again) I assume the piston driver is a PPL and also assume he or she has relatively low hours when compared with a highly trained and experienced professional, operating appropriate gear.

I've lost two mates flying light pistons in IMC suffering from "I'll be alright'itus" and I've read about many more senseless fatal accidents caused by P1 errors of judgment when it comes to weather.

I don't get it either.
TTB

I read ALL of them thank you.

Sorry to hear that. Good job this piston jockey was not IMC then.

A few years ago I was unfortunate enough to have to re-do the exams having allowed my IR to lapse for too long.

On the crammer's course were two chaps who were CPLs from the charter world hoping to move up; they clearly knew each other and on several occasions made jokes about how there were actually no limits whatsoever on an ILS.

Now I might have been mistaken in drawing the conclusion from what they said [in great detail] that here were chaps flogging around in unstabilised aircraft doing IFR approaches on CAT flights without IRs to below published minima. Perhaps they were just bull$hitting. Personally......:suspect:

Well therein lies the problem. When the speed gets too low, you are now in the territory of added controllability issues, an armful of collective, high power settings, and oh by the way - you got here because you couldn't see anything clearly out of the window! This is Swiss Cheese hole alignment 101. When the visibility precludes a safe comfortable forward speed you don't just slow down, you go down and land, assuming you didn't have the basic airmanship skills to avoid the situation in the first place by making a professional decision about the weather before you took off.

Like Crab@SAAvn alludes, when the mission puts you in that situation, you mitigate the risk as much as possible with tactics, techniques and procedures that keep you safer for longer when coupled with the correct equipment and training. To find yourself there for no good reason is inexcusable, and whereas 1500m viz might seem like a summer's day to some (although not many of the professional aviators I know would make such a statement), 1500m is well below what any sensible PPL in a piston single would require for safe execution and completion of a flight for pleasure alone.

It's never about how many limits you can bust and still live - it's about knowing your own personal limits, staying safe, and operating with same level of professionalism and decision making skills as any pilot in any cockpit. PPL's should be smart too.

"As you know helicopters can fly slow enough to enable the pilot to see ahead. You gave the vis as 1500 m. More than enough."

That doesn't mean that you have to do it. Below a certain speed (which in a Dauphin is 76 kts, but which more generally is 45), the stabilising surfaces aren't working. If you are a typical PPL who thinks that the instrument appreciation that you get on your course is the equivalent of an instrument rating, and that was over two years ago so you are definitely not current, you will be dead in about 178 seconds (Australian figures) if you suddenly pop into an unseen bit of cloud.

Because of the above, my own personal limit is speed based rather than vis-based - if I'm having trouble at 60 kts, that's when I put it on the ground.

Phil

From memory something like 46% of UK fatal helicopter accidents in the last 12 yrs involved flight in a degraded visual environment. That doesn't mean the pilots of all of those aircraft ever got themselves into cloud, just that most of them didn't know which way up they were.

There is one example where the pilot said on the RT something like 'everything's gone white' and yet the eye witnesses never lost sight of him from the ground. Was he IMC (by the Uk definition) yes he was, was he in cloud ? No. Do his family members really give toss about the technical definitions ? I don't know but I doubt it, splitting hairs over he legality of a flight is interesting sometimes but when it comes to stopping people killing themselves it serves no useful purpose. It is possible to be safe and illegal but it is also possible to legal and unsafe.

Yes its possible to do both of the things crab mentions (quite legally most of the time) I believe, however as one of my safety evening slides says 'just because you can doesn't mean you should' .

Sadly as a product of the current training environment, there are pilots out there who think that 180 degree turn on instruments are a panacea, one recent accident report proves that they are not.

Paco the '178 seconds to live video' I had in the round 1 / 2 safety presentation (thanks to you) and a very learned gentleman with a North Sea and CAA background suggested I take it out, for reasons something like 'it gives the impression that you would last that long in an unstabilised helicopter which you almost certainly would not !' Speaks volumes. I have lost the email so these are my words for the impression I got from him.

I can see why Crab is having a rant (about the light piston anyway, not knowing what kit was in the twin its difficult to comment) , it is after all he and his coworkers who will have to go an pick up the piceces initially

The Vale of Evesham is a good place to see some pressonitist-ists although due to the time of day when they appear, most seem to be of the gethomeitist species variety.

Trigonometry Calculator
:eek:

CAP 773 and safetysense leaflet 25 give chapter and verse on GPS approaches and stress repeatedly that only published approaches can be used.

Even if there is a published approach to Pembrey - all GPS approaches are by definition Non Precision Approaches - how many that you know have a MDH of 200 or below?

I suspect the aircraft in question did have appropriate equipment and an instrument rated pilot so he should know better than to even consider an adhoc approach - especially when Cardiff was an available div with radar/ILS available and better weather. Fortunately for him he got a better weather report from his intended destination but, unless there were some big holes in the cloud, would have still had to perform an IMC descent to cloudbreak well below SAlt.

Chopjock
This is a forum for professional pilots. Clearly, you are not one, neither by qualification, nor (more significantly) by attitude. If you read all the AAIB reports, you'll be aware of the number of incidents caused by unqualified pilots getting into poor Wx. TBH, if the flippancy of your post is reflected in your attitude to safe flying, then I reckon it's only a matter of time before Crab, or one of his colleagues, is called out to scrape you off a hillside somewhere. :ugh:

Operating Helicopters Safely in a Degraded Visual Environment.
How Can Helicopters Operate More Safely in Day / Night and Adverse Atmospheric Conditions

RAes Conference Wednesday 16 - Thursday 17 June 2010

"In the context of General Aviation, one of the greatest flight safety risks for both pleasure flying and the smaller commercial operators is unintended flight into Instrument Meteorological Condition (IMC) at low altitude, often when flying at dusk or by night. Failure to divert to an alternate destination or land when faced with deteriorating weather and a DVE is too often a prime causal factor in fatal accidents in this sector of helicopter operations."

More info here or register to attend here

Two's in
With 1500m vis I should expect to at least maintain 40kts. That's hardly an armful of collective. In fact in the Enstrom that's the min power flight speed.

Paco
Agreed

toptobottom
Also qualified pilots.

My "flippancy" is your opinion. My opinion is that a vis of 1500m is adequate to see where you are going(even at 60kts), and perfectly safe if done so within your limitations. (In this case, flying alongside a cliff which has ideal visual references). What, no one here has ever done that?.
Why is it that just because a pilot is flying a piston, low level in vfr conditions and a low cloud base, he is automatically assumed to be a ppl and will therefore inadvertently go imc and crash?
I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but is this hysteria or what?

I thought the orignal post was very pertinent. Certainly not "hysteria".

Isn't there a rule that says you have to be at 500ft AGL?

I am a professional pilot and I now publicly state that 1500m/200ft scares the sh**t out of me.
Stay home.

Why even this discussion?

1500m in HZ with absolutely no clouds like I have everyday now is a different story.

True, but at 1500m/200ft in mist, you've only got to glance at the ASI/altimeter/whatever for a second and you're in it, and in unexpected IMC in those conditions, you're as good as dead.

Hmmm...isn't there something that says, thou shall not descend below 1000' on an approach if the airfield is below your minimums?

It's an 'approach ban' and only relates to RVR - not cloud base/ceiling.

MG, the 1000ft rule [or outer marker] is predicated on RVR/vis only , not on cloud, and if it dips below limits once past 1000' you can continue. JAR-OPS 3.405.

There is a 500' rule isn't there? ok if you're miles from anyone/thing, but to be flying around with a 200' cloudbase in degraded viz in a single/piston etc = recipe for disaster. :ugh::=:=

Ask any offshore pilot how he likes flying around offshore, down to minima, (200') with poor viz/fog/mist, and I bet they'll all say they'd rather be anywhere else. If not then I suggest they get counselling! ;)

chopjock,

I'll give you 48 seconds @60kts to allow you to consider your limitations!

The problem is, the 1500m is THE limit. A lot of people think that because it is in print, it is safe. Many of us can tell you that it isn't!

You are clearly someone who has never experienced 1500m/300ft or been asked to fly, when it is.

Quote as many rules as you like, but it's not who is right, but who is left.

SS

Well, there is (or was; I can no longer find the reference to this rule in the latest edition of CAP393).

But only if the RVR is below the minima specified for the approach.

There is no prohibition on making a descent / approach if the cloudbase is below the published minima, only a prohibition on continuing below descent minima unless the prescribed visual references are obtained.

Note that this is/was specified for Public Transport aircraft; as far I recall these rules have never applied for private flights.

This is why I questioned Crab's assertion that the pilot of the second helicopter was doing something illegal. He probably wasn't.

The approach ban (2.6.3.2) is with reference to the RVR (or converted visibility) but there are numerous ICAO Standards which address weather below limits (from ICAO Annex 6, Part III, Section III - GA):

As these limits are contained in all Annexes 6, expect to see them in EASA OPS.

Jim

MightyGem
Come now, when I look at my instruments, even for a second, I do not pull back on the stick! Does any one here do that?

SilsoSid
How would you know? I've been there, done that many a time. The legal minima for VFR helicopters is I believe to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface. ;)

" in sight of the surface"

A general point - I believe this has been changed to "surface in sight", mainly to preclude people VMC on top saying they can see something like Mt Snowdon miles away and still being within the definition. Quite how it makes a difference I don't know but maybe someone can clarify it?

phil

Do you have different VFR-minimas in the UK than the rest of Europe?

VFR minimas in Norway is 500', 1500m vis, but for helicopters you are allowed to fly with 800m vis if you reduce speed and can maintain separation.
Over populated areas it is 1000' within a radius of 600m over the tallest building, and you need to be able to make a safe autorotation.

I believe "clear of clouds and in sight of the surface" applies for class G-airspace, but the rules above are on top of that.

Different rules apply if you are performing "aerial work", but then you're operating locally, and without any passengers. E.g long-line operations.

And what's the point of pushing beyond the rules anyway? It only takes a lot of time to get from A to B, and is the weather good enough to get any work done if you finally get there? :hmm:
I think many pilots get pushed from employers or customers, but remember that if the **** hits the fan, only the PIC gets the blame. And if you push it and get the job done, the customer doesn't give you a medal eighter. And you make it difficult for the next pilot when the weather is bad, and the customer/employer tells him "the other pilot always fly in this weather".
It's about being loyal to your colleagues also...:)

Chopjock - flying in ovc @ 200' with 1500m isn't technically illegal but very foolhardy in a non-stabilised, non-IFR capable helicopter - and one without floats as you have to be over the water to follow the cliffs.

The cloudbase in these sort of conditions varies up and, more importantly, down along with the visibility and inadvertant IMC is a real and ever-present danger. Where are your options? Revert to IFR - no kit, no IR, no training!!

Given the geography of the area, 2-300' cliffs with little beach, where would he have put down if the weather had deteriorated further (as it did periodically when we were operating)? His option for a 180 turn was very limited as it would have meant turning away from the cliff and out to sea where the horizon was non-existent and the sky and sea were the same uniform grey eg in actual conditions and no longer VMC - you cannot tell whether you are in cloud or not and the surface is indistiguishable from the sky - not exactly COCISOS is it?

Plenty of pilots have thought they knew better when it came to grovelling around in skoshie weather and lots get away with it (like you) right up until their luck runs out and they end up as an AAIB statistic.


Does anyone have a published GPS approach for Pembrey so we can see the MDH and limiting vis for it?

Poor weather options
 

Dear chopjock and others who see things his way. Please take heed of those on this thread who advocate caution in reduced visibility and cloudbase, if you want a long and relatively fright-free flying career. They are right and you seemingly wish to challenge the safe limits established over decades, without enough variety of personal experience.

I'll be even more patronising and liken your attitudes to children building a campfire in a drought-stricken forest, or swimming in shark-infested waters. Eventually the luck runs out. The difficuty remains for those who have enough experience, how to convey to others the reality of the risks. Another analogy is the parent v teenager dilemma; "Don't drink and drive. Don't speed. Don't smoke. Don't do drugs. Don't do this. Don't do that."

Like anyone else, I sometimes came close to killing myself in my early flying career so how can I preach? Well, I'll just preach anyway, because it behoves the survivors of personal ignorance and stupidity at least to try passing on the lessons. Today's lesson: The rules and limits are evolved from the experiences of countless others who survived their own idiotic bad judgements. A smallish safety margin gets incorporated into the limits, which it is unwise to erode. Here endeth the lesson.

My 42 years,18500 hours professional flying include 10 years military f/w and heli involving a war, lapsed cpl f/w, current ppl f/w, atpl/h, 3 decades North Sea heavy heli (still at it) and recreational light f/w. I don't care if you think "So effing what!" and spit. I believe I've survived long enough to qualify as a patronising old tw_t.

Helimutt, you're spot-on dear chap. We can do an offshore ARA (airborne radar approach) down to 200' and 3/4 nm from the rig before going around if nothing seen. Even with a 15 degree heading offset and the all-singing, all-dancing height/heading/speed holds engaged, we aren't exactly enjoying the situation. If the rig appears by 3/4 nm (appr 1400 metres), we're working near the limits of skill to manoeuvre visually on to the helideck.

I'd have thought that the slant range at any height above the surface would essentially have reduced that in practical terms. Perhaps 1000 at 100 feet - [ish] ??

No chance in those circumstances, to see and avoid wires, those 299 foot unmarked masts [though there may not be any in that area] not to mention the other more obvious issues.

Flying round the cliffs at 200' quite an easy place to pick up the odd birdstrike or two!

Yeah, but no problem for chopjock - he's invincible, don't forget :}

toptobottom

No not invincible. But I know my limitations and I stay within them. Presumably as did this piston jockey.;)

Madness - CFIT waiting to happen!!!
 

Looking at the weather reports from around the south west I am surprise to see any aviation being committed in the Bristol channel area. I'd be curious to hear what other (non IR) traffic was around. Crab and co, I assume the currency was required, as i wouldn't fancy an Amber recovery at Chiv. Afternoon watching telly and waiting for the scramble phone to ring me thinks.

As for grovelling around in a puddle jumper! Never mind the weather, was the ppl aware that Crab was at 200' and below ??? probably not, would they have seen him anyway?? Not often ANY traffic down there, never mind when you can't see squat and you probably never trained in those conditions either. I just hope the ppl realises how lucky they were to "get in" and learn from their errors of judgement- unlikely though! :ugh:

Is there a GPS Letdown published?? There is a NDB/DME. Published approaches are there for a reason! Without GPS mapping, radar and TCAS what is below may not always be what you expect. Isn't the lowest minima for a NonPrecision Approach 250' ??

5,15,1000 is there for a very good reason too.
cociss - use with caution and only if prepared to bang out when it all goes pete tong. 200' and cociss may be "comfortable" for those who train there, but the rest I assume would (if not should) be more than a little apprehensive. :\

It all may be worth pushing on to get the client there, and on time, but will your wife and kids be happy on that one day when you buy the farm trying to keep the client happy - again unlikely. You won't get return business if you scare the client either!

As Sisloe Sid said, they are THE limits, not targets! :D

Fly safe and learn from the mistakes of others, don't become another infamous thread on these pages.

pas

CJ,

Are you the same Devon based UAV pilot who enjoys diving and flying that posted this (28/9/09) too????

HeliTorque Helicopter Portal and Forums Forums-viewtopic-PPLs doing corporate work.

When strangely enough one reply you received then suggested........

:uhoh:

My limitation on vis would be to only fly as far as I can see ahead, clear of cloud and with the surface in sight. Just as the ANO allows. :ok:

Yes, with a safety pilot whilst doing an instrument awareness course. Scared the hell out of me and I won't go there.:eek:

If I recall correctly, and I'm sure I'll get barked at if I'm wrong, VFR flight rules for helicopters below 3000 feet is to remain clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.

I got a little confused there with the question. Of course the VFR limits below 3000 feet for a helicopter includes a vis of 1500m. My point was that my personal limit is to look out the window and only fly as far as I can see. That could be more or less than 1500m, but how do you measure that?
Don't know, I suppose it depends on the terrain (probably 200 ft.). I have landed on several occasions when it got too bad. Nice of you to ask.:)

Really? With the attitude you're showing I wouldn't be so quick to shunt that aside. :ok: