Do these guys know what harm they do?
 

OK, it's second-hand, there might be more to the story etc etc, but we rotor pilots have privileges bestowed upon us in terms of minimum visibility - with an application of some common sense and responsibility, we stand a chance of keeping those privileges.

However, I fear that knobheads like this will ultimately spoil the party.

I mean, look at the TAF before reading the rest of it. At the risk of being flamed, what a prat.

'Weatherman' is a errr...weather man, by the way.

Be interesting to see how he explains it away. A quick look out of the window has suffuced as a weather check for me most of this week!

Looked at the TAF.

What time did it all happen? 1115Z?

The original TAF was issued at 060458Z.

BECMG 0611/0614 3000 BR BKN004
TEMPO 0614/0618 5000 SCT004

And the 1100 TAF sez -

TAF EGBB 061103Z 0612/0712 30005KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 TEMPO 0612/0618 5000 BR
BECMG 0617/0620 0300 FZFG VV///=

SA 06/12/2010 11:20->
METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=

Min visibility in most parts of the world outside controlled space for helicopters is if you can see enough to stop before you hit it!

EGBB looks OK to me.

No doubt EGOS was crap at the time although it is 25 miles away!

METAR COR EGOS 061050Z 00000KT 0150 SG FZFG VV/// M05/M06
Q1002 BLACKRED NOSIG=

sounds about right!

How he ended up where he was is anyones guess but the weather reports didn't look as bad as erroneously portrayed.

As indeed it used to be in the UK until a few idiot pilot killed a few passengers as the concept of 'well the rules say it's OK' took precedence in their decision making process. And clowns like this give the authorities the excuse to further curtail the regs.

And EGBB was 22 miles in the other direction. So what?

I suppose dropping his machine into a playground full of kids was 'just one of them things', huh?

The minimum visibility for civilian helicopter ops in UK under VFR is now 1500 metres, has been for some time.

So I wonder what icing clearance that "IFR" helicopter has...

The CAA normally deem school playing fields to be a "congested area", for which prior written CAA permission is needed for a landing.

I hope the pilot has learned the error of his/her ways because this is just the sort of incident the press love to pounce on, to illustrate just how dangerous helicopters can be..... :rolleyes:

My point is that the sensationalizing of the incident is using a TAF which is clearly hours old and probably has little relevance at all yet somebody bases their whole argument on it.

Nobody knows if the guy even read any weather reports!

He ends up in the crap and in a school playing field. What that has to do with a 6 hour old forecast from an airport miles away has got me.

In defense the current TAF and METAR at the same location that he is being hung on was OK.

Methinks the horse might be a bit too high.

obviously not a clever call.... but at least he got it down. sure he wont be doing (or allowed to do) it again in a hurry :rolleyes:

Ooooh nearly! Is no one going to defend this pilot? You disappoint me Rotorheads as there is usually at least one with an excuse.

Nothing like not knowing the full story to get a good thread going is there!
 

If we put what the thread starter on the other site says all together;


So concerened was 'Simon' that he didn't even go over to see if there was a problem. If for no other reason than to make sure all was ok.

No, no no, quick as a flash he went and loaded up the TAFs! If he had gone over, he might have found out, even out of simple curiosity what was occuring. He may have found out where the ac took off from and where he was trying to get to, was it actually EGBO or somewhere else?
After all, Simon only assumes he was lost, after giving him the benefit of the doubt! FFS

Simon claims that "A few hand gestures later I managed to get him into an open field." Not bad at 40m in fog and a pilot looking for a landing site, with perhaps other things on his mind. Would you trust a dog walker that you've just 'descended upon'?
Simon subsequently found that he had guided him into a school playing field. So, how do you all feel about that?
Good choice of landing area by the pilot? Luck? 'Well done Simon' for guiding a helicopter into a school field? etc

By Simons description
"I measured it out....about 40m...approx 3ft...around 40 degree." :ugh:

Probably a Chinook then!
Bigger than an R22
30m long (rotors turning)
Rear rotors
;)

Maybe there was a problem with the aircraft;
Just for arguments sake, lets say the flight was from A - B, via o'head EGBO, after all, the tops were around 500ft and all above was 8/8 BLU
.
.
.
Then it all goes wrong!

What would you do when it says...Land Immediately, or Land as Soon as Possible?

No doubt we can all discover the truth when the MOR is published. ;)

Excellent. Knew I wouldn't have to wait long.

Hardly an excuse, simply highlighting that we don't know anything about this.

Might be this one then?

Yup. Definitely a Chinook Mr Cholmondely-Smythe.

Excellent, lets google map, 'Ounsdale School'... I prefer Simons version of events, it's more sensational.
:rolleyes:

So there will be an MOR to read, oh goody. :p

Anyone else like flying singles in IMC and icing conditions? :hmm:

He was accurate ..... a bit bigger than an R22

Silsoe - you forgot to mention that the pilot heroically steered the stricken helicopter away from the school.

I think you meant to say that Simon forgot to mention how he heroically marshalled the aircraft away from the school!

Epiph,

You are clearly after a reaction. :ok:

As it happened, on Monday the weather perhaps wasn't as bad as Simon tells us. After all, he was merely a dog walker, the fact he is a weatherman isn't really relevant as all he can add to the story is that where he was it was foggy. Certainly when I drove into work on Monday morning it wasn't foggy. I remember commenting that it was as if the motorway gantries warning of fog patches were acting as a fog dispersal system.


If you read RVDTs earlier post, you would see the 'updated' (not the sensational 'Simon' earlier) TAF read;

TAF EGBB 061103Z 0612/0712 30005KT 9999 FEW030
PROB30 TEMPO 0612/0618 5000 BR
BECMG 0617/0620 0300 FZFG VV///=

SA 06/12/2010 11:20->
METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=

As another that was flying around Birmingham and Wolverhampton on Monday, and can verify that generally it wasn't as bad as Simon paints it, this event could simply be a case of getting caught out by the weather.

Am I defending this? Not necessarily as I don't know the full story.
However if it turns out that the point of departure was clear, the route was clear, Halfpenny was asked about their weather and was suitable at the time, I would defend the decision to land in a school playing field, because it's a lot better to do that than challenge the consequences of trying to carry on!

If you then read RVDTs link;

"Made it impossible for the Pilot to continue and the large field was a fortunate opportunity"
Good call :ok:

The dog walker is a weatherman, there we have the nub of the problem, what would a weatherman know about the weather if most of the forecasts of the past couple of years are to go by ? SS is dead right here, I have been to EGBO and told that viz was less than 100 m which was correct but if you stepped outside the airfield gate it was 9999, so who is to say what the viz was like, perhaps he flew over the fog from a nicer part of the country.

To quote Mr O'Leary (Ryanair CEO)
*expletives modified*

Yup. Weathermen for you. :D

So a weatherman, quoting weather where he is (not predicting it, or giving a forecast or whatever) is demonised? And the pilot was just clearly unlucky, huh?

What a weird place this is. Just look at the photo.

Yep Epiphany, there's some on here that would tell you black was white. The pilot can't be a 'cock' for pissing about in stupid weather, oh no.

You'll all moan when the minimum visibility distances are increased. Again. Oh and by the way, flying around when you can't see isn't just illegal, it's dangerous.

If I had a quid every time I heard, 'Well the weathers ok here, why aren't you coming?', I'd have quite a few quid! Much the same as the times when I've heard "I can hear you but can't see you".

As for the photo, you have no idea when it was taken or on what. I can tell you that a just couple of hundred feet above, when I was around a little later, it was 8/8 blue.

Are you 2 really pilots?

Simon was quoting the weather given on a TAF given out at 060458Z that gave unpleasant weather all day. However the TAF at 061103Z was giving all the 9's and few at 3.

Highlighted even further on how even a metman can't always be a reliable witness in these events is when he starts quoting METARS from very much earlier in the day instead of a more up to date one such as METAR EGBB 061120Z VRB02KT 8000 NSC M03/M03 Q1002=
And how come he couldn't be more reliable with these reports considering he didn't make his 'report' until 05:24 the next morning?


Simon says that the ac landed around 11:15, 5 mins before Brums actual was giving 8km no sig cloud. I don't understand why Simon wasn't able to get hold of the TAF and METAR that were closest to the time of his concern.

What Simon doesn't seem to realise and this surprises me, is that vertical vis and slant vis are 2 totally different kettles of fish and as aviators 206 and Epith should know this. This is proved when Simon says, "It just so happened he descended through fog into 80m vis about 3-miles from EGBO at 1115, into an impossible landing area".
Don't forget that this is 80m forward vis according to the ground observer, however the vertical vis may well have been unlimited therefore possibly making the descent into the field possibly steep, but certainly not impossible at all.


206 Jock - This Pilot wasn't 'pissing about in stupid weather' as you put it, it seems to me that he made a good decision to do what he did rather than carry on. This should prove to be a good learning point to us all, better to bottle it when you see a landing site than to carry on in blind hope.

Regardless of how you or Epith feel about it, I think you'll find the CAA will not have a great deal to say about this, especially not in the way you want them to!

Sid,

Is that an echo I hear? Too bad others can't, maybe they need a hearing test!

A few thoughts:

The weather man will be used to making met observations, they are paid to do so and to cast aspersions on the OP here is IMHO, unprofessional. The estimate of visibility by the OP is likely to be as good as one might expect anywhere; irrespective of the forecast or METAR for the nearest airfield(s).

The photo in the press report shows a single engined Squirrel helicopter. We do not know if this the actual aircraft in question and press reports are often completely erroneous in this respect.

However, in UK, no single engined helicopter is allowed to fly under IFR, and most are not fully equipped for IFR flight.

It is possible to hold a private or commercial pilot's helicopter licence without an instrument rating and in this case we do not know if the pilot held an IR.

The pilot has a legal obligation to ensure that any flight can be safely made; i.e. the weather is suitable in all respects. If the aircraft could not have landed at its planned destination, sufficient fuel should have been carried from the outset to divert to a suitable landing place under VFR.

From my own experience of dealing with the CAA about such landings, a school playing field is always classed as a congested area, irrespective of its location. A landing in a congested area requires a written permission from the CAA, i.e. exemption from Rule 5(3)(c), which costs £108!

In this case we do not know if such a permission was applied for and granted but if it was (i.e. the playing field was the intended destination), one requirement would have been that the landing site would have been secured i.e. children would not have been on the field, except under strict control by persons on the ground. Another condition always mandated by the CAA is that the landing must take place under VFR, i.e. the visibility must be 1500 metres at the time.

I think the CAA might well be interested in looking into the press report.

Given that the weather was evidently marginal and changing, the point is that this person managed to get into deteriorating conditions and the visibility went below VFR and continued to deteriorate.

As pointed out IFR is NOT an option. You are in sight of ground although the visibility is worsening.

As pointed out - VIS below 1500 metres you MUST land. What are the other options?

(a) Do you go back the way you came with the prospects of the conditions being worse than they were when you came that way?

(b) Do you decide to go up into it IMC (I hope not and illegal)

(c) Land. Just so happened to be a large area available even though it is a school playing field blah blah etc etc.

Which is the least dangerous?

RVDT, Hence my comment about fuel reserves. The situation possibly wouldn't have occurred if more consideration had been given to the weather forecasts and weather diversions.

I wonder what fuel reserves were being carried and why the aircraft was landed off airport in poor visibility and freezing conditions.

Why did the pilot not divert to land at Birmingham airport instead? It's less than ten minutes flying time away.

Silsoe Sid, who is based there, said the conditions above the fog were very good and the conditions at the airport were suitable.

Pilots continue to get themselves into tight corners, especially in poor weather. That's when accidents happen and we all get tarred with the same brush. The general public see more evidence that helicopters are intrinsically dangerous. This is the last thing the industry needs, especially in an economic downturn.

Sometimes the most difficult thing about aviation is knowing when to cancel a trip. In my time I've known quite a few "yes-men" pilots, always full of good intentions to get a job done, who are now dead men.

The pilot in this incident will no doubt already have informed the CAA about the circumstances of his landing in a congested area, (unless he was already given a permission), hence my earlier reference to an MOR. If he has not, he shouldn't be totally surprised if they come asking for him to explain his actions.

I for one wouldnt divert to Brum as that would involve being messed around by atc for god knows how long AND the need to fly over congested area ..... i think the pilot made right call ...just bad luck it was a school :eek: How many of us havent landed not knowing what the field is ? I once did it and ( luckily before i had closed down ) a load of prison guards came running across the field thinking it was a break out !! I repositioned pretty quick .
I dont think its a good thing to do and isnt helpful to our cause .....but it will happen now and again regardless of rules .....it just should happen often !!
( as for being guided by some random dog walker .....he may be a rabid anti and sending you towards the telephone lines .....)

Get 'er Down!
 

Until I hear more about it, my default position is to side with the PILOT IN COMMAND over all monday morning co-pilot comments. The pilot did the right thing. GET 'ER DOWN! :ok:
I've been there myself and I can assure you that anything that could have been posted here would not have carried one gram of weight in my decision.

"A landing in a congested area requires a written permission from the CAA". Really ShyTorque? Even in an emergency? You aren't suggesting that the pilot PLANNED to land in a school yard, are you?

206 jock, is it true that you once said "Doesn't that pilot know what harm he's doing by landing in the Hudson River"? Just wondering...

fly911 is right. If in doubt, if viz is deteriorating fast, etc, etc, get her down. Afteral, that's what helicopters can do, so why not use that ability in timely fashion?

Or, as I think David Dixon once advised: 'If in doubt, chicken out!"

Happened to me due rapid fog formation, and I elected to follow David and my instructor's advice from years before,,,"Dan, make an early decision, not a late one, and thus give yourself time to make a nice unhurried touchdown somewhere...preferably near where you can get a cup of tea."

My R44 and I ended up nestled between miles of olive trees atop a Spanish hill, miles from anywhere. Notified ATC by phone, revised the flightplan and everyone was happy. Lifted out of there a few hours later. Never did find the farmer - or get a cup of tea - but I'm here to tell the tale. How many are not because they feared breaking a rule, pressed on and maybe later got accused of suffering 'get there'itis'?

Dan

Nobody died, nobody even got hurt.

It's a good result.

Sam.

Don't think it was a "school yard" but I was giving the pilot the benefit of doubt. As I said twice before here, I'm looking forward to reading the MOR (and finding out what the "emergency" was). An engine failure, perhaps? :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:
My guess would be inadvertent IMC?

You don't land in fog. You land before you get there or 180. I hope some of the comments here are not from professional pilots.

Fog can develop and/or move very quickly . Starting an approach in deteriorating waether can end in landing in fog . The other day i tried to get out of my house as the fog was coming in ....as i started it was clear with fog around 500m away ...as i started to lift it came over me and i had to land again and abort ....all in 2 -3 minutes . If you were not in the heli you dont know the circumstances . There are a lot of armchair experts here who like nothing more than to slag off other pilots . Sad but true .

And there are Weathermen with more flying sense and airmanship than some pilots. Sad but true.

are you one of those ? Or are you just anonymously damning "other " pilots !!! There are good pilots and good weathermen ......remember Michael Fish !!!

No. I am not a meteorologist, just a professional helicopter pilot. But I know about the formation and dissipation of fog and if I had looked out of my window and seen it forming 500m away I would either be closing the hangar doors and opening the garage doors or going back to bed and waiting for it to clear - not attempting to take-off.

I am sure you are the best :D But a really daft comment from you all the same ...there are many days up here when it is clear sky and all the 9.s with fog in the valleys ....that fog sometimes gets blown over the hills....sometimes it clears again quickly and sometimes it stays socked in ....IF you can escape before it engulfs you then you fly ...simple but i guess a true professional like you would just take the day off :ok:
Its arrogant posts like yours that would stop low timers daring to ask questions .....and even stop them landing in case its say a school field ??
I do not believe that any pfofessional would find a problem flying in 10+k of viz but within 1/2 k of a fog bank ... or maybe you just didnt understand the point ...