|
Looking to the future the advent of point in space procedures at private helipads may be one way to reduce risks?
SGC |
It's a very old Chestnut, but if you haven't figured out that accidents are no respecters of "experience" by now, you probably shouldn't be in a cockpit. Competence and training may save you on the day, but historically (especially recently) a wealth of flying hours alone doesn't often change the outcome.
|
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...ral/4719-0.PDF
Spotty Mulhern 1996. He was a CAA IRE. Old colleague of mine. 18 years ago to the day as it happens. His wife successfully sued the H.P. for half a million, 8 years later. |
Looking to the future the advent of point in space procedures at private helipads may be one way to reduce risks? SGC A thoroughly sound operator may complete the task less often than an unsafe one simply because fewer risks are being taken. Unfortunately, the average customer doesn't know the difference and in general the average customer doesn't want to hear about the possibility of a go around and a backup plan, such as a diversion to an alternative followed by a road journey, because of the personal inconvenience it is likely to cause them. As I've been saying for many years, the most difficult thing about the corporate job is knowing when to say no! |
A few years a go we were flying elton John to gleneagles and the weather wasn't great but our reliable man on the ground who provided lighting etc was keeping us updated at the weather appeared ok. We briefed on one attempt but made two as on the first go around the site became visual so we made a second attempt which was then unsuccessful. So we returned to Edinburgh. This was in the early hours of the morning and in the time we'd just 'wasted' they could have driven instead. Sir Elton got out of the cab and said nothing but another of his passengers was pretty upset with us (to say the least)!
The next morning we flew them on another leg. Rather amusingly Elton John turned up at the aircraft and had clearly reflected on the night before - he apologised sincerely for his hairdressers manner the night before and we explained how we understood and had their best interests at heart. His hairdresser arrived in a seperate car and got out, head ashamably down, said nothing and got into the cab - he was somewhat more friendlier and grateful when we arrived at the next destination! |
Back to the principal subject here. PM is an avid helicopter enthusiast and still regularly entrusts his own and family's safety to helicopter pilots all over the world. He appreciates the time we save him between relaxing and the next gig. Thanks for sticking with us Paul and we appreciate your business. :D
|
Sir Korsky, surely the principle subject here is that 1 second later and the Radalt would have read -1 ft and Paul would not be able to relax before his next gig or any other - just a thought.
|
Originally Posted by Ed Thrust IV
(Post 8781669)
Sir Korsky, surely the principle subject here is that 1 second later and the Radalt would have read -1 ft
|
Sorry to be a complete numpty, but I am new on here and abbreviations mean little. What is the HP.
|
Handling pilot. That one's for free. The rest you have to work out for yourself!
|
What he means is: DYOR, OK? QED. :ok:
|
Thanks for that. I did work out the rest for myself just stuck on that one!!!:8
|
HP is the sauce North Sea pilots expect to find on their bacon butties..
|
Report states that Radalt's accuracy was +/- 2'
Gulp |
I see that this was picked up by the Daily Express last week, with the usual shock and horror headline: Sir Paul McCartney was just 'INCHES from death' in helicopter near miss
BEATLES legend Sir Paul McCartney was INCHES from death after the helicopter he was flying in almost crashed into a line of trees, a report found. The 72-year-old rock and roll legend and his wife Nancy Shevell were in the aircraft when the pilot attempted to land at Sir Paul's country estate in East Sussex. However, bad weather conditions affected the trip and an air accident report found that the aviator missed TWO urgent warnings when trying to land. The poor weather forced the pilot of the Sikorsky S-76C chopper to abandon his first landing attempt. But instead of following protocol and heading to a place with better conditions, the navigator tried for a second time to land and almost hit a line of trees because he could not see them, the report found. During the second attempt, Sir Paul was just TWO feet from danger when the pilot, flying on instruments, almost crashed into the lining of trees before finally touching down on the helipad. A report published by the Department of Transport's Air Accidents Investigation Branch found the 55-year-old pilot, who has more than 10,250 hours of flying experience, missed two urgent warnings that the aircraft was too close to the ground. The report concluded: "The descent from above the minimum safe altitude was conducted in reduced visibility and low cloud conditions into an area with limited visual references. "The helicopter was therefore brought close to terrain in an environment in which situational awareness could become degraded easily." The bizarre incident happened when Sir Paul and his wife were flying from Battersea Heliport to their Peasmarsh estate on May 3, 2012. When approached by reporters at the time of the incident, Sir Paul declined to comment on the flight. The air safety authority have called for a Civil Aviation Authority review of helicopter regulations governing how low a pilot can fly while relying on instruments. http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/...ght-245643.jpg |
But instead of following protocol and heading to a place with better conditions, the navigator tried for a second time to land and almost hit a line of trees because he could not see them, the report found. 1). Never let a blind navigator fly the aircraft. |
:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D
|
The "Air Safety Authority"...?
Wonder what it would be like if we let paper reporters write the actual accident reports. On the topic of the Irish incident, wasn't the handling pilot the PF? I suspect I'm getting confused between who sued whom. Still, that makes suitably sobering reading (the report, not the suing part). |
...wasn't the handling pilot the PF? |
Indeed, I must be confused then. Coupling's message implies that the wife of the PF successfully sued the PF?
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.