Police Radio
 

Much is still being said about the lack of a Black Box, and like many others I have doubts whether this would have made a great deal of difference in this case.

I spent 30 years as a Police Officer the last 15 of which were closely involved with Police Air Support. Then on retiring from the Police went on to work for one of the aircraft suppliers. - So I do have a bit of knowledge of the systems involved. But what I do not understand, and cannot accept is this. Given that all Police radio transmissions are closely monitored and recorded why has there been no comment what so ever about Police Radio transmissions both to and from that aircraft on the flight in question.

Are we expected to believe that the aircraft took off and flew one or more missions in the 2 hours plus that it was airborne, until the accident itself, and yet no one, either the crew or the control room, said anything either to or from the A/c, or gave instructions or remarked on anything? Or why when the A/C must have been aware that due to its elapsed flight time that it was at least low on fuel, yet it appears to have deviated from its direct in flight path, to then fly overhead the pub. So was it sent there by control? - or did it go there of its own volition? Once again nothing has been said about the Police Radio involvement in this dreadful incident.

When serving as a member of internal investigations in my own force, and very often following a Police motor accident, the first thing that I did was to seize the radio logs. They always contained a wealth of info. So what has the investigation revealed in this case?

Obviously and for security reasons I do not expect the full contents of the logs to be revealed, but I would have expected them to have been remarked on as having been checked in detail and the relevance noted.

tigerfish:(

No response in 48 Hours! So I take it then, that we are all prepared to accept that there was no relevant radio traffic between the Police Helicopter and its control room base, not only during that 2 Hour plus flight but more importantly during the last 20 minutes of flight?

I just do not buy that!

We lost a good crew that night, yet I've got a horrible feeling that someone is quite happy to let them and the pilot carry this one. Something isn't right! It's not all coming out.

Tigerfish

So when you investigate an accident you let the public know all the information you know when you know it before you've finished your investigation? The last radio message I heard of an accident went something like "F*ck hang on!" What do you expect to hear?

Black Box observation
 

BB dont stop d accident happen

an'

BB dont tell you the cause, I blame society, some might blame Type Rating Training regulation

gsa - as Tigerfish knows, there WILL have been some Police communications, since all UK Police Forces & PNAS have had policies in place, for many years, that will have REQUIRED 15 or 20 min Ops Normal check calls with the Police Control Room, notwithstanding other discussions about the tasks in hand.

I'd suggest that AAIB will have had access to recordings, but possibly don't follow this thread (and certainly wouldn't post) while they finalise the report. Whilst it would be nice to hear confirmation that any recordings have been supplied, we can neither demand confirmation, or details, on a public forum. I find it very difficult to believe, in the established era of "recording for training & quality purposes", that AAIB have not been supplied with any/all recordings! :ok:

zorab - what I don't understand in recent posts is the push back when people merely seek clarity or more timely actions, especially since in your last post to me was to play semantics over the a point of the fuel. Now perhaps I misunderstand the motive for this but I read that as you making the point that the pilot may have played less of a role in the accident? (a similar point that Silsoe was trying to make.)

Otherwise isn't it just a similar incident to that which befell G-CIAS or G-BDNP? i.e the AAIB conclude with some comment that includes the line "the mismanagement of the aircrafts fuel system...??"


I'm just surprised before everyone cries out for data recording of all and sundry (which as we have seen from North Sea incidents has its own particular holes) and yet we can't be comfortable with running more frank assessments earlier in the process when it would seem pretty obvious where things are leading.

For example when you get this:-

and then this:-

or

these people seem to be living in denial.

I'm reluctant to trawl back through this long thread for references, so please forgive the lack of detail.

My recollection is that when the second engine runs down, the generator drops out and there is no facility to transmit from the Police radios on board. Nor would there be time to get a radio out of where it is stowed.

Secondly, and I am on tiptoe here, all the talk of voice recorders overlooks the fact that if only some people know that things are wrong, only some people can talk about it.

In this particular incident, then a voice track would establish if the crew discussed the fuel state at any stage of the flight. A good series of data tracks would record the time that various events occurred and were presented to the crew.


None of which would necessarily explain why a serviceable aircraft, apart from thrust, failed to end up in the river, on floats.


I point you back to the Dyfedd Powys incident. A proper briefing by an experienced ex military captain, keeping his crew informed and when, from only 400 feet, both engines quit, they shout for help on the way down and all walk away from the aircraft.



Tigerfish, I am surprised at your input here, Sir.

We might never know, we all need to get over that.

Zorab, & Airpolice.
Of course I understand the proper way these investigations are handled. and as I said in my last post, I am not expecting detail here, merely an indication on how the investigation is going. But I am increasingly concerned at the time this one is taking!

The accident occurred within a relatively short time of the merging of all the Scottish Forces into one big one. AND as a result, of the aircraft being expected to cover a huge territory instead of being confined to just one force area. Much as since NPAS, a much reduced fleet of aircraft are covering an area in England and Wales, previously covered by many more.

I have always believed that there is an inherent danger in spreading the resource so thinly, that not only is efficiency reduced, but the danger of crew fatigue is increased as well. I don't know, but I am worried, and that is my only driver in this matter.

So I seek assurance that the greater range responsibility of what was once only the Strathclyde aircraft, played no part whatsoever in what happened that night.

It would be doubly unfortunate if the eventual publication of the report were to clash with a very busy news period and get swallowed up as a result. Clearly that would be in no ones interest.

Tigerfish

Who cares what she thinks? It takes whatever time it takes. Get used to it.

The greatest respect you can give to all involved is get the facts right. Or as right as possible.

Phil

What she is saying is, can you rush out the report so the lawyers can start coining it in!

She should keep her mouth shut. AAIB will be ready when they are ready. Just leave the lawyers waiting for now. Dear me!!!

Have you lost the plot??

Isn't it odd how the first thing that gets thought of is the financial reward for a a lawyer engaging in his profession and that its a personal interest of the Scottish first minister!!

Why do you think of those things before the victims? and "rush out a report" really rush???

Your line Phil, it takes as long as it takes, etc is similar to those shouting from the tops of their voices "wait for the report...show some respect, etc." that is the usual response in these matters. And fair enough. Absolutely fair enough.

However I remember talking about this accident in the springtime of 2014 with an employee of the CAA and an examiner at an airfield following an LPC and back then the CAA guy was very confident it was fuel mis management.

No doubt there are some further analysis, details since that time but surely the process here could have given further updates beyond the last special bulletin of Feb 14th 2014 (almost a year exactly!).

If there has been so much detailed work to do in the interim period why not talk to people about what that is? Isn't that also respectful of the families who lost lives?

One aspect of this that people find huge mystery in is that "why, following the double engine failure, an autorotative descent and flare recovery was not achieved."

Well maybe because people are not perfect all the time? Bit like the example I used when people snear at a R22 low time pilot... Even the very best can make errors, even in good VMC!

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...on-2-june-2014

I haven't lost the plot at all. In fact, I have kept out of this thread because I got fed up looking at all the nonsense from people who either haven't done a type rating course on the machine or, if they have, were playing with their ipads at the time.

Actually, I think he must have done some sort of proper landing, otherwise the helicopter would have squished everyone in the pub straight away. My feeling is that he landed, having pulled everything possible (because people in the pub just heard a slight thump) and then the roof gave way. But then, what do I know? I don't know what the official cause of death for the people in the machine was.

Pre-empting the report, one problem that should be addressed is that engine offs in twin are not practised - yes, you have two engines, but both have been known to fail, as with Jeremy Howe's 355 way back when. Even if it's not the same machine, some practice is better than none. Considering that, I think it is entirely possible that the pilot did a good job, however the situation was arrived at. I say this having had a real engine failure at night in a single and not bent the machine.

If there is one organisation in this world who are apolitical and should be left to get on with their job it is the accident investigation people. AAIB, NTSB or whoever. I do appreciate that some people require "closure" but sometimes you just have to wait.

Rant over.

Phil

That's a great post phil. I'm just not sure why the aaib - in doing their excellent and independent work - can't publish an update inside the 1 year of all that detailed investigation, especially given all the lives that have been affected by this accident. I don't think it's surprising at all that others seem to share that view.

Pitts as usual you take the provocative line. Paco, keep your powder dry bud and wait for the report. Don't let Pitts draw you in!

Pitts,
If you actually read the BBC link you will see that the last update was given on 11 Dec 2014, and not 14 Feb 2014.

A Foregone Conclusion
 

Why am I not surprised that a final report will not be released until after the General Election and a new budget has been set?

The details already released and speculated upon indicate that this incident is going to result in a very large compensation bill. There just isn't any money put aside in the budget to pay.

Police forces and most large organisations don't have insurance policies. They deposit a bond with the Royal Courts of Justice (or Scottish equivalent) promising to pay any compensation awarded, because they are underwritten by the government, or have corporate assets to cover any likely sums awarded.

Since the government doesn't have any money apart from income derived from taxation, it is the taxpayer that is going to end up ultimately footing the bill, as always.

Look at it this way, the longer it takes, the more opportunity you have to save for the inevitable tax hikes that are on their way to pay for it all.

You are assuming that the operator is responsible. If you want conspiracy, certain manufacturers are well known for weaselling out of situations like this. I, for one, trust the AAIB to resist pressure like that. I wouldn't trust many others.

Phil

Hear hear Paco very well said.