Seriously? Based on a fixed wing incident? Private flight, not CAT?

The relevance is........?

Taken to 135 thread !

Aviation lawyers begin legal action following Glasgow helicopter crash | Vertical Magazine - The Pulse of the Helicopter Industry

This didn't take long.....??!?!:(

Is it just me that sees these lawyers as cynical and publicity seeking?

Perish the thought that they might wait until the facts of the accident are established before presenting their case.

:(

So presumably Bond will now sue Eurocopter or should that be the recently rebranded Airbus?

Pilot and Aprentice:
" and the relevance is?"

The relevance is that the double engine failure rate in twins is not as low as the 'theory' predicts - it's bogus - the rarity needs to be as great as predicted for the other downside points to be out weighed.

There are many cases of double engine failure on this site - one of which, shortly followed by another near one, is here:

Someone said the fuel system was simple - read the 135 thread - particularly from post 83 to 114. (great post Giovanni - btw) And tell me honestly if that mess is not an accident waiting to happen - you can't have that many permutations without atracting human error.

This pilot was not a 135 pilot when this pprune post (83) was published - unlikely to have read it and it is most conceivable that his (recent) type rating would not have assured a knowledge as displayed by Giovanni or indeed Mighty Gem (who has conducted numerous experiments to establish the workings thereof - as one does in the real world).

Quick: Which pump failure gives you big unuseable in the hover and which gives you big unuseable in the cruise ? Quick Aft for Hover ? right? quick! Sure? What should you do for a transfer pump failure? Disable it? both? pull the wrong circuit breaker (another (of the many) opportunity for error).

It's all just fine in theory...

If you lost your business premises, husband, father etc in a car accident that was no fault of you or them then would you wait until after the FAI in perhaps six months time before making a claim?

Presumably the people going to the lawyers are completely innocent parties so it does not seem fair to expect them to wait a year or so for the AAIB to complete their investigations before making a claim.

Mrbriscoe You are absolutley right. That is why these operations are insured so innocent parties can receive some relief from there current hardship.

Best to ignore the idiots on this thread that have no understanding how the real world works and also think they know better than everyone else. Usually they attack the press and the next target is always the legal system. They will be first ones reaching for their lawyer or bleating tothe press when the sh1t gets messed up.

Even more clearly when the quote starts with

:p

It's crucial that criminal proceedings don't start messing up accident investigations, as they do for example in Italy; however, it's reasonable that those who have suffered damages should be able to start to seek civil redress.

There are families who've lost parents, partners, income and security as a result of this accident. While it's not clear it was anyone's fault, it certainly wasn't theirs, and they start carrying the burden when the crash happens, not when the AAIB determines the cause.

Just highlighting that if it was a 135 (thread subject) apart from the incorrect procedures being carried out, there would also be cautions being ignored.

impressive quoting skills SS !

Of course you might not have had to correct your entry if it were not for Murphy's Law(!), from the wiki entry for which is an originating quote:
"Sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity. The human factor cannot be safely neglected in planning machinery."

and

" Mathematician Augustus De Morgan wrote on June 23, 1866: "The first experiment already illustrates a truth of the theory, well confirmed by practice, what-ever can happen will happen if we make trials enough." "

or

"If it can go wrong it will (eventually)"


Human error is natuaral and normal (but hopefully rare for critical operations). If there is a probability of human error per operation F, and a large number of opportunities to make an error per time N , then there will by an error rate per time of FxN. If N is large (complex systems) then time between error will be smaller.... if it can happen it will happen eventually.


With greater complexity there is likely to be a greater human error rate.
The advantage of simplicity is clearly not correctly recognised here



JE: That's like saying: helicopter crashes into tree - but not this tree, it's that tree that was dangerous.
Point is if you can screw up use of a fuel system it shouldn't be surprising that it will (eventually) be screwed up. In this case (EC135) given the general misunderstanding exhibited here it would be amazing if it didn't happen and it most likely has happened before LIKE in the BO105 case and many other cases in many other aircraft.

Is there some special exemption for the EC135 from Murphy's Law then? Doh!

AnFi,

SS has deleted his original post that I answered, then changed the quotes around to suit.

I was merely correcting his oversight that it was a Bo105; nothing about trees nor about the systems. Remarkable, however, that the Bo105 fuel system intricacies morphed into the BK117 which seems to have carried on into the 135.

sounds complicated

regards

(gottit soz for condesention, bit dim fraid, gotta feel soz for ss tho - he's getting a kicking elswhere - i find him frank sincere and refreshingly prone to human error)

Classic insulting comment which would not likely be said face-to-face.

There was no attack in my comment! And who the hell are you to know what I might or might not do.

:mad:

First, when a pilot fails to provide fuel to the engine it stops, like on shutdown. That's not a failure mode of the engine. Maybe procedure, maybe fuel system, maybe pilot.

I did as you asked, read the 135 fuel thread, and it isn't that complicated. I can't believe the hoopla. One pump inop, can't use all the fuel without an attitude change. Both pumps inop get on the gound in 20 min. If one pump inop on MEL, stay over non-hostile terrain.

As for the story, tall pilot or no, there is a design eye reference point for seeing the panel. If you can't meet it, you need to be aware.

PPRuNe :ugh:

And the single/twin debate....simply a carryover from fixed wing that too many regulators and consultants are incapable of looking at objectively. :mad:

PPrune 1/13/14

Hello to my fellow PPrune posters. I am impressed by the number of posts discussing the EC135 fuel system and all that might go wrong with it. I’m sure that the engineers at Airbus Helicopters are reviewing every post and trying their best to understand how Dave might have misread the gauges and/or warning lights and run out of fuel. Or, as Shawn Coyle has implied, the FADECs may be responsible for both engines (donks) to shut down. Me? I have no idea, but I compliment all of you who have put so much thought into why two perfectly good donks chose not to continue their main job of keeping the rotor blades turning.
But everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room. Donks quit. Over-running clutches fail. Drive shafts break. Fuel magically disappears or can’t make its way to where it is needed. Sierra Hotel, as we say on this side of the pond. As long as man designs, makes, maintains and flies helicopters, stuff will happen.
The elephant everyone is ignoring is this: Why weren’t the rotor blades turning when the helicopter hit the roof?
A mechanical failure or lack of fuel creates an emergency, not a crash. What happens following the emergency is normally determined by the pilot’s actions, decisions, skills, experience and training.
So Dave’s engines quit, one at a time or simultaneously. He now had an emergency on his hands. Something appears to have gone wrong shortly thereafter or else he probably would have made some sort of survivable landing. He was highly skilled, knowledgeable, experienced, trained and fully qualified to fly the EC135.
At least one poster mentioned that the training for engine failures in twin-engine helicopters is based on only one engine failing, not both in succession or simultaneously. An interesting thought. Could it be that because simultaneous engine failures supposedly cannot happen, that pilots are not trained for that possibility?
Oh, I just remembered. And I’m sure Dave did, too. Lever down. Evaluate the need for applying aft cyclic to restore the airframe attitude prior to the loss of power. He remembered the attitude when the last donk quit, right? Nighttime over Glasgow. Busy looking at the instrument panel and trying to figure out what it was saying to him. And running through his mind…”This can’t be happening!”
End of story…

HLCPTR - Sir, if you read my post you will find no mention of yourself.......unless of course "The Cap Fits". If so feel free to "wear it".

How insulting do you think it must be for the innocent victims of this accident to read the drivel posted by some. Also, if you met me, you will realise I am not shy and would definitely tell you my unfiltered thoughts on your arrogant unfeeling post.

You seem to "respect" facts. The fact is their family member was killed by a falling helicopter. Unless of course you want to dispute that. It is therefore entirely reasonable that they legally present their claim.