Sp25, wouldn't that depend on the cockpit gradient?

SP25 - I reference this because it gives a clear picture of the crash site:-

Was helicopter in Norfolk crash that killed Lord Ballyedmond safe? | Mail Online

Now not being funny but that suggests to me that it was shunted within a few hundred metres of lifting. So did the weather really change that much??

To be honest its irrelevant because we have what we have.

The bigger point is that it is clear the CAA needs to get involved to better protect commercial pilots from the pressure to fly when it is marginal and to look at what flying is done into and out of private sites.

I don't believe it was a commercial flight.

The BBC are reporting that he wanted a refund for the helicopter from AW because of a list of technical malfunctions. Was in court this week?????

Something like G-EMAU at Welford ?

Technical issues.
 

So why was he still using it if he thought there were technical issues?
I hope the media don't try and blame this on technical issues with the aircraft like they tried to blame the Bournemouth 109 on sabotage.
The industry is having a bad enough time as it is.

I don't think the reply was about whether the flight was on an AOC or a "private" flight.

My reading of the comment was that it was aimed at the pressures placed on any captain (whether rotary or fixed wing) in a small-fleet operation.

Often job security is non-existent, because if you do not comply with commercial demands, the beneficial owner will find another more compliant captain.

I have no idea whether this was the case here, but I hold my hand up and say that I am guilty of taking unreasonable risks to keep my own (fixed-wing) job because there is so little work out there at the moment.

Ok so I have only been flying corporate for the last nine years and have had on occasion pressure to fly in bad weather and said no , and never had any problems there after . As the pilot in command you have a legal responsibility for the safety and well being of the passengers and crew even if one of them is you're boss !

If one of my employers decided they no longer wanted my services that's fine but if I was dropped over a single incidence where I would not fly due weather then I would have grounds to take legal action. What might be helpful is a standard employment contract from the caa for freelances to use when working in the corporate environment to clearly state to the employer who has final say with wether to fly or not .

CBS

I agree CBSW but the huge expense and risk of taking legal action against an enormously wealthy and powerful employer, and the tiny compensation that is payable if you do happen to win, do not guarantee finding another job afterwards!

Fair one CBS. The pressures must be higher for Captains if they know that if they get fired, they would have to pay the training agreement (bond) back to Haughey Air as I believe many have done previously.

BeeTee - again no idea if this was the contractual situation here, but it is becoming common in FW private flying too that captain has to "tender for bids" to "provide flying services", through his own one-man "company", thereby giving the beneficial owner (usually through another offshore holding company) to terminate services on any pretext. It is a convenient arrangement that absolves the wealthy from paying health insurance, social security, pensions or any of the other expenses involved in employing a professional pilot.

It's been the case for many years that pilot jobs are hard to come by, it's natural that once you've got one you want to hang on to it, and saying no, either to the client or boss certainly isn't easy.
If an employer has a reputation for not holding onto pilots due to Ts & Cs, it would seem logical that after a while the stream of experienced and rated people who will say no will dry up and there's a danger you'll get what your asking for....people around you who are frightened to say no. Not saying that is the case here, in fact this wealthy owner, unlike many, invested in the latest aircraft and had 2 pilot crewing.

Developing: AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
 

...And was looking for a new pilot every six month...

Art of flight .

I completely agree with you there is always someone who will fly the machines no ones else will or take the risk others don't but then what is the answer ? Just except the fact that every year a certain number of people will be killed in circumstances that the rest of us say we would never get into .

Personally I would like to see the currency requirements made much more stringent drop the 90 day rule and bring in a 30 day rule for night and imc, force owners to allow their pilots regular opportunities to practice important skills .

Also be open minded to new technology such as IR cameras and synthetic vision anything that might allow a pilot to " see " where they are going

CBS

It would be interesting to know what was the departure time filled on the GAR Report against the actual take off time,

CBS, this machine was equipped with LLTV/Thermal imaging. You can see the camera mounted on the belly under the pilots seat.
Was it on or not? Who knows. You'll have to wait for the FDR readout.

Aviation experts
 

I heard some good comments on pilot pressure, to " get the job done" there were also some comments that were less than useful.
I knew both pilots well. They were professional and committed to their job.
Risk management is the priority. Pilot skill is important, but less of an issue these days, although currency is key, to managing a complex aircraft.
These guys were current and skillful, in their operation.
I'm gutted and deeply upset of our, and their loved ones loss.
That is the priority now. Not speculating, using our so called "aviation expertise"
God bless you Carl and Lee.
It was a privilege knowing you.
God Bless.
Andy.

From the Guardian

https://static-secure.guim.co.uk/sys...AW139--014.jpg

Some prosecutions of operators/pilots doing VFR in blatant IMC might help.

I thought the 139 could shoot a 6 degree approach to any spot in space and come to a perfect hover without coming on the control. True or false? The EC145 can do this right?