ShyT
Two things to interpret…

1) "An operator must not permit…"

I could interpret that as an operator must not permit it. However not permitting something does not mean the operator must forbid it. You can't make a law stating you must forbid something. So a line pilot hops out for a pee, but that's not ok because the operator did not permit it (but the operator did not forbid it either… ). Therefore if the pilot pops out rotors running, busting for a pee (medical emergency) what's the offence? even though the operator still did not permit it.

2) "for the purpose of making a flight"

I could interpret that as "I've finished flying for now and can't wait for two minutes to shut down".
Then after relieving myself I change my mind and decide to go flying again.
As far as I know it is not illegal to change your mind.

I'm sure I could conjure up more interpretations to justify my needs.

I would guess that the wording allows for circumstances when you might run the rotors (with the aircraft properly secured) for testing purposes e.g. during production or maintenance.

However, as it stands running the rotors with the aircraft unmanned for the purposes of killing nearby bystanders would be perfectly fine given the wording of regulation provided you had no intent to fly (albeit probably not in the spirit of the regulations, and it may break some other regulations and laws too).

Matthew

We could go on all day like this ......

Chopjock ...... "I've finished flying" ..... no you haven't ... the rotors have not come to a stop. Flight Duty Time.

Surely the operator does not permit - but the pilot may decide otherwise .... and therefore be it on his own head (no pun, puhlease)?

Chopjock, I guessed as much.

I prefer to bear in mind what the more likely outcome of a court case might be.

Hi Chopjock

As Tistisnot points out, Part FCL.010 - the regulations that define what you are allowed to do with your licence, defines flight time for a helicopter as ' the total time from the moment a helicopter's rotor blades start turning until the moment the helicopter finally comes to rest at the end of the flight, and the rotor blades are stopped.

If you are using your commercial licence for the purpose of commercial air transport then you need to comply with CAT.GEN.MPA.130 which says 'A helicopter rotor shall only be turned under power for the purpose of flight with a qualified pilot at the controls'.

There are other bits of legislation that allow non-pilots, under certain circumstances, to be at the controls of a helicopter when it is running. Have some fun looking for the legislation for that, you will find all sorts of other genuinely useful pieces of information while you are looking - but don't read any of it in isolation and think that is the whole picture.

Cheers

TeeS

Tees,

Post a Cut and Paste of that section you quoted and show us where it uses the word "Should" rather than the imperative "Shall".

As I read that reference you used it would seem permissive rather than restrictive to the point you suggest and only serves as a suggestion rather than a requirement for the Pilot to be at the Controls all the time the Rotors are running.

Again, trying to write a prohibition that covers every nuance of a Situation is quite hard.

Unless you use simple declarative language that leaves absolutely no way to "spin" the meaning.



Crab,

As A3 pointed out there is a difference in Mindset between the UK and other locations around the World. As those of you in the UK seem to be the most vociferous about condemning the poor dead fella in this, all I am doing is reminding you over there of the relatively few instances of this kind of thing happening despite it being a common practice in some kinds of operations.

In the EMS business, it is a fairly common practice and I have seen it done or done it myself in BO, BK, and 412's. It was and is a common practice in remote area operations as well.

Yet, we hear of very few problems.

Far fewer than other kinds of accidents.

A3 is correct when he says the UK bills itself as being Risk Averse but in the final analysis despite all the Laws, Rules, Regulations, Orders, and Advisories, the Accident Rate data does not demonstrate any marked difference between the UK and other parts of the World when comparable Operations are compared.

Your Utility Sector is minuscule compared to ours, or Australia so any comparison there is really not valid. Think not, compare your Forest Fire Fighting Helicopter Fleet to those in the USA and Australia for a start.

Or, consider the Aerial Application sector in the three countries and again the UK really doesn't begin to compare.

If you want to say aircraft choice in leaving it "turning and burning", I fully agree with you.

Should it be done in a careful, reasoned, well thought out manner, I fully agree.

Should it be done only in specific situations, again I fully agree.

Are there risks in doing it, especially if done improperly or in the wrong aircraft.....absolutely I agree.

I am quite sure you do some things that carry a bit of added "Risk" but you do so with due regard to the benefit compared to the risk and make a decision.

There is nothing different here in making the same decision on exiting the cockpit while the aircraft is running. Have a valid reason, use a proper method, do so in proper conditions, and never actually leave the aircraft un-attended. Most times I did this I was under the Rotors or more commonly right next to the aircraft either loading cargo or pumping fuel, or loading medical patients when it could not be done any other way.

The one thing you folks in the UK seem to have problems with doing is putting down that Prism you hold up anytime something like this gets discussed.

When that happens, we have to remind you that Blighty ain't Kansas.

Hi Bob

Do you mean this?

Search EU regulation 965/2012 - it's on page 64 of 148.

Cheers

TeeS

The location of this accident?

TeeS,

When I searched for your original Reference CAT.GEN.MPA.130 , I could read it but could not copy the pertinent part to which I referred.

.

It then gives an example which talks of helping passengers into the aircraft and adjusting seat belts.



This side of the Salt Water Divide, "Shall Not" is imperative and "Should Not" is permissive.

Don't forget Canada, we do have a couple of helicopters flying around once in a while. :}

JD

My humble apologies.....that was done by oversight and not intent.

Certainly when it comes to Mountain Flying we look North.

I also did not mention the "Heli-Logging" industry either which is big both sides of our borders but hardly exists in the EASA world if at all.

All accepted. :)

Now that Heli-logging was mention, that would be another situation where would see blades turning and pilots outside shifting seats for the next cycle while the Engineer is refuelling the aircraft. The only shutdown you see during the day is at lunch time when maintenance does their thing before the afternoon shift and of course at the end of the last cycle.

JD

Hi Bob

The part you read is from the guidance material that EASA publish to give clarification on how the legal word in the legislation should be applied. It is recognition that we are not legal experts and so they try and write it in layman's terms; inevitably something will be lost in the translation. What you quoted was one part of a sentence that is almost meaningless without the adjacent paragraphs. Here is a cut and paste of the whole section:

I'd like to point out that I am not arguing the rights or wrongs of leaving the controls in some circumstances (I used to fly HEMS in a Bo105!), I was merely trying to point out that the legality of this under European legislation is now pretty clear.

Sorry for the thread drift - I'm off now :)

Cheers

TeeS

So, can I clarify or throw this into the mix..

As an instructor I often let my students start up on their own and after a few minutes I jump in next to them. It's a confidence booster for students and I make sure they're capable of doing the job safely.

However, according to rule subpart 6 we have every intention of flight but at the time of start up and rotors turning the PiC is not at the controls, the student is. Or is that semantics?

Apologies to this detracting somewhat from the original tragedy.

Cheers, FP

Hi Pan

All the above regulations refer to commercial air transport, I think you are safe, on the basis it would be difficult to send someone solo otherwise.

Ok, I'm really off this time.

TeeS

AS 350B3 Arriel 2B1 Flight Manual
 

No contest? It varies across AS 350 models and date of certification.

Thanks TeeS,


But, when they're solo they are PiC...so that's not an issue. However, on their own, on start up, on a dual flight are they not still under instruction?


Cheers, FP.

As RVDT points out, what is in the flight manual is what must apply from a legal viewpoint.


Now if someone has a EC130 B4 FM to check you might find that the wording there is "should not" rather than "shall not." When the B4 came out I seem to recall it was "shall not." Is was amended to "should not" so that it could be operated in those countries where leaving the controls is legal. It has interested me a little to see that most pilots in such countries automatically assume they can leave the controls of AS350's if legislation permits but legally they cannot if the FM says otherwise.


I have left, and occasionally still do leave, the controls unattended if I deem it the safest, or the necessary and most practical, way to carry out my task. I just make sure I carry out the correct procedures to secure the machine and make it as safe as possible - in exactly the same manner in which I try to approach every facet of the job. If we deferred from doing anything associated with some risk then we would never fly at all. Appropriate risk mitigation through procedure is the answer. But is that legal? Not always, but fortunately I work in nations where the authorities have a pragmatic approach to operational requirements and I have never heard of a prosecution over this issue, despite several accidents happening to unattended machines. If someone was to be killed or injured then the legislation is in place for the appropriate action if deemed necessary. Long may it stay that way.

As others are already pointing out, the howling from the UK is from a nation that has relatively little use for utility helicopters and so they can probably operate acceptably that way. It some parts of my job (the oil industry part) the client usually stipulates the rules and so puts in place the means to facilitate the smooth and safe operation with a pilot at the controls at all times. It sure couldn't be done safely and efficiently that way in many of the other roles and areas I fly.

I'm not a Helicopter Pilot (fixed wing only) but have got a question:-

Disregarding the rights or wrongs of this incident, (sad either way).
When you leave a helicopter parked (in the correct way with the collective secured, if there is a correct way) with rotors running, is the main rotor pitch negative (IE slightly forcing the machine towards the ground) or neutral ?,
If neutral (or slightly positive, god forbid) is it possible that a strong wind gust getting under the disk could cause some undesirable lift ?

Just a question to try and understand a bit more about Helicopters.

Ray,
Mostly in the neutral to slightly negative I think, depending on machines perhaps.


Yes. An adverse wind on the disc can have an effect. I've seen it personally and know of at least one instance of a machine bent that way.

flat pitch blade angle is a function of autorotation rpm. It is rigged to produce the appropriate rpm in autorotation for a particular GW and DA. I have never seen one that has a negative angle of attack... obviously I have not rigged all aircraft ever produced, but I've done more than a few.

Humans learn best from practicing skills, not from obeying rules. By the true nature of learning, perhaps Americanadians should or shall become the better pilots at the end? BB, good old Blighty is as much Shakespeare as it always was. Just is it comedy or tragedy?

I recall VF stating that Ops Manual allowed it. He is a thorough driver.

I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


We know, from several threads on this topic over the years, that leaving helicopters unattended with rotors turning is a widespread practice in some parts of the world.
We also know that there are sometimes accidents as a result.
Is there evidence of a high number of accidents relative to the frequency of the practice?

The EC135 battery overheat drill originally required the pilot to land, lock the controls, get out and inspect the battery for signs of overheating. It changed with the introduction of current European legislation.

Oh yes, and the cyclic lock was removed after someone in a distant part of the World tried to take off from a rooftop helipad with it still locked!

Before the UK takes all the blame for over-regulation, I should point out that what we work to now, is the illegitimate love child of 30 odd European legal systems.

TeeS

The fact that a pilot leaving the controls while turning and burning is illegal in some circumstances isn't pertinent. It is/was legal at the decisive point in this event. Pilots doing so is not uncommon in some places. It is done routinely and safely where permitted.

Shakespeare understood the Human Animal and perhaps as long as we do not learn to laugh at tragedy we will survive.

It would seem this debate as others before it, has evolved to a discussion about "Rules", their derivation, implementation, and effect.

We also see as usual, varying opinions and attitudes towards the needs for "Rules".

Way deep down in the argument there exists a notion that ordinary commonsense and judgement should be the underlying basis for all "Rules".

Just as in Criminal Law, there must be some moral basis to the "Law", or in this case "Rule", or else the People will tend to ignore or violate the "Law" as they see it having no merit or basis for being.

Flying Lawyer echoes my thoughts about the situation at hand.

TeeS has presented us with some contradictions and considerations to consider regarding "Rules" in EASA Land.

The Kool Aid Acid Test for "Rules" should be to determine if there needs to be a "Rule" to begin with, closely followed by a determination of what the "Rule" is supposed to accomplish, and thirdly to determine that the new "Rule" does no harm (Remembering the Law of Un-intended Consequences).

One Man's Opinion is the UK and EASA Land have far two many "Rules", too many that are poorly written, and far too much harm gets done by that situation.

The good side of all that is folks like FL make a very good living sorting out the mess that results.

Irrespective of what rules may apply, the decision to leave the helicopter with the rotors under power (idle or otherwise) is an act of making a choice. All choices come with one or more tradeoffs. Some of the tradeoffs associated with this choice include saving time, saving engine cycles, etc, but other tradeoffs include some increase in risk, even when done "properly." How much risk is open to debate. Accident reports show that it is not always done properly and that the risk can be more than is understood. And, this type of event, even though preventable in many cases, seems to keep on happening even though rules, flight manuals, etc call some degree of attention to the risk involved.

My flight operations manual generally requires a qualified pilot in the PIC seat with hands on cyclic and collective when rotors are turning. Works for me, but perhaps not for all.

This is the second accident i have ever heard of. I think you may being exaggerating a bit.




In my view, many of us here do single pilot operations without any ground support, and this may be necessary to do under some circunstances where rules permit. From what i have read in this thread most pilots agree with that.

i believe that people crash cars driving over 100 km/h (60mph) in Germany on the Autobahns. Do we all jump up and down saying those guys are idiots, thats illegal, you aren't allowed to drive that fast!!

Or do we look at it and say oh yeah the Germans have different speed limits to us, so maybe it was legal.

same thing here i would think, different laws, different countries.


it has happened a few times, a B2 and BA as well as a 120 in NZ. I'm sure that there are others.

In the 80s, an R22 in NT was running roughly, the pilot landed on the only clear area, a rock pinnacle to investigate. He left it running at idle, control friction on, carefully climbed out onto right skid, crouched down to look at engine.

Stepped off the skid to change viewpoint, saw that the vibrations from the rough engine were causing the machine to skip around a little, and on the rough rock, headed towards the downhill side of things. He tried to pull it back, got pulled along himself. Said to himself: "SELF!! WTF are you DOING???" and let go of it.

it skipped to the edge of the rock and threw itself off the cliff. Pilot looks at mess at bottom... ooops...will the Streaker's Defence* work for him?




*Streaker's Defence = "It seemed like a good idea at the time!"

As quoted before this operation is expressly forbidden in the RFM.

An Operations Manual instruction cannot overrule it.

The RFM would require a Supplement. A Supplement might even require an STC as the RFM springs from the TC.

How many B3 operators here are aware of the MANDATORY requirement for 2 headsets and a functioning ICS?
Apparently the FAA doesn't if you read their MMEL.

Super F,

Poor analogy - Death rate in Germany per 100,000 inhabitants is approximately half your native country and they
drive twice your speed limit most of the time. Better roads, better cars, better drivers - different attitude.

The RFM prohibits you just the same in NZ as anywhere else. A while back this was raised by your CAA and had a few people scratching their heads.

Also as previously mentioned, the requirements vary across the 350 models.

Might it be the Germans drive in the correct side of the road for a start?


Perhaps one Statistic you might consider is the percentage of Fatal Accidents for those Autobahn car crashes as you might find yourself leading the Pack in that regard directly due to the Speed at which you drive on the Bahn's.

The key is that such behavior is quite legal on the Autobahn. As was what we are talking about here.

Necessary or not, this is a choice you are making and it comes with increased risk. In making this choice, you are accepting the increased risk. Some have been and some will be bitten by making such a choice.

Isn't that just part of Life?

You pays your money, you takes your chances!

You ever worked in -45F weather where you are the only Helicopter in 500 miles and you have no contact with the outside World?

You want to shut down and hope the engine starts on that mountain side that is 50-60 miles from the nearest Tent, Hut, or warmth?

Compare the discussion about the R-66 making a Precautionary Landing due to Weather and think about the difference in the two situations.

Some are thinking the R-66 folks were in serious trouble.

And think about the REAL difference between operating 500 miles from support in -45 and then operating in the Grand Canyon.

In one situation you have no real options, in the other you have plenty - an action born out of necessity is not the same as one made by choice.

Get over the pioneer stuff Bob (we all get that) and accept this guy really didn't need to put himself at risk.

True in some respects! Driving to the airport to fly a helicopter involves taking risk, and the risk increases from there. Truly "professional" pilots, whether they fly for pay or not, have a well developed set of skills for managing risk. They are proactive in understanding risk and thoughtful about what risks to accept and when. These skills are not uniformly distributed in the pilot population. They are typically acquired through study, training, and experience, with experience probably the most effective teacher.

Crab,

It isn't Pioneer stuff as you seem to think. It is going on today as we speak and will go on in the future.

Unless and until you know the full facts of the situation in the Canyon that day, you are making assumptions based on ignorance of the situation.

Perhaps where he landed is a single aircraft landing site with nothing but the Colorado River and steep walled canyon surrounding the site. Sight Seeing helicopters do not have Winches you might recall.

I would suggest you consider there was no prohibition for him to have done what he did, not in Law, Regulation, or Policy.

What you need to "get" is things are different outside the UK and we have a much different mindset about operating helicopters than does the CAA and EASA.

Monday Morning Quarter Backing is always fraught with peril.

I suppose you will be bashing the R-66 Pilot for making a Precautionary Landing as he did. After all, one could say he put his passengers at risk by flying in weather that he could not guarantee making it to the Destination. That would be just as unfair as your criticism of the Canyon Pilot as you don't know the details of how that R-66 came to be where he was when he landed out.

Yes all us Brits get that as well.

Your Monday morning quarterback position is that he was completely justified in all his actions - despite the lack of evidence to say so........ mine (and others) is that he might have made a mistake doing what he did where he did - I haven't condemned him out of hand, just suggested that, in the cold light of day it is possible that he made a wrong choice rather than being forced into getting out due to operational complexities.

Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice.

My position is he was free to make whatever decision he wished in this as there were no legal prohibitions (that we know of) to forbid him doing as he did.

If it was the exact right decision will have to be decided after weighing all of the factual evidence and not just assuming One knows what actually transpired.

I recall folks saying much the same about the Glasgow Crash saying we should all wait for the AAIB to report out what happened and why.

So why not in this one?

The poor dead guy has been called a Darwin Award Candidate and criticized for what he did by you Brits despite the Regulations being quite different in the USA, but that did not seem to deter y'all from making the comments you did.

It appears you just do not like being called out for that.

We saw the same thing happen when the MH-60 crashed in Norfolk too.

Even Flying Lawyer has commented on the tendency of you folks in the UK to attack one other Pilots when things happen and I see him as being quite and honest and candid fellow.

As an indication of how he views matters, read his Post which did not seem to draw any criticism or discussion.


I wonder whether the differences of opinion in this discussion are to some extent influenced by the fact that (professional) helicopter flying in the UK is predominantly military, off-shore transport, emergency services and executive transport with very little 'utility' flying of the sort very common in some other parts of the world.


Would it not be a breath of fresh air if all of you over there could be as fair and equitable in your comments?

He is British and can politely consider Helicopter Operations in the UK with an Open Mind. More of you should do the same i would suggest.