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.