|
Keep grasping at Straws, Sid.....maybe you will find a good one one day!
FAR 1.1 states: Flight time means: (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; We log from when the aircraft first moves on Takeoff until the Skids Touch the ground. Each time the Skids leave the ground is a Takeoff and each time the Skids touch the ground afterwards is a Landing. That includes running takeoffs and running landings upon the Aircraft coming to a stop. The Aircraft....not the Rotors. |
This is how we see it in our company:
Take off to langing = flight time Start-up till shut-down (Rotor stop) = PIC (because he is in charge) or operating time Start shooting;) |
So the best place to build hours is in EASA land then. Apparently it's legal to climb in, start up, lift off then land immediately
and idle with rotors running for three hours and then log three hours flying time.:} |
jecottrell;
Did you mean post number 8, the NTSB quote? If you are, I don't see any reference to a B3E there either. SS; The report gives the reg number, which leads to being able to find out the type version So what is an AS350 B3 with Ariel 2D engine called :ugh: Bobb, no need for any straw grasping; If I may quite your quote; Flight time means: (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; The aircraft lands ... then comes to rest. So once a helicopter lands, at what point is it considered at rest? Will you agree that in this incident, the aircraft was indeed still under its own power for the purpose of flight ..... with no pilot at the controls. If not, how was the helicopter able to become airborne as is stated in the report? |
Here are the definitions of "Air time" and "Flight time" from TC (transport Canada).
JD “air time” “air time” means, with respect to keeping technical records, the time from the moment an aircraft leaves the surface until it comes into contact with the surface at the next point of landing; (temps dans les airs) “flight time” “flight time” means the time from the moment an aircraft first moves under its own power for the purpose of taking off until the moment it comes to rest at the end of the flight; (temps de vol) |
If the cap fits.
|
in some countries they have Flight time, ie, when the helicopter is flying, and RIM ie: Rotors In Motion.
I think that we have been down the road of Flight Time/RIM, and get about as much agreement as we do with the idea of getting out of the machine turning and burning. So again, different countries, different rules. Chopjock, yes, as long as you can convince someone to let you pay for the gas only, and not flight hours then EASA land is certainly the best way to build hours, probably not the best type of hrs to get... :} Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls?? I always read that piece of law as meaning that the person at the controls had to have a Pilot Licence, ie you can't let anyone without a Licence fly the thing, rather than the law stipulating that you must be at the controls while the Rotors are turning, sitting on the ground... |
Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning, which jibes with my company SOP.
Silsosid, I know pilots who log time as you state (sometimes referred to as "seat time"). I don't see it, but I reckon it's not an unreasonable criteria. If I'm not manipulating the controls for the purpose of aerial navigation, I'm not flying, whether the rotor is turning or not, so I don't log it. I log from takeoff to landing- coming to rest, which I would see as stability check complete, controls secure, and going about whatever business is required: flight log, deplaning/emplaning pax and cargo, even refueling. Note lack of requirement to shutdown in that list, approved by FAA and company. Yes, I can leave the controls within company policy restrictions, I expect the accident aircraft policy was similar. |
Regarding the definition, one pilot for the purpose of flight, etc, I'm pretty sure that the pilot wasn't planning on the Helicopter flying at that point in time, therefore he didn't need to be at the controls?? "Flight time means: Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing" "The ac must have a minimum crew of one pilot in RH seat" (Remember: The FAA state "Crewmember. A person assigned to perform duty in an aircraft during flight time.") There is no mention anywhere of whether or not there is an intention of flying, just that (by using Bobs own references), once an aircraft is capable of flight under its own power, until the time that it is no longer capable of flight under its own power, it is to be considered to be 'in flight time'. |
Devil;
Reading the posted 350B3 RFM, no mention of requirement for a pilot at the controls when the rotor turning, |
Splitting hairs with rotor blades...but it is quite clear, from the wording I would think. The moment an aircraft moves is not the moment the engine starts turning, means the AC is moving from parking position. In this respect the end of flight time is when AC is back on parking position - under its own power of course. Let's have a pushcopter for gaining hours.. Anyhow, does it say aircraft moving or engine moving, or better turning. With some old planes it is common practice to start the engine from outside the cockpit and then jump in, after collecting all the loose screws, spark plugs and being reassured of fluid levels by the number of leaks visible.
Ok now seriously, the question is if leaving the controls can be done safely on that type of Flying machine. Then have a look what went wrong. Then there is a chance to understand why. And a chance to learn something from very own understanding, not just from following - the rules, your religion or older brother. |
B3e manual makes no prohibition for leaving controls, as the B3 2B1 does.
The inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue but, the pilot in question doesn't appear to be in violation of written guidance as some would assert. http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Othe.../1/XL/1-XL.png |
Bob: Why can't you understand from various posters here (RVDT in particular) that the RFM in any country is gospel?
First you were shown various RFM's for 350's telling the pilot that getting out whilst the rotor is turning is NOT permitted. You wouldn't have it - citing that the national authoriy can over -ride this???? Then you go away and dig up a copy of the 350B3 to prove that this statement is not in this RFM......and yet Section 2.1, Pg 11 categorically states that the MINIMUM crew must be 1 pilot in the RHS. This is tant amount to the same thing.:mad: Yet you refuse to accept the principle?:ugh: What is it with you? Which other parts of the limitations section of any RFM - do you pick and choose from: Let's pull Max Cont for 10 minutes today shall we because the underslng load is a little heavier than normal. Let's ignore that overtorque? Let's se if my sloping round is steeper than the RFM's? Of course those pilots out there who see the RFM as a target and not a limit (probably USA single pilot bush pilots with no-one for miles to monitor their activities, operating on a shoestring) think it's all in a days work. UNTIL the **** hits the fan. And then they realise they have no friends as everyone arond them thinks they were dumb for getting caught and want nothing to do with their insubordinate professional approach. This jerk - climbed out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft against RFM policy. All because he couldn't be arsed to shut down safely. He got caught - by the eye in the sky who taught him a lesson he will never forget. RiP sunshine and move over for the next volunteer to the Darwin owners club! |
Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS."
Yet it's not the FAA version we ( Bobb especially) need! If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew! It's not a matter of who is right, but who is left! |
So what does 'flight' mean ?
|
TC and Sid,
You have lost the argument. Accept it and move on. We have discerned that different models of the 350, in different Countries, have different Limitation Sections that variously show a Prohibition against leaving the Flight Controls Unattended. In American English that means even the various Authorities differ in their view of that practice as evidenced by the RFM they each approve. In the RFM I posted, it stated each Authority would have different requirements in their specific unique RFM. That was in an Approved RFM thus we must assume that is a valid and correct statement by the author of the RFM. We have folks from many different parts of the World who do in fact undertake the practice of some times leaving the Controls Unattended and they state they do so in full compliance with their Aircraft's Approved RFM, their Authority's Rules and Regulations, and their own Operator's Policies and Procedures. Now what is it you two refuse to understand about all of this? Are both of you short course Grads and that is why you are having such difficulty grasping the variances between UK Regulations and the rest of the World? The Poor Dead Fellow so far has been shown to have acted within the scope of his authority as a PIC and well within his Operator's Policies and the FAR's. That you two consider leaving the Flight Controls unattended a mortal sin and a crime against humanity, just does not make you right or correct. How many times, by how many people, will you have to be told all this before you get the message? As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World. No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions. |
If an ac is in a condition where it is capable of flight under its own power, surely there should at least be the minimum flight crew on board. This ac was airborne without the minimum flight crew! Why would the B3 2B1 specifically prohibit leaving the aircraft with no pilot at the controls while spinning and other models not? You would think that with so many lawyers on every page of the manual, if the manufacturer felt that the aircraft shouldn't be left rotor turning, they would specifically prohibit it. They obviously felt it was necessary for the 2B1. http://www.jecottrell.com/Other/Phon...2163154-XL.jpg |
Looks like somebody lost both arms..
"Let's call it a draw" :ouch: |
Thanks for the B3e page JE, however it does say "Minimum flight crew - One pilot in RHS Here are two examples of different certifications regarding minimum flightcrew. First one from the FAA, aircraft is a Bell 214ST and the other one is from the CAA, same aircraft. FAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS IFR -Two helicopter pilots. VFR -One helicopter pilot who shall operate the helicopter from the right crew seat. The left crew seat may be used for an additional pilot. NOTE Single pilot operations are based on the standard helicopter instrument panel and systems. CAA: FLIGHT CREW LIMITATIONS Two suitably qualified pilot. That's it for CAA, does that mean then, if one pilot exit the aircraft while idling to help out with the pax it would be an illegal action and to a point being considered a dangerous move? JD |
rantanplane So what does 'flight' mean ? You have lost the argument. Accept it and move on. Are you saying that the pilot in this incident was right in what he was doing? Because I'm saying that I think what he did was wrong :confused: Just because we may disagree, doesn't make you right! No matter how you wish it to be, the Situation is the practice of leaving flight controls unattended is a common and accepted procedure approved by the various Authorities overseeing helicopter flight operations within their jurisdictions. As much as you might wish it so, the UK does not set policy for the rest of the World. Could you balance it with a similarly sized transpacific chip? Civil Aviation Safety Authority - FSA091 - Don?t walk away Light helicopters continue to be damaged or destroyed in fly-away accidents after they have been left unattended. Their pilots should have read the aircraft flight manuals. It happens for many reasons: to open a gate for stock, to refuel, to speak with people on the ground, and in one case, a pilot’s urgent need for a ‘relief break’, as the ATSB called it, with characteristic tact. In all these cases, the result was a destroyed helicopter. ‘What often happens is that the collective rises after a gust of wind or downwash from another helicopter, and the helicopter goes up’ CASA rotary wing flying operations inspector, David Threlfo, says. In one case a pilot was killed by the main rotor blade, and in another a passenger was injured by walking into the tail rotor, both times with unattended helicopters. There seems to be confusion among helicopter operators as to whether leaving a running helicopter unattended is legal or not. For pilots of Robinson R22, R44 and R66 helicopters it is illegal. The aircraft flight manuals (pilot’s operating handbooks) for the R22, R44 and R66 all say ‘never leave helicopter flight controls unattended while engine is running.’ They have said this since at least 2007. As part of the aircraft flight manual (unless otherwise exempted) this directive trumps the other laws, regulations and orders governing helicopter flight in Australia. ‘Now that Robinson has decided to put that in, it changes the law, because Civil Aviation Regulation 138 says in effect that “you will comply with the manufacturer’s aircraft flight manual”,’ Threlfo says. For pilots of other types of helicopters with aircraft flight manuals that do not forbid unattended ground running, there are two relevant laws. Civil Aviation Regulation 225, and Civil Aviation Order 95.7 paragraph 7. CAR 225 (1988) says: ‘... the pilot in command must ensure that one pilot is at the controls of an aircraft from the time at which the engine or engines is or are started prior to the flight until the engine or engines are stopped at the termination of a flight’. CAO 95.7, paragraph 7, is one of the many exemptions to the current civil aviation regulations. It sets out the conditions that must be met for a pilot of a single-pilot helicopter to leave the aircraft while it is running. These are that: The helicopter is fitted with skid-type landing gear. The helicopter is fitted with a serviceable means of locking both the cyclic and collective controls. (A lock fitted only to the collective control is insufficient.) A passenger in a control seat fitted with fully or partially functioning controls cannot interfere with the controls. The pilot’s absence from the cockpit is essential to the safety of the helicopter or of someone on or in the vicinity of the helicopter. The pilot remains in the immediate vicinity of the helicopter. The message is clear: leaving a running helicopter unattended on the ground is dangerous, even with approved control locks fitted. That’s why pilots should only do it for a safety reason that’s stronger than the inherent danger. But not if they fly Robinson helicopters – for them it’s unambiguously illegal. For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter. Opening gates, hot refuelling, and talking with ground staff are not valid reasons to leave a running helicopter, Threlfo says. On the subject of ‘immediate vicinity’ he says: ‘If we’re talking 100 metres away to get a fuel drum, that’s not in the immediate vicinity’. The legal situation is that CAO 95.7 paragraph 7 exempts only parts of CAR 225 and CAR 230. CAR 138, which says that the aircraft flight manual takes precedence, still applies, and if there is a conflict, overrules CAO 95.7. |
When the pilot jumped out the aircraft was not airborne.
|
That's it for CAA, does that mean then, if one pilot exit the aircraft while idling to help out with the pax it would be an illegal action and to a point being considered a dangerous move? I refer to my previous post; "For a two-pilot helicopter, CAR 225 allows one pilot to leave the aircraft while it is still running, as long as the other pilot remains at the controls. However, for single-pilot operation the pilot can only leave the helicopter for the safety of the helicopter, or people on or near the helicopter." When the pilot jumped out the aircraft was not airborne. |
I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles.
Just to add a little more to the discussion,it is not inconceivable for two authorities to approve the RFM of the same type differently. Case in point, I believe that in EASA land it is okay to hover an EC135 on one engine.It comes with a proviso that all appropriate WAT calculations have been done,and , it is an unusual operation.The FAA forbids that completely. Many a US pilot has run into trouble for having missed the little black triangle on that page. The little black triangle basically means "Not approved for US Registered aircraft". Similarly, there is a new Revision (11 ,I think) that has been approved for the EC130.Has not yet made the cut with the FAA. Significant changes are incorporated in the new Revision ,particularly for cold weather operations, but it hasn't been approved for the line yet.I guess ( and I hope) that the FAA Rotorcraft Directorate goes into each RFM and revision with a fine tooth comb just to make sure that the operators of the type in question are not unusually burdened by onerous procedures which are necessary in other countries but not so in the US. Final word, approving a type for a single pilot operation from one seat only means that the aircraft will not be flown from the other seat for lateral CG considerations.Does not imply that the aircraft will not (or shall not) be left unattended. Just my 2C. Alt 3. |
a3, "I believe, I think, I guess, I hope ..."
Any chance of a relevant link or something more 'solid'? Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet? |
Anyone got hold of an FAA B3e manual yet? |
SilsoeSid
There is no mention anywhere [in the FAR §1.1 definition of Flight time] whether or not there is an intention of flying once an aircraft is capable of flight under its own power, until the time that it is no longer capable of flight under its own power, it is to be considered to be 'in flight time'. jecottrell The inane debate over the semantics of definitions can continue I think this discussion has lost its way somewhere and we are now just going around in circles. |
FL,
I posted the FAR 1.1 Definition of Flight Time for Sid. He ignored that. I posted a copy of a 350B3 Approved Flight Manual that contained no prohibition on leaving flight controls unattended. He ignored that. Devil 49 who operates a 350B3 clearly stated his Company legally authorizes the Practice of leaving flight controls unattended. Sid ignored that. Newfie Boy flying in Canada recounted his very recent experience doing the same thing. Sid ignored that. RVDT, also recounted his recent experience doing the same thing. Again Sid ignored that. Alouette3 has also pointed out incorrect statements Sid has made. Of course, Sid ignores that. What chance do you think you have of convincing Sid he is batting a very sticky Wicket here? |
Bob
Based upon what I've seen in various discussions over the years, I'd rate my chance of changing Sid's mind about anything as approximately zero. |
Flying Lawyer,
Bob quotes FAR 1.1 Flight time means: (1) Pilot time that commences when an aircraft moves under its own power for the purpose of flight and ends when the aircraft comes to rest after landing; I would appreciate your interpretation of: 1. How a helicopter with skids, can move under its own power for the purpose of flight, without being capable of flight 2. 'rest' in the case of a helicopter, as in "comes to rest after landing". Ok bob, you're going to change your mind as much as I am. You're absolutely right, in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead! Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again? |
Sid
FAR 1.1 The period when the accident occurred was not, in my opinion, Flight time within the meaning of the definition. Your attempt to introduce the words 'capable of flight' is a red herring, a distraction. (As is "he didn't ensure that the aircraft couldn't become airborne without the 'legal minimum flight crew'.") You say (to Bob): in your mind he did nothing 'wrong' ... yet ended up dead! He said: Considering the outcome, there is no argument he made the "wrong" choice. Legality Bob's position: 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. I express no opinion because I haven't researched the FAA legislation nor any relevant appeal court decisions (if they exist), nor do I know all the circumstances. I'm not inclined to do the research, partly because it would take a long time but mainly because I don't regard legality as the primary issue in this discussion. IMHO by far the most important issue, which Bob and several others have been emphasising and you now appear to accept (?) is set out in your final sentence: Now what can be done to prevent this type of incident happening again? Any injury/fatality is obviously a serious matter but I have no reason to believe that it is a major issue relative to the frequency of the practice in many parts of the world. It may be. I don't know the statistics. |
FL: I have been immersed in the practice of shutting down SE on innumerable occasions during HEMS (which we were 24/7). Every single time I landed - many of which were in inaccessible and often hostile places - I shut down. Sometimes just to swoop and scoop. Did I consciously decide NOT to shut down because I couldn't be arsed? NO. Why, well because the RFM said NO and also because it made sound sense to shut down (trying to monitor and maintain a safe zone around a chopper burning and turning close to strangers/obstructions/animals etc)...even though I always had the thought that maybe, just maybe she may not start again!
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope. It is very poor airmanship to say the least. How can anyone manage a 2 tonne hand grenade from a distance??? I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency). Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM. I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty. Of course, this situation is rare and infrequent (being killed by your own helicopter) but the infrequency is not the issue. The whole point of this argument is that it may well be practiced a lot in certain parts of the industry's but it isn't RIGHT. [For the same reason that most people drive above the speed limit most of the time - but it isn't right and if you go there - expect and accept your punishment...but DO NOT defend what you did . |
.
TC : I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended . |
I recall a fairly recent tragic accident not far from here. A man was working on his car, which was on a hydraulic jack. It was not properly supported in that it did not have a secondary method if the jack failed.
He went underneath the car to work on it. Now, we all know that doing this involves a level of risk. Undoubtedly, so did he. He took the risk, thinking it would probably be all right because the jack had never failed before. But it wasn't. The jack did fail. The car fell on him and crushed him to death. In front of his young son, who frantically tried to lift the car off his father. My own car is being worked on just now. I jacked it up. I can do as I please with regard to safety because there is no rule telling me what I can and cannot do. I have axle stands under it. Now it is on axle stands I have lowered and reset the jack, which now backs up the axle stands. My point here is that safety is about learning from others. No-one should have to make all the mistakes that others have made in the past. If we don't, there is no point having a flight safety system, or training, or regulations and we are, quite frankly, stupid. The regulations are often there because the authority knows something that others may miss or forget with the passage of time. As wrote earlier, in UK at least it isn't allowed to leave a helicopter's rotors running without a qualified pilot at the controls. Some here consider that rule unnecessary but may have over-riding reasons. All that can be said now is RIP this poor pilot and the bereaved family. Sadly, something went tragically wrong with what he did, either a human failing, or a mechanical failure of some sort. The report doesn't say which was the ultimate cause of the accident. Hopefully the company involved (and some others) will review their procedures to see if the risk of a further occurrence of this nature can be lowered. Intensive "Nit picking" and playing with words, merely to try to trip up other contributors, achieves very little except to make those involved look rather silly, imho. Hopefully a moderator can RIP this thread, too...... because it's achieving nothing :hmm: |
Pilots who opt for this totally unnecessary practice really are pushing the safety envelope. It is very poor airmanship to say the least. I challenge anyone to offer a sound reason for getting out and leaving a burning and turning chopper unattended (other than in an emergency). Anyone? With or without the backing of the RFM. I also challenge the legal fraternity to defend the pilots actions in the event third parties sued the pilot for damages due to his dereliction of duty. So TC, despite the Thousands of Pilots around the World, and the Hundreds of Thousands of times all this has been done with absolutely no problem, that there is no Legal Prohibition against the Practice in the vast majority of Authorities Surely, you do not think acting in compliance with all the Rules, Regs, Laws, Safety Notices, Approved RFM's and the like within One's own Authority's Jurisdiction constitutes "Poor Airmanship or worse" do you? If so, where does that leave You when you do that in the UK? |
TC (and others), your argument is invalid.
From herein I am only referring to exiting a machine while it is running in a place where the country, manufacturer, operator and pilot allow it. Not this particular accident. Also I believe in some situations National Authorities can overrule manufacturers eg. allowing non-genuine parts to be installed. In your last argument you compare it to driving above the speed limit, I assume where you wouldn't. That is the incorrect analogy to use here. It is more comparable to driving at 30 in a 30 zone and then as you move into a 60 zone increasing your speed to 60 - yes there is more risk associated with travelling a bit faster but perfectly legal and more importantly more convenient. You may even decide to stay at 30, or only speed up to 58 (I'm picturing you in this group) - that is your choice. But to say everyone who commits this heinous act is demonstrating poor airmanship (poor choice of word given the argument) is just silly. Have you ever crossed a road? Perfectly legal in most cases. Quite possible to do it safely but I bet you stop, look both ways, make sure it's clear and then cross - as we all do. We have all been taught to do this from a young age, managing and accepting risk at a level we deem safe enough vs convenience. If it is an increase of risk that is concerning you, please let us know what risk you are willing to accept. Give it to us in odds if you like. I know of about half a dozen machines that have flown away without anybody driving - I am sure there have been more and in all likelihood there will be more. This most recent case, if that is what happened is the only injury/death I have heard of. I suspect more harm has come from bird strikes, not a lot you can do about them so I suspect you accept that risk. Likewise from the moment you hit the starter you start accepting various levels, some more than others. You asked for some sound reasons for doing it so I shall try. Convenience - swapping seats between long-lining and passenger ops, hooking on your long-line, unloading passengers, taking a piss, loading passengers. Safety - checking for leaks, unloading and loading passengers (I can assure you it is much easier to keep people away if your out of the machine rather than sitting in waiting for the blades to stop). How many times have you noticed people start approaching the helicopter as soon as the engines/noise stop, generally the engines pose no risk at all but the blades will do substantial damage even at slow speeds. Have all of your passengers always listened to you? Mine haven't, I have literally raced people out of the machine as to stop them getting out and into the spinning bit at the back after being told to wait inside. People get excited and confused and do stupid things. Also you mention infrequency not being the issue - I think it demonstrates just how safe it actually is. Machines would be left running without pilots, with an educated guess, thousands of times a day. How many times has this happened? I accept those odds. All I'm saying is it is ok to remain at 30 if that suits you but don't go telling everyone else they are Darwin candidates if they choose to drive at 60. |
Edited by me, no need to irritate people with my photo.
JD |
Fij, Are you not concerned about damage to that Village over the horizon about a hundred miles away, should something happen?:E
Gross negligence, Squire!;) I guess some would have us carrying an empty plastic milk jug along to Pee in rather than stepping out and taking a quick stretch and pee break like Lorry Drivers do!:} |
FL,
Your position: The pilot acted unlawfully. I am sure that if you had a family member on board an aircraft that took to the air or moved under it's own power with no-one at the controls, and they were killed or seriously injured, you would have a completely different outlook on the legality of this type of operation. 30-May-13 PR-DJC Eurocopter EC130 Guaramiranga, Brazil | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source The aircraft was on the ground and the rotors were turning, when the pilot left the cockpit in order to assist the passengers to disembark. The aircraft tumbled to the left, when nobody was in control. One of the passengers already in the helicopter - José Carlos Pontes, 61, president of the group Marquise - suffered serious injuries after one of the main blades amputated his leg Acidente com helicóptero deixa empresário ferido - CNEWS Balada In | Pompeu Vasconcelos | Helicóptero cai em Guaramiranga http://baladain.com.br/admin2/uploads/B4-Guara.jpg Flight Safety should never be allowed to be a matter of luck! |
Sisloesid-
"At rest" is stationary, no longer moving. Landing is the process of putting a flying aircraft on the ground, as in "landing aircraft have the right of way". An aircraft that has landed might taxi to it's resting position. A helicopter can be at rest with turning rotors. You might not be able to think of a good reason to leave the pilot's seat with the rotors turning, that doesn't mean that it is unreasonable to do so. Accidents that occur after the pilot left the pilot seat don't prove that the practice is unsafe anymore than accidents that happen with a pilot at the controls prove that unsafe. There are ways of reducing risk in both circumstances, and as far as I know this pilot was blameless, it might have happened with all the best practices complete and in place. Boudreaux Bob I don't fly a B3. |
49,
I fear Sid would argue with a sign post!:uhoh: http://ts1.explicit.bing.net/th?id=H...21608&pid=15.1 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.