AAIB January 2017
 

Two helicopter reports:


G-RFUN: R44
"The helicopter took off at close to its maximum weight. It then flew to a hilly area, where the pilot made a downwind approach, with full carburettor heat applied, to an Out-of-Ground-Effect (OGE) hover. The manufacturer’s performance figures show this to be outside the declared flight envelope of the helicopter. The helicopter was unable to sustain the hover and descended, probably entering a vortex ring state, before it landed heavily and rolled onto its side. The occupants escaped from the aircraft with one passenger sustaining a minor injury."


G-SAIG and a Spitfire
"The Robinson R44 helicopter hover taxied across Runway 28 as the Spitfire was completing its landing roll. The propeller of the Spitfire contacted the empennage of the helicopter but neither pilot was aware there had been contact, although a bump was felt in the R44. The helicopter returned to the apron for an inspection, where damage to its empennage and tail rotor guard was discovered"

Actually regarding the first accident it's hard to know where to start, The real reason for this type of accident (not necessarily this one) is often much more complex than it first seems, It is in keeping with a trend I have noticed in the last 15 years for new private pilots (especially those in their 40's of the business man variety) to not know (or care) about RFM limits, who will do just enough to get a licence (and the subsequent PC's) but basically they are a law unto themselves with very little regard to good airmanship (TEM), actually I am surprised there aren't more of this type of accident, the FI's in my experience try very hard to promote good standards but are fighting a losing battle.

CF

Have to disagree with you there ! From what I see the standard of training in this country is woeful. That is not to blame the instructors but the system where the inexperienced are asked to train the new generation.:ugh: How many R44 instructors for instance take the machine out at PPLH learning stage with the heli at close to MAUW ?
If you look or instance at the military system you don't see any junior pilots with no experience instructing !

Military vs Civilian again, I didn't start it - boring:bored:

I'd say the problem is that the private pilots receive no supervision after they get their licence in a similar fashion to private drivers. Yes you have an LPC per annum but no one authorizes your sorties and provides a sanity check. sadly there is no practical way of bringing that in, particularly if the pilot in question doesn't want it and owns their own aircraft. So sad to see machine lost (bit surprised the occupants got away with it)

Not in the rotary world anyway. The FJ stream do it, but it works because the creamies only teach students to fly a trainer in a very limited and scripted set of manoeuvres.

Quote:

---

The helicopter pilot reported that he had stopped to look for traffic and made a radio call before crossing to the north side. He did not hear any other traffic on the frequency. As he crossed Runway 28, he heard a “whooshing” noise but did not feel any contact. He concluded that he had not seen the other aircraft because he was looking for aircraft on approach and not on the ground.

---

Is this an early April Fool? Do these people really exist? And there appears to be inconsistency about whether or not the R44 occupants (I can't bring myself to call them pilots) felt a bump or not.

So we seem to be condoning a poorly functioning system with low-time, inexperienced instructors giving a very varied quality of instruction to new pilots (the blind being led by the partially sighted), a complete lack of mandated post-graduate training or checking - is this some bizarre race to the bottom of the aviation barrel?

Sorry to interupt the dump on ppl's party.
Weight and balance, aircraft performance and safe operation (avoiding downwind landings when heavy) are a basic skill,

Any instructor would hammer this In and it is an extremely basic part of flight planning.

Stupidity is not limited to ppl's it is frequently shown by professional pilots also.

With 80-odd hours and only flying 1 hour in 3 months you can only expect a problem. There is no way to remain current like that. Those hours should be spent flying dual to reinforce the skills until such a time the pilot is flying often enough to be safe.
What are UK regs about currency? X number of hours and takeoff/landings?

A system can't route out stupidity nor can the instructor be responsible for what a pilot does or doesn't do after training.

CF

Nothing to do with mil v civilian it is an example of how it should be done, not what we have ended up with, everything driven by money. Yes I agree that there are good young instructors, but teaching people to fly is not just following Lessons 1 to 30 in a regimented way. It is about teaching airmanship ( in my day ) now called threat and error management, really just common sense ! How can you expect an junior instructor who has done nothing else other than regimented lessons and a load of trial lessons pass this wealth of knowledge on ? We have ended up in the classic catch 22 situation.

I had no idea you could shoot wild boars in the Peak District. This was possibly the most unexpected part of the report.

So, just to be clear, is it agreed then? All of us PPLs (who haven't crashed or aren't dead yet) should just call it quits and leave the skies clear for you salaried greater mortals to occupy in complete safety. I believe that I was taught to fly by one of the best who has undoubtedly subsequently signed off many of your licenses. I was one of "those in their 40's of the business man variety" who perhaps chose that career path in order to fund my love of flying. I consider training and currency a serious matter in much the same way as salaried pilots do but voluntarily and at my own expense. As for the comment about occupants, not pilots of an R44, your attitude and ignorance knows absolutely no bounds.

Wallism

Really pleased you take it seriously, unfortunately I fear you are in the minority of owners from what I see an an examiner !
How many gotcha's do you want ? over MAUW, downwind landing, vertical take off and hovering at 70 ft, hopefully no instructor teaches these ????

I totally agree, he lined them all up and I'm sure that no one taught him to do that.

Any training, and yep it's the same training everyone goes through irrespective of how they intend to fly, has checks and balances from other instructors (hopefully more senior) through to the person signing off the test.

So if we are producing rubbish pilots then you are saying the entire training system is broken, the same system that will produce commercial pilots.

There are cowboys in all shapes, sizes and licenses.

There are plenty of recreational pilots that take the process extremely seriously and from what I've seen often have more air-time and experience than the average lower hour comm pilot so let's not paint an entire group with one or two accidents.

Overall you'd find the majority of accidents feature higher qualified pilots than it does the more casual flier.

Someone determined not to do proper planning and to operate beyond their own and the machine's limits is not a reflection on who taught them but a serious flaw with the individual behind the controls.

Strewth! Who taught him about aero engines (or rather, who didn't)?

Throwing in another $.02 into the discussion as a "40ish businessman" (actually a bit older :E): one must also question student motivation. When I finished my PP-ASEL training and passed that checkride, I felt pretty confident in my ability to fly from paved runway to paved runway. No fuss, no muss, just be careful of the weather and aircraft performance. When I finished my PP-H and passed the checkride I felt like I had merely obtained a license to go out and get killed. And, to be VERY clear, this is after obtaining what I felt was excellent instruction. There is just so much more complexity to helicopter flying (preaching to the choir, no doubt), especially if it extends beyond mere paved runway to paved runway operations, that it can't be economically contained in the civilian PP syllabus.

As a result of my continued badgering of the outstanding school that I am lucky to be associated with ("Let's go do some 'challenging' confined space, let's go fly in the snow, etc.") if I would only get off my posterior and take the written I'd be ready for the commercial checkride.

Sadly it would appear that I might be the exception rather than the norm amongst the "40ish businessman" class (with all due respect to other exceptions!) And yet I am only now becoming confident that I might survive the next 100 hours. Not because I didn't pass the PP checkride with flying colors, but because doing so is probably not enough for real world helicopter operations.

The fact that confined / restricted areas aren't actually part of the Proficiency check test schedule doesn't help people much get better at them unless they seek improvement themselves with some extra training.

I know you could test it under 2.7 landings (various profiles) but you don't have to and most people don't as far as I can see

It has all the makings of one of those Aircraft Accident scenarios where you have to identify all the potential contributing factors. I was always taught that you should expect a spirited attempt to kill yourself due to a mixture of over-confidence and lack of imagination around 100 hours (check that box), 500 hours, and 1,000 hours.

a. Total of 87 Hours - 9 on type.
b. Total of 3 Friends in the cabin.
c. "Approximately 15 minutes later the helicopter arrived at a boar shooting ground where the pilot intended to hover, so they could wave at some friends."
d. Overweight aircraft and underweight estimating.
e. "made a downwind approach, with full carburetor heat applied, to an Out-of- Ground-Effect (OGE) hover."
f. "outside the declared flight envelope of the helicopter."

With the reference to carb heat he was then also not flying a Raven 2 (fuel injected) so even less room for error.

Simple tools like ibal and Gyronimo make flight planning easy, there's no excuse really.

Being hot and high around these parts, power management is an essential part of training.
Confined operations are all a standard part of training and checks.
If you aren't going to be taught (and practice) them you may as well go fly a stuck wing instead.

By sticking up for two numpties who managed to blunder onto an active runway without noticing the aircraft on finals (despite said aircraft making R/T calls in the usual places), and then managed to bump into the other aircraft without even realizing, I fear that the moral high ground you so proudly occupy is more mole-hill than Mount Everest...

As a PPL(H) businessman (but one who takes additional training sorties every year, the most recent being this month due to no stick time in December).


I think for the UK Bell Ringer makes a point that resonates for me. In the UK we are rarely hot or high (yes, it is possible but rare). I can see that it is possible to both fail to appreciate the practical application of what you are taught about their impact on performance, or "forget" as you rarely apply the theory. Also, flying mainly solo or two-up in a machine with significant excess power / performance for that weight can also lead to sloppy standards because you don't get punished for your errors. Put those together, and take a trip at MAUW without adequate planning and you can see where that trip will end ........ far short of the planned destination.


I am fairly sure that I don't agree with the "standards of instructor in the UK" complaint; but that is based on my personal experience.

Interesting debate. I'm another businessman / pilot in the danger zone of 41yo and 102hrs rotary, and probably like all the others consider myself conscientious, cautious and safety minded. I had the luxury of being able to employ my instructor (1200 hrs TT), whom I thought was excellent in terms of flight skills and airmanship, on a full-time basis to fly our company heli when required.

I think one thing that is at issue with businessmen flying is the transition from business head to pilot head. There are definitely occasions after a bruising meeting, where the mindset is not suitable for immediately taking to the skies. Our pilot almost always comes along on this type of trip, sits in the left seat and gives me the luxury of deciding how much of the workload I want.

He also treats each trip as further instruction, and as my confidence in handling the machine increases, he increases the challenges accordingly ("Practice Engine Failure - Go") etc. I know I'm really fortunate with this setup, but it is definitely giving me a focus to continue to learn.

There are, however, some PPLs who have approached me for SFH on our machine, and having flown with them, wouldn't let them loose on their own in a million years. I definitely agree that an hour every couple of months doesn't constitute currency in rotary, and for that reason alone, the really occasional recreational pilot is in my opinion always a greater risk.

FF

Flimsy - along with John R81 and others, you have shown that it is too easy to tar everyone with the same brush and make sweeping generalisations about both owners/pilots/businessmen and instructor competence.

You guys clearly have the professional approach to flying which seems to be sadly lacking from quite a few in your 'bracket'.

Not wanting to open the civ vs mil debate again but one of the great advantages we have in mil flying is the supervisory overview and strict currency/competency rules that are imposed on us by our regulators.

No doubt the spectres of cost/infringement of civil liberties/complexity etc would be raised in the event of trying to establish a similar structure for GA.

Perhaps part of the PPL course should emphasise the Darwinian nature of post-licence flying - just as with most things in life, if you don't prepare properly you will suffer the consequences. The emphasis should be on what those consequences are - injury or death - because of the very unforgiving nature of the ground/air interface.

Perhaps the CAA could commission some films/case studies/literature highlighting the potential pitfalls of poor continuity of flying coupled with low experience and make seminars to discuss these aspects mandatory for all licence holders.

Again, the mil mandate regular Flight Safety trg and Human Factors training to keep awareness high amongst the aircrew.

There is nothing like analysing other peoples f**kups to make you aware of your own potential to do the same.

ISTR there were voluntary seminars organised by members of this forum a few years ago - do they still happen?

Those are the ones - last dated 2008! This is what should be mandatory.

Perhaps some of the money we pay for licences, medicals and type ratings should be used for exactly that purpose rather than disappearing into the CAA's coffers.

Obviously the demographic for us 40ish types is a bit skewed in this thread. People who read and take part in the PPRuNe rotorheads discourse are probably more motivated than the average 40ish businessman pilot.

Alpha

Yes they are taught to do them when one HAS TO DO THEM But not all at the same time . Please tell me where you would wish to come to a high OGE hover at 70 ft down wind with an aircraft over MAUW or even close to MAUW and to cap it all apply full carb heat ??? Really !!!! anyone of my intructor's who taught that would be sacked.
Even in long lining which I do regularly, coming to a high hover at 50 to 150 ft at MAUW is acceptable because that is part of the job, but not downwind unless I want to end up in a smoking hole.
The real nub of the problem is the thought you could/should be doing this, as I said a lack of Airmanship or common sense, what was he taught or not as the case maybe !

A very interesting discussion. No comment about the "accidents".

Perhaps, as a start, all exams should to be invigilated at a CAA exam hall. Then there can be no "helpful invigilators/instructors" to overlook a lack of knowledge. A fail is a fail.

Perhaps, a more demanding test would be appropriate. Not: take off/hover taxi/turn/circuit/land etc but: here is a forest, where shall we land? kind of test. A real life decision making test. I could go on.

Anyway, the margins are small for these flight schools, I appreciate that; but the margins are also very small for the freelance flight instructors.

I say charge the students more and give them a structured training regime. Pass or fail, it's entirely up to them. Frankly, the triers will pass, and the arrogant will fail.

You don't see super cars for sale with a 50 quid margin. So, charge more! And the quality may, just maybe, improve........

It will never happen but, good evening anyway, I'm enjoying the comedy show.

:ok:

Trouble is, there are plenty of arrogant types with deep pockets who buy and crash supercars on a pretty regular basis.

Agreed crab@, and I know its sounds harsh, but I'm pleased when they do. Unfortunately they usually take innocent people with them.

Anyway, mine were only suggestions, I think the system as it is needs a complete shake up. The Syllabus is there, maybe there should be an enforced time period to let people absorb the knowledge before they can move on? Perhaps a series of progress checks?

Like I said it will never happen, but what do you think?

Don't confuse arrogance with incompetence!

Training
 

I know there's many views centred on the (un) airworthiness of the Robbo product, but having attended their safety course in 2016, I think it is a great forum for building awareness.

As suggested, it does spend a fair bit of time showing the fatal consequences of operating outside the approved limits, and helps with an understanding of the obvious deficiencies in the rotor system, along with strategies to manage those shortcomings (my words, not theirs).

For me it was money extremely well spent. I wonder whether insurers should begin to insist that PPLs insuring Robinson machines must have attended the safety course, or face challenging premiums?

Sounds eminently sensible. Neither of the incidents under discussion here was related to a flaw with the aircraft (and could have happened on any type). Both episodes stemmed from woeful ignorance in the seat-stick interface which a safety course might improve.

I think any safety course is better than no safety course and the Robinson one does have a good reputation.

Alpha - probably insurance premiums!

Cut or Paste - I'm not holding my breath waiting for any action by the authorities.

Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread! You can pass a driving test that shows you are barely competent to drive, buy a sports car, and crash it due to inexperience. Happens all the time. So what.


If you have newly obtained your helicopter licence and operate in an unsupervised environment, you likewise have a pretty good chance (relatively) of crashing. So what, that is the nature of private flying. Alternatively, we could make PPLs do a couple of thousand hours training prior to being awarded their licences. But guess what, there wouldn't be too many PPLs out there!


Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.


Edited to add that by "you" I mean a fair chunk of those participating in this thread, not just the person whose post preceded mine.

[QUOTE=HeliComparator;9646165]Regarding G-RFUN ... Wow, what a load of pomposity on this thread!



Don't try to apply professional standards to private flyers, it just makes you look stupid and arrogant.

QUOTE]

Hello HC,

as a PPL with 100hrs, I'm the last to pontificate over someone else's misfortune. It is a fact that in this accident, it was quite a lengthy string of back-to-back no-nos that led to the final impact.

I don't think it is unreasonable to question either the standard of training given, or the level to which that training was interpreted and applied.

I totally agree that a new PPL is a major risk category for the reasons you state, but I still think any new pilot has a responsibility to himself and others to minimise that risk to the greatest possible extent.

Whether or not you think I'm pompous or arrogant for saying this, I don't think the pilot in question did so when he combined so many unfavourable conditions into a single flight.

Having a bad day Helicomparator?

You have outlined extreme left and right arcs of the civilian GA heli world options - ie do nothing to change it or impose Draconian measures to do so.

No-one here is being pompous when they suggest the system is less than perfect and that there may be better ways of doing it without accepting Darwinian selection as a safety protocol or completely curtailing private flying.

Put a bit of balance into your posts - you are the one sounding stupid and arrogant when you suggest PPLH flying can't be improved and that all of those of us with licences and experience have nothing to offer.

Yes, but only because of what I read on here!


Of course one can always strive to improve things but when that comes down to "lets not let those silly young people be instructors, lets only allow us terribly experienced, competent and lets face it, awfully clever people to be instructors." that just comes across as arrogant and stupid.


PPL standards, training and competency and ATPL standards are likely to be different. Get over it!


That said, I have encountered some pretty incompetent ATPLs and some pretty competent PPLs - there are always exceptions!

alphanumeric Are you quite new to helicopters
Take the say £50 for instructor out then fuel, insurance for training, landing fees, finance, maintenance + other overheads there is not a lot left & that is if there is no unforeseen events, & there always is I have found :uhoh:
I think on going training "CPD" is a must for all of us we should all aspire to be as professional as possible.
Ongoing training can only be a good thing as Crab says.