Sas - I don't think I am the one in the hole - you seem reluctant to move with the times as far as Flight Safety goes.

Modern Safety Management Systems (SMS) try to capture data from the 'near misses' and learn the lessons before enough near misses result in a proper accident.

If you refuse to acknowledge that this crew did something wrong and don't try to identify it, you are passing up an opportunity to avoid an accident further down the line.

If that means the crew are embarrassed or sanctioned then so be it - better that than mopping up the mess when another crew make the same mistake with added vigour and trash themselves as well as the aircraft.

SAR crews make mistakes, just like anyone else, but if there are extenuating or mitigating factors - operational pressure, technical failure etc then you can say they did the best job in the circumstances and move on.

If people make the mistake because they were lazy, negligent, arrogant, uncurrent or even poorly trained, you are obliged to take action to rectify the shortcomings by whatever means is deemed suitable.


this time...............

Calling this accident 'real value for humour' is at best schadenfreude and in no way puts you on the moral high ground or at the edge of the hole looking down.

crab: it's easier to laugh at a mistake when nobody got hurt, see the title of the thread. Light hearted is OK. Our safety center used to publish the mishap of the week messages with a wry sense of humor ingrained.


On the serious side there seem to me to be two CRM issues to address or learn from.

1. Both pilots up front having a grasp of their TW clearance and the area they were taxiing in, which I am going to guess was an unfamiliar field for them.



2. Pilot to crewman briefing on tail clearance in unfamiliar field, in terms of 'heads up' calls ... (A friend of mine once ran his tail rotor into a fence at an unfamiliar field, 80's, and our wing put out a pretty extensive 'lessons learned' file on that issue a few weeks later).

That's my takeaway from only having that video as evidence, having flown that config of helicopter, and not being privy to any other material.


Quite frankly, the tone of a few of your posts has bordered on 'up on a high horse' but that doesn't get me all wound up since I've been enjoying your contributions for some years here on Rotorheads.
I know the quality of the messenger.

Lonewolf - thank you for your comments and I thoroughly agree with your points 1 and 2:ok:

On the subject of tone, it is a problem of the written word in the hands of non-gifted writers like me, that what is written with one intention is easily interpreted in a different way by others.

It is sometimes difficult to let go from my past roles as a Squadron Training Officer and Flight Safety Officer charged with maintaining standards and professionalism on an operational unit.

If the crew involved in this accident had been one of mine, they certainly would have been listened to in order to establish why it happened but also re-briefed on areas where they might have let themselves down.
:ok:

Oh yes, your tone is soooo much better....