Mid-air collision between EMS helicopter and light fixed wing in southern Germany
 

Supposedly at least four casualties. :(

Police: Small plane, helicopter crash in southern Germany

The helicopter was on a trainingflight with two pilots from the DRF-Trainingcenter at EDSB, the FW with 2POB was obviously on departure of the nearby Speyer airfield.

skadi

The operater of the helicopter, DRF Luftrettung, released a short press statement, saying that there were two persons each in both the light aircraft and the helicopter.

News media says that the airplane was on its way from Basel TO Speyer (not as mentioned earlier where it states that it departed Speyer).

Looks as if mid-airs are on the rise! 3 accidents in the last few months involving a helicopter and an airplane in Europe alone.

What's going on???

On the news they are saying now that the plane came from above breaking through the clouds 🤢

Weather was not so bad:

METAR EDFM 231120Z 20006KT 170V230 9999 OVC048 08/06 Q1027=

skadi

Breaking through the clouds, eh....

Isn't there a VFR requirement to be 500 or 1000' vertically away from a cloud? Should have given both a chance to see each other?

The helicopter was well below of the cloud at around 800ft AGL. And in uncontrolled airspace the requirement is "clear of clouds" (for both aircraft).

skadi

That's not quite true. This requirement is only true in Airspace G below 3000 ft MSL / 1000 ft AGL (whichever is higher). Above that, and in all other Airspaces, the cloud separation requirement for VFR is 1000 ft (300 m) vertically and 1500 m horizontally. This was only changed a few years ago, until then you would have been right, as the only uncontrolled Airspace in Germany is Golf.

Here's a nice overview of Airspaces in Germany.

But if the fixed-wing aircraft came out of the clouds, it would (should!) have been under IFR, and if the ceiling was 4800 ft, it would have been in Airspace Echo.

Speyer is uncontrolled and has no instrument approaches (and thus no RMZ), so if it was going to land there it would have had to transition to a visual approach soon after coming out of the clouds. Even at an unusually high descent rate of 2000 fpm it would have taken two minutes in good (10+ km) visibility to reach the helicopter's alleged altitude.

Bernd

Yes, you are right. I was focussed on the low altitude of the helicopter and he was obviously well clear of any clouds.
And one have to be cautious about the words of the eyewitnesses concerning the Piper suddenly came right out of the clouds.

skadi

I am sick of such unnecessary, tragic incidents :(

Well, only limited information available.
I donˋt wanˋt to blame anyone, but experience shows, that it is quite common ( illegal ) practise within the light fixed wing world to fly their „own IFR approaches“ operating under VMC rules....
Was scared more than once from TCAS, warning me from traffic close above, while operating in a helicopter at 800 feet or less above ground, just below cloud....
Always close to smal airfields....

But in this case the clouds were far above the helicopter and both were in contact with Speyer airfield. The Piper was informed about the helicopter but replied that he couldn't see him. Short time later they collided.

skadi

So you have more information about this accident.
Even worse, if both are in contact with Speyer and know about each other but fail to communicate about positions and heights to keep seperation :-(

I was flying myself at the time of the accident less than 30NM away from the site. There were no low clouds anywhere in the whole region. EDSB would have been our alternate therefore we listened in on their ATIS and it gave CAVOK conditions. This was certainly not a case of an aircraft "appearing suddenly out of clouds" as the eyewitness(es) stated.

I quess we all are. But I can not think of a solution which would not lead to an outcry among the lightplane/-helicopter societies because it would either mean retrofitting costly avionics or implementing even more controlled airspace.

Modern TAS isn't that expensive and given the choice of a fatal accident it's quite good value.

How about something far cheaper and less involvement of the bureaucracy and just teach good Airmanship Principles.

Heads on swivels, listening to the radio and conjuring up a mental picture of what is going on around you, checking above or below you when changing altitude doing cleaning turns if need be, and just plain old paying attention to outside the cockpit.

The Rule is "See and Be Seen! See and Avoid!

It seems to me in all 3 accidents, the Cabri in UK, the 412 in Spain & this now, that the airplane approached and hit from above and behind in all three cases. It is a almost impossible situation to see and avoid a target coming from that direction.

Someone mentioned a increase in inflight incursion or nearmiss. One has to wonder if the increase of electronic devices are part of the reason. It can hardly be due to more traffic since private flying is on the decline.

They surely do help hitting someone else on the same track more precisely...

In an ideal world maybe. But during a training flight one has to explain lots of stuff to one's student, one has to show them the position on the map, one has to show them the chart of the aerodrome and how to join the circuit. One simply can not always look outside.

Both aircraft involved in this accident were on training missions. Which means that their attention might have been drawn to other things than maintaining a perfect lookout from time to time. And we all know how difficult it can be to spot other aircraft, especially helicopters, even if one constantly looks outside.

Aesir you stated ....It seems to me in all 3 accidents, the Cabri in UK, the 412 in Spain & this now, that the airplane approached and hit from above and behind in all three cases. It is a almost impossible situation to see and avoid a target coming from that direction.


Do you have evidence to back that up in the case of the 412 in Spain ?

B.g

Well said, even with TCAS/ACAS on board, it´s sometimes hard to spot the traffic you know is around.....

A lot of fixed wing have their propellers painted with stripes so when it is running the effect is of cascading circles. A rotor assembly painted the same way would create a similar effect when viewed from above.

Very difficult to miss.

So what do you two suggest then....more avionics to look at INSIDE the cockpit?

Yes...as an instructor you are very busy BUT maintaining traffic separation in VFR/VMC conditions still requires you to look OUTSIDE.

Even with TCAS and other Traffic Advisory assistance....you still have to rely upon the MK I Eyeball.

Aircraft with limited over the nose visibility should not do straight ahead descents....as there might just be traffic under the nose....that is why clearing turns are taught (or were taught in the old days).

I, as all too many others have, have had some very close near misses while instructing or passing by/near uncontrolled airfields. Each time it was due to a breakdown in vigilance for any number of reasons.

It is a very large Sky out there until it is not.

Teaching is second priority to safe handling of the aircraft.

No I do not have evidence. I believe I read a discussion that it was a possible scenario. I understand that the accident happened at about 30´ agl where the 412 was lifting off and the Jungmeister coming in for landing.

I was merely speculating of the dangers of too much modern computer screens, expecially in single pilot operations, and how that could possibly lead to increase in inflight incursions as we are seeing lately. But I also entirely agree that flight instruction, as in the case of the German accident, requires that more attention inside the cockpit and it had this tragic outcome.

Total lack of situational awareness!
 

The last few years I have had two cases of fixed wing GA try to nail me inbound on the ILS.
Both cases of not flowing ATC instruction and common sense.
Absolute brainless.

There is some out there that does not belong.
Unfortunately the " system" ie training and checking does not stop them.

Darwin and Murphy does , I am afraid.

Heads Up , Lights On.

Rest in Piece...Brothers

Sitting in a fix wing above, or above and behind, you do not see the a/c below you, stripes or not.

I may have missed it but what type of helicopter was it and have they released the names of the Heli pilots
I have meet a few of there pilots.

The EC135 helicopter instructor was named as Jochen H., the head of the EMS helicopter unit in Weiden (full name here: http://www.otv.de/mediathek/video/gr...ttungspiloten/). The name of his trainee was not released.

The names of the two Swiss Piper pilots were not released but described as a flight instructor/former airline pilot and an ATPL student, who had almost finished his course.

Very sad news.

I don't buy some of the points made on here ref needing to look inside during teaching - is it not basic airmanship to ensure that you are clear of other aircaft before looking in or drawing your student's attention to something in the cockpit? If, as has been reported, the aeroplane crew knew that another aircraft was close, surely everything else (ie the teaching) stops until the threat has been identified and the conflict resolved?

And why would the aeroplane continue descending, given the known blind spot ahead and below, rather than climbing or turning into an area which they could see was definitely clear?

Matter of fact they did not miss.

Hot & Hi. You miss my point. Obviously if there is aircraft structure in the way you cannot see anything below you but if it is offset than it becomes visible.

I was referring to my experience doing Fighter affiliation with helicopters when I was in the military. Properly flown with the advantage of camouflage a helicopter is very difficult for a jet jockey to see. Not knowing where it is jet has to have to have a wide scan and cannot concentrate on one point where they may pick up the helicopter, similar to a look out for a civil fixed wing.

You put on one blade without any paint on it and it jumps out of the ground at you!

That is why when a pilot, fixed or rotary, looks at the ground for simple positioning then striped rotors will indicate it presence.

FED.

Painted rotor blade tops and tips has been around for a very long time and works....but only if someone is looking and is able to see them.

All the paint in the world will not help if no one is looking....or if their view is obstructed someway.

It all gets back to the Mk I eyeball and a proper lookout for other traffic.

Painted blades cost money. ????????????????????

Not saying it would prevent (any) accident but would a strobe on the rotor head be of any value, with potential to add value to this with reflective strips along the rotor blades.

Get the strobe synced with the blade rpm and you would have a pretty good visual cue.

Indeed a tragic event, but I know only too well how difficult it is
To spot traffic, even with a TCAS system displaying position and altitude information and with 3 pilots in the flight deck.

While I don't know the specifics of this event, I know helicopters can be extremely difficult to see at the best of times. It's not as easy as "just use airmanship and look out the window and you"ll see them"

As previously mentioned the aircraft still has to be operated and while a visual lookout is extremely important, it can't be done 100% of the time. Communication is a big one here and i'd be willing to bet this is a factor in this accident.

Care to explain that comment?

Commonsense tells us that is correct as evidenced by a Single Pilot aircraft....at some point you do have to look inside and take care of business....but then you look back outside.

In a Three Crew Aircraft....why can one of the two Pilots (preferably the one handling the controls or tasked with controlling the flight path) not be left free to look outside at least similar to that of being a single pilot in an aircraft?



Are you advocating it is just fine to just not look out if you have something to do that takes more than just a few seconds?

How long do you "not" look out at a time and think it is safe to do so?

I completely agree that an outside scan is 100% necessary, but I also understand that no matter how good the pilot or crew, we will have lapses in our scanning. If you believe that your crew is perfect every flight, your mistaken. Having some sort of onboard traffic advisory has its merits, but it must be used as a supplement along with the eye ball. I have traffic being pumped directly in to the cockpit of my plane, and I certainly scan that display, but I use it as a quick reference, I don't stare at it. I then use its display to correlate traffic outside, and build that mental picture
. I understand that my crew and I are fallible, and we do our best, but I show up to the game with the understanding that we may never be perfect, even though we try. Please use all available resources, technology, and old school airmanship to be as safe as possible. Report accurate position information, only change flight path after clearing, and if you know traffic exists, put lateral or vertical separation between you and the threat.

Mike