Helicopter crashed at Perth Airport
 

Training helicopter crashed at Scotland Perth Airport this morning, injuring one person.

You can't blame the pilot; it happened to an unlucky engineer.

Helicopter accident at Perth Airport - BBC News

An engineer doing rotors running ground runs......surely not.

Is an engineer who is not a pilot allowed to to have the rotors running without a pilot in the aircraft? Hope he’s ok 👍🏻

As long as there is no intent of flight, which includes taxying

CAT.GEN.MPA.130

The photo above, and the BBC's first photo, show the aircraft on its side with no foam around it. The BBC's second photo shows the aircraft upright surrounded by foam - did they right it and then think it might catch fire, or was on fire, and get the fire people to douse it? In any case, after an accident causing injury, should it have been moved before the AAIB had a chance to look at it?

The problem with the regulation is that a rotor-engaged helicopter is capable of flight or dynamic rollover very easily when compared to a fixed wing. It's one of those EASA rules that is not safety based, but one based purely on expediency!

For me, this accident is one of those "I told you so" moments.

I've always been told that it's perfectly safe for an engineer/mechanic to ground run helicopters. What has always made me have a different opinion is that post maintenance ground runs are when mistakes might easily be made, not least because the engineering requirements might be at variance with a normal start configuration. I got caught out once in a twin when the aircraft suddenly began "padding" laterally after the first engine start, just as the rotors came up to speed. I had to lift off immediately, single engine, to prevent ground resonance, which very much surprised the ground crew standing just outside the rotor disc and resulted in an MOR being filed. I know of an almost identical incident where the aircraft was badly damaged, not because the aircraft was lifted off, but because it was put back down again "rather enthusiastically".

There are plenty of opportunities for a ground run to go wrong, the Robbo isn't any different.
From the collective creeping up, accidentally disabling hydraulics on that silly switch to getting caught out by the governor engaging (if not set to manual).
Not having a qualified pilot at the controls of an aircraft running at flight RPM seems like an accident waiting to happen.
Robbie pilots can't be in such short supply to justify this approach.
One very lucky technician, one very annoyed owner.

I note the aircraft was over 12 years old and it’s ARC wasn’t current. I suspect it was getting a rebuild or overhaul. The rules seem crazy. I pass my ppl (H) and not allowed to fly until the paperwork comes through but an engineer can sit in the pilots seat, start the helicopter and get it up to flight rpm without a pilots licence. Thank god no one was killed.

Why? What did you tell us?

In my 31 years in the business, this is the first accident I've heard of with an engineer at the controls. I've seen 2 ground runs go horribly wrong with pilots at the controls.

Ground running was discussed a couple of years ago
https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/47...chanics-2.html
and you even find rules in some country
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/117966/...token=8rns5oOS
or
http://www.nzqa.govt.nz/nqfdocs/units/doc/22888.doc

Sorry, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to say any more..... :mad:

Sky Sports... you must have missed this one then !

in July 2015 a Gazelle (details on aviation safety network) was being ground run by an engineer and became airborne, result.... pretty much destroyed.

Really? There's no mystery or secret decoder ring needed to run a helicopter. Mechanics have been ground running helicopters around the GOM for decades. Sure a few have tried to earn their wings or dinged one up but it's not rocket science. How else would you get the aircraft ready for a first-light departure to earn revenue?

Er - get a pilot in early to do it.

A helicopter is essentially flying when the rotors are running so the intent to fly is already there.

Absolutely barking, just to try and save some money.

I realise it’s impossible to imagine but some engineers actually hold a pilot’s licence. Perhaps the unfortunate person involved in this incident, did.

As for moving it before the AAIB visited - they may well have given permission for it to be moved and are more than likely not going to travel to Perth to see the helicopter anyway.

Who knows....?

PS Re the ARC bring expired. Not important for a ground run but even if the ARC had been renewed, G-INFO wouldn’t show the updated info until the following midnight when the system updates.

Possible - for sure. Likely - nope. :p

He did not hold a pilots licence. I mentioned the expired ARC and age of the helicopter to point out that I felt some major work was likely to have been getting done which may or may not had something to do with the accident not as to whether it was legal or not to do a ground run. It’s common sense that you have to be able to do a ground run if the ARC has expired 🙄🙄🙄

I hold both licences.

Err - that would mean bringing in 1 to 3 pilots on average per night during the summer months. With runs needed at various times like 11pm, 1am or 3am, sometimes on multiple aircraft or lengthy runs to complete maintenance... how would you tell the customer he loses several aircraft at noon due to pilot duty times?

Have one pilot who is your dedicated Maintenance Test Pilot, or even have more than one, or have a roster so the duties are shared out.

Hardly a difficult problem to solve but that wouldn't maximise profits - until an engineer accidentally gets airborne on a ground run and totals the aircraft - that would be expensive.

If the aircraft wasn't intended to fly, the AAIB don't get involved as it's not an "accident"

Pilots views are generally incorrect in this respect. Ground Crew have been doing ground runs in many companies for as long as I can remember. SOME companies specify pilots only to do the job, but then have to wait til a suitable pilot can be found = uneconomic (and economics is normally driven by owner/pilots). It was even practiced in the RAF for a while, though admittedly without Blades on a Chinook.
Engineers are normally trained for this purpose and are much more practiced than portrayed here. And it's not uncommon for engineers to become pilots to do this and flight checks too.

Added Bit:
I know of two engineers that conduct post-maintenance flight checks and they do it from an engineers POV, not from a pilots view. Their aircraft are/were generally accepted as in the best possible condition post checks.

Insurance will cover accidents, but not pilots wages!

That might work at your government job, but as you said it wouldn't make financial sense in the private sector. Not too many companies could afford 10-12 pilots (X2) sitting around off contract.

Would you keep them flight current on one model or all models that visit the base? Or current on one model and ground qualified on the rest? If current on all models, do you pay them at the rate of the largest aircraft qualified? Etc., etc. At current pay rates of the largest aircraft (S76) mechanics ran when I left, that would cost over $1.5M USD/yr just in salaries for those maintenance test pilots to be available at 10 bases on a 7/7 sch.

That's why 50+ years ago mechanics started running aircraft over here. As for a wrench banging one up or flying away, it happened (I recall 5 in my 30+ yrs) but no where near the rate of pilots who banged up or destroyed theirs during a ground run.

Bottom-line, when the sun rose, every aircraft was ready for revenue save the odd test flight or flight track requirement. And it still goes on today except the fleets are getting smaller and changing with the 92/139 types and double flt crews reducing the need for mechanic run ups.

You'd think an engineer would be safe ground running a fixed wing - no? Well, no. Engineer accidentally got airborne in one of these, and safely landed it.

http://www.ukmil.org.uk/DLA2/thumbnail/jdafjruatj.jpg

Differing standards perhaps, but during my time with the military we would only ever allow a current pilot to complete a rotors running ground run. It even went in the authorisation sheets!

Agreed - no problem with engine runs or anything that doesn't involve the rotors turning. A rotors turning helicopter is a flying helicopter.

Wrench1 - if your pilots are messing up ground runs then sack them.

As far as running a helicopter without blades goes, no problems for a suitably trained engineer doing that because it is not really a helicopter and hardly likely to get into ground resonance or suffer excessive blade flapping and damage droop stops or chop its own tail. Its just a collection of mechanical systems, like a complicated generator set.

On the other hand, if there's no engineer available out of hours (and most seem to work office hours in UK), why not let pilots fix their own faults? Some are quite handy with a spanner and a multimeter....

https://www.pprune.org/members/82702...ure970-r44.jpg
Pinched from the SCAA Twitter feed. Interesting to see the yellow cable that is taped to the side and appears to be there pre accident. An experienced helo pilot friend reckons it is some form of blade balancing kit....in his works it still needs some work doing!!!

Sorry but the picture I posted appears not to work....check out the SCAA twitter feed to see what I mean.

Engineers Ground Running
 

This thread could get a little hazy.

I know of 2 Engineers with PPL(H) who regularly carry out ground checks, with engine(s) running and occasionally Flight Checks.

I also know 2 professional pilots with ATPL(H) and also B1 Engineers Licences, who carry out engineering task, under the Operators Quality System..

If you are dual qualified then there is no problem - I know a couple of engineers with pilot licences too.

A non-flying qualified engineer doing ground track and balance, so trying to take the readings from the kit whilst controlling the helicopter - what could possibly go wrong??? Oh yes, that picture shows exactly that!

I have ground run an aircraft that had just been adjusted to improve the track and balance - problem was the adjustment was in the wrong direction and an 18 inch track split became very apparent as I wound the rotors up - needless to say it was a quick shutdown.

Is this you personal definition?

Not an accident
 

Try telling the owner his helicopter has not had an accident and hand it back as is then !

I always forget you're a perfect pilot who only operates in a perfect world. I guess it's only been through divine intervention that us mortals have survived the past 50 years in the industry without your superior knowledge and skill.

To close, I too have had blades go widely out of track during M/R work but instead of a "quick shutdown," I simply rolled back to idle and completed the cool down so as not to hurt the engine. But what do I know.....

Crab

Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
A rotors turning helicopter is a flying helicopter.

I’ll put you in touch with our Ops Manager and Transport Canada. You boys can/will spend hours debating that one!

No but it is what the British Mil believe (quite rightly in my opinion) which is why pilots do rotors running ground runs and not engineers.

a bit unnecessarily personal but not unusual for some on this forum.

Getting away with it for 50 years doesn't make you safe - just lucky. And any modern Risk assessment as part of a Safety Management System would tell you that.

Back in the days of KLM Helicopters engineers carried out ground runs on the S61 and also had recurrent sim training. A trained engineer is as good as any pilot on the ground, a pilot begins to earn his money once airborne.

And that's the difference - trained engineer with sim experience compared to just getting on with it with no flying training.