R44 Down in NORWAY 2 DEAD
 

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=221950

CFIT?

In an unstabilised small single piston engine helicopter without autopilot and proper IFR equipment?´
I rather doubt it. LoC is much more likely with such a platform in conditions otherwise conducive to CFIT.

From information available (pictures in the various articles) this looks very much like a CFIT....

Nubian and HelOps

I think Henra is suggesting that it's UnCFIT
normally called LoC IMC

AnFI,

So does CFIT mean it has to be in a stabilised machine??

I know the difference, thanks.... that was not the point.

No.
It always was possible to be in control in an unstabalised machine in IMC.

Final report on the accident
 

This report was published June.
Report on air accident ... 17 February 2019 involving a Robinson R44 II, LN-ORH

As everything was filmed with the pilot's GoPro from inside the cockpit, the investigators, unusual perhaps for these types of accidents, have a pretty clear picture as to what happened.
It appears the pilot did not unfortunately.

The summary is chilling:

“The video shows that shortly after departure, the helicopter flew into an area with low clouds and poor visibility. Eventually the commander turned, but the visual references disappeared completely and the helicopter came out of control. Five minutes after departure, the helicopter crashed into a steep mountain side and the two on board perished immediately.

The commander was inexperienced. He had flown a total of 77 hours, including 60 hours at a helicopter pilot training center in the United States. The commander was aware that the flying conditions were poor.”

The photos in the report were even more telling. Such very low contrast conditions.

Sadly, it highlights the problem with doing all your training in good weather and then setting out on your own in deteriorating conditions. Wires, mountains and snow plus reducing visibility - a pretty lethal mix..

That the pilot put himself in that situation with so little experience is just dismal. That man needed a big fat CRM course with lots of focus on the myriad of poor decisions that have led to many many fatal accidents in R44s in very similar circumstances. But private pilots are not required to do CRM courses and often don‘t understand that in an SP SE environment you can find yourself in some very high workload and dangerous situations very quickly with precious few resources at your disposal. And if you are low hours, pretty much none.

TT, I think this is more indicative of the inflated ego of some lucky “leaders of industry” than of the helicopter type.

That is certainly true. There is an identifiable element amongst PPL(H)s who are not inclined to set themselves limits, or have them set for them. But the school/trainer’s job is to persuade them that if they want to be competent and enjoy heli flying, and live, they need a particular approach to flying that may involve new ways of problem solving. It should also be said that there are professional pilots too, whose attitude is not really optimal for safety, but mostly they are contained in environments which control their “personal tendencies“.

Further reinforced by the fact that technically the aircraft was not airworthy as it had undergone no maintenance since purchase (not a factor but symptomatic of attitude)

In the organ grinder that is the training system, a PPL is taught how to fly. They are not always taught how not to fly.
They will be told about about legal minimas in one breath and how many more options than a fixed wing you have in another.
You can always just land, apparently.

With the ink still wet on a license, mucking about in mountains or questionable weather should not even be a consideration.
Cheap aircraft and egos are an ideal recipe for leaving your mark on the countryside.

(Emphasis mine) So very, very true for almost any US-based private pilot training. Just get 'em past the checkride and all that. Paved runway to paved runway in beautiful weather. The rare confined landing to unchallenging locations. Etc., etc.

The instruction I received during my first private rating was somewhat atypical and I was lucky for it because I didn't know what I didn't know and sure didn't plan it that way. Instead of going to a regular flight school, I had found an airplane (loved that old 150G!) and an independent instructor who was a long time pilot and retired engineer, not a 200 hour, newly-minted CFI. He had me flying in all kinds of intentionally challenging situations: lowering ceilings, rain, winds, moonless nights, and mixed mountainous terrain into all of that. I thought that was how everyone learned until I started my helicopter add-on. For instance, when it was time for the first night dual cross-country I planned what I thought was a relatively unchallenging flight to an easy, well-lighted airport in a rural area. The young instructor was horrified. "We can't fly there", he exclaimed! It turned out he was terrified of, and had no experience in, flying over rural terrain at night. We wound up flying to the big city which might as well have been flying in the daytime. Note--this is not meant to start a discussion of how all rural night flight should be IFR in twins ;) This truly would have been an easy flight with plenty of horizon reference and I had done it specifically, and many like it, many times in the old 150. It was not launching into inky blackness. But the young instructor sure thought it was because he had no experience in those conditions. I do have to respect his decision, though, and it was the right one given his lack of experience.

Another factor is economic. In airplanes I flew VFR in the rain routinely. The first time helicopter training was cancelled because of rain the answer I got was "Because blade paint is expensive." As an owner I now find this answer to be pretty legit :} But it's still an issue.

If you make a request of the school I went to for specific training the chief pilot is always happy to accommodate. Snow. White-outs. Wires. Low ceilings. Whatever. But he's well north of 10K hours. The rank and file instructors are not authorized. Nevertheless I suspect these opportunities are still atypical, which is too bad. They ought to be "typical".

Rotary wing operations beg so much potential complexity that the rotary wing commercial rating is probably more commensurate with the fixed wing private rating than a rotary wing private rating. A rotary wing private certificate is truly just a learner's permit (they all are, but you know what I mean, I hope).