Deadly Stupid Stunt !
 

On monday a medical rescue helicopter crashed near Uelzen in northern Germany. It was a Boelkow Bo 105 owned and operated by the german automotive club ADAC. While the pilot and the co where rescued, one emergency physician was killed when he couldn´t get out of the helicopter sinking into a channel and drowned in the wreakage, leaving a wife and a four week old child behind.

The sadest fact about all this, was the crash was caused by the pilot flying under a little more than 5 meter (16 ft) high bridge.

For those able to read german, here is a link to a local Newspaper Report

condolences to all involved :(

What a terrible and unnecessary waste of a life.

There was about 5 metres clearance under the bridge and the aircraft was nearly 4 metres high. The pilot actually got away with going under the bridge, but a skid caught on the ice. The doctor was trapped by his clothes, and drowned.

What on earth was in the pilot's mind?

How can you protect people from stupid stunts like that? My deepest sympathy for the relatives and friends.:(

Very sad indeed! What's this pilot's experience? I am not a rotorhead, but this doesn't sound like professional behaviour.

Very sad.

There is an online German to English convertor available at

http://world.altavista.com/

Then enter the URL of the German online newspaper from the link above and it will translate the page.

Regards

David

According to the news report, pilot Jens-Olaf Strecker was moonlighting at Euroheli as a stunt pilot in violation of ADAC employment rules. So I guess this was not the first time he executed this manouver. Probably would have got away with it had he not snagged an ice flow with his skid.

German newspaper report this pilot as a former military heli-pilot, now with ADAC rescue heli department since 10 months.
Reminds me to that recent crash of a Bell UH-D1 also in northern Germany, also in use as a rescue heli, because of the (remaining alc later found) pilot made a (turning very fast) maneuvre which was reported as "exceeding the limits" of that type of heli.
Poor little baby (mother), lost its father (husband) because of a complete stupid action of someone else. . .:mad:

Sounds like manslaughter to me?

And now should anyone wonder why everyone in the community is afraid of helicopters. The worst of all, the pilot walked away, and the doc drowned. It should have been vice versa.

At the same time I apologize if my response to this tragic accident is below the beltline. I don't know what else to write. It is aggrevating and outrageous what kind of characters pilot aircrafts these days. :mad:

If everything reported is true, it's a disgrace to the helicopter community.
Unfortunately, in single pilot ops, the pilots need much more discipline than in 2 crew ops, where there is instant feedback from a fellow pilot if rules are bent. The paramedics simply are not trained and experienced pilots, and as such less likely to pick up on the development of bad habits. Perhaps this aspect should be looked at?

Absolutely crazy and never to understand.
The pilot was a former captain in an anti-tank-helicopter squadron. It was his SECOND day on the HEMS operating base Uelzen. Seems to be a little bit overtrained or needs such stunts for himself to be sure he's the most hot shot in town.
The automotive club counts on psychological tests before hiring a pilot. But you can buy such tests and you could be trained on such test by several schools. That makes no sense.
It's the third deadly helicoptercrash in HEMS business in germany within 12 months. All occured due to pilots error (drunken pilots killed in Hamburg 5 persons, 1 Copilot dead after weather mismanagement or self constructed IFR approach north of Berlin and the bridgestunt).

Although, I do generally agree absolutely with you
regarding the irresponsible behaviour of the said
pilot I do think that the incident itself is also
somehow related to the fact that none of the crew
members (paramedic & doc) seem to have attempted
to stop the pilot from doing that maneuver.
The paramedic's excuse "it wouldn't be common to
talk to the pilot in flight" is in my opinion pretty
lame. Besides, it seems to become obvious that such or
similar maneuvers have become kind of a bad habit
amongst rescue pilots-maybe to show how 'hot' they
are and what they are capable of doing with their
machines. At least that's what I've read
and heard from people in Germany reading the local
newspapers. But if rumours about such customs
should really get confirmed it's in my opinion also
clear that other crew members took part in such
maneuvers-either actively by encouraging such
action, or maybe passively by allowing them to happen.
Regardless whether they were only part of it because
of their presence or if they really asked pilots for such
a 'thrill' - those who took part in such maneuvers-for
whatever reason- are in my opinion insofar also responsible
for what finally happend.
Even as non-pilot it should be pretty simple
to prevent the pilot from performing such
maneuvers by telling him that you are going
to talk to his boss.
Cause he's risking his licence - I don't think
someone who's enjoying to fly would really
want to lose his licence.

Alouette
IF the story's accurate I can't see any professional pilot trying to defend what another professional did but your comments are the sort of thing we get in the bottom of the pile newspapers here.
"And now should anyone wonder why everyone in the community is afraid of helicopters." Everyone in the community isn't tho Hollywood hasn't helped the image and only the fools will link what one pilot did with all helicopters/pilots.
"It is aggrevating and outrageous what kind of characters pilot aircrafts these days." Yeah, we all do what this pilot did most days. :rolleyes:

sounds for a case of the rest of the crew being trained in CRM

Yeah, I agree - CRM might have been one useful thing ...
Another pilot could also have been a factor to
avoid such stupid action ...
But the mere fact itself that the pilot considered
performing such an action is in my opinion also
caused by the fact that he was trained by the
military - and there he was not only trained similar
maneuvers but also expected to perform them properly.
So, pilots who've a military background have certainly
more experience with unusual flight maneuvers than
those who are civilians.
I bet most military pilots can confirm that flying such
maneuvers (that would otherwise not be allowed)
put a certain kind of 'thrill' to the training and flying
in general...R/W itself can be addicting enough - but
such maneuvers certainly add even more adrenaline
to it ...
And as we know meanwhile he was quite successful
flying beneath the bridge ...merely climbing afterwards
caused the crash since he had skid contact with ice...
From that point of view I would personally think
he wasn't a usual dumbass trying something new -
rather he was going to show something that he's
beein trained to do and done dozens of times before ...
Sure, that does by no means justify the fact to
perform something like that in a civilian a/c with
civilians on board without permission - but it does
show why he was being optimistic to manage
a maneuver like that.
And from what I've read, other paramedics that
previously witnessed similar actions of their rescuse pilots
were simply just astonished be the enormously skilled
pilots.
So, skill and psychological maturity can be two
different things ...

Maybe a mandatory FDR would be a good option
to observe if single pilot machines keep their
cruise course/altitude.

For those of us who want to see what we're talking about
 

Just got these images by mail:


http://www.uelzen-info.de/reportagen...ll_200103a.JPG



http://www.uelzen-info.de/reportagen...l_210103ab.JPG

The automotive club ADAC is without any question one of the experienced HEMS operator in Europe, operating 35 helicopter, with more than 100 pilots. With very good working conditions, duty times and pay, the ADAC tried the whole time to be one of the best HEMS operator worldwide. Sponsored by the members of the automotive club the officials gives a lot of money to reach that target. One of the best training conditions in Europe and the highest standards in maintenance and flight operations above the laws should help. But the pilots on the remote HEMS operating bases are making their jobs self or as seen not controlled. After the accident some other crewmembers reported the same or nearly the same stunts to the public. As usual most of the pilots are former military or paramilitary officers. After 2 deadly chrashs at the beginning in 1974 the ADAC started to test the pilots by the german flight and space agency DLR.

@ standto: Be sure, all of their pilots are very expensive CRM-trained. But " it's impossible to construct a idiot proof system, idiots are to smart" !!! (not from me)

@ agl: you are right, the other crewmembers should be questioned about their role in the dramatic accident

Just out of interest, would this aircraft be written off or is it viable to repair and return to use?

I've been told that the ADAC and DRF prefer to hire former military and police force pilots. Perhaps this will make them reconsider their hiring policy?

As any european pilot knows, a HEMS pilot acting as pilot in command, needs at least 500h flight hours PIC in HEMS or 1000 h as copilot in HEMS. Thanks to JAA! Military or police flight times are of equal value. Additionally required is instrument and night experience. Most of the german non ex-military pilots lacked that experience. Therefore also in the future, most HEMS pilots will come from military or police units. As said the working conditions in HEMS are excellent and some of military or police guys cancel their official contracts with the army or police units to work in HEMS. Mostly they are not interested in other civil (aerial work) jobs.

kissmysquirrel;

"Just out of interest, would this aircraft be written off or is it viable to repair and return to use?"

I needed to check the date, and strangely it doesn't appear to be 1st april.:D :D

KMS,

Repair would be the call of the insurance company, and the economic viability vs. writing off the airframe. MBB build an exceptionally strong product, witness the pictures, so it would come down to $'s and cents (or Dm's) as to the cost of replacing drivetrain, engines, jigging and repairing fuselage, repair/replace avionics, etc. The insurance company would then decide whether to repair, or pay out the insured value. If they pay out, they (the insurance co.) then own the wreck, and are at liberty to sell to an aviation wrecker, who will then be at liberty to strip and resell items from the wreck. Responsible insurers would have suspect items permanently damaged to ensure that they cannot be sold on as serviceable items.

S76Heavy,

Are you suggesting that all ex-military pilots are likely to try this sort of thing? :mad:

To Chuck K
 

Alright. we all did stupid mistakes-admitted. But would you fly underneath a bridge? Max headroom about fifteen feet! :rolleyes:

I think it's not only the pilots who ought to attend
CRM training...I guess that's what standto was referring
to.

lol, I'd guess it's not going to be used again.
Regardless of the obviously pretty intact airframe
(compared to a normal a/c crash)
it would certainly be a risk - also for any insuring
company - it's probably like with cars that had accidents.
I could imagine that its re-usable (or recertifiable)
parts are going to be sold ...maybe you wanna
have a look on www.ebay.com =)

Yes, that's definitely true - but actually mainly because
of their training and experience - there are pretty high
requirements that are generally not that easily met
by non-military pilots.

I think you cannot generalize that - I was actually
referring to the fact that the threshold for such 'risky'
maneuvers is definitely lower if you've been trained
such stuff-but as an untrained (civilian) pilot you
are pretty unlikely to risk something you are not
experienced with - as long as it doesn't turn
out to be absolutely necessary to perform.

Actually, the ADAC would certainly also employ non-military
pilots if they have the necessary background/experience.
But particularly things like IFR-ratings with German Helicopter pilots are not that common among civilan pilots - though being
necessary to work as a rescue pilot for the ADAC.
Hours/PIC-time, IFR/night time are the limiting factors.

So, I totally agree here with tecpilot's posting.

Also, I consider John Eacott's description pretty correct -
though I question if it is indeed going to be an insurance
matter - because of the kind of accident I don't
know if any insurance policy is going to apply in that case.
But he's definitely right in saying that IF any insurance
company is going to pay for the helicopter that the wreckage
would then change the owner.

Certainly it would be naive to assume that - there are too
many factors involved, I myself was actually only referring
to the fact that they were trained such maneuvers and
as such are more experienced/- also more likely
to successfully complete something like that.
Someone who's giving thought to do that for the first time
is in my opinion rather unlikely to undergo such an
attempt without proper supervision (for example by
an experienced (military) CFI).

[QUOTE]
Alright. we all did stupid mistakes-admitted. But would you fly underneath a bridge? Max headroom about fifteen feet!
[QUOTE]

I've read it was about 5,30 m compared to the 3,97 m
of the BO 105 (inflight).
Has anybody details about that ?
Since he's crashed obviously 15 m behind the bridge
it was - despite from the fact that he crashed - an
obviously technically well done maneuver...
which certainly wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't
been trained to do such things.

Shytorque, I am NOT implying that ALL ex-military pilots would do such a thing. What I am saying, is that I did not know any better than that the ADAC and DRF preference for hiring ex-mil pilots came from the idea that they were somehow better trained for the job.

If that training includes flying underneath bridges and between trees, I say that it creates an additional risk in a single pilot environment, as there is very litle if anything to stop a pilot form performing these stunts he's so familiar with.

I daresay that I know a number of civilian trained professional helicopter pilots who could handle the job just as well, but somehow there seem to be very few that get in. I do know a few, though.

I did not have the experience requirements at hand at the time, but they were provided by one of the contributors. My question would be: where does someone get the 1000 hrs copilot HEMS if most of the A/C are single pilot? These requirements are still biased in favour of ex-mil pilots.

All in all, this individual pilot caused enormous grief for a family for no reason at all. It does not mean that all ex-mil pilots are likely to do the same, it does however mean that this individual was not picked up by the psychological tests that he had to go through to join the ADAC. So I question the effect of those tests and the entry requirements, that's all.

S-76Heavy,

My sharp intake of breath now let out again! ;)

Not all of us would attempt something beyond our capability for no good reason, because most of us grew out of that sort of thing on our first tour...

Truly sad. my condolances to those involved and affected.

While cool images of flying under bridges have crossed my mind from time to time, the following things remove the thought:

1. What could be hanging under that bridge when I pass under?
2. what could fall (or be tossed by a person or vehicle) while i pass under (the classic "kill shot through the rotor")
3. How would my bretheren feel about me after learning I had done so?

Getting caught never really entered into it.

Then I think how cool it would look to go over the bridge and traffic instead ...

Shytorque, friends again?:)

I did not mean to offend in any way with my comment. Just a shame that these things happen for no good reason at all.

Having worked in the EMS industry for many years, I believe that the most important thing in an organisation is a safety culture. For every member of the crew to be thinking safety. Every member of our crew has the right to veto any job or part thereof. It may take a little longer but there is always another way to get the job done. If there is ever any doubt about the safety of a mission, I just think about my children waiting for me at home and I,m out of there.

Under Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.005(d), HEMS Crewmembers should receive training in 'Crew Coordination' and in most of the operators that I fly for, that means CRM.

Whats to prevent a crewie from administering a Five of Clubs to pilot who is doing something incredibly clever? Most courts recognize the concept of self defence.....in the protection of life and limb when confronted with a deadly assault.

I can just see the transcript of the CVR.....

PLT:"Hey Ya'll! Watch This! I am gonna fly under this wee bridgie thing...."

Cockpit: Wallop! (sounds of blunt object striking flesh)

Observer: " Really , dear chap....why is the aircraft wobbling so....can you not see the stars ?"

I would think that the lack of dual controls would be one reason not to bash the pilot's head in when he's about to do something incredibly stupid..:ouch:

There should be an atmosphere of constructive critisism and good CRM where any of the crew members on board can veto any action. But also, there should be harsh penalties for these sorts of stunts, so they are not worth the (carreer) risk.

low bridge
 

Hi,

Are we probably being a little harsh on a man who has yet to be found guilty? As a back seat rescue helo crewman I have flown with both ex-militrary and civilian drivers. I have yet to see a driver who hasn't wanted to show, at least once, how 'good' he is. I believe egos are essential provided they don't exceed ability, and would be very unhappy getting in the 'back' with a man/woman who didn't display a certain amount of confidence.

What I do expect of a driver though, is the ability to listen, to act on CRM, not just to talk about it during training. The company I work for is very proactive in this area, and if I ever thought a pilot was being reckless he would know about it immediately.

Whilst not excusing the driver in this accident, perhaps we should be looking at the history of a company whose crew (doctors and paramedics are part of the crew on helos I fly in) conducted such a 'stunt', and question their training in regard to CRM?

I disagree. It doesn't come down to crm or anything else. You hold the stick you take responsibility. The driver in question made 2 bad mistakes.

1. He did something stupid

2. He got caught.

End of story!

I'd like to add no 3: He got a crewmember killed.

Yes, we are harsh, but that is because there was no excuse whatsoever for him to get a skid caught on the ice or an obstacle in the river, resulting in one fatality, 2 injured and loss of the aircraft. They simply should not have been there.

We're not talking about a rescue attempt against all odds, as with the 737 that crashed into a bridge and fell into the river. We're talking about a gross stupidity that cost a man his life.

Manslaughter.................

I find it fascinating that this thread does not contain the defending comments that were so prevalent on the B412 V photographer thread.

I see no difference.

"There are no new accidents"

low bridge
 

"...It doesn't come down to CRM?... He did this?...He did that?"

Surely when CRM is practiced by pilots, crewmen and medical staff, and is encouraged and supported by check and training, chief pilots and management, a 'crew' will never find themselves in a position where a pilot will attempt such a stunt?

I've no doubt this pilot will be found responsible, but what and who allowed him to believe he could get away with it?

The only difference I can see Helmetfire is that the 412 guy killed a bystander....and not a fellow crewmember. I fully agree with your observation....wonder where the defenders of the other guy are now.....or have the converted taken up the torch?