G-Nude AAIB
 

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_022844.hcsp[/URL]

Well - the positive thing is that this report should kick into touch the current CAA obsession for ELT to be fitted to all helicopters! If this machine had an onboard ELT, it would have sunk with it and left the Chilean Navy searching a "last known transmission" - whilst the crew would have been pushed well away from the ditching by the tide and high winds. Personal ELT (and sat phone) saved lives.
Some figures in this report just don't stack up: "440 nm crossing", "groundspeed 120 kt" : this would mean landfall in less than 4 hrs.

"Just over four hours later" (after departure)......

"Their flight plan specified an endurance of 7 hrs 30 mins."

And the big one: "The pilots would not provide details of the amount of fuel carried on board......"

Tanks for the memory.

Headset:

Although my opinion of any pilot who won't give evidence to an incident inquiry is the same as yours, I'm afraid I don't think you've made a particularly relevant point re the ELT. SAR organisations have access to almanacs, tide-tables and weather reports; it helps a search tremendously if you know where to start looking. Once you've established that start point, a creeping line ahead search in the direction of the wind/currents is going to take you toward the survivors far faster than an expanding square in the general area.

Immersion suits with open collars? About as useful as smoke detectors without a power supply... :rolleyes:

Thud "it helps a search tremendously if you know where to start looking." Agree - and therefore a personal ELT (and the satphone these two had) is the best solution. The report says they were visually located within 6 hrs of ditching & rescued within 10. The presence of an ELT on the heli would merely have confused the SAR op wouldn't it ?

I've banged on about these 2 f**kwits before but it is not somewhat suspicious that they lied about their endurance on the flight plan and would not state what their actual fuel load was.

To then end up in the water less than an hour after their theoretical endurance (according to the report a little over 3 hours) rather smacks of getting caught out and running out of fuel and blaming the cock-up on mechanical failure.

Does anyone really believe you can climb onto the skid of an Robinson in autorotation, jump off at 20 feet (entangling the inflation cord of the dinghy as you do so) and still be able to turn the aircraft away and settle it gently on the water.

Sounds like a power-on ditching when they realised they could not make landfall due to lack of fuel.

The rest is a fairy story.

It absolutely amazes me that there are people who contribute to this forum and believe that these two people are some kind of god.

If it was up to me the only thing I would let them take the controls of again would be a bicycle.

"After approximately 30 seconds and at 500 feet, the oil pressure fell to zero, the low pressure oil warning light illuminated and a couple of seconds later the engine stopped.The pilot in the right hand seat flew the helicopter in autorotation whilst the left hand seat occupant climbed out onto the skid and gathered the liferaft and emergency kit. At 20 feet above the sea he jumped into the water".

If anyone with more than two brain cells believes that then your probably a perfect candidate to go along with them on there next "adventure" and unnecessarily put the lives of rescue personnel at risk.

If either of you two have a shred of integrity or common decency between you then a public apology would be well in order, this will probably not be forthcoming and it's a shame you won't be doing prison time over this.

Jiff

Oops..

Referring to the original thread on this makes for some cringeing reading:

Especially from:
T'aint natural
Happy landing
Headsethair
and particularly

Sledgehama - thank you for that cracker!

Seems all is not what it should have been..:uhoh: :uhoh:

Takes all sorts, I suppose.

Perhaps their next callsign will be: G -T*AT (rhymes with brat)

I am seriously thinking about buying a R44 and if they are able to file a flight plan for 7,5 hrs @ 120 knts = 900nm, (even though frank only says 400nm with no reserve) that means Manchester to Venice non stop then that's a winner with me!

I just hope they were not insured by my broker in the UK and they were not part of the ones that bumped my premiums up by 20% this year.

With reference to the ELT comments, most helicopters I have flown offshore have:-
1. A Ducane underwater sonic locator, so that the helicopter can be found underwater and the 'bodies' removed.
2. A floating type ELT in the cabin to be thrown out if or when the helicopter is floating.
3. An ELT in each life raft.
4. An ELT in each crews life jacket.
Those that have done a HUET course or have had some training should know that you must only activate one ELT to prevent confused signals.

Never having had the "pleasure" of flying any Robinson type, has anyone worked out the AUW with all that fuel on board????:O

Rotorboater: "I just hope they were not insured by my broker in the UK and they were not part of the ones that bumped my premiums up by 20% this year."

Mmmm - I have a feeling that, if a claim has been filed, there'll be a dispute.

As for my previous comments back in Jan/Feb : you can only comment with the knowledge you have - which is why I was saying "wait for the report". Now - wait for the CAA response.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the aircraft was uninsured. It might have been in the original thread, but seeing as the search is disabled I can't find it.

Quick enough with the four letter words when we don't know the full facts aren't we ??

Does any of you honestly believe that anyone - let alone an experienced veteran of other long-distance trips - would set out for a four hour trip over water knowing that they had only enough fuel for three hours ???

I have flown one of the helicopters used in the previous round-the-world trips and can assure you that the supplementary fuel tank takes up all of the space where the two rear seats used to be. Quite enough to last for seven and a half hours.

I have not seen G-NUDE personally but I'm amazed that you are all so quick to slag somebody off without even considering the possibility that this machine was also fitted out with additional fuel capacity.

Read the report again carefully. It does NOT say that G-NUDE was unmodified. It does NOT say that G-NUDE only had 3 hours' endurance. The pilots DID state that the amount of fuel was sufficient for the crossing.

Next time you want to call someone a f**kwit or a TW*T you might want to get your facts straight first :mad:

Not being an R22 or R44 person, would some kind sole please give me an idea of the disposable load on one of these machines? Two pilots, all their personal/survival equipment and seven and a half hours fuel seem pretty good to me, perhaps we could use one to long line flare tip replacements in the North Sea? The oil companies could save a fortune, I'm sure they would be interested.
Also, what's it like in auto? It would seem that you have plenty of time, even from 500ft.
I've been around professional pilots for 30yrs and I can honestly say that I don't know one who would take the fifth after an incident. These two guys would gain vast amounts of credibility amongst their peers just by co-operating with the authority about the fuel situation. If there is nothing to hide, why not tell us? How about it guys?
Just a point for Grainger; the report doesn't say that the aircraft was modified in any way either, so we don't know and we shouldn't jump to conclusions until some-one (hint, hint you both know who you are) tells us. Now what was that my old Tiger Moth instructor used to say, something about 'making an ass of you and me'...must be getting old... time for another glass or two of port...

Fly safely,
Chopperman.

When all else fails.......get the calculator out. (Bear in mind I've never flown a Robbo so all figures from the report and the Robbo website) From the report, 185 ltrs gives 3 hours endurance = 1 ltr per min. Therefore, fuel req'd for 7hrs 30 mins = 450ltrs. 450 ltrs - wherever you put it - is going to weigh 720ish pounds.
Average empty R44 weighs 1450lbs, add std & Aux fuel of 290 lbs, 2 pilots wearing lifejackets, survival suits, ELT and Sat phone etc @250lbs each, and 1 dinghy at 30 lbs. Comes to 2270lbs. This leaves only 130 lbs for extra fuel to max T/off weight of 2400 lbs. Some 300 lbs short of the fuel req'd for 7hrs 30mins endurance.
(I know some R44's are rated at 2500lbs MTOW but, according to the website, have an empty weight just over 1500 lbs, still 250lbs adrift).
All of which would lead me to conclude that either a). the 7hrs 30mins endurance figure was wrong or b). the aircraft departed well over weight.
However, 290lbs + 130lbs does give an endurance of about 4hrs 20mins. Time of flight was 4hrs 11 minutes.

I could have got this completely wrong and, if I have, no doubt I will be very quickly put right by the Robbo community.

Helmet and Flak Jacket on and awaiting incoming.

Grainger: In case you weren't aware that the DOT report is based on fact, let's go over it again shall we: (bold is fact)

Fact 1: 440 Nm leg, 120kts G/S, where and what were they doing still over the sea 4 hours later? Fact is, they could not have stuck to their itinerary or they would have landed 40 miles earlier.

Fact 2: The engine stopped at 500'. They Did NOT turn into wind until 20'!!!

Fact 3: The co-pilot climbed out of an a/c in auto and jumped from the skids!!!!!!! He took with him, loose items of survival gear which subsequently snagged on the skid denying him the use of such equipment later on!!! What if the gear had gone up into the rotor? What if the co-pilot had 'snagged' on the skids and gone down with the a/c?

Fact 4: Their survival suits were not being worn properly

Fact 5: Refusal to co-operate with the investigating team


The only professional thing they did throughout this entire trip, was give frequent position reports along the leg, which undeniably saved their miserable lives.

If anyone with any ounce of professionalism and from any walk of life, read this for what it really is, they could only come to the sound conclusion that this was a cacophany of cock ups by two gung - ho, misguided, and most definately unprofessional individuals.

I saw a documentary several weeks ago about another nutter who wanted to cross the bering strait in one of his home made contraptions (ski basher with floats on). I believe "Q" was the support helo during this operation. I watched this guy throw this piddling R44 around PERMANENTLY inside the avoid curve just above freezing seas like it didn't affect him..he was a helo hero and things like that don't affect gods. Maybe that's why he grows his hair so long :=

I don't know :confused: People are getting the wrong messages sometimes. The bottom line here is that this was an adventure, the attraction of which was too strong to allow technicalities and safety to get in the way. So to hell with load sheets, insurance, correctly utilised survival equipment,
let's just go man and jack up the volume....... hee hah!!!

C'mon, these people are giving the industry a bad name, they certainly aren't doing it for aviation - it's an ego trip FULL STOP :(

And Grainger...you should know better.

Without getting into too many 'factoids' (to steal a Steve Wrightism), how long does it take to get from 500 ft to sea level with no engine?

a) 12 sec
b) 15 sec
c) 20 sec

How long does it take to reach the sea from 20 ft with no engine?

a) 0.5 sec
b) 1.0 sec
c) 1.5 sec

I think I like the power on ditching theory the best, or do I simply lack the lightning fast reactions of these two chaps?

TC: All I'm saying is don't slag people off when you don't know the whole story.

None of your listed "facts" relate to the speculation on fuel state that I was complaining about. The report does not state that they ran out of fuel.

Like I said, I don't know the exact modifications fitted to G-NUDE nor the weight-and-balance specifics neither I suspect does anyone else who's replied so far.

However, the previous around-the-world machine had a 50-gallon extender tank which at 12.5 gallons / hr would give an additional four hours and that gets us pretty close to the 7.5 hours endurance quoted.

So TC is your description of the R44 as "Piddling" based on fact or are you just showing a bit of anti-Robinson snobbery ? Hence no doubt the great glee when something goes wrong.

Or have you forgotten that another R44 made two successful round-the-world trips and G-NUDE went to the North Pole and back last summer ? How did they manage that if they were really as incompetent and unprofessional (and the R44 as "piddling" :rolleyes: ) as you claim ?

Grainger,
You’re quite right; the report doesn't state that they ran out of fuel, simply because the investigators don’t know, only the two pilots can confirm or deny that, and they have taken the fifth. Until they come up with the answers the speculation will continue; pilots love to speculate, it's in their nature. What needs to happen to restore the credibility of these two pilots amongst their peers is for them to co-operate fully with the authorities on the investigation into this particular incident.
I don't doubt for a moment that an extended tank can be fitted to a Robinson, but why won't the crew divulge the fuel state? Their attitude gives the impression that they have something to hide.
There are more reasons for an investigation other than a which-hunt, or apportionment of blame. Lessons can be learned and possible lives saved in the future.
The achievements that Robinsons have made in the past, whilst highly commendable, are of no relevance whatever to this incident.

Sorry if this is a bit disjointed but am in a hurry for a late shift.

Fly safely,
Choppeman.

TC, I think you'll find that the "nutter in the homemade contraption" trying to cross the Bering Straight was the second person on (and owner of) G-NUDE.

I still don't get the 4 hours flying later bit!

In a tradition of great British adventurer's I'd say, and certainly no more irresponsible than this admirable and self-effacing attempt to cross the Atlantic in an overloaded microlight, covered in unapproved modifications, flown by a pilot without an instrument or night rating and no rescue support, in breach of at-least two countries ANOs.

Don't we need people to push the envelope a bit - it's surely unsporting to suggest that people setting out on record breaking expeditions should follow inconvenient rules about not overloading their aircraft, carrying sufficient fuel for trip+reserves, proper rescue cover and so-on. Lets face it, that sort of stuff only applies to ninnies like the rest of us who are forced to comply with totally unnecessary safety regulations to satisfy nanny-state regulators.

Presumably this is the view of the various national regulators who have never prosecuted such individuals, which I assume is completely unrelated to any fear of being hammered in the popular press by such individuals self-publicity machines.

Or something like that.

P

I have been following this thread with interest and have a couple a question that I hope someone may help me with.

Is the "Q" referred to the same one who took part in the World Helicopter Championships in Moscow in an R22. Is it the same one whose father had a training establishment at Wellesbourne Mountford in the early '90's?

STAN

1) Yes
2) Yes

Is this going to cause you to reveal some great secret? ;)

Quentin Smith flew an R22 to Moscow and, I think, won his class in the World Championships.

Mike Smith still has the 'training establishment' at Wellesbourne airfield. It's called HeliAir. (Q runs HeliAir at Denham.)

Both schools get consistently good reports here.

Well, it all makes sense then.

I would have thought he had grown out of the ten gallon hat and hung up his spurs.

'nuff said before I get moderated.

(removed)

Not a whole lot of freedom for adventure left here or what?

Why did no one cry out loud when they made it to the northpole then? If I remember right they also landed on floating ice and some friend had to fly out fuel (also landing on the shoal...) with an airplane.....

When G-NUDE passed Panama I did not think they where nuts, just a little too confident. Getting into a chopper and do Extreme tours a little after the Private License is not the safest thing I agree, but they where well equipt on their way south!

The rear seat baggage compartments where filled with race car like foam filled fuel cells, interconnected to 2 electric pumps and tied in the fuel drain of the aux tank with a T-fitting. Absolutely professional work.

The pilots behaviour was to the book when it came to preflight and ramp safety by the way!

Why they won´t get into detail:

The R-44 as they flew it in the South Atlantic was probably equiped with some more aux-tanks and seeing their previous instalation I do not doubt that it was made in a good way.

If they are not "specific" on the amount of fuel loaded, well I guess you do not want to tell when you fly off with overweight.
Nevermind the R-44 can do it easily (THOUGH I DO NOT APPROVE OF DOING IT!!), I won´t tell you how I know....

THough I do grant their story on the ditching seems impossible. Though you might be able to get on the skids, I doubt they had time to do anything but get the autorotation done.
If they got into (dense) fog, then most likely they had no choice than to put it into the water - I do not remember if the pilot was IFR-trained, even then it is very intense to stay on the panel for long in a helicopter without autopilot, especially if you do not know where you are and/or when you get out of it (fog).

I train people regularly for tunaboats and that entails full touchdowns with floats on water. From 500 ft you have only about 15 seconds to contact - no time for the stunt they claime


Personally I do not see the point to do what they planned to do, but they have different goals.

It seems no one ever complains if alpinists get into trouble and have to be picked up by helicopter - what is the sense to climb on a rock, just asking for trouble!

But life would be just plain boring without adventure.

There is so much cover up on accidents for insurance reasons - here no one can proof anything. If they ran out of fuel, it stays with them. They may have had plenty of fuel left, but what if the pumps failed , or....., or..., you get it.

To the big calculaters on this thread:

Who says the wind did not change on the route or they got off course a bit, everyone perfect here I guess!


Give them a little credit for the spirit!

3top:D

Headset, I understand what you are saying, but in no way am I saying that this is actually to happen. It is however well known that Frank Robinson is not chuffed about this state of affairs, it's only a logical conclusion.......

I am in no way attacking the Smiths, I have met 'Q' and as a pilot his skills are very good. I do question, as do most others, the logic of undertaking such a flight. But that is the pilots own discretion. What I do not condone is not admitting if you have made a mistake. The very fact that there has been no official comment from the people involved invites speculation. Whether it be correct or not. I guess the truth will out eventually, but the damage may already have been done to reputations.

I will however delete my post as I would not like Pprune to get into any (potential) legal bother. As to my self, I would take my chance as the truth in time will show itself.......

The report does make a mockery of the investigating system. I was under the impression that the AAIB reports were there so that we could learn from others misadventures. Not much to learn from this, but then again I dont suppose there are many of us who want to fly a R44 to Antarctica. Mind you it shows how important fuel reserves and weather diversion planning is.

I'm sure the pilot with initials QS is a highly professional and capable pilot. Lets face it Heliair has been extremely successful under his leadership. It doesnt say which pilot actually contributed to the report, but it seems it was written by a professional journalist rather than a pilot.

It is a shame that we will never hear the whole story. It would be interesting to hear what really happened.

The pilot made an interesting report to some members of the Helicopter Club of Great Britain. In it he said the ditching was made under partial power. After putting out the passenger, he moved off some 15 metres before putting the aircraft in the water.

See! Little by little we get the rumours together!

Though I still doubt he can keep the machine smooth enough to have someone do walks on the skids under partial power. You´re getting your CG way out there, things have to be done very smooth and slow.
(Won´t tell you either how I know that....!)

They mentioned getting fog and trying to get around. If the autorotation-ditching-story is already "inbelievable", what part of the story can you believe to be accurate?

Wild guess is they got fog building everywhere around - it happens sometime that you have no way out. Without floats and/or rough sea you are done.

I am curious to find the real thing told with out regards to insurance, aviation authorities, etc.

3top

Crashondeck
You are obviously having a l'AARF! The AAIB clearly show what their source - i.e. a single AARF form the crew filled in. No independent investigation - no extra insight.

Bravo to AAIB for keeping a straight face while putting this report out. :ok:

Anyway, you can't blame 'em for publishing only what they have to go on. If the crew won't talk...that's it! Not much the AAIB can do about that, not unless we're proposing equiping them with pliers and a hot branding iron as part of their kit?:oh:

Still, I think we're all grown up boys and girls on here, so we can all do the fuel and weight numbers for ourselves, and read between the lines as necessary. Why all the fuss? Apart from the bit about endangering rescue crews these two were out for a bit of adventure, that's all. And even then, those self-same rescuers would be out of a job pronto if it wasn't for a bit of mis-adventure once in a while, wouldn't they?

Good luck to this pair. I wish I had the time and money to do likewise.:}

Tell you what….


I’ll stop paying my taxes which indirectly keep the SAR people in the air, I’ll carry the card which states that I’ve opted out of the “Get home Free” service, and promise faithfully not to call out those crews when I need them, who incidentally, do a sterling job, and appreciated by all.

I honestly think jealousy plays a major part of this thread. By definition of being Helicopter pilots, we hardly want an easy life now do we? Tell any one of us to sit at home and play tiddlywinks everyday and see what reply you’d get. It would drive any one of us insane. We all stretch the envelope occasionally don’t we? Well these two stretched it that bit further and got away with it. Good luck to them.

Take another look the thread regarding “Barn-storming” the bridge. Now take a good look at the outcome of the poll. Almost all participants basically said “Good on ya mate” and by the way, you can keep your licence and nice to see you’ve got away with it. No comments from the SAR crews suggesting how stupid or irresponsible it was and how there’d be required to “pick up the pieces” if it had gone tits up, and what a waste of taxpayers money, now was their? No. Why, because it was a cheeky little number, sticking two fingers up to the establishment that’s why. I wish I had the bottle to do it.

Q Smith is an excellent safety conscious pilot, with a very high degree of skill and talent, dare I say possibly far more than the majority of contributors to this thread. He is also a mature adult with responsibilities like the rest of us. Do you honestly think someone in his or her right mind would set out on this quest of this nature without planning? A pilot with that amount of experience would not embark on a 7 hour, cross water flight, with only 3 or 4 hours duration, give them some credit for Christ’s sake.

Okay, they may have caught a cold with the authorities – so what. I expect you’d riddle if put in a corner, but that doesn’t give everyone the right to jump on the bandwagon and have a go. The next time anyone of you does something not quite legal or within limits, just think on…
:ok:

Happy Landing! I am with you there, apart from me not paying any taxes that go to any usefull SAR establishment!

Talking about "professional" pilots - learning from this threat about dumb "professionals" like the german rescue helicopter driver who had to go below a 37ft bridge with out any reason being on a duty flight is not understandable. Just to counter the "professional" pilots who wanted to take the bridge pilots license.

Keep it professional where it has to be and counts.
But have some fun where it does no harm!
Enjoy your profession and live!

3top
:cool: :D :cool:

Happy Landing:
You're spot on.
But never forget, Q's game is played for high stakes. When his luck runs out, he's going to suffer.
But he'll have fun getting there.

Ah T'aint - Q also rolls the dice, as do we all !

It's refreshing to read responses like those from happy landings and 3top. It goes to show that there are still misguided people in this industry and it's up to the rest of us to maintain standards.
Flying under bridges is not in the same department as this escapade...where is the connection?

Read the report again, slowly. Absorb what the inference is regarding this duo's 'professional 'approach to their mission. Would you have gone about it the way they did? Would you refuse to contribute to the investigation on certain technical aspects? What is there to hide?

What rubbish will you come out with next HL? :8

Hey T-coupling,

I would be glad if you correct my English - it is indeed not my first language!
If you do not understand some of the stuff I write, just ask, I might be able to put it into plain English.........sometimes I am able to!!

3top
:D

Mr Coupling,

My opinion only and I'm sticking to it;)

Taking the wet stuff out of 3top is below the belt. I'd love to see your written account in whatever his 1st language might be.

Still, your wages will be in the bank at the end of the Month eh?

Or should it be more than your jobs worth :ok:

TC
You may disagree fundamentally with 3Top about this issue, but you also have something in common: you both make regular and excellent contributions to this forum.
The comment about his command of English was silly. I leave you to decide whether, on reflection, it would be better to delete it.

Heliport