Was going to a pheasant shoot, including a father & son:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931902.stm

Pheasant shoot? hardly likely!

The season does not begin until 1st October and most shoots will wait a few more weeks after that before starting.

BBC!

There is no shooting at this time of year ...Aug 12th is the first shooting to come into season. Used to see it parked at Leeds on my way in to pick up FIBS. Very sad indeed.

AOC List
 

I am led to believe that although the aircraft may be listed on an AOC, it will not appear as the MTOW is too low.

As in the following example taken from AOC Register:

"Aircraft below MTOW 1361 kg: Robinson R44"

Jimball
Who said it happened at night? T/O 1900, official night wasn't until 2130ish local

I apologise if anybody drew any inference from my opening statement that suggested I stated weather was the single cause of this tragedy.


I simply shared information that I knew to be factual as I had planned a trip up there myself for about the same time as the flight and decided against it even though my trip was to be by road not air. The weather around that area is notoriously unpredictable and actual conditions are frequently worse than forecast, especially in terms of cloud base,visibility and levels of precipitation.Earlier in my career I've turned back on more than one occasion or diverted to route along the Cumbrian coast where the cloud base and vis' can be much improved and more suited to VFR.


The information I posted was just that- Factual Information NOT PROBABLE CAUSE. Factual information based on local knowledge and local experience. I am very familiar with the area as I travel there often, and only too well aware of the 'freakish' nature of weather in The Lakes' and anyone who easily discounts factors such as weather conditions and terrain at and around an accident site is mistaken. Why is so much of a Pilot's training,albeit Private, Commercial or Airline Transport, Rotary or Fixed Wing comprised of Meteorlogy Studies and Altimetry?


Posters will note that I never wrote anything about the technical record of the aircraft concerned because I'm neither Rotary qualified nor familiar with the type but I am very familiar with the local terrain and local weather and quite frankly I resent having to justify my comments on here when they concerned the stating of fact NOT supposition and with no intention of inference in the apportioning of blame or cause.

Every time we get a thread relating to an accident on this forum we end up with the same old procedure; someone posts with a speculative comment (some are well-informed - some aren't) and then someone else feels obliged to defend the honour of the people involved, then we end up with playground bickering.

Eventually we all come to the same conclusion - that accidents leading to the loss of life are very sad and that no matter what we think, the AAIB will investigate thoroughly and come up with a report from which we can at least draw informed conclusions.

This is after all an open forum which is as close to a virtual crewroom as we are going to get - why shouldn't people speculate on the cause of an accident? Weather, pilot error or mechanical failure (or combinations of these) are the big 3 killers - why not discuss them in an adult fashion so that we may all learn from the mistakes or misfortunes of others.

Just because one person thinks a pilot may have made an error doesn't make it so and doesn't mean that others have to take offence by proxy.

Largely agree Crab, though I'm sure you'd agree you can put weather into the pilot error category, albeit it major sub-category.

There is major difference between stating what the cause of an accident is (which is clearly irresponsible ahead of the AAIB report) and commenting on probable significant risk factors. And after every accident someone always pipes up here saying that no-one should speculate and that we should wait until the AAIB report. And when that does come out, a couple of years or so later, actually very little comment tends to be made on this forum.

There is always a cause to every accident, and much as pilots might not like to face the fact that we sometimes make critical mistakes, nor I'm sure do aircraft manufacturers and maintenance organisations. How do think Frank Robinson feels every time one his aircraft crashes with fatal results? Extremely sorry I'm sure, but also hoping it wasn't caused by a failure on his company's part no doubt. But it's always going to be someone's fault ultimately.

And let's face it we all know weather is a major killer and that the chances are, given the reports, it will turn out to be a critical factor in this accident. So it seems to me for all of us to have another reminder to treat it with more respect is no bad thing. And you never know, doing just that may save more lives in the intervening period before the AAIB report does actually come out, regardless of the ultimate cause.

But it is extremely tragic, for sure.

The four men killed have now been named.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...ia/6932769.stm


GS

Further

On local news in Cumbria, crash thought to have been at 19:35, initial impact point within sight of M6. Report (OK media!) sugesting hit a post wire fence & flipped over. Also saying "Eyewitness reports suggest helicopter could have been having mechanical problems"

It was the a/c mentioned earlier in thread.

Don't shout just relaying from the news report.

There but for the grace of God go I. Live and learn, take sustenance from the sacrifice of others and let their lives be not in vain. Honour them by remembering the mistakes made and when you encounter similar circumstances, remember them. Add their experience to yours and so their memory will live on. It's the greatest honour you can give and the best thing is.........you profit too.

I know that area very well and have negotiated it many times over the last 33 years. I have a very vivid picture in my mind right now borne of my personal experience and that of imagination. I can [as others have alluded] postulate probable circumstance but would never dare to do so not at this time.

We all have been close to catastrophe at one point or another and more times than we might care to admit, as a consequence of our inadequacies. Please let us remember our own failings and with deference to camaraderie felt by all rotary wing addicts, desist from publicly making assertions especially when they are based upon conjecture.

Whilst I agree that there are lessons to learn from all incidents and that we all should take note, there is no definitive information yet, just supposition.

RIP

Yes, but take the supposition away and , in a case like this, there is nothing left. This is , as many have pointed out,is a site for discussion about relevant topics. If this is not relevant i dont know what is:confused: weather related ( possibly) accidents seem to be the one area that helicopters are not getting safer in . We have had 2 in quick succession so there is something to be learnt from some of the more experienced on this forum. I do sometimes wonder if it may be safer for singles to go ifr rather than claw around at 200ft ( this is no reference to either of these ). The question is , why not ? If you made ifr flying more accessable then less people would be grovelling amongst the hill and wires. Fixed wing i would guess have a better record re weather ? maybe due to the fact that they can go ifr. Just a thought but no doubt i shall get shouted at by somebody with a lot of stripes on their shoulders. Somebody tell me why can singles NOT fly ifr when the military have been doing it for years and with no autopilot.

Nigel,

Flying IFR in a single engine helicopter is no big deal, however, it cannot be used as a substitute for poor weather flying if the terrain over which you fly is poking up into the cloud.

At the back of every SEH pilot's mind is where to go when the engine stops. If the ground is in the cloud then your options are already exhausted, you have nowhere to go. If, however, you made sure that you had some cloud/ground clearance and some visibility then IFR can make life less stressful. At the end of the day it is a tricky decision with only one engine and bad weather.

Single engine aeroplanes face exactly the same problem. They are, however, less likely to launch in marginal weather and, of course, their VFR limits are different.

I guess you need to look at the probability of flying into something when grovelling vfr as against the probability of the engine failing....which in a modern turbine is virtually never !!! How many accidents have there been in this country during an ifr flight ? I think you will find that there have been very very few . Maybe more training and a cheaper way of retro fitting autopilot onto,at least turbine helicopters,and more development of gps with terrain etc could make a change for the better. I know that i would feel happier at msa in cloud if it were legal. After all , i think we all know quite a few very high hour pilots who do regularly choose, rightly or wrongly, to go this route rather than trust their old eyesight!!

I must agree with you nigel - I used to fly the Alton Towers LongRanger, which subsequently became G-RASS, which had a full IFR fit, except for two engines and two batteries. I always thought it would have been a lot safer to fly through Birmingham zone at 3000 feet under radar than to battle with the tower lines on the M1, although there was a point obviously where it would have been not prudent to go anyway. However, when it was a go decision for VFR, but still gropy, it was awfully tempting, especially as my military procedural and fixed wing IRs were current......

Given that Air Hanson did the maintenance, and that if the engine quit while VFR over the city I would have been in just as much doo-doo, I thought it was a fair risk assessment.

Phil

Nigel,

The latest amendment to ICAO Annex 6 (revision 12) contains a Standard for singles flying in IMC.

It is not as simple as retrofitting an autopilot, it has to meet compliance with Appendix B to Part 27 and the additional equipment Standard for flight in IMC.

As Hihover has indicated, it is not simple to replace VFR operations with IFR - it requires the appropriate certification, equipment, qualification, experience and infrastructure.

Whether this (economically) buys sufficient additional capability when operating to other than airfields is questionable. Even in the coming era of GNSS Point-in-Space procedures, the infrastructure requirement is way beyond that required for VFR flight.

That is why you will continue to see sophisticated SPIFR twins flying VFR (for HEMS, police etc.).

Jim

IFR is fine if you are going somewhere where there are IAPs or somewhere to let down. This flight was going from private site to private site and I guess would have always been attempted VFR. I agree that it may be an option to change to IFR enroute, punch up and change the destination. But then you have the problem of maintaining terrain clearance whilst IMC below MSA. Single pilot. Single Engine. No stabilisation. The workload would be enough for a regular flyer, probably too much for an infrequent one, even if they did have an IR. But you are always going to have people who are attempting to go places, but have not got around to doing an IR. The best course of action is to impress on pilots during initial and continuation training that when encountering unforecast rubbish weather you always have the option of landing in a field.

This is situation where I think most of us think "there by the grace of God...."

RIP. Thoughts with family and friends.

It is not as simple as retrofitting an autopilot, it has to meet compliance with Appendix B to Part 27 and the additional equipment Standard for flight in IMC.
As Hihover has indicated, it is not simple to replace VFR operations with IFR - it requires the appropriate certification, equipment, qualification, experience and infrastructure.
JimL That is my point...there is maybe too much red tape to allow this.
Droopystop. Why would you need to fly below msa ? I agree that some pilots will not have the currency to do the flight and the current status quo will remain unchanged ...but there are a lot of pilots out there , cpl and ppl who could get say an imc rating and are current but fly vfr machines...why not make a practical way for them to fly in imc legally . I know from a lot of experience that there are many times when you are flying from point A which is fine vfr , say 1000ft cloud base but you have a band of weather say 20nm wide with the cloud on the deck, but your landing site is also clear with 1000ft.....surely in anyones book it is safer to go up for those 20nm rather than grovelling???? Fixed wing pilots do it the whole time , in singles ....i do not understand why helicopters cannot do the same . It CANNOT be worse than what is happening now surely ???
I have spoken now to a good number of pilots who all seem to agree that the system of forcing people to stay vfr come what may , is not the way forward . The statistics, i would say prove it. There should IMHO be 3 choices when confronted by a band of low cloud ( in a single) 1) turn around
2) put down or 3) IF you know that the weather is vfr within a few miles (which you can check) punch up , fly ifr for 10 min and carry on your way, staying well clear of masts,power lines and hills ....subject to having an imc rating as per fixed wing ,standby AI etc
Ready to be shot down............

Nigel,

I don't think anyone would shoot at you for offering a suggestion. My problem with it is that, no matter how infrequent, engines do still fail (did you not see the spectacular filming of one last week), and it is not only an engine failure that might require an immediate descent.

I could not justify entering cloud in a single engine aircraft if the ground is also in there - IR or no IR, aeroplane or helicopter, doesn't matter.

Nigel, how many of the singles have an icing clearance at all, let alone anti-icing on the aircraft. It doesn't take much to get to airframe icing conditions even in Summer in UK, especially IFR above high ground like mountains and piston engine icing can occur up to Plus 30 deg C.

The other problem I have with your idea is that you will get people 'popping' up into cloud with no radar service, no TCAS and possibly no IFF - especially dangerous over relatively unpopulated areas with poor primary radar cover.

If you are going to fly IFR then it should always be done properly and planned as such.

Nigel,

Options 1 and 2 exist already. And a third option also already exists - 'cancel the trip'

If people are happy to push those existing options too far (sometimes without event other times tragically) I for one would be unhappy flying IMC amongst singles lacking the same levels of equipment. (TCAS, Wx radar, SAS etc etc etc)

I've seen singles flying VMC on top for protracted distances and know of those that will fly IMC through cloud, many of whom have never held an IR. Your Option 3 won't help those individuals gain any more common sense or respect for aviation. In fact it will probably convince them they are even 'greater' pilots. :ugh:

It's unlikely that we will see single engine IFR in the UK in the near future. I stand to be corrected, but I am only aware of one helicopter (the Bristow Jetranger) that is cleared for this, which I believe can only be operated IFR when conditions are such that in the event of an engine failure, wx conditions are such that a visual recovery is possible.
But even if we do allow single engine IFR, this will not prevent CFIT accidents. The problem is cost. Obtaining an IR is expensive, prohibitively so for most pilots, and to be confident you need to remain current. The equipment requirement is also going to prevent the use of most small piston helicopters. It isn't simply a case of a few hours instrument appreciation and a change to the rules, as it would be foolhardy in the extreme to start a trip VFR and then change to IFR as and when conditions demand. How many pilots flying VFR are aware of their MOCA/MORA should they wish to climb? And knowing that the cloud base is 1000' at your destination does not necessarily allow you to remain above MSA until visual.
You will not find me going IMC in a Robinsin R44, legal or not; and I have a current IR. Forget having only one engine, that's the least thing to worry about.:=

All perfectly reasonable answers....however i guess tcas could be made affordable in the near future and i hear there is already a very cheap latest tech autopilot already tries and tested ....but not certified due to cost.
Lastly, can you not fly ifr outside controlled airspace in an N reg on a faa ir?
Maybe there is no answer to this problem , that is why it has been the No1 killer for so many years. Maybe you could have a system where you are allowed to fly only up to say 20 -30 miles in cloud and then only with some sort of permission ? I guess it will stay as it is ...those that have the equipment and ability pop up and do it quietly and the rest take their chances or land. But you must admit it IS frustrating when you come across a line of low cloud , you KNOW you can fly at msa without ice problems and you KNOW the sun is shining 10 miles further on !!!!:{

I've flown thousands of hours IFR, and have never flown an A/C with TCAS! But agreed, there are solutions that will never be used due to the certification requirements. However, I still believe that a trip conducted IFR with the option to go VFR is still safer than going VFR with an option of limited IFR. If you can fly safely for 20-30 miles IFR, then you will be safer to remain IFR than to be required to descend into the clag again.
There are many ways of making a flight a little bit safer, but none to beat a good decision as to whether to set off in the first place. I've been lucky in the past that my poor decisions haven't cost me more than a few sleepless nights.

Nigel, the only answer would be to make GA flying so overly restrictive that no one would be able to get airborne without fully briefing a supervisor or similar - a bit like the Military in many respects.

This clearly won't happen so it is up to education in flying clubs and from the CAA to ensure pilots are aware of the risks involved in flying in poor weather.

I know a lot of education goes on at the moment but the CFITs are still happening because the urge to reach the desired destination clouds (pun not intended) the judgement of many pilots and they selectively ignore the bits of the met forecast that don't suit their decisions. All the courses in the world won't stop you making a crap decision especially when you are under pressure from pax/friends to go.

Sadly the old lessons keep being relearned the hard way.

I am the holder of a ME/IR and fly my twin C401 as much as possible on airways, often in cloud, for long periods safe in the knowledge that air traffic are responsible for separation, and that the aircraft has pitot de-icing, de-icing boots, and is compliant with the avionics necessary for the cruise and an ILS at the other end.
I also fly an R44 and it is frustrating to have to abandon trips when bad weather is ahead. I flew last Saturday from north of Welshpool to an intended landing at eskdale in the lakes, the morning after this incident. I abandoned the flight at Blackpool, quite rightly, because the weather ahead was completely unacceptable- very por vis( 2000 meters) and cloud down to 200 ft. This was not unexpected as the weather in that area had been poor all morning and it was there quite clearly on the metars and Tafs.
I would not relish punching up into cloud, as I would in the 401, because besides the R44 not being authorised for IFR, it can be extremely uncomfortable and turbulant flying in say, cumulus cloud which are unstable with large upcurrents. Sometimes you think it is only for a short time but once in cloud you can be stuck there for long periods due to high ground and cloud can form very quickly ahead. Not a nice position to be in.
I know it is dissapointing when on a planned trip to have to abandon it but someone (you) has to be disciplined and make a positive decision.
Better to be down here wishing you were up there than up there wishing you were down here.

G-ROAR,

I am totally in agreement with you and congratulate your decision-making last weekend.

I fly IFR in my deiced Mooney Ovation as well as VFR in my R44. The 44 is just beyond the capabilities of most pilots in cloud - I avoid flying in cloud in the chopper at all costs but just like you would have no problem in my right fixed wing. Single-engined IMC does not bother me (in the right aircraft).

Basically the chopper is far less intrinsically stable and I have found it very hard to hold on a heading on the odd foolish occasion when I have been within cloud. Those foolish occasions just do not happen to me now - I am older and far wiser than once I was!:E

No autopilot = no IFR for me F/W or helo, the workload and opportunity for disorientation is just way to great.

Fly safely,

SB

So how would you feel about ifr in a squirrel with autopilot ??

I think there should be some inclusion of "flying in poor weather" in the JAA Heli PPL syllabus.

Education !
 

This is my first entry into the foray of PPRUNE and reviewing this particular forum I feel that from the initial event the comments are moving along. I extend my sincere condolences to those family and friends who suffer through this tragic loss.

To my point - As a 44 pilot and a mature recent graduate of the "Holy of Holys'" RISK MANAGEMENT Iwould offer aftermentioned for consideration.

The United Kingdom IMHO is NOT and never will be a country with such a climate that the flying a rotory can be exercised wherever and whenever one wishes. True there is a need to experience during training the actions to be taken should adverse weather be encountered on a journey but is there enough emphasis placed on the importance of understanding the changable weather conditions throughout this country?

With increased flying time experience is gained and complacency grows. This is an observation on my part and every time I do an A I have to remind myself to complete the check to limit the risk.

I love to fly helicopters but with all my heart I believe that in the UK flying Heelios is a wonderful event that has to be experienced only on days that declare all the 9's from A to B and back! I refer my comments to the 44 and 22'ss as I dont have knowledge of the available technology fitted to other machines.

Cliches in this instance abound - but if I may submit just one that I believe may have saved me on one occasion it would be :

" The least experienced press on, while the more experienced turn back to meet the most experienced that didn't take off in the first place".

IFR in a squirrel
 

Disregarding the requirement to have two engines, the differences between an IFR machine and a VFR machine -which could also be a twin squirrel - are vast. Actually, the days when you can go IFR overland in the UK are limited due to icing and performance, not to mention diversion fuel requirements etc. I would have no problem going IFR/IMC in an IFR squirrel, but flights would still be subject to strict weather criteria. When the weather is marginal, you often find that the only helicopters flying are the VFR ones!
Are there any helicopters in the UK with a full icing clearance? I don't know of any.
I think that the problem stems from the way helicopter flying is sold. There are countless magazine and newspaper articles informing people that using a helicopter is three times faster than driving, will cost less than a car per mile, and can land and take off anywhere. The reality is somewhat different, but the flying school won't tell you that. By the time the newly qualified pilot finds this out, they've commited themselves to a great deal of expense.

Is icing really an issue for at least 6 months of the year ? I know i am repeating myself:\but how did the military fair flying ifr in their gazelles over the years ??

manfromuncle;

I wish that they would stop any form of bad weather training in the PPL/H syllabus. The current teaching of a 180 degree turn is a recipe for an unbalanced, tightening turn with poor height control. Anything which leads an inexperienced pilot to think he can fly himself out of trouble is to my mind a bad thing. far better to stand on the apron, point up and say "Don't go into the white fluffy things without all the kit, a huge amount of extra training and a lot of experience." I've scared myself more times than I care to think of in grot weather. I've got an IR and nearly 10,000 rotary hours and still manage to scare myself usually in very marginal conditions when the aircraft hasn't got all the kit in the cockpit.

VH

The same way the Beaver guys flew! They didn't have anti-icing either and there were very few times we didn't go!

phil

There is a whole pile of wisdom contained in these past few posts, very interesting responses and I'm pleased to see that there seems to be a concensus to keep things as they are.

Nigel, the military IFR capability in the Gazelle/Scout was/is just that - a capability. It was not something used in anger on a daily basis but the pilots were well trained and always current, therefore, if IFR was required and the weather was suitable, it could be done. But be under no misapprehension, to maintain that capability takes quite a bit of effort and the whole issue of instrument flying has to be taken very seriously and closely supervised by a proven chain of command. I do not believe this is where we ought to be going with single engine helicopters in the commercial/private world.

What I mean by "poor weather training" is NOT flight into IMC then a 180 turn. I mean recognising when the weather turns crap en-route and finding an alternate, or finding a decent field to stick it in (you'd be surprised the number of students who pick terrible landing spots when simulating chip lights etc), or avoiding high ground, talking to whoever to get some help - that kind of thing.

Nigelh,

I agree that more accessible and complete IMC training would be appropriate, but you would only stop CFIT accidents in poor weather if was a compulsory part of the PPL. Even then I doubt the average ppl could or would even want to keep their IMC skills current. The same would apply to a low time CPL trying to break into the industry.

I can see where you are coming from with the getting through a band of weather scenario. I'm sure it could work in low land England where there are plenty of sources for accurate weather. But in upland England, Wales and Scotland, those sources are few and far between. Additionally weather tends to be more localised, so if you used the IMC option, you might have a lower chance of getting into your private site than you perhaps would have done staying VFR.

The IMC below MSA point I was trying to make earlier relates to trying to get up a valley where the bottom is clear of cloud and the ridge clamped. Hence MSA being a 1000' or more above you. Going IMC is clearly not an option, which is the point I was trying make.

Nigel,

There is a misuse of the term CFIT in accidents which occur when the pilot is (supposed to be) flying VFR. Interestingly if you were to study the accident records you would find that most of the VFR accidents classified as CFIT are in fact loss of control.

They usually occur when a pilot continues to fly in deteriorating conditions: be it at night - when the light sources are diminishing and there is no horizon; or during the day when the visibility is decreasing. As the visual cues decrease, the pilot has to use more of his mental processes accessing visual cues and less on flying, until reaching a point where loss of control occurs. At that point, coming back into the cockpit and trying to fly out on instruments is rarely possible (even for those with instrument skills).

The answers to this are: (1) provision of helicopters with better handling qualities; and (2) persuading pilots not to exceed their personal limits.

(1) above is exactly what occurs when a helicopter is certificated under Appendix B of Part 27/29 (for fixed wing these are not even Appendices but part of normal certification). It is rare that certification can be obtained without the fitting of stability augmentation.

Punching up into IMC (can you punch up into IFR without some prior planning) is not an option that should be encouraged. There is a world of difference between operating under VFR and IFR. If a pilot has reached a point where mental processing saturation has or is about to occur, they are definitely not mentally prepared for flight on instruments or, worse still, working out how to get the helicopter back down (even if the helicopter is equipped for flight in IMC).

One of the elements that was added to the HEMS (and the PAOM) requirements in the late 90s was periodic training on instruments, and a requirement for establishing "procedures to be followed in case of inadvertent entry into cloud". This because the visibility/cloud limits for those activities are lower than for passenger transfer.

What you might regard as 'red tape' others might consider to be appropriate measures to provide a safe flying regime. If you find some time, read the qualifying Appendix and guidance in Annex 6 Part III for flying IMC in PC3 - it will give some insight into the thinking of those who had to provide guidance for legitimising the activity.

Only the larger helicopters (AS332, EC225, S92) have icing protection at this time (the S76, EC155 and AW139 are sure to follow). Where aircraft are permitted to fly with cold blades into limited icing conditions (AS332 and S61), there are a strict compliance rules; because of these rules, they are unlikely to be used for other than offshore operations.

Jim

Interesting points, JimL


"(2) persuading pilots not to exceed their personal limits"

I think, rather than an appreciation of instrument flying, emphasis should be placed on the above, although I can see the thinking behind the "instrument appreciation". The trouble is, too many think it's the same as an instrument rating.

Phil

I agree regarding the perceived wisdom of the 180 turn - it can lull the pilot into thinking it is a magic bullet saviour - so as long as he is prepared to do a 180 he can push on that bit further.

A few years ago some guys set off from Swansea in a light FW headed NE through the Brecons and encountered deteriorating weather en-route - they pushed a bit too far and crashed. We hover taxied up the hill in cloud, following the 121.5 beacon and eventually on the top of the hill saw 3 chaps standing by the edge of a small wood. We landed and sent the winchman to chat and it turned out to be the trio that we were looking for, all alive and unhurt but clearly a bit shaken. The pilot had gone too far up a valley, tried a 180, entered cloud and lost control (just like JimL says Un-CFIT). Fortunately he stalled the aircraft when it was only 20 or 30' above trees and it flopped in and parked itself, suspended above the ground, at a 45 degrees nose down attitude so they were all able to jump out.

VVV lucky guys who learned the hard way (almost the hardest way) about weather aborts and pushing on.
Now the difficult bit is how do you get that message across to all the rest of the pilots out there?

As Hihover said, the unstabilised Gazelle was capable of IMC flight (no navaids to do full IFR) but it took a lot of training to keep the skill levels up - no one is going to pay to do that much training just for the odd occasion when it might be needed. Concentrate the training on weather appreciation and good pre flight planning.