Seeing as it was mentioned---for those that want to hear about my wire strike, here is a one hour presentation about it:

Wire Strike Presentation, VAST conference

First off, let's acknowledge the Pilot did not intentionally have an accident. It is possible his family members may peruse this forum. Raise your hand if you as a Pilot have never made a mistake or scared yourself...Anyone?

Cat A and Cat B profiles, please...One tail rotor, one MGB, are the bigger concerns these days with the reliability of engines. IT'O's, blah blah blah.

It seems there was no patient on board. The job of delivering the patient was completed. Was there a "Pending Call"...did the company require them to RTB? Was there a "Get-home-itis" factor, possibly by the Doctor and other crew on board?

We can all come up with the "I would've done it this way"...because ya know, us Helicopter Pilots are gods. We eat each other alive and cant walk past a mirror or pane of glass without looking at our reflection.

I believe it to be a Human Factor cause. And there aren't just 12 of the dirty dozen. There are so much more. The biggest we all have is a "No Fail" objective. King Kong doesn't have sh&t on us!

Every take-off is optional. Every Landing is Mandatory. Old and Bold. Learn from others...Gawd, im So tired of hearing that phrase. But it's okay, the self-flying Helicopters are coming!

Be kind and empathetic. You weren't in that seat. Be grateful.

they were two pilots.
.

With the kit he had, if the pilot had put in a waypoint in the direction he knew was clear and wanted to depart to, ie away from the hospital, and zoomed the map and track line right in, he could have monitored G/S and ensured it was positive, even at very slow speed, to avoid this accident, as he was climbing vertically on instruments - or vaguely visually. He’d done the hard bit - keeping the wings level. Maybe the reverse profiles are too entrenched. I’m sure more accidents happen reversing into things than from second engines stopping.

According to the pics that helicopter was not equipped with autopilot, just SAS

skadi

You can fly an instrument take off even in a completely unstabilised aircraft - it's a matter of using the technique correctly.

If he was trying to hit numbers on a PC1 departure profile in those conditions, it's not surprising he became disorientated - the AI/AH is the only place to look while you pull enough power to get you clear of the obstacles.

Rigid adherence to PC1 profiles was the primary cause of this accident - the poor airmanship was in trying it and not having the knowledge to do something else or just not take off.

Crab - methinks you have your primary and secondary around the wrong way.

Jim

I know that for sure, did my primary IR on UH-1 :)
I was referring to rotorspeed post.

skadi

PC1 bull****
 

Hello all guys pilots!

stop wtih this bull****! Pc1 or not take off profile?

One thing is crucial? Who will take off in this condition? This bull**** military IMC take off rule! Take off im this condition is no go! That is all! Somebod is PIC or Captain just by appointment and somebody is Captain by doing rigt thing!

The most importmant thing in helicopter business is decision making go or not to go!

my old instructor 30 years ago told me! Better be on ground and ask yourself why your not in the air then be in the air and ask yourself why am I in the air!

No, rules and regs mandate a PC 1 departure in the belief that an engine power loss is what will kill people and his adherence to that in the wrong conditions got him disorientated and he crashed.

Had he not been mandated to fly that profile for the sake of 'safety' he might have just climbed vertically (and quickly) until clear of obstacles and then transitioned.

His poor decision was to use the wrong departure profile for the conditions - notwithstanding that the safest profile was to shut down on the helipad.

The PC1 helipad and confined area departures I have flown have such long exposure times and have such focus on hitting the exact numbers (to stay within the RFM) that they are unsuitable for an IMC departure from a site like this.

Those that reel in shock and horror that anyone would depart IMC like this need to get out and about in the real world a bit.

The Norfolk crash, the one in the Bahamas and now this one show that modern IR training is missing some crucial elements. In all of them, people died with both engines running perfectly well in a completely serviceable aircraft.

An EC135 without 4 axis autopilot has 60 kts minimum speed in IMC. Even without PC1 requirement there is no legal way to take off if not in VMC.

On the other hand, after losing references, a pilot should initiate a (brown-/white-out) revovery, which is practically an instrument take off.

The first link provided in the ASN Wikibase entry for this accident contains video from a vehicle approaching the hospital as the EC135 P2+ collides with the building and falls to the ground.

That footage gives a further impression of the extent of fog around the area:

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/467876

There may never be an answer, but did pilots really no longer have any ground reference points or had they lost situational awareness of the hospital behind them in concentrating on their departure?

A truly horrid and unnecessary loss of life, with the published report exposing most of the factors behind it. https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib...d-aw139-g-lbal

Read the report carefully and you will see how the inaction of the pilots led to their deaths, and those of their passengers. I have long believed that the element missing from professional rotary-wing pilot training is, managing client expectations. In my experience, that is the skill that saves lives, and those who lack it, often die along with their pax.

The manufactures and the administrators are so far behind the airplane world when it comes to auto flight. The 200 tons of metal I fly now lands and comes to a complete stop on the runway all by itself. All I do is push a few buttons and monitor. The technology is well over 30 years old. The Cirrus vision jet has the Garmin auto land system. A passenger can push a big red button if the pilot becomes incapacitated and the aircraft will pick an airport and land all by itself. Even this tech is fairly old now. Considering the inherent risks of pilot error in IMC associated with helicopters, I don't really understand the heal dragging.

Age old problem....who is going to pay for it....and who is going be able to afford it?

When you have Operators still using Long Rangers and similar single engine light helicopters for EMS....hard to convince them to embrace such technology.

You have to generate the revenue to pay the bills there's the rub.

Helicopters cannot generate the revenue streams that airline operations can.

How many passengers does that 200 tons of sheet metal carry around and what kind of money does it generate per flight and how many airframes is the certification and manufacturing costs spread over as compared to the numbers of helicopters that would be available for that kind of cost sharing?

The technology already exist for helicopters - there’s seems to be an unwillingness to utilise it…. In one of my current rides, the AW139 I’d be perfectly comfortable using some of the FD modes ( HOV, TU, ALTA) to takeoff in such conditions…. However, my regulatory authorities are more worried about PC1 profiles so I just can’t/won’t take off. I’m sure there are far more capable AP modes out there than the 139 ad well!

A polite question...which relates to other comments as well.....does an autopilot system know it is in IMC Conditions?

The "minimum" airspeeds issue falls under certification issues that lagging behind the technology that itself creates a problem.....very similar the delay in FBW technology finding its way into helicopters because the FAA was having trouble keeping up with advances by the manufacturers.

I've flown the 139 and I declared the TU mode pretty much useless. IIRC, you'd pick it up in a hover, hit the TU and it would accelerate and climb to 200 feet and dump you out in heading mode. Could never really find a use for it. The VNAV function is omitted from the 139 Epic suite. That would have been far more useful to have been able to program a vertical climb path, but I'm guessing it never got certified.

It’s actually pretty capable and there are a few ways to skin the cat ….throw in TAWS for extra SA and you’ve got all the tools you need…. A thorough knowledge of associated effects of controls/trims/ mode awareness is essential though. It’s all a moot point in my current part of the world though.

Tragic accident which was totally avoidable. Hopefully some good lessons learned though.