Heli down in Cumbria.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: london
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was going to a pheasant shoot, including a father & son:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931902.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6931902.stm
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.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: York, via Melbourne
Age: 49
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
As in the following example taken from AOC Register:
"Aircraft below MTOW 1361 kg: Robinson R44"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Manchester.UK
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by Pontious; 6th Aug 2007 at 10:00.
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.
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.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: tenerife for a week or so.
Age: 24
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by west lakes; 6th Aug 2007 at 18:02. Reason: missed some bits
Join Date: May 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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!!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,166
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
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
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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............
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............
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.