Heli down in Cumbria.
Another fascinating discussion, albeit with a tragic start.
Dato:
And that is what happens in the early stages of your license. The complacency grows very quickly. The reason being your mindset : "I've laboured to get this license - it was a tough course - at times I didn't think I'd get it. That's all behind me now."
So wrong. It's actually all still to come. No flying course can prepare you for the myriad of scenarios you will face out there. No flying course can cope with all the different mindsets of students.
The answer is that all new pilots should spend a lot of flying time with experienced pilots. All new pilots should look for a crap day in the forecast (not hard) and book their best instructor. I am not saying we should teach people how to fly through cloud in a VFR machine. But we should teach that there are very real limits - and that will assist in dampening the complacency.
Maybe if a few instructors introduced some Check A "tricks" we could sort some of this mental problem without even going flying.
The society we have created has meant that complacency is now a big problem. The Health & Safety approach to life means that we all think we're safe if we just follow the signs. We all think we're safe if we buy the airbags. We go into a dangerous mindset "The sign says 30 - I'll be safe at 30 then."
Feel it. Keep flying it. Take your bloody eyes off the GPS and look out the window.
Dato:
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.
So wrong. It's actually all still to come. No flying course can prepare you for the myriad of scenarios you will face out there. No flying course can cope with all the different mindsets of students.
The answer is that all new pilots should spend a lot of flying time with experienced pilots. All new pilots should look for a crap day in the forecast (not hard) and book their best instructor. I am not saying we should teach people how to fly through cloud in a VFR machine. But we should teach that there are very real limits - and that will assist in dampening the complacency.
Maybe if a few instructors introduced some Check A "tricks" we could sort some of this mental problem without even going flying.
The society we have created has meant that complacency is now a big problem. The Health & Safety approach to life means that we all think we're safe if we just follow the signs. We all think we're safe if we buy the airbags. We go into a dangerous mindset "The sign says 30 - I'll be safe at 30 then."
Feel it. Keep flying it. Take your bloody eyes off the GPS and look out the window.
Pilots Attitude
all very good points raised on this thread.
There is another point I think worth mentioning -pilots attitude ( although, thankfully, not all)
As a busy Examiner and instructor I come across a large selection of students and PPL (H) holders, on a large variety of types .
one thing worries me greatly- some of these guys WILL JUST NOT BLOODY LISTEN!!!!!
I come into contact with a lot of guys with 50, 80, 150 hours TT and regardless of my many, many attempts to relate to/discuss accidents, safety training, advanced training, continued flight into deteriorating weather conditions, pre flight planning, etc
some of these guys STILL take horendious! chances and think they know it BLOODY ALL!!
whats the answer??
sorry for the rant!
There is another point I think worth mentioning -pilots attitude ( although, thankfully, not all)
As a busy Examiner and instructor I come across a large selection of students and PPL (H) holders, on a large variety of types .
one thing worries me greatly- some of these guys WILL JUST NOT BLOODY LISTEN!!!!!
I come into contact with a lot of guys with 50, 80, 150 hours TT and regardless of my many, many attempts to relate to/discuss accidents, safety training, advanced training, continued flight into deteriorating weather conditions, pre flight planning, etc
some of these guys STILL take horendious! chances and think they know it BLOODY ALL!!
whats the answer??
sorry for the rant!
This comment is not intended to make any judgement on the cause of the subject accident.
However a generic comment [prompted by comments on this this thread] on accidents from one who has spent a lifetime in aviation............all pilots [particularly those who will remain in the GA sector] should be compelled [not sure how!] to read and inwardly digest accident and incident reports both during their initial training and during their subsequent aviation pursuits.
Learning from the mistakes of others is of paramount importance, if only to ensure that 'those others' did not suffer in vain. The sad part about so many aircraft accidents is that they are carbon copies of countless countless previous accidents. Very very sad.
I repeat, that this comment is not intended to make any judgement on the cause of the subject accident.
H49
However a generic comment [prompted by comments on this this thread] on accidents from one who has spent a lifetime in aviation............all pilots [particularly those who will remain in the GA sector] should be compelled [not sure how!] to read and inwardly digest accident and incident reports both during their initial training and during their subsequent aviation pursuits.
Learning from the mistakes of others is of paramount importance, if only to ensure that 'those others' did not suffer in vain. The sad part about so many aircraft accidents is that they are carbon copies of countless countless previous accidents. Very very sad.
I repeat, that this comment is not intended to make any judgement on the cause of the subject accident.
H49
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: algarve
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
saftey publications like gasil are very good at informing crews of aircaft but infortunately the are sent only to the registerd owner of a aircraft not the crews of them [ unless they want to pay] it also misses out all the foregn registered aircraft in brittain
its a shame the gasil is not a free publication sent to any aircrew who wants it
its a shame the gasil is not a free publication sent to any aircrew who wants it
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 189
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gasil is free on the web
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=sercat&id=7
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...pe=sercat&id=7
TOT I could well have been one of them !
At 100 hrs or so you can hovver beautifully, fly sideways, backwards, do great big flashy torque turns....pretty much everything your instructor can do ...whey hey !!!!! It is at about this stage that i became an instructor (FAA of course) and very quickly realized that a) handling the aircraft and being able to do aerobatics etc is NOT what safe flying is about ..in fact physical flying is probably only 10-20% of what makes a safe flight ...the rest is good decisions gained from experience , some may be personal and scary and some may be your last ever flight, but most will be handed down from the crusty old farts ( some of whom are on this site 
) offered up to those WHO WISH TO LISTEN...
When i instructed i realized i wasnt the only barely competent pilot with a vastly inflated idea of my own flying prowess.....MOST of my students started off all meek and wanting to learn and then in the space of a few hours developed into know alls. ( maybe its something about heli pilots in general !) Anyway the point is...there is no point in expecting people to look at the weather and say " ooh dear its not cavok 9999 all the way ...we had better stay at home and miss the party with all the booze, girls etc"
You will look at the weather and get the impression that , other than a little bit of weather around x it should be ok and then you will set off. That is how i do it i must admit !!! living in yorkshire, if you are not prepared to fly in bad weather you will fly 10 hrs a year. What would be helpful would be to get access to a better more detailed forecast and from that information plan the safest route. I have sometimes pushed all the way up to yorkshire in crap up the west ...when the east has been better...partly due to completely forgetting how to read a wxchart. SO how about better wx education and free route planning advice from pro forecaster to help keep us out of trouble.?? ( and solid state autopilot that will do 180 at push of button )
At 100 hrs or so you can hovver beautifully, fly sideways, backwards, do great big flashy torque turns....pretty much everything your instructor can do ...whey hey !!!!! It is at about this stage that i became an instructor (FAA of course) and very quickly realized that a) handling the aircraft and being able to do aerobatics etc is NOT what safe flying is about ..in fact physical flying is probably only 10-20% of what makes a safe flight ...the rest is good decisions gained from experience , some may be personal and scary and some may be your last ever flight, but most will be handed down from the crusty old farts ( some of whom are on this site ) offered up to those WHO WISH TO LISTEN...When i instructed i realized i wasnt the only barely competent pilot with a vastly inflated idea of my own flying prowess.....MOST of my students started off all meek and wanting to learn and then in the space of a few hours developed into know alls. ( maybe its something about heli pilots in general !) Anyway the point is...there is no point in expecting people to look at the weather and say " ooh dear its not cavok 9999 all the way ...we had better stay at home and miss the party with all the booze, girls etc"
You will look at the weather and get the impression that , other than a little bit of weather around x it should be ok and then you will set off. That is how i do it i must admit !!! living in yorkshire, if you are not prepared to fly in bad weather you will fly 10 hrs a year. What would be helpful would be to get access to a better more detailed forecast and from that information plan the safest route. I have sometimes pushed all the way up to yorkshire in crap up the west ...when the east has been better...partly due to completely forgetting how to read a wxchart. SO how about better wx education and free route planning advice from pro forecaster to help keep us out of trouble.?? ( and solid state autopilot that will do 180 at push of button )
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I got my IR ticket some years ago, an American friend congratulated me on becoming a REAL pilot.
"Of course", he said, "now that you're a REAL pilot, you can get into REAL trouble, REAL fast!"
With a properly equipped aircraft, the IR is a valuable addition to the skills required to keep in the air. It is not, however, the panacea it is often thought to be as a solution to all kinds of weather difficulties and is, as noted already, a perishable skill that needs to be kept sharp.
Without it, however, there is absolutely no point considering anything other than VMC and adhering to sound decision-making.
Not to be holier-than-thou, of course, I can remember some of my earlier days when that advice wasn't listened to either. There but for the grace of God.........
Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than to be flying and wishing you were on the ground.
"Of course", he said, "now that you're a REAL pilot, you can get into REAL trouble, REAL fast!"
With a properly equipped aircraft, the IR is a valuable addition to the skills required to keep in the air. It is not, however, the panacea it is often thought to be as a solution to all kinds of weather difficulties and is, as noted already, a perishable skill that needs to be kept sharp.
Without it, however, there is absolutely no point considering anything other than VMC and adhering to sound decision-making.
Not to be holier-than-thou, of course, I can remember some of my earlier days when that advice wasn't listened to either. There but for the grace of God.........
Better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than to be flying and wishing you were on the ground.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,166
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
TOT - I hear you! The problem is that many students/owners own their own companies and up till they come across a helicopter, everything they touch has turned to gold, and it's hard for them to accept this with humility. Even then, their minds are far too often on the next business meeting than what they are doing in the air.
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: South West
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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"
Last edited by theavionicsbloke; 9th Aug 2007 at 23:11. Reason: Typo & Quote Box Missed
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,634
Received 513 Likes
on
273 Posts
The most difficult part of flying helicopters is knowing when to say no.
So you think that a high proportion of what we can call cfit , for want of a better name, comes from owners not with their mind on the job ? I am afraid i disagree. ( Although i accept their is a lot of truth in that statement )
I keep coming back to the weather , or to be more accurate our knowledge of the weather. I can fly to my house perfectly safely , i believe, if the cloud is 200 +ft off the deck . ( This is the hills to the south of me) If i telephone and get first hand report that there is that gap between ground and cloud i go....if i am told there is no gap i do not go. Obviously in this case i know the area but the more i think about this the more i think that accurate weather is the key, especially in the hills . Dont forget you can still have good vis below the low cloud. Being able to get inflight updates of local weather is also a bonus and one good reason to get a mobile phone working in your cockpit so you can speak to the landing site to check the actual. Have you ever been waiting at a site that is totally socked in , wishing you could contact the pilot who is enroute ???
I keep coming back to the weather , or to be more accurate our knowledge of the weather. I can fly to my house perfectly safely , i believe, if the cloud is 200 +ft off the deck . ( This is the hills to the south of me) If i telephone and get first hand report that there is that gap between ground and cloud i go....if i am told there is no gap i do not go. Obviously in this case i know the area but the more i think about this the more i think that accurate weather is the key, especially in the hills . Dont forget you can still have good vis below the low cloud. Being able to get inflight updates of local weather is also a bonus and one good reason to get a mobile phone working in your cockpit so you can speak to the landing site to check the actual. Have you ever been waiting at a site that is totally socked in , wishing you could contact the pilot who is enroute ???
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C'mon Nigel
"I can fly to my house perfectly safely , i believe, if the cloud is 200 +ft off the deck ."
This is exactly where the problem lies - with cloud at 200 feet, and all you want to do is to go home - flying a helicopter there should be out of the question. Sorry Nigel, it sounds absurd to me. I'm not saying it can't be done, of course it can, but it is absurd.
tam
This is exactly where the problem lies - with cloud at 200 feet, and all you want to do is to go home - flying a helicopter there should be out of the question. Sorry Nigel, it sounds absurd to me. I'm not saying it can't be done, of course it can, but it is absurd.
tam
Nigel,
I think you have misunderstood the point; it is not a question of 'mind-on-the-job', more a mismatch between what has to be done and what can be done.
VFR flying is undertaken by utilising visual cues to keep the helicopter straight and level; when the visual cue environment declines (because of lack of light and light sources at night, or lack of visibility by day) it takes more processing power to assess the remaining visual cues.
As the proportion of processing biases towards assessing the (diminishing) cues, there is less-and-less available for flying (an unstable platform); this will eventually lead to loss of control.
There are other issues also concerned with reduced visibility; the visual cues can only be taken from the available cues within the helicopters Field of View (FOV), as visibility declines and the visual horizon moves closer (and therefore lower), it moves slowly, but inexorably, out of the helicopter's FOV. This is one of the reasons why a pilot descends - not because of cloud base.
There is an extremely good research paper about this issue which is about to be published by the CAA (don't know what the delay is).
...now I am in the middle of this period of high activity (=mess) and the telephone rings...
Jim
I think you have misunderstood the point; it is not a question of 'mind-on-the-job', more a mismatch between what has to be done and what can be done.
VFR flying is undertaken by utilising visual cues to keep the helicopter straight and level; when the visual cue environment declines (because of lack of light and light sources at night, or lack of visibility by day) it takes more processing power to assess the remaining visual cues.
As the proportion of processing biases towards assessing the (diminishing) cues, there is less-and-less available for flying (an unstable platform); this will eventually lead to loss of control.
There are other issues also concerned with reduced visibility; the visual cues can only be taken from the available cues within the helicopters Field of View (FOV), as visibility declines and the visual horizon moves closer (and therefore lower), it moves slowly, but inexorably, out of the helicopter's FOV. This is one of the reasons why a pilot descends - not because of cloud base.
There is an extremely good research paper about this issue which is about to be published by the CAA (don't know what the delay is).
...now I am in the middle of this period of high activity (=mess) and the telephone rings...
Jim
I put that statement in really to make a point ....i agree that heading into unknown territory and unknown weather with 200ft is absurd.......but i bet you , if you were flying from a to b and there was a clear band of air under the cloud then you would take it ......flying low over a hill is not in itself dangerous or even illegal ....the danger is flying into worse weather that you have no knowledge of IMHO. I have flown up in hills for many years ( far less than many on this forum admittedly) and have never felt a worry about being low inall the 9999,s. I think visibility is a bigger issue and rightly or wrongly i would prefer to be low in clear air than higher and half in it. Everybody has their own point at which they call it a day and good quality info as to actual weather ,trend etc helps make the correct decision. I think to say that flying at 200ft over open hill is absurd misses the point and is actually incorrect .
JimL Would very much like to see that paper . The bit about going lower due to reduced vis is an interesting point . I think their is a difference between flying inlow vis and flying below low cloud and i know which i prefer.
( i know about cables etc but most of the recent accidents have been into the ground which indicates loss of control whilst IN cloud NOT under it) In order to gain any real benefit from this i think we need to put aside the idea that low flying is dangerous per se . It is not and i dont think it has been a factor in any recent accidents ?
JimL Would very much like to see that paper . The bit about going lower due to reduced vis is an interesting point . I think their is a difference between flying inlow vis and flying below low cloud and i know which i prefer.
( i know about cables etc but most of the recent accidents have been into the ground which indicates loss of control whilst IN cloud NOT under it) In order to gain any real benefit from this i think we need to put aside the idea that low flying is dangerous per se . It is not and i dont think it has been a factor in any recent accidents ?
Last edited by nigelh; 10th Aug 2007 at 13:23.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Florida/Sandbox/UK
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel
I may have misunderstood your meaning, "200 feet off the deck" says to me a coudbase of 200 feet with the hills rising into it and gaps where the hills are lower than the cloudbase. I think what you mean is 200 feet clearance above the hilltops which is quite different.
I think Shy Torque summed it up very well in his post above. Just say no in bad weather.
I think Shy Torque summed it up very well in his post above. Just say no in bad weather.
Helen49
Out of order!
NigelH has been flying for many years and nothing he has said should give you any basis for your comment. He's merely expressing an opinion, and offering his thoughts to what is clearly a thought provoking thread.
I've not been flying as long as NigelH in calendar terms, but have the benefit of several thousand hours flying for the queen at tax payers expense. I also have the benefit of having flown with Nigel on several occasions and nothing I've ever seen would give me cause for concern.
I'll stick my neck on the block and agree 100% with Nigel's view that flying low with good visibility with clear separation from cloud is far safer than flying at 500ft in the bottom of the scud in crappy vis. Flying below 500ft is not illegal (in the UK); neither it is unsafe as some seem to intimate, provided the visibility is good and the pilot suitably trained.
I'd far rather pilots understand that 500ft is not a 'hard deck', but there for the protection of the public, as and when they or their buildings/vehicles are around. If they are not around, as is very much the case in Nigel's home patch, the 500ft Rule can be a bit of an irrelavence.
NigelH - I'll fly in the back of the Squirrel with you at the controls anytime becuase I know you've got the experience and the forethought to consider the weather implications before they arise.
John Jackson
Out of order!
NigelH has been flying for many years and nothing he has said should give you any basis for your comment. He's merely expressing an opinion, and offering his thoughts to what is clearly a thought provoking thread.
I've not been flying as long as NigelH in calendar terms, but have the benefit of several thousand hours flying for the queen at tax payers expense. I also have the benefit of having flown with Nigel on several occasions and nothing I've ever seen would give me cause for concern.
I'll stick my neck on the block and agree 100% with Nigel's view that flying low with good visibility with clear separation from cloud is far safer than flying at 500ft in the bottom of the scud in crappy vis. Flying below 500ft is not illegal (in the UK); neither it is unsafe as some seem to intimate, provided the visibility is good and the pilot suitably trained.
I'd far rather pilots understand that 500ft is not a 'hard deck', but there for the protection of the public, as and when they or their buildings/vehicles are around. If they are not around, as is very much the case in Nigel's home patch, the 500ft Rule can be a bit of an irrelavence.
NigelH - I'll fly in the back of the Squirrel with you at the controls anytime becuase I know you've got the experience and the forethought to consider the weather implications before they arise.
John Jackson
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Nigel's point about visability vs low cloud is valid. The problem is that you rarely know what the weather is going to do, especially in the hills. Moreover, given the versitility of helicopters, there will always be missions where you will not know whether the weather is going to allow you to get to your destination VFR.
Nigel's local knowledge allows him to decide if he can get over the last hill before home. True, flying below a low (300' say) cloud base in 9999s is bound to be easier than if the cloud base is say 700' with 3000m vis. But local knowledge is just that. We all have it. But what I'm happy to do around my home base, doesn't mean to say I can safely fly in the same conditions somewhere new.
I would also be very careful assuming that flying low over a ridge line is "not in itself dangerous". There be dragons.
Nigel's local knowledge allows him to decide if he can get over the last hill before home. True, flying below a low (300' say) cloud base in 9999s is bound to be easier than if the cloud base is say 700' with 3000m vis. But local knowledge is just that. We all have it. But what I'm happy to do around my home base, doesn't mean to say I can safely fly in the same conditions somewhere new.
I would also be very careful assuming that flying low over a ridge line is "not in itself dangerous". There be dragons.