Scotland Helicopter Crash

Author
Discussion

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
dxg said:
I suspect the AAIB are stuck now, what evidence they have points to pilot mistakes, but without 100% concrete evidence etc. they can't prove it so as not to get into legal battles.

(reminds me of the Colin Mcrae crash report that was held up for years over legal wrangling)

The data they have now basically points to running the 'copter below min fuel reserves, and not having the transfer pumps on, had the polit not done either of these two things, then the crash would not have happened, (you then have the other question of why did he not manage to autorotate?)

trashbat

6,005 posts

152 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
I might be missing the point, but they don't need to 'prove that the pilot was to blame' - indeed such a conclusion would be the opposite of what the AAIB aims to do. They just need to determine what happened, or more likely what probably happened, which can include a number of stated unknowns. You can still draw safety recommendations from that.

TTmonkey

20,911 posts

246 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
I suspect the AAIB are stuck now, what evidence they have points to pilot mistakes, but without 100% concrete evidence etc. they can't prove it so as not to get into legal battles.

(reminds me of the Colin Mcrae crash report that was held up for years over legal wrangling)

The data they have now basically points to running the 'copter below min fuel reserves, and not having the transfer pumps on, had the polit not done either of these two things, then the crash would not have happened, (you then have the other question of why did he not manage to autorotate?)
Was he high enough to do the auto rotate? Not enough time to do it?

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
TTmonkey said:
Was he high enough to do the auto rotate? Not enough time to do it?
If not, why was he not high enough?

If you look at the train of events, its hard to call it anything but a string of poor judgements by the pilots.

Chicken Chaser

7,744 posts

223 months

Wednesday 26th November 2014
quotequote all
Could he have just lost a bit of height whilst focused on the task? What height were they at prior to loss of engines?

WinstonWolf

72,857 posts

238 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
This guy could fly exceptionally well, a basic error seems out of place to me somehow.

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
WinstonWolf said:
This guy could fly exceptionally well, a basic error seems out of place to me somehow.
problem is it's a string of basic errors...

1) too low on fuel
2) incorrect fuel configuration
3) ignored critical fuel alarms
4) Lack of fuel emergency call on radio
5) unable to perform autorotate

this accident did not just suddenly happen, it was a chain of events that started 20+ minutes before the crash.

Look, he may well have been a Top-Gun of helicopter pilots, but that's no immunity from stuffing up (eg Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland's infamous B52 crash)

hidetheelephants

23,756 posts

192 months

Thursday 27th November 2014
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
Look, he may well have been a Top-Gun of helicopter pilots, but that's no immunity from stuffing up (eg Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland's infamous B52 crash)
Without evidence of repeated dangerous and unprofessional behaviour over several years, that's pretty unfair on the deceased helicopter pilot; Holland is on record as having habitually flown in a grossly dangerous and reckless manner for at least the 3 years prior to the crash, to the point that no aircrew would voluntarily fly in aircraft flown by him. It's possible that this is the case here, but without proof it seems unlikely.

normalbloke

7,401 posts

218 months

jbswagger

729 posts

200 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Clutha tragedy: Pilot flew on after fuel warning

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...

Scuffers

20,887 posts

273 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
hidetheelephants said:
Scuffers said:
Look, he may well have been a Top-Gun of helicopter pilots, but that's no immunity from stuffing up (eg Lt Col Arthur "Bud" Holland's infamous B52 crash)
Without evidence of repeated dangerous and unprofessional behaviour over several years, that's pretty unfair on the deceased helicopter pilot; Holland is on record as having habitually flown in a grossly dangerous and reckless manner for at least the 3 years prior to the crash, to the point that no aircrew would voluntarily fly in aircraft flown by him. It's possible that this is the case here, but without proof it seems unlikely.
OK, now reading the AIB report, want to review your conclusions?

for whatever reason, the pilot stuff up, multiple times, yes it's very sad, and yes, people died unnecessarily, basically because he failed to follow SOP.






KTF

9,788 posts

149 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Its very strange that he would acknowledge the low fuel alarm 5 times but keep on flying.

anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
it says there was fuel still in the tanks, but not how much?

i guess the pilot thought there was a malfunction as 'It said fuel transfer pumps were turned off'

Digger

14,588 posts

190 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
AIUI (from the report) there was approximately 75KG of fuel left in the main tank.

West17

192 posts

160 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Had it been some kind of catastrophic mechanical failure it may have been easier for a line to be drawn under this, although questions about maintenance would no doubt have been raised. Of course, it would not make losing a loved one any easier.

But if this was an entirely avoidable incident where the pilot simply ignored the warnings and flew till it ran out of fuel, then I imagine that is going to be a whole lot harder for folk to accept.

A terrible tragedy regardless.


hidetheelephants

23,756 posts

192 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Scuffers said:
OK, now reading the AIB report, want to review your conclusions?

for whatever reason, the pilot stuff up, multiple times, yes it's very sad, and yes, people died unnecessarily, basically because he failed to follow SOP.
Not really, the report tells a case of a pilot not acting correctly in response to multiple low fuel warnings, not responding correctly to flame-outs and not auto-rotating. It doesn't comment on whether the pilot had a record of doing any of these things in the past so I am taking their word for it that he didn't, therefore comparing him to the late Colonel Holland is unfair.

essayer

9,011 posts

193 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
I wonder if he saw the low fuel warning, checked the switches, mistakenly set the 'prime' switches (which, I understand, are next to and the same shape as the fuel transfer switches). Then continued to believe he had done the right thing and that the fuel warnings were spurious, as he had sufficient fuel remaining. Confirmation bias?

Then an autorotation from low altitude in the dark with no radalt or nightsun over a city (few safe landing places) he picked a flat roof which from that altitude may well have looked like an open car park or similar..

Speculation, but maybe to write the pilot off as reckless seems unfair to me.


anonymous-user

53 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
essayer said:
I wonder if he saw the low fuel warning, checked the switches, mistakenly set the 'prime' switches (which, I understand, are next to and the same shape as the fuel transfer switches). Then continued to believe he had done the right thing and that the fuel warnings were spurious, as he had sufficient fuel remaining. Confirmation bias?

Then an autorotation from low altitude in the dark with no radalt or nightsun over a city (few safe landing places) he picked a flat roof which from that altitude may well have looked like an open car park or similar..

Speculation, but maybe to write the pilot off as reckless seems unfair to me.
Reckless implies a deliberate action which I am sure this isn't. Looks like a sadly fatal error.


hidetheelephants

23,756 posts

192 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
I'm surprised there isn't a recommendation for transit flight to be carried out at higher altitude unless operational needs or ATC dictates otherwise; 1000' agl doesn't give you a lot of time to find your landing spot, especially at night over built-up areas.

Madness60

571 posts

183 months

Friday 23rd October 2015
quotequote all
Just as a thought for some of the non-aviators looking in at this thread. Here's a thought for you

You've been driving your car for a couple of hours and its been fine, 2 mins from home on a winters night, the Engine oil pressure light comes on and goes off. Now the manual (have to make things up here as PH drivers will obviously never read the manual) says that this means the engine may well give up and you should stop straight away and call a garage. The light then goes out and you get a bit closer to home. Light comes back on, engine still seems ok and checking your oil level (mythical gauge) it tells you that all is fine but that low pressure light keeps coming on......but its only 2 mins to home......honestly how many of us with conflicting info would always follow the manual....its only 2 mins to home...it'll be ok for 2 mins.....surely.....