Scotland Helicopter Crash
Discussion
Madness60 said:
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.....
Never - this isn't a fifteen year old Clio. There's no laybys in the skyYou'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.....
Madness60 said:
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.....
This is an aircraft we're talking about, if things give up you can't just coast to a stop at the side of the road. 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.....
In car terms imagine you're heading for a cliff edge and your brake warning light came on, would you pull over as soon as possible, or would you cancel the warning light and hope your handbrake would stop you in time?
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.
Funny, they pretty much said the same thing on the Pprune thread about this on rotorheads.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.
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?
I'd have thought ergonomic disasters like this wouldn't be seen in any aircraft built after about 1990? Do helicopter designers not learn about human factors in helicopter design school? David Beaty will be spinning in his grave.To those of you with rotary wing experience: Under a power-off auto-rotation landing, at what point do you start applying serious amounts of collective? Had the landing point been 12-15 ft lower than it was (i.e. ground level rather than roof) would that have made much difference to vertical velocity?
Zad said:
To those of you with rotary wing experience: Under a power-off auto-rotation landing, at what point do you start applying serious amounts of collective? Had the landing point been 12-15 ft lower than it was (i.e. ground level rather than roof) would that have made much difference to vertical velocity?
The report describes the rotor as not rotating so the point at which collective is applied was moot; the lack of rotation could be attributed to collective being applied too early or even collective not being taken off at the point of flame-out to maintain rotor RPM.AAIB said:
Evidence indicated that the helicopter’s main rotor blades and Fenestron tail rotor were not rotating at the moment of impact.
Facebook said:
Evelyn Holmes Mitchell·
Usually I have nothing to ask for or to share but I'm asking all my friends for help. If anyone knows a helicopter pilot or aviation engineer that would please give his time to explain this aaib report. The veiled allegation that my brother was the cause of the clutha crash that killed another nine left many injured and more emotionally wounded is totally unacceptable. David would not only have done everything in his power to save his companions and others but had the years of flying and teaching to make sure such a thing would not happen. It would break my heart to allow them to sully his memory and make this doubt his legacy to his nephews niece and broader family. Please share for me.... It is last thing I have left to give him...I am last of my mums children...David was a wonderful pilot and man.
https://www.facebook.com/Avonexec/posts/922592394500877?fref=nfUsually I have nothing to ask for or to share but I'm asking all my friends for help. If anyone knows a helicopter pilot or aviation engineer that would please give his time to explain this aaib report. The veiled allegation that my brother was the cause of the clutha crash that killed another nine left many injured and more emotionally wounded is totally unacceptable. David would not only have done everything in his power to save his companions and others but had the years of flying and teaching to make sure such a thing would not happen. It would break my heart to allow them to sully his memory and make this doubt his legacy to his nephews niece and broader family. Please share for me.... It is last thing I have left to give him...I am last of my mums children...David was a wonderful pilot and man.
why is it if at the end of the day, it was the pilot that stuffed up, do we suddenly have everybody going on the defencive about him personally?
I am sure he was a nice man and a good pilot, with many family and friends, however, that does not change what happened.
We all have bad days, and make mistakes, the difference is that the consequences of the vast majority of these are either trivial or inconsequential, whereas his on that day were somewhat more catastrophic.
RIP all of them.
I am sure he was a nice man and a good pilot, with many family and friends, however, that does not change what happened.
We all have bad days, and make mistakes, the difference is that the consequences of the vast majority of these are either trivial or inconsequential, whereas his on that day were somewhat more catastrophic.
RIP all of them.
Scuffers said:
why is it if at the end of the day, it was the pilot that stuffed up, do we suddenly have everybody going on the defencive about him personally?
I am sure he was a nice man and a good pilot, with many family and friends, however, that does not change what happened.
We all have bad days, and make mistakes, the difference is that the consequences of the vast majority of these are either trivial or inconsequential, whereas his on that day were somewhat more catastrophic.
RIP all of them.
Its not enough to say someone made a mistake and leave it at that, you have to look at what led to the mistake and ask if you can make a change for the betterI am sure he was a nice man and a good pilot, with many family and friends, however, that does not change what happened.
We all have bad days, and make mistakes, the difference is that the consequences of the vast majority of these are either trivial or inconsequential, whereas his on that day were somewhat more catastrophic.
RIP all of them.
Kegworth was down to pilot error. Didnt stop them revising the instruments to try to prevent someone falling into the same mistake.
saaby93 said:
ts not enough to say someone made a mistake and leave it at that, you have to look at what led to the mistake and ask if you can make a change for the better
Kegworth was down to pilot error. Didnt stop them revising the instruments to try to prevent someone falling into the same mistake.
I think you miss-understand me...Kegworth was down to pilot error. Didnt stop them revising the instruments to try to prevent someone falling into the same mistake.
I have no issue what so ever with looking thoroughly at everything, AAIB are there to learn lessons to help prevent future crashes etc.
what I am tired of is the endless defence of what would appear to be the indefensible.
2fast748 said:
why has it taken 5.5 years 
The Sheriff in charge of the Fatal Accident Inquiry pulished his summaryfindings today:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
oobster said:
The Sheriff in charge of the Fatal Accident Inquiry pulished his summaryfindings today:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
The cynic (and interviews with the barman) indicate/imply that there is much more to this than pilot error and I have a feeling that this conclusion is the most cost effective solution for airbus...(it was him!)http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
johnwilliams77 said:
oobster said:
The Sheriff in charge of the Fatal Accident Inquiry pulished his summaryfindings today:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
The cynic (and interviews with the barman) indicate/imply that there is much more to this than pilot error and I have a feeling that this conclusion is the most cost effective solution for airbus...(it was him!)http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
matchmaker said:
johnwilliams77 said:
oobster said:
The Sheriff in charge of the Fatal Accident Inquiry pulished his summaryfindings today:
http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
The cynic (and interviews with the barman) indicate/imply that there is much more to this than pilot error and I have a feeling that this conclusion is the most cost effective solution for airbus...(it was him!)http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/10/2291/Cluth...
Full 173-page pdf document here: http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/search-judgments/judg...
Seems the issue with the gauges showing more fuel than was present was known about prior to the accident, and that the pilot had been made aware that the gauges can read higher than actual, but he dismissed low fuel warnings five times during the heli's last flight and didn't turn on the fuel transfer pump switches.
When the low fuel warning comes on in your car, d’you immediately divert to the nearest filling station?
(Yes, yes...I know...it isn’t a car)
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff