Scotland Helicopter Crash
Discussion
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?)
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.
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?(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?)
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)
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.Clutha tragedy: Pilot flew on after fuel warning
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west...
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.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.
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.
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.
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.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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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.....
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.....
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff