Msg ID:
2718176 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +3/-2
|
Author:New York Bell 429 crash update
1/26/2022 12:02:56 PM
|
http://aerossurance.com/helicopters/hems-b429-nvg-iimc-loc-i/?fbclid=IwAR2Ug2M2x2qmoRgCx_uF49virBaAdtkj26gg6wXW7JsoNUkIc5r0uGIb8QY
Either this pilot does not understand the systems and their aircraft at all and has zero regard for the regulations, or the training department at this program has failed in a major way. Could be a combination of the two.
I understand these are brand new bell 429's with 4-axis autopilots and the vfr pilot knowingly flew into ifr conditions.
How does this happen? Anyone have any insight? |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718177 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +3/-1
|
Author:how this happens
1/26/2022 12:08:05 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
are you for real bro. ntsb reports are full of thousands of how this happeneds |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718178 |
Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +11/-2
|
Author:With their environment
1/26/2022 12:11:26 PM
Reply to: 2718177
|
So much wrong with this to utilizing NVG's, not checking weather, continuing to fly into the fog, setting up for an IFR approach as a vfr pilot after cancelling flight following, then decoupling the autopilot when they went inadvertent....this is text book failure and everything we train against doing. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718181 |
Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +0/-2
|
Author:he didn't
1/26/2022 12:18:19 PM
Reply to: 2718178
|
decouple the auto pilot. saying an accident is a "textbook failure" is pretty funny as it's a meaningless statement. I also enjoyed your insightful observation that we train people to avoid crashing. lol |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718184 |
He or she checked every box of what not to do (NT) +2/-1
|
Author:Shouldn’t even have a license
1/26/2022 12:25:11 PM
Reply to: 2718181
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718187 |
He or she checked every box of what not to do +0/-2
|
Author:accidents happen
1/26/2022 12:40:20 PM
Reply to: 2718184
|
let's not try to pretend this is something it's not |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718188 |
No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +2/-1
|
Author:Don’t fool yourself.
1/26/2022 12:43:59 PM
Reply to: 2718187
|
This was an intentional disregard for the regulations and the training we all receive in the prevention and recovery from IIMC And is an example of complete lack of airmanship. there is no excuse for this, especially if it is in fact a 4-axis autopilot 429 that has a go-around mode. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718191 |
No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +1/-3
|
Author:oh boy
1/26/2022 12:46:07 PM
Reply to: 2718188
|
no you're really getting dramatic lol |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718192 |
No, they don’t “just” happen. Especially in this accident. +0/-2
|
Author:I didn't read the part
1/26/2022 12:47:24 PM
Reply to: 2718191
|
where he intentionally flew into IMC bro |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718197 |
Apparently flying around with scattered clouds about +0/-0
|
Author:is IMC to this guy
1/26/2022 12:57:25 PM
Reply to: 2718192
|
And dumb dumb pilot flew into one of the clouds on the bottom of his approach. Story/drama over |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718201 |
Why don’t you check the weather at KGBQ for the time he set up for an +0/-1
|
Author:IFR “practice” approach. His words
1/26/2022 1:14:59 PM
Reply to: 2718197
|
LIFR...everywhere else was reporting CLEAR, and the pilot stated he continued to descend into the "fog" |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718202 |
KGVQ (NT) +0/-0
|
Author:Correction. Still LIFR at the time
1/26/2022 1:15:48 PM
Reply to: 2718201
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718298 |
Why don’t you check the weather at KGBQ for the time he set up for an +2/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 8:35:32 AM
Reply to: 2718201
|
'LIFR...everywhere else was reporting CLEAR, and the pilot stated he continued to descend into the "fog"'
Sometimes you can see down through the fog perfectly well if it's a shallow enough bank. You're only looking down through, say- 100 feet. Then, as you descend into the bank you're trying to see at a slant range that's, what? About 400 feet? And all you see is fog, except straight down....
No doubt continuing the descent was a mistake. Go around, abort the approach if any part of the developing situation is unsatisfactory. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718294 |
Is it really an “accident” if the pilot knowingly +0/-0
|
Author:tuse
1/27/2022 7:53:12 AM
Reply to: 2718265
|
there is nothing to indicate he flew into the fog intentionally, so that's what I'm going with. you keep saying the med crew said this and the pilot said that...but you have yet to present this bro |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718243 |
Clearly this is on that pilot. But there are always contributing factors +0/-0
|
Author:he didn't decouple
1/26/2022 5:41:47 PM
Reply to: 2718178
|
and I can't see anything wrong with cancelling ff in vfr. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718189 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-7
|
Author:say wut
1/26/2022 12:44:26 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
"I understand these are brand new bell 429's with 4-axis autopilots and the vfr pilot knowingly flew into ifr conditions"
congratulations. you can read lol |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718190 |
This doesn’t look good for this program (NT) +1/-0
|
Author:Better than the pilot reading the RFM
1/26/2022 12:45:38 PM
Reply to: 2718189
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718193 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +5/-1
|
Author:Dude said
1/26/2022 12:47:50 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
He never looks under his goggles. If that's true, he wasn't trained well. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718204 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-2
|
Author:true. crashing is not a good look
1/26/2022 1:24:33 PM
Reply to: 2718195
|
lots of programs have VFR pilots flying IFR aircraft. I was one of them. I flew a 135 for 6 months to learn the aircraft, get clearances and practice approaches. I was strongly encouraged to do this. IFR pilots don't grow on trees, you have to make everyone of them from scratch. Some do arrive trained, but they all started somewhere. This guy managed to go IIMC and it ended badly. Hardly an indictment of his training or the program. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718206 |
So wrong on your perspective +2/-1
|
Author:Practice approach in VFR-Good
1/26/2022 1:37:48 PM
Reply to: 2718204
|
Practice approach in IFR as a VFR pilot- not good.
bet you checked weather? Bet you didnt leave clear weather for LIFR to "train" as a VFR pilot. Bet you look under the goggles (how else do you legally claim an HNVGO). Bet you didn't decouple the autopilot. Bet you didn't disregard the recovery procedures. Bet if you had a go around function you would have used it. So many bet you didnt do's, or you would have been at fault for this crash just like this pilot was |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718208 |
So wrong on your perspective +0/-1
|
Author:nobody said he wasn't at fault
1/26/2022 1:45:52 PM
Reply to: 2718206
|
wuts yur problem |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718209 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +2/-1
|
Author:LOL
1/26/2022 1:48:57 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
3500 hours TT in 30 freaking years???? Hang it up buddy. You're not current on anything. That's like 9 hours a month. Sad. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718211 |
I thought they had BK’s and Agustas at this place (NT) +0/-0
|
Author:Where they get 429s
1/26/2022 1:55:08 PM
Reply to: 2718209
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718215 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1
|
Author:That’s normal flying
1/26/2022 2:25:49 PM
Reply to: 2718209
|
at many HAA bases |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718258 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0
|
Author:Yea
1/26/2022 8:36:42 PM
Reply to: 2718215
|
And my comment still stands. Sad....hell how Can you even call yourself current flying that little? |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718277 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1
|
Author:...
1/27/2022 1:15:40 AM
Reply to: 2718209
|
That would be 388 hours per year
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718319 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1
|
Author:Dumb
1/27/2022 11:16:32 AM
Reply to: 2718277
|
388X30 is 11,640 r yard.... |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718224 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1
|
Author:let me help you
1/26/2022 3:58:38 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
the pilot didn't knowingly fly into IFR conditions. I hope this helps! |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718234 |
Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +2/-1
|
Author:me (with furrowed brow and
1/26/2022 4:40:39 PM
Reply to: 2718229
|
concerned look). I can't help but notice you don't supply any such statements to support this and I have not been able to find any, either. It seems you do not know the difference between the crew reported seeing patchy fog and "knowingly" flying into IMC. If this is not the case, please show your work.
Best regards,
The JH accident investigation team |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718236 |
Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +0/-0
|
Author:interesting that
1/26/2022 4:49:21 PM
Reply to: 2718234
|
you use the word knowingly instead of the word intentionally.
from the FAA interview:
"At about 200 feet, he inadvertently entered a fog bank and lost visual reference to the runway."
your turn bro |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718244 |
Actually by his statements, the crew statements, and the weather +0/-0
|
Author:huh
1/26/2022 5:54:57 PM
Reply to: 2718236
|
it seems that the op "just asking questions" post is based mostly on something he made up. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718299 |
Pilot states I seen the fog. Pilot continues into it. +4/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 8:37:17 AM
Reply to: 2718251
|
That's where the mistake lies- continuing the approach.
Sometimes you can see down through the fog perfectly well if it's a shallow enough bank. You're only looking down through, say- 100 feet. Then, as you descend into the bank you're trying to see at a slant range that's, what? About 400 feet? And all you see is fog, except straight down....
No doubt continuing the descent was a mistake. Go around, abort the approach if any part of the developing situation is unsatisfactory. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718276 |
30 years of flying and only (NT) +2/-0
|
Author:3,000+ hours?!?!?!?!
1/27/2022 12:44:11 AM
Reply to: 2718176
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718303 |
30 years of flying and only +0/-3
|
Author:some people quit flying and
1/27/2022 9:37:19 AM
Reply to: 2718276
|
then go back to it. he had 600 in type over 5 years. what are you stupid. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718307 |
The 'average' annual flight time in HEMS is about 150 hrs annually. +0/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 10:11:44 AM
Reply to: 2718276
|
The 'average' annual flight time in HEMS is about 150 hrs annually.
It would be reasonable to assume some of those pilots are flying 100 hours a year, or less.
My last program averaged 3 twenty minute legs on each dispatch, an hour total.
If the base flies mostly intra-facility in a significant sized urban area, the flights can be medically justified by traffic and most of which would be compesated. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718285 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-1
|
Author:Yeah,
1/27/2022 6:38:05 AM
Reply to: 2718176
|
reallly have to be totally aware what your autopilot is doing and how to shed it. I rarely used 4 cue, last being power, especially in turbulence. That said the fact power plus attitude equals performance is something that has to be applied to each maneuver attempted. Forget it on a go around and you're likely to become a smoking hole, especially if IMC. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718295 |
How in the heck did the NTSB classify this as a PART 91 flight? +0/-1
|
Author:NTSB is useless to get anything right
1/27/2022 8:27:04 AM
Reply to: 2718176
|
file:///C:/Users/Baseuser/Downloads/Report_ERA22LA007_104073_1_27_2022%208_24_49%20AM.pdf
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718300 |
How in the heck did the NTSB classify this as a PART 91 flight? +0/-1
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 8:39:28 AM
Reply to: 2718295
|
You can fly under Part 91 in 135 operation, as long as your ops specs allows it and provides rules for doing so. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718301 |
NOPE, not with medical crewmembers aboard (NT) +0/-1
|
Author:(or patients). Part 135!!
1/27/2022 9:02:44 AM
Reply to: 2718300
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718302 |
NOPE, not with medical crewmembers aboard (NT) +0/-0
|
Author:here we go
1/27/2022 9:18:38 AM
Reply to: 2718301
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718305 |
Are the medical crew "flight crew"? With specific responsibilities in the +0/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 10:04:21 AM
Reply to: 2718301
|
Are the medical crew "flight crew"? With responsibilities in the ops specs? Then their absence can justify Part 91. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718308 |
No, they are medical crewmembers! Flight crewmembers are (NT) +0/-1
|
Author:Pilot, Copilot, Engineer, Navigator
1/27/2022 10:16:36 AM
Reply to: 2718305
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718320 |
"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +0/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/27/2022 11:40:37 AM
Reply to: 2718308
|
"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical crew are not Part 91 'flight crew'. I had to leave them for a Part 91 recovery for crew change, to be picked up by my Part 135 relief pilot.
A second cup of coffee does wonders for me after a short sleep, long night.
Apologies. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718326 |
"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +3/-0
|
Author:14CFR Part 1
1/27/2022 1:13:38 PM
Reply to: 2718320
|
Flightcrew member means a pilot, flight engineer, or flight navigator assigned to duty in an aircraft during flight time.
Medical personnel are never considered "flightcrew", ever. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718333 |
But the wear jackets embroidered with FlightCrew (NT) +0/-0
|
Author:and tell everyone they are FlightCrew
1/27/2022 2:41:51 PM
Reply to: 2718326
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718830 |
"No, they are medical crewmembers!" Ooops, my bad. You are correct. Medical +3/-0
|
Author:Haa pilot
1/31/2022 7:22:10 PM
Reply to: 2718326
|
FAA talks out of both sides of their mouth... the medical crew is not technically flight crew but they are considered flight crew as far as night vision goggles, not crew rest or other limitations
note with AMC medical crew had to log there NVG operations for currency back 8-10 years ago |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718311 |
Rnav approach error +4/-0
|
Author:anony
1/27/2022 10:25:56 AM
Reply to: 2718305
|
Looking at ADSB data and approach charts it appear the pilot did not even attempt to fly the approach properly either. When he was 4.8NM from the field he changed course from a direct to airport track to a more southerly track as a self vector to intercept the lateral course for RNAV 28. Aircraft blows through the final course and wags back and only finally captured the course at 1.5NM from the threshold. The approach plate has the FAF at 4.5NM from the threshold. Even then the aircraft never appears to get perfectly on course, aircraft never stable on the approach and self vector cut the approach very short.
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718338 |
Rnav approach error +1/-0
|
Author: Biggest
1/27/2022 3:31:59 PM
Reply to: 2718311
|
problem with improvising approaches is one's normal rhythm of conducting such gets messed up, things get forgotten, aircraft becomes at risk. Gotta respect the way you learn things and stick to the standards. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718354 |
Rnav approach error +3/-0
|
Author:Ifrgiy
1/27/2022 7:57:14 PM
Reply to: 2718338
|
his biggest mistake was not using the installed A/P to fly the missed or decoupling the A/P before trying to hand fly. He was fighting the A/P the whole time during his missed app. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718423 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0
|
Author:FLY BOY
1/28/2022 3:32:29 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
FLY THE AIRCRAFT...then fly the aircraft...only crashes when you stop flying under these circumstances. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718435 |
Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" (NT) +0/-0
|
Author:olderendirt
1/28/2022 3:56:11 PM
Reply to: 2718423
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718445 |
Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +1/-2
|
Author:we've all heard that a million times
1/28/2022 5:07:01 PM
Reply to: 2718435
|
I have no idea what it means. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718446 |
Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +1/-0
|
Author:You didn’t hear it even once.
1/28/2022 5:14:23 PM
Reply to: 2718445
|
If you need someone to explain it to you, you haven't been a pilot very long. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718449 |
Bob Hoover said: "Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can" +0/-1
|
Author:well biffster
1/28/2022 6:00:59 PM
Reply to: 2718446
|
I've been pilot for a while but since I haven't crashes, I don't know what it means. You sound pretty knowledgable: how about you explain it to me. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718448 |
George Carlin Said: "If black boxes survive air crashes -- why don't they (NT) +3/-0
|
Author:make the whole plane out of the stuff?"
1/28/2022 5:46:21 PM
Reply to: 2718435
|
|
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
Msg ID:
2718809 |
This doesn’t look good for this program +0/-0
|
Author:No
1/31/2022 6:21:03 PM
Reply to: 2718176
|
one cares.
Period. |
|
Reply Return-To-Index
|
|