Helicopter accident reports 3 months

[Bristol]

I was reading the latest USA / Canada helicopter accident report circular (3 month report) today and read every one of them. It seemed to me that the majority of the accidents involving a training flight were due to autorotations. Are accidents during traing for autorotations really that common? Sheeesh...

[Hawkdriver]

That only says that the instructor was not proficient in auto instruction and supervision if happening in a training environment.

 

It will boil down to tough realistic training being taken out of the picture.

[Gomer Pylot]

How many fixed-wing training accidents happen during landing practice? Hint: a lot.

 

Combine inexperienced instructors and new students, and you get accidents. The aircraft type doesn't make a lot of difference. The solution, using experienced instructors, isn't economically viable, because new students are more interested in cheap than good, and historically won't pay the price long-time instructors demand and deserve.

[jehh]

Frank Robinson has done a study that shows more deaths due to autorotation practice, than from all other causes over the past 5 years in the R-22.

 

His opinion, stop practicing autorotations, it will save more lives than it takes.

 

The FAA disagreed with him, funny that...

 

The above heard from the horse's mouth at the Robinson Factory Safety Course May of last year.

[Hawkdriver]

Still sounds like a training problem to me.

 

Not to start the old who trains better pilots arguement, but only bringing up a point. The Army literally does what I would estimate hundreds of Autos a day alone in the course of training. Thousands a week and each student will probably of done several hundred in the course of Primary alone. The accident rate is very low in all aspects of training, but even much lower with autos. The last accident even close was and engine failure during simulated engine failure at cruise and they auto'ed to the ground. 1 fatality for that one.

 

I have seen the same scenerio where they were IMC and auto'ed to the ground safe and flew the aircraft the next week.

 

My only point I guess is we incorrectly identify risks and eliminate the wrong element of training. I see the same thing happening with other tasks we train on where there is potential for an accident to happen and we remove the task from our ATM or make it a "DEMO" item instead of ID'ing the issue and conducting the proper training.

 

 

Stay safe out there fellas, but dont sacrifice tough realistic training in the process.

[Gomer Pylot]

One difference between the Army and civilian training - the instructors at Ft Rucker have decades of experience. Many civilian instructor have weeks of experience, more have months, and a few have a few years. 10 years as an instructor is a rarity. AFAIK almost all quit as soon as they get 1000, or maybe up to 1500 hours. They certainly can't be blamed, because being a CFI is not exactly a high-paying job. It's different with the Rucker guys, because they're unionized, and Lear-Siegler makes enough on the contract to pay the instructors a decent wage. I doubt the civilian training problem will ever be resolved satisfactorily, because it's self-perpetuating.

[Goldy]

I've always wondered if there isnt a "danger zone" you could identify statistically. When first training you are just hanging on to get the feel of an auto..the CFI is in control, and presumably its a safer auto. Once youve done 50 autos and have your license, you probably do them safely ( i hope so !)...but somewhere in between the CFI has to give you the controls at some point as a part of the learning process, and you do make mistakes....mistakes at a time when you have very little time or altitude to recover...so do the majority of these accidents occur when the student has somewhere between say 20 and 50 hours?

 

On another note, Frank should not be the one talking against practicing auto's when his helo is probably one of the more, shall we say..sensitive?? It's not a low energy rotor..its more of a no energy rotor system! Just comparing an R22 in auto vs say a Bell 47 is like night and day in pilot load- so in my humble opinion you need to train auto's MORE in a R22..not less.

 

Fly safe, keep 60 knots !

 

Goldy

[Grant B]

Am I right in thinking that the R22 is potentially more dangerous because of the reaction time of the instuctor grabbing the T-Bar as opposed to the standard clyclic in a 300?

 

I haven't flown (hands-on) anything other than an R22 but if the 300 or any other standard cyclic is always there infront of you (as opposed to the T-Bar being at various potential pivot angles), isn't it easier to grab?

 

And I wonder if any of those accidents had anything to do with Tail-boom strike or semi-rigid stuff.

 

Just curious.

[jehh]

Still sounds like a training problem to me.

 

It is a helicopter problem actually...

 

The R-22 simply isn't designed to practice autorotations with students, it lacks the rotor inertia to do it over and over safely. The 300CB is better, but only just so...

 

I've given quite a bit of dual instruction in both the 300CB and the R-22, given the choice, I'll take a Longranger, thank you.

 

Not to start the old who trains better pilots arguement, but only bringing up a point. The Army literally does what I would estimate hundreds of Autos a day alone in the course of training.

 

The Army has Jetrangers to play with for primary training. I could do hundreds of autos a day safely in those as well.

 

I'm not knocking the Army, just saying that you are comparing Apples and Oranges...

 

One difference between the Army and civilian training - the instructors at Ft Rucker have decades of experience. Many civilian instructor have weeks of experience, more have months, and a few have a few years. 10 years as an instructor is a rarity. AFAIK almost all quit as soon as they get 1000, or maybe up to 1500 hours. They certainly can't be blamed, because being a CFI is not exactly a high-paying job. It's different with the Rucker guys, because they're unionized, and Lear-Siegler makes enough on the contract to pay the instructors a decent wage. I doubt the civilian training problem will ever be resolved satisfactorily, because it's self-perpetuating.

 

Well, Gomer Pylot pointed out the other factor, one which I should have mentioned...

[flingwing206]

One difference between the Army and civilian training - the instructors at Ft Rucker have decades of experience. Many civilian instructor have weeks of experience, more have months, and a few have a few years. 10 years as an instructor is a rarity. AFAIK almost all quit as soon as they get 1000, or maybe up to 1500 hours. They certainly can't be blamed, because being a CFI is not exactly a high-paying job. It's different with the Rucker guys, because they're unionized, and Lear-Siegler makes enough on the contract to pay the instructors a decent wage. I doubt the civilian training problem will ever be resolved satisfactorily, because it's self-perpetuating.

You have it just right, Gomer, and there's no solution, short of having the government sponsor all helicopter training - heck if I was getting $50K a year to teach in a 206, I'd have lasted longer then two years as well. In fact I really enjoy instructing, and I plan to work my way into an IP/CP spot in our 135 program.

 

Your last line is ironic, because it seems to say that the helicopter industry has control over that situation. Actually, it is driven by the same force that give us the Ford Explorer/Firestone debacle, the cigarette industry sponsoring cancer research, liquor advertising that celebrates a mad party then preaches "responsible drinking", and a host of other oxymoronic "occurances". In our society, where profit is the highest expression of success, the R22 will be the dominant helicopter trainer, flown by the lowest-paid and most inexperienced pilots out there (next to their students).

 

Heck, now I'm doing single-engine flights 110 miles out in the Gulf with a landing to a 100' high helideck, in a helicopter that can't hover OGE at 1,000' while operating within limitations. I get hot-fueled by Boudraux (who may or may not remember to put the fuel cap back on). Some oil companies will only use twin-engine helicopters, and don't allow hot fueling. They also charge more for their product. Do you think that Joe SUV looks at the two-cent difference in gas prices and thinks "gee, I'm going to buy the Shell because I know they hold a higher standard of safety for their helicopter operations"?

 

This game never ends, it just evolves, and we who have elected to play just hope to continually revise our standards higher.

[Gomer Pylot]

I didn't mean to imply that there was any control by anyone, in fact just the opposite. Low wages are perpetuated by students who want (demand) cheap training, and then become low-paid CFIs, who for a pittance teach new students who demand cheap training. And nothing about it is satisfactory, but I see no way out of the cycle.

 

I've seen the way the oil companies operate, and I do not patronize Shell, Exxon, or BP stations. They may preach safety, but their corporate morality disgusts me. I still remember the Texas City BP refinery explosion. I was in Galveston, more than 10 miles away, and the entire apartment building I was in shook. All because they tried to squeeze out just a little more profit, at the expense of the lives of their employees, and potentially the lives of everyone who lived anywhere near the refinery. Then they had an oil spill from the Alaska pipeline, because they were too damned cheap to run pigs through it, even occasionally. The others are no better.

 

Well, off my soapbox. I get on a rant now and then about these people, as hard as I try not to. I get tired of seeing so much greed displayed so openly.

[Voluptuary5]

I didn't mean to imply that there was any control by anyone, in fact just the opposite. Low wages are perpetuated by students who want (demand) cheap training, and then become low-paid CFIs, who for a pittance teach new students who demand cheap training. And nothing about it is satisfactory, but I see no way out of the cycle.

 

I've seen the way the oil companies operate, and I do not patronize Shell, Exxon, or BP stations. They may preach safety, but their corporate morality disgusts me. I still remember the Texas City BP refinery explosion. I was in Galveston, more than 10 miles away, and the entire apartment building I was in shook. All because they tried to squeeze out just a little more profit, at the expense of the lives of their employees, and potentially the lives of everyone who lived anywhere near the refinery. Then they had an oil spill from the Alaska pipeline, because they were too damned cheap to run pigs through it, even occasionally. The others are no better.

 

Well, off my soapbox. I get on a rant now and then about these people, as hard as I try not to. I get tired of seeing so much greed displayed so openly.

 

Gomer,

 

I agree with you completely. However, I do have a problem with people bashing the oil companies (but not because I agree with any of their practices--couldn't be any more deplorable in my opinion). But where I see the discrepancy is that we live in a capitalistic country that is quickly becoming a capitalistic global world market. In my opinion, I think we only have ourselves to blame. The goal of any company, no matter what they sell, is to make a profit and make as large a profit as possible. That being said, by definition, don't we as the consumers actually control the price of gasoline or any other goods and/or service for that matter? Look, the price of gas in the U.S. is at an all-time record high and consumption hasn't decreased one bit. What does that mean? That means we are perfectly content with paying >$3.00/gallon. If I as a business could sell an item for $2.00 or $3.00, which would I choose? I, as the businessman, would choose $3.00 but if the consumer will only pay $2.00, how much am I going to have to sell that item for? Gomer, I apologize, my point isn't being made directly to you--you are already doing your part by letting the "All-Mighty-Dollar" speak for your morals--and until the rest of us do the same, we will continue to pay $3.00/gallon (or more) and/or reinforce questionable business practices.

 

We the consumers are going to have to be the ones to force these changes! Morally, economically, or otherwise. Let your dollars do the talking--the only language these guys speak is money!!!

 

(And don't forget, the price of gasoline is directly related to the price of aviation fuels...or maybe it's vice- versa...I forget)

 

-V5

[67november]

GP, & V5 you both make very valid points.

 

part of what WE as US citizans are not doing is to stem the tide of usage in OTHER fields of public consumption, ie electric, by adapting to other forms of power.

 

the sale of solar powered energy generating equipment has increased by 35% over the last year.

 

I can back this by the sales I've supported for the same time frame, J. Q. Public is starting to realize that things are starting to get out of hand.

 

it's going to take another 18-24 months before they take a larger look at what is happening.

 

just remember J.Q.P. for the most part is dumber than a box of rocks, but will quickly learn that things aren't always as they have been told by the gov. of this country.

 

the oil co's will eventually feel the pinch.

`

Edited August 30, 2006 by 67november

[Voluptuary5]

GP, & V5 you both make very valid points.

 

part of what WE as US citizans are not doing is to stem the tide of usage in OTHER fields of public consumption, ie electric, by adapting to other forms of power.

 

the sale of solar powered energy generating equipment has increased by 35% over the last year.

 

I can back this by the sales I've supported for the same time frame, J. Q. Public is starting to realize that things are starting to get out of hand.

 

it's going to take another 18-24 months before they take a larger look at what is happening.

 

just remember J.Q.P. for the most part is dumber than a box of rocks, but will quickly learn that things aren't always as they have been told by the gov. of this country.

 

the oil co's will eventually feel the pinch.

`

 

Thanks 67November,

 

I think your points are extremely valid as well and I hope the "backlash" against "Big Oil" that you elude to continues and their greed ultimately bits them in their a$$es in the form of economic punishment.

 

Here are some numbers just for fun (and thought), albeit "back-of-the-napkin" calculations.

 

(I apologize to everyone in advance for getting off the topic of helicopters for just a bit here)

 

But if we assume the average driver drives an average of 10,000 miles/year and gas is $3.00/gallon:

 

if your vehicle get 10 miles/gallon, that equals using 1000 gallons/year at a cost of $3000/year.

 

20 miles/gallon = 500 gallons/year = $1500/year

 

30 miles/gallon = 333 gallons/year = $1000/year

 

40 miles/gallon = 250 gallons/year = $750/year

 

50 miles/gallon = 200 gallons/year = $600/year

 

Let's also just say that the average vehicle in the U.S. gets an average of 25 miles/gallon. That equals a usage of 400 gallons/year at a cost of $1200/year. If you simply boost the gas mileage of that vehicle by just 1 to 26 miles/gallon (something easily done by properly inflating your tires, etc.), that equal a usage of 385 gallons/year at a cost of $1155. That is a savings of 15 gallons/person/year and if you assume their are 300,000,000 people living in the U.S., that would be a savings of 4,500,000,000 (4.5 billion) gallons of gas/year by doing nothing more than keeping your tires properly inflated. This may be a bit of a stretch here but there are 31 gallons in a barrel of oil. Oil has been hovering around $70/barrel. Using the numbers from above, by doing something as simple as properly inflating your tires, we could cost the oil companies $10,161,270,000 (10.2 billion dollars) each year. And that's just the U.S. alone...the small things really can add up...

 

Add in the backlash that 67November talks about by switching to alternative fuels and these numbers get even bigger in a quick hurry...

 

And on an individual note, that small 1 mile/gallon increase in gas mileage ends up putting an extra $45/year in my pocket--and it just goes up from there...

 

-V5

[Gomer Pylot]

The price of absolutely everything is related to the price of gasoline and diesel. If you bought it, a truck brought it, and the cost of the diesel increases the cost of the item. Everything you buy that has plastic in it was at least partially made from oil. Unfortunately, just cutting back at the gas pump isn't nearly enough to control costs. The oil companies dishonestly manipulate the price of oil through many different methods, and they're making obscene profits. The after-tax, after everything net profit of each of the major oil companies is greater than the gross national product of most countries of the world. Ten billion dollars pure profit, per quarter, is unconscionable when you see how they treat the environment, their employees, and us. I see it every day.

[Bristol]

Gomer,

 

See this yet? Doubtful in my opinion...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/e...rice-usat_x.htm

[Gomer Pylot]

Well, that's someone's opinion. The price can actually be anything the oil companies want it to be, because they're set up to make a profit with crude at about $20/barrel. Everything above that is just extra profit, and it depends on how they want to take it, and over what time period. If consumers reduce demand, and they sell less gasoline & diesel, then they'll likely reduce the price. If not, they'll keep it up.

 

In short, I have no idea what the oil companies will do, other than pay their executives hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. That won't change no matter what.

[justfly]

I was reading the latest USA / Canada helicopter accident report circular (3 month report) today and read every one of them...

reference??? What "report circular" you refering to Bristol?, thanks.

[Bristol]

reference??? What "report circular" you refering to Bristol?, thanks.

 

 

From: http://www.rotor.com/get.php?page=safety/pars.htm

 

Spring 2006 - Ending March 31

This report: http://www.rotor.com/PARS/2006/PARS%20report.pdf