Ukraine Says It Doesn't Want U.S. A-10s (Updated) - AVweb

News Discussion
1

Ukraine is saying thanks but no thanks to a suggestion the U.S. Air Force donate its unwanted A-10 Warthogs on the war-torn country. Air Force Magazine is reporting Ukraine would much rather have F-16s. “We have been requesting combat aircraft from our partners for a long time now,” Yuriy Sak, adviser to Ukraine’s minister of defense, told Air Force Magazine by phone from Kyiv on July 21. “We need Western-standard fighter jets. We need Western-standard combat aircraft.” He said he needs "fast and versatile" aircraft rather than the somewhat ponderous Warthog.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/air-force-may-give-a-10s-to-ukraine
2

2,000 feet per minute? I’m loathe to jump to conclusions, but…

3

“Operated VFR-Only”
The weather disagrees with that assertion.

4

Yes 2000 fpm is bothersome. Jennifer Homendy in her press conference described it as a “dive”. In my humble opinion questions about the crash site being “only” 20 to 30 feet below one particular summit surrounded by other hills took an inordinate amount of press conference time, as if 20 to 30 feet higher would have prevented the accident.

5

SVFR is Not VFR only.

6

Would be interesting to know why the company was VFR only. Is this a case of the FAA putting too many hurdles in place for a 135 operator to use IFR?

7

Writing as someone in the UK (incidentally a helicopter pilot) I just want to say how impressive it is that the NTSB (an organisation of world renown) conducts these open briefings and is so transparent in its investigations and findings - for example, in providing access to the evidence after it has reached a conclusion. Americans must be proud of this organisation. I wish our own (otherwise admirable) AAIB operated this way.

8

So because the ops manual was VFR only, the Chief Pilot / PIC couldn’t come to the conclusion that he had gotten himself in over his head, hollered “Uncle” and climbed up to find VFR conditions or make a safe landing when able? Instead, he pressed on. I am reasonably certain that helicopter had instruments capable of getting him to VFR conditions and answering for it later. And if, perchance, it didn’t … then the machine should never have left the ground on a day like that encountered. Beyond that, I’d say that the PIC should have taken a copilot/observer with him under the condition of weather and high vis customer. He was SO focused on finding the Ventura freeway that he forgot everything else. A second set of eyes might have made a difference? Confess, climb, conserve, communicate and comply.

If there’s one takeaway for me – personally – here … I will take command of any situation that gets out of hand and not be afraid to exercise my right to FAR 91.3 .

9

The flight was NOT on a SVFR clearance at the time of the crash. SVFR terminated when he departed the KVNY Class D surface area and then turned south to pick up the 101 Freeway. The crash site is quite a distance from where SVFR was terminated.

10

135.203 VFR: Minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or

(2) At night, at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown or, in designated mountainous terrain, less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown; or

(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet above the surface.

return arrow Back to Top

§135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(a) No person may operate an airplane under VFR in uncontrolled airspace when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet unless flight visibility is at least 2 miles.

(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least—

(1) During the day— 1⁄2 mile; or

(2) At night—1 mile.

[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-41, 56 FR 65663, Dec. 17, 1991]

return arrow Back to Top

§135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

return arrow Back to Top

11

I hear. What you are saying, but for me a non helicopter rated pilot it looks like 135 has lower minimums for Helicopter. Read .205

135.203 VFR: Minimum altitudes.
Except when necessary for takeoff and landing, no person may operate under VFR—

(a) An airplane—

(1) During the day, below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; or

(2) At night, at an altitude less than 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown or, in designated mountainous terrain, less than 2,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 5 miles from the course intended to be flown; or

(b) A helicopter over a congested area at an altitude less than 300 feet above the surface.

return arrow Back to Top

§135.205 VFR: Visibility requirements.
(a) No person may operate an airplane under VFR in uncontrolled airspace when the ceiling is less than 1,000 feet unless flight visibility is at least 2 miles.

(b) No person may operate a helicopter under VFR in Class G airspace at an altitude of 1,200 feet or less above the surface or within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for an airport unless the visibility is at least—

(1) During the day— 1⁄2 mile; or

(2) At night—1 mile.

[Doc. No. 16097, 43 FR 46783, Oct. 10, 1978, as amended by Amdt. 135-41, 56 FR 65663, Dec. 17, 1991]

return arrow Back to Top

§135.207 VFR: Helicopter surface reference requirements.
No person may operate a helicopter under VFR unless that person has visual surface reference or, at night, visual surface light reference, sufficient to safely control the helicopter.

return arrow Back to Top

12

Can a rotor stall when a pilot heaves up too fast on the collective? A 2000 ft decent doesn’t make sense.

13

That. Is correct, he was at that time below 700 agl and in uncontrolled airspace and no svfr required.
1 mile clear of clouds or maybe less for Helicopters, I’m not sure. The media is missing that point.

SVFR explanation by FAA.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/fs/alaskan/alaska/fai/svfr/

14

More of a cost effectiveness thing. Less aircraft maintenance, less training required and no instrument comp check every 6 months. Hard to stay current IFR flying a helicopter. Majority 135 helicopter operators are VFR only.

15

Notice the NTSB person is a female. Those guys standing behind her are probably more qualified but she’s politically correct.

16

“the helicopter was in a left bank with a descent rate of over 2000 feet per minute prior to impact?”
My first question is, how did the NTSB determine the descent rate or the left bank? There was no on-board equipment nor ground-radar contact.

It sounds like he flew into a hillside that sloped away at an angle at about 2,000 ft/min, which is about 22 mph. Sounds about the right speed if the pilot was trying to find the entrance to the canyon.

I agree with Larry S., get out of trouble first, then deal with the legal stuff. Alive.

17

Can complacency creep into pilot persona as time builds on one aircraft? Sadly, this crash was avoidable.

Bob G, I believe the NTSB may be one of the few entities serving the aviation industry free of politics and business interests to develop into a world renowned authority from freedom to invite all professionals into the unique party system without recriminations. I found more than casual interest when researching type aircraft related to my student flying days to appreciate the history and breadth of pilot, weather and extenuating circumstances told in each final report. Unfortunately, other nations don’t seem to regard their own air accident investigative board with respect, due to outside influences that disagrees with political or business agendas. Perhaps the NTSB is as close to a true agency able to determine and report with clarity factual evidence to develop a picture of how and why each a/c becomes another unfortunate statistic while providing invaluable info useful in avoiding a similar occurrence.

18

That’s a strange assumption to make. She is in charge. It is entirely possible that she is the most qualified to be in charge and speak for the team. Besides, rarely is the team leader the technical expert in any business or government organization situation.

19

Examination of wreckage (exactly how the metal bent upon impact) can reveal the general attitude and velocity of the craft at impact. There is good known science for that, and the NTSB happens to excel at using that science.

In a nutshell, if everything is bent toward the left side, then you know the thing hit left side first. If a five inch section of sheet metal is crushed to one inch then the velocity/force required/applied to do that is known. There’s way more to it than that, but you get the idea.

20

VFR only is fine as long as it is VFR. It does not take long for things to go terribly wrong when all of a sudden you can’t see. I am surprised that the helicopter was not an IFR equipped machine. Kobe seemed safety conscious be likely did not know or understand the dangers of VFR into IMC.