Sikorsky S-92A Serious Incident Near Shipston-on-Stour (G-LAWX)

Incident Overview and Aircraft Details On 14 October 2019 at 1742 UTC, a Sikorsky S-92A helicopter, registration G-LAWX, experienced a serious incident near Shipston-on-Stour, Warwickshire. The aircraft, manufactured in 2004 with serial number 920007, was powered by two General Electric CO CT7-8A turboshaft engines. The private flight carried two crew members and nine passengers, with no injuries or reported damage. ## Flight History and Planning The helicopter had been operating from a private landing site in the northern Cotswolds for several days. On the day of the incident, the crew planned to transport nine passengers from Birmingham Airport to the landing site. The forecast indicated a cloud base of 1,100 ft above mean sea level, with visibility as low as 4,000 m for short periods. Sunset was scheduled for 1716 UTC. ## Approach and Terrain Proximity During the approach to the private landing site in reduced visibility shortly before night, the pilots became uncertain of their position. The helicopter descended to within 28 ft of rising terrain close to a house. The Helicopter Terrain Awareness and Warning System (HTAWS) generated multiple alerts, including 'altitude, altitude' and 'caution terrain' warnings. ## Emergency Climb and Second Approach During the subsequent emergency climb at low indicated airspeed, engine torque increased to 131%, and the pitch attitude became unstable. The commander called 'going around' at 1742:13 UTC. The helicopter achieved a positive rate of climb but initially flew along a level flight path at less than 300 ft above ground level. After stabilizing at just above 2,200 ft altitude, the crew made a second approach to the landing site and landed without damage or injury. ## Contributing Factors The investigation identified several contributing factors, including absent or ineffective standard operating procedures for altitude alert setting, stabilised approach criteria, and crew communication. The commander's desire not to inconvenience the client was potentially in tension with his safety obligations. Uncertainty about the Rules of the Air when landing, along with attitudes, behavioural traps, and biases, also contributed to the occurrence.