View Full Version : RAF Helicopter Crash
mustfly1
4th Jul 2006, 14:52
Rescue 137, a Seaking from Lossiemouth apparantly crashed yesterday with 5 POB just after take off.
It appears the tail rotor section "fell off"
Reports indicated that all the crew are safe and well but a bit shaken.
Does anyone have any other info?
3D CAM
4th Jul 2006, 15:48
Well at least everyone is o.k.
Also happened more than once to Navy Sea Kings in the seventies!
Is this what happens to elderly aircraft?
Flying Lawyer
4th Jul 2006, 15:54
Maybe 'incident' would be more accurate?
The pilot used his skill to avoid a crash. :ok:
The story was reported yesterday - BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/5143596.stm)
SASless
4th Jul 2006, 16:00
Sounds like some excellent flying!:D
Rescue1
4th Jul 2006, 16:12
Pat on the back for the Pilot Glad all safe and well
I Have heard that ALL SAR Seakings Navy/RAF are grounded except for lifesaving flights.
vecvechookattack
4th Jul 2006, 16:17
If its true that they are gounded that pretty serious. They wouldnt normally ground an aircraft within 24 Hours of the accident unless they were convinced there was a serious fault...
The two that are operating out of the secret wiltshire airbase are still flying.
As has already been said, the crew are all safe and well, which is the main thing. As for the technical matters, the Board of Inquiry is being conviened tomorrow morning, so the causes will out from there. All RAF SAR assents were put on 'Operations Only' as a precautionary measure - in my understanding, Royal Naval Seakings were not subject to this. This restriction will be re-visited in the morning.
I hope that clears things up a bit.
NV
Rescue1
5th Jul 2006, 07:14
Quick - stop all Sea Kings/S-61s flying - the tails fall off for no good reason!
Emmmmmmmmm whats it got todo with the S-61:hmm: why are u dragging them into it they were made by a different company, I think I'm right in saying that a 61 tail won't fit a Seaking ;)
Sailor Vee
5th Jul 2006, 07:26
Rescue 1, you are quite correct in stating that the tail pylon from the S61 rises at a different angle to that of the Sea King, I don't know about the actual attachment points, though!
The Swinging Monkey
5th Jul 2006, 07:32
Well done to Pilot and great to hear no casualties.
Happiest days of my service life spent on 202 at Lossie and by far the best and most rewarding flying you could ever hope for.
Well done again to all concerned.
TSM
ps How bad is the Cab? Cat 4/5?
No Vote Joe
5th Jul 2006, 08:17
Allegedly it had a technical problem earlier in the day and was on a flight test. Shortly after lifting to the hover it became virtually uncontrollable and the pilot threw it onto the ground. The tail became detached due to the severity of the landing, but it remained upright and all the crew jumped out OK.
The Swinging Monkey
5th Jul 2006, 08:46
Fantastic,
Well done to all concerned.
TSM
portwait
5th Jul 2006, 08:54
The decision to ground the aircraft initially came from the ARCC, next morning IPT allowed Navy Seakings to fly (not sure if their decision also covered RAF ones).
When I left work yesterday RAF aircraft were still not flying but I had just flown for 2 hrs in a clapped out Mk5 - why the difference?
believe the crew did an excellant job, look forward with interest to see the photos and read the report.
Meanwhile Happy flying;)
The BBC report is almost completely inaccurate so don't read too much in to it. The aircraft was not on an airtest it was getting airborne on a training sortie. As for the rest of the details, we can wait for the BOI to find out what happened but you can be sure that the TR didn't drop or fall off.
teeteringhead
6th Jul 2006, 08:31
Certainly the photos I've seen (sorry can't say more or indicate source) seem consistent with a main rotor blade cutting into the tail.
JKnife
6th Jul 2006, 17:39
http://www.highglide.co.uk/seaking.htm
There are some photos on the above link.
Taken from near the 10 runway end looking towards the SAR hanger
http://www.highglide.co.uk/images/sk1.jpg
Looking north from the SAR hangar
http://www.highglide.co.uk/images/sk2.jpg
zorab64
6th Jul 2006, 18:49
Follow this link for some better photos - http://www.scalerchelis.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=6347&st=0
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/Rescue137_3.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/Rescue137_1.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/Rescue137_4.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/Gallery/Rescue137_2.jpg
Teeteringhead - I can't see any evidence of main rotors touching the tail as I'm sure (from when I used to fly such beasts) they would have severed the TRDS much further aft, than the break in these pics. Also, there's no evidence of the TRDS cowling having any blade impact damage from the side - it's just been opened up at the break. Are your photos more detailed than these??
Can't pre-judge, but looks like T/R was turning when it hit, shearing TRDS very quickly & spilling large puddle of HYD oil at the impact point - less than 90 deg rotation after that, breaking the tail wheel (no surprise), before they came to rest.
Big respect for the handling pilot, though. :ok:
SARREMF
6th Jul 2006, 19:20
I agree with Zorab 64 - The tail probably sheared through impact shock loading transmitted to it as the ac hit the ground possibly tail rotor first? But lets let the BOI sort out the detail and just say well done to the crew! Oh I think you will find it was pretty out of control and thats why the tail hit the ground not because someone was careless.
I've flown with both the pilots. Well done you 2, you know who you are!
IrishSarBoy
6th Jul 2006, 20:17
Have to check the log book to see if I flew that one, but well done lads, a real brown trouser moment!:}
If the TR had hit first whilst still being driven, it would have disintegrated and the tail would have probably been twisted off. It looks more like a heavy landing with a fair amount of sideways drift which snapped the tail wheel and broke the spine - then the TR impacted after the drive had severed.
GeeRamps
7th Jul 2006, 12:24
Seeing the pictures of a yellow Sea King in kit form certainly took me back! Been there, done that, got the T-shirt (and brown trousers). Glad I'm now retired, but I understand everyone walked away, so nice one! Cherish the tick in the box!
GeeRamps, KOS
SARREMF
7th Jul 2006, 21:58
Actually, Crab, think you might have a point now the other photos are availble. Which shows why we shouldn't speculate but wait for the real answer I suppose.
So, what do you reckon happened then?
I got sent this by a friend who has S-61 time and thought I'd post it to see what folks make of it.
Some observations based on the photographs:
1. The tail rotor was spinning when it hit the ground. It is impossible to tell at what RPM it was spinning upon contact... my guess is that it was decreasing or winding down.
2. The tail pylon damage is not consistent with a main rotor blade (MRB) strike.
The location on the tail pylon would have required contact at mid-span (on the MRB) vice the tip which would be unusual. Additionally, none of the MRBs appear to have damage.
The tail drive shaft cover has separated cleanly as opposed to being "chopped."
The pylon, itself, shows tearing at the top with wrinkling on the bottom (tensile mode of failure?) along with a horizontal bending moment to the left or port side of the aircraft.
3. The tail wheel has been severely deformed and displaced to the right indicating a possible left drift or clockwise yaw.
4. Different photo aspect shows initial tail wheel contact on runway delineated by puddle of fluid, ostensibly from the strut cylinder. Additionally, skid marks from tail wheel assembly indicate a left and back drift prior to coming to a stop.
Suppositions:
Aircraft was probably in a hover at onset of failure.
Engine failure unlikely culprit as these well-trained blokes would have set her down with little or no lateral drift or yaw.
Possible villains:
(1) Loss of tail rotor drive - one of the few emergencies in a twin that requires immediate action. Impetus would be to get aircraft on the ground before spin accelerated. Hard landing would be warranted with vertical component strong enough to tear tail pylon off. Residual tail rotor RPM would cause all five T/R blades to bend even if not being mechanically driven.
(2) Loss of tail rotor control (stuck pedal equivalent) - not quite as bad as loss of drive - can actually be flown in certain flight regimes, but in a hover it would be nearly as nasty as loss of drive.
(3) Assuming the hydraulic system in the British Sea King is similar to the Yank version... it could have been an auxiliary hydraulic hardover in the yaw channel which requires rapid corrective action (securing aux hydraulic system, if memory serves). Diagnosis would be problematic in a hover as there's less time before onset of a high yaw rate.
Bottom line: The fact that the lads kept it right side up and the crew was able to sprint for the nearest exit attests to the best possible outcome under the circumstances.
deeper
7th Jul 2006, 22:56
Don't those pilots and crewies know what soap and water is used for. :yuk: :yuk:
3D CAM
8th Jul 2006, 12:33
Aircraft was on a test flight to try to establish cause of vibrations, source ARCC.
Pure speculation but.....
In the hover at ?ft. Tail rotor drive failed, check the piccies, sheared trds, a pretty clean break at that. No sign of bending which would be expected if it had broken when the pylon became detached.
Theory, tail rotor drive shaft hanger bearing failed/seized, shaft overheated and sheared, the rest is history. The only direction you are going, or would wish to go after that is downwards, quickly!
As I say, pure speculation. But this is a rumour network after all!!
A question though. Do Sea Kings have IHUM's or equivalent fitted? I presume that is not a state secret.
The guys in this machine did well to be able to walk away, although I suspect it was a case of drop the lever and hang on... B.Z.
I am sure crab will have some thing to say?
Of course I will 3D - the ARRC are incorrect, the aircraft had been on a vib 6 test flight earlier in the day and had passed. Then the crew took it for a role trip on which it crashed shortly after take-off. I will not speculate about what happened since a. I have a pretty good idea from information received anyway and b. there is a BOI convened which will report in due course.
However, despite your assertion that it was a mechanical failure, the fleet is not grounded, nor has it had any STI raised to check TR shafts and bearings. As a precaution, the RAF SARF went to ops only for less than 48 hours to wait for the BOI's 48 hr signal. The RN didn't even do that. The only advice for the meantime is not to do damper checks. Draw your own conclusions.
3D CAM
9th Jul 2006, 12:23
Crab, thanks for that, I stand corrected and saluting.
Not mechanical failure???
Conclusions now drawn!
I take it then that your aircraft do not have IHUM's fitted?
Flingwing207
10th Jul 2006, 01:05
With absolutely no background in Sea Kings or accident investigation, but a couple of glasses of wine to sharpen my ESP...
Tail rotor driveshaft or txmsn failure (clean driveshaft break, oil out of T/R housing vent), right yaw develops, pilot puts it DOWN. Note position of tail wheel, pylon, and relative lack of damage to T/R blades (considering they are holding the pylon up).
Good on 'em for getting it down with nobody hurt, and someday we'll know what actually happened.