Sky Shuttle AW139 ditches in HK Harbour

[Joker's Wild]

Just got the phone call, East Asia Airlines (Sky Shuttle) has ditched a 139 into Hong Kong Harbour. Sounds like it occurred immediately after departure from the Shun Tak heliport. Standby for further.

JW

[Yellow & Blue Baron]

And here's one of the first confirmations: Hong Kong police confirm helicopter crash, 13 people slightly injured (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/03/c_13381970.htm)

HONG KONG, July 3 (Xinhua) -- A helicopter crashed into the sea area between the Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsular on Saturday noon, and all 13 persons onboard have been rescued, sustaining slight injuries, the city's police told Xinhua.

Hong Kong police said all the injured have been rushed to nearby Queen Mary Hospital. The 13 persons include 11 passengers and two crew members.

The crash site, the sea area, about 200 meters south of the city's highest building International Commerce Center on the Kowloon Peninsular, has been identified by local police with yellow bands. A fire-fighting boat has arrived at the site.

Hong Kong police said they were investigating the cause of the crash.

[AAIGUY]

looking out my window.. can't see anything.

[Runway101]

Here is a detailed view of the helipad on Google Maps:
shun tak helipad - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=shun+tak+helipad&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=39.371738,86.308594&ie=UTF8&hq=shun+tak+helipad&hnear=&radius=15000&ll=22.289742,114.152707&spn=0.002814,0.005268&t=h&z=18)

[Joker's Wild]

Info starting to come in, crew has reportedly indicated it was NOT an engine failure/malfunction, but rather a tail rotor/tail boom related problem which resulted in the ditching.

JW

[malabo]

Looks like it went turtle. Floats inflated but the right front seems missing.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5haoz9vfHhtYpNhZJpSF-BLvdn-KA?size=l

[generalspecific]

just saw it drifting down the harbour :(

If all out safe then its seems likely that the pilots got it down level and then a swell (which gets big in the harbour) turned it over... great job from low level in a tight bit of the harbour...

[Neptunus Rex]

Good result!
I just hope that none of the crew or pax swallowed any of that foetid water.

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Well this has got my attention .... the pic above seems to show the T'boom is still in situ .... we await further news with interest ....


:eek:

[Joker's Wild]

spinwing

Yes, I imagine it has. Latest word is severe vibrations happening (from the back end). With the way the HK press works, I'm sure we'll be seeing more photographic evidence in the days ahead.

JW

[Runway101]

I am at the ifc and saw plenty of people with big cameras and tripods an hour ago (and a couple of private helicopters from HKAC on "sight seeing" in the harbor, including a red robbo 44 just now)...

[R.OCKAPE]

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh5/bushpig205/139%20ditching%20HK/P1010676.jpg

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh5/bushpig205/139%20ditching%20HK/P1010670.jpg

[generalspecific]

someone better get a tow on it soon or it is heading out to sea!

[Adam Nams]

From RTHK (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/news.htm?hightlight&20100703&56&680666):

"Thirteen people have been rescued after a helicopter crashed into the seas after attempting an emergency landing off Shun Tak Centre in Sheung Wan. The helicopter, which belonged to a private company, Sky Shuttle, was on its way to Macau when the accident happened. Two crew members and 11 passengers on board were all rescued, and no one sustained serious injuries. However, six passengers had to been sent to Queen Mary Hospital for treatment. The helicopter has been located, and rescue vessels are still at the scene of the crash. A spokeswoman from the company said it's believed that the helicopter had encountered engine failure."

Glad all are safe :ok:

[leopold bloom]

Were they "plucked to safety" by those brave boys from GFS or a passing Star Ferry?

[The Black Dragon]

No matter what happened to the Aircraft, It looks like the Crew did a great job getting themselves and 11 Pax out.
Well done boys :ok::ok::ok:

11 claps of thanks, from 11 lucky pax....:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D

[gulliBell]

There are so many web cams pointing at that piece of real estate that there's bound to be a video or 2 of the events unfolding...
Are they still flying, or has the entire fleet been grounded?
No doubt the skill of the crew and their simulator training had much to do with all surviving the ditching.

[Runway101]

Skyshuttle suspended flight operations directly after the helicopter went down.

News reported that the pilots heard a big bang in the back and a "warning noise" came on, so they decided to put it down on the water. Eye witness confirmed this, first something that sounded like a bang then the helicopter descended on to the water.

[Runway101]

English Pearl News at 7:30:

98uiBjw4tbU

[ReverseFlight]

I see all the usual faces popping up in this thread. :)

There had been earlier reports of the chopper spinning as it landed but latest media reports talk about a controlled descent into water. Due to the "Big Bang" theory, some fellow pilots are speculating there might have been a tail rotor birdstrike. Press footage show a lack of TR blades as it was salvaged but this could've been due to impacting the water.

I would be surprised that a new (< 1 year old) engine suffered fatigue failure but the "big bang" could equally have been caused by disintegrating turbine blades (for whatever reason) exiting the turbine housing (just speculating again). If there was no loss of height, I doubt the pilot would've put it into the water.

Whatever happened, it was a lucky escape. Credit to the Aussie captain and Macanese co-jo. :ok:

[Runway101]

Not sure how accurate this is but here is a short animation of the event.

lBTXg_EMSyc

[island eagles]

Well done crew!!
By the way does anyone know who the pilots are?

[ReverseFlight]

fly911, no, reports are saying they heard the bang, then decided to auto onto the water. Only then they would inflate the bags according to the POH, not the other way round. However, don't know why one was deflated - could be the reason for it tipping upside down in the water.

Has any AW139 driver experienced compressor stall ? That could let off a bang too.

[Horror box]

A really classic analysis of what may have gone wrong form the "aviation expert" in that clip. Where do they find these people? I think they must just trawl the street. Another eyewitness claiming to have seen the "tail come off"! Don't you just love the press coverage of these events. That really gave me a chuckle. Can someone tell me what the "rotor hack" is?

[bb in ca]

A rotor hack is anyone who makes assumptions during a television interview before any facts are available!

[bondu]

A rotor hack is anyone who makes assumptions during a television interview before any facts are available
Plenty of those then!!!!:E

bondu :)

[Aser]

Hats off to the pilots :D:D:D


Now... where is the tail rotor???? lost due rescue efforts ???
http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/3c/a0/3806928f4ffe9fc246c9da9f1a86.jpeg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/03/13382548_271n.jpg

Regards
Aser

[The Sultan]

Jokers Wild in #5 stated they had tail rotor problems. Like to see the photos of the ship floating with a complete tail rotor.

The Sultan

[sirhcttarp]

Guessing they didn't rush to hospital by chopper?!
:D:D

[zalopilot]

If the 139 had the landing gear up, he should of been over the vtoss, and for a 15 min flight to Macau, not too much fuel, he could of continue flight with an engine failure. It had to be a worse problem.

[tottigol]

Zalo, ditching procedure requires the gear to be retracted.
Again, good job to the crew.:ok::D

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Zalo .... for a water ditching gear should be retracted IAW RFM supplement 9 Pg 15.

Once he made the decision to ditch ... he stuck with it ... :D


From what I can see ... it LOOKs like the T/R gearbox has gone ... thrown a blade perhaps (and then the G'box?)... there ARE known issues with T/R blade cracks in the vicinity of blade grip area ?????

Mmmmmm :uhoh:

[Runway101]

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com//images/e-paper/20100704/large/04la1p201pn.jpg

[Brian Abraham]

Sort of leaves little doubt with that photo Runway. Bravo to the crew for a job extremely well done it would seem. Not Reuben per chance?

[gulliBell]

Brian, no, he retired over a year ago.

[zalopilot]

Thanks, you're right. But still looks like he lost the T/R.

[The Black Dragon]

Im 99.99% sure this was not from engine failure.

[Runway101]

More and more local news outlets are talking about a bird flying into the tail rotor, as pointed out by Silberfuchs above.

[R.OCKAPE]

local newspaper here this morning in HK says it was the chief pilot at the controls

[gulliBell]

....news reports also say the pilot is an Aussie, but the CP is not an Aussie....we all know to treat news reporting of these things with a grain of salt.

[Joker's Wild]

So it looks like the aircraft entered the water minus the entire tailrotor assembly. Maybe its just me, but I can't get my head around the idea that a birdstrike caused this sort of immediate, catastophic damage.

Any 139 engineers care to comment on the construction of the upper part of the vertical stab and how the tailrotor gearbox attaches to same?

JW

[Brian Abraham]

Thanks Gulli, found who it was allegedly, and no surprise there, a good man.

[DECUFAULT]

Well done to the crew very well handled...looks like to me from all the photos.a tail rotor problem.. I also see from the video that nasty peice of work the gray haired New Zealander is still mincing around...

[Ned-Air2Air]

Decu - You dont mean the McIntosh's Toffees Man do you :rolleyes:

[ReverseFlight]

Closer examination of media photos show not only a loss of the TR blades and TR gearbox assembly, but also part of the vertical tail boom holding these up. I seriously doubt if a birdstrike would have caused such catastrophic failure - maybe the TR blades but not so far down.

Regulars to this forum will recall this thread:
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/386491-aw139-lost-tail-taxying-doh-5.html
Although the tailboom of the SkyShuttle snapped in a different spot, it would be educational to review the discussions in that thread. In particular, note the effects of ground taxi on tail boom structures.

[HeliAviator]

Having suffered large FOD ingestion through the tail rotor whilst in the hover, albeit in a Lynx, I too find this sort of damage due to a bird stike difficult to understand. It would seem to be a structural failure due to very high stress forces to make such a clean break. I summise that the departure of a TR blade from the assembly would give the necessary high stress force to do such a thing. The outcome of the inquirey will be interesting and for those of us flying the AW19 it can't come quick enough. A big BRAVO ZULU THE THE CREW :ok:. CRABO.

[blakmax]

For my own education, how is that part of the tail assembly fabricated? Is it a bonded sandwich structure similar to the area of the tail boom which failed in Doha?

[Aser]

I'd like to know for how long it was upright...
It doesn't look too good for me.

[Hilife]

Having been certified to the very latest FAR/JAR requirements, certification would have included Bird Strike Protection (2 lb Bird if I recall) on a number of areas, including an advancing TRB at VNE.

Several years ago, I was shown a video of an S-76 TRB Bird Strike Certification Test using a 2 lb pheasant and the outcome for the pheasant was not good (Fluffy splatter), but amazingly the blade appeared intact.

Of course, it could have been a dragon. ;)

[Outwest]

Any possibility that during the flare the tail rotor struck the water and that is what tore it and the gearbox/fin off?

[The Black Dragon]

Maybe Apple inc. could give the boys 2 new iPads !!

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Main large soaring bird in the area is the Black Kite. All rumours at the moment.

http://www.travel-images.com/hong-kong54_r.jpg

Chinese black Kites ( Milvus migrans ) (http://www.travel-images.com/photo/photo-hong-kong54.html)
Weight: 650 - 940 g (2) (http://www.pprune.org/#reference_2)
[/URL]

Also known as:Yellow-billed kite French:Milan Noir Kingdom[URL="http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Animalia&requiredfields=Search_Kingdom:Animalia&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Kingdom&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html"]Animalia (http://www.pprune.org/#reference_2)PhylumChordata (http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Chordata&requiredfields=Search_Phylum:Chordata&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Phylum&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html)ClassAves (http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Aves&requiredfields=Search_Class:Aves&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Class&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html)OrderFalconiformes (http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Falconiformes&requiredfields=Search_Order:Falconiformes&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Order&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html)FamilyAccipitridae (http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Accipitridae&requiredfields=Search_Family:Accipitridae&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Family&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html)GenusMilvus (http://www.pprune.org/search-taxonomy.html?q=Milvus&requiredfields=Search_Genus:Milvus&client=arkive-info&site=arkive-info&related=Genus&commonName=Black kite&latinName=Milvus migrans&returnURL=black-kite/milvus-migrans/info.html) (1) (http://www.pprune.org/#reference_1)SizeHead-tail length: 55 - 60 cm (2) (http://www.pprune.org/#reference_2)

[Runway101]

Today's news report which shows the damage to the tail rotor in more details while the ship is being disassembled and inspected. There is also a short interview with a Sky Shuttle engineer (who doesn't reveal anything). Bird strike still unconfirmed.

VsQ5qZgdlNs

[Shell Management]

Perhaps this is a question for Nick Lappos, but I'm sure Sikorsky originally explained at length when the S-92 came out that the latest FARs had a far greater birdstrike requirement than the ones that applied to earlier generations like the S-76. Certainly that was the Shell Aircraft postion when they recommended phasing out older types for 7/7=1.

Sikorsky did seem to back track on this when the birdstrike occured on the PHI S-76C++ the GOM last year. Something about BCAR validation of the glass screen but not the aftermarket screens? :confused:

[ifsknt]

Like Heli Aviator, I can't see a birdsrike in a FAR/JAR 29 latest amendment aircraft causing quite that much damage. Forward speed would have been relatively low (just through Vtoss).

I once suffered a full birdstrike (seagull) about 100nm from Aberdeen to an S-76A at 145kias close to the inboard top of the LH windscreen (glass heated) and the bird just bounced off with only some liquid entrails making their way into the intake and making a smell.

[island eagles]

Whatever the case maybe, we hope that AW will come up with a preliminary report ASAP. As operators we must be kept informed on the actual cause of this accident. The Doha incident way of keeping us informed is not acceptable especially when we get better insights from within the industry! Over to you Agusta.

[sox6]

IFSKNT The TAS is less important if a bird hits a rotating tail rotor blade.

[The Black Dragon]

This was a Macau Registered Helicopter not Hong Kong, so you may never see a public report issued.

[stacey_s]

Look closely at the video, main structure appears to be intact apart from the casting the TRGB attach's to, main parts missing is the carbon fibre rear fairing, not primary structure.
Nothing even similar to A7-GHC.

S

[ReverseFlight]

If you freeze the vid at R101's post #57, you'll notice a whole section of the rear end spar of the vertical boom has been torn off. It appears to point towards enormous stresses having been built up in that fracture line before the TR forces finally tore that section off. It could be that the bang was purely consequential and not the cause of the accident. No bird, not even an eagle or kyte could have done so much damage. And besides, with smithereens of the TR now lying on the seabed, I think it would be very difficult for any regulator to arrive at any finding of a birdstrike, unless there are obvious traces on the surface of the remaining boom, but we're not hearing that.

[Wild Chicken]

Some of the speculation in this thread is pretty bizarre regarding this incident! Thought I might add a couple of facts.The AW139 has quite a 'nose up' attitude even during level flight and particularly during flare into hover, which often brings about a 'tail low' audio alert to the crew. If the crew has encountered some sort of bird strike to the T/R and the large vibe that would have accompanied it, the pilot may have elected to ditch if he was already well over water. The floats would have been armed and can be deployed from the collective head prior to contact with the water.

If the tail was as low as it normally is, and with a bit of a swell in the harbor, in goes the tail rotor possibly leading to the seperation of the gearbox and rotor due to the sudden stoppage hitting the water. It would also have easily ripped off the rear fairing which is hollow and only made of thin honeycomb sandwich material and secured with 10/32 screws. What you see in the photos is the spar of the fin at the rear, which is far more substantial. The tailplane is still intact but is well secured at the base of the fin, so it has not departed, however the tip is missing on one side, although these are a fairly flimsy construction and hollow.

The failure of the previous Gulf Helis AW139 is not related to this incident. The AW139's PT6C-67C engines are over powered and an engine loss would rarely call for a ditching in any weight configuration. Losing one normally means continue the flight, burning half the gas! With only 12 pax and the fuel for a harbor hop, I don't think so. Turbine blades departing the engine (what??) would have destroyed the engine cowls, which are remarkably intact.

Give us a break.The AW139 tail rotor blades are also incredibly strong as are most modern european rotor blades, and the 'issues' of 'cracking' mentioned in one post has been cosmetic cracking of the filler around the root end elastomeric/spar attachment area caused by the normal twisting of the blades in operation, all normal and to be expected. The spar itself is solid woven fibreglass around 3/4 inch thick and literally bulletproof. Cracking in some instances of an outer layer or two would not effect the integrity of the entire blade. The tail gearbox is attached to the upper end of the fin to a solid alloy fitting with four large bolts. Everyone is interested in the circumstances of the ditching, the performance of which is a credit to the crew involved and everyone is relieved there were no casualties.

It's also a fine example of the safety systems built into this helicopter working as their designers intended them. Hats of to both parties.

[sox6]

stacey_s
Yes - could the out of balance force after a lost blade do that?

The Black Dragon
The crash was in Hong Kong so the HKCAD are in charge of the investigation. I read a very comprehensive report on a HK EC155 accident a few years back.

[The Black Dragon]

sox6 ,, Hope your correct. but
Its my understanding that Macau (AACM) would have the rights on this report. Hopefully both Dept. will get along to make this quick for all the 139 Pilots out their waiting.

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Both are ICAO contracting states, and so the investigation would follow the law and guidance of ICAO Annex 13.

In short, the state in which the accident occured (State of Occurance) will lead the investigation. (Para. 3.2)

In addition, the State of Registry, State of the Operator, State of Design or State of Manufacture (as involved parties) have the right to appoint reps (Accredited Representatives) to the investigation, who have the right to participate in all aspects of the investigation.

Once the incident evidence is no longer needed it will be released to the State of Registry or State of Operator. (para. 3.4)



FYI
http://www.airsafety.com.au/trinvbil/C619icao.pdf

[peterperfect]

Q:Would this variant have push out passenger windows and liferafts ?

If so, I note in the photos that all (the pax windows) appear to be still in situ and the cabin door was slid open, fine until there's a rollover before everyone egresses ?

[tottigol]

A quick google search revealed that there are no exterior operating life raft provisions, emergency egress decals are present on all windows though.

[gulliBell]

So B- is a Macau registration marking? I thought the Macau helicopters had CS- registration marking? I wonder if Pansy will get out the cheque book and write out a big number for six new S76's in light of this?

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

"So B- is a Macau registration marking? I thought the Macau helicopters had CS- registration marking? I wonder if Pansy will get out the cheque book and write out a big number for six new S76's in light of this? "

Really, it doesn't take much to these days to use Google for something like this, (probably as long as it took you to post) to find that B- is the mark for China. B-Mxx is generally reserved for Macau, being part of China.

BTW no liferafts, and pop-out windows - confirmed.

[ReverseFlight]

CSGS, I don't think you are so Chi Sin. However:
In addition, the State of Registry, State of the Operator, State of Design or State of Manufacture (as involved parties) have the right to appoint reps (Accredited Representatives) to the investigation, who have the right to participate in all aspects of the investigation.
The HKCAD has in previous accidents stated they can choose to interprete ICAO rules in whatever way they like, as ICAO rules are just a guideline and not strictly binding legislation on member states.
Once the incident evidence is no longer needed it will be released to the State of Registry or State of Operator.
As soon as the tail departed from the aircraft, it immediately belongs to the insurance company and they can do whatever they like with it, but would normally allow the regulators to inspect it. After the investigation, the insurers usually sell written off aircraft parts piecemeal as scrap, but would allow the original operator the first right of refusal to purchase before offering and disposing on the open aviation market.
Turbine blades departing the engine (what??) would have destroyed the engine cowls, which are remarkably intact.
Wild Chicken, that speculation was made before clear photos were made available by the media. It is presently certain it was a TR problem. Thanks for your observation.

[The Black Dragon]

The AW139 ((could)) be pushing into a unknown area of tail boom stresses, Due to the large number of Vertical Cat-A departures flown everyday with this company. Approx every 30min, from 9:00 am to last dept at 23:00.

[Joker's Wild]

For DECUFAULT and Ned

Yes, the Gray Haired Plague continues to infect EAA and it's people. Best part is he will have no doubt been instrumental in "convincing" the 16/F pop-out windows and life rafts were not needed. Hope they hang him. :mad:

Pilots, am told, claimed they heard a bang resulting in the pedals becoming ineffective. Both engines pulled back immediately and into the water they did go.

I'm going to speculate here (my opinion only) that assuming the aircraft entered the water WITH the T/R et al still attached to the airframe, it wouldn't have been turning under any real amount of power. Therefore, any notion that a sudden stoppage on contact with the water resulted in not only the T/R and gearbox separating from the aircraft, but also that much of the vertical stab structure, is somewhat difficult to believe. Again, just my opinion.

So that leaves us with the only other likely scenario, in-flight structural failure which, if true, is scary indeed. And you have to admit, from looking at all the posted photos, there appears to be an awful lot of structure missing from the vertical stab assembly.

JW

[Ned-Air2Air]

Thank God this occured right off the end of the Shun Tak pad where there are literally hundreds of boats and ferries that could help rescue the pax and crew. Would hate to think what the result would have been had it been at cruise flight somewhere between HK and Macau and up high. :eek::eek:

Well done to the crew :ok::ok:

[malabo]

The AW139 could be pushing into new a unknown area of Airframe stress here, Due to the share number of vertical Cat-A depts everyday,

I guess we should expect higher penalties on components when Class 1 procedures are used. If the aircraft ends up in the water anyway, what's the benefit of that new airframe and all that power - I wonder what Shell's next choice for a 10 seat aircraft :8 will be? Seems the bird in the tailrotor theory is no longer in vogue.

[Brian Abraham]

Some of the speculation in this thread is pretty bizarre regarding this incident!
Yep, agreed, and this is one :p
Turbine blades departing the engine would have destroyed the engine cowls, which are remarkably intact.
Two engine failures in the 76C, both seemingly identical in nature, both spat the turbine blades out, in one case all contained within the exhaust but the other peppered the cowling with shrapnel. So you can never tell.

As in this case, why the tail rotor took a holiday will only be ascertained by investigation, despite the scenarios we may dream up. History shows the reasons are diverse and many. Our operation had one, all due to a washer not being installed. Upper half of the fin on a 204 fell off, along with the gearbox.

[Joker's Wild]

"A bird strike might be one issue investigators will look into when they investigate the emergency landing of a Macau-bound helicopter in Victoria Harbour on Saturday.

And the Civil Aviation Department said the operator of the helicopter service had provided sufficient life jackets for those on board, after claims there were not enough.

The department said 14 life jackets were in the aircraft. It is believed some passengers panicked and could not find life jackets.

The crash into the sea happened about noon on Saturday when the helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing in the harbour shortly after it took off from the Sheung Wan helipad due to "technical difficulties".

The 11 passengers and two pilots on the 15-seat helicopter were rescued from the harbour. No serious injuries were reported.

The department is investigating the incident in co-ordination with authorities in Macau, where the helicopter was registered, and the AgustaWestland AW139's Italian manufacturer.

The helicopter was transported to a depot at Chek Lap Kok airport for inspection after it was salvaged from the sea and put on a barge overnight. Some components of the aircraft were disassembled yesterday. There had been claims there were not enough life jackets on the helicopter, according to newspaper reports quoting a passenger who had been unable to find one.

Media reports also said a bird strike could have caused the accident, quoting witnesses saying they had seen birds flying near the helicopter shortly before the accident occurred.

A department spokeswoman yesterday said an investigation was under way and it was too early to speculate about causes. She said investigators had found 14 life jackets "so, it seems there were enough life jackets on board for the 13 people."

Lo Wai-yan, of the Hong Kong Bird Watching Society, said: "I am not really sure if a bird strike could be a cause. Eagles can sometimes be seen hovering over the harbour. But they should be able to avoid colliding with a helicopter, especially when the aircraft has just taken off and the speed might not be very high."

The helicopter came into service last year. Its owner, Sky Shuttle, was ordered to suspend its helicopter service until safety checks are completed on the five other aircraft of the same model that it owns.

Sky Shuttle's ticket counters at the Macau ferry terminal in Sheung Wan remained closed yesterday. But there was no notice about the suspension of service or Saturday's accident. A duty officer at the company's customer service telephone hotline said it was unknown how much longer services would be suspended.

One traveller returning from Macau yesterday said she was not worried by the accident because she would not travel to the city by air. "It is too expensive. It is for rich people only. Us ordinary travellers usually take the ferry," Jane Chung said.

Sky Shuttle has six medium-twin engine AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters. It operates 54 flights daily between Macau and Hong Kong, between 9am and 11pm. Each flight takes 15 minutes. A one-way ticket costs HK$2,600."

JW

[pohm1]

It is believed some passengers panicked and could not find life jackets.

Isn't it mandatory to wear them for over-water sectors?

P1

[noooby]

The AW139 could be pushing into new a unknown area of Airframe stress here, Due to the share number of vertical Cat-A depts everyday

Unknown Airframe stress? Seriously??
The only extra "stress" is spinning the rotor at 102% instead of 100%.
Pull hover Tq plus 7% (from memory??), and climb vertically. That certainly doesn't sound stressful to me, and when sitting inside it certainly doesn't feel stressful.
I know of one African operation where a 139 was doing 10 Cat A departures everyday with no issues or problems.
Keep in mind this airframe, tailboom, and rotor head are now flying at 8000kg on the AW149! I'm sure there is some beefing up of structure there, and I'd love to know where, and if they will back track those mods to the 139.
Doors will normally be used to egress if the aircraft is stable. Unlike some other helicopters, all passenger rows have clear access to the door opening, so why not use the biggest hole available to get people out, just like Bristow did with their 332 in Nigeria recently.
All 139's have pop out windows, even the double glazed VIP windows, but they are can be a prick to use!
It will be very interesting to see what exactly happened with this aircraft.

[Joker's Wild]

noooby

Perhaps we should be saying "unknown composite airframe stress".

I used to stand at the hangar door in Macau, watching the aircraft (C+) depart using our vertical departure procedure. I would essentially be almost directly underneath the aircraft and so had an amazing view of the stresses the entire tail section was enduring using this procedure. Trust me when I say, it made me cringe to see just how much bending and twisting was going on all up and down the entire tail boom. Lets remember this was all happening on an airframe design with many, many years of service already behind it.

Somehow I don't think the same can be said where the 139 and its composite structure(s) are concerned.

JW

[malabo]

noooby, you must be one of those Canadian guys that doesn't feel obliged to fly Class 1 on every takeoff. Class 1 Helipad departure profile calls for pulling hover Tq plus 23%, not 7% that the Class 2 guys use.

I don't think 102%NR is any extra stress except that any vibration damping is tuned for 100% so as soon as you go to 102% your eyeballs jiggle. A lot. The "profiles" you are told to use will usually guarantee that your eyes are in jiggle mode for an extended period. Most of you VFR guys think transition vibration is something you accelerate and decelerate quickly through, like on an S61 or Bell 407, and you never think to linger in it to stay on a "profile".

[ShyTorque]

Unknown Airframe stress? Seriously??
The only extra "stress" is spinning the rotor at 102% instead of 100%.

There are also lateral / twisting stresses caused by the "extra pedal" required to balance the main rotor torque, when applied to fly the takeoff technique.

[filthymutt]

The birdies that are usually hanging around Shun Tak (SkyShuttle) Heliport at Black Kites.
Head to tail they are 55 to 60 CM
They Weigh in at 650 to 940 grams.
Big birds.

To me if they were to say, take out one or possibly two TR blades the resulting imbalance should be enough to dislodge the TRGB and some of that to which it is attached.

Personally however, I doubt the bird strike theory as well, these birds, being birds of prey are generally watchful of what is going on around them and well that big noisy helicopter lumbering off of the helipad should be fairly easy for them to see and avoid. This ain't no pigeon we are talking about. It is a little smarter than that.

If it were an inbound machine screaming in at 145 knotts might be another story but, in this case I don't think the birdie did it.

[filthymutt]

Mandatory to wear life jackets for over water sectors? No, it is not any more mandatory to wear them in the multi-engine AW139 or S-76 than it is in the Airbus 320 over water.

[Mark Six]

Filthy, you're right about the bird species but I don't share your confidence in their ability to avoid helicopters. I have been forced to take avoiding action by these birds many times, including at low speed and just after take-off. A Heli Hong Kong (EAA/Sky Shuttle) B3 had a head on collision with one of them a few years back resulting in considerable damage (and not just to the bird).

[The Black Dragon]

Noooby,
I flew this route for 12 years, Believe me, as JW & Malabo correctly said, this Cat A profile which departs every 30 mins day & night puts allot of stress on the airframe, and the crew. (plug)

What Im trying to say is, This company flies allot of hrs every day /year, soon they will surpass the flight times of other AW139s flying around the world.
Just as the now retired S76c+ did after only around 15 months of operations back in 1998.

Will be very interesting to see the findings on this from AW.

[212man]

Interestingly, the TCDS for this type shows compliance with Part 29 amndt 45 and before, not amndt 47. Bird strike compliance was introduced at amndt 40 but only specifically mentioned windshields plus a general statement about continued safe flight (following impact with a 1kg bird at Vne up to 8000 ft.) Amndt 47 put the specific details about the rotors Areas of impact that are of particular interest include flight control surfaces (which includes main and tail rotors) and exposed flight control system components, so it would be interesting to know what actual testing was done. Certainly the S-92 has been tested, and there is video evidence to show that the bird came off worse!

Good job by the crew! :ok:

[AndyJB32]

Never flown the 139, but if that much of the tail section was lost in flight, wouldn't it result in catastrophic CofG issues? Looks like very well controlled ditching - ie everyone survived, suggesting no such problems.

[island eagles]

If you were to look carefully at the video , you will notice a whole lot of the end of the tail gearbox section missing. This cannot be due to a bird strike or salvage operations but perhaps contributed by a structural failure of the upper part of tail assembly section thereby ripping out the whole tail rotor assembly. All this while the concentration was on AW139 the tail boom section....could this failure be an extension of the composite structure failing. Perhaps the whole tail boom and tail rotor assembly has to be looked in total.
Again Kudos to the crew for a clinical RFM execution:ok::ok::ok:

Agusta, any feedback after 48 hours?:rolleyes:

[tottigol]

Island, the only parts missing from the top of the tail fin are directly related to the TGB and its enclosure and the relatively fragile aerodynamic plastic fairing that protects the controls run.

[NickLappos]

212man,
The FAR 29 amendment 40 was inclusive of blades as bird targets, 47 added emphasis, but the requirement was clear in 45 (the 92 was certified to 45 originally, then added 47).

As a note (with recognition that this thread is in La-La Land where we have few facts, and are discussing vapourware) a bird strike on an unprepared tail rotor blade would probably remove the blade, which would shortly remove the TR gearbox assembly (due to the whirling imbalance of the disk stressing the gearbox housing and feet).
We must recognize that a water landing has some probability of a tail strike and TGB breakage due to the landing, and not as a cause of the ditch.

There is little doubt that HK officials will find the root cause and report same, they are known world-wide as professionals in the British Empire mold of thinking.

In other words, have patience, ppruners!

[disqueless]

big birds flying there

36v4V3_pHfQ

[212man]

Thanks for the clarification Nick. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "unprepared blade"? It almost implies that test samples are not representative of in-service blades?

As an aside, I don't envy the investigators in their job of trying to locate the TGB - can you imagine how much junk (no puns intended) is on that river bed? :uhoh:

[zalopilot]

That's right Tottigol and the vertical fin is pretty much metallic and riveted.

[NickLappos]

212man, by "unprepared" I meant a blade designed to the old standards, where a bird strike could be a major problem, as opposed to a more modern design that meets the amendment 45/47 and that therefore has demonstrated the strength to survive the hit.

[filthymutt]

Yup all 6 139s were delivered with HUMS

[The Black Dragon]

Would love to here the CVR. ( while they wait for Pax for 10mins on the pad )

[ReverseFlight]

There are no present efforts to salvage the TR assembly. Not even a police or fire launch to secure the area.

Those in the know will recall a few years ago, one of the rear sliding doors of a Eurocopter belonging to the local Government Flying Service detached in flight over Hong Kong harbour. The Fire Services diving search team were sent in and after a couple of weeks of exhaustive search found the door several kilometres down stream of the detachment point, such was the strength of the current. The incident was never reported in the media.

It is therefore surprising that the media is saying that salvage operations will only commence after the dislodged components are catalogued in order to assist recovery efforts. It's not that hard to identify the boom fairing even if the blades have disintegrated, is it ? Sounds to me like someone is really dragging their leg.

[tottigol]

Who is dragging their feet? We do not know what went wrong and it could have been a series of factors, several of which do not involve AW.
It is just speculation at this time, like posted by Mr. Lappos.
Rather, it would be interesting to find out how long the MRBs (and hence the TRBs, provided they were still there) took to stop, considering the rotor brake will not work in a ditching.

[BedakSrewet]

Not just junk.

No doubt that there are lots of junks on the bottom of that harbour, or is it harbor or haba ? :)

[Iron Will]

It is doubtful that the landing and flare had much to do with the disappearance of the tail fin and rotor components. Someone has taken off this thread, the pics that were on here yesterday which shows clearly the damage, but the aircraft sat upright for 10-15 minutes before one float eventually deflated and the aircraft turned over (I am only surmising that is what turned it over).

It is reported by the crew and unrelated witnesses that the approach and landing was very controlled, and the inflated and serviceable floats attest to that, as well as the successful evacuation of the pax with nil injuries. Yes one float deflated but it was quite a time after the aircraft was in the water. Don't know about the bird strike theory but I would put it down the list of possibilities.

[Senior Pilot]

Someone has taken off this thread, the pics that were on here yesterday

All the photos that have been linked are still showing on pages 1, 2 and 3 of this thread. Here they are, just in case you missed them:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/media/ALeqM5haoz9vfHhtYpNhZJpSF-BLvdn-KA?size=l

http://i252.photobucket.com/albums/hh5/bushpig205/139%20ditching%20HK/P1010670.jpg

http://media.metronews.topscms.com/images/3c/a0/3806928f4ffe9fc246c9da9f1a86.jpeg

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2010-07/03/13382548_271n.jpg

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com//images/e-paper/20100704/large/04la1p201pn.jpg

VsQ5qZgdlNs

[DECUFAULT]

Ned..yes the toffee man...All those years operating the S76C+ and a bird never forced a water landing....Just have to wait for the report, a bit disapointing it in fact it was a bird. The toffee man....wanted the 139..others wanted the S92....just like the AS350...wrong choice...

[Iron Will]

Aw...thanks Senior Pilot...I did in fact miss them.

[The Black Dragon]

Google Chinese to English Translation:
疑渦輪葉片脫離肇事 民航處前處長樂鞏南認為，若然直升機尾螺旋槳打着麻鷹而導致意外，民航處便不至於暫停整隊同型號的直升機飛行，他不相信意外是尾 螺旋槳破損所致，因為若然尾螺旋槳失效，該直升機根本無法平穩地降落海面。 他懷疑是涉事直升機其中一台渦輪發動機的壓縮器或其渦輪葉片脫離，打穿發動機外罩或機身，故駕駛員說他聽到其後面發出巨響，而非 說機尾，而由於渦輪發動機的轉速達每分鐘幾萬轉，所以葉片飛出的速度有如子彈。 樂鞏南並指出，現時渦輪的設計，渦輪碟與渦輪葉片，多是一個整體鑄造，而非往日的一片一片的安裝到渦輪碟上，故安全性應提升了數 十倍，但不等於沒有風險，若鑄造過程有瑕疵，該整塊渦輪碟應會提早碎裂，一塊一塊連葉片會以子彈速度飛出。

Turbine blades from the incident the suspect

Former Director of Civil Aviation Lok that if a helicopter tail propeller accidents caused eagle banner of the Civil Aviation Department suspended the entire team they might not need the same type of helicopter flight, he did not believe the end of the propeller is damaged due to accident, because if the end propeller failure, the helicopter could not land a smooth sea.

He suspected that someone's helicopter one of the turbine engine compressor or turbine blades out, penetrated the engine housings, or body, so the driver said he heard the tremendous noise behind it, not that the tail, and as turbine engines speed up transfer of tens of thousands per minute, so the speed is like leaves flying out of bullets.

Lok and pointed out that the turbine design, turbine discs and blade, multi-casting a whole, rather than the past of a piece of plate on the installation of the turbine, so security should be raised a few times, but it does not mean there is no risk, if there are flaws in the casting process, the block should be advanced turbine disk fragments, a piece with blade speed will fly out of bullets.




http://www.google.com/images/cleardot.gif

[onprofile]

Great translation by Google. Now can we have it in English please.

[Brian Abraham]

apparently thinks it was an engine failure (which makes no sense)At this stage anything can make sense. The following S-76A in the mid eighties is a good example

DURING CRUISE FLIGHT AT 500 FT OVER GULF WATERS, THE LEFT ENGINE SUSTAINED A MASSIVE, UNCONTAINED, EXPLOSIVE FAILURE. SHARPNEL PENETRATED THE RIGHT ENGINE, WHICH FAILED FROM DAMAGE. SHARPNEL ALSO PENETRATED THE AC AND DC JUNCTION BOXES, CAUSING COMPLETE ELECTRICAL FAILURE (NO MAYDAY CALL POSSIBLE). SHARPNEL FURTHER SEVERED THE TAIL ROTOR DRIVE SHAFT AND PENETRATED THE ACFT FUEL SYSTEM; FIRE BROKE OUT IN THE TRANSMISSION AREA AND THE COCKPIT FILLED WITH SMOKE. USING THE CO-PLT'S SIDE WINDOW FOR VISUAL ACQUISITION OF THE WATER SURFACE, A SUCCESSFUL AUTOROTATION WAS PERFORMED. HOWEVER, THE ACFT ROLLED OVER AND SANK SINCE THE EMERGENCY FLOATATION GEAR IS ELECTRICALLY OPERATED AND FAILED TO DEPLOY. AFTER SUCCESSFUL EVACUATION BY ALL OCCUPANTS, PLT RETURNED TO THE INVERTED ACFT AND DEPLOYED LIFE RAFTS. INVESTIGATION REVEALED LEFT ENGINE COMPRESSOR-TO-TURBINE COUPLING HAD FAILED IN FATIGUE. TURBINE WENT OVERSPEED AND BURST UNDER CENTRIFUGAL LOADS.

Sometimes the dog of fate lifts its leg and pi55es on the pillar of science.

[generalspecific]

as an amusing aside, I was, with my back to the TV, giving some pax the standard brief about "in the unlikely event that.." I would simply pop the floats and we would bob up and down till the boat came and picked us up

.. when the lady pointed to the TV with MHJ upside down showing off the yellow bags and said ".. er like that one..."

Priceless

:D

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Bird Makes Forced Landing into Harbour - Avian World Daily News

Investigators are probing into the causes of the accident which caused a bird to make a forced landing in the harbour on Saturday.

The bird, part of the Western Flock, was reported missing just after midday by flock members. Shortly afterwards, the bird was found close to drowning just north of the ferry pier. The bird was rescued and had suffered minimal injuries.

Western Flock operates approximately 50 Black Kites and is the sole predator in the skies of that area. Their operations mainly include hunting and gathering.

The speculation is that the bird may have experienced a 'helicopter strike'.

An eyewitness said this:

"I was riding another thermal during a fishing flight when I heard a loud squawk. I looked over to see the bird in trouble. I'm sure I saw some of the Tertial flight feathers missing as he made the forced landing into the harbour."

Investigators have confirmed that part of the bird's tail feather arrangement was missing, but it is not yet known whether they separated in flight or were eaten by fish after hitting the water.

"Helicopters are a problem for birds in the area," one expert said. "It seems that there are more and more helicopters in the air now and they migrate frequently in both directions across our thermals. Helicopter avoidance is getting harder."

Birds are trained in recognising signs of helicopter activity. "A loud noise and unstable airs are the two most common indicators. You have to be alert and keep a good lookout for helicopters," said a spokesbird from the Avian Oversized Predators Association (AOPA). "Despite thorough training and excellent eyesight though, sometimes helicopter strikes are unavoidable," he said.

Avian World caught up with principal emu of the 'Emu School of Flight - Physics of Soaring Flight Department'.

"When de bir land on de wartah, he deproying her frock," said the emu. "De frock ..er..a welly important part of safety...er.. froatation system," Emu explained.

However it is widely considered that the Emu is in fact a 'hack' since emus cannot fly at all and probably hasn't a clue what its talking about.

Early newspaper reports alleged that the Black Kite did not have the required number of 'frocks' for the flight, but this has been since confirmed to be careless misinformation. The bird was properly preened in compliance with all the standards and requirements before flight.

Bird related discussion groups around the world are abuzz as the avian community waits eagerly for more information. In one well known forum, 'PPreen - Soaring Beaks', birds have begun the inevitable speculation as to the likely cause of the incident.

"Just a few months ago, a similar black kite, had not preened well, and lost its entire tail whilst foraging around on the ground for worms. Maybe its the same problem," said one poster.

Another poster who goes by the moniker, 'Claps Pinko' and is considered a bit of an expert on the subject of bird design by himself and a few others, mused whether the flying conditions in the area put too much stress on the bird's body.

"Flying there is rigourous and there is a lot of stress on the basal and terminal phalanxes during take off and landing. A failure in those parts would make soaring impossible, and require a bird to 'autoflap' to the ground or water," Pinko wisely posts.

A spokesbird for Western Flock made this statement:

"We have suspended all soaring hunting and gathering flights for the time being until more information on the cause comes to light. We commend the kite for his handling of the situation. Safely landing on the water with tailfeather problems, whilst avoiding other birds, buildings and ships is a notable feat."

The avian community now waits.

[ramos]

:D:D:D:D:D

[Ned-Air2Air]

Love It :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok:

[Brian Abraham]

since emus cannot fly at all and probably hasn't a clue what its talking about.Excuse me!!!!!! We EMU's did a damn fine job, even if I must say so myself. Don't always know what I'm talking about but.
Signed,
EMU27

135th Assault Helicopter - Taipans (http://www.135ahc.net)

Loved the bait tho :ok:

[Takan Inchovit]

I've been trying to reply to this thread since it first started but my failing eyesight has prevented me from logging in past that code that prevents spammers et el. :hmm:

We must recognize that a water landing has some probability of a tail strike and TGB breakage due to the landing, and not as a cause of the ditch.

I think the fact that the horizontal stab was still in place, demonstrates the tail rotor probably would not have touched aqua (if still attached) unless the pilot was hovering and then slowly backed the helicopter into the harbour.:8

[zalopilot]

Agusta's first statement just came in. They say based on initial findings it appears "External FOD causing tail rotor imbalance damaging the components of the antitorque system".

[wde]

From a letter sent to AW owners:

"... Immdeiately after the notification of the event, based on the reported conditions of the aircraft, AgustasWestland started a detailed analysis and a complete review of the Tail Rotor log reports; no aircraft issues were found.

Furthermore, based on the first examination of the recovered aircraft it appears that the incident effects are fully compatible with an external Foreign Object Damage (FOD), which caused a tail rotor imbalance damaging the components of the anti-torque system.

The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) data, recently downloaded, confirm the impulsive characteristc of the phenomenom while the other aircraft parameters appear to stay inside the normal operating ranges. ..."

[Iron Will]

Ok...may be true...but for legal/liability reasons what else would AW say at this point? Perhaps a bit early yet to take it as gospel. Unbiased investigation (if that's possible) would lend some validity to this statement.

I am assuming that AW is eluding back to the bird strike theory (because what else could it be in that operating location). Can a bird really cause that much to happen right after takeoff and not even at cruise yet? Who knows...maybe it can...

The pics in the HK Standard show a straight on shot of the tail...not even a TR drive-shaft there that I can see.
(I tried to upload it but I must be technologically bankrupt as it wouldn't work.):ugh:

[ReverseFlight]

"FOD causing tail rotor imbalance damaging the components of the antitorque system"
FOD = Frequently Omitted Directives :eek:

[The Black Dragon]

With so many tall buildings in that area of HK, in the land of CCTV running 24/7
Some building management company has the --Golden Egg on tape--- they just dont know it yet, Im sure this would be worth at least 5 fiq $$$$$

[tottigol]

Iron Will, you cannot see the drive shaft because it's inside the fin.:ugh:

[FH1100 Pilot]

Yeaaaah, most (all?) helicopters with conventional tail rotors mounted atop vertical fins send the driveshaft up the leading edge. What's missing from the 139 is not the driveshaft but the push-pull pitch change tube, which probably left with the gearbox.

Just one word on the "birdstrike" scenario: Maybe. Let us accept that the bird did not overtake them and fly into the tail rotor from the rear. Unless the bird dove vertically from above, it's hard for one to get the tail rotor without going by the cockpit pretty close - and there were two guys up front presumably with their eyes open who ought to have seen it. We all take work hard to avoid birds (the ones we see, anyway). And maybe they did.

Right now all we know for sure is that "something" caused that tail rotor gearbox to depart the aircraft in a big hurry. As with any accident, we'll surely find out more in the days and weeks to come.

[sycamore]

Could it have been baggage coming loose,or a baggage door/panel ?

[Senior Pilot]

The pics in the HK Standard show a straight on shot of the tail...not even a TR drive-shaft there that I can see.
(I tried to upload it but I must be technologically bankrupt as it wouldn't work.)

Are these the ones? From The Standard (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=100069&sid=28803839&con_type=3&d_str=20100705&sear_year=2010)

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20100705/6_2010070421243333543heli1.jpg

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/newsimage/20100705/5_2010070421243333543heli2.jpg

[Senior Pilot]

The Standard (http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=30&art_id=100069&sid=28803839&con_type=3&d_str=20100705&sear_year=2010)

Copter firm tries to clear the air

Wednesday, July 07, 2010

Four days after a helicopter ditched in Victoria Harbour, commercial flights between Macau and Hong Kong will resume today.

And Sky Shuttle Helicopters, the company which runs the services, wants the public to know that everything's safe. To demonstrate its full confidence in the helicopter type, the company's senior management and a representative from the manufacturer will board the first departure from Hong Kong to Macau at 9.30am.

[Iron Will]

Thanks Senior Pilot, thats the pic from the Standard that I meant. I understand from Um...Lifting... that the driveshaft is inside the vert stab and the push-pull tube (or pitch rod) is what I saw as missing. Thanks for the clarification guys.

[ReverseFlight]

Sky Shuttle Helicopters Daily Flights between HK - Macau & Macau - Shenzhen / Press Room (http://www.skyshuttlehk.com/?structure=007&content=20&articleid=181)

Sky Shuttle Helicopters Limited /
East Asia Airlines Limited
Statement to Media: 6 July 2010
Following a comprehensive fleet inspection and airworthiness review of Sky Shuttle Helicopters and East Asia Airlines Limited’s AW 139 helicopters and operations, the civil aviation authorities of Hong Kong and Macau have approved the resumption of all commercial flight services effective tomorrow (7 July).
In demonstrating its continued and full confidence in the helicopter type, senior management of the airline, as well as that of the manufacturer, Agusta Westland, will board the first flight departure from Hong Kong to Macau at 0930.

Don't you love the post-1997 spirit. Horses continue to gallop and the people continue to dance. :)

[Chairmanofthebored]

I wonder why the only people debating the bird strike theory don't work there. Another pilot this morning confirmed the eagle impact but without the CSI evidence (washed away in HK harbour) who will know?

Regardless, Well done Richard.

Brian, what a **** day that S76 pilot had eh? Still had the composure to return back for a raft...

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I had a birdstrike whilst on the Brent Delta in a venerable S61 with.

I was outside supervising the crew change and I watched in fascination as a large seabird (swore blind it was an albatross) descended almost vertically with feet extended into the main disc at about the 11:00 o'clock position. The feet came off first and as the main body entered the disc it was whipped around and thrown into the tail rotor whereupon it virtually atomised. It was a big bird as we all realised becauise we ended up under the disc covered in gooo and birdy bits.

The Commander felt the impact and naturally we shutdown to inspect under engineering guidance from base. No damage, Just me sticking of fish and bird **** all the way home.

The impact with the tail rotor was full on with the birds body almost in one piece as it struck and still no damage.

I find it hard to accept that a bird doing the same in flight would result in catastrophic loss of the tail rotor.

DB

[Senior Pilot]

DB,

The Brent: another formative part of a pilot's life ;) I had a similar birdstrike to what you describe with an albatross who played chicken with a Sea King while I was running on a carrier deck. The albatross lost!

Since there is a swelling body of opinion toward the possibility of a birdstrike in honkyfid, it is also possible that the strike could have occurred directly into the tail rotor, from the side. Closing angle of 139 and bird such that the bird flew (whilst 'in the cruise') straight into the T/R: just a thought.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Hi SP, I am just speculating here, but unless the bird had suicidal tendancies its difficult to see why it would fly "AT" the tail rotor directly.

In my incident I sort of convinced myself that the bird saw the disc from the top and thought it was a solid object, It certainly appeared to flare with feet extended as if it was trying to land on the spinning disc. Maybe it got mesmerised by the disc.

Either way the impact with the tail rotor was with the almost complete boidy of thre bird as it had entered the main disc inboard where rotational speed is low enough to not atomise the brid but rather "fling" it into the TR.

I also agree with the poster who says that if the entire TRGBX and TR departed the resultant change in CG would almost certainly not be conducive to a controlled ditching. That was one of the conclusions in the Bristows lightening strike incident with Lional Sole - that had the TRGBX & TR departed completley in flight the helicopter would have been uncontrollable.

Just speculation of course but I will be very surprised if a dicky birdy has knocked the TR & TRGBX off and a controlled ditching made.

[Senior Pilot]

unless the bird had suicidal tendencies its difficult to see why it would fly "AT" the tail rotor directlyHence my comment about closing angles. If the bird was on a set course and the 139 intercepted that course, the first thing the bird would know was a bit of a headache; the 139 wasn't in the hover, it was accelerating on climb.

That's assuming, of course, that the bird wasn't paying attention: but the history of aircraft vs bird incidents is littered with cases where the bird appeared not to notice the aircraft until 'too late'.

[The Black Dragon]

Time will tell when they recover the TR Gear Box and blades or get CCTV footage.

Until then, A bird strike is plausible I guess, but very convenient for "both parties" to say its was an "Iron Bird". :eek::eek:

[212man]

the bird strike is plausible I guess, but also very convenient for both parties

Unless the bird was considerably heavier than 2.2 lb, I wouldn't say it was convenient for AW! It implies their bird strike certification was flawed.

[500e]

BD
Not too convenient for the bird I guess, & as 212 says if less than 2.2 lb or even a smidgen over :(

Investigation begins into cause of helicopter crash in Hong Kong (http://www.examiner.com/x-27487-International-Travel-Examiner%7Ey2010m7d5-Investigation-begins-into-cause-of-helicopter-crash-in-Hong-Kong)

Aviation experts from Macau, Hong Kong, and Italy have begun their investigation into a helicopter crash that took place in Hong Kong's Victoria Harbor on Saturday afternoon.
13 people were on board the Sky Shuttle helicopter on July 3 that was en route to nearby Macau when pilots heard a loud bang at the back of the helicopter shortly after takeoff, around 12:04 p.m. (1604 GMT).
Witnesses said an eagle or "bird-like" object hit the tail rotor of the helicopter just after the helicopter took off for the popular casino region of Macau. The helicopter let out a loud bang and descended to the sea, about 500 meters northwest of Shun Tak Center on Hong Kong Island.
Inflatable buoys kept the helicopter afloat long enough to allow everyone to exit before the helicopter submerged. All 13 people - 11 passengers and two pilots - were rescued and taken to the Queen Mary Hospital for treatment and have since been released.
The helicopter pilot, Richard Moffatt, has over 8,500 hours of flying experience and was praised for his professionalism in the water landing by passengers and the Civil Aviation Department.
Sky Shuttle has five other AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters, all of which have been grounded for inspection, while its service between Hong Kong and Macau has been suspended until further notice.
Acting Director General of the Civil Aviation Department (CAD), Leung Yu-keung, said some of the fittings broken down from the wreckage will be sent to Italy, where the helicopter was manufactured. Leung expects a preliminary report to be issued within a month.

[The Black Dragon]

19:30 local ATV World ( HK English TV News ) Tonight again mentioned Engine Failure as the cause, whats up with that ??

[Joker's Wild]

It tells me they no more know if it was caused by an engine failure, bird strike or sun spots.....:E

[212man]

One for Nick - perhaps. Does the 29.631 test require an actual drive train or just the rotor blades on a rig? The point being, does the real world shock loading of the drive shafts ( possibly super-critical) get tested when the bird hits the blades? Could be an important distinction!

[cayuse365]

Dragon, do these aircraft have the Increased Gross Wt kits? What are the normal T/O weights?

[filthymutt]

No extra weight kits here. 6400 KG only

[HeliAviator]

The official release from Agusta has that on first examination of the recovered aircraft it appears that the incident effects are fully compatable with an external Foreign Object Damage (FOD) which caused a tail rotor imbalance damaging the components of the anit-torque system. The flight data download confirms the impulsive characteristics of the phenomenon, while the other aircraft parameters appear to stay inside the normal operating ranges

Apart for the Itlish language, this pretty is conclusive so far.

Again, a good recovery and ditching by the crew, well done.

[MightyGem]

I find it hard to accept that a bird doing the same in flight would result in catastrophic loss of the tail rotor.

Whether it caused the loss of the tail rotor is probably unknown, but a seabird hitting the tail rotor caused the loss of a Seaking during the Falklands War.

[The Black Dragon]

on first examination of the recovered aircraft it appears that the incident effects are fully compatable with an external Foreign Object Damage (FOD) which caused a tail rotor imbalance damaging the components of the anit-torque system. The flight data download confirms the impulsive characteristics of the phenomenon, while the other aircraft parameters appear to stay inside the normal operating ranges

>>>>This is an interesting statement considering the TR came off....

[gulliBell]

If the tail rotor fell off would you momentarily see a small increase in RRPM in the data at that instant, and an uncommanded nose pitch down attitude?

[DECUFAULT]

I do like the quote..it's now safe to fly...they must have sharp shooters on the roof taking out the birds...:hmm:

[JOURNIOO4]

what about the tail rotor no pic no news?:confused:

[Joker's Wild]

So it seems the pilot has stated he had full aft cyclic below 500 feet going into the water. Guess you'd have to be missing an awful lot of weight from the back end to make that happen. :hmm:

Now if only they could recover all of that "missing weight" and tell us what REALLY happened.

[Neptunus Rex]

Perhaps it was a BASSA CSD seated aft who moved for'ard after departure, looking for the grog in the First Class galley!

[sycamore]

J-W,et al, I can tell you that having a tail-rotor and gearbox `depart,Two things get your immediate attention- Yaw,rapid ,depending on your forward speed.and -Cyclic,full aft to stop the nose-down,again depending on fwd speed and C of G..
If you care to do a few simple sums,approximations,lets say the T/R and g/box weigh 120 lbs,at an arm of about 30 ft; that`s 3600 ft.lbs of moment you have just lost...not really covered on the POH Schedule....
It was in a Westland product as well...thread on blade tie-bolt was not `cleaned` and started a fatigue crack which had had enough on my day...
all other t/r failures are easy after that....

[Tallsar]

Well said Sycamore......the simple maths shows how little weight you need to loose all that way along a tail rotor boom for the londitudinal cyclic to run out of authority.

[FH1100 Pilot]

On 18 April 1979 a New York Airways' Sikorsky S-61L lost a 35-inch section of one of the five tail rotor blades in flight.

This occurred just after takeoff from Newark Airport (KEWR) in New Jersey, U.S. The crew immediately recognized the problem and initiated an emergency landing back on the airport. The chose to *not* autorotate, as they still had control of the aircraft.

Forty-three seconds after the blade failed the entire tail rotor gearbox departed the aircraft. They were at approximately 150 feet and 60 knots. At that point the aircraft became uncontrollable. It hit the ground in a steep nose-down attitude, yawing to the right. The non-flying pilot was able to get the engines shut down and the battery off prior to impact. There was no fire. Of the 13 people on board, 10 survived.

The NTSB concluded that when the tail rotor/gearbox departed, the center of gravity shifted to 2" forward of the forward limit.

Whatever the cause turns out to be, if the tail rotor of the AW-139 came off in flight, the crew really did a marvelous job dealing with an emergency which really is a pilot's worst nightmare.

Here's the link to the NTSB report on the New York Airways accident:

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online-full-text/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports/AAR79-14.pdf

[The Black Dragon]

For all the ppruners that can READ Chinese ,
HK (Next) magazine issued on the 8th July has a very interesting article about the inner politics at EAA / Sky Shuttle
Many names mentioned and quoted. Sure looks like theirs a war going on at the top. May the best Man or Woman win :ok::ok:

[fly911]

TBD: If you google the link does it ask if you want a translated version? Is this an issue of the magazine you are referring to?

http://www.filligent.com/uploads/file/Next%20Magazine%20Jan%2014-10%20-%20English.pdf

[The Black Dragon]

http://hk.next.nextmedia.com/template/next/front.php

Here the link, but its not online as yet as its a current issue for news stands in HK & Macau.

[fly911]

Thanks TBD. I'll keep an eye out for an english translation.

[gulliBell]

TBD is very resourceful and I'm sure can have a translation posted here without too much effort, and it won't be googlenglish either....over to you TBD....but don't let that stop you getting in first filthymutt.

[Joker's Wild]

Sooooooooo, some engineering staff now openly questioning why the pilots are agreeing to fly when the various bits lying at the bottom of HK harbour have yet to be recovered and examined. Gee, why WOULD pilots "agree" to this sort of thing, let me think. :ugh:

[The Black Dragon]

I have the magazine now, Its a 5 page epic ....going to take time to post.
Maybe someone in Sky Shuttle HR dept. can do it :D

[sycamore]

The sequel to the post#154 was that the local village(in Borneo) were offered a reward if anyone could find any `bits` in the jungle,having been shown the t/r on another cab; within 3 days most of the critical components had been recovered,the villagers were happy, and the reason for the failure was established....Prices might be a little higher in H-K,but as someone mentioned earlier,there must be lots of CCTV that could identify the area.

[9Aplus]

All world harbors are mud pits....
Only feasible way to recover is to scan all sub bottom with Owerhouser magneto-meter and recover at last steel made parts & TGB
:E

[gulliBell]

Extracts from the South China Morning Post...


Copter pilot tells how instinct saved the day
Just don't call me a hero, says veteran aviator

Niall Fraser
Jul 11, 2010

Helicopter pilot Richard Moffatt is no fan of what he calls the "H" word, but few would argue that he is a bona fide hero. If it hadn't been for his lightning-sharp reactions, years of training and wealth of flying experience, Hong Kong could have been mourning one of its worst-ever air disasters.

The self-effacing Moffatt was at the controls of a Macau-bound AgustaWestland AW139 helicopter with 13 passengers and crew on board when it suffered a massive failure in its tail seconds after take-off from the Shun Tak Centre helipad in Sheung Wan last Saturday morning.
At that moment, father-of-three Moffat, 45, his Macanese first officer, Fernando Sun Keng-pong, and the men and women passengers heading for a relaxing weekend in Asia's gaming capital were plunged into a nightmare scenario.
The English and naturalised Australian pilot from Sky Shuttle has revealed how, after what is acknowledged as a brilliant piece of flying to get the helicopter safely onto the water, he dived into Victoria Harbour twice from the stricken aircraft to help distressed passengers cast adrift in the choppy swell of one of the world's busiest waterways. He has also told how, a week after the ordeal, he awakes in the middle of the night, replaying the incident in his head and wondering: "Could I have done more?''
Amazingly, just five days after what could easily have been a tragedy, Moffatt was back in the pilot's seat. It would have been sooner, was it not for the fact that his licence remains at the bottom of the harbour.
"I got my [new] pilot's licence on Thursday lunchtime and immediately went to the heliport and put myself on a flight," he said. "It was surprisingly fine. I didn't know how I was going to react once I sat in the aircraft, but I got in with a training captain and it was okay. If anything, this incident has increased my confidence in this aircraft and in myself. I wanted to do a flight as quickly as I could, before I could change my mind. It was the same for Fernando, he just got his licence back on Friday and got straight back in."
However, listening to a man who said he wanted to be a pilot from the tender age of four recount the dramatic circumstances of his first real-life in-flight emergency, it was easy to understand if he never wanted to see the inside of a helicopter again.
Moffatt recalled how, despite the speed and severity of the situation, his training took over.
"We took off towards Stonecutters Island into the wind. It was an absolutely standard departure," he said. "But as we were passing about 300 feet, literally five seconds after we completed the take-off checks, we heard a big bang at the rear of the aircraft. The whole airframe started to swerve to the right and there was a very severe vibration. The vibration was most notable through the pedals which control the yaw (swerve) of the aircraft, so I diagnosed there was a problem with the tail rotor. It was fairly clear to me that we had a tail rotor failure.
"The only way to resolve that was to enter into auto-rotation. This basically means taking all power off the main rotors which takes the torque out of the system. I then asked Fernando to switch the engines to `Off' and we auto-rotated to within about 100 feet of the water."
The veteran pilot, who has 18 years of offshore flying experience in the United States, Thailand, Myanmar and West Africa, compared the descent of 10 to 15 seconds towards the water as "like a sycamore leaf falling from a tree". Quite a metaphor, especially as he was talking about hundreds of tonnes of helicopter falling out of the sky at 1,500 to 2,000 feet a minute.
"At about 30 to 50 feet, I levelled the aircraft and that cushioned us onto the water," he said, before adding with heavy understatement: "It was largely an uneventful landing - apart from the fact that it was on water. It was a one-way ticket down but my training just clicked in. From the start of the event until we hit the water, I had no idea how the passengers were reacting. Both myself and Fernando were kind of busy!"
Neither did the pair have time to reflect on the highly skilled yet instinctive emergency landing - behind them were 13 terrified people in a chaotic cabin taking in water. "As soon as we hit the water, the floats activated automatically and our job was to get everyone out. The passengers were surprisingly well behaved. They took my directions. It maybe took 10 to 15 seconds from the event happening to us touching the water. I don't think there was time for panic."
Moffatt said most of the passengers got out with their life jackets on, but in the confusion some left the helicopter without. "There was one passenger who went out with his friend and didn't have a life jacket, so I went into the water to make sure he was okay."
The plucky pilot then swam back to the chopper to help two people who could not find life jackets. "They were still there under the seats, but at that point there was some confusion so I persuaded both of them to leave the aircraft with seat cushions, which are designed as buoyancy aids."
Prior to that he had gone to the aid of a distressed woman in her mid-20s who had a life jacket round her neck but had not tied it on. "While all this happened Fernando was right beside the aircraft, he was doing a wonderful job. English wasn't the first language of the majority of the passengers, so he was giving instructions in Cantonese and Mandarin."
By the time the pilots got the last two passengers into the water, three fishing boats were already there and had picked up some of them.
"Police launches were on the scene very quickly and they did the headcount. Once I was certain we had the 13 people out of the water, I was able to relax a little," Moffatt said.
"It wasn't until Fernando and I were on the ferry back to Macau a few hours later that evening and there was no one else around that what had happened hit home.
"There was the realisation of what could have happened and there was also self-doubt - did I do the right thing? Did I do the best I could? Was there something else I could have done to not have gone into the water?
"You read about pilots in emergency situations and you think, `If that had been me, would I have been able to pull that off?' It's nice to know that 18 years of flying have paid off.
"I don't want to sound like some sort of super-pilot because I am not; it is instinct, the training is there to make this reaction second nature. I just hope this is a once-in-a-career event.


...hundreds of tonnes of helicopter falling out of the sky... I didn't realize they were that heavy :ugh: no wonder it fell out of the sky :eek:

[gulliBell]

Extract from the South China Morning Post....

Helicopter in harbour plunge was subject to safety alert
Incident in Qatar prompted warning about craft's tail boom

Niall Fraser
Jul 11, 2010

The Macau-bound helicopter which was forced to ditch in Victoria Harbour last weekend was the subject of a worldwide safety alert.Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department officials confirmed that the stricken Italian-made AgustaWestland AW139 - along with hundreds of the same model flying worldwide - was subject to an emergency airworthiness directive issued last October by European safety officials.

The directive details a "de-bonding" problem with panels on the 15-seater aircraft's tail boom and mandates rigorous daily checks on that section of the helicopter.
Investigations into last weekend's incident continue, and official details are sketchy, but it is known that the AW139 helicopter - owned and operated by Macau-based company Sky Shuttle - suffered a "tail rotor failure" seconds after take-off from the Shun Tak Centre helipad in Sheung Wan, forcing pilot Richard Moffatt to ditch in the harbour.
The section of the tail that broke off and sank will form a key part of the investigation into what happened last Saturday. Aviation officials said it had yet to be retrieved from the harbour.
The aircraft's 11 passengers were plucked to safety and suffered only slight injuries as a result of the efforts of Moffatt and his first officer, Fernando Sun Keng-pong, in bringing it safely down onto the surface of the harbour.
Sky Shuttle operates a fleet of six AW139s, two of which are registered in Hong Kong and four in Macau. After being grounded in the immediate aftermath of the incident, the five remaining aircraft were cleared for take off last Wednesday.
The emergency directive was issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on October 29 after the tail boom of a helicopter of the same model operated by Gulf Helicopters snapped off as it taxied along a runway in Qatar in August. Its issuance has split European and Hong Kong aviation officials.
A spokeswoman for the Civil Aviation Department said it was aware of the de-bonding problem. "However, the problem referred to by the emergency AD [the directive] was only on the section of the tail boom immediately behind the cabin, not on the vertical section at the tail. EASA did not specifically correlate the reason for the directive to the Qatar incident."
A spokeswoman for AgustaWestland also moved to play down any link between the Hong Kong and Qatar incidents.
"We can confirm that the airworthiness directive you reference relates to the same model as was involved in the Sky Shuttle incident, although we believe that the Qatar incident that preceded the directive's issuance and the incident here in Hong Kong are unrelated," she said.
However, EASA's Dominique Fouda said the directive applied to the whole tail boom and that the Qatar incident - among others - had been factored into the decision to issue the airworthiness directive.
"The directive was issued following a number of different incidents involving fuselage problems on the AW139. It covers the whole of the tail, including the section to which the tail rotor is attached. The Qatar incident was factored into the decision," Fouda said. "The directive remains in force but has not been updated in light of the Hong Kong incident because the investigation into that is still ongoing."
The directive mandates that inspections of the AW139 tail boom be made at more regular intervals as a result of potential tail boom problems. These include daily general visual inspections and frequent detailed inspections of the tail boom panels "to detect bulging and/or deformations". It goes on to say that these inspections should in some cases be carried out at intervals not exceeding 25 flight hours.
Asked if this was being done prior to the ditching of the helicopter last weekend, the Civil Aviation Department spokeswoman said: "The inspection records of the accident aircraft are being checked. All airworthiness directives issued by the state of manufacture are mandated by Hong Kong.
"Therefore, the two Hong Kong- registered AW139 of Sky Shuttle are in compliance with the requirement of the [directive] since it was issued. This includes daily general visual inspections, 25-flight-hour inspection and 50-flight-hour inspection."
The Hong Kong authorities are also aware of the Qatar incident and say they will liaise with the authorities in the Arab emirate if necessary.
Despite several months having passed since the Qatar incident, details have not emerged as to what caused the tail boom to snap. There was initially speculation that a bird strike may have caused the helicopter pilot to lose control, but a former head of Hong Kong's Civil Aviation Department, Peter Lok, cast doubt on that theory.
"I never thought it was a bird strike. My feeling is that was an engine problem. These are not unheard of despite the fact that the way modern engines are designed enhances their safety quite considerably," he said.
The international investigation into the Victoria Harbour incident is being jointly undertaken by the Civil Aviation Departments of Hong Kong and Macau, the Italian Air Safety Board, AgustaWestland and the Transport Safety Board (TSB) of Canada - where the engines were manufactured.
The Civil Aviation Department is expected to release a preliminary report into the incident in about three weeks' time.

[gulliBell]

Again, South China Morning Post...and this one is interesting, particularly because it's attributed to a senior member of "the family"...

Life rafts a must on Macau run

Jul 09, 2010

I wish to praise the act of heroism of the two pilots who saved the lives of 11 passengers when their helicopter was forced to land in the harbour on July 3.

It was fortunate that no one was hurt in this incident and that everyone was rescued by passing boats within minutes.
Imagine if this incident had happened not in the harbour but in the open sea between Hong Kong and Macau and passengers only had life jackets to put on.
I was chief executive of helicopter companies in Hong Kong and Macau until 2006. During my time, the business was under the Heli Express brand and we operated Sikorsky S-76C+ helicopters.
Safety was our primary objective and we had an untarnished record.
I recall it was once suggested by the helicopter inspector of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department that life rafts should be fitted on to the helicopters travelling between Hong Kong and Macau as an additional safety device. This is because the entire journey is over water.
Following the accident on Saturday, I urge the Hong Kong CAD and the civil aviation authorities in Macau (AACM) to consider this matter and make it a requirement that life rafts should be installed in the AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters as an added life-saving device.
Andrew Tse, managing director, X Air Ltd


I wonder if the boffins on the 16/F are regretting dumping Sikorsky for AW, after all those "untarnished" years of operation of the S76C+.

[sycamore]

Wonderful thing ,hindsight.....for an ex-exec....
Go on,be proactive,make a decision....

[The Black Dragon]

This will never happen unless made mandatory by CAD & AACM together.

( Outwest ) let me reconfirm soon,
If it was less fuel or less Pax during summer months.

Does anyone here know the (added weight) of the AW139 raft kit. ???

[Outwest]

This will never happen unless made mandatory by CAD & AACM together.
as it will drop the pax loads by 1-2 persons in summer. = money lost.

Really? The 139 has a payload problem on a 15 minute flight?

[gulliBell]

As per Andrew Tse comment, thought had been given in the past to carrying liferaft on these flights, but they chose not to. Payloads would have been reduced in summer if carrying LR on S76C+, but not sure if the same economic argument can be made with AW139. There is no mandatory requirement under many jurisdictions to carry liferafts in a Class 1 performance helicopter operating over water <100nm from land, or even the wearing of lifejackets for that matter. Some passengers had trouble even finding their lifejackets let alone putting them on, the prospect of them being able to assist the crew in launching a liferaft is remote. Unless of course an automatically deployable liferaft system was installed.

I would be surprised if they changed what they've being doing up to this point, i.e. stowed lifejackets under seats and no liferaft. A better "wearable" (but stowed) type lifejacket might be a more practical option, as opposed to one in a pouch. There is so much marine traffic on that route that sea rescue would never be far away, and all of those fast ferries have thermal imaging cameras that should assist in detecting survivors in the water.

No doubt they will take a look at all these aspects again in light of what happened.

I'd be interested whether the SkyShuttle pilots practice loss of tail rotor components in the sim, or just loss of tail rotor thrust, and whether the sim experience of this was similar to what the pilot found during the event.

[The Black Dragon]

Alfa Track = 15-16 min, Bravo Track = 16-17 min, Charlie Track = 17-19 min.

They carry fuel for a round trip (not one leg) as no fuel is available at the HK pad, Plus 14 min of waiting in HK pax.

Their saving grace is, they mainly fly Chinese men and woman that are 50lbs lighter than a Western, so a full load of 12 is (usually) OK. :ok::ok:
but add a raft kit and do the math someone.

[gulliBell]

...The 139 has a payload problem on a 15 minute flight?


Just to clarify, they refuel in Macau, fly to Hong Kong, wait at idle, fly back to Macau and refuel. So they are operating for about an hour between refuelling, and they carry IFR reserve fuel much of the time. But yes, I wonder if the 139 would need be at a reduced payload in summer with a liferaft.

[gulliBell]

TBD, you beat me to the punch by 1 minute :D

[The Black Dragon]

Sorry gullibell,,, but where both on the same page at least :ok:

[gulliBell]

...and I'm still very surprised that in the CCTV/webcam/phonecam capital of the universe that no video capture of the whole event has been posted to YouTube or elsewhere yet, or none that I know of....there would be a video record of it from several angles for sure.

...and I'm also surprised that every local with a pair of swimming goggles and flippers who'd be out there searching for those half dozen or so Louis Vuitton handbags on the bottom of the harbour hasn't come across a tail rotor and gearbox yet :}

[The Black Dragon]

The Shun Tak Helipad area at a guess, would have over 10 cameras and Shun Tak Towers have roof / weather cams, not to mention IFC & IFC 2, as they make the HK Money in that place, has hundreds of hi tech cameras all over it.

Maybe they already have it, locked away !!!

[gulliBell]

Maybe they already have it, locked away !!!


Ah, a conspiracy theory, now that would be a 1st for Hong Kong :eek:

If they're sticking to the bird theory then it's probably not in their interest to find the smoking gun :oh:

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ...

Liferafts on the 139 are deployable from the pilot stations (one raft can be deployed by either pilot but not both rafts by the same pilot) ... they can also be deployed by passengers by reaching for a deploy handle located at the forward edge of each sponson.


;)

[Outwest]

Only ever seen one 139 in my life, but it had life rafts directly below the main cabin doors, between the pax step and the fuselage. Comment was made that when pax are boarding they tend to kick the life raft cover. No idea on weight penalty.

[stacey_s]

Strange 139 you saw then!!

S

[gittijan]

The life raft kit weight is 202 lbs. or 93 kg., take your pick.

[ReverseFlight]

Flight Safety Australia : July-August 2010, Page 38 (http://casa.realviewtechnologies.com/default.aspx?iid=37710&startpage=page0000038)
See photo top right hand corner.


Front RH windshield extensively cracked. WIndshield is constructed from laminated glass. P/No. 3G5610V00451. TSN: 562 hours/1,417 cycles.


Interesting developments for young machines ! :ouch:

[The Black Dragon]

Thanks Gittijan

Filthymutt get your calculator out :)

[[email protected]]

I would have thought the well-heeled type of customer using that shuttle would much prefer to step out into a sponson-mounted liferaft than flounder in the water (with or without a lifejacket). If payload is an issue, make 11 pax pay the same as the 12 pax did.

The safety briefings 'In the unlikely event of...' might be listened to a little more closely for a while anyway.

[papa68]

All,

I was wondering if any of the Sky Shuttle pilots wear helmets as a matter of course?

Highly topical down this way as presumably the newer aircraft are meant to be less likely to ditch. Hmmm...

P68:O

[gittijan]

Black Dragon,
No that is for 2 life rafts, sponson mounted. The kit is only approved for both.

[The Black Dragon]

P68
NO helmets, & No life vests worn, mainly due to the high summer temps and corporate nature of the job... has a much better Air-con than the 76 though.:ok:

[The Black Dragon]

Gittijan THANKS

[FH1100 Pilot]

This event bring some things into sharp focus. We make a Big Deal about Category A performance and how important we deem it to be. But in reality, there is still only one tail rotor and (in the case of Cougar in the North Atlantic) one main transmission. The failure of either one of those items (even though we assume the possibility to be extremely remote) can still put you in the water.

[Outwest]

Strange 139 you saw then!!


ERA machine......

[ShyTorque]

I would prefer to wear a helmet too but it would be politically quite difficult to justify to corporate pax why the crew do but they don't....

The Macau route is well populated by surface vessels and the sea temperatures high compared to UK. A life-raft isn't seen as such a high priority as it would be in colder climates.

[gulliBell]

Its about time they (in Hong Kong) adopted Shell standards - liferafts, helmets etc.

Horses for courses. The nature of the operation in Hong Kong/Macau is quite different to offshore.

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Its about time they (in Hong Kong) adopted Shell standards - liferafts, helmets etc.

PC1/2e is only one 7th of Shell´s master plan for helicopter safety, as adopted by the IHST. Only a fool would argue for just one safety improvement at the expense of all the others proven by Shell to be necessary.


Huh? Only a fool would make such a statement without knowing intimately the nature of the operation in Hong Kong/Macau, the normal weather patterns, sea temperatures, air temperatures, sea states, average currents, distances from land, local laws and requirements of the authorities, politics, SAR coverage in the area, ATC and radio coverage, SARSAT efficicency and capabilities, marine traffic density along the route, exposure related illnesses etc..etc..not to mention an understanding of the company and why this is even an issue now...

Really? I'm ashamed.

FH1100 Pilot This event bring some things into sharp focus. We make a Big Deal about Category A performance and how important we deem it to be. But in reality, there is still only one tail rotor and (in the case of Cougar in the North Atlantic) one main transmission. The failure of either one of those items (even though we assume the possibility to be extremely remote) can still put you in the water.

FH, that is true, but what do you propose to do. What's your point?

Shouldn't we take care to mitigate the risks we have control over as best we can, rather than worrying about things we can't control? I don't think we can create a profile which would allow safe 'tail-rotor gearboxless' flight in all phases and call it Category X! Unless you're suggesting two main rotors and a backup tailrotor, or parachutes for all on board....

Salvage? I presume they are using sonar. But seriously mud bottom with a lot of current and traffic, including trawling. Vis down to 3-5m. Magnetometer might help too therefore rather than a sonar (depending on the size and composition of the target). Interested to know which salvage company they are using. A CCTV would really help to pinpoint the trajectory of the parts and at least point to the correct part of the haystack!

[HKPAX]

Hi Rotorheads, I was interested in seeing how CAD has responded to this incident given the advisory after the Qatar incident, and note that the posting c/w photo for that has been deleted. I am interested as a transport consultant.

[Senior Pilot]

given the advisory after the Qatar incident, and note that the posting c/w photo for that has been deleted.

Nothing has been deleted. The thread is still here, (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/386491-aw139-lost-tail-taxying-doh.html) and the photos are in this post (http://www.pprune.org/5157277-post99.html) :hmm:

[Saint Jack]

gulliBell, Post #195: "...The nature of the operation in Hong Kong/Macau is quite different to offshore." Actually I would have thought that the SkyShuttle flights, except perhaps on the Shenzhen route, have some common factors with an offshore/OGP operation, i.e. the flights are entirely over water, Cat A performance is utilized, pre-flight safety brifings are very similar and the helicopter onboard equipment comes close to OGP requirements. I have noticed that the SkyShuttle helicopters appear to have ADELT's installed, is this a CAD/AACM requirement?

However, having said that I agree with other comments that liferafts will be of limited use. The main difference here is that offshore passengers are more disciplined and have undergone HUET training whereas the SkyShuttle passengers are members of the general public without this awareness.

The thought of installing external liferafts onto these helicopters where the passengers have access to a jettison handle, as mentioned in a earlier posting, is quite freightening and it would only be a matter of time before the inevitable happened...

Shell Management: Your comments in the "What's New In West Africa" thread are humerous to most but helpful to only a small few, please desist from this thread.

[HKPAX]

Thank you Senior Pilot! I'd forgotten it was on a link. Now where did I put my glasses???

[Prawn2king4]

St Jack: Couldn’t agree more with your last paragraph…..

It’s a trifle sad that these H&S focused people thrive on criticism. A TR failure at 300’ during a climb out over water (without too much airspeed on the clock) ain’t a picnic and the crew did well. Therefore presumably their Company’s selection, training and operating procedures aren’t too bad and the question of life-rafts and helmets rationalised and sensibly addressed.

[Shell Management]

St Jack - a balanced approach in a formal Hazard and Effects Management Process is essential to achieve a risk that is ALARP. A monocontrol logic results is rarely effective.

[Saint Jack]

Shell Management: Do you have first-hand knowledge of the EAA/HeliExpress/SkyShuttle/AirTech SMS? You appear to be jumping to the conclusion that they do not have "....a balanced approach in a formal Hazard and Effects Management Process is essential to achieve a risk that is ALARP..." but rather they have "....A monocontrol logic results is rarely effective..." Which is it?

Prawn2king4 gets it essentially correct with his statement "...A TR failure at 300’ during a climb out over water (without too much airspeed on the clock) ain’t a picnic and the crew did well. Therefore presumably their Company’s selection, training and operating procedures aren’t too bad and the question of life-rafts and helmets rationalised and sensibly addressed..."

With respect to the company's internal decision making and risk assessment process, let's all wait and see what the official preliminary and final reports say before castigating this company.

[The Black Dragon]

It will be hard to give a preliminary report,,, if the dont try harder to find the missing bits in Victoria Harbour :ugh::ugh:

[slowlane]

It will be hard to give a preliminary report,,, if the dont try harder to find the missing bits in Victoria Harbour Is it confirmed that they are not looking for the bits or is that speculation?

[The Black Dragon]

Ive been told they ARE looking for it. The question is HOW HARD

Its not rocket science, its a narrow Harbour, not to deep, and not too long.
The HK Gov found the missing GFS, EC135 sliding door after 3 weeks, and that had almost no metal in it.

[Shell Management]

In fact I have a lot of experience working with operators in the region and some of the cultural issues.;)

If you have some specifics on this operator feel free to share.

[The Black Dragon]

In Helicopter ?? call me if your in town for a coffee !!

[Shell Management]

Yes, helicopters extensively for many, many years.

[HeliTester]

FH100: This event bring some things into sharp focus. We make a Big Deal about Category A performance and how important we deem it to be. But in reality, there is still only one tail rotor and (in the case of Cougar in the North Atlantic) one main transmission. The failure of either one of those items (even though we assume the possibility to be extremely remote) can still put you in the water.



CSGS: FH, that is true, but what do you propose to do. What's your point?
Shouldn't we take care to mitigate the risks we have control over as best we can, rather than worrying about things we can't control? I don't think we can create a profile which would allow safe 'tail-rotor gearboxless' flight in all phases and call it Category X! Unless you're suggesting two main rotors and a backup tailrotor, or parachutes for all on board....

I think FH100 and CSGS both make valid, thoughtful points. First, it's disturbing when a helicopter model that is widely acknowledged to have the best OEI performance in its class ends up in the water due to failure of another critical component. Second, it's certainly prudent to develop PC1/PC2e takeoff and landing procedures to mitigate the risk associated with engine failure during takeoff or landing. Historically, the number of engine failures greatly exceeds the number of main rotor component, tail rotor component, or gearbox failures.

[griffothefog]

Black Dragon,

If you step back and look at say.. what's new in west Africa (Nigeria) thread, I think you will find Shell Management is a sort of Borat rip off merchant....:{
Very knowledgeable in helicopter ops but a complete piss taker.... :E

Probably spent tooo much time hopping local honeys in the street bars in Nigeria..:eek:

Relax dude, everybody got out......:ok:

[ShyTorque]

I think it's vital not to lose sight of the main issues.

The evidence proves that the company actually made a very good risk assessment. The crew selection and training were obviously well up to the job, the captain made an excellent response to the emergency situation.

The on-board safety equipment also did its job. The post accident issues were those of surviving the immediate water landing until rescued. No lives were lost here. Liferafts were proven to be unneccesary. In a colder climate, with a longer likely rescue period, they would be.

Seems to me that the main discussion should revolve around aircraft design and maintenance issues. But only when the evidence has been gathered and assessed by experts.

These incidents / accidents posted here always seem to rapidly draw "holier than thou" armchair experts out of the woodwork. Truly professional people, in my experience, keep criticism to themselves at least until after the accident report, rather than trying in advance to stir up trouble.

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Facts Found:

1. Tail Rotor Gear Box departed in flight. All survived.
2. er...
3. ummm...
4. ?????

And some of the latest speculation from Shell M.!

1. "I make no judgement on the operators SMS, but I will observe they have no oil and gas customers so are probably not very adavanced."

Good grief! Can you explain that? (Oughta' be good.) Then you go an list a very commendable and thorough list of 'risk reduction initiatives'. Well done. So what? Are you selling something?

griffothefog, 'Borat rip off merchant' wasn't the first word which sprung to mind, I must admit. I think BD makes a very pertinent point. Shell M. clearly has no clue in context, does he? Great in the West Africa thread...maybe even funny! His list is meaningless in this discussion unless he relates it to the operation we are talking about. He's yet to do that. Choose who you defend matey, because you'll look stupid if he does.

ShyTorque +1

(hehe! This is fun.)

[griffothefog]

Chi,

Re-read my thread......
SM is the master of piss take.......:ugh:

As Frankie said.... "relax" :ok:

[gulliBell]

...The evidence proves that the company actually made a very good risk assessment..

Yes, but they had more than an ounce of luck and some fortunate timing on their side. I dare say if the TRGB decided to depart the scene when they were half way across to Hong Kong on route C in the pitch blackness of night then the outcome might not have been the same.

[ShyTorque]

So what? It didn't happen that way and if it did, would a liferaft have made a difference?

[Tallsar]

ST - I do take issue with you in some respects with your comment above about "truely professional people etc etc".
While you and I would fully agree that inapproriate and ill-informed comments and debate are not the sign of "truely professional people", I see no problem with profesional and informed debate on such matters on such a forum as this. People should not rush to judge of course, particulary if tragic circumstances are involved, but to suggest that suppression of knowledgeable and sensible debate is the best way forward until a (often lengthy) period of Inquiry has ensued, is not the way in our democratic society - thinking before speaking (writing!) is perhaps better advice, with no false judgements in the absence of specific evidence.
Cheers
:ugh::O

[Saint Jack]

Shell Management: Wow, a little touchy aren't we, 'Saint Kack' and 'irrational hatred', I've certainly learned how to push your button haven't I.

Now, take a look at the subsequent postings and take note of the remarks made regarding yourself and your postings.

After doing this, go to the 'Whats New in West Africa' thread, Post #3997 and you'll read "...Frankly I don't why anyone is giving SM (Shell Management) airtime - surely no one believes his comments to be genuine?..."

My suggestion to you now is to start your own thread, entitled something like 'Ask the Expert' where we mortals can ask you a whole range of questions regarding commercial and non-commercial helicopter activities and be assured of a authoritative answer. I'll start the ball rolling with this; 'Are the objectives of Shell Management/Shell Aircraft and the IHST compatible and what are the implications to commercial and non-commercial operators." Looking forward to your reply, but please, don't answer on this thread we'll be rightly accused of thread drift.

[ifsknt]

Shell Management isn't although he would probably like to be. He is funny though, I always enjoy his tongue in cheek postings!

[frozen cyclic]

Shell Management must be laughing his socks off, he's had more bites on this thread than a bath full of piranhas!

[Prawn2king4]

B....r me, yur right!! I've just read some of his posts

I would rate him Bristow and in (or been in) Nigeria. Loves Shell ;).

[ShyTorque]

ST - I do take issue with you in some respects with your comment above about "truely professional people etc etc"

Not only SM getting the bites, eh?, ;)

[Iron Will]

Life rafts a must on Macau run

Jul 09, 2010

I wish to praise the act of heroism of the two pilots who saved the lives of 11 passengers when their helicopter was forced to land in the harbour on July 3.

It was fortunate that no one was hurt in this incident and that everyone was rescued by passing boats within minutes.
Imagine if this incident had happened not in the harbour but in the open sea between Hong Kong and Macau and passengers only had life jackets to put on.
I was chief executive of helicopter companies in Hong Kong and Macau until 2006. During my time, the business was under the Heli Express brand and we operated Sikorsky S-76C+ helicopters.
Safety was our primary objective and we had an untarnished record.
I recall it was once suggested by the helicopter inspector of the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department that life rafts should be fitted on to the helicopters travelling between Hong Kong and Macau as an additional safety device. This is because the entire journey is over water.
Following the accident on Saturday, I urge the Hong Kong CAD and the civil aviation authorities in Macau (AACM) to consider this matter and make it a requirement that life rafts should be installed in the AgustaWestland AW139 helicopters as an added life-saving device.
Andrew Tse, managing director, X Air Ltdhmmm... the ex-CEO's article is interesting as he was the main guy against trading payload for liferafts from day one! Also read his facebook entry on HeliHeli describing SMS and responsibility. He must have had an epiphany (or read a book)!

I happen to agree with him by the way, because the same thing happening at night out on the southern route (Charly) between HK and Macau would not have been too pretty. Pax would not have been picked up for hours. 13 people floating around separately in the dark??? (Some couldn't even find their lifejackets during daylight). Fatalities would be highly probable.

Said it for years...liferafts on this operation - "a no brainer".

[Iron Will]

The liferafts for the AW139 can be deployed from the cockpit or with an EXTERNAL handle on top of the float pack. Fears that passengers could deploy a raft in flight are simply irrational.One more thing on liferafts. While I believe this operation should have them, there is nothing irrational about these passengers trying to inflate them in flight.

When the company had S76, there were several occasions where pax have unlocked doors in flight, ignored ground crew and disembarked out the wrong side, and one passenger even tried the emergency door release in flight just for kicks.

Let me clarify that the ground ops in this operation is very vigilant and assertive in making sure procedures are followed, but these pax have a mind of their own and refuse to pay attention for safety demonstrations or instructions.

Liferafts are a must because of the route environment, particularly at night, but need to be pilot controlled and deployed.

[The Black Dragon]

Rumour has it today,
Divers have found the Tail Rotor Gear Box-- minus 1 blade.:uhoh:

[griffothefog]

I'd be very surprised if the TRGB had any blades attached :p

[Geoffersincornwall]

In 1975 we went to work in the North Sea in a wooly-pully and airline pilots trousers......... then came a spate of ditchings so we gained the infamous 'UVIC' survival jacket. Meanwhile the pax were toying with survival suits. We all tied our 'once-only' lifejackets around our waists - at least they would be there if you hopped out in a hurry. Next came pucka goonsuits for the pax whilst lifejackets remained in their pouches tied round the waist........... more ditchings..... so we - the crew that is - finally got a goonsuit and a Mk44 military lifejacket. Pax started to get proper constant-wear lifejackets too. Now we would never think of going offshore without the right kit.

Someone applied what must have seemed at the outset to be a sensible 'rationale' to the Macau flights:- benign environment for most operations, no open water and lots of potential rescue boats. Nothing quite like a 'nasty' to make you revisit your 'sensible rationale' however, and I don't think anyone will be surprised if the regulators and the operators now agree that probably liferafts are a good idea and maybe a different approach to lifejackets. No loss of face, just learning lessons that to some old North Sea hands may have seemed inevitable. There you go, history repeats itself and as George Bernard Shaw said 'the one thing we learn from history is that we never learn from history'.

Sometimes I do wonder about our industry............. still to cheer me up I hear that the HAI safety initiative has moved to create a Code of Practice for all (including offshore!!!) corporate operations. As the team leader is an ex-Shelly this is guaranteed to make some Gomers take a deep breath and will no doubt bring on a few tears ...... and I will be surprised if they are tears of joy.

Back to Macau and couldn't miss the opportunity to congratulate the pilot on a job well done. Text book stuff.

G. :ok:

[malabo]

Geoffers, inside guy at Agusta....
Any more info on what caused the T/R gearbox to depart? Agusta's bulletin says consistent with FOD, but they could as easily have added that it was also consistent with a migrating undiscovered fatigue crack, or consistent with poor maintenance and someone forgetting to lock or safety wire something.

Outstanding airmanship by the pilot. I wonder if he had Rotorsim training and the training syllabus includes the tailrotor gearbox departing emergency, or whether he'd learned all his fine art at CHC.

[Diatryma]

Agusta's bulletin says consistent with FOD

Can anyone post a link to the Agusta bulletin please?

Di :O

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

but they could as easily have added that it was also consistent with a migrating undiscovered fatigue crack, or consistent with poor maintenance and someone forgetting to lock or safety wire something.


Ah...you must have seen all the HUMS data, and be an aviation crash expert. I guess you have experience in all the other HUMS data from previous aircraft incidents.

-------------------------------------------
I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure that it would be possible to tell the difference between say a worsening crack which would show up on HUMS at least a 'split second' before failure, and a sudden catastrophic event in which every parameter was 'in the green' and stable right up until an event which ended every reading instantly.

But I really don't know.

-------------------------------------------
Why so eager and quick to cry 'foul'? What is this morbid fascination people have which leads them to 'leap' to the conclusion that someone ballsed up, that there is a cover up...and all before understanding the truth.

FFS, give the guys in Macau credit. They are pilots like you....if there was any kind of foul play or negliagence, I'm sure PPrune will be the first to know.

In the meantime, hold back on making fcukwit kind of comments like yours above.

[Joker's Wild]

Relax Chin Sin Gei Si, I don't think anyone is having a go at the pilots here, in fact, quite the opposite. As to comments about maintenance/engineering issues playing a part, hey, this is a RUMOUR website remember??? :ugh:

With respect to your comment about "cover up", anyone who's ever worked for EAA knows they've never been accused of taking the moral high ground when it mattered so yeah, if this situation is going to stink anywhere, it is going to stink at EAA. Get realistic.

JW

[Geoffersincornwall]

As always patience is a virtue.

One is constantly aware that with every 'event' a new type suffers there is a line of 'nay-sayers' armed with bricks waiting to throw a few despite the lack of justification.

In this case I think they will be disappointed. If you want more info you can judge by the operators response that they are happy with the answers they are getting.

The tail rotor failure training in the sim is certainly advantageous for it allows us to demonstrate that the instinctive reaction to a sudden loss of tail rotor control is to lower the collective - even in the hover. As luck will have it, today I am having lunch with an old friend who many years ago pulled alongside my Wessex 3 in his Wasp and promptly shed his tail rotor. It was quite exciting for us all, especially his marshaller who fortunately escaped the debris unhurt. My old friend will tell you that wasting one second thinking about the problem only adds to dynamics of the eventual coming-together with terra-firma and the forces involved are unlikely to enable you or your copilot to get to the engine controls in time to make a difference.

G. :ok:

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Joker's Wild,

Don't worry. I'm actually enjoying this whole fiasco.

The fact that the situation ended relatively well (we all know what circumstances could have prevailed), and that the crew clearly did a majestic job whatever the causes and reasons, makes it all the more easy to discuss this without getting too emotional.

Yes, this is a 'Rumour' network. It is human nature to gossip and speculate. It's human nature to find a reason for everything we don't understand, just to satisfy our lack of knowledge, isn't it? We tend to find a line of reasoning which fits (even though there might actually be no complex reason). The problem is, when the facts steer towards alternatives (normally more simpler - Ockham's Razor - sometimes unbelievably simple), people who have already formed complex opinions are normally the last to accept the new facts. Kind of reminds me of Douglas Adams' little prose about the Origin of God! (At least the 'Puddle Analogy' in the last 20 seconds.)

0kK1YgR7J0g

(Have I just opened pandora's box?)

We all want to know the details, don't we. Afterall, its us and our friends around the world that have to step into the same aircraft type everyday. If there's something wrong, we need to know.

What amuses and bemuses me though is some of the way the speculation runs...some people will talk of fact when clearly no facts have been found...people will point fingers and lay blame without considering the consequences of their words. We are all in this industry together (pilots, mechanics and even joe blogs who cleans the hangar floor), and the smallest tidbit or bad smell will be snapped up by anyone with anything less than a good motive. We have a self-confessed 'transport consultant' (whatever that is) reading this thread and linking an unrelated incident to this one (can we say Doha was unrelated?). I would love to know how many journos are lurking in the background, looking for a lead which could make juicy reading for the uneducated masses. Every headline and every rumour makes it that little bit harder for people to do their job - - to make a living. Good grief, our industry is up against it enough already with Hollywood! We don't need our colleagues making it harder for us.

Rumours are inevitable and everyone has the right to start one. But being a rumour's network, anyone who creates a rumour should expect to have that challenged right down to the facts which are found. I think that is equally a right. If they're unable or unwilling to justify their words, then they should not start the rumour.

Then it is left to the masses...by definition the rumour bandwagon is a party place for the ill-informed. Its up to every individual to decide whether to jump on or not!

This thread has been better than most though, and way better than some other web forum threads on this or similar incidents. The readers and comentators seem a little more intelligent, a little more thoughtful.

However, it still needs 'checking' every now and again. Hopefully, at least in this thread, people might think and ask questions before they post - On what evidence do I base my post? What are the potential consequences of my post for parties involved (and non-involved i.e. other heli industry companies in the region)? Is my post in any way libelous or slanderous? - only after considering all of these questions, should the 'POST' button be pressed.

As for the 'ethical and moral' standards of the various players on the stage, I cannot comment for anyone's direct experiences, but understand how personal experience will naturally sway a person's judgement on a scenario whether relevant / related or not. Consider this though; I may have problems and grievances with a company in issue XYZ. Does that mean I can carry those over to issue ABC? Well that's for the individual to decide.

Its all healthy food for thought, isn't it?

Back to the issue...any more news (facts!) on the part which was found? (Or is that a rumour itself?!!)

CSGS

Geoffers +1

[island eagles]

Does anyone know what the airframe number is and the airframe hours ? Has this been fitted with the old tailboom or the new/modified one? Thanks

[Runway101]

No human error in helicopter accident (http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20100717/news_20100717_56_684216.htm)

No human error in helicopter accident
from RTHK On Internet - Instant News
A helicopter accident in Victoria Harbour earlier this month was not caused by human error or bad weather. That's according to initial findings from an Aviation Department investigation. A spokesman from the department said the cause has yet to be ascertained, and a report on is expected at the end of this month at the earliest. The chopper landed in the sea off Shun Tak Centre on its way to Macau. All 13 people on board were rescued.

Not sure why this was in today's news on RTHK.

[The Black Dragon]

Thats a very dull report from RTHK......:ouch:

Ive heard third hand,,
The company has found CCTV footage of ( a part ) or parts falling into the sea from the departing AW139 from Shun Tak.

& They are looking at the "elastic numeric bearing " area on the failed blade.
Only one blade is missing, broken near the attachment point.

& This week Macau AACM has issued an (immediate inspection notice) of the TR blades to the Company.

Anyone have a diagram or photo of the AW139 blade ....

[9Aplus]

Aircraft in Detail - Helicopter Rotorhead Image Gallery Index (http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/Rotorhead.html#AgustaWestland)

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/AW139/Images/AW139_275_15052-1.jpg
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages/AW139/Images/AW139_275_15040.jpg

[The Black Dragon]

HK TVB-HD News tonight,
CAD reporting they have found some missing parts...( 5 days ago )
crew & weather not to blame.:ok::ok::ok:

[ReverseFlight]

Hi there Chi Sin, to quote from your post #234:

We have a self-confessed 'transport consultant' ...


I believe you are referring to my post #49. No need to single me out - almost everyone on Pprune is a self-confessed transport consultant.

Besides, I do have a business card to prove it, you know. :E

[Iron Will]

yep...a business card is definitely proof. I will run down and have some of them printed up in the morning.

[Chi Sin Gei Si]

Yes, indeed I was referring to that post.

Quote:
We have a self-confessed 'transport consultant' ...
I believe you are referring to my post #49. No need to single me out - almost everyone on Pprune is a self-confessed transport consultant.

Besides, I do have a business card to prove it, you know. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif

It's not that I don't believe you. It's just that I don't know what a 'transport consultant' is!!!!
:O

So when I read your post, I thought at first that must be a synonym for 'Press'. At least I could not work out your motives. Not that press = malicious, but misunderstood information in the wrong hands could be damaging to the local industy. A point which sometimes (from experience) can seem minor compared with the need for readership.

You seem to know Hong Kong quite well (you even know Wan King Path), you are Gwailo (Scottish?), and you claimed in a previous thread 'not' to be a journo. Yet, you take an in-depth interest in the Fragrant Harbour aviation. I must confess, I even thought you may be Niall Fraser himself!

I'm racking my brains to work out what a 'transport consultant' in Hong Kong might do with all the information gathered on sites like this. Who would consult with someone who's information comes from a web forum such as this, which is, as we know, the aviation equivelent of the high street tabloid?

I have no reason to disbelieve you are not press (I have never met you to know whether you are honest or not - - so I may as well assume you are honest.) I do wonder whether you are objective or subjective (and if so which way inclined) when you do your 'consulting', since I really don't know what a 'Transport Consultant' does.

So no real issue at hand. Does that make sense? I hope so.

[Joker's Wild]

And once again we are shown why it's never a good idea to come home from D2 and go straight to the Prune!!! :hmm:

Love those pics of the 139 tail rotor though, looks to be a rather stout bit of engineering. Don't think the bird-strike theory is holding quite as much weight as it did several days ago.

JW

[Lightonwheels]

I'm a novice. Can any of the experts and Mr Nick Lappos throw some light as to how a blade can dislodge from the root. This bird strike theory is just not digestable.

[212man]

The jury is still out, but to help your understanding, possibly - why would it surprise you that a plastic blade hitting a 2kg bird at 900km/hr might not damage it? The blade, that is!

[blakmax]

212man

The bit I have difficulty in accepting is that a bird big enough to weigh 2kg would be impacted by only one blade.

I also note from your "plastic" description that these may be composite blades. Is this correct? Any details?

Regards

blakmax

[ReverseFlight]

yep...a business card is definitely proof. I will run down and have some of them printed up in the morning.

I appreciate all the attention this thread is giving me. Did you not notice the dirty grin in my last post (:E) ? I swear I got my cards run off at a back street printer nearby. :eek: And yes, sometimes I am terribly subjective, although those who know me well understand why and support me. Apologies if I offended anyone.

Jokes aside, and back to the main purpose of this thread please. I am not a journalist, no need to prove that. Actually I have a lot of respect for the guys who fly the SkyShuttle every day, and I hope all of you do so too. I think that says it all really.

Enough rant from me.

[HueyLoach]

I wonder if the boffins on the 16/F are regretting dumping Sikorsky for AW, after all those "untarnished" years of operation of the S76C+.
Or god forbid, the Bell 222 with the infamous LTS101 engines during the EAA pre-Jurassic times which BTW didn't give us any serious problems.

[HueyLoach]

You are letting irrational hatred cloud your judgement or at least your ability to read. I was commenting on FH1100´s statements on cat A performance. I make no judgement on the operators SMS, but I will observe they have no oil and gas customers so are probably not very adavanced.
Shell Management,
do you mean not as advanced as BP? :confused: :uhoh:
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

[Diatryma]

Quote:
Agusta's bulletin says consistent with FOD
Can anyone post a link to the Agusta bulletin please?

Di http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/embarass.gif

[Brian Abraham]

Shell Management,
do you mean not as advanced as BPA little more respect there Huey. Shellie invented HUMS, along with a heap of other good stuff. Tell him Shellie, don't hide you light beneath a bushel. :cool:

[gulliBell]

Or god forbid, the Bell 222...

Not quite "untarnised" history, didn't a 222 roll down the hill at Coloane and beat itself to death? At least the S76C+ that rolled over picked a good time to do it, when the engines weren't running :ooh: Not-withstanding, yes, they had a very good run with the 222 and 76 and didn't drop any of them into the South China Sea.

[Saint Jack]

Reference 'HueyLoach's' comment in Post #248, "...Or god forbid, the Bell 222 with the infamous LTS101 engines during the EAA pre-Jurassic times which BTW didn't give us any serious problems..." I agree, from what I understand the Bell 222 with the LTS101's did provide a good service although perhaps not the most suitable helicopter for this type of work. A good group of expat engineers worked closely with Textron Lycoming on the engine reliability and this resulted in them using engines with the highest modification level in the LTS101 fleet.

And 'gulliBell's' Post #252, "...Not quite "untarnised" history, didn't a 222 roll down the hill at Coloane and beat itself to death? At least the S76C+ that rolled over picked a good time to do it, when the engines weren't running http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/icon25.gif Not-withstanding, yes, they had a very good run with the 222 and 76 and didn't drop any of them into the South China Sea..." No, early EAA operations weren't quite 'untarnished', on at least two occasions helicopters were 'almost dropped' into the South China Sea when both suffered sheared drives on the engine-driven fuel pump. On both occasions, the helicopters made safe run-on landings at diversion airfields, one at Kai Tak and the other at Zhuhai. The common problem was traced to a manufacturing (machining) fault but not before a fatal accident in Hawaii. Again no, the 222 didn't "...roll down the hill at Coloane.." it rolled over during maintenance ground-runs - then it "..beat itself to death.." on the helipad.

From what I understand, these early EAA times were thrown into a degree of chaos when a good number of pilots and engineers were either fired, forced out or quit following the abrupt replacement of the well-like American CEO by an Indian guy and his English sidekick from Hong Kong Airlines who both turned out to be real SOB's.

[The Black Dragon]

Ah,,, The good old days at EAA
Not to forget the Japanese sidekick as well !!

[cayuse365]

ReverseFlight any idea what caused the windshield crack. (post #184).

[ReverseFlight]

cayuse365: Sorry, I don't have any info on that one.

[Runway101]

Preliminary report here:
(no new info as far as I can tell)

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/AB-02-2010e.pdf

Helicopter Accident -3 July 2010
AgustaWestland AW139 Registration Mark B-MHJ

(All times are in UTC. Hong Kong time is UTC+8 hours.)

1. East Asia Airlines is a helicopter operator established in Macao, China. It provides chartered passenger service between Macao and Hong Kong. On 3 July 2010, the accident flight EA 206A was operated by two pilots with 11 passengers onboard. The Actual Gross Weight of the helicopter before take-off was 5 971 kg, which was within the Maximum Gross Weight for Take-off / Landing of 6 400 kg for the helicopter. The helicopter was within both longitudinal and lateral centre of gravity limits.

2. The helicopter took off from Sheung Wan / Sky Shuttle Heliport in Hong Kong at 0400 hours. The departure was uneventful. The flight was conducted under Visual Flight Rules, which required the pilot to remain clear of cloud and in visual contact with the surface. At the time of the accident, the wind speed was 7 knots at a direction of 255 degrees. The visibility was more than 10 km.

3. The captain was the ‘pilot flying’ in the right seat. The first officer was the ‘pilot not flying’ in the left seat, assisting the captain in carrying out flight procedures. After departing from the heliport, the helicopter was climbing on a north-westerly heading. When passing approximately 350 feet Above Mean Sea Level at about 70 knots Indicated Airspeed, the crew had completed the post-takeoff checks. Shortly afterwards, both pilots heard a loud bang from the rear of the helicopter followed by airframe vibrations. At the same time, the captain found that he had no authority on the pedal controls and determined that the tail rotor of the helicopter had failed. Immediately, the captain put the helicopter into autorotation. Whilst in autorotation, he commanded the first officer to shut down both engines in accordance with the emergency procedures and the first officer carried out the commands accordingly. Also, the captain transmitted a ‘MAYDAY’ call. The captain made a controlled ditching with the helicopter maintained in level attitudes and low forward speed at touchdown. Once the helicopter touched the water, all the four emergency floats were inflated automatically. The time between the loud bang heard by the pilots and the touchdown on water was about 16 seconds.

4. After the helicopter was floating firmly on water, both pilots exited the cockpit expeditiously through the emergency exits on their respective cockpit doors. The

captain then opened the starboard passenger door from the outside. Both pilots instructed and assisted the passengers to evacuate from the helicopter. After ensuring that nobody was left onboard, the captain left the helicopter. All pilots and passengers were rescued by the nearby vessels. The 11 passengers were taken to hospital for medical examination. Six passengers received treatment for minor injuries. All passengers were discharged from hospital on the same day. The helicopter subsequently overturned and the entire fuselage became submerged but the emergency floats kept the helicopter floating upside down.

5. The Chief Inspector of Accidents has ordered an Inspector’s Investigation into the cause of the accident in accordance with the Hong Kong Civil Aviation (Investigation of Accidents) Regulations (Laws of Hong Kong, Chapter 448B). The investigation is being conducted by the Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (CAD) with the assistance from the Civil Aviation Authority of Macao Special Administrative Region, Agenzia Nazionale per la Sicurezza del Volo of Italy, Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United Kingdom, Transportation Safety Board of Canada and AgustaWestland, the manufacturer of the AW 139 helicopter.

6. In the evening of 3 July 2010, the helicopter was lifted out of water. The top section of the vertical fin, the tail rotor, the tail gearbox and the associated drive shaft, control rods and cover fairings of the helicopter were found missing. After extensive underwater search, the tail rotor and the tail gearbox were salvaged from the harbour on 14 July 2010 but one of the four blades of the tail rotor was still missing. Search of the remaining missing parts is on-going.

7. The accident investigation team conducted interviews with the captain, the first officer, some of the passengers and the command personnel of the Hong Kong Police Force, Fire Services Department and Marine Department who responded to the accident. The data recorded in the Multi-purpose Flight Recorder has been successfully downloaded for analysis. The Health and Usage Monitoring System memory card has been sent to AAIB for data download and analysis. The helicopter flight documents, maintenance records, weather information and radio communication recording with air traffic control have also been collected for investigation purposes. CAD has arranged the tail rotor and the tail gearbox to be sent to AAIB for examination, test and analysis.

8. Based on past experience, the investigation into accident of such scale is expected to take more than one year to complete. However, during the course of the investigation, should safety recommendations be considered necessary, they will be promulgated to the parties concerned before the final report is published.

[HeliCraig]

It doesn't really tell us a lot we don't already know. Although interesting to see the involvement of the UK AAIB - perhaps that will allay the "cover up" fears as suggested earlier in this thread!

Wait and see...

[Runway101]

Wait and see...

It's been over 14 months that the R22 crashed into the bus at Kai Tak and there is no final report yet. Guess we are in for a very long "more than one year".

[drop lead]

And what's the connection for transportation safety board of Canada?

[HeliCraig]

I think the P&W engines are made in Canada.