Fire Fighting Helo Crash in NZ

[KiwiNedNZ]

An AS350 has crashed killing the pilot while fighting the fires on Christchurch's Port Hills.

Thoughts are with everyone there.


One person dead in helicopter crash during Port Hills fires | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89404003/helicopter-crashes-fighting-port-hills-fires)

[Vertical Freedom]

Rest in Peace Brother, another sad day for the Rotory World

[John R81]

It appears that the registration is shown in the news photograph. ZK-HKW.


Flight aware (http://uk.flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/24_hours/new/59015/Fire_fighting_helicoper_crash_proves_fatal) are reporting that registration also.


Pictured here (https://www.planespotters.net/photo/237248/zk-hkw-private-eurocopter-as-350ba-ecureuil) in better days

[krypton_john]

So sad, RIP. ;-(

Helicopter pilot who died fighting Christchurch fires ex-SAS member David Steven Askin | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/89419834/helicopter-pilot-who-died-fighting-christchurch-fires-exsas-member-david-steven-askin)

[5179]

Any facts out yet ??........hit wires ??. sad day, sad day.

[RVDT]

Update on the accident - Port Hills helicopter crash caused by a cable striking the tail rotor (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11853719)

Strangely the local NZ CAA Vector "safety" magazine Jan/Feb issue carried an article about exactly this potential problem in the month prior to the accident.

Even worse - nowhere in the article does it say that the pictures in the article depict an incorrectly rigged/operated Bambi bucket!!! Who knew?

Vector Magazine Jan/Feb 2017 (https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legacy/Publications/Vector/Vector-2017-1.pdf) - Page 7 - External Loads – How Much Do You Really Know?

In the case of quite a few operators and the NZ CAA apparently - not enough?

From the Bambi Operators Manual -

WARNING
Using a Bambi bucket with a greater overall length than the distance from the cargo hook to the front tip of the tail rotor on your helicopter could result in a tail rotor strike and possible loss of control of the helicopter which could result in injury or death.

Important Note
It is recommended that operators, who choose to use the Bambi bucket with a longline, ensure that the longline is at least 50’ long.

If all else fails - RTFM. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Marv]

From the report "It was attached to a strop of approximately six metres in length, making a total length for the underslung load of approximately 10 metres."

[gulliBell]

From the report "It was attached to a strop of approximately six metres in length, making a total length for the underslung load of approximately 10 metres."

i.e. slightly longer than the distance between the cargo hook and the tail rotor, which that OM warning warns about.

[havick]

From the report "It was attached to a strop of approximately six metres in length, making a total length for the underslung load of approximately 10 metres."

Not knowing anything about the pilot at all here, I'm curious whether it was a case of pilot couldn't longline or client didn't want longlines on scene, but the operator/owner wanted the aircraft to stay out of the water spray (i.e. No belly hook) hence the short strop?

It's not the first time a bucket has ended up in a tail rotor by attaching it with a short strop rather than either direct belly hook or longline hence why the OEM manual requires at least a 50' strop or longer if not belly hooking directly to the hook.

[Marv]

Some clients require the load, i.e. water bucket in this case, to be attached directly to the cargo (belly) hook or a minimum length of longline must be used, e.g. 25 m.

[Nubian]

i.e. slightly longer than the distance between the cargo hook and the tail rotor, which that OM warning warns about.

Slightly!?? The distance between the hook and t/r tips is about 5 meter on the 350, and the manual calls for a clearance of 6 inches when the dump valve is fully extended between the t/r tip's and the dump valve. Procedures for checking this is all very well described in the manual.

[gulliBell]

Slightly!??


Yep. Nose to tail the AS350 is 10m long. So 10m of strop and empty bambi bucket hardware hanging off the hook exposes the tail rotor to impact, which regrettably, brought about the demise here. Had it been 50' of line, the empty bucket would just fly below and aft of the tail rotor zone. Or belly hooked and it's not long enough to reach the tail rotor.

[Nubian]

Yep. Nose to tail the AS350 is 10m long.

Nose to tail length is irrelevant, cargo-hook to closest point of t/r is not, which is about half the overall length...

If your displayed understanding is reflecting the common knowledge of the matter in your neck of the woods, it is unfortunately not surprising that this accident occurred...

[nigelh]

I think we all knew what he meant Nubian !! ( and in case of misunderstanding he did say it had to stop 6" short of t/r tip !!). Maybe you have just had a bad day ..

[Nubian]

I think we all knew what he meant Nubian !! ( and in case of misunderstanding he did say it had to stop 6" short of t/r tip !!). Maybe you have just had a bad day ..

Not sure about who's bad day it is, Nigel!?
Read the previous posts again and see if you understand my point.

[gulliBell]

Nose to tail length is irrelevant, cargo-hook to closest point of t/r is not, which is about half the overall length...


Of course it's relevant. If you've got a load hanging off the hook that is about as long as the helicopter is, if it goes aerodynamic and swings back it's about the right length to put it in the tail rotor. 10m long AS350, 10m long load = danger, it can swing back and hit the tail rotor. Which is what happened in this instance. If you don't understand that I don't know of a simpler way to explain it.

[Hughes500]

Well you will have to explain that to me then ! If distance from hook to tail rotor is 6 m then doesn't really matter how long the helicopter is nose to tail. If load less than 6 m then doesn't hit tail rotor anything else is capable of hitting so I don't quite see what the total length of the machine has to do with it ????

[havick]

Of course it's relevant. If you've got a load hanging off the hook that is about as long as the helicopter is, if it goes aerodynamic and swings back it's about the right length to put it in the tail rotor. 10m long AS350, 10m long load = danger, it can swing back and hit the tail rotor. Which is what happened in this instance. If you don't understand that I don't know of a simpler way to explain it.

You do realize the hook is under the middle of the helicopter and not the nose of the helicopter?

[nigelh]

I think the only time the overall length of helicopter is relevant is when the hook is on the nose !!
Obviously the only important length is hook to t/r tip when pointing at the hook ......

[[email protected]]

Perhaps the important thing is what speed you choose to fly with an empty bucket and how you handle the aircraft in that configuration.

[Hughes500]

Crab

You hit the nail there
All loads have a Vne, normally most flight manuals have a Vne of 80 kts with something on the hook. Have flown a bambi happily at 70 kts and it has got no where near the tail rotor. The same with it on a 50 ft line. Although I can't quite follow why the line has to be more than 50ft, but if that was the manual says then that is what you do ?
The pilot must have been going at some speed to get the bucket into his tail !

[krypton_john]

Would it be more the latter than the former, Crab? The faster you go the more the load will fly up but also the tail will be higher?

But it would be interested to know ... when steaming along at speed, is there an area of circulating rotor wash updraft behind the aircraft and how far back is it at what speeds?

[John Eacott]

There seems to be a lot of input from Rotorheads with little or no experience of bucket work. A 50' or 100' line with a Bambi is a necessity for many fire ops when the water source is surrounded by trees or other obstructions, and the ability to fly such underslung loads is part of being checked to the line for fire work. As with most loads it will fly in a predictable fashion, full or empty, and a competent pilot will manoeuvre the machine to put the load where it is needed.

The real issue here would seem to be using a 10 metre (33 foot) line, with resultant flight characteristics which allowed it to put the bucket up into the TR. I'll find some photos later which show the way that an empty Bambi flies at the end of a medium length line.

[havick]

There seems to be a lot of input from Rotorheads with little or no experience of bucket work. A 50' or 100' line with a Bambi is a necessity for many fire ops when the water source is surrounded by trees or other obstructions, and the ability to fly such underslung loads is part of being checked to the line for fire work. As with most loads it will fly in a predictable fashion, full or empty, and a competent pilot will manoeuvre the machine to put the load where it is needed.

The real issue here would seem to be using a 10 metre (33 foot) line, with resultant flight characteristics which allowed it to put the bucket up into the TR. I'll find some photos later which show the way that an empty Bambi flies at the end of a medium length line.

Everyone is pointing out that anything less than a 50' line is an issue. Direct belly hook or 50' or longer is fine for Bambi bucket work, but in between is the danger area. I'm not sure how you have interpreted anyone's previous comments otherwise?

[Hughes500]

John

Done quite a lot of lifting and Bambi work, no one has ever really been able to say why a line shorter than 50 ft is so dangerous. Might be being really stupid here but I am sure I don't have a monopoly on stupidity !

[Non-PC Plod]

I am thinking back to basic schoolboy physics. Feel free to shoot me down in flames if I am talking B******ks, but I reckon its like this:
The load is effectively a pendulum. To become a danger to the tail rotor, the amplitude of the swing has to be a large angle (close to 90 deg). To initiate a swing, when you resolve the geometry, involves raising the height/ altitude of the load from its rest position = work/force required. The longer the line, the greater the distance you need to lift the load to get the same angle. So, the greater the force required.
So, when you have a shorter line, its more sensitive to sudden acceleration. A longer line will take much more acceleration to achieve the same angle of dangle.

[Nubian]

why a line shorter than 50 ft is so dangerous.

In short: Physics....
''Sporty'' handling which a short load facilitates, drop-speed, big change to the buckets weight vs volume (increased drag and decreased weight of the load) and turbulence....

This does not count for bucket work only, but any lightweight loads with a big surface area... Try a lined empty cargo-net as an example...

[[email protected]]

Surely the big issue with the length of the strop/rope/line is that if the bucket flies into the TR it is pretty much game over (as demonstrated here) but with a longer line, the bucket has to be higher in order to put the line into the TR and the damage possibly less (though not ensured) from a strop instead of metal fixings on the bucket.

KJ - I don't think that modern helos fly significantly nose down because the horizontal stabiliser keeps the fuselage more level. The difference between 60 kts and 100 kts is unlikely to be that great but the amount of drag affecting the bucket would be much more significant.

So you have a perfect storm if you have exactly the wrong length line, fly too fast and then handle the aircraft enthusiastically.

[Freewheel]

Yep. Nose to tail the AS350 is 10m long. So 10m of strop and empty bambi bucket hardware hanging off the hook exposes the tail rotor to impact, which regrettably, brought about the demise here. Had it been 50' of line, the empty bucket would just fly below and aft of the tail rotor zone. Or belly hooked and it's not long enough to reach the tail rotor.

Makes perfect sense to me, especially given that the 10m reference began with the initial report....

[gulliBell]

You do realize the hook is under the middle of the helicopter and not the nose of the helicopter?

I don't get it how you guys don't get it, except @Freewheel who does understand. The cargo hook is usually close to the aircraft CofG, which is a lot closer to the nose than the tail rotor. If the helicopter is 10m long, a 10m empty lifting rig on the hook if it goes aerodynamic is going to put it in range of the tail rotor. If you don't believe me, and heck, I've been slinging loads around the boonies for 20 years, read and comply with any warnings published for your role equipment. Or just look at the photo of what was left of that AS350 on the side of the hill. That's what can happen if you fly a 10m line on a piece of equipment that says don't fly me on a 10m line. Seriously guys, I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

[Nubian]

I don't get it how you guys don't get it, except @Freewheel who does understand. The cargo hook is usually close to the aircraft CofG, which is a lot closer to the nose than the tail rotor. If the helicopter is 10m long, a 10m empty lifting rig on the hook if it goes aerodynamic is going to put it in range of the tail rotor. If you don't believe me, and heck, I've been slinging loads around the boonies for 20 years, read and comply with any warnings published for your role equipment. Or just look at the photo of what was left of that AS350 on the side of the hill. That's what can happen if you fly a 10m line on a piece of equipment that says don't fly me on a 10m line. Seriously guys, I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

FFS buddy!
With your explanation could a new pilot think it is ok to fly with a 7 meter long load as it is not as long as the 350....

[gulliBell]

I've had to teach some mentally challenged helicopter pilots in recent years, but I've found there is always a way to explain something to someone who doesn't understand your first explanation, or second. So here goes...
Hang that 10m long line on the nose of your 10m long helicopter. The way it might flail around in flight if it goes aerodynamic it would probably fly pretty close to the tail rotor, but not actually hit it. Now go and hang that same line on the hook of the same helicopter. Bingo, now that rig is potentially flying within range of the tail rotor.
I've dinged the underside of the tail boom a few times after loads hanging off 20' or 30' lines have fallen out of nets rigged by qualified load masters, but lucky they were all in B212 or S76 and the tail rotor, being bolted on top of a pylon, was out of range. Had I been in a B206 or AS350 it may well have been a different outcome.
As for said new pilot by way of example I would say, refer to the external load section of the operator procedures manual, the RFM, and the role equipment OM, and take heed of what they say.

[Hughes500]

Gullibal

The length of the helicopter has got nothing to do with it. the distance between the hook and the tip of the tail rotor is the critical dimension.

[gulliBell]

Gullibal

The length of the helicopter has got nothing to do with it. the distance between the hook and the tip of the tail rotor is the critical dimension.

Seriously, I give up trying to explain it...I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Hughes500]

Gullibell

In your 10m example your 10 m line will still hit the tail rotor ! Unless I am mistaken the length of a helicopter would be nose to the last point of airframe. Now forgive me but in all the types I fly ( with the exception of those with either a Notar or Fenestron )the tail rotor blades have at least 50% of the turning circle within the total length of the helicopter.
It is much more critical to measure the distance between hook and tip path plane of the tail rotor

[nigelh]

I agree !! I may be even thicker than Hughes but I don't understand the relevance of the length of the aircraft either 😳

[havick]

I don't get it how you guys don't get it, except @Freewheel who does understand. The cargo hook is usually close to the aircraft CofG, which is a lot closer to the nose than the tail rotor. If the helicopter is 10m long, a 10m empty lifting rig on the hook if it goes aerodynamic is going to put it in range of the tail rotor. If you don't believe me, and heck, I've been slinging loads around the boonies for 20 years, read and comply with any warnings published for your role equipment. Or just look at the photo of what was left of that AS350 on the side of the hill. That's what can happen if you fly a 10m line on a piece of equipment that says don't fly me on a 10m line. Seriously guys, I don't understand what it is you don't understand.

I think we are lost in translation here and possibly saying the same thing in a different way. I'm saying don't fly with a short line, either belly hook it directly to the hook (assuming the wires on the bucket are the correct length for the aircraft) or use a 50' line or longer but nothing in between.

I think you confused everyone talking about the overall length which isn't really relevant. It's the distance from the cargo hook to the the extremities that that matters as that's where it's swinging from. Once again we are in agreement in not using a short line, and to follow the RFM and the bucket manual. It's just your original post didn't read like that is what you were trying to say.

[John Eacott]

Back when we were on a steep learning curve, the BK was tried out with shorter strops than we now know to be ideal. This was either a 20' or 30' from memory, but indicates well how the Bambi flies when empty; quite stable and predictable.

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8107-1/BKK+with+bucket+1.jpg

As a comparison, this is the Bambi directly onto the hook with the correct distance to the TR tips:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8111-1/BK117_3_.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8113-1/EMS+Wollondilli+01.jpg

[havick]

Back when we were on a steep learning curve, the BK was tried out with shorter strops than we now know to be ideal. This was either a 20' or 30' from memory, but indicates well how the Bambi flies when empty; quite stable and predictable.

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8107-1/BKK+with+bucket+1.jpg

As a comparison, this is the Bambi directly onto the hook with the correct distance to the TR tips:

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8111-1/BK117_3_.jpg

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/8113-1/EMS+Wollondilli+01.jpg

John, what does the Bambi manual say?

[John Eacott]

John, what does the Bambi manual say?

I imagine it says what you posted in post #9?

If you're implying the photo of VH-BKK was me or my company with a 20-30' strop then you're sadly mistaken. I took that photo while flying in company; my ops we either had the Bambi on the hook or on a 100' kevlar line. My reference to 'we' was that in the 90's we were all on a learning curve and shared experiences, pilots do that. Or used to.

[havick]

I imagine it says what you posted in post #9?

If you're implying the photo of VH-BKK was me or my company with a 20-30' strop then you're sadly mistaken. I took that photo while flying in company; my ops we either had the Bambi on the hook or on a 100' kevlar line. My reference to 'we' was that in the 90's we were all on a learning curve and shared experiences, pilots do that. Or used to.

I'm not implying anything about you or your previous company.

It's just bad information suggesting that a Bambi flies fine on a short strop as indicated by your pics. Someone new to bucket ops will go and try it out because they read it here.

Sure it might fly just fine 99% of the time but sadly aircraft accidents have proven otherwise.

[Hughes500]

Looking at the pix you would need some very sporty handling to get the bucket to hit the tail in the BK example !
I was just curious in how the minimum of 50 ft on a line actually came from, i.e. who did the physics to say that was safe and say 40 ft wasn't !
Nigel, I must have sat behind you at the back of the classroom :ugh:

[Nubian]

I was just curious in how the minimum of 50 ft on a line actually came from

Most likely from flight-testing of the Bambi's, as it is taken from the user manual for the buckets and 50ft has been deemed to be long enough to avoid this problem.

need some very sporty handling

Associated with turbulence close to the fire/ground and a bit uncoordinated handling, it is possible as there is not a single factor leading to this. It is not happening every time obviously (was probably not the pilots first bucket either!?), but this thread illustrates that it can happen!

John's pictures seems to be taken in cruise with unknown speed and away from the fire and ground with presumably smoother winds/turbulence (stable flight). The BK's tail is also higher than on the 350 which is the machine in question, so less exposed to the problem. The middel picture seems to be from (close to) hover.....

As for gullibell's ''rule of thumb''. It is not restrictive enough as there is only half the distance of the overall length of the helicopter between the hook and t/r tips, so therefore the total length of the helicopter is irrelevant...

[RVDT]

For those at the back of the class -

Still photos of the bucket in a cruise are NOT what you should be looking at.

Find some youtube material of when the bucket is emptying and that will change your outlook.

As it goes from bag of water to windsock there is an overshoot of the stable windsock attitude towards the tail. The overshoot magnitude is tied to speed.

And with respect to line length - look up what makes a pendulum period longer or shorter - good starting point.

[Hughes500]

RVDT

Yup always was at the back of the class, but always like to ask. Done lots of lifting with different lines but was curious how the 50ft length had been derived at, obviously / hopefully not be experimenting with a helicopter ! Done a bit of bucket work, but not much happens here in UK, so would prefer to ask what to some might be the stupid question !
When dumping water have never really seen the bucket fly up that much then I suppose haven't been doing more than about 30 kts and its been on a 50 ft line or to belly hook but nothing in between

[fadecdegraded]

Regardless of line length the fact you have a underslung load means you have to give it the respect it deserves.
Even with a 200 ft line i have heard of guys getting the line over the back of the skids and have seen empty lines very close to TRs when ferrying an empty line.
I have used a Bambi on a 30 ft line with no problem, the 30 ft bit was chain though and gave the overall load extra weight when there was no water in the bucket.
If not treated with the respect it deserves and the helicopter flown accordingly it will bite.
Actually that's flying full stop isn't it

[RVDT]

This is at a relatively slow speed in ideal conditions -

Notice how much it moves towards the tail.

NMqcCjyQ-GE

[John Eacott]

The comments about the stability of the Bambi following a drop are, of course, quite correct. It may be worth noting that the lines we used back in the 90s were steel and very heavy, which influenced not only the flight characteristics but also the length of the line. 30ft (we weren't much into metrics) was about the limit of steel cable that could be handled by a pilot, especially when we started adding not just the household cable to run power to the solenoid but also a hose for the feed from the Sacksafoam! With the introduction of kevlar lines this restriction disappeared overnight and 100ft became the norm of what could be handled by one man.

[500guy]

The comments about the stability of the Bambi following a drop are, of course, quite correct. It may be worth noting that the lines we used back in the 90s were steel and very heavy, which influenced not only the flight characteristics but also the length of the line. 30ft (we weren't much into metrics) was about the limit of steel cable that could be handled by a pilot, especially when we started adding not just the household cable to run power to the solenoid but also a hose for the feed from the Sacksafoam! With the introduction of kevlar lines this restriction disappeared overnight and 100ft became the norm of what could be handled by one man.

Interesting Discussion. I don't do bucket work, but I did a similar risk assessment for powerline work years back and did a study on this very hazard. at the time I found 12 such incidents in the US alone between 1983 and 2007 where a longline or load on a longline (or directly on the belly hook) contacted the tail rotor. Two of the 12 resulted in fatalities.

Below are the accident report #s
ATL83LA294 SEA87LA092 ANC92FA040 LAX94LA241 SEA98LA017 ANC98LA003 SEA00LA028 DEN01LA145 DEN03LA041 LAX03LA160 LAX04LA116 SEA07CA200

[RVDT]

For interest look up the "hairy rope trick" of long lining with a fixed wing.

It used to be done with fixed wings (Tiger Moth) so is pre-interweb days so may be difficult to find information.

Basically pay out a long "hairy" line and enter a turn and the end can be controlled via bank angle to place it on the ground.

There are stories of a certain chap long line / bucketing with a Cresco ag plane in NZ if you can believe that.

Was used in the 1950's - more information here (http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/research/a20006/bucket-drop/) and relevant to the issue for information purposes.

[BigMike]

"In NZ"... totally believable... ;)

The Kiwi's poineered the 2 helicopter lift.... probably

Commercial operations | Southern Lakes Helicopters, Fiordland, New Zealand (http://southernlakeshelicopters.co.nz/commercial/commercial-operations)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Micksphotos/full_IMG_1769.jpg (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/Micksphotos/media/full_IMG_1769.jpg.html)

[Nubian]

"In NZ"... totally believable... ;)

The Kiwi's poineered the 2 helicopter lift.... probably

Commercial operations | Southern Lakes Helicopters, Fiordland, New Zealand (http://southernlakeshelicopters.co.nz/commercial/commercial-operations)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Micksphotos/full_IMG_1769.jpg (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/Micksphotos/media/full_IMG_1769.jpg.html)

What could possibly go wrong.....

[krypton_john]

This will give me nightmares. Make the image go away!

[rottenjohn]

[quote=krypton_john;9780458]This will give me nightmares. Make the image go away![/quote

One of the dumbest things I've ever seen

[Hughes500]

Would love to see the risk assessment of this and the safety management system !

[jimcarler]

That has got to be a photoshop job, surely?!

[henra]

What could possibly go wrong.....



People never cease to amaze me when it comes to efforts they put into suicide attempts.

[BigMike]

I remember this being done years ago in NZ at an airshow, or somewhere similar, by 2 500's with longlines. 200ft? They were lifting a hut then if I remember rightly.

[heli kiwi]

No this is real.
The other option would be getting the RNZAF and their NH90. As per another thread on here.

[rottenjohn]

Would love to see the risk assessment of this and the safety management system !

Yeah, don't like your chances

[BigMike]

A good photo of BK's bucketing on the Christchurch fire.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Micksphotos/helicopters.jpg (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/Micksphotos/media/helicopters.jpg.html)
Photo by Mark Barker

[rottenjohn]

No this is real.
The other option would be getting the RNZAF and their NH90. As per another thread on here.

At the hourly rates the commercial operators do this sort of stuff for?

[SuperF]

No this is real.
The other option would be getting the RNZAF and their NH90. As per another thread on here.

At the hourly rates the commercial operators do this sort of stuff for?

Close to it. I heard about $25,000/hr to run those things. We all charge like that now...

[Kiwi500]

:D:D:D:D:ok:

[500guy]

"In NZ"... totally believable... ;)

The Kiwi's poineered the 2 helicopter lift.... probably

Commercial operations | Southern Lakes Helicopters, Fiordland, New Zealand (http://southernlakeshelicopters.co.nz/commercial/commercial-operations)

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a3/Micksphotos/full_IMG_1769.jpg (http://s8.photobucket.com/user/Micksphotos/media/full_IMG_1769.jpg.html)

I know Erickson tried it about 25 years ago with 2 sky cranes. One aircraft got slightly lower than the other and it shifted the load and over torqued the heck out of one of the aircraft.