Robinson R44 Accident Panama 19th Feb 09 3 fatalities
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: sfo,CA
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Theory, absent an official report on cause
My theory is that the main rotor gearbox or the engine seized. This would have twisted the cabin violently to the right, throwing the pilot against his door. He probably had his harness off to reach something in the cabin... fire extinguisher, charts, loose bag, sunglasses, who knows. I asked Gary about the safety of having the doors off, as he often did. He told me the door latches were extremely weak, and they would not hold you in if you lurched into the door. He said it wasn't important because you always had your harness on. If the rotor seized, it wouldn't have mattered anyway, because helicopters don't fly with seized rotors, and 800 feet is too high to survive. I didn't see any reports about whether the rotor was turning after the "explosion". I would be very interested.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My theory is that the main rotor gearbox or the engine seized. This would have twisted the cabin violently to the right, throwing the pilot against his door.
Last edited by chopjock; 7th Apr 2010 at 11:11.
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: California
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gary Vaucher
Hi,
I'm currently listening to a book, Path Between Two Seas, about the building of the Panama Canal. It took me to pleasant memories of my flying with your good friend Gary Vaucher when he lived in Santa Barbara, CA in the mid to late 1960s, and also in Panama when i visited him there in 1972 when we flew the Canal in 172. I still have several pictures of the canal that we took from about 500 feet.
I enjoyed my stay in Panama greatly. Since I had never since heard from him, nor he from me, I was concerned that something happened to him. This morning I read of his tragic death now more than six years ago. My condolences to you, his good friend.
Where would I find an official version of the probable cause? Is there a way I can contact his widow? I would be most grateful for any help you might provide. Gary was a great guy, and as you said, an excellent pilot.
My name is Frank Robinson, though I'm no relation to the Founder and CEO of the company that makes the R44. Several of my friends have R44s so I would most interested to learn more about the cause.
My email address is [email protected] (not case sensitive). I've been a pilot since 1959 and own a Cessna T310R which I fly weekly for business and pleasure.
I live in California. If it's useful you can visit my business website: SyncDev for more contact data. I would welcome a call at US 805-689-7930 or a number at which I could call you.
I hope to hear from you.
Best,
Frank
I'm currently listening to a book, Path Between Two Seas, about the building of the Panama Canal. It took me to pleasant memories of my flying with your good friend Gary Vaucher when he lived in Santa Barbara, CA in the mid to late 1960s, and also in Panama when i visited him there in 1972 when we flew the Canal in 172. I still have several pictures of the canal that we took from about 500 feet.
I enjoyed my stay in Panama greatly. Since I had never since heard from him, nor he from me, I was concerned that something happened to him. This morning I read of his tragic death now more than six years ago. My condolences to you, his good friend.
Where would I find an official version of the probable cause? Is there a way I can contact his widow? I would be most grateful for any help you might provide. Gary was a great guy, and as you said, an excellent pilot.
My name is Frank Robinson, though I'm no relation to the Founder and CEO of the company that makes the R44. Several of my friends have R44s so I would most interested to learn more about the cause.
My email address is [email protected] (not case sensitive). I've been a pilot since 1959 and own a Cessna T310R which I fly weekly for business and pleasure.
I live in California. If it's useful you can visit my business website: SyncDev for more contact data. I would welcome a call at US 805-689-7930 or a number at which I could call you.
I hope to hear from you.
Best,
Frank
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: sfo,CA
Age: 75
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Newest theory is fuel vapors and landing light switch spark
My newest theory of the cause of the crash is there were fuel vapors on the cabin, and Gary switched on the landing light to cross the airport. The switch would not be explosion proof, and may have ignited fuel vapors, blasting anything not tied down through the doors that have weak latches. That would have included Gary, if his harness were not fastened. If he had stayed in, he may have made a successful emergency landing.... I like to think he would.
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: very near the edge
Age: 63
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is so much to be learned from this accident.
But… for now I will share some facts and where noted, a couple of probabilities and a few possibilities.
The pilot did not jump out to save himself. The suitcases seen near the pilot were not onboard the heli (1st responders equipment). Nothing mechanical seized up. The event did not start with a “typical” onboard fire. There was no contact between the main rotor and the fuselage. The heli’s fuel system was not compromised.
This was a cross country flight that required carrying additional fuel which is very common in this area. They had already refueled and placed the “empty” plastic containers back under the seats for the return flight. Unrelated circumstances dictated that the flight deviate from the typical coast route to fly inland, cross PTY midfield and arc back down to MAG. The event just happened to happen while over the terminal building of PTY.
The fuel containers being used were susceptible to poorly fitting caps allowing gases to escape with minimal pressure applied to the sides of the container. The containers had to lay on their side to just fit under the seats. It is very probable that a small amount of fuel remained in each container. Temp was hot and turbulence was reported in the area. With the heat expanding the fuel gases in the container and the bouncing of the passenger on the seat, compressing the container, those gases were pumped into the baggage compartment and/or fuel leaked on the first leg of the flight and saturated the foam liner in the baggage compartment. Once the baggage compartment fills up it flows into the cabin.
You may be asking yourself “wouldn’t they have smelled the fuel?” Of course they smelled fuel. The pilot had just filled from 5 different containers (two 5 gallon and three 2.5 gallon), he had it all over his hands. Now you ask “wouldn’t they continue to smell fuel?” No, the human nose ignores constant smells after about 4 seconds.
This is where all the holes in the cheese align. This same type of flight with relatively same equipment had been accomplished safely numerous times in the past and was considered a safe practice, except this heli was one of, if not the first, air conditioned R44 in the country. Normally the doors would have been removed and/or all of the vents open, but with the A/C running, the cabin was all sealed up and the fumes were just recirculated, waiting for a spark.
The explosion started under the aft right seat blowing the passenger upward and the pilot forward through the windscreen. It was not confirmed, but it appeared the pilot’s seat belt was unbuckled before the explosion.
There were other items stowed in the baggage compartment along with the plastic containers. Nylon rope, a flair gun (plastic), flairs, blade tie downs (acrylic/nylon), auto inflating life vest, headsets, etc. A combination of items from each end of the Triboelectric Chart (makes sparks when rubbed together). This is the most probable cause of the spark, although the A/C fan motor could be ruled out. One or both of the passengers were smokers, but the pilot’s background made it very unlikely he would have allowed smoking in the cabin. There is also the possibility that the passenger was fidgeting with a lighter. Coptercop took a good swing at it with the landing light switch, but they were leaving the airport not approaching it, he would have turned it on earlier.
Now you’re asking “how does this guy know all of this?”
I was part of the investigation team.
The pilot did not jump out to save himself. The suitcases seen near the pilot were not onboard the heli (1st responders equipment). Nothing mechanical seized up. The event did not start with a “typical” onboard fire. There was no contact between the main rotor and the fuselage. The heli’s fuel system was not compromised.
This was a cross country flight that required carrying additional fuel which is very common in this area. They had already refueled and placed the “empty” plastic containers back under the seats for the return flight. Unrelated circumstances dictated that the flight deviate from the typical coast route to fly inland, cross PTY midfield and arc back down to MAG. The event just happened to happen while over the terminal building of PTY.
The fuel containers being used were susceptible to poorly fitting caps allowing gases to escape with minimal pressure applied to the sides of the container. The containers had to lay on their side to just fit under the seats. It is very probable that a small amount of fuel remained in each container. Temp was hot and turbulence was reported in the area. With the heat expanding the fuel gases in the container and the bouncing of the passenger on the seat, compressing the container, those gases were pumped into the baggage compartment and/or fuel leaked on the first leg of the flight and saturated the foam liner in the baggage compartment. Once the baggage compartment fills up it flows into the cabin.
You may be asking yourself “wouldn’t they have smelled the fuel?” Of course they smelled fuel. The pilot had just filled from 5 different containers (two 5 gallon and three 2.5 gallon), he had it all over his hands. Now you ask “wouldn’t they continue to smell fuel?” No, the human nose ignores constant smells after about 4 seconds.
This is where all the holes in the cheese align. This same type of flight with relatively same equipment had been accomplished safely numerous times in the past and was considered a safe practice, except this heli was one of, if not the first, air conditioned R44 in the country. Normally the doors would have been removed and/or all of the vents open, but with the A/C running, the cabin was all sealed up and the fumes were just recirculated, waiting for a spark.
The explosion started under the aft right seat blowing the passenger upward and the pilot forward through the windscreen. It was not confirmed, but it appeared the pilot’s seat belt was unbuckled before the explosion.
There were other items stowed in the baggage compartment along with the plastic containers. Nylon rope, a flair gun (plastic), flairs, blade tie downs (acrylic/nylon), auto inflating life vest, headsets, etc. A combination of items from each end of the Triboelectric Chart (makes sparks when rubbed together). This is the most probable cause of the spark, although the A/C fan motor could be ruled out. One or both of the passengers were smokers, but the pilot’s background made it very unlikely he would have allowed smoking in the cabin. There is also the possibility that the passenger was fidgeting with a lighter. Coptercop took a good swing at it with the landing light switch, but they were leaving the airport not approaching it, he would have turned it on earlier.
Now you’re asking “how does this guy know all of this?”
I was part of the investigation team.
Bam ba lam, thanks for the information on a perplexing accident. The seat bases do not normally bend under static loads, they are part of the crash structure, so I would suspect that venting was related to a difference in pressure on closing the container and that at altitude. The ignition source would have been a major part of the investigation; the normal wiring system is pretty well put together on the RHC product, but in the vicinity of the rear seats there are a number of earthing points, and some live power services. The governor system sits back on the front side of the firewall, and that would be a point of interest. The RHC seat belt latch requires a greater throw than a car latch; if debris was projected forward from the rear between the seats, it is always possible that it impacts the latch on an upward trajectory and releases the latch. I have not come across any rotorcraft pilot that would undo their belt voluntarily, and any attempt to do that airborne single pilot is going to be a risky venture, much less so in a 44 than a 22, but not a good place to be.
An explosion sufficient to put the pilot through the windscreen, centered behind the pilot is probably going to compromise the flight control system which runs just below the floor in that area in its tunnel. One way or other, after such an explosion, it is not going to end well.
The Helipod externally mounted cargo pods give some way of carrying additional fuel, but it is always going to have an increased risk.
An explosion sufficient to put the pilot through the windscreen, centered behind the pilot is probably going to compromise the flight control system which runs just below the floor in that area in its tunnel. One way or other, after such an explosion, it is not going to end well.
The Helipod externally mounted cargo pods give some way of carrying additional fuel, but it is always going to have an increased risk.
Report, in Spanish
https://www.aeronautica.gob.pa/upia/
click on the 2009 heading.
If you need it, you can use an online translator to do a rough translation of the pdf, eg https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/en/translationform
hope this helps
click on the 2009 heading.
If you need it, you can use an online translator to do a rough translation of the pdf, eg https://www.onlinedoctranslator.com/en/translationform
hope this helps
Thank you, bambalam and Watson, that solves this mystery.
I thought it was common cause that plastic containers were unsuitable for fuel, because of risk of static electricity, and that the plastic container ruptures when the pressure inside increases (provided the lid seals in the first place). Could there be a similar problem with standard steel jerry cans? They seem to be 100% airtight, can be properly bonded with an earth cable and seem to withstand high pressure differentials without deforming a bit.
The only thing that’s puzzling me now is why was the pilot's seat belt not fastened...
I thought it was common cause that plastic containers were unsuitable for fuel, because of risk of static electricity, and that the plastic container ruptures when the pressure inside increases (provided the lid seals in the first place). Could there be a similar problem with standard steel jerry cans? They seem to be 100% airtight, can be properly bonded with an earth cable and seem to withstand high pressure differentials without deforming a bit.
The only thing that’s puzzling me now is why was the pilot's seat belt not fastened...
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 4th Mar 2019 at 04:32. Reason: Style
