Video Helicopter Crash Rowlett
In the comments here somebody claims to have witnessed the tail rotor coming off.
His statement sounded like it was about a lost tail rotor before the loss of control and the boom being hit.
One of the eyewitnesses indicates the helicopter was in a hover (OGE...) and then there was a pop....
If the RPM is normal, in the OGE hover the fact that the head is a semi-rigid design, (hybridized from a teetering head to a teetering + coning hinge for root load relief) is basically immaterial. Cyclic inputs on a Robbie like any civil helicopter should be smooth and coordinated, but the hover is not a point that modest cyclic inputs will compromise TPP/tail boom clearance. High speed, very different story. A TR drive failure will get out of sorts in a high hover quite quickly and will result in reduced TPP/tail boom clearance unless the throttle is closed, but there is a few seconds before it gets wild from the inertial moments on the fuselage feeding back into the control system. The video indicates that the NR was likely maintained for the early parts of the event, the blades had not suffered an underspeed event resulting in blade stall (the SN "LOW RPM STALL") the rotors only appear to come out of plane after the pitch over and presumably the engine stoppage from fuel pickup point catching air. This doesn't say one way or the other if the pilot had closed the throttle and entered autorotation, it is probable the event wasn't from an engine failure, however. So, the rotor control head itself is unlikely to have been bad, no pitch link failure, no coning hinge failure, an accidental forward whack on the cyclic is very uncomfortable in the hover but doesn't normally result in a tail strike (there is a neat video somewhere of that being done at a low hover, and stuff happens but the tail didn't get cut off). The same forward whack at 115KIAS is pretty much deadly.
The losses in the RHC are a mixed bag of causes, the fact that it has become the universal training helicopter with the minimal production of any other entry-level chopper other than the Colibri (which has a pretty neat head design) and a smattering of others. The rotor head needs operational care by the pilot, as it did on the B206 and UH1B/H etc... or 2 blade AH1s. They are not forgiving of bad habits, but then, the guys & girls who train the pilots in them take remarkable care to cover those matters, as does the Manufacturer. The RHC Safety Course is a worthwhile course for any person flying them, CoViD notwithstanding.
Sad day for all concerned, fortuitous location of the incident.
Last edited by fdr; 26th Mar 2022 at 11:21.
Thread Starter
My initial thought was perhaps mast bumping but not severe enough to sever the mast. Before everyone jumps on it it’s just a speculation and I realise that would be unusual.
Another thought I had was if I remember correctly the tail rotor detached at the input in the 44 accident in Broom Western Aus, Perhaps another gearbox failure?
Another thought I had was if I remember correctly the tail rotor detached at the input in the 44 accident in Broom Western Aus, Perhaps another gearbox failure?
Another thought I had was if I remember correctly the tail rotor detached at the input in the 44 accident in Broom Western Aus, Perhaps another gearbox failure?
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
Thread Starter
Was there a conclusion from the investigation into the Broome crash?
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
Yes it was mechanical failure of the gearbox at the input. There had been a vibration reported by the previous pilot with ground trouble shooting not finding any faults. Next flight it failed on vertical departure.
I could be incorrect but if my memory serves me right the tail severed and looked very similar the tail rotor in this video.
Was there a conclusion from the investigation into the Broome crash?
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
For this one supposedly they were training VRS recoveries... perhaps the student staring at the ASI dropped the nose too much with the collective on the floor, the already high RoD leading to freefall, low G then tail off.
I would really like to know what happened but I doubt we will ever find out.
Good point though re Vortex Ring. Over controlling in the potential turbulence present during incipient VRS is a possible explanation. EG Nose drops, sudden aft cyclic application.
Or an over-zealous recovery, lowering the lever and pushing the cyclic forward followed by a check back on the cyclic to control the nose-down.
Simply lowering the lever too quickly will reduce positive g and can even take you to negative - we all know the dangers of that in a Robbie.
Simply lowering the lever too quickly will reduce positive g and can even take you to negative - we all know the dangers of that in a Robbie.
Thread Starter
Was there a conclusion from the investigation into the Broome crash?
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
There might be a disturbing pattern occurring.
While not impossible, it would seem extremely unlikely, that pilot error during the reported high (OGE) hover could sever the tail boom.
Catastrophic and unrecoverable mechanical failure is most pilots worst scenario.
When caught on video, the impact is chilling, and can have a deleterious effect on product confidence.
EC225’s are cheap to buy, for EG.
I’m less and less happy to board B737’s (and too scared to watch “Downfall”)
Sorry Twist and Shout the Broome accident hasn’t been finalised, my mistake. It does look like a similar detachment point though.
VRS is interesting possibility especially if it’s known that was the training sortie. A friend of mine ended up on his back in a 500 teaching VRS when it bit back and rolled right over. Luckily it was a 500 as there are not many aircraft you’d get away with that in.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Or an over-zealous recovery, lowering the lever and pushing the cyclic forward followed by a check back on the cyclic to control the nose-down.
Simply lowering the lever too quickly will reduce positive g and can even take you to negative - we all know the dangers of that in a Robbie.
Simply lowering the lever too quickly will reduce positive g and can even take you to negative - we all know the dangers of that in a Robbie.
I'm basing my suggestion on the Gazelle in which I have done OGE hovering and throttle chops but also the Sea King where we trained for forced landing from an OGE hover when we started a lot of FLIR searching.
In both cases, initiating with rapid down collective produced a nose down pitching and a reduction in g.
If this doesn't happen in Robinson aircraft then I'm surprised but happy to have my knowledge improved - not that I'll ever get in one of them again!
In both cases, initiating with rapid down collective produced a nose down pitching and a reduction in g.
If this doesn't happen in Robinson aircraft then I'm surprised but happy to have my knowledge improved - not that I'll ever get in one of them again!