CAA PAPER 2003/1
Helicopter Tail Rotor Failures is well worth a read. Here are some extracts.
There are two major types of TRF:
a) A TR drive failure (TRDF) is a failure within the TR drive system with consequent
(usually total) loss of TR thrust. Example causes are internal fatigue or external
impact resulting in a broken drive shaft.
b) A TR control failure (TRCF) is a failure within the TR control system such that
normal pilot control of TR thrust has been partially or totally lost. Example causes
are internal wear or external impact resulting in a severed control cable. The
resultant TR applied pitch, or power, could be free to fluctuate, or may be fixed
anywhere between high pitch (HP) or low pitch (LP) setting, including that of the
current trim pitch (TP).
Both of these TRFs are time critical emergencies. The pilot has to identify and
diagnose the TRF type and react with the correct control strategy within a few
seconds (or less), to prevent the aircraft departing into an uncontrollable flight state.
Even if the pilot recovers from the initial transients, yaw (pedal) control will have been
lost and the ability to manoeuvre safely and carry out a safe landing will have been
significantly degraded. The TR and its drive and control systems are clearly flight
critical components and should be designed so that their probability of failure is
‘extremely remote’. The airworthiness design requirements for UK military and civil
aircraft define ‘extremely remote’ as being less than 10-6 [1] and between 10-7 and
10-9 [2,3] per flight hour respectively.
Recovery from the failure transient
For TRDFs, and TRCFs where the post-failure pitch angle of the TR blades is different
from the pre-failure trim position, the immediate effect is a yaw response. That is, (for
anticlockwise main rotors), nose to starboard following a TRDF or LP TRCF, and nose
to port following a HP TRCF. The level of initial yaw acceleration will depend on the
nature of the failure, and the level of yaw rate and attitude build-up will depend on the
forward speed. In hover, an unchecked TRDF will result in the yawing moment from
the main rotor torque reaction spinning the fuselage at rates in excess of 100° sec-1,
perhaps even as high as 150-200° sec-1. Typically, the higher the forward speed, the
lower the yaw rate and attitude excursion as any natural directional stability of the
aircraft will tend to reduce the severity of the motion. However, this is only true up to
some value of sideslip, beyond which it is possible that directional stability can
reverse, resulting in increased yaw rate and attitude excursions. Evidence from the
Lynx TRF AFS trial [5] suggests that the ability of the pilot to successfully manage a
forward flight failure is strongly related to the extent of the initial yaw/sideslip
transient. If this exceeds 90°, then the pilot is unlikely to be able to recover, as the
flight control problem is exacerbated by disorientation; if the yaw rate reduces to zero
below about 30° yaw angle, then the pilot has a much greater chance of recovering
from the failure. Accompanying the yaw excursions will be pitch and roll motion,
which can further increase the risk of disorientation. An additional effect of any roll
attitude transient is an increase in the main rotor disc angle of incidence, leading to
an increased risk of the rotor over-speeding as the pilot reduces main rotor collective
to contain the effects of the failure. The extent of the attitude excursions depends on
the aerodynamic design characteristics of the fuselage and vertical stabiliser, the
resulting directional stability, the type of attitude stabilisation present in the flight
control system and the pilot’s control actions