PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed
View Single Post
Old 29th Jul 2019, 16:38
  #411 (permalink)  
noooby
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot
Ohhhhh, I dunno. Maybe because the NTSB preliminary report said: "The tail rotor assembly, which was also separated was subsequently recovered." I guess I assumed that to mean the t/r gearbox came off, but now that I think about it, maybe just the tail rotor itself came off and not the whole gearbox? Beats me.

Yeah. To me, Tail Rotor Assy means just that. The Tail Rotor. And their definition of that may also be a bit hazy. How much of the tail rotor? Was the hub left on the output shaft or was the output shaft broken off and still attached to the tail rotor?

I've not seen any photos of the tailboom to see what is still attached. And as for the boom being 500ft away from the wreckage..... It weighs practically nothing for the size of it. It should float for quite a while, drifting away from the main wreckage and of course the fuselage doesn't come to rest at the point of impact. It too is travelling at speed.

And seeing as I'm here I'll address all the posts about the "new" tailbooms that came out after the Qatar incident. They aren't new. The AIN news bulletin is wrong. It says "The new boom will employ a different composite technique and use an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer who spoke to AIN."
That is not correct. The tailboom always had an external Alloy skin. What changed was the honeycomb. They went from nomex honeycomb to alloy honeycomb. There is an Optional bulletin to change your tailboom over from nomex to alloy honeycomb but boy oh boy is it expensive. The other relevant bulletin is the one that has the external longerons put on (which this aircraft has). That removes all the repetitive inspections and AD's for the boom.
There is now a new boom on the 7000kg machines. They wanted to reduce weight and complexity so went with the same honeycomb fin but a conventional boom of sheet metal, frames and stringers, with no honeycomb. Looks exactly the same on the outside.
The boom failing in flight is an extremely remote possibility. Same with a TR Blade failing in flight. The new blades have had no issues since coming into service many years ago.
Need more info from NTSB to rule out possible scenarios.
noooby is offline