Originally Posted by
Hot and Hi
...Either is was pilot error, or the anti-torque device of the EC130 doesn't have sufficient authority. (Or both of course.)
Well. It was pilot-error, obviously. The impact was vertical and upright. This means he dropped it in with little or no forward speed, i.e. in a hover.
We are taught to land into the wind for a reason. And not just because birds do it instinctively. So we all must understand something: You
can land a helicopter with a strong tailwind, but it take meticulous planning and skill...and even maybe a measure of luck. You have to be ready for anything...but you
especially have to be ready for the thing to want to swap ends on you if you let the airspeed get low. You can get away with some crazy antics in a helicopter when you're into the wind. But downwind? All bets are off.
The Astar pilot had reportedly been into that particular LZ *581* times! So it's not like it was inexperienced and unfamiliar with operations down there. This time, he just made a poor choice of approach profile - for some reason. Hey, we're human; we screw up sometimes. With a windsock at the LZ, it would be pretty poor airmanship to
not check it out before commencing the approach. And if you look at the pictures taken at the site at the time of the accident, you'll see the windsock sticking straight out. Me (and probably you too), I would want to land *INTO* the wind in such a case.
We've all heard of pilots using the infamous
"rogue gust of wind!" excuse for why they crashed a perfectly good helicopter. In this case, the pilot upped the ante and reported a "violent" gust of wind! Well...if you knew the weather down in that canyon was strong and gusty, and you decide to land downwind, shouldn't you be prepared for that? I mean, what do they pay us for?
Let's call it what it was: Pilot error.