The helicopter’s fuel tank group was drained and the contents were measured immediately after it was extracted from the building. It was found that the main fuel tank contained 76 kg of fuel, whilst the No 1 supply tank (left) contained 0.4 kg of fuel and the No 2 supply tank (right) was empty. It has also been confirmed, by examination and measurement of the internal design features, that this was the fuel disposition at the time of the accident. That is; fuel had not moved within the tank group whilst the helicopter was at rest in the building. Also, there was no evidence that fuel leaked from the helicopter before or during the impact with the building.
The No 1 (left) engine fuel filter was found to contain a small amount of fuel whilst the No 2 (right) engine was found to be empty of fuel.
The debate seems to be splitting into two camps, those who are shrugging their shoulders at a classic pilot error and hunkering down for the backlash, and those that are desperately searching for additional technical reasons that could explain this mess.
I'd suggest that whether or not such reasons exist, the big lessons are probably already on the table, namely:
1. The fuel system design of this aircraft is flawed.
2. Type rating training and OPCs do not adequately prepare all pilots for real engine failures.
Even if additional technical reasons existed and are found or speculated about, those two key issues will have to be dealt with.
The first is easy to deal with, but please, no defenders of the existing system. There are other designs out there where the accident configuration simply COULD NOT have happened.
The second is IMHO a BIG issue that will take some courage and resources to confront.