Who's At Fault

[cyclic flare]

A friend of mine was parked on the fuel pumps at his local airfield in his R22 when a gazelle flew behind him. There was quite a strong wind (20k) and he was down wind of the gazelle with his rotor's / engine stopped.

The downwash of the gazelle made the R22's blade slap down into the tail boom and cause a dent which is just within the manufacturer's limits.

The Gazelle pilot says he's not at fault because he was far enough away from the aircraft and landed on the "H" next to the R22 as instructed by ATC.

I know my thoughts maybe the Flying Lawyer could put us straight.

[Capt Hollywood]

In my humble opinion the Gazelle pilot is at fault as he is the pilot in command and as such is ultimately responsible for his downwash and the effect it may have on objects on the ground.

Then again I'm no lawyer!

Hollywood :cool:

[SilsoeSid]

IMHO,

Plainly the Gazelle pilot was not "far enough away", whatever the circumstances may be.

The Gaz pilot must have realised he was upwind and in a 20 kt wind should have routed accordingly. A little thing called airmanship I believe.

Just because ATC gave clearance doesn't make Gaz guy right.

At the risk of sounding flippant, if ATC cleared him to the 'H' and there wasn't enough room, would he carry on until the inevitable happened and still claimed he was in the right?

I don't think so!

SS.

[Heliport]

I don't disagree with the general principle in the opinions above.

Just a couple of questions -

(1) I'm not familiar with R22 procedures, but ..... Wouldn't it have been good practice to have the rotor brake engaged if the wind was 20 kts?

Assume for the purpose of the next question that the R22 pilot was sitting in his helicopter at the time. (It's a small world. ;) )

(2) "There was quite a strong wind (20k) and he was down wind of the gazelle."
Knowing that he was downwind of a helicopter approaching to land on the next spot in a relatively strong wind, can the R22 pilot be blamed at all, if only to some extent, for not ensuring his rotor wouldn't be blown when the downwash arrived?
ie It should have been obvious to both pilots what was going to happen.

Any thoughts?

[Heliport]

Thanks. I overlooked that point.
Rumour has it that the blades were fore and aft, with the rear blade tipped down to the boom.

Heliport

[rotorcaptain]

It's a good idea to offset the blade a bit when shut down in the R22 (I learned that parking next to a 206 in a tight spot for a few years), nevertheless we all know that we're responsible for our own rotorwash, period.

[Bronx]

rotorcaptain

Everyone agrees we're responsible for our own rotorwash, but it might not be as simple as 'period'.
I don't know about England but I believe most states here have what's called contributory negligence. If a court here decided the R22 pilot was say 15% to blame for the damage for not securing his blades when the other helicopter was landing upwind in a strong wind (basic airmanship) then the compensation he'd get for the damage would be reduced by 15%.

[Vfrpilotpb]

I did my initial training and indeed many hours on the R22, my Lady instructer always told me to ensure parked blades were left at 1.00clock /7.00 oclock , and only 6.oo oclock 12.00 oclock if you were tieing down, and if very windy parked and tieed down at 9.00 oclock 3.00 oclock

Peter R-B

[the coyote]

In Australia the law states that the pilot must not operate a helicopter so close as to cause a hazard, including its downwash.

The law also states that no ATC clearance or instruction absolves the pilot from complying with the laws.

If the guy is filling up happy as Larry and his bird is then damaged by another bloke blowing him around, it seems obvious to me who's fault it is! No Gazelle = no damage eh?

The Gazelle pilot could have requested an alternative helipad/landing site, albeit temporarily? Either way, maybe he needs to expand his situational awareness/common sense in my opinion.

[Nigel Osborn]

As the Robbo was parked in a strong wind situation at a fuel pump, why didn't he tie the blades down? Even if he was only going to be 20 mins or whatever, good airmanship with a teetering head would suggest tying down was required. Having said that the Gazelle pilot should have noticed that and landed further away. I'm sure FL would have a field day apportioning blame.

Over here some years ago, a 206L landed on a pontoon designed to take two 206s with the first one having it's blades tied. The 206L pilot saw the blades were fore and aft and duly landed. The blades weren't tied, turned, intermeshed and the 206L transmission entered the cabin and killed a passenger. The 206 pilot, who was in the crew room, was duly charged with manslaughter and spent well over a year before the case was reduced.

So tie your blades down if you are going walkabout!!:D

[Heliport]

The way I heard the story was the pilot was sitting in the R22 waiting to start while the Gazelle was being marshalled to the adjacent spot.
I don't think anyone would argue the Gazelle pilot wasn't responsible for his own downwash whatever the marshaller instructed. I haven't got an R22 rating but, if you're sitting in an R22 with a teetering head, downwind of another helicopter about to put down in a strong wind, could it be argued the pilot was partly to blame for not getting out and preventing the rear blade from impacting the tailboom since the blades weren't tied down?
I'm not an R22 pilot, but isn't it fairly basic airmanship?

[John Eacott]

Slight amendment to Nigel's post: the helicopter on the deck was a 222, with the tail boom over the water: unable to be tied down. The pilot's defence (it didn't get to court, although he was initially charged and spent $A40k+ on legals) was that the Flight Manual prohibits leaving the rotor brake on, after shut down. I don't know the FM, but assume he was/is correct.

The 206L pilot was reported to have seen the 222's blades, yet continued his approach with subsequent fatality (passenger's video showed all :rolleyes: ). 206L pilot became CP, 222 pilot sitting having a cup of coffee 50 yards away was charged by Queensland Police. Go figure :mad:

Back to the Gazelle/R22: from the Antipodes, who was most at fault? Gaz pilot should have known better? R22 driver should have grabbed the tip of the nearest blade and held it secure when the obvious was about to happen? R22 driver should have tied the blade down? Gaz pilot should have gone to another spot?

All of the above ;)

[HeliMark]

In the states, the AIM clearly says that the pilot is responsible for his actions as he is the one with the most knowledge of the effects of his downwash. It is up to the pilot to know if the operation is going to possibly damage another aircraft and ask for an ammended clearance if so.

If the R22 pilot had no knowledge of the other helicopter coming in until he was buckled in, how could have he been negliable?

[currawong]

Has it even been established that the damage arose from this event?

Tough to prove if it got to court....

Only winners here will be the lawyers.:{

[cyclic flare]

Just to clear up a couple of queries.

Heliport your very well imformed, do you reside in the small hut just behind the fuel pumps?

The R22 pilot was sat in the helicopter waiting to start, with his headsets on talking on the radio, i don't think he would of heard the gazelle or seen it as it arrived from behind the r22, especially as the rotor noise was being hurtled down wind by the strong wind

You normally don't have your blades tied when your just about to start, but even if they were it would not of made the slightest bit of different. Blade ties on the 22 only stop them from flapping up, they are still free to flap down.

Currawong

As for proving if the dent was there before the aircraft is less than a week old with only 15 hours datcom

I think the Flying Lawyer won't be commenting on this as i believe he's been contacted by the gazelle driver.

I don't think even with the expert knowledge of the Flying Lawyer he will be able to talk himself out of this one

Interesting replies i will certainally be leaving a little more room next time i approach anything

[Heliport]

You've worked out where I live. :eek:
I'll have to move now, and I liked it there. :{

It's a small industry. Not much happens that doesn't get about within a few hours.


Charlie
Flying Lawyer also flies Jetrangers and fixed-wings.
I don't think people who find themselves in a spot of bother contact FL because of any particular type he flies. ;)



Difficult to see how anyone could do much to help the Gaz driver in this instance though.

[[email protected]]

Cyclicflare - you can hear the whine of a Gazelle fenestron from miles away through double glazing but I don't think hearing him would have helped him assess the proximity of the Gazelle.
If the robbo pilot has his back to the Gaz and is in the cockpit with headphones on and awaiting start clearance I don't think he can be considered negligent or culpable in any way, shape or form.
The gazelle pilot has a clear view of the area, presumably knows he is down wind and that his rotor wash is ahead of him and still comes in close enough to bother the R22 - that is poor airmanship however you dress it up.

[muffin]

Firstly, regarding tieing the blades down, I have rented may R22s from different operators and have never foound any of them equipped with blade tie downs.

Strange how training is different - I was always taught to leave the blades at 12 o'clock - 6 o'clock but I do see the sense in making it 7 o'clock - 1 o'clock instead.

Many years ago I was taxying a C172 plank past a parked Trislander when the Trislander pilot decided to do a power check as I passed behind him. I was blown over sideways, shock loading the prop and damaging the wing.. It became an argument between insurers, and in the end they decided I was to blame for being there despite the fact that ATC had told me to taxy behind him.

[cyclic flare]

Heliport

It is a small industry, but not that small.

I still think you live in that small hut behind the pumps or maybe your the re fueler.

Are you 4ft 3" tall about 96 years of age and fought in WW1

[airborne_artist]

As a matter of idle interest what might be the approximate repair bill for the R22's ding?

[cyclic flare]

The repair bill is nothing by a stroke of luck. The damage is under the limits requiring repair by the manufacturer. It the dent was 20 thousands of an inch or so deeper off with the tail boom back to robinson for repair. $$$$$$.

Machine out of action, loss revenue, loss of earning, Robinson summer shutdown etc etc

I think gazelle driver is very lucky and i know it was a genuiue mistake / misjudgement, but im sure he will be getting the engineers call out etc charges and possiblly alot more.

What has this done to the value of the machine? It must of de valued it. Would you buy a 22 with a kink in the boom?

Or may be its a job for the dent master to make the dent disappear like they do on cars or would this weaken the boom ?

[airborne_artist]

csc

We're both brilliant, of course.:D

[TeeS]

Just as a matter of interest, what is the required distance to maintain from an R22 on a 20kt wind day when hover taxiing a gazelle. It must be a figure that can be calculated by any of those who have damned the gazelle pilot with the 'poor airmanship' tag.

Isn't it just possible this was just a case of misjudgement, a gust at the wrong moment or even a full and free check in the robinson at an unfortunate time.

If this is the worst case of airmanship Mr. Gazelle Pilot ever displays, he is probably better than most of us.

If the guys involved have any sense, this will all be sorted out in the bar without resorting to solicitors etc.

Just my opinion of course, I don't have any info other than what has appeared here.

Cheers

TeeS

[[email protected]]

Tees, if he is on a grass surface he will be able to see exactly where his downwash is - there is no magic formula just common sense: on a clam day the downwash is spread equally around the aircraft and when there is wind, the downwash is displaced downwind - it's not rocket science to work out that hovering downwind with 20 kts up your chuff is going to displace the downwash well in front of the aircraft. Maybe the first flutterings of the R22's tail rotor might have given him a clue before he got close enough to do real damage. It is poor airmanship to land somewhere just because ATC say you can - they are not the captain of the aircraft and therefore don't have the responsibility of carrying out the manoeuvre safely - you wouldn't blame ATC if you rolled over on landing because you failed to correct the sideways drift.

[Rich Lee]

There was a time, not so long ago really, when there would be no effort to assign fault in matters such as this.

This is the helicopter equivilent of a shopping cart hitting a parked car in a supermarket parking lot. Who is to blame for the ding. The owner who parked his car where he did? The supermarket for not controlling their carts? The person who last used the cart? God for creating wind? The designer of the building who did not account for wind flow? The paver of the parking lot who did not design the slope so that carts would not roll........where does it stop?

When the cost of assigning fault and litigating the recovery of damages exceeds the actual cost of repair for the damage, the system has gone horribly wrong.

Perhaps both pilots might have done things differently to have prevented the "incident". Perhaps a sudden gust of wind, a local change in wind direction or intensity caused what might have been a prudent operation by both pilots.

[cyclic_fondler]

There's no need for any legal action or sillyness like that. In the UK, the heli society is small enough as it is and there's no need to make enimies with anyone.

Best course of action is the gaz pilot buys the robbo pilot a create of beer and they both get drunk !

I'd be happy with that.

[Hippolite]

In my opinion, the R22 driver, if he was sitting in the aircraft waiting to start should have had the blades at 3 o'clock and
9'o clock positions.

That would have ensured that firstly, he didn't try to start with the blades tied down (which happens even to seasoned professionals) and it would have prevented the damage.

HH:cool:

[pilotwolf]

Another point worth mentioning is I was taught to turn the blades to 3/9 o'clock prior to start. That way it was obvious to others, at least to other from same company, that aircraft was about to be started.

This would also have prevented the tail strike...

PW

[Rich Lee]

Best course of action is the gaz pilot buys the robbo pilot a create of beer and they both get drunk ! Here, here! Though I much prefer the Russian solution - Red Bull and vodka.

[SilsoeSid]

TeeS said;what is the required distance to maintain from an R22 on a 20kt wind day when hover taxiing a gazelle. It must be a figure that can be calculated by any of those who have damned the gazelle pilot with the 'poor airmanship' tag.
From the BHAB website;Helicopter downwash is proportional to the weight and size of the machine producing it......... The area down wind of the helicopter is worst affected. In any case it is recommended that, whilst the helicopter is manoeuvring in a low hover, no object should be permitted closer than 1.5 x Rotor Diameter or 30 metres from the centre line of the helicopter, whichever is the greater.
Gaz rotor diameter = 10.5m x 1.5 = 15.75m, so the latter advisory distance, 30m,should be used as a minimum, nil wind !

As for the poor airmanship tag, I think this is covered by the CAA General Aviation Safety Sense booklets, in particular No 17, "HELICOPTER AIRMANSHIP"4.11 d. Always be mindful of the effect your own rotor downwash can have on parked aeroplanes and other surface objects.
Poor airmanship or a total disregard for other 'objects'?

Also this is a good read, http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182274-1.html [

[B47]

Thirty metres!

I accept the accuracy of the theory, but what useless and impractical advice that is.

Reality of visiting GA airfields for fuel is that helicopters are always parked tight around the pumps, so who wants to whinge over the radio in the hover that there's not enough room? If we all had to hold off parking nearer than 30m to Robbos that are ALWAYS parked with blades fore and aft, we'd never get in.

The common sense is that all parked machines should expect the downwash of others (within a reasonable radius i.e. marked landing spots) and if that causes them damage then they should prevent it. Teetering heads need the front blade tied down also - if you don't do it - your problem. Robbo drivers rarely tie their blades down because they were never taught to as students. Own your own machine as I do (B47) and you'll soon develop routines to protect your investment. Park blades 1 - 7 o'clock or tie down and always start 3 - 9 o'clock as check against starting while tied down.

So I disagree, all R22 guy's fault. His bad luck and instead of a Gazelle it could have been a freak gust. Gazelle guy did what we all have to when parking at pumps.

[SilsoeSid]

B47,I accept the accuracy of the theory, but what useless and impractical advice that is.
I expect you have some other gems like that on the subject of Flight Safety. :sad:His bad luck and instead of a Gazelle it could have been a freak gust.
But it wasn't, was it? ;) Gazelle guy did what we all have to when parking at pumps.
So... we'll just sort out the more serious incidents once they have happened!! :mad:
or b....shall we prevent them? :ok:

Flight Safety is not a dirty word.......now crevise, that's a dirty word. :)
(ack to General Melchett)

[RDRickster]

have rented may R22s from different operators and have never foound any of them equipped with blade tie downsmuffin,

If you rent and know you will have an extended lay over, you really should ask for them. Same thing applies to ground handling wheels. Robbies are easy to maneuver into tight spots (i.e. fuel spots), but in some places it can be a little too dangerous. PIC is exactly that... "In Command" (your rental Agreement indemnifies the owner anyway).

Personally, I think its always nice when people can resolve the issue without involving insurance/courts.charlie s charlie,

I absolutely agree with that sentiment, but get it in writing and have the informal settlement reviewed by an Attorney and notorized by a third party. It's funny how good intentions and adult behavior can turn into childish battles with more time. In the end, if what was promised in terms of remediation is NOT what is delivered, you'll need a VALID agreement that can withstand the scrutiny of the courts. If the agreement isn't drafted properly, you will lose (assuming the other side has good counsel).

***********************************************

R2 Comments (not worth 2 pennies, but here they are anyway):

Using the limited information posted here, I think most of us agree that most of the blame should be assigned to the Gazelle pilot. After all, as helicopter pilots we have a lot more choices in terms of approach.

With respect to Rich Lee's comments, a ding in an R22 is a fairly serious problem. There's no real structure in the monococal tail section and most of the strength is in the skin itself. That's why a ding is such an expensive problem. You can't simply pop the dent back like an automobile, the stress and damage is irrovocable and will only get worse over time. It sounds like the tolerances are already to close to comfort.

Similar to what Vfrpilotpb mentioned, I've always done 12/6 for storage and tiedown and 1/7 when left outside. Specifically, that's done for strong winds, but also applies for nearby rotor downwash. I like Hippolite's and pilotwolf's technique of putting the blades 9/3 for startup... I'm guessing those were learned from some of the Bell handbooks?

[TeeS]

Thanks for the info Silsoe.

A quick look at the UK AIP charts suggests that if a gazelle is parked on spot 7 at London Heliport (Battersea), you can squeeze one more gazelle on either spot 4 or 2 (if you ignore the fences and terminal building).

Cardiff heliport apron is also just capable of holding 2 gazelle.

Offhand, I can't think of anywhere with helicopter spots 30m apart, no doubt I am about to be proved wrong!

I am not saying that poor airmanship was not to blame, just that there is no evidence on this site to prove it was.

Cheers

TeeS

[Rich Lee]

RDRickster With respect to Rich Lee's comments, a ding in an R22 is a fairly serious problem. There's no real structure in the monococal tail section and most of the strength is in the skin itself. That's why a ding is such an expensive problem. You can't simply pop the dent back like an automobile, the stress and damage is irrovocable and will only get worse over time. It sounds like the tolerances are already to close to comfort. Allow me to make myself a little more clear. My comment was written in the metaphorical sense in that nobody was injured or killed. As expensive a replacement for an R-22 tail boom may well be, it is still just a dent. Your reply was a non-sequitur but I respond by saying there was nothing in my comment to suggest that a ding in an R22 is not a fairly serious problem. In fact, I would argue that a ding in the monocoque structure of the R-22 tail boom is not a "fairly serious problem" but rather a "deadly serious problem". Myself, I would not make a repair to the tail boom. I would replace the tail boom. My point was less directed at repairs or cost of repairs as it was to the cost of assigning "blame" in excess of the cost of repairs where there was no clear negligence on the part of either party.

The outcome of this will be an official investigation that will rule that both pilots shared responsibility. Then there will be a new rule that two helicopters cannot operate within 10 rotor diameters of each other because the experts will not be able to agree on a safe helicopter wake turbulence distance. Of course the owner of the re-fueling pad will be sued to recover damages and he will then restrict any helicopter from landing while another refuels or close the re-fuel pad to helicopters. Then there will be special R-22 training requirement of 40 hours classroom, and 5 flight hours followed by a CAA exam leading to a re-fuel operations endorsement without which R-22 pilots will not be able to re-fuel. Needless to say Gazelle pilots must also receive training because their rotor wash goes backwards and that can cause special problems when landing or hovering near aircraft whose rotors turn in the opposite direction (even when the rotor is stopped).

Your next post will be probably be a complaint about additional pilot training requirements and that you cannot get fuel for your helicopter.

[RDRickster]

Rich Lee,

Thanks for the clarification, but I already understood most of that from your post. It's an unfortunate situation, but cost is always a factor and so blame must be assigned. You said it best...

Who is to blame for the dingGranted, there are a lot of factors. Hindsight is always 20/20. In the future, I'm sure both pilots will handle similar situations differently, and the folks that read this thread may make a mental note of it, as well.

It would be great if we lived in a world where everyone would automatically assume responsibility for the things that are within their span of control... sometimes that is more than one person.

R2

[Warren Buffett]

Interesting views all round. I think that ultimately there are no winners in all this (except maybe the lawyers representing the R22 and Lama drivers) - kind of like parking your new car in a shopping mall carpark and someone opening their door and putting a scratch on yours. **** happens. (Am I allowed to say this on PPRUNE?)

Some years ago I was lying under my 206B3 looking at a leaky fuel drain outlet point, parked at an airport with blades tied down and driver front door opened when a Dauphin landed next to me, blew the opened door forwards, damaging the door opener strut and tearing one hinge from the frame and cracking the other mount.

After several visits to my attorney I quickly realised there's nothing that you can do sensibly about getting compensation. Much cheaper to get it fixed and write the whole episode down to experience.

Sounds like the R22 owner has to do the same. :{

[rotorspeed]

In the real world, as is so often the case, this is not a black and white issue.

Yes, as it turned out, the Gaz pilot hovered too close, but had the R22s blades not been at 12/6 would there have been any damage? Almost certainly not.

The fact is, when landing at many busy, confined sites such as Battersea, re-fuelling locations or heli ops bases (eg HeliAir Denham!), you're going to be causing other heli's blades to flap from time to time. So after you land in such places, you tend to operate defensively, tying blades down, shutting or holding open doors, etc.

As the manoeuvring pilot, you try to fly as considerately as possible, but there's a lot of subjective judgement involved, looking at the type of the other aircraft, wind, etc. And also from this, the alignment of blades - we need to look at R22 blades to see whether they are 6/12 and not tied down, to see how close is sensible.

The reality is that being over-cautious can be very inconvenient. So you want fuel and park further away. Shut down. Find the other heli pilot, ask him to move/tie down his heli. You start up, reposition etc. Not easy.

So what should have happened here, with the benefit of hindsight? Firstly the R22 pilot should not have had blades at 12/6 on starting, the standard precaution against starting with them tied down. Secondly the Gaz pilot should have been more cautious, and held off, whilst asking the R22 pilot his intentions over the RT and suggesting he starts to be rotors running and preferably moves before the Gaz closes in to land.

Grey area, but more mutual caution and consideration would have avoided the grief. But at least it's given us another good topic to highlight on PPRune!

[SilsoeSid]

Tees, as you mentioned Battersea;A quick look at the UK AIP charts suggests that if a gazelle is parked on spot 7 at London Heliport (Battersea), you can squeeze one more gazelle on either spot 4 or 2 (if you ignore the fences and terminal building).
Having a closer look at the AIP, if you park a Gazelle on stand 7(within short stay stand 8), going strictly on the 30m measurement, you could in fact park gazelles on stands 3or2 and 5or4. (parking for 3)

The paragraph, EGLW AD 3.8 - 5 (remarks) says "Not all stands may be used simultaneously".

Interestingly to note, in the RAF HLS directory, stands 3,5 & 8 are for MSH and 2,4,6,& 7 for LSH

"Taxi and land at your own discretion" was, if my memory serves me right, the ATC call used, which would put all damage caused on the shoulders of the manoeuvering pilot.

Perhaps all of this thread is to do with todays society, "Everyone else is to blame but me"!

[vorticey]

if i was at the fuel pump with a helicopter comming in (i would have herd it on the radio) i would get out of the helicopter to ensure that the blades are for and aft so the other helicopter can get close to the pump. then when hes landed move them to any other position but that, for start up. we always land in close proximity to other helicopters and ive never seen the head teeter from the downwash, maybe you have to be right over the aft blade or beside it if it has the collective up? is a gazel verry heavy?
and could you have still blamed the robbo pilot if the blades where still slowing down when the gazel came in? or maybe if he had them at 3 and 9 while the gazel landed and cliped blades?? surely not!
somone said that the blade was tipped down already, not much clearence back there then, this may have been the actual staw that broke the camels back! its not a great look on startup either.:ok:

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

My R-22 experience is scant, but somewhere in the deep, dark corners of my brain I seem to recall reading something in the R-22 manual about how you can lift up on the blade tip but can only apply <insert some incredibly low number here> pounds of pressure downward on the tip. And I mean it was *very* little pressure allowed. But maybe my memory is faulty. Can any Robbo drivers expand on this?

My questions would be: 1) Is this why we do not typically see Robbo's with their MR blades tied down? 2) If enough pressure was exerted downward on the R-22 blade so that it contacted the tailboom, was the maximum allowable exceeded?

Warren Buffet:Some years ago I was lying under my 206B3 looking at a leaky fuel drain outlet point, parked at an airport with blades tied down and driver front door opened when a Dauphin landed next to me, blew the opened door forwards, damaging the door opener strut and tearing one hinge from the frame and cracking the other mount. You didn't hear that horribly noisy Dauphin approaching? You were lucky, mate. I've seen those shock-strut mounts torn right out of the door frame. If that had happened, the door might have swung completely around and you would have had a bubble to replace as well.

It is common sense to not land too close to another helicopter with it's blades untied (or doors open) unless you truly don't care about damaging it. It is also common sense to get out and grab a MR blade when you hear another helo approaching, especially if it's going to land close. In the thirty years that I've been a part of this industry and observing helicopter pilots, common sense is one commodity that sadly doesn't seem to be in generous supply.

[HeliEng]

Cyclic Flare

Blade ties on the 22 only stop them from flapping up, they are still free to flap down.

The R22 has a tie down point at the front of the aircraft, therefore if the forward blade is tied down to stop it flapping up by default the aft blade will not be able to flap down.

I was always told that if tying down and only using one tie down the use the front as a preferance.

Just an observation.

:D ;) :D

[RDRickster]

The droop stops on the head of the R22 prevent the HEAD from teetering at low speed. I believe this was designed to help prevent the blades from contracting the tail boom if a sudden gust came during initial start up (both blades teetering as a unit). As a result, PPRUNE FAN#1 is correct in the fact that you may push UP on the blades and NOT down.

However, the droop stops do NOT prevent the BLADES from flexing themselves. If the front blade was slightly pushed up, the clearance in the back blade would be less... it wouldn't take much downwash to impact the boom. These blades have quite a bit of flexibility in them already.

Also, there are two tie-down points for the blades (not just one). Yes, there is a designated spot on the front of the aircraft where the cabin air intake is. In addition, you are supposed to tie the aft blade down via the tailboom, using the same type blade sling. In this configuration, both blades are somewhat rigid because of the SLIGHT downward pressure (locking them against the droop stops).

(all of this from memory, so I'm probably wrong)

[diethelm]

I assume people are going to think about themselves first. If I am sitting on the ground, I am going to close the doors. If I hear another helicopter, I am going to assume there will be some wind blowing around and I will do whatever necessary to avoid damage from this wind. Absent the other person landing right on top of me or using his/her blades to do some trim work, I am going to do whatever it takes to keep from having a dispute. This strategy, although cynical, works for just about everything in life.

Does Gazelle downwash go backwards for the same reason toilets swirl backwards in the Southern Hemisphere :confused:

[HeliEng]

RDRickster,

Surely it would therefore be common sense to push the aft blade up as much as possible then tie the forward blade down first giving as much clearance betweeen blade and boom as possible???


I believe, and am in no doubt that someone WILL prove me wrong, (I know what you guys are like!!) that if one were to exercise this practice, with the aft blade as high as possible, there would not be enough flex in the blade itself to strike to tailboom. Not without causing damage to the structure of the blade anyhow.

I am familiar with the R22, and through my experience, have only heard of one occurance where the blade has contacted the boom in such an incident. (I am not saying there haven't been others, just commenting on my experience:ok: )

[MD900 Explorer]

Surely if the R22 pilot was ready to start up, he would be:-
1, listening to the radio,
2, and be in contact with ATC and would have heard the Gazelles request to park at that location.
3, Also, if he was about to start up, would he not surely have his red strobe on the tail boom ON :confused:

So if all these things were happening, the R22 pilot would have known that the Gazelle pilot was on his way to his location and the Gazelle pilot would have seen that the R22 was about to start-up, giving him an extra wide berth :confused:

So, what should the R22 pilot have done - stopped starting up, got out of the R22 and held onto the blades for dear life.... I think not. He would have assumed that the Gazelle pilot had the wherewithall to apply good airmanship and land in an appropriate distance from the R22, so he could get on with his engine and rotor start.

In my opinion, if we all shat ourselves because another helicopter was coming to park next to us, we would never fly at all :{

The Gazelle pilot should have known the specs on the machine he was flying and known that the Gazelle is alot bigger and more powerful than an R22 and should also have known that the downdraft was going to be extensive. Having the skills to avoid other aircraft, that are on the ground, when coming into land would indicate proper airmaship. What was demonstrated was no doubt percieved by many to be a cowboy attitude of flying, which is DANGEROUS and COSTS LIVES in the end. :mad:

As for who should pay who for the damage, the Gazelle pilot should start digging deep for a repair job on the R22. :yuk:

MD :{ :{

[Bronx]

My, oh my what an interesting spread of opinions we got.

MD900
Whadya mean by "was no doubt percieved by many to be a cowboy attitude of flying"? Are you saying he had a cowboy attitude to flying? Why? Coz he got it wrong on one day? For all you know he could be a careful pilot with 1000's of hours without any incident.


Story from the Richmond Times, Virginia

A Helicopter downdraft hurt woman, suit says
ROANOKE - The downdraft from a rescue helicopter forced a Lexington woman to the ground and broke her hip, according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the woman's estate.
Ruby Graves, who died in 2003 at 84, was leaving Stonewall Jackson Hospital in July 2002 after an outpatient treatment when a helicopter passed overhead with a downdraft "of such force and violence that it knocked her to the ground," according to the suit.
Graves' hip was broken in the fall, said Michael Cleary, the estate's attorney. The suit claims the injury was severe and permanent.
Cleary has filed suit against Carilion Patient Transportation Services; unidentified pilots with Carilion's rescue helicopter service, Life-Guard 10 air ambulance service; Stonewall Jackson Hospital; and others for $300,000.

[MD900 Explorer]

Bronx

Fair and valid point, but in MY opinion, if he wasnt a cowboy, then he would have had the pre-thought to give the necessary seperative distance from the R22. If he was that careful 1000's of hours pilot, then he obviously wasnt that careful and showed a smiging of complacency - Which i pointed out Kills in the end. I agree we all make mistakes and we sometimes get it wrong, but something simple like that is really hard to mess up eh :confused: :confused:

MD:sad:

[SilsoeSid]

I have to agree with MD,

He couldn't be a 'careful 1000s hours pilot', because he wasn't being careful, was he!
The one day you get it wrong, could be disasterous, I don't believe there is a no claims protection type policy on not being careful or failing to show airmanship, is there?

There seems to be a few people here of the 'driving in the middle lane attitude' here.
"I'm doing 70mph in the middle lane, no-one should be overtaking me. I'm not doing anything wrong, everyone else is breaking the speed limit."
Unfortunately, not all speedos are calibrated the same, so your 70mph could be my 67mph, so I CAN be going faster than you.[

[Bronx]

Sorry Sid, can't agree with you there. Even 'careful 1000s hours pilots' can make mistakes. Maybe the folk you think are too kind on the Gazelle driver are remembering pride often comes before a fall. If you've never made an error and got lucky you're a very rare pilot. Most of us have some time or other and just thanked our lucky stars we got away with it no harm done.

[TeeS]

Silsoe

The centres of the spots you mention are only about 26m apart, that is why I suggested that your requirement for 30m separation would only allow 2 aircraft on the apron at Battersea!

This discussion is really going nowhere, can we allow it to quietly fade away.

Cheers

TeeS

[Warren Buffett]

PPRUNE FAN #1

You didn't hear that horribly noisy Dauphin approaching?

No, I should have, I guess. Just like I should have known whether or not I left the iron on this morning, whether I left the gate opened last night, whether I just transmitted to ATC accidentally on VHF when I meant to be talking on my phone. You get the idea. At a busy GA airport you hear so much background noise that you are not alerted unless something louder than the normal background noise happens. Then it's too late. R22 Driver now faces a damaged tail cone.

However much you try and educate people on airmanship there will be a tiny proportion that just don't care. And this is what I mean when I say **** HAPPENS (can I say this again and still get away with it?).

[SilsoeSid]

Bronx, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall saying that I have never made an error. When I have, at least I have had the b@lls to admit to it and not try to hide or deny it or simply blame someone else!!

A lot of us NOT so 'holier than though' pilots are still making mistakes for various reasons, despite 1000s of hrs, surely it's only natural.

Blaming others for our own mistakes is simply not on! :mad:

Tees,

Fading away...... but, (you knew there was a but), short of getting my tape rule out on my next visit to LW, I'll settle for one on 8 one on 5 and the 3rd getting a refuel. :ok:

edit;
By the way, the 30m distance isn't 'my' requirement, it is a recommendation from the BHAB site.
I repeat from the CAA SS leaflet, "Always be mindful of the effect your own rotor downwash can have on parked aeroplanes and other surface objects."

[Sarik]

If you're in a car, you're responsible for any damage you do (certianly to stationary objects) while driving that car.

Downwash is a product of a heli, and the pilot should be responsible for any damage to any object that causes, regardless of what it is.

Unless there is some 'factual' rule that states you must never have your blades 6/12 while parked; the 22 driver was sitting in his machine, minding his own business. He may have been listening in on the radio, maybe not, he's parked up, he doesn't have to be.

It doesn't matter that it was the blade striking the tailboom, the downwash caused by the Gaz driver caused one object (regardless of what is was) to strike another.

Although with that said, I don't think either driver did anything wrong. Maybe if the Gaz driver parked another foot away, it wouldn't have happend, if the 22 drivers blades were 1/7 and not 12/6 it wouldn't have happend.

BUT it is the Gaz's drivers responsibilty, his downwash caused damage, and he probably should coff up. An unfortunate coming together of events.

But like so many people have said. **** HAPPENS. And this just happens to be on of those '**** HAPPENINGS'.

And this is all, of course, IMVHO.

S.

[MD900 Explorer]

SS

Sounds like we are pissing in the wind here buddy :sad:

But i was thinking about this some more last night, and came to the conclusion, and correct me if i am wrong here now, that either the Gazelle pilot came in right overhead, or the R22 pilot was actually starting up, as i think that the damage on the tail boom can only really be caused by a blade sail accident whilst in start-up or shut-down, due to the teetering hinge on the R22 blade it would be nearly impossible to create the necessary down draft to make the blade hit the tail boom unless you were pretty much ontop of the R22, or very close throwing down a large amount of rotor wash. creating the necessary wind conditions to sail the blades.

Now i could be speaking a load of tosh here, and i am sure someone will correct me if i am voicing out of tune here, but if i am right, then the Gazelle pilot is well out of order. :confused:

MD :ok:

[cyclic flare]

MD 900

The 22 was shut down blades stopped. The blade hit the boom hard, and i mean hard. He was clearly to close which was greatly increased with the downwind aspect 20kts.

The R22 pilot cannot be found at fault in any way. He could of been paying for his fuel in the tower and nothing would of changed.

The only way to change what happened would be if the gazelle had given more room / allowed for the downwind position of the 22.

[MD900 Explorer]

Cyclic Flare

Sorry buddy, i was under the impression the R22 pilot was just starting up (Don't know how i got that impression) :confused:

Never said it was the fault of the R22 Pilot, and i still agree the Gazelle pilot was at fault. Your points are noted though. :ok:

MD :ok:

[Rich Lee]

Let's burn this Gazelle pilot at the stake. We certainly can't have his ilk loitering about in three dimensional space. While we have the prye burning at six gazillion degrees (C) we might as well burn the R-22 pilot for not demonstrating the divine omniscience necessary to anticipate danger and position main rotor blades accordingly.

What? Helicopter forum? Sorry, I was under the mistaken opinion that this was a railroad.

[Heliport]

:D

Something which has always surprised me in the forum is the way in which pilots who've made a mistake are often condemned so strongly by some other pilots.
I assume the majority adopt more of a There but for the grace of God approach and are relieved it wasn't them who made the error.

[Rich Lee]

Something which has always surprised me in the forum is the way in which pilots who've made a mistake are often condemned so strongly by some other pilots. Wisdom at last! I do thank you Sir.

The Court of Pprune can be a cruel and viscious arena where good men die like dogs. Were I only perfect I might feel more comfortable passing judgement on my fellow aviators - but having become an expert by making all the mistakes possible in my very narrow field - I somehow feel inadequate.

[[email protected]]

One of the great functions of this forum is that people can learn from others mistakes but unless we identify that a mistake has been made then how can another learn from it?

If the experienced among us do not say something or someone is wrong and just shrug our shoulders and mutter 'c'est la vie', then how will those not fortunate enough to have several thousand hours/many years of experience learn not to do the same things.

I would hope, at the very least, that this thread has made everyone aware of what damage their downwash can do and that they are resposible for that damage, whether they meant to do it or not.

[Hover Bovver]

Cyclic,

The R22 pilot could have left the blades away from the boom.

[RDRickster]

Didn't this thread start by asking, "Who's at fault?" Yea, but by the Grace of God... how true. Nevertheless, having read and reviewed this forum, it will give me pause when I find myself in a similar situation. For the poor saps actually living this situation, someone has to pay the bill.

[hemac]

I don't have the experience to comment on who may be at fault.

I would like to say that this thread has proved invaluable to me.
I have been taught that whilst carry out my check A on an R22 to visually inspect the tail boom. What for, I never really new until now. If I had seen a dent in the body work I probably would have thought it was superficial and nothing to worry about. I now know better.

Thank you all for that valuable piece of knowledge.

H.

[SASless]

In another recent thread here I advocated in two bladed helicopters the blades be either tied down or at 3-9 o'clock position with the tiedown safely stowed and some took exception to that self imposed rule.

Application of that simple rule would have prevented this occurrence. Anyone that leaves an untied blade of any kind directly over the tail boom is asking for trouble.

That being said....the other aircraft is not relieved from the responsiblity of watching out for his rotor wash effects.

Being a former Chinook pilot....I do get a certain perverse satisfaction out of hearing about a Gazelle and a Robbie having rotor wash problems.

[Gomer Pylot]

As for the R22 pilot, leaving the blades at 12/6 is simply stupid, especially if he's about to start up. If you're shut down in 20 kt winds, you really need to think about where the blades are and what might happen in case of a gust, whether natural or from another helicopter.

As for the Gazelle pilot, if you can see that another ship is shut down and the blades are untied, you need to use more care than usual. That's pretty easy to see if the blades are perpendicular to the fuselage, but can be difficult if they're exactly parallel. I've done a number of approaches to offshore platforms where a 206 was shut down, and the blades appeared to be tied, but on low approach turned out not to be, necessitating a go-around at the last second, something I don't appreciate all that much. If you're flying a helicopter with a teetering rotor system, tie the damn thing down when you shut down, or else you will inevitably have some damage sometime.

[paco]

The question of where to leave the blades to prevent such an occurrence is a question on the Canadian Commercial Pilot exams, so they obviously regard it as basic knowledge.

phil

[bladeslapper]

While at Wellesbourne yesterday, I witnessed an extraordinary episode of what appeared to be scant regard for the effects of downwash.

A Lynx flew slowly over a huge apron at approx 25/30 ft agl behind, but up wind of 3 parked fixed wing (Bulldog & 2 Rallye I think).

The first aircraft had its tail flapped back and forth wildly before finally being blown through a ground loop. Fortunately it did not collide with the aircraft beside it. The second aircraft bobbed up and down with the downwash acting upon its tail and started to move forward. It may have been at this point that the pilot noticed or was advised of what was happening because the Lynx seemed to move more rapidly away and take its downwash with it.

However the Lynx now moved round in front of the crowd at a small Classic Vehicle Event and while landing (still upwind of the crowd) managed to lift the dust and grit and procede to pebbledash the crowd and possibly the classic vehicles behind them.

None of us are immune to the momentary loss of concentration and fore-thought, but the 2 man crew of the Lynx both appeared to be having a very protracted 'blonde moment'.

[albatross]

Perhaps instead of who is at fault we can ask " how do we prevent this from happening again."
A) If you park on a helipad you have to expect other helicopters to arrive so secure your a/c. If the door is not in your hand it should be closed and latched. If not starting the tiedown should be on.
B) If taxing near other a/c get as low and I mean low ( 6 inch hover ) as possible as far away as practicable, then taxi in. This reduces downwash a great deal.
C) If at a refueling point don't refuel and beetle off for lunch blocking access to the pumps. Move the aircraft.
D) Look around.
E) monitor TWR or other local freqs to get a picture of incoming traffic - perhaps delaying or accelerating your start a few minutes will avoid a problem.
F) Remember airmanship is not the boat you arrived on.:p

Perhaps a large sign with the statement - " Unforcast Winds of up to 100 Miles a Hour from any direction can be Expected in this area!" should be posted?

I once had the great joy of landing near a parked 206 on a small pad with 10 other helicopters coming and going.
A fellow had removed the tail rotor drive shaft cover layed it on the ground and then gone into the hangar to get some tools.
Needless to say the drive shaft cover ended up around the skid gear of the 206.
Was it my fault ? - Well, I did not spot the cover on the ground but would you leave a cowling on the round in a place where there is a helicopter landing or departing every 10 minutes and expect not to have it damaged?

[SASless]

Should not that sign say sumpkin like.....

"Do not use your belly button as a peep hole!"

[albatross]

I must be a low hover because that one went right over my head!:confused:

Ignore previous - someone just explained it to me in words I can understand.
Good one SASless.:p

[slowrotor]

The R22 has droop stops, so the blade should not strike the boom unless subjected to a strong downdraft. The blade could be tied and it would still strike through blade bending. (because ropes dont work in compression)
The blade has a warning placard "do not pull down" (I think). Sounds like this blade was overstressed as well.

A tie strut that holds in compression would help I think.

[Coconutty]

..... ( Surprisingly ? ) no-one has blamed Frank ( yet ) for designing a machine where such an event is possible !

You just wouldn't get this problem with any other type now would you ? ( Jensen Button wouldn't agree :rolleyes: )

Surprised no-one else has picked up on this :
I have been taught that whilst carry out my check A on an R22 to visually inspect the tail boom. What for, I never really new until now.
hemac ... what's the point of inspecting the tail boom then ?

Just curious : Is there anything else that you ( or anyone else ) carries out on the Check A that you don't understand ? :uhoh:


:ok:

[hemac]

Almost certainly due to the fact I am still learning.
This forum is a very good source of information.
And some of it is useful.:ok:

[SilsoeSid]

If it wasn't for the 'Top Fuel Pro Drag Racing' at Long Marston yesterday, I would have been at Wellsbourne to see the Vulcan runs and been able to have witnessed this 'Lynx effect!'

Thankfully I wasn't, otherwise I might upset a few people here by saying that I am very surprised that a high profile, 'in the public eye' professional crew would allow themselves to be so open to critisism in being accused of total disregard for the consequences of their downwash on other aircraft, vehicles, persons and structures.

I wonder who the defenders of the Gazelle pilot from earlier in the thread will point the finger at in this incident.

In reference to albatross' post, I would suggest point D would have been in order on this one!


SS