Video of Aircrane Getting LTE

[Autorotate]

This video was sent to me showing an Erickson Aircrane getting LTE while firefighting. Amazing footage and guarantee a change of shorts on landing.

Aircrane Video (http://www.helicopterservice.com.au/photos/Dawson/Crane%20LTE%202004.MOV)

Thanks to John Eacott for hosting it.

Autorotate.

[sprocket]

The crew must have been experiencing a centrifugal force of their own. Close call!

[hotzenplotz]

Thank you for posting so interesting stuff.
My Windows Media Player Classic can't display the video. There is no CODEC available for download.
Which Player do you use to watch the video?

[sprocket]

My Quicktime player ran it. The clip is in 'mov' format.

[Canadian Rotorhead]

LTE at that stage of flight? Somebody please add some technical advice on this one. Having flown for a few years in heavies, that scares the heck out of me.

Almost makes me want to go back to the JetRanger, well, almost.

The Skycrane having very little fuselage surface area would fly much different than the Sikorskies that I have flown (76 &61N).

Proves that things do seem to go wrong when the camera's rolling.

:confused:

[NickLappos]

That is one great video, and it shows how much we can learn from a good movie. Some comments:

The Crane's tail rotor is very healthy, and giving lots of thrust, but the rotor was drooped a bunch, so the thrust was limited by the reduced rpm, and the spin occurred. Note the way the rotor is "frozen" by the frame rate of the video, like the spokes of a wagon wheel in the movies. The frame rate of a video is 30 per second, so the rotor can be frozen if it has exactly some multiple of the 1/30 second. See how the rotor actually "freezes" when the aircraft is directly overhead, showing the lowest rpm point of the sequence. Note how the rotor speeds up again right afterward, and actually becomes a blur. At that point the rotation stops and the climb occurs. It is no coincidence that the "LTE" stops when the water is fully dropped, so the gross weight of the Crane is low enough.

What happened? My guess:

1) the aircraft was too heavily loaded for the altitude/temp, so the engines could not produce the power needed to hover or even slow down to a slow running hover.

2) the pilot increased collective to hold the aircraft in the running hover. He stopped the descent, but he reduced the main/tail rotor rpm (when he hit the engine limiter). As the rpm reduced, he ran out of pedal, and the turn started.

3) he recovered with a bit of good airmanship, by holding his cool, dumping the weight, keeping in good cyclic control, and when the weight was low enough, reducing collective enough to recover rpm. With the full rpm, he regained yaw control.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Safecom (http://www.safecom.gov/searchone.asp?ID=8657)

Nice recovery.

Date: 7/15/2004 Local Time: 1800 Injuries: No Damage: No
Location: Waterfall Fire State: Nevada
Operational Control: Forest Service (USFS) > Region 04 Intermountain Region > Humboldt-Toiyabe NF

MISSION
Type: Fire, Water Drop (Helicopter Fixed-Tank) Other:
Procurement: Other:
Persons Onboard: 2 Special Use: Yes Hazardous Materials: No
Departure Point: Minden Airport Destination: Waterfall Fire

AIRCRAFT
Manufacturer: Sikorsky Model: 64E

NARRATIVE

While entering the Waterfall fire for a water drop, the pilots came in contact with a windshift, which resulted in the nose of the helicopter getting turned 90 degrees. They dropped the load of water, continued to turn into the wind and flew out of it. I am submitting this SAFECOM at the request of R-8 Helicopter Inspector Pilot. I did not actually see this happen.


CORRECTIVE ACTION

RASM Notes:7-26-2004, This incident is being investigated as an Incident With Potential (IWP). Preliminary information received from the flight crew was that this occurred at an elevation of about 5000 feet with winds gusting 20-30kts. and 1300 gallons of water on board. I'll update this safecom after the IWP is completed. 8-10-2004, The Investigation is complete and the report accepted. Recommendations were sent to the contracting officer to send to the contractor involved with this incident. The helicopter turned approximately 2 turns in under 15 seconds. the following recommendations were submitted to the contractor: 1) Contractor instruct the flight crew identifying conditions for LTE and how to mitigate these conditions. 2) Contractor instruct the crew on immediate and forthright reporting procedures to the USDA Forest Service personnel when an incident occurs. 3) Contractor instruct the flight crew on hover limitations and reporting procedures of any flight manual limitation exceeded. The cards for these two pilots were suspended till the completion of the report and written compliance by the contractor that these recommendations were covered with the flight crew. No Further Action.

Categories:
Hazard:Weather

[Lamaniac]

Excelent recovery. Nick hit it on the nose. Heavy helicopter with hi alt. and temp. In the real world of fire fighting and utility work - can happen very easily. I am impressed in the cool decissions of the pilot in dumping the load, maintaining control and not loosing it by dumping the collective - which would lead to devistation. Again good job.

[B Sousa]

There is another old Video out there in cyberspace somewhere. Back in the days Nevada National Guard had a company of Cranes in Reno. One of them took off up in the Sierras and as I understand it they miscalculated some things. The aircraft got off the ground spun a bit and made a big mess as it destroyed itself.
No injuries but all on camera and not much left. Im sure this video can be found somewhere and its a great reminder for safety in the Hot/High parts of the world, even in a big aircraft.

[ptwaugh]

To the pilot:

You demonstrated by your compentent recovery that you should be the one briefing the contractor! Clearly, they are lucky to have learned from your experience.

Great job!

[Helipolarbear]

Jazuz, Big spin and nicely recovered too!:p

[Canadian Rotorhead]

Thanks Nick.

I can't imagine how that would have looked from the front seat.

Quite an agile machine and has probably seen scarier moments during initial testing.

Is it true that most Sikorskies have been rolled? Or is that another urban myth?

RH

[NickLappos]

Canadian Rotorhead,

That was a 5 second turn for 360 degrees (with a middle part that was perhaps half again faster). That would average 70 degrees per second, and it was perhaps 100 degrees per second when going backwards (!!)

It was cool aviating to keep the cyclic proper so that the aircraft stayed level, since the wind azimuth was certainly rotating as fast as the aircraft (duh!). This meant that the pilot had to input cyclic into the wind as the aircraft yawed.

Having done quite a few rapid yaws in the Fantail aircraft back when we were competing for LHX/ Comanche, I got the hang of that trick, but the pilot of that Crane had one quick lesson and got it pretty much right.

I don't think the Crane was ever looped or rolled, but most other Sikorsky's have been. They might be big, but they are also quite maneuverable, with good control margins, mostly. Still, aerobatics in helos is best left for "Discovery Channel" films, since the margin for error is small, and the penalties are awesome.

[Canadian Rotorhead]

Thanks again.

I've worked with a Crane while logging and powerline construction. She is a spectacular bird to watch (and aviod) from the feeble little JetRanger.

I was featured on a "Discovery Channel" film, but it was a pretty boring spot compared to most I've seen. They tend to spice it up for the audience though.

I mentioned to a friend today about Sikorsky Aircraft being rolled. He looked at me like I had three heads.

RH

[Corporate Yank]

"Quicktime" plays the film clip just fine. The only problem is that the picture size is only 3.5" high x 4" wide. I've looked all over the place and can't seem to find a way to enlarge the picture. Any ideas appreciated. Thanks, CY

[Autorotate]

In Australia I have been lucky with shoot the Cranes close up while fire bombing, both from the air and a couple of times on the ground. What amazed me is how agile they are for such a big machine. I have seen Kenny Chapman turn one of them around on a dime and then also have it on its side while side slipping down to get a load of water into a tough spot.

Full credit to the command pilots on these things, they handle them like a 500. :ok:

Autorotate.

[212man]

I'm curious about the comments about hitting the engine limits (haven't looked at video yet but will shortly).

I assume that it is at a high enough DA not to be hitting the torque limit first, so does that mean both engines have reached topping, ie are at Max Contingency rating? Is this the norm or are they 'topped down' for this type of operation? With, normally, only 10 minutes or accruable Max Con time in a engine's life, you wouldn't want to be doing it too often.

Now to the video.......

[NickLappos]

212man,

I speculated that they topped the aircraft, since the tape shows the Nr changing greatly, and speeding back up. I don't think it was the engine limiter, specifically, since that Crane could go to 10,000 ft before it would kick in.

The reduced Nr is also why I said it is not "LTE".

[My names Turkish]

Corporate Yank: Dont quote me but I think
that like me, you have the free version of Quicktime. This is available to download so that you can view clips without too much trouble, if you want to see fullscreen you have to buy the full version. I am sure someone can tell you for certain in the computers forum.

[sprocket]

Quicktime: My version is 6.4 (free).
The enlarge minimise/maximise button is in the same place as the IE window (top RH corner). It is almost ghosted and hard to notice, but it works.
There are also some size options under the 'Movie' button on the top toolbar.

[helmet fire]

Wow, I am fascinated by the investigation reaction, as I subscribe to both Nick's explaination and to the reaction of ptwaugh in relation to the pilots being able to give the lecture on recovery.

This extract is the bit that concerned me:

1) Contractor instruct the flight crew identifying conditions for LTE and how to mitigate these conditions. 2) Contractor instruct the crew on immediate and forthright reporting procedures to the USDA Forest Service personnel when an incident occurs. 3) Contractor instruct the flight crew on hover limitations and reporting procedures of any flight manual limitation exceeded.
The cards for these two pilots were suspended till the completion of the report and written compliance by the contractor that these recommendations were covered with the flight crew.

Sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of the incident by the investigating officer to me. Has he heard of Loss of Tail Rotor Authority (LTA)? Does he know the difference with LTE? Why has he put it down to an LTE incident?

On one hand he suspends the licences, and on the other recommends they have a more forthright reporting culture. Does he understand the link between these at all?

I am even wondering if this incident is reportable at all. The guy got LTA and took recovery action. The problem about hover limitations? Why the flight manual exceedence bit? WTF? I have yet to see the need for a heavy water bomber to hover during application. Total waste of time and money.

Like the investigation and report.

[NickLappos]

Helmet fire,

Yep, we agree LTE is not LTA. The investigator was bang on in his findings, I think, but he does mix LTA and LTE, as does most of the helo world, by now, perhaps by careful planning of some authorities.

I dislike doing armchair investigation, but here goes:

1) The aircraft was too heavy, and the low speed maneuver (near hover) that was attempted was not within the performance capability of the aircraft. That is the root cause of the maneuver seen in the film. Note the finding about understanding hover limitations. The recovery involved dumping 10,000 pounds of water, sort of proof of that fact!

2) LTE is way too loose of a term, and has no meaning in this case. The tail rotor was admirably effective throughout this incident, it was simply being forced to operate at too low of an rpm. Thus it was an LTA incident, but look at the thread to see how many pilots do not get the distinction.

Regarding the actions taken, I do think it is harsh, the pilot showed great airmanship in recovering, but he probably knows that he painted himself into a tight corner. I think this illustrates what I have always said, "The difference between training and experience is told in flying stories." That pilot has a flying story that we can all learn from.

The pilot stepped into something bigger than his incident. The US Forest service is under a microscope, because of the real safety problems they have had these last few years. That C-130 that shed its wings several years ago started the whole thing, and even the basic policies of letting contracts are under examination. I am sure some pruners know much more that I do about this.

[N00DLES]

Hi can anyone host this file again or email it to me? I would like to see the film clip if at all possible. The orginal link seems to be down. Thanks guys :)

[John Eacott]

Noodles,

Link is up again, you should be able to download now.

[N00DLES]

Thanks a lot John. Much appreciated :ok: