Helicopter down in Madrid (1st Dec.)

[Hangar3]

Helicopter crash in Madrid, carrying Conservative Shadow PM. Happened after takeoff from a Bullring in Madrid. Aircraft about 20ft in the air, before spinning.

1 Slight injury, 3 others OK.

Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4489678.stm

[Head Turner]

Sad to hear of another accident, but glad that the people on board were ok. Have helicopters replaced El Matador or a case of the bull getting revenge!!

[Ian Corrigible]

Reportedly a 206LT TwinRanger, with a tail rotor glitch rumored. CNN+ is supposed to have pictures of the incident.

http://www.channel4.com/news/images/feed/World_teaser88460.160x120.jpg

I/C

[KikoLobo]

It looks like LTE, but why would it go down, if the pilot did not closed the throttle? Or did he after the LTE?

Weird.. I say the video, and the sound of the turbines hears very OK, although its video and its far.

It looks like a high power setting, with too much torque on a very confined area and on full passenger conditions. So... LTE? Anyone?

Im courious on what happened just for education.

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

Article I read said seven on board!

http://www.channel4.com/news/content/news-storypage.jsp?id=137542

I don't know about a Twin-Ranger, but lifting seven out of a bullring would be tough for an L-3 - if it had any more gas on board than to make it to the parking lot outside the stadium. Poor old tail rotor probably broke from overstress! Hope they were seven skinny little fellers.

[BlenderPilot]

I saw the video several times, it looked as if he was doing a vertical takeoff and he ran out of power, drooped the MR RPM, and consequently the TR RPM also dropped losing authority as he settled back down.

On the video I get the impression that the MR RPM was low, the blades looked coned upwards more than usual.

I have flown a little in the 206 LT and I can tell you, power is not its virtue.

When Hot and High, say 10,000 FT DA the L4 runs out of pedal at about 85% Torque, which means the helicopter would start spinning but the MR would not droop, in this case I'm sure the Main and Tail rotor drooped considerably becasue he had no power to get out of the Bullfighting ring he has departing, he seem to have gone for vertical high performance TO, and he didn't even make an attempt to back into a corner and try to gain some speed before departure, which might have not been an option since those Bullfighting rings are pretty small.

[puntosaurus]

LTA/LTE has been debated well in other threads such as this. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=192448&referrerid=110355) Without taking a position on the actual problem in this case, we've now seen a lot of accidents which start in the high hover, begin with a slide/spin and end up in a heap. For the overpitching/LTA case, several solutions are offered, not getting there in the first place (preferred), milking the collective, shutting the throttle, but whilst all these will help none are likely to prevent a hard landing at the very least.

I wondered if there are any proponents out there for the completely counterintuitive 'chickenhawk' solution, of backing off the power pedal ? I know this is going to make the spin worse to start with, but if you look at the videos, the spins seem to start slowly commencing a vicious circle of increased power requirement as the pilot sticks in pedal. I'm thinking that by doing the opposite you could buy yourself a little extra time to get things back under control in ground effect where the power requirement is lower. I seem to remember a logging video where the pilot started to spin, just let it happen and got things back, so I'm sure it has been done.

I suspect this is highly type specific. I remember comprehensively overpitching an R22 in a high hover during my original training, and there wasn't a hint of LTA, just a rather soggy sinking feeling and an instructor desperately milking the collective prior to a rather hard landing. On the other hand I saw a piston Enstrom trying to take off at Wellesbourne that spun like a dervish under the same circumstances.

Any thoughts ?

[B Sousa]

How about a link to the Video.
Thanks

[Ian Corrigible]

Video es Aquí (http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/12/espana/rajoyhelicoptero/index.html ).

I/C

[rotorpol]

accident link for windows media player.
Inside the chopper and outside views

playervideohttp://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/051201accid-mostoles-EC-HCT-Rajoy.wmv


http://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/051201accid-mostoles-EC-HCT.wmv


Looks like looses MRrpm, continues with take off, looses tail rotor authority due to loss of NR and falls down.

Very heavy for a vertical take off from that place with such conditions
This is my point of view.

[RobboOnly]

http://www.comcast.net/providers/fan/popup.html?v=50128580&pl=50134888.xml&config=%2Fconfig%2Fcommon%2Ffan%2Fhome%2Exml

There is also a link here with slightly clearer footage.

Hay tambien link aqui.

[rotorspeed]

What surprises me, watching the external video, is the speed of the take off and particularly transition to forward flight and presumably attempt to pick up translational lift. There was little evidence of the cautious approach necessary to give an "out" to a potential situation of loss of lift.

On the assumption that the acft was indeed power and TRA limited, I would have expected a much more defensive approach to the problem. If you can't at least hover OGE (which was going to be essential to get out of this bull ring) you are not going to have the power to translate to forward flight without losing altitude, so I would have adopted a Cat A helipad profile of slight reverse climb to a height (eg 150ft) that would enable me to get to a point where I could trade height for speed as translational lift was achieved and clear the structures around.

If on the initial climb over the bull ring there wasn't the power and TRA to maintain the climb on heading to effectively CDP it could have been put simply back on the ground. Yes there can be the option of unloading the tail rotor and I've used this to good effect in the past, but this is not the sort of thing to be considering in this high profile case - or anything resembling Public Transport.

Of course we might all be wrong and there may have been a mechanical failure, but even then the departure technique gave little room for coping with any such occurence.

[JimL]

Rotorspeed,

Under your assumption that there was insufficient power to undertake this departure (which sounds reasonable) how could you possibly have conducted a vertical/back-up profile?

There is nothing magical about these types of Category A procedures; if there is insufficient power available for the rejected take-off, or a contined take-off, by climbing vertically (or rearwards) to 150ft you are only putting yourself in the HV diagram for longer.

Better that you have the AEO HOGE power that is required for this situation and take an oblique departure from the back of the bullring; that at least will leave you exposed for the shortest possible time.

There is also the point that if this was a Commercial Air Transport mission in Spain, it was certainly not in compliance with JAR-OPS 3. The protection of passengers from such accidents is one of the reasons why regulations are provided.

I hope now that the Mayor of Madrid is aware of such shortcomings - all-in-all a sad reflection on operating practices in Spain as there did appear to be open areas outside the bullring.

Jim

[rotorspeed]

Jim

My point was that such a profile would surely have demonstrated that there was NOT enough power, and on realisation of that, as the heli lifted out of ground effect, the pilot could have descended Cat A style and landed back where he started.

I take your point about increased time exposure OGE, but at least during this time the option would always have remained of returning safely to the take-off point, should the heli not be able to climb any more or start to settle, as ground effect/wind/temperature affected available lift.

Whilst moving straight into forward flight as you suggest would reduce the time exposure without translational lift, the extra power available over that with AEO to HOGE to achieve forward flight to transition may not have been enough to prevent sink - perhaps as happened here. The problem is then once you are committed with even some forward speed you have lost your option of returning to the take off point and if you don't have enough lift will descend into what ever is just below you, perhaps with yaw/spinning as you lose TRA.

Agree entirely though that a properly conducted Cat A departure in a properly operated acft would have totally avoided any such risks and is what should have happened here.

Sadly looks like another - and high profile - unnecessary and unfair blow to the safety reputation of helicopters.

[VEMD]

Please visit:
http://www.apythel.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=852

[Bravo73]

The same article, via Babelfish:



The helicopter of Rajoy and Aguirre lost the tail in a wreck in Alicante in 1998

The pilot and the company attribute the fall of the airship to a "abrupt change" of the wind
JORGE To RODRIGUEZ - Madrid
THE COUNTRY - SPAIN - 03-12-2005

The helicopter that Thursday on board crashed in Móstoles (Madrid) with Mariano Rajoy and Esperanza Aguirre had undergone the 7 of 1998 July another wreck in whom it lost part of the tail, including the direction rotor. The incident happened during the extinction of a fire in Benimarfull (Alicante), when the apparatus not yet belonged to Helisureste and carried another matriculation. The pilot of the airship has presented/displayed a report in the Main directorate of Civil Aviation in which he attributes the "loss of lift" of the apparatus to "an abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind".

The Helisureste company, owner of the airship, has admitted that the apparatus underwent "an incident" (without victims) before it acquired it, in 1999 and rematriculase it with digits EC-HCT. The 7 of 1998 July, when the helicopter (then matriculation G-BXMP) participated in the extinction of a fire throwing water from a stock market bambi, the pilot ran into front with cables. In spite of the evasive maneuver, "he could not prevent to hit against cables the front part of the nose", according to the Commission of Investigation of Accidents and Civil Aircraft incidents of the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy.

"the pilot made a series of corrective maneuvers, that avoided the fall without control of the apparatus", just like Thursday next to the bullring of Móstoles. Due to the shock against the ground, "one took place the loosening of the tail cone and the deformation of the back inferior zone". One of the helicopter rotor blades "contacted with the superior part of the two fins of the horizontal stabilizer". The damages were "important". The apparatus was repaired, rematriculado and put under mandatory them inspection. At the present time, it had all the permissions in rule and it did not present/display you beat for the flight, according to the company and the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy. Previously, the helicopter had the N-58968 matriculations and the C-OCOP.

The hypothesis that breaks through on the wreck of Móstoles is the one of the "abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind", as they indicate to the pilot in his report and the Helisureste company in a press note, with the same phrase exactly. According to the National Institute of Meteorology, at the moment of the wreck the wind in Móstoles was of the northeast, and between 30 and 35 kilometers per hour. The turn or yaw that made the right airship before falling was in that sense.

Helisureste assures that the wind change only could feel when the airship rose and lost the defense of the enclosure for bullfighting. The election of the seat as lift-off point were of the own pilot, according to a report of the Municipal Police of Móstoles. Sources of Civil Aviation explained that the pilot of a helicopter is sovereign to choose, to accept or to reject to operate in a possible heliport.

The company affirms: "the helicopter took off of which technically confined zone is denominated, isolated of the wind by the walls of the bullring. The first information gather the impression that the wind change of direction and intensity, happening to be tailwind, and caused the loss of lift of the apparatus ". Jose Fonticova, one of the three pilots of dowry of the apparatus, declared yesterday to Efe that the enclosure for bullfighting is "a very feasible site to land and to take off".

Pilots of helicopters of the Forces of Security of the State think that the wind could be "fundamental" for the accident. Nevertheless, they consider that the apparatus went "to the limit of weight" or "very forced". This fact, of being certain, would take to that the helicopter took off to the maximum of its power and that the tailwind, shook vigorously it. The consulted sources assure that the authorized maximum weight for a takeoff in 206 Bell L4 Twin Ranger is of 2,063 kilos. In emptiness, the airship of North American manufacture weight 1,483 kilos (including the systems of communication and other incorporating, since without them weight 1,321 kilos).

"If six people went, the calculation is that between all a maximum of 480 weighed kilos, to which there is to add the weight to him of the fuel", they explain. If it went to the maximum, the weight of the fuel, according to the engineering specifications of the North American manufacturer, is of 250 kilos. The pilot assures in his report that took between 150 and 180 kilos of fuel. That is to say, the gross weight would surpass the 2,063 kilos (the maximum of takeoff) or was closely together.

[puntosaurus]

Ah, that sudden gust of wind then.

[widgeon]

"In emptiness, the airship of North American manufacture weight 1,483 kilos (including the systems of communication and other incorporating, since without them weight 1,321 kilos)."


ahh those latins have a way with words .A fun thing with Bable fish is to tranaslate a tech document to another language and then back in to English .

[Thomas coupling]

Translated into legalise then:

The pilot preferred to land inside the bullring for two reasons; one was that he was picking up VIP's and there was pressure from the company to get the job done in a slick and media perfect way. Two that the pilot purposely elected to ignore the clear area outside of the bullring, preferring instead to land and depart at a site that suited his ego.
The pilot then chose not to calculate his W.A.T. preferring to lick his index finger and position it outside the cabin window in the slipstream, thus obtaining density and wind data.
He then launched outside the safe flight envelope above the WAT in an a/c notorious for LTE, upon which he visited said phenomenon resulting in an unplanned heavy landing left skid low at the main entrance to the bullring [His original planned landing site].

The company are now looking for a suitable local weather report to support their mitigation and blame the environment.

[JimL]

I have no wish to prejudge the causes of this accident - only to make a simple comment:

We have, on PPRune, had a number of discussions about the efficacy of cockpit voice recorders. There is a misunderstanding - probably brought about by one State's regulations (which only requires them when more than one pilot is carried) - that the fitting of these devices is related only to the capture of voice and communication.

When watching and listening to the camera soundtrack, you can begin to understand why the cockpit environment noise is required to be captured on one of the available channels, and why it is seen as so important by accident investigators.

Jim

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

It's funny to listen to some of you inexperienced and uneducated mother hens out there, squawking, "RAWWK, RAWWK, LTE, LTE!" every time a Bell goes down.

LTE had nothing to do with this accident.

Nothing. Repeat after me. Nothing. So get off it.

The problem was much more basic than that.

As the "pilot" pulls his overloaded, overgrossed (no matter what he says) TwinRanger up to an OGE hover, you can hear the poor engines topping out with the resultant decay of RPM, both engine and rotor. As he tries to get over the stands, things are going very badly. His MR and TR RPM are now so low that directional control is lost and the ship yaws to the right...just as any other helicopter on the face of the planet would do (given a rotor with the same direction of rotation, of course). Down he goes! Ironically, he crashes into an area presumably large for such an operation at that weight, had he chosen it instead of the confined area.

I don't see conspiracies everywhere, I don't see little green aliens, and I don't see LTE as a contributing cause of *every* Bell accident. Some of you really take the cake!

LTE, indeed.:rolleyes:

[Thomas coupling]

PruneFan:

What makes you think that in a normal HEALTHY helo [one which has a greater buffer before entering its LTE envelope] in the SAME SCENARIO, there would have been an Nr drop, a slight counter yaw .....and nothing else of signifigance. The pilot in the 'normal' helo would then have checked down on the collective, possibly missing the stands maintaining fwd 'controlled' flt. It is abundantly clear on the video that he enters a sharp defined and rapid counter yaw - that sonny, is the LTE kicking in.
[I'm not saying that would have mitigated his choice of LZ in the first place, but he could have escaped with his pants on fire IF, repeat IF he hadn't entered LTE...it was this that finished him off.

Argue otherwise????????????????

[TeeS]

Sorry PPRUNE FAN#1 but I am confused!

You start by saying - "LTE had nothing to do with this accident"

Then say - "TR RPM are now so low that directional control is lost"

What is the difference between LTE and loss of directional control due to low RPM?

I have no problem with Bell products and used to fly the 206 series quite happily (and would again if asked!) but I can't see any major difference between your understanding of the event and that of others!

TeeS

[Max Takeoff]

Tees

LTE is normally taken to be a loss of tail rotor authority due to stalling at normal operating RPM's as opposed to PF1's suggestion that the tail rotor lost authority is due to a slowing of the RPM.

If you listen to the sounds in the clip you can clearly hear the slow down as the pilot attempts to climb over the stands overpitching. As the main and tail rotor system (squared) slows down the effect of the tail rotor is lost allowing the aircraft to begin to spin.

Must say that having seen LTE in a 500 when the tail rotor stalls it is the same as removing it from the aircraft and that baby will start to spin pretty damn quick. Loss due to slowing down though is slower to take effect and this is shown in the way the aircraft is only rotating slowly to the right.

Would have to agree with PF1 on this unless of course the pilot had lost power for some reason though did not hear any horns on the inside shot I saw. Still sure it will all come out in the report in due time whoever is right, main thing is all survived to tell the tale.


P.S. just to throw a spanner in the works maybe the pilot was yawing right on purpose to try and increase the main RRPM and clear the stands??? Oh where do I collect my wooden spoon!

[TeeS]

Thanks Max

I have re-read the LTE thread again and take your point.

Cheers

TeeS

[overpitched]

Watching both videos and assuming no mechanical failure it seems like a pretty simple accident to avoid. A vertical take off would have allowed the pilot to pick the wind and get it on his nose before trying to get airspeed. If he didn't have the power to tower out he could have descended back to his original spot and unloaded some bums. And from a spot like that if he didn't have the power to tower out there was probably no way he was going to have the power for the any other type of departure either. If you have any doubts about power in a tight area I never move off my spot until I am above the obstacles...well above.

Just a question for bell drivers... What sort of torque must he have been pulling in that aircraft to get an rpm droop like that ???? I have seen 206s spiked but I've never heard one drop rpm like that ???? 115%, 120% ????? any ideas ???

[Aesir]

Overpitched' Good question!

I have myself been to 110% Q on the "L" model without experiencing any RPM drop and a colleague had a 123% Q overtorque (UMS fitted) to avoid obstacle and he said he never experienced loss of RPM and the UMS agreed, it showed a momentarily decreaso to 98% Nr and the RPM was actually back up to 100% +-0.8% by the time he reached 123% torque.

The helicopter was a 206L with Allison 250 C30 engine.

Nedless to say it had to have complete inspection and overhaul to its rotating components and was out of service for 3 months but at least he didn´t crash it.

Someone above mentioned that the pilot may have on purpose let the helicopter spin to the right. That is an often used procedure on the 206L to avoid overtorque so I agree that it may have been on purpose and the aircraft may have been experiencing a power failure or power loss i.e. stuck PC valve or similar problem where you dont really hear the turbine winding down or engine out warning.

[BigMike]

Agree with Max takeoff and overpitched. Climbing vertically would have told you if this departure was going to work. Backing up and having a "run" at it is being a Gambler. I wonder what the AU weight was before take-off.

I would be interested to know what tail-rotor this L4T was fitted with, the High-altitude or standard tail-rotor. The High-altitude one sucks alot of power. Anyone in the know?

[Helipolarbear]

Looks & sounds like Rotor droop/decay.
I agree with JimL's comments in their entirety. I hope that it wasn't JAR OPS 3 work.....for everyone's sake!!
;) :cool:

[Aser]

From inside:
http://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/051201accid-mostoles-EC-HCT.wmv

More

Video: http://www.elpais.es/multimedia/player_video.html?xref=20051201elpepunac_1.Ves
Video:
http://www.elmundo.es/documentos/2005/12/espana/rajoyhelicoptero/index.html
Photos:
http://www.elmundo.es/albumes/2005/12/01/helicoptero_efe/index.html

Someone above mentioned that the pilot may have on purpose let the helicopter spin to the right. That is an often used procedure on the 206L to avoid overtorque

Do you all agree with this procedure??¿¿
I don\'t like how it sounds.. but what do I know :uhoh:

Regards.
Aser

[ant1]

I dunno If Mariano saw God just before crashing but I've seen Jesus while flying @ FL420 (16 20 35 S 71 57 44 W)