Night engine out auto: video link [Archive]

Flying Lawyer

25th Feb 2004, 12:25

SAPD helicopter makes crash landing
Updated: 2/19/2004 8:00:53 AM
By: News 9 San Antonio Staff

http://news9sanantonio.com/media/2004/2/19/images/01____eagle_Crash.jpg

San Antonio Police Department Chief Albert Ortiz called today's emergency landing "textbook."

He said both pilots, who were identified as Edward Ramirez, Jr. and Mike Welborn, reacted calmly when they were forced to set down the SAPD helicopter known as Eagle.

The pair attempted to make the landing in the H-E-B parking lot at 735 SW Military Dr., near Pleasanton Road, when parts of the aircraft caught on power lines, officials said.

The helicopter skid across the H-E-B parking lot.

The two pilots experienced engine trouble about one minute after launching from Stinson Airport to assist in a chase, officials said.

Witnesses on the ground said they heard a loud 'bang' and then saw flames coming from the helicopter.

The copter skid across the South Side grocery store parking lot and landed in some debris.

Area police officers along with San Antonio Fire Department rescue crews responded to the crash site.

Neither pilot was seriously injured, but both were taken to the hospital for observation.

The Federal Aviation and National Transportation Safety Board were notified of the accident and will conduct their routine investigations.

SAPD also confirmed this particular aircraft has the same tail number as one that was involved in a similar emergency land in April 2003 at the Alamodome.

Authorities said the helicopter — which is one of four in the fleet — is beyond repair. Estimated costs, including police equipment, is about $1 million.

Police said all of their helicopters receive inspections every 100 hours of airtime.

Both pilots have more than 10 years experience.

Ramirez has been an Eagle pilot for three years. Welborn, a 26-year-old veteran with the force, has flown in the fleet for seven years, officials said.

Fellow pilot Sgt. David Torres, who saw the pilots shortly after their crash, said their concerns for the helicopter and the chase they originally launched to assist.

Delta Julliet Golf

25th Feb 2004, 23:20

Good auto and great situational awareness to find a spot in the middle of a built up area. Shame of the powerlines though (they seem to be everywhere!).

On an other note : Flying in a single engine helicopter, low level, at night over a big built-up area, is that legal in the US?

Here in Holland you have to have a twin engine to fly over built up area's (single engine allowed if you have enough altitude to autorotate to the borders of the built up area).

Good to know that the two pilots had only minor injuries and that they could walk away from their craft!

DJG

Woolf

25th Feb 2004, 23:36

.... how scary is that !!!! :ooh: Hope this will NEVER happen to me. Well done to the crew to make it to that parking lot - and walking away from it! :ok:

Just out of interest, I've not flown this type before and can't identify the aural warning in the background which seems to coincide with the engine failure and seems to be on all the way down. Fire seems to be the obvious one can anyone confirm that?

Woolf

arm the floats

26th Feb 2004, 00:19

Amazing footage....congratulations to the crew they did a fantastic job.
Wires everywhere I'm sure,there was no way they could have been avoided at night given their situation.The most important aspect was the pilot flying located his forced landing area and went for it,he may have had it in his mind anyway as a forced landing area before the incident, as we all do,or should.
As I always used to say to my students"if the engine quits now where are you going land".This was an extreme example....hats off to you both!

On the footage I thought I heard the engine surge and saw the ac yaw before the bang ....anyone else notice?
:ok:

Hilico

26th Feb 2004, 00:57

Delta Julliet Golf - single-engined over built-up areas is very common in the States and a source of wonderment / envy to accountants on this side of the Atlantic.

Barannfin

26th Feb 2004, 02:04

Brrrr, Man that was a scary video to watch. I watched it before reading all of the posts underneath. Very good to know they got out. Didn't seem like it was gonna end well when the video stopped. Good work everyones part there.

Floats, I noticed the surge too, seems to be a second or so before complete failure.

PPRUNE FAN#1

26th Feb 2004, 02:12

woolf:Just out of interest, I've not flown this type before and can't identify the aural warning in the background which seems to coincide with the engine failure and seems to be on all the way down. Fire seems to be the obvious one can anyone confirm that?The first tone is the Engine Out. The second one seems to be generated from the police department radio. I doubt the 333 has a fire-warning anything.

arm the floats:On the footage I thought I heard the engine surge and saw the ac yaw before the bang ....anyone else notice?Hard to tell from the two times I saw it, but there does seem to be a lot of yaw instability in that ship. Are all 333's that bad?. Was one of those left swings due to the engine-failure? Can't say. You can definitely hear the generator noise surging, but it doesn't begin to wind down until after the one big left yaw.

All in all, it took about thirty seconds from failure to touchdown. Seemed like an eternity while watching it. Probably a lot less from the vantage point of the crew.

Great job by the pilot. Too bad the wires didn't show up on the FLIR.

flygunz

26th Feb 2004, 03:05

It's always a good result when the crew escape a crash like this one but before you all congratulate the Pilot on an outstanding job, I would raise the following criticisms and ask the following questions:

Based solely on the video evidence the 333 clearly suffered an engine power loss. The non handling Pilot had to tell the handling Pilot twice to enter Auto. The immediate actions following an engine failure should be instinctive. Based on the video, the Pilot was slow to react.
During the turn or in fact at any time, the Pilot said nothing and approaching the ground did not attempt to fly a technique that would arrest the rate of descent, reduce the forward groundspeed and rate of closure. The non handling Pilot screams for a flare as the video stops suggesting the handling Pilot was not up with the situation and was fixated by events (wires and ground rush).

Questions:

During the conversion to type of this helicopter for this job how many full engine out landings are practised?

If the perception of a 'veteran' is one of a Pilot age 26 with only 7 years experience, then what is the definition of an experienced Pilot?

If that landing was 'textbook' as described by the Police Chief, can I get a copy?

In my opinion, this is a case of better being lucky than good.

Steve76

26th Feb 2004, 03:14

flygunz.....don't be a nob.
If you were flying and I was sitting there I would be shouting out advice as well. Human nature in a situation of high stress.

My own observation from a position of having a little bit of 300 time, was that the airspeed seemed to drop off a lot. But hey!, I wasn't there...... good effort.

overpitched

26th Feb 2004, 04:30

At least after listening to the yelling in the background I have a better idea what this CRM is all about. Any guesses on the height he was travelling at when it all went pearshaped.

I've just stared flying in the city again after a few years in the bush and I've got to say that there doesn't seem to be much room down bellow in the event of problems. Add to that the difficulties of darkness & I think they can be well pleased with the result

Woolf

26th Feb 2004, 05:31

flygunz - I think your criticism is a bit too harsh!

The non handling Pilot had to tell the handling Pilot twice to enter Auto. The immediate actions following an engine failure should be instinctive. Based on the video, the Pilot was slow to react.
During the turn or in fact at any time, the Pilot said nothing and approaching the ground did not attempt to fly a technique that would arrest the rate of descent, reduce the forward groundspeed and rate of closure. The non handling Pilot screams for a flare as the video stops suggesting the handling Pilot was not up with the situation and was fixated by events (wires and ground rush).

I think the reason the pilot seems so silent is that his intercom and the atc radio are not recorded on the cameras sound recording system. Only the observers comments and radio comms with the police unit are audible. I also think that when the observer called for "auto .... auto" the helicopter is already descending and in a right hand turn which would suggest the pilot did react immediately. It's difficult to judge speed and rates of descent from the video but in my opinion the speed was not that high on impact and considering the fact that they did make the parking lot does suggest good flying technique and situational awareness. I have listened to the sound over and over again and I think the observer doesn't actually shout "flare, flare" but "wire, wire" but I might be wrong. Even so the pilot might have elected to go for a constant attitude landing which might have been more appropriate in the circumstances. The fact that they struct the wire did obviously mess up the last bit of the landing but considering they walked away from this impact unharmed I think the pilot did manage to reduce rate of decent quite effectively.

Just my opinion.

Woolf

flygunz

26th Feb 2004, 19:29

Woolf
Thanks for the constructive reply, I defer to your knowledge about the intercom recording and withdraw my remarks about the apparent silence form the handling Pilot.
Harsh or not though, my criticisms are based on what the video has revealed and I stand by my observations. I listened again to the final part and still think it's Flare thats shouted.

Your point regarding Situational Awareness is, like mine, subjective and I believe that for short periods in the descent SA was lost. I base that solely on the definition of SA:

'The accurate perception of the factors and conditions affecting the aircraft and aircrew during a specific period'

There are two side issues to this post. Firstly, had the outcome been anything but minor injuries then I wouldn't have posted but as I see it, this video raises a host of handling and CRM issues and If just one young Pilot learns something from this debate then it's worth it.
Secondly, I think that the release of this video into the public domain presumably during the FAA investigation, is at best insensitive to the crew and at worst a complete lack of managerial judgement.

airmail

26th Feb 2004, 19:47

Flygunz

In your earlier post you say
If the perception of a 'veteran' is one of a Pilot age 26 with only 7 years experience, then what is the definition of an experienced Pilot?

when in actual fact the statement says
Welborn, a 26-year-old veteran with the force, has flown in the fleet for seven years, officials said.

Small point maybe but I think that the statement should have read that he had been with the force for 26 years, not that he was 26 years old.

Aside from that, well done to the crew concerned for getting it down.

Edited for lousy spelling

S76Heavy

26th Feb 2004, 19:51

Flygunz,
I have no time on the type that crashed, but on my A/C the best range and min RoD speeds are significantly lower than cruising speed. So perhaps the delay as you perceived it was caused by the pilot flaring the ship to either of these speeds.

Furthermore, I agree with Woolf in that I also heard "WIRE" and not "Flare". I don't know if the observer in that operation is an active pilt and has acces to controls, but as a NH pilot in an emergency, I'd be shouting advice as well, I suppose..something about human nature.

They survived, the A/C hit wires and did not. We'll just have to wait for the results of the investigation.
But in my mind it clearly shows the madness of operating single engine over hostile terrain.

KENNYR

27th Feb 2004, 07:11

FlyGunz.........I have to agree with you. However, I was always taught and subsequently taught others that the technique to use at night is the "constant attitude" autorotation, maintaining the landing light in a stable position where the pilot can see the landing area clearly.

The pilot was very slow in entering auto. A 360 auto from approx 800' is not the best idea at night, unless he knew exactly where he was going to touch down.

Did the pilot at the controls do anything to arrest the rate of descent??

Kudos to the crew, they walked away from it.

dzeroplus

27th Feb 2004, 09:56

Are you sure the "auto" is not the co-pilot encouraging the auto relight to kick in?

DynamicallyUnstable

27th Feb 2004, 12:56

First and foremost, congrats to the pilot for getting them on the ground and walking away.
I am a newbie, bigtime, but that seemed like an extremely weak flare. Seems to me that a more agressive flare would have slowed the rate of descent much more and maybe the pilot was pulling a little too much collective too soon and lost the blades enertia. Seemed like a really hard impact to me.

Jcooper

27th Feb 2004, 14:06

Im a newbie as well but there seems like a lot of lazyboy quarterbacking going on here. Let the engine crap out on you at night (my worst fear) and see how you really handle it. Whatever he did got them down safely and he only had 30 seconds to make 8 million decisions. Now we get the pleasure of sitting and stewing over it? What ever he did worked, job well done.

DynamicallyUnstable

27th Feb 2004, 14:29

Like I said, first and foremost.:ok:

flygunz

27th Feb 2004, 16:19

KennyR
Good to hear from you! You are right about the accepted tecnique for a night auto is the constant attitude, generally around 40kts G/S and if you remember these are practised using a large landing area from an reasonable height. Reason... higher ROD than at Min ROD speed and a longer, faster run on requiring a clearer area. This guy had most of the cards stacked against him and I would suggest that a variable flare would have been a prefered technique. My point and I say again to all, based on the video, is that it appears that no attempt was made to do anything during the final stages as the Ac closed to the ground.

Jcooper & D-U
If I understand the correct meaning of 'lazy quarterbacking' I suspect you mean armchair sniping?
Not the case, you just develop an analytical and dispassionate way of looking at crashes after a few investigations.
Also as it was put in the public domain it's there to be commented on.
What I hope from this and I don't mind taking the odd bit of abuse as I take a non emotional position, is that the debate not only promotes the 'how would I do it' thought but raises the awareness of all of you young bucks who have to fly singles over built up areas as a matter of course leading to better Flight Safety.

S76 Heavy
I think the finance department of most Police districts determines the type of helicopter that is used, it's only legislation from the FAA that will make it safer for the Police Units.

Can anyone answer my first question yet?

Airmail. Strange use of the English language if thats the case.

Thomas coupling

28th Feb 2004, 23:34

Flugunz:

Funny how one interprets the incoming information, eh:

I saw it as an engine failure followed by the flying pilot urging the machine to get established into its auto sequence (i.e. praying for the revs to recover/attitude, etc).

The yawing (or see sawing horizontal motion) leads me to suspect that this a/c is non SAS, and the pilot is a little tense on the pedals.

Finding that landing site at night in a built up area AND getting it safely down AFTER a wire strike, to me: is an exceptional feat worth every ounce of praise that guy gets.

The "flare, flare" call could in my humble opinion, be the handling pilot talking his way thru the manouevre, under stress...willing it to adopt the correct attitude, ROD reduction and Nr rise.

Two people watching the same video and two different stories...interesting.

Either way Flygunz, you speak as if he could have and should have done better.....how would you have reacted?????

I must however, insist that IF this had gone pear shaped and they had crashed into a busy road, or built up area, then the story would have been told differently -
this has got to be an advert for NOT flying singles over built up areas, surely?????

flygunz

29th Feb 2004, 00:44

Thomas
Read back on the thread and you will find a comment where the audio recorded is that of the observer not the handling Pilot. My comments are based on the fact that the voice we hear is the non handling Pilot.

Not wishing to repeat myself but I criticise the late entry into Auto (based on the audio) and what appears to be no attempt to lessen the arrival at the scene of the crash. I do not criticise the turn to the landing area and agree the guy did a good job from what looks like a lowish height. I won't comment on the possible tense pedal action as I wasn't there but the yawing is consistent with engine Tq fluctuations prior to a failure.

I stand by my previous comment about the Flare call.

As to whether I think he should have or could have done better, pretty irrelevant as they both walked away. I suppose I could join the backslapping brigade and leave it there. But let me ask you this as I know your position, take the video clip and use it as teaching tool for Police Pilots flying singles over built up areas. If you tell me that you could not find anything in it to highlight that would enable others to do a better job then Ok, I'll rethink, after all this is what it's all about, learning from incidents like this.

How would I have reacted, impossible question and you know that, but I've had my fair share which is why I feel I can comment.
I can tell you one thing though, my last single type was the Koala and under the same circumstances would have had great difficulty in reaching the same landing point..... :uhoh:

I agree with you that singles over bulit up areas is a risk. The FAR/AIM rules for helis are more lax than the UK but my opinion is that all Police helicopters in the US should be twins.

coorong

29th Feb 2004, 00:54

Lots of suggestions/advice and criticism here, but I think some people may be forgetting the correct technique for S.E. failure at night over a city.
This is quite simply to use whatever means you can to ensure you walk away without injury.
The pilots involved in this accident obviously used this technique with exceptional skill.:ok:

autosync

29th Feb 2004, 02:13

Am I missing something, how can you judge weather he entered Auto late, and not aiming to get max distance?

At any given time over the U.S there are hundreds and hundreds of single engine police helicopters in operation.
By being forced to upgrade to Twin engines, Law enforcement agencies will have to reduce the number of helicopters in the air. Considering that it is quite rare for a modern turbine to flame out, and how useful these machines are I don't think we should be pushing for this just so a couple of politicians can claim some sort of victory.

Air ops over London are now limited to the very wealthy and the massive budget commercial companies, In theory it makes sense but considering the massive amount of succesful single turbine engine ops over places like L.A, which is far more congested, we shouldn't really be encouraging it.

If you don't feel comfortable yourself then don't do it, but don't push to stop others from flying, lets be realistic here, there are far more dangerous things to worry about, living in a city, the chances of a helicopter landing on top of you are quite remote.

chopperdr

29th Feb 2004, 04:23

well said autosync, twin may be safer, but the costs associated with operation would effectively put many law enforcement agencies out of business, thereby reducing public safety, i will fly anytime over cities at night in turbine single. i flew with the san antonio group just weeks ago in the same aircraft, highly skilled and very professional. kudos to the crew
dr

rotorque

29th Feb 2004, 04:54

Hi guys,

After using stabilized camera's now for a bit, there is evidence to suggest that any flare that the pilot may have made would not be shown on the footage.

The camera's will normally try and stay on the last position where the observer had place it....... As the aircraft flares, the stabilizing system will keep the picture in the same spot.

We start to lose some perspective when we introduce stabilized footage.

food for thought.

KENNYR

29th Feb 2004, 05:10

I guess that we assume that he entered auto late because the other seat yelled for the handling pilot to enter auto. No matter what type of auto you are contemplating you still have to enter full auto then adjust ROD, speed, RRPM to whatever type you have selected. The lack of flare to reduce forward speed is very apparent in the video, when the other seat yells "flare" (and I have listened to it many times). It also looks like there was little or no attempt to reduce ROD with pitch at the final moment.

Just my humble opinion folks after doing hundreds of "full autos" as our colonial bretheren like to refer to an EOL.

PPRUNE FAN#1

29th Feb 2004, 12:59

Like most of you (probably), I've watched this video clip many times using Windows Media Player in full screen mode. My observations:

1. What causes an Allison to quit like that? Did he run out of fuel? The engine surges noticeably before signing-off "softly." No BANG! or anything, it just kind of spools down. Almost as if...well, you know.

2. The "C'mon, auto. C'mon, auto!" remark is curious. Perhaps the PF was a little slow reacting to the engine failure? If he was a little slow getting the pitch down, maybe the rrpm wasn't all that great during the descent (it is after all basically a TH-55 rotor system). We can clearly see that he did not aggressively flare to get it back...

3. As the sequence begins, the camera is pointing downward at some angle. Seems like about twenty degrees or so to me, might be more. Definitely not straight out at the horizon. After the engine failure, the camera aims very steeply at the ground.

4. Toward the end of the clip, we are suddenly looking straight outward. If the camera did not adjust its vertical angle (either on its own or manually), then this indicates to me that the aircraft must have assumed at least a twenty degree nose-up attitude. In other words, the PF *did* flare, and he must have started that flare above the height of the wires. It's true that the RoD does not *seem* to decrease much, but it's hard to tell. Perhaps there was not a whole lot of rrpm for there to be any flare effect.

5. At the very last second, the voice on the tape shouts two words. After repeated listenings, I think he says, "Wire! WIRES!"

So hard to tell much from that little video clip. But it's a wild ride, eh?...even knowing that it won't be our backs hurting after the tape ends. Good job to the PF. Glad I wasn't in his shoes that night.

[email protected]

29th Feb 2004, 14:42

So to recap then - without knowing whether we are listening to the handling pilot or the non handling pilot; without knowing whether the FLIR picture is gyro-stabilised or not; without knowing what the weather conditions were at the time and without knowing what caused the engine to fail:

Without any of this information we are prepared to argue about what the crew should and shouldn't have done and make a decisions regarding their competence, professionalism and CRM and then try to interpret the words on the tape to fit our pre-conceived ideas of what went on!

I hope:
a. I never have an accident and b. If I do, that it is investigated properly before people start slagging me off.

overpitched

29th Feb 2004, 15:04

Well I think if it gets posted on here it is going to get commented on. And I'm sure that each of us at the end of the day spend at least a little time reflecting on what went we did well and what we did less than well on the days flights.

I manage to walk away from most of my landings these days but that doesn't mean that there is nothing to be learned from the flight.

I don't think any of the comments here have been personal and I'm sure if we are not able to cop a bit of dissection & discussion of our thoughts and actions then probably we are in the wrong business. ( better off in medicine or law where you are always right) sorry F.L.

Jcooper

29th Feb 2004, 16:09

Total agreement with crab for what its worth. We don't know anything about this besides a damn video tape. We shouldnt jump to conclusions, cause if we do, we are probably in the wrong buisness

dzeroplus

29th Feb 2004, 16:45

As there has been zero discussion or acknowledgment of my comment:

Are you sure the "cmon auto, cmon auto" is not the co-pilot or pilot encouraging the auto relight to kick in?

It seems that many of you have made your minds up already with the very limited information that is available!

flygunz

29th Feb 2004, 20:24

Crab, unlike you to miss the point and not add something useful.
My intention here was to raise awareness in the civilian sector, an area where most Military Pilots, cocooned in a sound working and training environment, have little idea of the differences. The video clip was put on the internet and therefore is open to comment. I've made mine and and believe my criticisms to be
firm and fair. Take the time to read the previous posts.

A couple of issues have surfaced as a result of this thread and I'll start two more for comment. I think this one has seen it's day but in respect to dzeroplus, I read your post but didn't feel qualified to reply, left that to a current on type dude!

chopperdr

29th Feb 2004, 22:36

Crab: the camera was a fsi ultra 6000 with 4 axis stablization
dr

Flingwing207

29th Feb 2004, 22:55

OK, I too am guilty of analyzing this one to death, only because it is my main phobia - power loss at night over a heavily developed area. I've seen three different versions of the tape, on one it sounds like "flare", another it sounds like "wires", so I dunno.

As far as the first part of the emergency goes, first, here's the helicopter they were flying: Schweizer 333 (click here for technical info) (http://www.sacusa.com/helicopters/333_equipment.asp). No auto-relight (AFAIK), so I suspect they were speaking of autorotation. The "beep-beep-beep" in the background sounds a lot like the low rotor-RPM horn on the 300CBi, but I've never been in a runnning 333 so I make no claims. But if they were on a steep climbout when the fire sputtered and died, it could take awhile to get airspeed and RPM back. Again, I wasn't there so am just speculating.

Bottom line for me is that if I am faced with a similar situation, I hope it comes out that well - anything better is gravy for certain.

the coyote

29th Feb 2004, 23:59

It looks to me as if he didn't have a whole lot of forward speed at the time of flaring, so maybe that's why they hit the ground pretty hard.

Helipolarbear

1st Mar 2004, 04:16

Are the last words 'Flare! Flare! ? Sounds like 'Flare'.......
At least they walked away from a very difficult situation.......they get my vote for a job well done despite some of the post-mortem comments on this thread!:cool: :ok:

CVR

1st Mar 2004, 04:28

YA the guy gets my vote on a job well done, sounds like the co pilot shouts Flare then Wires. Regardless of what he said they both lived to fly another day. Welcome back polarbear, how was the trip :ok:

HeloTeacher

1st Mar 2004, 06:53

Don't forget, he did strike wires, and having struck objects in the final stages of an auto myself, the control of the aircraft following is weak to say the least.

Can't view the film myself, too bad.

Thomas coupling

1st Mar 2004, 07:13

Crab and his supporters:

What exactly is this forum called?

What is the purpose of the forum?

What do you expect a gang of helo drivers to gaggle about when something like this happens?

Lighten up, mate, it's just jabberwocking, OK?

Gomer Pylot

1st Mar 2004, 09:46

Those of you speaking of regulation by the FAA need to remember that in the US, the FAA has no brief whatsoever to regulate public use aircraft. An aircraft operated by any government entity - federal, state, county, city, or whatever else - is not under the jurisdiction of the FAA. The pilot requires no FAA license or rating of any kind, no maintenance is required, and FAA regulations do not apply.

In reality, most departments comply with the license regulation but not all, certainly not the military. Everything is at the discretion of the government entity operating the aircraft. This will not change in the foreseeable future.

As for what could have caused the engine to quit - there are lots of things. Sometimes they just decel to idle on their own, due to a fuel control or governor malfunction, sometimes internal parts break. Fuel is always a possibility, both starvation and contamination, but that wouldn't be my first guess.

FWIW, it sounds to me like the final two shouts are "Flare, wires", but I can't be sure, and certainly wouldn't use them as a basis for casting any aspersions anywhere. As for the "Auto" comments, from the tone and inflections, he's calling for the PF to enter autorotation. There ain't no autorelight on those machines, AFAIK.

flygunz

1st Mar 2004, 21:01

NTSB Identification: FTW04TA076
14 CFR Public Use
Accident occurred Thursday, February 19, 2004 in San Antonio, TX
Aircraft: Schweizer 269D, registration: N255TP
Injuries: 2 Minor.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On February 19, 2004, approximately 0245 central standard time, a Schweizer 269D single-engine helicopter, N255TP, sustained substantial damage during a hard landing following a loss of engine power while in cruise flight near San Antonio, Texas. The commercial pilot and sole passenger sustained minor injuries. The helicopter was registered to and operated by the San Antonio Police Department for public use police missions. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and a flight plan was not filed. The helicopter departed the Stinson Municipal Airport (SSF), near San Antonio, Texas, approximately 5 minutes prior to the accident, and was enroute to a police emergency.

According to the San Antonio Police Department personnel, shortly after the helicopter departed SSF enroute to a police emergency, the pilot noticed a "spike" on the torque gauge. The flight crew then heard a "bang", followed by an aural engine warning horn, and a subsequent loss of engine power. The pilot initiated an autorotation to a vacant grocery store parking lot. During the autorotation, the pilot avoided striking power lines, and the helicopter landed hard on the parking lot surface. The helicopter skidded and came to rest upright in the parking lot.

Examination of the helicopter revealed the skids were spread, the tailboom was punctured and bent, the left horizontal stabilizer was partially separated, one main rotor blade was separated, and both tail rotor blades were separated. The helicopter was recovered for further examination.

flint4xx

2nd Mar 2004, 10:35

I have flown single engine police helicopters at night over dense urban areas, and I gotta say the pilot did a great job. Just a couple of minutes earlier these guys were sitting comfortably in the hanger when the alarm rings for a pursuit. I can tell you the adrenaline floods your body as you crank up the machine and try to catch up to the chase. Then bang, and we saw what happened.

The guy you hear is not the pilot most likely, nor is he one.

The helicopter can be replaced. :ok:

Nomads

3rd Mar 2004, 08:43

Good to see that pilot and occupant got out allright.

I hope that the engine failure is not related to a malfunction/breakage of the pipe that is connected between the Gas compressor and the fuel regulator because if it is this wasn't the first one that happened to this particular engine.

The beep-beep-beep sound comes from the engine out anunciator. This model hasn't got a low rotor warning light see aircraft spec's earlier message.

Will be following this tread and accident outcome with interest.

Fly safe
:ok:

Spaced

3rd Mar 2004, 13:01

On the NTSB report posted by flygunz, it states the aircraft type as a 269, not a 333, making it a piston ship.
Well done to the crew, any landing you can walk away from is a good one.:ok:

MD900 Explorer

3rd Mar 2004, 21:28

Good skills to the pilot for getting the ship down safely and avoiding civilian casualties.

As for who said what and what should have been said, and wether the camera is gyroscopically drive etc etc bla bla bla. When it comes down to the crunch guys, how many of you could have done that better or at least as good (Be honest now) :confused: :confused:

Seems there is a bit of confusion here. We are professional pilots not sound engineers, maybe we should think about that for a second and then read over what has been said. :{ :{

I like the safety of the twin setup, but credit to the single engine guys.

Balls like hemispheres :ok:

MD:ok:

RobboRider

4th Mar 2004, 04:58

Is that NTSB report about the same accident?

The still photo of the ship posted not long after the crash clearly does not show a 269d (or even a 369d - in case of a typo). It looks very 333 to me (which I have to say, to my very narrow view is one of the ugliest turbines ever built ;) )

The audio on the video also sounds very turbine so I am left wondering about the posted NTSB report.

Anyone seen the real report?

RR

Flingwing207

4th Mar 2004, 07:51

Believe it or not, the 333 is still riding on the 269 type certificate!

The 300C is a 269C,
the 300CB and CBi are 269C-1,
the 330 and 333 are 269D!

FAA TCDS info (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/MainFrame?OpenFrameSet)

IntheTin

12th Dec 2005, 15:36

Friend of mine mailed this link to me, (thanks Dave).

Engine failure at night, seen through FLIR
Its a big file so I thought it best just to post the link.

Interesting video. Does anyone know anything about it or has it done the rounds before?

Video link (http://www.griffin-helicopters.co.uk/videos/mayday.asx)

vaqueroaero

12th Dec 2005, 18:03

I think it was a Shweizer 333 in Phoenix (?).

Both guys survived, but beaten up and the aircraft was totalled. They were on a police patrol soon after takeoff when the engine quit. They managed to get over one set of high voltage lines, then missed another set before impact.

RobboRider

13th Dec 2005, 08:44

There was a long thread on this group about it soon after it happened. Guess it could be found with a search.

Thread included a link to photo of the aircraft on the ground (I recall it had the skids ripped off but was sitting upright on its belly.)

Also long discussions about the audio and whether the words "auto" were to do with an auto-rotation or auto-relight and whether the words "flare, flare" were appropriate given the usual night auto technique is a constant attitude pitch pull at the bottom.

RR

BigMike

13th Dec 2005, 10:25

Thread link: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=120402&perpage=20&highlight=333%20crash&pagenumber=1

Final report:

"The 493-hour pilot reported that approximately 5 minutes after departure, he noticed a "slight change in engine noise." Subsequently, he
heard a "bang," followed by an aural engine warning horn, and a loss of engine power. The pilot initiated an autorotation, and during
the autorotation, the helicopter impacted power lines, landed hard on a parking lot surface and came to rest upright. A witness located
adjacent to the helicopter's flight path reported hearing a "loud backfire" followed by subsequent white smoke coming from the
helicopter. Review of the aircraft maintenance records revealed the engine was overhauled approximately 295 hours prior to the accident.
During the engine overhaul, the impeller travel (bump clearance) was measured to be approximately .010 inches. During the engine
teardown examination, prior to the removal of the compressor rotor from the rear support, the impeller travel (bump clearance) was
measured to be approximately 0.021 inches. The third, fifth, and sixth stage vane assemblies were bent in the direction of rotation.
Corresponding damage was observed on the trailing edges of the blades on the adjacent forward compressor rotors. Fretting and score
marks noted on the compressor assembly components were consistent with axial movement at the compressor assembly resulting in contact
between the compressor blades and vanes, and a subsequent compressor stall and loss of engine power."

and...

"The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
The loss of engine power due to the axial movement of the compressor rotor blades contacting the compressor vanes resulting in a
subsequent compressor stall. A contributing factor was the improper assembly of the compressor section during the engine overhaul by
unknown maintenance personnel.
Accident (Continued)
Occurrence #1: LOSS OF ENGINE POWER
Phase of Operation: CRUISE
Findings
1. (F) MAINTENANCE,OVERHAUL - IMPROPER - OTHER MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL
2. (C) COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLY - SHIFTED
3. COMPRESSOR ASSEMBLY - STALL
----------
Occurrence #2: FORCED LANDING
Phase of Operation: MANEUVERING - TURN TO LANDING AREA (EMERGENCY)
Findings
4. AUTOROTATION - INITIATED - PILOT IN COMMAND
----------
Occurrence #3: IN FLIGHT COLLISION WITH OBJECT
Phase of Operation: DESCENT - EMERGENCY
Findings
5. MANEUVER TO AVOID OBSTRUCTIONS - PERFORMED - PILOT IN COMMAND
6. OBJECT - WIRE,TRANSMISSION
----------
Occurrence #4: HARD LANDING
Phase of Operation: DESCENT - EMERGENCY
Findings
7. TERRAIN CONDITION - GROUND
Findings Legend: (C) = Cause, (F) = Factor
Time (Local): 02:45 CST Aircraft Reg No. N255TP San Antonio, TX 02/19/2004 File No. 16718
FTW04GA076"

Auto at night over a built up area, and they both walked away. Good result alround.