Mt Kelly R44 with sad loss of 4. Speculation thread

[helmet fire]

Speculators here.

Started as a speculation thread in order to seperate those who wish to speculate from those who wish to express grief, support, sympathy for the loss of four people in the Mt Kelly R44 accident.

This is an optimistic attempt to avoid the often seen bitter disparity between those speculating over causes and those who are grieving whenever these accidents happen to gain a pprune thread.

My fingers are crossed.

[McGowan]

With my head firmly on the chopping block, neck well and truely exposed and my fingers next to the fire....................
Here goes.
One can almost bet that conditions were a tad on the warn side.
Even with 4 light persons on board and some fuel, a 44 is not really the machine for low slow flight over what sounds like unfriendly country.
Companies still get the job using aircraft that can only just get away with it.
Companies still give the job to the cheapest bidder.
It won't be long and the insurance companies will be calling the shots as to what aircaft does the job or it won't be covered for that type of work.
Companies looking to use helicopters will start saying they want very positive power margins in case it gets into some kind of trouble, their "duty of care" to their employees. Of course they won't be too interested in paying for and there will be people who will do the job for crappy money "just to keep it working".
I do wonder if things will get any better.
No that my rant is over, at least there are more NEW machines coming into the country these days. Very pleasing to see...........

[albatross]

Just curious as to why we need a thread in order to allow the uninformed to speculate upon the unknown.:E

[rotaryman]

Errrr Cause its a Pilot Rumour Network!!:}

[SASless]

OK...let's speculate.

Anyone have the Weight and Balance data for the flight?

Anyone pulled up the weather for the time/location of the flight?

Anyone know what the route of flight, intended takeoff and landings were?

Does anyone know what stage of flight the aircraft was in at the time of the mishap?

Does anyone know of any distress calls being made?

Does anyone know a damn thing that matters?

Answers to all of the above......NO!

Now speculate away boys.....lets hear your tell us what happened and make it convincing....do so with some reference to anything germane to the flight in question if you can.

Why don't you speculate on Cricket or something harmless instead.

[maxeemum]

Whoa SAS paddle the speed brake to full deployment mate and get below Vne.

I agree and am sure others do aswell with what you have said, however McGowan is shedding some light on what POTENTIALLY may have happend.

There are many instances of hot, high and humid being a factor in ACFT accidents and instances, especially when you fly an underpowered machine like the Robinson.

Yes the ATSB will do their job and report the findings, however discussions about power and lack of it are useful for all to remind us where the envelope is and when we start running out of the power pedal what the consequences can be. No one at this early stage knows exactly what happend including me, however as Helmut said when he started the thread "speculators here!!!"

Maxee

:cool:

[helicopter-redeye]

Where exactly is Mt Kelly please?





North West Queensland.
Look for Mt Isa on this map and you're in the general area.
Heliport


http://www.mining-technology.com/projects/mount_isla_lead/images/image_1.jpg

[Hippolite]

Looking at aerial shots of the wreckage on the ABC, there was NO forward speed and NO rotor RPM when it impacted the ground.

[bladebanger]

Get real you people.
R44
4 persons on board
38 degrees C (PLUS)
2 hours of fuel on board
CONFINED areas (GEO survey)
Do the maths
I can only hope that other pilots will learn from someone else's mistake in which they paid the ultimate price.

RIP
Banger

[The Flying Mullet]

As SASless suggests we don't know the finner details and may never know what exactly happened, but it makes those of us who fly around in R44 and similar size machines stop and think.
Do we know what the job was, FLying over areas, or in & out of confined areas?
Flying straight and level at MAUW on a hot day is one thing, flying into confined areas is another, more so if the mechanics fail.

Condolences to the familly and freinds of all involved.

Mullet.

[bellfest]

Come on you blokes, R44 underpowered. There would be a good chance that no one here has done geo work in a 47 or a KH4. The R44 is a ripper in the power department. They're on par with a 206 due to the fact that when you're doing that type of work you chuck more **** in a 206 cause you can. No one knows and it's all very sad but the ATSB men are good at what they do and they will find out what happened.
My sympathies to all at NAH and Gunpowder Mine and kin of the poor souls.
Red eye
Mt Kelly is in Qld Australia to the North of Mt Isa

[B Sousa]

Bladebanger said it all.................

[McGowan]

As an addition to my last post, I think the R44 is a great machine. Yes it has got heaps of power and goes like a cut cat, BUT, 4 POB any fuel on any kind of a warmish day, get out of ground effect and slow the bastard down to crawling speed and you are going to get yourself in the poo if you are not very, very carefull. Old mate in the back says "have a look at that", one second of not paying attention to what you should be doing and you have got the collective up in your armpit trying to stay airbourne. For that matter a 206 close to max weight and you get the same thing.
It can and will happen to anyone......................
It doesn't take an engine failure to crash....................
SASless, if you are close to the ground and it all turns to sticky brown stuff, you would need uncomfortably large goolies to think about making a mad day call. I think I would be trying to get my fat bum out of the trouble it was in first and in this particular case I doubt there would have been time.
No I have not done any survey work in a 44.
Speculating on the cricket is not harmless. Speculating on such a numb arse, boring game would quickly drive me to putting myself out of my misery.......

[overpitched]

I've done some top end geo work in a 44 and a 47 and a 206 for that matter and you are regularly close to the limits of everything doing that kind of work in the wet season no matter what machine you are flying. I'm just glad I wasn't doing it 3 or 4 months into my first job. Very sad.

[gulliBell]

Without pre-empting the subsequent enquiry, what does seem apparent is that the pilot took off at about 0630hrs, so presumably her duty time clocked-on at 0600hrs, and she was scheduled to finish flying at 1930hrs, presumably clocking-off duty at 2000hrs. Flying remote area survey out in the hot dessert, low level, and quite possibly close to or at max AUW, and after 13+ hours of duty time, that's alot for a Chief Pilot to ask of any pilot, let alone an inexperienced one. But in any event, surely an elapsed duty period of 14 hours can't be legal? What gives?

[Arm out the window]

Maybe the non-IFR extension to 15 hrs (I think, haven't used it myself) with the 4 hr rest period in the middle - based on a suitable rest area and no work duties while you're supposed to be 'resting', that is - allowed by the CAO.

[bladebanger]

Welcome to the new era of Fatigue managment systems.
The pilot can only work 16 hours a day 7 days a week for however long the chief pilot says its ok to keep going.

B Souza.

I still carnt believe that people are still doing this work in these machines.
Check out the guy 2 posts after my last. Add his name to the list of next to RIP posts on this thread. I done this work for 15 years, started in 47's then 206 and then 206L and last was the AS350. Still very marginal by the time you took everything into account. These people were in a 44?????????

Banger

[notnoz]

Unfortunately Screwed reports like that wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Another sad day in Australian Aviation!

[bellfest]

Blade banger
I take it you were referring to me b-e-l-l-f-e-s-t
You knob jockey. Don't judge who you don't know old fella. I have also done a lot of this work in a lot of different machines and I will stand by my post. An R44 does have lots of power. You can make any machine as marginal as you like, the trick is to fly it accordingly, and that means knowing where you can get in and out of. I would like to make it clear that I am not for one minute speculating on what happened here, that's what the ATSB is for. I am only commenting on the power issue.
P.S-If I am unfortunate enough to meet my maker in a helicopter one day you can lodge your RIP up your judgemental kieber.

[maxeemum]

dudes six guns back in the holster.

Power is a relative thing. Compared to a BlackHawk or a Chinook the 44 is the Hyundai Excel of helicopters (or maybe the Dihatsu charade, whatever).

Very few civilian machines have a method of reporting the power available vs the power required in a quick and easy reference gide. Yes the flight manual gives a method for flying a profile to check the power available (eg 95 light out for the B model Squizza) however that doesn't mean **** when you don't know what the power required is. Again depending on your machine and flight manual you may get these graphs included and so on your quiet days you may get into the manual and sus out a couple of worst case scenarios.

Power checks only tell you how much power you have, not how much power you need!

Is there a spread sheet or TOLD Card (Take Off and Landing Data) for the 22 or the 44 or the 47 or the 206 ? Or do folks use the force or hard won experience to work out PA vs PR?

Max

:{

[bellfest]

Max
You can't base a flight on a graph out of a flt manual in terrain where local conditions are varied and specific.
A great way to tell how much power you have available is to look at the MAP guage when you take off, which, you should already be doing of course. They are useful and every one should know how to interpret them but the most important thing to know is your machine

[B Sousa]

Seems to be enough posts here now to make a SWAG about the situation. Only thing missing was the Altitude on Mt Kelly.
Lets see....
R44
4 pax on board
38 C
Plenty of go juice.
I think anyone with common sense may say that this might be nice when a runway at sea level is available. Anything else its just another rock looking for a place to drop.
Someone throw in the Altitude of the crash site and it should place the final nail on the problem. Should be easy to plot on a graph....density altitude etc......
I see a few response here like.........Hell I can fly that thing anywhere fully loaded... Give me a heads up next time you try something like this, so I can post the pictures on PPrune.
Fixed wing guys do this all the time. four Seats= four Pax then they try and take off from something like Aspen Colorado on a summer day. I actually watched a guy do this after we warned him and measured out a no-go spot on the runway......They survived, but the aircraft didnt....

[SASless]

Bert,

What you basing your call on the fuel on? At what point in the flight(s) was it...had the aircraft been refuelled...was it well into the sortie and thus low on fuel? You assume a bit much there I think.

Tell me you have never flown an aircraft over max weight before....ever? Are you still here? Plainly....the latter is correct and I know your background thus I know the answer to the former.

We all have...thus being overgross is not the mortal sin it is made out to be.

[407 too]

...thus being overgross is not the mortal sin it is made out to be.

:eek: oh dear--- if you play with the devil, you better fly like an angel, you cannot expect to fly the aircraft the same way if at or over gross.(compared to below these weights)

fly slow, near the point of translation (which you do at times with this type of air work) and all you need is that 5 kt. breeze to disappear behind a hill or do a 180 to tail wind to look at something, guess what happens next..... you need to be able to tell your employer (passenger) "not today sir" and stick to it like s**t to a wool blanket

not saying this is what happened, hate speculating, but had to say something regaurding the over gross statement

[bellfest]

B Sousa
I hope you are not referring to me in regards to the fly anywhere fully loaded comment. I will fly anywhere fully loaded but my passengers will be informed that we will be restricted to where we can get in and out of. I don't push any boundaries, I don't flog the machine because it is fully loaded, I fly it ACCORDINGLY. I have not come accross a customer yet who won't instantly accept these limitations ( excluding media of course) and get on with it. I have pondered many a spot that in my mind is right on the cusp of go or no go. Normally in those situations I would offload if I have to and do a couple of runs in and out to get the job done while staying well within the aircraft's capabilities.

[helmet fire]

We all have...thus being overgross is not the mortal sin it is made out to be

not often I disagree with you (except of course your during strong lobbying for a tea total world!), but I want to call you on this one. I agree the machine will not catastrophically fail, etc etc, but it is akin to the jelly bean jar of Nick Lappos.

When you fly over gross, you are using more jelly beans faster than the designers intended. If you fly well over, then you are also likely to be exceeding design strain limitations of both dynamic components AND the static airframe ones. By going over gross you are hoping that you have not caused undue fatigue, or even caused the accelerated propagation of a fatigue crack. You hope, but you dont really know.

Either way, it is unlikely that you will suffer the consequences of your excessive jelly bean use - it is more likely to be the subsequent pilots, ignorant of your jelly bean consumption rates, that find the jar unexpectedly empty.

[SASless]

I have not suggested flying overweight as being the right thing to do. Read the posts...carefully. I said they are not "mortal sins" defined as being those that absolutely result in death and destruction. If you have flown in the mountains at all....you will probably at some time flown at a weight you could not land with on the mountain but is quite safe and legal in the valley on each end of the mountain and for cruise flight at any altitude you can get to.

Thus...since all these self appointed experts that are trying to make this a simple case of a young pilot biting off more than they can chew event....I am suggesting that might not be the case at all.

The body recovery was not complete when all this speculation started....remember.

Immediately it was suggested the poor lady tried to land with more than she could....and no one....not one of you knew what phase of flight the aircraft was in when it crashed.

If the aircraft had an inflight problem that resulted in a forced landing then all of that wonderful clairvoyance so many seem to have.....wrongly describes what happened, and does so quite unfairly in my view.

Don't tell me about the beans in the jar.....until you consider the "beans" spelled "beings" in that helicopter.

If you want to work a performance problem and talk about power margins of an R44 that is cool....but before you apply it to this tragic event....be able to produce an accurate set of numbers for the Weight and Balance of the aircraft, the correct numbers for the climatic conditions that existed at the time of the crash along with the specifics of the landing site to include height of barriers, azimuth of approach, wind speed, direction, and temperature.

We may have our ideas about what happened....but we ought to have some respect for the folks involved....including anyone from the family that might reading this.

Some of you remind me of vultures setting on a fence the way you talk....maybe law school should have been your first choice instead of flight school.

[i4iq]

What would have been the flight characteristics of the aircraft in a situation like B Sousa described above? Do the photos seem to suggest the same? (i.e. straight down, no run on landing etc.)

As a newcomer and soon to start training it'd be useful to know how one would detect the onset in flight. There seem to be enough helos "dropping out of the sky" to keep me from wanting to fly anywhere near the limits! So, I'm particularly interested to read the comment about exceeding gross weight not being "the mortal sin.."

(Edited: Sorry SASless - just read your reply whilst typing. Understand a bit more about what you were saying now. Will leave original post as is)

[maxeemum]

Bell Fest understand what you have written however knowing the MAP at the HVR when you take off will not tell you what the required MAP will be at the destination. A power check at the destination still only tells you how much poer you have available, this doesn't help you if the power required is MORE than the power available from your power check at the destination.

What you are talking about is note MAP at take off (departure) and then use some form of judgement if you go to a place that is hotter, higher and more humid given fuel burn en route etc. This is still some form of educated guess. Not a TOLD (Take off and landing Data) Card or a robust method for determing actual power required.

It fascinates me that some of the most underpowered aircraft available have no real method of reporting the Power required at the destination.

I agree with your comment about knowing your machine, however the reality of life is some times the lessons learnt with regards to power or not enough power result in hull losses and losses of life. Not a good way to learn a lesson!

Max

:sad:

[407 too]

smooth SAS, very smooth...

your post said 'overgross' NOT 'overweight for a given landing spot'

big difference in my opinion.

[SASless]

i4iq,

If you pursue you career in flying you will ultimately spend a lot of your time dealing with limits. The key is to know what the limits are...and find a way to stay on the safe side of those limits....and also accept that the limits vary greatly from day to day and place to place. We have our good days...and our not so good days in addition to all the other factors that determine how the aircraft performs.

As a famous movie character once said...."A man must know his own limits." Sometimes they are not the same as the other guy has...either for the good or for the worse. Just so long as you know what yours are....you will do okay.

[bladebanger]

Hey Bellfest

I was not refering to you on the previous page however from reading your posts I now know you are a real idiot.
For a start you state that you have done plent of work like this work (geo survey)
Well you fool all of the mining companies that use helicopters in the north of Australia use turbines. (Rio, CRA, DeBeers etc)

Anyway I'm not going to deal with a fool like you on a topic like this.

BB

[slowtyper]

Anyone having a go at sasless has obviously not worked in the bush where the luxury of scales or people who know how to use them have, in my experience been unavailable. A guesstimate is all you usually have.Add this to clients who invariably will want to load the machine to the ceiling (despite the pilot telling them otherwise) & things can become very heavy very quickly.These everyday commercial pressures can be overwhelming for a new pilot in a new job in an unfamiliar machine. I am not speculating on what happened, just agreeing with sasless.

[Arm out the window]

Firstly, sad news, condolences to the families and friends.

Secondly, seems to be a bit of terminology disagreement and assumption going on - the term 'overgross' implies trying to fly at a weight greater than the max all-up weight allowable for the type in any conditions.
Performance is a different story - depending on the type of approaches and departures you'll be attempting, you need to know what the machine is supposed to be capable of with respect to what you're going to ask it to do.

If you've got a fairly good estimate of the weight of gear and pax you're loading on the machine, and the altitude and temperature of where you're going, you can work out from the charts whether or not you can expect to hover OGE or IGE as the case may be, under those conditions, at that weight.
If you get there and it's hotter than predicted, you need to get back into the charts again before trying anything marginal. Good to have some 'fallback' calculations already done for that eventuality.

If you attempt to do something and you're too heavy for it, eg trying a vertical descent from OGE into a tight pad when you can't hover OGE, that's not flying 'overgross', but it's not going to work tidily either.

This is not to suggest anything about what may have happened in the crash in question - I've got my own opinion but it's speculation, so will keep my mouth shut.

[bellfest]

Bladebanger

Has that always been the case has it??

[Brian Abraham]

A bit off thread but I remember a long, long time ago when flying Bell204 for a certain company they had a very simple system where by (dont recall the figures but you get the idea - think some piston people use the same concept from what I've heard on the grapevine) you fly straight and level at max climb speed and note Tq. Then pull to max power available (in the 204 it was the point at which the rotor started to bleed) and note Tq. The difference between the two Tq figures then told you what capability you had. If the figure was greater than X you could hover OGE, less than X but greater than Y you could hover IGE, and if less than Y it was a run on landing. Worked every time and so simple that I thought it an idea that ought to be adopted for all types. No requirement to indulge in maths and charts.

[SASless]

Arm,

Chuck the charts out the window buddy....tell us how you do a power available check and make a decision whether to try a landing or not when you are working at all sorts of elevation/temps/loads? You have to be able to make an informed decision....how do you...in real life make that informed decision? Enlighten us.

The charts are only a guide....and working for a living in the bush you don't have the luxury of knowing the weight of the aircraft or how yer Donk/blade performance works compared to the charts anyhow.

[SASless]

Brian,

What is the coorelation between hover height, power required to hover IGE, Vbroc, and demonstrated rate of climb for the machine you fly now? You are on the path of rightousness with your suggestion...there are many paths that lead to salvation....can you figure out some more?

Arm....Brian gave you a huge tip....

[Arm out the window]

You chuck your charts out the window if you want mate, you must be able to use the force or something instead I suppose.
I know reasonably closely what my weight is from an estimate or weighing the stuff if possible, and it's not rocket science to read the OAT off the gauge and add a couple of degrees for cooling, or to estimate the temperature where I'm going to be going. Check the chart - should be able to do it.
The engine gets enough power checks to confirm it's up to spec, and I'll pull a power check too.
Arrivals - OGE - come to the hover well clear of obstacles, can I hover and is there a margin? Yes, good ,continue. No, find a bigger pad and go in IGE or don't do it.
Departures - OGE, try it and if it doesn't work, come back down.
IGE - nominate abort point, fly angled departure, not making the line by the abort point, abort.
205 for example - we used a MAT (minimum acceptable torque) chart, pulled a power check to confirm getting that or more, then looked at IGE or OGE charts and applied an appropriate margin for the type of approach being flown.
Thanks for the masterful tips.

[B Sousa]

Sasless and I have been to the same school. If it gets off the ground its flyable. It was also the same school that could write off helicopters as they had so many of them.. That was then and many of us pushed the envelope. We also did things knowing that if we were heavy we should do this or dont do that so as to make the situation any worse. This is not to say that one cannot run into problems with a B206, B412 etc. Its just that with what has been posted here its somewhat obvious that this flight was or should have been done a bit differently, experience probably played a factor.
What I said was based on what was posted before. Taking the Temp, an R44 with 4 pax (all 125# no doubt), fuel mentioned was Two hours, I certainly dont know, and I think Altitude may be in there somewhere. Being overgross is not a mortal sin for sure, but it does require things to be done differently.

Bellfest, your telling the pax what you can and cant do, is the experience factor which makes the flight safer....not dissing you.

[SASless]

Arm,

The US Army proclaims itself to be the world's best operator of helicopters. I too believed that for a very short while after I got out of the Army. It did not take long to understand that Army concepts of flying and flying helicopters were sometimes very much removed from one another. Our Canadian friends understand mountain flying as well as anyone on this planet.....paying attention to them when they talk about it can prove beneficial. Picking up tips on bush flying techniques can go a long way towards keeping one from repeating someone else's mistakes.

One can talk charts all day long...but it is the application of the information in those charts and understanding the characteristics of the aircraft you fly and using tricks others have learned and passed on that will set you apart from the crowd. One can fly a helicopter using the charts as divine gouge or one can learn to fly and work the machine much better than the chart says. They are after all....approximations and not etched in stone.

If I do an engine health check in the morning...then fly all day....of what value is that engine check in the 7th or 8th flying hour?

The before landing performance check is of more value I would suggest....knowing what performance the aircraft is doing at that height and temp is of more value than a HIT check on the ground earlier that morning. Again the HIT check takes you to the chart....and the chart is theory.

If you can find still air....slow to Vbroc...pull power until you reach 500 fpm rate of climb....in a 205....will that not approximate the power required to hover IGE at any given weight? Assuming an into wind hover with "normal" strength of wind. That way you stay well above a HOGE, maintain a safe airspeed at or above Vtoss and assess your power/performance? No worry of LTE as well by being at the higher airspeed as compared to your technique of coming to a HOGE hover.

That is one trick I learned that seems to work for me....who has a trick they use to assess aircraft performance?

[Arm out the window]

No, not Army trained. You could tell, though. That's great.
What about if your power check is in the uprising air too? I'm aware of the variables.
Margins - 3 psi above IGE hover power required for an IGE arrival, minimum of 5 above OGE for an OGE approach from memory (more if you were heavier).

If anyone has good 206 rules of thumb I'd be keen to hear them, minus the attitude though.

[Arm out the window]

Sasless, I wasn't talking about a HIT check, but being on the scene and pulling the collective until a limit was reached - Tq, egt or rpm bleed. Max torque available therefore established in those conditions, for that machine at that time.
Subtract the margin, go to the IGE or OGE chart using that Tq, getting an accurate representation of what weight can be lifted with what kind of approach. Could have the chart already looked up for the expected conditions, and if the OAT and PA were pretty close when you got there, no need to be looking in the chart while flying.
Took a minute and worked well, and a real-world representation of what the aircraft was capable of doing for that situation - no different to what you would be getting out of your power-at-a-given-airspeed check.

[Gas Producer]

Intrigued by this discussion . . .

When I was flying around fairly flat terrain at sea level for a good, early part of my career, thinking about power available vs. required didn't get the focus it should have.

I learned real quick just how important it is to be "on" this at all times when I started flying mountains and landing Robbies at 7,000' D/A. I have come across instructors in mountainous terrain who prove power available prior to an approach and do nothing to assess power required. This bothers me greatly.

When I started flying mountains I knew I needed something off the top of my head to assess whether I could go and do stuff or not, and it bothered me that maybe I had to refer to charts because I knew this would be rather impractical in the aircraft.

Very similar to Brian Abraham's 205 rule of thumb, which I like a lot, it goes like this: work out how much power you need IGE when you are first skids-off and make a mental note. On your climb out level off briefly at 500' AGL & best rate of climb speed. Note the power REQUIRED for S&L flight. The difference between the two - the power margin - is key here.

Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.

The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.

I also agree strongly with SAS . . . power assurance checks are fine to prove the engine is doing what it was designed to do. What's necessary is establishing that what you want to do is possible at the time you need to do it. It's absolutely possible the engine will perform as specified and the heli will not have hover capability, so working out what you've got and comparing this to what you're using is critical.

GP

[scottishbeefer]

GP

I like the sound of that idea. We always check power available at the LS but probably underestimate the importance of power req'd, relying more on "judgement/experience". A tricky concept! Will try your method in some safe, controlled conditions and see if it's a flyer.

Sadly, unless your chopper's right new then the charts are probably only a guide anyway. Some Sea King stuff really refers to Wessex performance.

Speaking of not knowing weights, I've pitched up to LS's where it took a fork lift to put the load in the back - it was immovable by hand. As a youngster I actually remember chuckling about it at the time. There were pax in the back as well. They had to squeeze past the crate to get on the winch to be put on the back of a ship. With the benefit of HVG (Hindsight Vision Gog's) I can see that was a potentially huge error on our crews' part. We weren't quite cowboys but our youth/immaturity (flying wise) meant we thought we could hack anything. Now that a few years have passed, would I do the same again? Only to save life, and then I guess I'd have to tell a grown up about it.

To any young folks out there who are watching this debate/slanging match with interest/amusement, I will repeat the wisest of the adages, "There are old pilots and bold pilots but...." However tough you think you are I bet you'd prefer to live longer.

No comment on potential causes of this crash until more is known.

[Bronx]

Very sad story. From the reports I've read it was her first job after getting her CPL at the school that gets some bad comments here tho thats probably just a coincidence.

[M100]

The accident machine was #0033 - an early Astro with the electric trim cyclic.
Hard work for a girl to row it around doing survey work at ISA +20! regardless of what might have happened.

[A2002flyboy]

Very sad story. From the reports I've read it was her first job after getting her CPL at the school that gets some bad comments here tho thats probably just a coincidence.

We are all of us hoping I think that its conincidence

The standards of Beckers are not good with emergency training, but surely not that this poor girl couldn't do properly the work she was assigned to do

[notnoz]

l don't think we need to bring Beckers into this, that's been done to death!

GP, you talk about the power check method you described as a means of measuring power required as opposed to power available, power required to do what? Hover in or out of ground effect?

An update from the NAH CP from yesterdays 'Australian Newspaper', The helicopter in the crash was made in 1997 and had performed without incident since it's purchase. "Something must have happened to the helicopter itself. She had finished all her surveying for the day, so had no reason to land...lt's not the first Robinson R44 that has crashed. When l first looked at the site l thought she was trying to land there and it was pilot error, but after speaking with the ground crew, she had finished surveying and was flying at a sensible height, so l don't know what happened".

No, it's not the first R44 to crash and no you wouldn't be the first CP to put a novice pilot out on a limb, nor the last!

[Gas Producer]

notnoz,

Gidday there. That's the beauty of this simplistic check - there's no reason it can't be used to assess capability for either. Think about it - when you first take off check your power IGE and OGE then do the 500' Vbroc assessment as well. You'll then know how much power margin is required in either circumstance. Do your flyby 500' above landing site. Check your power available and do the math . . . you'll know whether you got IGE or OGE capability.

GP

[notnoz]

Thanks GP, very useful indeed! Will give it a whirl next chance l get!

[Doors Off]

Arms out the window? reference 206 power checks, one that I have applied for a few years and works well in PNG at up to 12,000 PA (huge DA's) is as follows.
1. 90Kts straight and level, in balance (as always the setup is paramount), this represents your HOGE power to a reasonably accurate level.
2. Note Tq in the above profile, then;
3. Increase your collective (very gently) until you reach either N1, TOT, or Tq limit.
4. Note the Tq when you reach one of the limits as above.
If your Tq figure in point 4 is 3PSI greater than in point 2 then you have HOGE power with a good margin. Anything greater than 3PSI is a real bonus.
A nice margin to apply to the validity of the check is to ensure that you are within 200' alt of your pad and within 2 degrees of the pad temp (you can confirm these atmoshpheric conditions on final or on an overflight (depending on commercial req) and that your weight has not increased since your last power check.
As always, make sure you have got an out until you are committed to a clear landing area.
This is not written down anywhere, it was passed on to me by a wise old pilot. Feel free to disregard it, not telling you how to do things, just something that works for me.
Fly safe my friend.:=

[bladebanger]

DOORS OFF

I was shown the same way but used 6%? Great to at least hear from someone who knows thse ways. Dont want to say to much as the idiot BELLFEST might get on here and tell us that he has been doing it for years and never heard this before and that it dosent matter as the R44 has more power than the 206.

[Arm out the window]

Doors Off,
Thanks very much, that's really good. I'll try it out as soon as I can.

safe flying to you too

:ok:

[griffinblack]

Doors off,
The 90 KT S&L technique provides a good rule of thumb. Of course there are also some problems such as ensuring you are level and not climbing or descending and more importantly it is less accurate in turbulence/downdrafts/updrafts etc. Finally, it is not practical at high altitudes due to doors off (no pun intended) Vne. But otherwise I agree, a good tech.

Arm Out the Window has it spot on. You can easily determine power available – by applying power until you reach a limit (TOT/EGT, N1 or Tq). Power required seems to be the contentious issue here. The only way, I know of, to accurately determine power req (OGE or IGE) is through the charts (using accurate figures, DA, PA, Temp, weight) (or as AOTW suggested a hover power cx). With appropriate margins added (generally 3 psi/% or sometimes 5 psi/%)you are able to determine weather you can conduct an IGE or OGE approach /departure. The only slight confounding variable is RAM air effect on your full power check at high altitudes if conducted at high speeds (the Blackhawk power graphs takei not account RAM air, but unfortunately most other graphs don't).

Getting back on track. I don’t know the R44. What’s its basic weight (I know it will vary but I am guessing they are all similar)? How much fuel can it carry? What’s its MAUW?

[bellfest]

Bladebanger,
If you would accept I would like to retract all of my past comments and insults and apolagise. I don't know who you are or what you have done and you don't know who I am and what I have done so there is no need to get into a slanging match over how and where we fly.

[notnoz]

bellfest,

Ofcourse we need a slanging match, don't even think of apilagising!

With that kind of attitude you might as well look at changing to bellsux. Oooops, that's taken isn't it!

How bout: bellthat'sthelamestideal'vehadinalongtime, any others?

[bladebanger]

Bellfest,
Fair call. Accepted and please accept mine.

BB

[notnoz]

Ahhhhh crap. l hate happy endings!

[topendtorque]

Yes well, lots of gaff some real most blarney, one thing must be picked up, the unchallenged assumption that ATSB know their stuff.
That is definately a matter of challenged opinion amongst many pros in OZ.
We are a small community and nearly all know each other.

Trouble also is OZ regs allow ATSB voice an opinion in a protected manner, they take forever, after that the coroner takes forever, then depending on whats written most anywhere, except here (thank god) all of that maybe, or will be supoened by silks if any party especially rellies feel displaced and wish to then pursue legally. All that then must be examined in light of each states differing and prevailing rules of evidence, court cost payment etc

A cheif pilot could be defending something that happened ten years ago, where the crash scene evidence has never been gathered let alone protected by Legislation, I mean strike marks etc. Even the ATSB have big feet in this regard.

People who may have a greivance and therefore a common law right to have evidence examined professionlly are not allowed on site examination until after the whole machine may have been removed, and everything of use by way of ground evidence has been obliterated. ATSB opinion is not allowed to be challenged, but they publish freely their unchallenged opinion in the crash comic. Opinion which may give rise to severe apprehension to rellies, operators, or any old pros, etc.

Most of us agree that operationel experience (at the grunt end i mean not just as a straight line self opiniated line pilot either military or civil regardless of their hours) is the greatest aid in investigation. But we are suject to opinion of an ATSB agent who has been to some self serving reputational crash investigation school where lots of time is spent looking at gory pictures insted of walking around in the hot sun at looking marks on the ground. They may never have flown any sort of machine yet are allowed to make opinion. Often the first question by an investigator used to be where is the slip indicator? is it serviceable? sweet jesus!!

Pilot experience is talked about in the previous threads, we need to establish experience baselines for ASTSB investigators.

Yes I also feel deeply for all involved, I just wish that respect could flow through and be demonstrated professionally by OZ regs.

[NickLappos]

SASless started a great line of thought on how to determine IF you have the power to hover, and several good rules of thumb were contributed. All good stuff, but let me pass on my favorite rule of thumb - never get into a hover where you NEED more power than you HAVE. How can you control that on a mountain approach? Easy as pie - remember that the power required only rises as your speed diminishes, and it is YOU who commands the deceleration.

Mountains are littered with helo hulks because pilots rush the approach to land by holding too much speed and then flaring it off quickly at the end, perhaps in some silly wish to be more safe regarding the HV curve. As a result they rush into a hover they can't sustain, but when it is too late to reaccelerate and cure the problem. How to avoid the dreaded fall-through at the bottom? Easy - make a slow, controlled approach, creeping in as the power comes up, watching the power rise toward the max. Determine the max by pulling it before you start the approach, and noting the torque/MP that is all you have. As you slowly reduce the approach speed, note that power rise and let alarm bells go off if you get near max power while still moving forward. If that happens, gently lower the nose and accelerate away, and don't try that approach!! Natrually, if you rush the approach, you won't see the gentle power rise as the speed is slowly reduced, and you could end up at the bottom with an armful of collective and a face full of dirt.

[gliderboy]

Well said Mr Lappos!

Succinct and very sensible.

Gliderboy

[bellfest]

Bladebanger
Cool bananas.

notnoz
Your an idiot. Funny though!

topendtorque
You do have a very valid point about letting the old salts help in the process. You would think it would be mandatory for ATSB to cover every aspect to the highest standard available and obviously someone with a considerable amount of operational exposure (flying of this type and environment) would be the best option in regards to that aspect.
As far as all other aspects ( forensics etc.), without knowing or having the qualifications to judge what is required of them to become an ATSB inspector I would have to assume that these guys are properly trained to do this job to a high standard. You may know more about this than me.
A crash sight would be a very hard environment to control. Generally in situations like these when an enviroment has to be kept sterile and undisturbed the legislation rules on the side of what most find ridiculous in order to achieve that. This is understandable, excluding the old salts who would know the importance of such matters and very likely able to contribute some crucial input.
The ATSB is a necessity but as you say, it could very well be in need of some practical changes.

[maxeemum]

"Most of us agree that operational experience (at the grunt end i mean not just as a straight line self opiniated line pilot either military or civil regardless of their hours) is the greatest aid in investigation"

topend TQ

Mate what is your point? Accident investigators do a specialized course (which then qualifies them to conduct accident investigation). Line pilots fly on the line and Military pilots fly Miltary Aircraft, whether any of these groups have self opinions is not really relevant.

In your verbage please explain Who is most of us? Who do you represent? Operational experience gained in what? Accident investigation or flying gen? Is your grunt end experience you talk of in the area of accident investigation or are you a commentator and speculator?

B4 you begin I too am no accident investigator, although I have attended 2 major accidents in my service both of which contained multiple deaths and multiple aircraft. I have plenty of operational experience, Civil and Military flying experience and enough hours to know that at some point all of us will experience some sort of accident or incident. What determines the outcome successful or otherwise will be your experience and your training. I suspect that grunt end experience may not solve your probems. I have met many folks in this game over the last 2 decades and the ones that are good at it don't use the MSU principle (ie make **** up). They are very aware of their limitations both human and material.

IMHO


Maxee

:cool:

[topendtorque]

No need to freak out good boy.

I thought the msg was clear, but for the purpose of explaining to one who seems to be only a 'straight-line' pilot (get it) I say again that OZ regs leave a lot to be desired with regard to equity for all parties.

Yes, I have only had to examine twenty and more accidents in three-an-a-bit decades of maneuvering type rotary flying, often for the purpose of getting the truth out of the driver, which often translates into putting information together to protect company and driver against spurious, unqualified (and now protected) statements.

Sure, there are some pros in the ATSB ranks, but I haven't seen one in a while. Insurance company investigators are usually much more analytical, all the more reason to allow equity of evidence presentation.

I have no idea how the regs work in these respects in other countries but if any see default back in their own country, then i may have started something for others to invoke action for protection of the flying fraternity where ever they are.

Try operating with less MAP old boy its always mush easier to push it down if its not all the way up. "old bush fable"

TET

[scottishbeefer]

Agree with NLappos that gentle and controlled is the way ahead. However, particularly with 2 engines we tend to hold an extra 5-10kts until we call "committed". Then come to the hover. As far as we're concerned the rationale is definitely to minimise time in the avoid curve and stay SSE that little bit longer. Also make the approach to the far side of a target (if poss) to give a better chance of escaping if it all goes Pete Tong. Tend to come in a wee bit higher than normal to allow for any unforseen turb/extend the escape options. Gotta watch it in the vinegar strokes though.

Other danger of coming in too slow is of course Vortex Ring/settling with power (ticked 2 boxes of the criteria, only need that ROD to increase a bit - say, a downdraft). Granted you don't want to horse it in there and over-tq of course.

Some v.interesting mountain techniques coming out here - vmt.

SB

[helmet fire]

VRS/Settling with power: I would say almost a physical impossibility doing a limited power high DA approach by any pilot with co-ordination higher than an orangutan or more situational awareness than a blind and deaf sheep in a paddock of wolves. When doing such approaches, you should be right onto closure rates and descent rates, much more so than sea level run-of-the-mill type approaches that catch out the under vigilant or over familiar. i dont recall high DA being a contributing factor at all. Rather than settling with power, it is far more likely that you might settle with inufficient power!

Max and topend, I agree with parts of both of your posts. The ATSB does have some experienced and capable investigators, some of whom are considered leaders in the field on the world stage. But, like any human, they will occaisionally err and they will occaisionally come across situations in which they have limited or no experience. How then, do they find a GAURANTEED neutral to give them TOTALLY independant advice? That is the challenge.

I agree that they are well protected, and they need a certain amount of this in order to provide opinion without fear. Only through such a situation will we be able to get to the bottom of many incidents/accidents and learn something from them. On the other hand, it would be better if they publish contraary opinion in their crash comics, conduct reviews over disputed outcomes, or even answer correspondence questioning recommendations. None of which they are currently bound to do.

[Pofman]

Nick Lappos - I hope they listen to you. That is the way all pilots were supposed to be taught in UK from the 50s.There were a series of WASPs in the early 70s rushing in for crossdeck landings then 'pulling' the lever followed by a few quick rotations and some splashes. They forgot that there is only 100% Tq and if you put 90% through the mast there is not enough for the tail rotor. Those of us who had operated the type for 9 years without incident were just 'boring old farts who were out of touch'. But we did not need swimming lessons. The Wasps were retro fitted with a bigger tail rotor.
S Beefer: VR very unlikely as whatever angle you choose if you fly slower the RoD will be less. Never heard anyone have a problem.

[topendtorque]

Thankyou helmet
Yes, your ideas and peer review is what I am referring to. I don't want to go too deep on a goss network but they could operate in a similar fashion as the rules for senate committees.

They could even be a statutory board of review with enough encumbants to ensure supply all over the country. After all with the environmentalists ranting of late on their pet hobbies it is indeed a rare govt minister that does not place such a vehicle between himself and the public. (protection)

Objective wish lists for site data is also wanting. E.G. One from personal experience years ago; Q. Are you sure that the T/R gearbox was not seizing up to cause the RPM loss which led to overpitching? A. Duh- didn't look at the T/R Gearbox! Both investigators were qualified engineers, not drivers.

Not criticising them, but the lack of a sound system let them down. Even so one has to often look at something for long periods of time to allow your different experiences to examine just what it is you are looking at, but one thing is paramount, all data must be recorded and objectively recorded if you don't want to be cracked off later.
TET

[scottishbeefer]

"VRS/Settling with power: I would say almost a physical impossibility doing a limited power high DA approach by any pilot with co-ordination higher than an orangutan or more situational awareness than a blind and deaf sheep in a paddock of wolves" - you might as well say that no pilot will ever have a pilot-error generated stoof, however I don't think that's the case is it?

Pofman/Helmet:

Fully concur that VR only catches the unwary (like any snag). But it's not a great leap of faith to imagine coming in slow, getting too steep and trying to correct the angle rather than o'shoot. Add the tricky perspective of the hills/extra turbulence and the potential is there. Maybe add a low-time driver to the mix and watch out.

Helmet - agree your proposed outsome of settling with insufficent power more likely!

To open another can of worms (I standby to be corrected here..): The high DA is a major player since you'll have more pitch to get the required lift = more induced flow = greater recirc at the tips + way higher AoA at the root. Since developed VR is basically about the induced flow losing the battle with ROD airflow, if you're driving a light machine like a R22/44 or similar ie with a relatively puny IF - you'll need to be more aware won't you?

Appreciate this is going a bit off-thread.

[bladewashout]

Off thread, but very informative!

BW

[lotsahueys]

Intrigued by this discussion . . .

Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.
The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.

GP

Just a quicky !

I was taught : Determine the Manifold Pressure Limit before TOFF, and then once near the proposed landing site fly at best ROC and subtract your original MP limit from the new reading and this will equal your power available.
BUT what you say is to pull Max powerand climb out, is this kind of a back up practical check to see that the power you have calculated you actually have is correct and to also kind of give a practical check that the DA is similar to that or not too much worse than that of where you originally did yourManifold Pressure Limit check ?

Hope that makes sense ?

Thanks in advacne

Lotsa

:yuk:

[Gas Producer]

HI there, lotsahueys,

What you've described in the opening sentence of your post sounds like what a lot of people take away from a 'limited power' or 'confined areas' lesson. Now I'm not being critical, I did exactly the same thing when I was trying to figure these damn things out.

Doing what you've described will do 2 things: 1. It will tell you the max MAP you can ask from the engine for a given Da before you get going; 2. You will know how much power you are ACTUALLY using at Vbroc as you fly past your landing site.

Now, these are important things to know, but they are completely useless in terms of power limitation assessment unless you have some more info - particularly: power in the hover at takeoff, power used at Vbroc on climb and power actually available at you landing site.

The critical thing here is determining whether or not you can hover at you landing site before you're all out of options and you experience a hard landing, or worse. This means you must know your power margins, which means an assessment of both power available AND required to result in margin. Oh, and by the way, don't just read the MAP limits off the charts - PROVE your power available in the aircraft you're flying at the time you are flying it.

The margin you determine during initial hover/climb is the margin you will need later. It's no good just working out the power available only or power required only. When you fly past your landing site at Vbroc, you'll know your power required. Add the margin you assessed earlier to determine how much power available you're going to need. If this figure exceeds the aircraft's limitations or gives you a bit of drop in Nr when determining the power available then go land somewhere else.

GP