Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball [Archive]

Ian Corrigible

4th Jan 2009, 20:26

Inspired by the thread "Helicopters based on boats" (it'll never happen; boats have poor downward visibility and lousy autorotational characteristics...:E): a St. Louis Helicopters K-MAX using a 2½ ton wrecking ball for chimney demolition work last August.

http://assets.bizjournals.com/story_image/202250-300-0-1.jpg

http://assets.bizjournals.com/story_image/202205-300-0-1.jpg

News story (http://www.bizjournals.com/louisville/stories/2008/08/18/story8.html?b=1219032000%5E1685800)

News video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCgr0VzJrzU&feature=related)

I/C

deeper

4th Jan 2009, 22:48

Why would you ever do that, surely there were better options.:ugh:

darrenphughes

4th Jan 2009, 23:18

Why not. The Kmax was designed for utility work, so work away. As long as you're not damaging the aircraft or making it unairworthy while doing it then there should be no problems.

jonwilly

4th Jan 2009, 23:31

Fred Dibnah is rotating in his grave.
john

n5296s

5th Jan 2009, 01:24

Fred Dibnah is rotating in his grave
That would be autorotating, I take it?

n5296s (or n9888s for this forum)

topendtorque

5th Jan 2009, 06:48

One might think that if the ball penetrated and then rotated, trying to pull its fulcrum down, that it might impart a tremendous peak "tension" weight on the helicopter. Might be liable to tear the fork right out out of his nightie

crazy.

A case of dynamite and a couple of lads with a bit of imagination would be far better, or perhaps one could round up a few suicide bombers and convince them of a goodly cause.

or give the local artillery mob a bit of casual cannon fodder, anything.

nothing better 2 do!

5th Jan 2009, 07:04

I would of said that they did use there imagination here. Good on you lads.:D

170'

5th Jan 2009, 10:29

Many years ago , we used a chain, cable, multiple truck inner tubes and a additional chain slackline as a type of cheap shock absorber, all attached to a old Cat engine block.

This was to break down the shale type rock face on remote railroad cuttings to prevent the loose chunks falling on the track layers. It worked great, but the engine block(s) fell apart pretty quick ...

we tried a fuel drum filled with concrete and re-bar and that 'nearly' worked.

Then we welded 4 chunks of RR track together but wasn't heavy enough and spun like a top.

Finally we bought a solid steel anvil and welded a collar around it, similar to the thing you see on dogs and cats after a surgical operation, but in our case to protect the chain...
It worked great until I got too comfortable with it...I went in too low with a swing and brought a massive chunk of rock face down on the anvil and buried the whole shebang and about 30 feet of chain.

Needless to say I was at the other end of the chain,cable and swivels...

Two things happened !

1) I started losing my hair...
2) I promised myself to never do anything with a helicopter that I hadn't seen
someone else do first.:ugh:

All joking aside...Innovation with helos is what keeps the game so interesting!...
Innovation is far more limited by regulation today than it used to be, (nope, not gonna go there!) and swinging a wrecking ball (or home made substitute) probably needs a new rotorclass load-combination class all for itself

I suggest Class C-BB (Big balls).....A load touching the surface or anything else , very briefly but with malice and aforethought :O

ps....CG, relax, I'll never tell...:E

R44-pilot

5th Jan 2009, 11:29

I think it's great really.

A new use for a Heli, more work for a pilot........ :ok:

RVDT

5th Jan 2009, 16:25

Wonder if they ever thought what this does to the helicopter?

Remember the early days of the fat starflex on the 350. On longline work we figured out it was like being on the end of a cracked whip. Cracks in the starflex. Fitted a rudimentary "snubber" - piece of old car tyre in series in the longline and it stopped it. Skinny starflex was also a proper fix for it.

Lutefisk989

5th Jan 2009, 17:24

MarcK

6th Jan 2009, 01:59

no doubt the FAA approved the operation (I'll assume N-registry for argument's sake!)
Why do you think the FAA would need/want to issue specific approval for this operation?

bast0n

6th Jan 2009, 11:46

I knocked the unstable top from a factory chimney in Devon just by pushing it with the main wheel of a Wessex 5. Worked brilliantly and we got a nice bottle from the factory owner. I've got a picture somewhere and I'll see if I can find it. (I suspect that the undercarriage of the Wessex was a lot stronger than those stuck on nowadays judging by the thumping they took doing engine off landings without using the collective................ but that's another thread I suspect!) :):)

PS FAA? Who they? Keeps coming up and they seem to lack a sense of humour.............(I thought it stood for Fleet Air Arm - and they certainly don't lack a sense of humour)

SASless

6th Jan 2009, 14:06

Lute,

It is far better to be silent and thought a Fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt!

The very essence of helicopter flying and the future of the industry is to find as many uses for the aircraft as possible. This appears to be yet another innovative approach to that.

Why are we inundated with a chorus of voices shouting down others productive use of the aircraft?

As long as the operator, pilot, and engineers (mechanics for you FAA types), exercise sound decision making in the carrying out whatever operation they do....then the industry prospers.

If we applied this "inside the box thinking" so common to the non-North American or from the Down Under crowd....the industry would never progress.

Think back to where we are today...longlines, water buckets, wire stringing, mustering, crop spraying, construction work, EMS, ENG, survey, seismic, the whole myriad of uses we put the aircraft to...all because someone, somewhere, sometime....thought outside the box.

Lute, old lad, I suggest you go back to a quiet corner and re-think your views on the helicopter and the folks that made it what it is. You certainly are not going to be one of them as evidence by your comments.

Hedge36

6th Jan 2009, 15:16

SASLess is dead on with this.

While I suspect this certainly wasn't the most cost-efficient method for bringing down the chimney, it's good entertainment.

I'm sure there was a goodly bit of hand-wringing about the "smart" use of helos the first time someone clipped onto a high-tension line and disembarked a passenger or two...

vaqueroaero

6th Jan 2009, 15:38

I somehow expect that it was the best and most efficient way of bringing it down.

SASless - right on there. It brings back memories of the great toe-in landing debate................

inmate

6th Jan 2009, 15:42

Understand that the chimney was on a local college campus.

Owner (female) of the helicopter company is/was old college alumni?

College gets national coverage, college gets chimney removed for free, owner gets national coverage, local contractors get seed planted for future use and pilot has a great fun filled day.

Ain't America great.

birrddog

6th Jan 2009, 22:28

I'd love to see a video of this...

One wonders how they would even fly this...

You can just imagine patterns (circuits for those of you yonder)....
The r/t soundtrack would be amusing...

"Reporting left downwind, abeam chimney..."

"Long finals.... long chimney"
"Short finals... short chimney"

"Reporting left downwind, abeam, uhm, uhm, where the chimney used to be"
;)

Bushfire

6th Jan 2009, 22:53

The helicopter is now in New Zealand (ZK HEE). Skywork Helicopters

MartinCh

6th Jan 2009, 23:49

I've seen the pic in Vertical. Short description says it was over with in 9 (nine) minutes. I don't know the start-up and shutdown times in K-MAX. Someone can elaborate on the total hire cost.

I had the same idea for the first split-second. Then, why the heck not. I would not do it with just any helo, though..

Lutefisk989

7th Jan 2009, 02:59

Why do you think the FAA would need/want to issue specific approval for this operation?

because it's an external load operation, required under Part 133.

as to "outside the box" and "innovative" thinking...blah blah blah. this may be exciting stuff to watch, but no way it's productive, nor economic. it's also an accident waiting to happen.

helos certainly have played important roles with other innovative ideas (longlines, crops, EMS, SAR, firefighting, etc), but those are far different than this. "because i can" shouldn't always be confused with innovation.

call me a Fool, but i take great pride in my 3500+ hours, accident free. and as a flight test pilot, i find it amusing to be called a Fool in an profession in which take great pride...improving safety.

trimpot

7th Jan 2009, 04:46

About 10 years ago they blew up the old Canberra hospital amoung much hype. The explosion went wrong and a young girl, watching on the other side of Lake Burley Griffen was killed, and many other people were injured by flying shrapnel. I think that in this situation the use of the helo was a great idea. As for not being productive, well the chimneys demolished isn't it? As for not being economic, well I assume the company got paid and surely the client went with the cheapest and easiest option (they always do). As for being "unsafe", for my money, much safer that blowing it up in a populated area and the pilot looked like he was doing a very delicate job taking small chunks at a time so what's the problem? Job done, client happy, work for the helo, should be more of it!:ok:

SASless

7th Jan 2009, 05:00

i think this is an idiotic use of a helicopter...and no doubt the FAA approved the operation (I'll assume N-registry for argument's sake!).

yet one can depart from a VFR airfield under 0-0. Go figure...

Luteski,

You state the operation was approved by the FAA thus I assume you mean it was "legal".

You assume it was an N-registered aircraft....but do not know that to be the case.

Some pretty weak logic for your building your argument there Chief!

Now as to departing an airfield VFR in Zero/Zero conditions....just how do you do that?

It would seem VFR would require the airfield to have 1000 feet Ceiling and 3 Statute Miles Visiblilty in order to be VFR.

Even SVFR requires sufficient visibility to see and avoid obstacles and remain clear of cloud....thus not even Zero/Zero for that can exist.

Not very empirical approach to your test flying.....and now I suspect who tutored our dear friend and colleague who figures Vy is about one half Vne.

MightyGem

7th Jan 2009, 08:28

Quote:
Fred Dibnah is rotating in his grave
That would be autorotating, I take it?

No, Fred wasn't a pilot. :p

For those of you who don't know, How To Bring Down a Chimney: The Fred Dibnah Way (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=945T56ZxFkE)

bast0n

7th Jan 2009, 10:33

SASless - you are so right! Luteski is the sort of chap who I would not want around when things get exciting. Chucking in 3500 hours, no accidents blah lah blah blah says it all...................:O

R44-pilot

7th Jan 2009, 12:43

MightyGem,

Thanks for posting vid, I for one didnt know who people we're going on about. Can't believe how close they all stand! Did'nt seem that long ago looking at vid, we're Health & Safety nuts on holiday that day?

Suprised the tree huggers were not out in force there either!

Can't see the helicopter recking ball being any more dangerours than that.... like someone else said, it's being knocked down in bits, now Mr Fred Dibnah obviously knows what he's doing but his comment..... " well at least it fell the right way... ya knoooow" LOL, what if it didnt.....:E

jab

7th Jan 2009, 12:58

Nothing wrong with the wrecking ball operation, it was done slowly and deliberately, what exactly is unsafe and how is it supposed to be harming the helicopter? For those who don't like it, do a search for some videos on logging or slinging Christmas trees for a comparison.

Lutefisk989

7th Jan 2009, 15:04

SAS:

What I assumed is IF the aircraft were N-registered, then the operation had to be approved by the FAA. You're right: I have no clue where it is registered. But the point is that some Authority had to approve it...and therefore it is "legal." But legal and silly and two different things. This operation is silly, in my opinion.

Now as to departing an airfield VFR in Zero/Zero conditions....just how do you do that?

Simple: you file an IFR flight plan, and get a clearance, and away you go. Then you hope that you don't have a problem, like an engine failure on departure... This is an "innovative" way to fly, but not a smart one.

Note that I said "departing a VFR field" (meaning no instrument approaches)... I did not say "departing a field under VFR." My point here is that we have silly ops rules.

I take no issue with the other operations you cite...they are meaningful, productive, economically viable.

Not very empirical approach to your test flying.....and now I suspect who tutored our dear friend and colleague who figures Vy is about one half Vne.

Empirical? My test flying is by the book, as was my time in the military. Not sure why you would belittle that. "Superior pilots are those who use superior judgement, so that don't have to rely on superior skills"...I'd like to believe there's a good reason why I have a good flying record.

Sorry for stating an opinion. I thought "professional" in PRUNE meant something. Guess I'll just lurk.

Phil77

7th Jan 2009, 17:01

My 2 cents:

If there are, let's say sensitive instruments in a building near by (not too far fetched on a campus?) preventing the demolition with explosives; then assuming just no room for heavy equipment to maneuver (crane) and the fire destruction (never seen it before - thanks for the vid) is not suitable either... it seems that the helicopter is/was the only way!?
Added in the cost of explosives and the man hours to pack 'em, plus to safeguard all the buildings (and the assumptive instruments), it appears to be even a economical way to take the chimney out. So why not!?

Lute: just take it easy man, all that rumble about pride and such, only to prove what?
BTW: I was less impressed by guys with more hours than you have - again, it proves nothing (not even that you are a good pilot - which I'm sure you are)!

CGWRA

7th Jan 2009, 17:10

I think lute is talking about something he doesnt understand. Military background, and now he's a "test pilot". I'd be surprised if hes ever flown with a longline on in his life. Some people don't understand the utility world of flying becuase they are so far removed from it.

russ1

23rd Jan 2011, 05:05

The hook mounted in the belly of the helicopter has a 360 degree continous swival connection, so the ball and cable can twist and turn as much as it wants to

russ1

23rd Jan 2011, 05:08

Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball

The Kmax helicopter is capable of lifting about 6000 lbs. The owner of the Kmax on this job is a seasoned helicopter contractor who has done jobs all over the world, and the lead mechanic, a friend of mine, is a well trained Kmax mechanic. There was no chance of damaging the helicopter, and as you can see in the video, they did removed small sections of the chimney from the top down. Paret of the reason for using the helicopter was noise reduction (as opposed to an explosion), dust reduction, and no shock wave like you get from an explosion which may have damaged nearby stuctures.

fadecdegraded

23rd Jan 2011, 08:15

Russ1

The owner of that helicopter was not the person flying it.
The guy flying was leasing it.
The machine was overTq several times on that job and and had to have blades x rayed and Transmission inspected after that job
The pilot on that job would appear to have no operational respect for limits.
expensive for the owner as the pilot walked away from it, top notch outfit.

9Aplus

23rd Jan 2011, 11:19

See this one please:
afI58PRmTJ0

Recently we have proposed the same on one heavy stone avalanche problem over approx 900 m long road section. Using Ka32A11BC
http://www.tportal.hr/ResourceManager/GetImage.aspx?imgId=135070&fmtId=20

Unfortunately "wise" heads are considerng still after 3 months, what to do
and one of brave solution is dig out 200 m of new tunel,
in real remains 700 m of road still exposed to same problem. :E

russ1

24th Jan 2011, 02:40

That means I misunderstood my Kmax mechanic friend. I know him and I know the company that owns the helicopter, but I don't know who the pilot was. And you may be right that the company/owner leased the kmax out to a third party that actually had the contract to down the chimney.

But still, the Kmax was in no danger of damage on this job as long as the helicopoter is handled properly and the process of knocking down the chimney was done correctly.