Helicopter collides with bus at Kai Tak

[autoair]

xaMm72CXznE


Hong Kong, May 1 (DPA) Three people were reportedly injured when a helicopter crash-landed into a coach as it tried to take off at Hong Kong’s old airport site Friday.
The helicopter was taking off at a private flying club on the site of Hong Kong’s former Kai Tak international airport in the city centre Friday morning.
Witnesses quoted by government-run radio station RTHK said strong gusts of wind forced it out of the sky and it crash-landed into the front of a coach that was driving across the airstrip.
The coach driver and the two people on board the helicopter were injured and taken to hospital after firemen and emergency services rushed to the scene, RTHK reported.
Hong Kong’s old international airport, set in the middle of Victoria Harbour at the heart of the city, was decommissioned in 1998 when the new Chek Lap Kok airport on Lantau Island opened.

[ReverseFlight]

R22 crashes just outside its home base at the Hong Kong Aviation Club. For years they've been landing downwind into a confined area :ugh:. Three injured, according to local news (watch the video even if you don't speak the language):

aTV ???? (http://www.hkatvnews.com/v3/share_out/_content/2009/05/01/atvnews_129008.html)

Not surprising, given an indifferent attitude to the appaulling standard of training there as witnessed by the number of accidents in recent years.

:=Never train there - it's tantamount to suicide !

[generalspecific]

Pretty strong accusations,

"Appalling standard of training as witnessed by the number of accidents in recent years"

What basis do you have for the appalling standard of training accusation... the "number of accidents in recent years"? Flying has dangers and there are accidents, but I would say Hong Kong has less than its fair share.. care to list the accidents (there aren't many)

I was trained there as a PPL and have since trained in a number of other jurisdictions (including professional licences in some of the biggest ICAO countries) and the training I received was some of the best I have had.

Yes the landing area is confined and sometimes necessitates a downwind landing (but not always... the issue is a uni directional landing direction due to obstacles), but you make this sound with your :ugh: as if it was a prohibited manouver in a helicopter.

Many of the things that give helicopters their utility require compromise whether it is vertical take offs or downwind landings. A downwind landing requires careful management of yaw to prevent weather cocking as well as careful power management and assessment of Vortex ring risks.

It requires precise flying and that is why it requires a separate sign off to use the Kai Tak facility and why there are precise limits in the published club flying orders.

"Never train there - it's tantamount to suicide..." that's just plain stupid and frankly pretty offensive to a group of very decent instructors (no I am not one so have no axe to grind) who require under CAD regs 300 hrs of P1 time before they can teach.... :=

[ReverseFlight]

PPLs ... the proof is in the pudding.

[Runway101]

aTV ???? (http://www.hkatvnews.com/v3/share_out/_content/2009/05/01/atvnews_129008.html)

Can't play that video, tried 3 browsers, 2 computers. Anybody able to play or download?

[Avitor]

No!

====================================================

[Scissorlink]

Heard that WD40 is good to stop bugs from sticking to your grill

[SASless]

These Robbies show up in the darnedest of places!:eek:

[Runway101]

Here is a video that shows an approach into Kai Tak when everything goes according to plan.


CQ76ZGRaDJA

[MightyGem]

Well, you wouldn't want an engine failure on final approach.

Last edited by Senior Pilot : Today at 19:20. Reason: embed YouTube link
How do you embed the link?

[Nubian]

Reverseflight, (sarcastic right?)

This was supposedly on take-off, so what the f... does that have to do with down-wind approaches?:confused:

Why don't you make it your mission to make downwind-ops illegal, period? and end all this Madness.

I must be suicidal, after all what I'm doing all day long is to deliver all sort of heavy stuff on a 100ft longline into confines with winds from all over, hot/high..... also landing on, t/o from the pad/dolly with the wind straight up the @

Now, I got to find me those pills.....


btw, I have flown with some PPL's that would fly circles around some of the CPL's that I have exposed to

[dragman]

Well, you wouldn't want an engine failure on final approach.

So I take it all your approaches are sweet for engine failures!!

Is that instructor wearing flying gloves? In 44? How very Hong Kong.

[cptjim]

Photos here... Flickr: cjwilsonhk's Photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjwilsonhk/)

[Trans Lift]

Looks like a fun approach to me. Reverseflight are you an FAA trained pilot. I find a lot of FAA guys have this anti-downwind thing. They just dont get exposed to it in their training. Downwind patterns, downwind approaches and downwind quickstops should all be part of the FAA CPL syllabus. Just like on the JAA side. I make sure all my FAA CPL students are well up to par in these manuevers even if they dont get tested in them.

[SASless]

There are more than a few reasons why "into wind" landings are in vogue.

It has naught to do with the FAA system being "inferior" to the CAA/JAA/EASA or whatever you are calling yourselves this week.

Along with ensuring they are well versed in landing down wind and doing quick stop downwind....quick stop downwind....quickstop downwind.....go! I hope you teach them the advantages of doing anything but a downwind takeoff or landing.

Hang on....I am wrong....."Down Wind Quick Stop.....Down Wind Quickstop....Down Wind Quick Stop.....GO!

Don't all "Patterns (Circuits)" have a down wind segment?

[Runway101]

Nubian, this was on approach not takeoff. At this time of the year you have tailwind at the landing site with only one permitted way in. When I checked the HK Observatory page yesterday maximum reported gusts not extraordinary (< 12 kts) for this location but definitely no walk in the park in the R22. There is a weather station at Kai Tak (reported in km/h):
Variation of Wind Direction and Speed (http://www.hko.gov.hk/wxinfo/ts/windbarb.htm?se&)

RTHK:
A helicopter has crashed in a parking area at the old Kai Tak airport in Kowloon. Three people suffered minor injuries. The Civil Aviation Department has launched an investigation into the incident. The helicopter crashed sideways into a parked tour bus in a parking lot. The rear end of the helicopter was bent, and the front of the tour bus was severely damged. A pilot instructor said the helicopter was on a private flight. The crash took place about 100 metres away from the pad where it was supposed to land. The pilot, his young son and the driver of the bus suffered slight injuries.

[Nubian]

Runway,

Hong Kong, May 1 (DPA) Three people were reportedly injured when a helicopter crash-landed into a coach as it tried to take off at Hong Kong’s old airport site Friday.
The helicopter was taking off at a private flying club on the site of Hong Kong’s former Kai Tak international airport in the city centre Friday morning.From my English understanding, I understand it to be a.......Take-off (or more of an attempt really) Unless the original post has it wrong...

Now, I do have my fair share of Robbie hours and know what you can do with it if you take care and your time.

Cheers

[Gordy]

Trans Lift

I find a lot of FAA guys have this anti-downwind thing.

One day maybe you will learn why.

[ReverseFlight]

Hey, calm down, guys.

To clarify, I am not FAA trained and have never held any FAA licence.

The Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department (HKCAD) will be publishing a preliminary report shortly so let's stop arguing about the facts now - I will post a link to the report in this thread for all to see.

Meanwhile, the HKCAD has directed the Hong Kong Aviation Club to shut down all its flight operations at the Kai Tak helipad pending the issue of that report. Go figure.

[Trans Lift]

"One day maybe you will learn why."

I know good and well why to avoid landing/taking off downwind if possible but all I'm saying is that people should know how to do it properly and have at least practiced it in their training!! Does that not make sense?? I'm not saying that certain syllabus are better than the other, they all have their good and bad sides.

[ReverseFlight]

Thanks to Runway101 for posting the video. Now if you study it carefully, you will appreciate why this particular downwind landing into the confined area is fraught with risks. An accident waiting to happen.

[Nubian]

you're right, really scary stuff...... nothing like it in the rest of the world, I'm sure.

[perfrej]

Nubian!

Thanks for the PPL bailout! Appreciate it. We do have proper training and we do behave like professionals in the sky too. We don't long-line or do CAT A takeoffs, but none the less...

/p

[Scissorlink]

Wouldn't it be nice never having to do downwind operations

[Runway101]

Received by email from the Deputy Chief Flying Instructor:

You may be aware that an accident involving an R-22 helicopter occurred in the car park adjacent to the Hong Kong Aviation Club at Kai Tak on 1 May 2009. B-LAT crash landed onto a coach at around 11 a.m. Fortunately the PIC, his passenger and the only occupant in the coach, the driver, suffered minor injuries and no hospitalization was required.

An investigation team was formed by the CAD instantly. We have unilaterally decided to temporary suspend all helicopter operations at Kai Tak with immediate effect until further notice. During this period, we will review our existing procedures and take necessary precautionary measures in order to prevent similar accidents in the future. In addition, the CAD is expected to publish a preliminary accident report shortly which may consist of certain recommendations to which we can make references.

Please understand that the Club will not issue further details of the accident whilst the CAD is carrying out its investigation.

[Nubian]

Scissorlink,

in a perfect world everything would be nice........

[topendtorque]

downwind quickstops? now how does one do them again?:ok:

meanwhile the photos show that the bus might be the one with the learner driver, having impacted the rear of the port side skid and then got a hold of the helicopter by driving further along the skid and ending up with it jammed well into its own compartment?? sacre bleu! all on the pilots blind side.

The main problem is the aircraft rego B - LAT, wrong! it should be B - URL.

could have been worse, he might have been run over by a ten tonne truck, or the bus might have been reversing:{

[Gordy]

It appears that this thread has gone in the direction of "downwind quickstops".

With that in mind, what is the purpose of a downwind quickstop? Is not a quickstop merely a training exercise? I cannot think when I have actually had to do one in anger.

So, everyone talks about teaching them...why? What is their practical application?

And for further discussion----Lets assume you have a 25kt wind, why would it be necessary to do a downwind approach and landing? Would it not be safer to do a modified base approach to a steep, or even vertical approach and have at least some headwind component? Again, I cannot think of a single instance where I have had no other option than performing a downwind landing.


Let the excrement flinging begin....

[Runway101]

What is their [Quickstop] practical application?

Not sure if this is a serious question, but a (previously hidden) wire directly in front of you during takeoff from an unscheduled loo break in a field would come to mind. Or when you suddenly remember during take off that you forgot to load the Duff under the left hand seat of your R22 for your camping trip.

I cannot think of a single instance where I have had no other option than performing a downwind landing.

In the case of the crash landed R22 it is the only permitted way in (or out) if I recall the Hong Kong Aviation Club's so-called Helicopter Flying Orders correctly. Must be related to complaints from neighbors and how to get the operation approved by the CAD, it has not always been like this...

[Gordy]

Runway101

Not sure if this is a serious question, but a (previously hidden) wire directly in front of you during takeoff from an unscheduled loo break in a field would come to mind. Or when you suddenly remember during take off that you forgot to load the Duff under the left hand seat of your R22 for your camping trip.

Yep---I was and still am being serious. If nothing else, we will call it a learning exercise.

In the situation with the wire---if you have time for a quickstop once you see the wire, then you have time to do a hard turn. The average quickstop from 60kts takes more distance than the distance required to execute a hard bank turn. Conversely, you could pull aft cyclic and climb above the wires.

Forgetting your "duff"---in reality, continue the take off and and fly a pattern back to your same spot.

In the case of the "flying orders'. Would a company really write rules that are not in the interest of safety? Is there REALLY no other way?

[ReverseFlight]

Gordy, would you do a downwind approach as per the video with no option of going around ? Such is the Hong Kong case.:eek:

[Gordy]

ReverseFlight:

Gordy, would you do a downwind approach as per the video with no option of going around ? Such is the Hong Kong case.

It is hard to see on the video, but around 20 secs or so, it looks like they could angle 30 deg to the right, continue downwind a little and then make a hard left turn onto base and final.

Conversely, why not approach from the other direction and make a steep approach?

I find it hard to believe that there is ONLY one way in and one way out.

To answer the question, if there was absolutely NO other option, and I had to land there, I could do it, but why...... And there is ALWAYS the option of going around, unless there is a building in the way. Remember I AM the PIC, would the tower prefer me to crash, or go-around? Certainly here in the U.S. one can break any rule or regulation in the interest of safety--you just have to be able to justify it.

[Scissorlink]

Yes Gordy your right, 25 knot downwind operations wouldn't be wise....I'd rule out 40-50 knots as well because you would need to cover to much ground to reach translation :ok:

[Gordy]

25 knot downwind operations wouldn't be wise....

OK then--what about 15kts, or 10kts---what would be an acceptable risk?

[generalspecific]

The problem is tall buildings to the left (as you approach) and in front. As such the only alternative would be a left base to a very very short final which could leave you exposed to wind opposite to the tail rotor thrust and the attendant problems that go along with that.

The site itself is really not that confined, frankly those who have been posting as such have either never flown it or spend all their time doing "confined" approaches into 2,000 ft runways..

Clearly you don't choose to take the downwind option if there is a better way but in this case there isn't. Does it make it dangerous. No. Does it make it more challenging than the average approach. Yes. Can it be done by a compitent PPL. Yes. This time it didn't work, but people have accidents landing in headwinds, hovering and pretty much every other position they can dream up.

Helicopters have been coming in and out of here for years and there have been no acccidents to my knowledge. This is the unfortunate first.
If a PPL stacked it on a landing into wind then we would ban into wind landings.

Back to my first post, lots that we do in helicopters to get the utility out of them necessitates operating in some form of comromise. There is noting wrong with a downwind landing and there is certainly nothing wrong with the Kai Tak site..

[ReverseFlight]

generalspecific is not reading the statement by the Deputy Chief Flying Instructor of the Hong Kong Aviation Club posted by Runway101 (#25 above).

During this period, we will review our existing procedures and take necessary precautionary measures in order to prevent similar accidents in the future. In addition, the CAD is expected to publish a preliminary accident report shortly which may consist of certain recommendations to which we can make references.

Get real.

[generalspecific]

read it.. don't get your point... be more specific and maybe a bit less chippy?

[Trans Lift]

This accident happened on a Take-off, not a Landing right?

[generalspecific]

short finals

[Mark Six]

Agree completely with generalspecific. There have been many thousands of approaches into that site over the years, the vast majority by Robinsons with PPL holders at the controls. The statement by the Deputy CFI is exactly what you would expect any responsible operator to come out with immediately following an accident, so what's your point ReverseFlight?

[OldBillXV]

From what I read in the local newspaper, the bus was stationary, engine off, parked up and the "Driver" was the mechanic doing his daily inspection of the bus prior to it being taken out to transport the mainland tourists around. He had just finished jotting down the mileage when he noticed the fast approaching R22 and ducked near the driver's seat. His only injuries were from the shattered glass from the windshield. Very lucky indeed....!

What surprises me from the video posted..... how did that C152(?) get there?:eek: Expensive for a flower bed no? And where did the swimming pool go to in which I spent many a laugh some 30+ years ago?:}

XV

[Runway101]

This accident happened on a Take-off, not a Landing right?

As far as I know and as reported by the media it was on approach. The original post might be wrong, or, as in lost-in-translation-, mean that before it crashed it had to take off from somewhere. "Witnesses said the helicopter circled the site before approaching to land." said the RTHK government news outlet. We will have to wait for the preliminary accident report to be 100% certain.

how did that C152(?) get there?

The planes are stationary displays.

As such the only alternative would be a left base to a very very short final

it looks like they could angle 30 deg to the right, continue downwind a little and then make a hard left turn onto base and final.

That would be the best thing to do IMHO, but as mentioned it is not permitted by the Flying Orders:

The practice of establishing left base low level over Olympic Avenue in order to land into wind at the former LATRA at Kai Tak should not be carried out unless authorized by an FI(H).

Here is a sattelite image of the location:
hong kong - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=hong+kong&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=30.406222,79.101563&ie=UTF8&t=k&ll=22.324403,114.191658&spn=0.004099,0.009656&z=17)

The approach (or takeoff) is SE from/to about 120°. If you zoom out a bit you will find the old Kai Tak runway going out into the water. You approach along that runway when you come in.

Complete Kai Tak departure/arrival procedures from Flying Orders:

Departures

The departure path should always be orientated along the length of the grass strip using its full length on a SE heading.

Departures with a downwind component of more than 5 kts or crosswind departures with a wind component exceeding Flight Manual limitations are not permitted.

An appropriate departure path should be selected to avoid over flying the open car park.

Arrivals

On arrival, pilots should aim at a point out in the open area of the old Kai Tak airport, no closer than abeam the open car park, and then hover taxi to the Hong Kong Aviation Club.

Hover taxi with a downwind component of more than 17 kts will not be permitted.

The practice of establishing left base low level over Olympic Avenue in order to land into wind at the former LATRA at Kai Tak should not be carried out unless authorized by an FI(H)

[nigelh]

I agree with Gordy . I dont think i have ever done a downwind quickstop in 30years and cannot think of any reason to do one !! If i were departing downwind and saw a wire i would either flyunder it if there was room or if in any doubt i would climb a bit on cyclic and kick it into a v tight turn into wind . I am positive i would stop it far quicker than your quickstop and reduce the risk of vortex ring . As for downwind approaches , if they are long and flat ish then no problem otherwise i would prefer to come down vertically facing the wind ....then if i was unfortunate enough to have the donkey stop i could auto straight down already into wind , rather than a certain crash low and downwind .

[MightyGem]

cannot think of any reason to do one
True. In the civilian world you can look at it as a very good exercise in co-ordination. In the military it can be useful to be able to quickly come to the hover, into wind, from a high speed downwind course.

[topendtorque]

True. In the civilian world you can look at it as a very good exercise in co-ordination. In the military it can be useful to be able to quickly come to the hover, into wind, from a high speed downwind course.


true, and in the mustering world, where it is that most hours are flown in oz at least, if one were to see a bovine-a-hiding under a bush out of yon eye corner as one steamed past, well one simply rolls into a steep, tight turn for ninety degrees, maintain turn for another ninety but -also- initiates a flare with collective going down aqap and hey presto, silly bovine, I'm right up your clacka now git.

A very simple 'downwind quickstop' as we teach them and as the terminology is used.

as far as doing the 'quick stop' in the same direction as yon wind, well that's a mugs game and to download on any regulatory body for not teaching or condoning it is terrifyingly indicative of a very dim intelligence.

Those downwind gentle slow downs and landings are for the highly trained commercial air-work world where dust evasion is the prime requirement.
of course one does experiment with the faster quick stop variety and I always found the 47J model by far the most comfortable and satisfying for the maneuvre. one simply initiated the flare, as it slowed, the throttle rolled off with a bit of left pedal, the tail comes around quickly and right up out of the way, the A/C comes to a stop immediatle beside the fuel drum, simply level onto the ground, nice, neat, now refuel, get going quick, find more cows. But there was no descending into it I was always right down low.

If you want the best recipe for disaster then Descemd, Downwind and Decrease airspeed at the same time. As I have said before, those three D's go together just as well as Drinking, Driving, and Death.

a tight anding spot is easy as other have said, fly descending downwind with positive airspeed snap around into wind at any safe height, not just 500 feet because some fetish thinks that is the right way to do it, and then flare onto the spot or into a steep descent into wind. no pain. the landing spot will probably be much more in line with an EOL target that way than any other way.

[hihover]

Autoair - I am sure you did not realise that your interesting post would spark an international debate on how not to do things, according to the "experts"! Anyway, thanks for the initial story. I would like to offer some thoughts on the Downwind Quickstop whilst it is being criticised.

I'm not sure where the exercise originated, most likely from a military helicopter training syllabus designed by the pioneers of the day with the best of intentions. It does have an application in the low-level environment of a battlefield. In any case, it is a requirement in the UK Skills Test, and until it is no longer a requirement, it will continue to be taught and tested.

As an examiner, I get to see a glimpse of a test candidate's ability as a pilot. When I ask the candidate to show me a Downwind Quickstop, I get to see that "glimpse" from different angles. I get to see handling skills, captaincy, airmanship and judgement, amongst others, in a very short period of time and I find that with so much going on at the same time, those candidates who can do a top quality Downwind Quickstop, can generally handle all of the other exercises to the same standard.

So for me, it is a very good exercise. The notion that this exercise was ever intended as an obstacle avoidance procedure is comical.

[topendtorque]

So for me, it is a very good exercise. The notion that this exercise was ever intended as an obstacle avoidance procedure is comical.


I don't think anyone did. "Nigelh" to my mind was talking about a completely different maneuvre. direction reversal from a relatively slow airspeed in the shortest distance and time. also another mustering maneuvre, and I would guess given his past, an maneuvre to rely on in AG, when as he said obstacles that were unplanned present themselves.

I've seen and checked quite some ex military pilots (especially examiners) and until they were taught, if they were interested, I can say that none of them had a smick as to how do the "nigelh" turn or the downwind quickstop as i descibe, which is the one coupled to the balanced steep turn first then stopping into wind.

as far as trying quickstops direct downwind, well we have had an extremely exhaustive and exhausting discussion on that bulloney, curtesy of a certain OZ blackhawk.

I practiced them for the sake of showing those who are learning to be operational just how a machine can bite when flown incorrectly. it is also one of the handy maneuvres to scare the livin s**t out of anyone who has that famous 900 to 1200 smart-a**e out of control mental attitude.

That's when i get to see a lot more than just a glimpse of a person's capacity both mental and flying.

[Gordy]

topendtorque..

a tight anding spot is easy as other have said, fly descending downwind with positive airspeed snap around into wind at any safe height, not just 500 feet because some fetish thinks that is the right way to do it, and then flare onto the spot or into a steep descent into wind. no pain. the landing spot will probably be much more in line with an EOL target that way than any other way.

Could not agree more , I do this all day doing buckets and never get above 100 ft agl.

[ReverseFlight]

Per my post #19, here's a link to the HKCAD's preliminary report 1/2009 (marked "NEW") - Reports (http://www.cad.gov.hk/english/reports.html) - of which paragraph 7 reads as follows:


The investigation so far revealed that the accident could have been caused by the prevailing weather at the time of the accident and the operating experience of the pilot under tailwind condition. One recommendation has been made to HKAC that single-engined helicopter operations at Kai Tak should be temporarily suspended pending the development of specific limitations to further enhance the level of safety in the area.


The message from the HKCAD is very clear. There is something very wrong with the Hong Kong Aviation Club's internal Flying Orders and yet its operations management has for years insisted on flight procedures which are contrary to basic principles of aerodynamics and safety.

I will reiterate my view again - learning to fly there is tantamount to suicide - exactly why the HKCAD is suspending its Kai Tak operations.

[topendtorque]

Maybe it is the senior management, according to your post, Reverse Flight, that should be suspended from the nearest ree.

If the site presents some challenges then it could well be a very good place to learn.

Why cannot the local authority (is it HKCAD?) also send that message and direct the traffic instead of condemming all and sundry?
cheers tet

[Runway101]

The message from the HKCAD is very clear. There is something very wrong with the Hong Kong Aviation Club's internal Flying Orders and yet its operations management has for years insisted on flight procedures which are contrary to basic principles of aerodynamics and safety.

It puzzles me how you can come to the conclusion that "the message is very clear" and that "there is something very wrong with the clubs Flying Orders". I can understand that this is your opinion, but that is not at all what the text above or the complete report says.

As far as I know Kai Tak is being closed down for redevelopment of the area and will happen sooner or later anyway. Now it is my understanding that the HKCAD proposed to the District Court to suspend flight ops because they would be relocated "soon" anyway (this info was sent out by the club a week or two ago). I don't think that they would shut them down because there is something wrong with the Flying Orders, because the Flying Orders are approved by the HKCAD.

The pilot who caused the accident had 200+ hours on the R22, but the report stated he could have had too little experience under tail wind conditions. Unless he was only flying in the winter time (when the wind direction is different), he must have had landed with tailwind conditions many times. When I did my 5h familiarization they made sure I understand tail wind approaches, practice them in Port Shelter below the High Island Reservoir, and that I demonstrate them at Kai Tak. The Flying Orders further contain the usual yada dada about LTE (I know, it looks like this accident is the second one related to LTE at the HKAC, after the R44 a few years ago).

Also, why would they shut down single engine operations and not anything else? Having two engines probably wouldn't have prevented that accident, would it? Are they trying to say the R22 is a gutless wonder? ;-) In fact there is only one privately owned twin engine EC135 on the site if I am not wrong, which has no relation to the club (another very very rich dude AFAIK). I guess he won't care then...

Sorry for the lengthy post that sounds more like a defense for the HKAC, but this topic is something were I actually can contribute some information.

I definitely understand your point, but I truly hope that they won't shut the Kai Tak location down. I would like to fly out of there again.

[Runway101]

Aircraft Accident Report:

http://www.cad.gov.hk/reports/B-LAT1-2010.pdf

The investigation concluded the cause of the accident was that the helicopter during a downwind approach experienced a Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness (LTE) that resulted in the aircraft spinning to the right during a low airspeed tight turn to the right. This subsequently led to the total Loss of Tail Rotor Effectiveness due to a Vortex Ring State developing on the tail rotor disc. Six safety recommendations have been made.

Wind was east-southeast 16-17 knots gusting 21, approach flown northwest. Accident happened on second go-around.

The pilot recollected that during his first approach to the HKAC towards the northwest, he felt quite strong tailwind. During the second approach in the same direction, the pilot checked the windsock located at the eastern corner of the HKAC’s boundary fencing that indicated the helicopter was heading into wind. He noted that the windsock was quite straight and indicating a head wind at the ground level in relation to the helicopter.

It is reasonable to suggest that sometimes at a distance a windsock downwind indication can be mis-interpreted as an into wind indication or vice versa as the profile of the windsock that is viewed directly into wind or downwind may look the same at a distance.

[Two's in]

For all the precision and detail in the report, especially the spiffy bit of PoF for tail rotor control, the real reason is in the big picture, not the detail.

While throwing away his THIRD approach he lost control and crashed,

Accident investigations are littered with instances of hope being victorious over reality, just one more approach, or just a few hundred feet before we break out, or that fuel guage always under-reads. If it didn't work the first time and nothing changed significantly, it's unlikely to work the next time.

The site layout certainly begs the question of its overall suitability for a flying club, no matter how much of a hot shot you might be at EOL's into a parking lot.

[normalbloke]

I stumbled across this on tinternet. Anybody seen it before or know the story behind it? Something doesn’t
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x507/4f312333_1099_4f99_b756_962b702d0610_9202cc7bbf1c8be1867f955 06db5abff9e58394a.jpeg
seem to stack up. Almost looks like a collision into a gate guardian.

[gulliBell]

Yeah. A good outcome. Too bad about the damage to the bus.

[Self loading bear]

The bus is a Volvo.
You better not mesh up with them.
But fortunately right hand steering in Hong Kong


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/450x345/cff3abf3_004f_4519_8dde_0e94b216feea_4f221b05934cabda2684373 d7cd2fdd9dbddcfd7.jpeg

[megan]

How can it be, the Robbie came out of the encounter better than the bus. :E

[Fareastdriver]

It's a Chinese bus.

[cattletruck]

Always wanted to fly an Airbus helicopter.

Do the wipers still work?

[Self loading bear]

It's a Chinese bus.

We are both correct:
Chinese bodywork
Volvo Chassis (which seems not to be damaged)


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x765/cf8b9f3e_baff_4834_8a2a_f60050e938ee_88fabb007b349dd817048aa 225618314b4454e9a.jpeg

[Davey Emcee]

How can it be, the Robbie came out of the encounter better than the bus. :E
I bet there's a better chance of starting the bus and driving off than the flymo.

[Bell_ringer]

Maybe radiator cooling is a new product opportunity for Robinson? :}