ENG Ship down in Seattle

[TwinHueyMan]

Listening to it on the radio... they are saying it is KOMO Air 4, down by the space needle, lots of black smoke.

Fingers crossed for all onboard.

[skadi]

They are using a Bell 407 from Air Sansone

skadi

[TwinHueyMan]

Yep, looks like N34TV. In between KOMO's helipad and the space needle. News is saying it looks like one person stumbled from the flames, unknown if it was crew or a passenger of one of the cars involved.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjBH5wCCMAAIQV5.jpg

[Gordy]

News helicopter crashes at Seattle Center | KING5.com Seattle (http://www.king5.com/news/News-helicopter-crashes-at-Seattle-Center-250789981.html)

[Art of flight]

Not good at all...

[1fm]

Unconfirmed pic here: Helicopter crashes feet from the Space needle - Imgur (http://imgur.com/gallery/nkql4GR)

[TwinHueyMan]

Seattle FD confirming 2 deceased in helicopter.

[206Fan]

SEATTLE (AP) - A news helicopter for KOMO-TV has crashed outside its station near the Seattle Space Needle.
The station says the copter was apparently coming in for a landing on its rooftop Tuesday morning when it possibly hit the side of the building and went down, hitting several vehicles on Broad Street.
The copter and cars exploded in flames and casualties were reported.
People in the area reported seeing a huge cloud of smoke as firefighters and police responded.



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjBH5DcCIAAeJjD.jpg

[MLHeliwrench]

2 killed as KOMO News helicopter crashes beside Space Needle | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/News-helicopter-crashes-burns-beside-Space-Needle-250790281.html)


Two people were killed when the KOMO news helicopter crashed and burned Tuesday morning on Broad Street only feet from the Space Needle.

Emergency personnel immediately rushed to the scene.

Two cars were struck in the crash. One man could be seen running from from one of the cars with his sleeve on fire, and he was extinguished by officers at the scene.

Huge flames and plumes of black smoke poured from the burning wreckage. Fuel gushing from the wreckage caught fire and burned for a block from the crash scene.

The Seattle Fire Department said two people were found dead in the wreckage.

Fire crews were able to extinguish the flames with a half-hour. Traffic was diverted from the area.



http://media.komonews.com/images/140318_helicopter_crash_05_660.jpg

http://media.komonews.com/images/140318_helicopter_crash_04_660.jpg

[snotcicles]

Sure looks like an Astar horizontal fin??

[I-IIII]

It s a 350

[helihub]

Skadi - this report from KING5 (http://www.king5.com/news/News-helicopter-crashes-at-Seattle-Center-250789981.html) says "The helicopter was being used in a joint partnership between KOMO and KING 5. The helicopter is managed by Helicopters Inc, also known as Heli Inc. "

[More Payload]

Agree with the Astar opinion. Ribbing on the horizontal stabilizer and vertical fin. Also no h-stab end plates. Doesn't look like a 407.

[SansAnhedral]

Blue tail N105TV?

http://www.bobqat.com/AeroBob/American_Heroes/AS350_B2__N105TV__KING_TV_5__BFI__6-10-06__04.jpg

[More Payload]

There's a white band around the tailboom just forward of the h-stab and it looks like the last two letters on the tailboom are WS so it could be NEWS.

[HeliNomad]

Eyewitness says that it landed on the helipad and it was "teetering" close to the edge. Then took off again but was having "pitch control issues". It could be hydraulic failure....

[AviGuy]

2 killed as KOMO News helicopter crashes beside Space Needle


2 killed as KOMO News helicopter crashes near Space Needle | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/News-helicopter-crashes-burns-beside-Space-Needle-250790281.html)

[AviGuy]

KOMO is reporting that this is is a loaner aircraft, their's is down for maintenance.
2 killed as KOMO News helicopter crashes near Space Needle | Local & Regional | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/News-helicopter-crashes-burns-beside-Space-Needle-250790281.html)

[SASless]

The involved aircraft is a 350 on temporary assignment while the 407 normally used is in for maintenance.

2 Dead After News Helicopter Crashes Outside TV Station « CBS Seattle (http://seattle.cbslocal.com/2014/03/18/news-helicopter-crashes-near-space-needle/)


http://www.komonews.com/news/local/News-helicopter-crashes-burns-beside-Space-Needle-250790281.html

[FairWeatherFlyer]

FWIW, Reuters have a witness report, "It looked like it got hung up on some cables, ..."

News helicopter crashes in downtown Seattle, killing two | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/18/us-usa-helicopter-seattle-idUSBREA2H1C420140318)

[mickjoebill]

Sad to lose two dedicated media guys.
It is regrettable that an occupant of the car suffered burns to 20% of his body.

By my account of TV film and photography accidents from 2000 to 2013 this is the sole incident where a member of the public has been injured.


Mickjoebill

[Art of flight]

When the eye witness reports 'hung up on cables' could this be confused with a fuel hose. I have no knowledge of this specific operation, but do know of pilots (colleagues) who have taken off with such things as fuel hose, ground power cable, groundcrewman! still attached. I would not have thought cables would be in the vicinity of the elevated pad unless as some sort of personnel safety barrier?

[SilsoeSid]

Art, going to google maps street view and looking up at the pad, it could mean the sourrounding barrier that looks as though it stays in place during heliops.

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=space+needle&hl=en-GB&ll=47.619812,-122.348579&spn=0.000001,0.00053&gbv=2&fb=1&gl=uk&hq=space+needle&hnear=space+needle&cid=15792901685599310349&t=h&z=21&layer=c&cbll=47.619812,-122.348835&panoid=C9ZX2NQebDhYGT_Yo479sA&cbp=12,168.07,,0,-29.74

http://www.panewz.com/sites/default/files/webform/004%20Seattle%20chopper%20crash%20Seabec%20photo%20March%201 7.jpg

[Art of flight]

Thanks Sid, Guess I expected to see something akin to the lowering type of cable barrier surrounding the back of a ship.

[TacomaSailor]

Seattle PI (newspaper web site) is reporting:

"Gary Knapinski, a construction worker from Snohomish, said he was walking to his car when the helicopter dove to the ground.

A panhandler was shouting to him over the roar of the chopper taking off, Knapinski recalled. The next moment, silence descended as the helicopter's engine quit.

As he looked on, he watched the helicopter's nose drop as it fell."

Helicopter crash kills 2 near Space Needle in Seattle - seattlepi.com (http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Helicopter-crash-kills-2-near-Space-Needle-in-5327567.php)

[SilsoeSid]

The National Transportation Safety Board, whose investigators were at the scene, planned to clear the wreckage by Tuesday evening and issue a preliminary report in five days, said Dennis Hogenson, acting deputy NTSB chief for the western Pacific region.

"We're looking at the environment, the weather, the pilot, the operators in the helicopter, as well as the helicopter itself, as well as the background of all of the above," he said.

The helicopter, a 2003 Eurocopter AS350, appeared to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed, he said. He added that the helicopter had been flown on Tuesday morning and was brought back to the downtown area to refuel.

Counter clockwise, looking at the ac from above or below?

Counter clockwise looking from below would be nose to the right, which in a 350 would indicate an engine problem :confused:

[AnFI]

more likely to be tail rotor knocked off on the barrier.
very unlikely to be the engine.

[chopjock]

Counter clockwise, looking at the ac from above or below?

That's almost as bad as saying "The car took a left turn, viewed from the front or the rear?" :)

[AnFI]

SS is quite right clockwise and anti clockwise are deficient descriptors, similar to 'left' and 'right' which lack the reference provided in the terms 'port' and 'starboard'. CCWWVfA and CWWVfA sounds fine in Welsh

[SilsoeSid]

Counter clockwise, looking at the ac from above or below?
That's almost as bad as saying "The car took a left turn, viewed from the front or the rear?"

chop jock. If you are driving a car in reverse and told to turn left, which way do you turn?
As the reported comment was "appeared" to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed", we'll have to know where the person that made the comment was looking from before rubbishing it won't we. :rolleyes:

When you're flying your remote helicopters around, looking from below, when you yaw to the left it will appear to rotate anti clockwise. However if you were controlling it from above, it will appear to rotate clockwise. So, if I was stood next to you and asked you to turn your model anti clockwise, which way would you turn it?

[chopjock]

chop jock. If you are driving a car in reverse and told to turn left, which way do you turn?

The car's left.

As the reported comment was "appeared" to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed", we'll have to know where the person that made the comment was looking from before rubbishing it won't we.

If I saw a helicopter rotate counterclockwise, it would still be counterclockwise from which ever angle my point of view was. (I can work that out by looking at the nose).

When you're flying your remote helicopters around, looking from below, when you yaw to the left it will appear to rotate anti clockwise

No. it will be yawing nose left. (which if anything viewed from below is clockwise) but actually I would describe it as rotating anticlockwise.

So, if I was stood next to you and asked you to turn your model anti clockwise, which way would you turn it?

Left. We are talking about the nose of the fuselage.

As with almost every vehicle, left is nose left. And if it rotates, left is anticlockwise,(just like the steering wheel of a car) which is how any intelligent person would see it.

[SilsoeSid]

If I saw a helicopter rotate counterclockwise, it would still be counterclockwise from which ever angle my point of view was. (I can work that out by looking at the nose).

Aah choppy, I thought you'd find this hard to understand, let me try to make it even more simple for you;

Place a piece of blue tack on the top of your mobile phone, to represent the front/nose.
Hold your mobile phone in front of you, about chest level.
Rotate it clockwise.
Keeping the plane of rotation horizontal, continue to rotate the phone and raise the phone above your head.

Please now look up at the phone and tell us the phones apparent direction of rotation.

[chopjock]

Please now look up at the phone and tell us the phones apparent direction of rotation.

In the real world, there is an applied standard. For example a screw usually tightens in a clockwise direction. Rotor head rotation is described as viewed from above. Aircraft yawing left as viewed from being the right way up and looking forward. Not outside looking in and up side down.

So I do not see your point of view.

[SilsoeSid]

So, if I was stood next to you and asked you to turn your model anti clockwise, which way would you turn it?
Left. We are talking about the nose of the fuselage.

Choppy, choppy, choppy, what are you like?

If your model aircraft was below our eye level and you turned it anti clockwise, the nose would indeed need to go to the left …
… however, if your model ac was above our eye level, lets say in a 20ft hover and you were to turn it anti clockwise, you'd have to move the nose to the right.

[Old Age Pilot]

Sid & Chop,

You both have a point. The key is the applied standard. If the eye witness was a helicopter professional he may say it was rotating "clockwise" according to the applied standard. But if the witness was a complete layman he will say it how he saw it; "anticlockwise".

But don't let me interrupt, boys.
Carry on :ok:

[chopjock]

If your model aircraft was below our eye level and you turned it anti clockwise, the nose would indeed need to go to the left …
… however, if your model ac was above our eye level, lets say in a 20ft hover and you were to turn it anti clockwise, you'd have to move the nose to the right.

Well of course I can see that. But if a helicopter is rotating anticlockwise and climbs from a starting point below you to a point higher, it's still rotating the same way, it's just your view point that is changing. So hence my point about a universal standard.
It is generally recognised that a helicopter yawing left is rotating in an anticlockwise direction.

[SilsoeSid]

In the real world, there is an applied standard. For example a screw usually tightens in a clockwise direction. Rotor head rotation is described as viewed from above. Aircraft yawing left as viewed from being the right way up and looking forward. Not outside looking in and up side down.
So I do not see your point of view.

My point is that if the statement came from a by-standing Joe Public type person, looking up at the aircraft as they heard the bang, they would describe the rotation as they saw it.

"In the real world, there is an applied standard."
The 'applied standard' of describing directions of rotation that you mention, can only be relevant if the eye witness describing it, knows what the standard is.

"For example a screw usually tightens in a clockwise direction."
Don't do much car mechanics then do you? A right handed screw/bolt has to be turned the 'wrong' way if you come at it from a different angle!

"Rotor head rotation is described as viewed from above. Aircraft yawing left as viewed from being the right way up and looking forward. Not outside looking in and up side down."
As far as Joe Public is concerned, the ac appeared to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed"
This would mean that the aircraft from their view point appeared to rotate anticlockwise, regardless of your applied standard that as I mentioned, they might not know about.

[SilsoeSid]

But if a helicopter is rotating anticlockwise and climbs from a starting point below you to a point higher, it's still rotating the same way, it's just your view point that is changing.

By jove, I think its finally got there :ugh:

If you read my initial post on this before jumping straight in with the attack as you tend to do, you would have understood the quote from the link;
"The helicopter, a 2003 Eurocopter AS350, appeared to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed,"

… and in turn you would have understood my post of "Counter clockwise, looking at the ac from above or below?"


Still, don't let reading posts and trying to understand them get in the way of a good argument eh! :ok:

[chopjock]

That's almost as bad as saying "The car took a left turn, viewed from the front or the rear?"

That was hardly an attack.
But if you want to think the car turned right just because you saw it from in front, that's up to you.:)

[Gemini Twin]

My wife says that "right" is "the other left".

[Art of flight]

Was once with an FAC (forward air controller) attempting to contol a USAF A10 on to a target. He gave the instruction 'right 9 o'clock!'. The young man in the A10 was ahead of the game (and us) as he inverted and then asked which way?

[SilsoeSid]

Anyone able to directly control an A-10 is a better man than I Gunga Din!

As soon as they left the IP, all you could do was confirm they were looking at the correct target, clear them in and get the flask out. They seemed to enjoy taking out the Porsches at various points around the Nürburgring on one particular exercise, and the enemy command bunker cunningly disguised as the Mercedes building, took quite a hammering that day …

… Clear Dry! :ok:

[SilsoeSid]

Just a mo choppy old bean, it was you that came out with the worlds worst analogy in this thread of; "That's almost as bad as saying "The car took a left turn, viewed from the front or the rear?" "!
… especially as you make it clear that even in reverse you would turn left when told to turn vehicle left regardless of the viewpoint.

Are you a retired AFV recognition instructor with a garden full of silver birch trees and models of T-64's, with the searchlight (if fitted) on the right side of the barrel, 'when viewed from the front' :8
1 BR Corps Recognition Guide (http://www.thortrains.net/downloads/soviettanks88.pdf)

You seem to be going round in circles, however I'm just trying to work out in which apparent direction :p

[AnFI]

since it was probably due to the tail rotor being disabled by the fence then the observer must have been applying the 'universal standard' :}

[Jack Carson]

I can’t believe that this forum has focused on the response of the machine and not the very probable cause. Once again, an AS-350 crashed and the cause is unknown and due to the resulting post crash fire we may never know the actual cause. Was this ship equipped with a single hydraulic system? If so, a hydraulic drive belt failure could possibly explain the erratic maneuvers and contact with the perimeter fence. The rest is just the result of a potentially survivable crash involving a not so survivable post crash fire.

[SilsoeSid]

I guess any damage to the barrier would be a good indicator!

Why is the barrier 'welded up'?

[CJ Romeo]

Have you guys looked at this roof on google earth?

The barriers are way out on rails much wider than the pad and the area around it.

But I'm not an aviation professional ( or amateur!) so it may still be tight.

From an engineers perspective, couldn't these be designed with say a 42 degree slope down off the pad for 3 metres then bring the balustrade back up to 1200mm, that way it would be below the level of the pad, but unless you're a free runner, you can't fall off it.

[rotorfan]

Sid said Why is the barrier 'welded up'?
The only time in my low hours I flew off a similar pinnacle landing pad, there was a barrier at the edge of the pad around the entire perimeter. I was cautioned to rise more than a normal hover before pushing over, or our flight would be quite short. It was there to prevent people from stepping off and soiling the pavement 50 feet below. A retractable barrier makes much sense for reducing the obstacles to flight, but I don't think the laws allow for it here. I can just see someone going over the side during the 2 minutes that the barrier is down for TO/Ldng, and lawyers cueing to sue for the barrier not being fixed.

[Gordy]

NTSB Prelim report (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140318X21532&key=1)

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA137
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, March 18, 2014 in Seattle, WA
Aircraft: EUROCOPTER AS 350 B2, registration: N250FB
Injuries: 2 Fatal,1 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On March 18, 2014, about 0740 Pacific daylight time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B2, N250FB, was destroyed when it impacted terrain following takeoff from the KOMO TV Heliport (WN16), Seattle, Washington. The helicopter was registered to, and operated by Helicopters Inc., Cahokia, Illinois, under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The commercial pilot and one passenger were fatally injured and one person, located in a stationary vehicle, was seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local repositioning flight that was originating at the time of the accident. The pilot's intended destination was the Renton Municipal Airport (RNT), Renton, Washington.

Multiple witnesses located adjacent to the accident site reported observing the helicopter lift off from the helipad and begin a counterclockwise rotation. The witnesses stated that the helicopter pitched downward, while continuing the counterclockwise rotation, and descended into an occupied vehicle and terrain near the intersection of 4th Avenue and Broad Street; postimpact fire ensued.

Preliminary review of three security camera recordings, provided by the Seattle Police Department, revealed that the helicopter initially landed at WN16. The videos depicted the helicopter stationary on the helipad for about 15 minutes prior to takeoff. Further review revealed during the takeoff sequence, the helicopter began rotating counterclockwise and ascending slightly in a near level attitude. The helicopter continued rotating counterclockwise for about 360 degrees of rotation before it pitched forward in a nose low attitude. The helicopter continued the counterclockwise rotation in a nose low attitude until it disappeared from the camera's field of view.

Examination of the accident site revealed that the helicopter came to rest on its right side, oriented on a magnetic heading of about 050 degrees. A vehicle located east of the main wreckage was fire damaged. Another vehicle, located immediately west of the main wreckage was oriented on a southerly heading and exhibited downward crushing of the roof and hatchback structure. All major structural components of the helicopter were located in the immediate area of the main wreckage. Wreckage debris was located within an approximate 340 foot radius to the main wreckage.

The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Various components were retained by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge for further examination.

[chopjock]

Spinning counterclockwise suggests tail rotor fault. Did this model have the throttle control twist grip on the lever or in a silly position on the cockpit floor/roof? If so, BAD DESIGN.

[HeliNomad]

B2 have the silly lever on the floor. CC-spin does make tail rotor failure a culprit.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Further review revealed during the takeoff sequence, the helicopter began rotating counterclockwise and ascending slightly in a near level attitude. The helicopter continued rotating counterclockwise for about 360 degrees of rotation before it pitched forward in a nose low attitude. The helicopter continued the counterclockwise rotation in a nose low attitude until it disappeared from the camera's field of view.

How many of you pprune experts argued about the direction of rotation?

Any of you naysayers care to admit how wrong you were?

[SilsoeSid]

Boudreaux Bob
Further review revealed during the takeoff sequence, the helicopter began rotating counterclockwise and ascending slightly in a near level attitude. The helicopter continued rotating counterclockwise for about 360 degrees of rotation before it pitched forward in a nose low attitude. The helicopter continued the counterclockwise rotation in a nose low attitude until it disappeared from the camera's field of view.
How many of you pprune experts argued about the direction of rotation?

Any of you naysayers care to admit how wrong you were?

I notice Bob, that you didn't make any comment when the discussion was going on, but now the initial report is out, you have voiced a firm stance :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of being wrong or right, because if you actually read the very first comment on the direction of rotation you would have read;

The helicopter, a 2003 Eurocopter AS350, appeared to have rotated counterclockwise before it crashed,

The fact of the matter is that the direction of rotation would appear to be different depending on where the person making that comment was viewing the ac from. I think that point was cleared up.

Now that we have a report, a report using a 'universal standard' (although the aircraft yawed to the left might be a clearer description) can we can now assume a tail problem for whatever reason?


Anyway, there's no mention of any contact with the barrier.
Looking at it from a different angle, it doesn't appear to be too high in relation to the pad surface;

http://media.komonews.com/images/660*371/140318_crashed_helo_2a.jpg

[turboshaft]

Once again, an AS-350 crashed and the cause is unknown and due to the resulting post crash fire we may never know the actual cause.

Oh goody, a conspiracy theory. MH370 was beginning to disappoint (well, other than the hard-core tinfoil hat folk (http://www.boeinghazi.com)).

What are all these other cases of "unknown cause" AS350 crashes that you're referring to?

[AnFI]

... well I got it the right (or should i say Starboard:p) way around.

[Boudreaux Bob]

The fact of the matter is that the direction of rotation would appear to be different depending on where the person making that comment was viewing the ac from.

That is a bunch of BS.....the frame of reference determines the direction of rotation and that is always the Longitudinal axis of the helicopter centered upon the Mast on single rotor helicopters as is the aircraft in question.

Have you never been involved in an accident investigation?

One uses a standard reference datum for the aircraft.

Seems you are very secure in your opinions.

Assuming is always a dangerous enterprise but I see you are quite comfortable in taking risks.

[SilsoeSid]

Bob, if you don't mind me calling you Bob, please read the previous posts on the matter and you'll learn that we weren't discussing assumption, but apparency :ugh:


Assuming is always a dangerous enterprise but I see you are quite comfortable in taking risks.

I'd love to know where that came from and what risks those may be. Besides, if you have a problem with me, text me. If you don't have my number then that means you don't know me well enough to have a problem with me.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Sid,


Now that we have a report, a report using a 'universal standard' (although the aircraft yawed to the left might be a clearer description) can we can now assume a tail problem for whatever reason?



I took no position on the matter as I was not privy to the facts.

Just as you and so many were not.

I wisely elected to wait until reliable info came into the public realm.

You and others did not and continue to make assumptions based on mere speculation as evidence by the quote above.

I merely pointed out those facts to you.

It would appear you have made yourself an "Expert" with scant basis for doing so.

Deal with facts and make far fewer assumptions and you might one day appear to be a credible commentator of events.

[SilsoeSid]

Deal with facts and make far fewer assumptions and you might one day appear to be a credible commentator of events.

Bob;
When will you start reading threads before posting on them?
I made no assumptions, I highlighted the fact that the eye witness stated that the aircraft appeared to rotate counter clockwise. We don't know where that eye witness was standing and we certainly don't know if they were using a standard reference because of the use of the phrase 'appeared to'.

Because this direction of rotation was apparent to an individual, the true direction of rotation wasn't necessarily the one described. Just because someone sees an object appear to do something, doesn't mean it did!

http://www.thirdeyehealth.com/images/optical-illusions-2.gif


Has 'Ye Olde Pilot' been resurrected?

[JimEli]

Originally Posted by Jack Carson
Once again, an AS-350 crashed and the cause is unknown and due to the resulting post crash fire we may never know the actual cause.


Oh goody, a conspiracy theory. MH370 was beginning to disappoint (well, other than the hard-core tinfoil hat folk).

What are all these other cases of "unknown cause" AS350 crashes that you're referring to?


Here are just 3 I'm familiar with:

Vortex ring state blamed (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20070530X00664&ntsbno=DFW07GA119&akey=1)

No conclusion here (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20090924X34441&ntsbno=WPR09FA464&akey=1)

Pilot error (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20100206X10511&ntsbno=CEN10FA113&akey=1)

[turboshaft]

Jim,

Of those three, only one (N103LN (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/GenPDF.aspx?id=WPR09FA464&rpt=fi)) has an undetermined cause, despite "Examination of the helicopter control system [having] revealed no anomalies and all system components functioned appropriately when tested."

N851BP (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/GenPDF.aspx?id=DFW07GA119&rpt=fi) was attributed to "The pilot's encounter with a vortex ring state and his inability to maintain control of the helicopter."

N157BC (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/GenPDF.aspx?id=CEN10FA113&rpt=fi) was attributed to "The pilot's loss of situational awareness resulting in CFIT."

It's understandable that we as pilots are suspicious of any accident blamed on pilot error - especially in fatals, where the pilot is not there to defend himself - but studies have shown time and time again that pilot judgement & actions are factors in >80% of accidents.

Back to the AS350, if you have stats that show the AStar has suffered proportionally more undetermined accidents than other types, then that would be worth sharing. Until then I refuse to buy in to the conspiracy angle.

It would surely be worth focusing more on the question of whether the EC130 T2's "crashworthy" fuel tank will be carried over to the AS350?

[Arnie Madsen]

.
The fuselage looked intact and probably survivable if not for the fire . Sad
.

XQK9rJFz5gM

[Jack Carson]

My concern was not to establish that a conspiracy theory exists around the AS-350 and potential safety issues. However, during the short period that I was provided with an opportunity to operate both the AS-350 B-2 and B-3 in the Phoenix area we experienced two B-3 engine roll backs in flight and one crash in a strip mall. The engine roll backs were at that time never fully explained. I am not sure what the final investigation of the strip mall crash determined.

The attached video further explains my concern for the aircraft’s response to a hydraulic system failure.
(Helicopter Crashes into Building TV News Chopper Crashes Brooklyn New York City NYC Hits Apartment - YouTube)

[JimEli]

[thread_hijack_on]

@turboshaft:


Of those three, only one (N103LN) has an undetermined cause…


True, only one was "officially" undetermined. However, I am very familiar (even peripherally involved) with the accident investigation conducted on the aforementioned N851BP. There were many issues there and the NTSB calling it an encounter with vortex ring with resultant loss of control is a stretch beyond reality.

Read this very detailed Canadian incident: http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/aviation/2005/a05f0025/a05f0025.pdf (It’s not difficult to find more examples).

I was an Astar instructor for over 15 years. I’m a fan of the Astar, but I am aware of several incident/accidents that in my opinion are not conclusive "pilot error". No conspiracies, just a belief that there is some sort of insidious undetected failure mode involved in some of these incidents/accidents.

BTW, it is impossible to derive stats like you require since the NTSB will ALWAYS determine a "cause" in an accident.

[/thread_hijack_off]

[Gordy]

Jack
The attached video further explains my concern for the aircraft’s response to a hydraulic system failure.

There were other issues with this incident that had nothing to do with the aircraft. A hydraulic failure in an Astar can get your attention, but it is quite easy to handle......and the expectation is that all trained persons could land form one.

[mickjoebill]

The fuselage looked intact and probably survivable if not for the fire . Sad

What is sad that from 100ft there is no guarantee of survival even without a fire.
From 300 ft it has proven fatal is likely (EC130 onto beach), even with so-called crash seats.

What is the crash worthiness of AS350 plastic tanks compared to bladders?

[Fun Police]

i might be incorrect, but i had thought that 350's generally did not burn up like this. the fuel tanks are well protected by structural members that are quite substantial.
of course, it is a possibility that the fuel in the tank of the vehicle it ended up on top of might have had something to do with it.

prepared to sit corrected...

[ReverseFlight]

Assuming it was LTE or damage to tail rotor, the AS350 B2 is very difficult to recover from at low height due to the E-gate throttle located between the front seats. Basically you need a third hand for the throttle because it's not the twist grip variety.

If it were hydraulic failure, again it could be a handful at low level and no airspeed. Due to the fuselage rotations before the crash, I'm guessing it wasn't rubber band failure.

My 2 cents.

[Gordy]

If it were hydraulic failure, again it could be a handful at low level and no airspeed. Due to the fuselage rotations before the crash, I'm guessing it wasn't rubber band failure.

A handful...NOT. Assuming it was a rubber band failure, the accumulators would be fully charged and therefore one should get a minimum of three FULL movements on the cyclic before the controls even get stiff. Even then, the Astar can be hovered hydraulics off----admittedly it is tough.....but can be done.

What would cause a rotation...? Not following your logic here.....

[helmet fire]

Has anyone got the footage to show?
I understood it was caught on the TV network security camera.

[mickjoebill]

i might be incorrect, but i had thought that 350's generally did not burn up like this
I watched one burn after a take off mishap.

Tank is made of thick plastic, is it polycarbonate or something similar that is exotic and strong?

From my study of 147 aerial filming accidents my feeling is that the as350 frame does not do as well as other frames in protecting the occupants from crush injuries or ejection.
So fire is less an issue as occupants are probably already deceased.
I say probably as not all coroners reports are to hand.
If anyone wants the accident list for further research send me a PM


Mickjoebill

[AnFI]

RevFlight:
Agree Engine twist grip should be on the lever.

Although lowering the lever first is the best action for T/R loss (height permitting) (ref: Brazillian ENG)

Is the AS350B4 a crash worthy tank where the AS350B3 is not? (Confirmation sought)