RAF rotary crash Snowdonia

[fantom]

BBC reporting an RAF helicopter involved in an 'incident' on Snowdonia. Smoke reported near the summit.

[StopStart]

Reports of an incident involving an RAF cab in Snowdonia. Fingers crossed crew ok.

'RAF helicopter fire' on Snowdonia mountain peak
'RAF helicopter fire' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-37023986)

[Wokkafans]

Four people on board Griffin helicopter in Snowdonia incident all safely accounted for, Maritime & Coastguard Agency say.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpbAXoDXYAA8s6F.jpg

Snowdonia 'RAF helicopter fire' - blaze on peak - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-37023986?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central)

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpbEVz-WcAA2yan.jpg

[Bollotom]

Thankfully all six accounted for and safe.

[Wokkafans]

Duplicate post

[MATELO]

Forced landing due to eng snags. Caught fire after everybody had got out.

[side salad]

Hope all are safe. Thoughts with all.

[Hueymeister]

Phew....good news.

[fantom]

Excellent.

[MPN11]

Good news for those on board.

[oldbeefer]

Interesting spot for a recovery!

[unmanned_droid]

A job for a Chinook?

[FlapJackMuncher]

Good to know all are safe.
Down to 3 Griffins now?

[Wander00]

How did emergency services get there.........

[Tourist]

You've got to be quite concerned about the situation before that particular spot becomes a suitable landing spot in an emergency.

Well into the "land immediately" bracket.

Well played.

[Training Risky]

Ah, happy days of flying around mountain bowls and parking on ridges up in the hills.

Still glad I didn't go SAR though.

[VX275]

Interesting spot for a recovery!
Likely to just go down as an entry in the next edition of 'High Ground Wrecks'

[Davey Emcee]

"Hot and High" ?

[Evalu8ter]

Made a nice wind finding source though!!

Glad all are OK - good job they didn't try to carry the snag home by the looks of it....

[oldbeefer]

"Hot and High"?

It is now!

[scout]

Safe?...Good!

[KPax]

I assume the SI will be run by DHFS rather than Valley, some Shawbury studes might be looking at Crash Guard tonight.

[2Planks]

More pics from the BBC:
RAF helicopter fire on Snowdonia peak after technical issue - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-37023986)


The third one down shows its not going to 'buff out', just a Chinny lift to the scrappies.


Well done to the team, a decision well made and well executed. Hopefully, they will all get to the bar tonight at Valley to reflect on a job well done.

[NutLoose]

So that'll be 5 main rotor blades, 7 long range fuel tanks, 18 strops, 4 winches and a multitude of other smaller items written off inventory then :p

Glad everyone is OK and as for buffing out, granite is pretty resilient and a good rain shower and you will never know it was ever there.:O

I hope they were able to drum up enough cash between them to get the train back down the mountain, or some marshmallows to toast. :E

[Taff Missed]

"Forced landing due to eng snags".

Must have been pretty serious engine snags to cause it to catch fire and burn out. There's two engine fire bottles plus the cabin bottles.

[KPax]

RAF helicopter fire on Snowdonia peak after technical issue - BBC News (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-37023986)

[Lonewolf_50]

The news report/MOD says "five" but this picture shows six.
EDIT: BBC news link was updated, so question answered, thanks all.

[Tashengurt]

Doesn't look like they'll need anything as big as a Chinook to get the remains off.

[crablab]

News from 'on the ground' (Welsh friend) is it's a Cobham Helicopter Services chopper contracted by the MOD.

[Wrathmonk]

Lonewolf_50

From the BBC link...

The MoD said five people - four military and one civilian - were on the helicopter at the time, while another person involved in the training exercise was already on the mountain.

It said the exercise involved the helicopter picking people up and putting them back down.

[serf]

Didn't see them carrying bags.....

[airsound]

Lonewolf, crablab, Wrathmonk

There were 4 mil peeps onboard + one Cobham. There was one other on the ground.

It was indeed a Cobham Helo Services cab, like all the Griffins.

There will be an SI, rather than a civil inquiry, according to the RAF.

Nobody (neither RAF nor Cobham) seemed to know whether there was an FDR/CVR on board

airsound

[Davef68]

There will be an SI, rather than a civil inquiry, according to the RAF.

airsound
Makes sense, the aircraft is operated on the military register.

As for lifting the remains off, looks like you could do it with another Griffin! :-)

[NutLoose]

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/217C/production/_90727580_crashsitepic.jpg

From Beeb site

[MPN11]

Deffo Cat 5. :(

Still, easier to replace an airframe than the people, so still a 'good' result.

[Martin the Martian]

At least the crew didn't have to worry about getting a fire started to keep warm. And with a pall of smoke rising from the top, it probably didn't take long to find them either.

Though I do agree that recovery of the wreckage will be an interesting one for the crash'n smash team.

[Onceapilot]

Just pleased there seems to have been no injuries. :)

OAP

[Lyneham Lad]

Be interesting to read what the root cause of what seems to have been a sudden and intense conflagration that the on-board extinguishers could not deal with.

Good to read that no-one was harmed.

[NutLoose]

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/17E15/production/_90731879_wreckage.jpg

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D307/production/_90732045_wreckage2.jpg

More on the Beeb site from the Llanberis Mountain Rescue

I don't envy them trying to figure out the root cause from that.

[oldbeefer]

NutLoose - i guess the crew reports will give a pretty good idea?

[NutLoose]

Yes I agree, it will point you in the direction of where to look, just a shame so much is ash and may have destroyed the cause. Hopefully they will be able to ascertain what triggered the events that unfolded to prevent any reoccurrences.

I would love to see how they go about it, because would removing the remains to a site to examine them lose evidence when ash is moved? As the ash may indicate sources of fire etc, mind you would bad weather also destroy evidence? Fascinating stuff.

[oldbeefer]

Having flown that airframe numerous times, itching to find out what happened!

[airsound]

So, oldbeefer, in view of your familiarity with this particular cab, can we take it that, despite the RAF's and Cobham's lack of assurance, it did not have FDR/CVR?

airsound

[Just This Once...]

Some rather rusty metalwork very close to the scene. A hazard such as that could be difficult to see when putting the aircraft down in a hurry. I wonder if there were other bits of metalwork at the accident site.

http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/D307/production/_90732045_wreckage2.jpg

[Al R]

Not much margin for error. Identifying and approaching that peak, only one chance to put it down successfully I imagine - coolheads and teamwork vital. You'd hate to be stuck in the back though. Any studes on board? Great learning opportunity!

[The Sultan]

All Canadian Griffens have a CV/FDR and an early generation HUMS. Bell has two CV/FDR and a modern HUMS kits available. I only know the HUMS is not fitted.

The Sultan

[cornish-stormrider]

Fookit, crew is safe.....
Anything else is a bonus
To the bar chaps - youse are buying

I'd hate to be the linies on this one.....

[oldbeefer]

So, oldbeefer, in view of your familiarity with this particular cab, can we take it that, despite the RAF's and Cobham's lack of assurance, it did not have FDR/CVR?

airsound

7 yrs out of date, but back then there was no FDR, just a HUMS. There was talk of a simple CVR based on a solid state memory, but don't think either would survive a fire like that.

[airsound]

Ta, oldbeefer

airsound

[WASALOADIE]

The DHFS Griffins (412's) do have a CVR.

A while back when trying to investigate the cause of an engine that had been overtemp'd, they pulled the CVR. It records approx 4 hours of intercom and cabin sounds IIRC. To my knowledge it doesn't have a FDR.

[megan]

Having thousands of hours in the machine I'm at a loss to understand what may have brought about an accident such as this. Will be interesting to learn. With tongue in cheek, some one drop his cigar, or a mobile phone decide to have a melt down?

[spargazer]

So that'll be 5 main rotor blades, 7 long range fuel tanks, 18 strops, 4 winches and a multitude of other smaller items written off inventory then :p

Glad everyone is OK and as for buffing out, granite is pretty resilient and a good rain shower and you will never know it was ever there.:O

I hope they were able to drum up enough cash between them to get the train back down the mountain, or some marshmallows to toast. :E
It was on "Yr Aran" not Snowdon, so they had a downhill walk, it was a nice day though. A FWD could just about get up there. I have been there and done it on foot.

[phiggsbroadband]

Looks like they are still removing melted aluminium this Tuesday, if the Notams are anything to go by.
Saw a Chinook, with underslung hook mechanism, returning towards Shawbury or Cosford a couple of days ago.
.

[GipsyMagpie]

emergency airworthiness directive (http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/EASA_AD_2016_0136_E_superseded.pdf/EAD_2016-0136-E_1)

Seems the similar AB412 is having trouble with it's combining gearbox - original EAD from before this accident.

[The Sultan]

Gypsy

It states the main transmission which is built by Leonardo or a sub for AB412's. B412's have Bell transmissions. No link.

The Sultan

[GipsyMagpie]

Gypsy

It states the main transmission which is built by Leonardo or a sub for AB412's. B412's have Bell transmissions. No link.

The Sultan

Ta. I knew someone would know.

[Hoots]

A good job by all involved getting it off of there, an interesting location, most importantly of course is that all crew got out safely.

[Shackman]

Following this accident, the skies round here have been extremely 'Griffin Free' until this evening - one airborne on what looks like an airtest. After an apparent grounding, any news yet on the original cause.

[MapleTopGun]

Any more speculation, or factual updates yet?

[Beancountercymru]

Update as requested

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-into-the-accident-involving-a-griffin-mk1-zj241-at-yr-aran-snowdonia-wales

[ShyTorque]

An interesting report.

The points made about the Griffin having been habitually flown beyond its limits w.r.t. "aerobatics prohibited" are highly relevant to other recent discussions, following the publication of a video of the wingover manoeuvre flown in an AS355 just prior to landing.

Those saying no harm can be done to a helicopter by "aerobatics" (and what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre) might like to read up on this one and think again.

Thankfully, no-one was hurt but the story could have been very, very different.

[NutLoose]

Crikey, page 173
Bell design manouver limits 50 AOB and 15/30 down/up pitch were the maximum values considered for Certification
MOD applied limits 90 AOB and 90 pitch.

Those saying no harm can be done to a helicopter by "aerobatics" (and what constitutes an aerobatic manoeuvre) might like to read up on this one and think again.

I seem to remember in my past life the Lynx being demo'ed rolling, the first for its time, however I was also informed at the time the main rotor gearbox on it had to be replaced within 10 hours due to the stresses on it, whether correct i do not know, but at the time I was told that.

[dragartist]

I think 1.6.31 echos exactly what Tuc has been going on about for years on here.

i am wrestling with the term “casual factors”. Does not sound very casual to me.

[charliegolf]

They were causal factors.

CG

[tucumseh]

I think 1.6.31 echos exactly what Tuc has been going on about for years on here.

Nice to see current DG DSA disagreeing with his predecessors. Well said General. Now...do something about it.

[MPN11]

Wow, that took some [speed] reading! Good job by the SI, I think.

As ShyTorque notes above, the 'amendment' of operating limits (90º pitch v. design limit) was an eye-opener.

[Chugalug2]

Air Safety Management (or lack of!), pages 132 et sec, is worryingly familiar. Once again we find that most basic requirement of Flight Safety, a reliable and fully functioning reporting system, is conspicuous by its absence. SORs (or whatever we might call them these days) are essential for identifying possible problems so that they can thus be nipped in the bud before they become accidents. We have heard before on this forum how they were one of the first casualties of Haddon Cave's "Savings at the Cost of Safety" following the subversion of UK Military Air Safety by RAF VSOs. It seems that the RAF, the MAA, and the MOD have so far failed to rectify that damage. The result is the presence here of ever more UK Military Avoidable Air Accident threads. Mercifully this one merely cost treasure rather than life.

Regulation must be independent of the operator. Investigation must be independent of both operator and regulator. Until that happens the MAA will be committed to the falsehood in the Nimrod Report that Air Safety was compromised in the 90s rather than the 80s, and thus RAF VSOs were uninvolved. Until that bullet is bitten we must expect more avoidable accidents and more needless loss of life.

[Bing]

Once again we find that most basic requirement of Flight Safety, a reliable and fully functioning reporting system, is conspicuous by its absence. SORs (or whatever we might call them these days) are essential for identifying possible problems so that they can thus be nipped in the bud before they become accidents.


Either you're misreading it, or my inbox is full of imaginary occurrence reports from across defence. They're even snappily titled Defence Air Safety Occurrence Reports...

[sycamore]

There must be a papertrail,showing `who,and why the RFM limits were changed...? Who signed off the RTS...? Was it QQ,or someone/somewhere else in MOD...?

[tucumseh]

Sycamore

The Assistant Chief of the Air Staff signs the RTS. The SI gets seriously mixed up in this area, saying the RTS used to be called the Military Aircraft Release. The first time it didn't matter. The second time it did, because it was trying to make sense of responsibilities and got it wrong.

Apart from ShyTorque's observations, what struck me most was the structural integrity discussion. The Panel seemed impressed that structural integrity was managed 'as far back as 1998'. I really think these Panels should be told to read the evidence to the Nimrod Review, at least. Prior to 1992 there was both a Fixed and Rotary Wing Structural Integrity Working Party; the latter chaired by Director Helicopter Projects. These were two of the four major committees that reported to the Defence Airworthiness Group. But then Rotary started doing its own thing, formed the Helicopter Airworthiness Management Group and structural integrity merely became a line item on the agenda. You can do this at a lower level on individual types, but it is a false economy when considering the entire rotary fleet. This background may have helped the Panel explain a few things; such as why the project team was non-complaint on structural integrity, risk recording and ageing aircraft audits, and major risks not tolerable and ALARP.

There's a one-liner (1.4.145) about both Bell and MoD declining to fund research into fatigue. I'd have liked to see a deeper discussion of this. I know what Bell would say, but what was MoD's reason? 'Affordability' is not a valid reason. 'Cost' doesn't explain why the task just didn't proceed. Did someone sign-off to say the risk had now reduced somehow?

A pretty good report, but all very familiar.

[Chugalug2]

Bing:-
Either you're misreading it, or my inbox is full of imaginary occurrence reports from across defence.

I don't think I've misread it, and the picture it paints is of a dysfunctional system that reports some of the occurrences some of the time. That may fill your inbox, but it doesn't serve the needs of Air Safety.

[Bing]

I don't think I've misread it, and the picture it paints is of a dysfunctional system that reports some of the occurrences some of the time. That may fill your inbox, but it doesn't serve the needs of Air Safety.

I think it would be fairer to say the system at DHFS was dysfunctional due to DASORs being introduced part way through a contract in addition to the contractor's existing reporting system. That's not true of most of the system, and I see far more platform's DASORs than I need to because I'm nosy, so I'd disagree that ASIMS doesn't serve the needs of Air Safety.
Of course DHFS had the problem that the contractor was responsible for a far greater proportion of the activity than in more front line operations, the MFTS contract should have had the requirement nailed in from the start.

[sycamore]

Tuc,,thanks for that; I`ve been unable to download the SI fully,only occasional pages,and lots of blank ones.

[[email protected]]

Personally, I think the manoeuvre limits can't just be a max pitch and roll figure - you can create more stress pulling up harshly to 30 deg nose up than you can pulling smoothly to 60 or even 90 - it is the rate of change that does the damage but that isn't factored in to the RFM/RTS.

Nothing wrong with 90/90 as pitch and roll limits - it is how you get there that creates the fatigue.

One solution would be to fit all helos with G meters so at least you have some empirical data to work from rather than just guesswork.

It is the sloping ground landings that will have caused the long term fatigue and the final act of landing out of limits with some less than perfect control inputs as the straw that broke the camel's back.