Emergency Helicopter crash in Italy

[Furia]

Not many detail available yet. The news talk about bad weather, fog in the area, 6 people on board, possible an ELT signaland the sound of an explosion
Emergency helicopter crashes near avalanche zone - The Local (http://www.thelocal.it/20170124/medical-helicopter-crashes-near-avalanche-zone)

[SilsoeSid]

Breaking News Central Italy - An emergency helicopter has fallen: still no break to the misfortune (http://www.emergency-live.com/en/news/breaking-news-central-italy-an-emergency-helicopter-has-fallen-still-no-break-to-the-misfortune/)

A 118 Emergency Helicopter of Abruzzo, an EC-KJT fell during the rescue of an injured at Campofelice, near L’Aquila. It supposed to fall from 600 metres height, but the announcement from Rai News 24 was not confirmed. The first rescue team from Penne has already left for the accident place.

The emergency helicopter was not coordinated by Civil Protection, but by the 118 rescue service. The helicopter was sent to rescue an injured at Campofelice. No news about wheather conditions, nor about the number of people involved.

tbc https://www.planespotters.net/Aviation_Photos/search.php?reg=EC-KJT tbc

[Aser]

RIP :-(

I delivered it to Spain from italy in 2007...
http://www.ddd.dgualdo.it/eckjt/eckjt-ama-001.jpg

[Aser]

:(
https://scontent.fmad3-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/16265793_10155327913079381_6148153055157185605_n.jpg?oh=83c9 fea96f6c9067abb3c140336e2213&oe=5904E07A

[minigundiplomat]

Sad news.


My condolences and thoughts are with the families of those lost helping others.

[skadi]

Doesnt look good :(

k0lqfkHdmD4

skadi

[Winnerhofer]

https://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/4920438-6-dead-helicopter-crash-central-italy.html#.1258-stage-hero1-4

[Vertical Freedom]

Rest in Peace

[9Aplus]

RIP
sad, very sad news :(

[rrekn]

Sounds like bad weather was the cause, but articles also mention a possible wire strike?


Emergency helicopter crashes near L'Aquila killing all six on board, including two Hotel Rigopiano rescuers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/helicopter-crashes-mountains-central-italy-six-people-board/)


My prayers are with the crew, their families and colleagues.

[henra]

Sounds like bad weather was the cause, but articles also mention a possible wire strike.



If you look at the wreckage path in the video this one has written CFIT all over it. After initial impact the wreckage continued for quite a distance uphill a steep slope. Must have been quite high horizontal and low to no vertical energy impact.
Doesn't really look like wire strike.

[evil7]

I wonder why the TR blades look more or less undamaged.

[jimf671]

Certainly looks like the ground came up rather than the aircraft went down.

[212man]

Sounds like bad weather was the cause, but articles also mention a possible wire strike?


Emergency helicopter crashes near L'Aquila killing all six on board, including two Hotel Rigopiano rescuers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/24/helicopter-crashes-mountains-central-italy-six-people-board/)


My prayers are with the crew, their families and colleagues.
I'm pretty sure the weather was blameless....

[noooby]

evil 7, probably because they didn't hit anything. Tailboom came to rest upright, with (compared to the cabin) very little damage.

And from those grainy photo's, I wouldn't be betting that there is no damage on them, perhaps a Damper pulled out, or cracks in the skin. Who knows.

[Furia]

Most likely this helicopter droped vertically with almost 0 horizontal speed.
The wreackage is concentrated in one spot, the Gearbox and blades have almost not displaced from their original possition and the traces you see on the snow going downhill are produced by the rescue team coming from the road just downhill and not by the helicopter. If the helicopter would have impacted folowwing that trace, the fuselage would be oriented in the other direction and the nose would be real buried on the slope.
The tail boom is aligned with the fuselage and fractures are observed to be apparently related to vertical impact forces that sheared the tailbom partially
The wreakage is consistent with a high vertical speed almost 0 horizontal speed impact.
The thing that calls my attention is that the blades appear to have been severelz destroyed and on the picture I fail to see most of them or fragments of them so makes me think about the possibility the rotor may have impacted the mountain wall previously. However this is just an hypotesis based on the poor resolution pictures available.

[NRDK]

Why did the helo 'drop' vertically (with decent rpm given state of MR blades)

You really think so soon after the crash that those little specks of the rescue team made all that debris mess down slope?

Have you attended many aircraft accidents (god forbid) and do you actually fly or have flown a 139?

Henra in an above post is on the mark with his call.

A tragedy in awful circumstances, that shouldn't happen in such a capable helicopter when used to its full potential.

[Furia]

Why did the helo 'drop' vertically (with decent rpm given state of MR blades)

You really think so soon after the crash that those little specks of the rescue team made all that debris mess down slope?

Have you attended many aircraft accidents (god forbid) and do you actually fly or have flown a 139?

Henra in an above post is on the mark with his call.

A tragedy in awful circumstances, that shouldn't happen in such a capable helicopter when used to its full potential.

I have flown that very helicopter EC-KJT in Spain years ago, been doing SAR in 139 for a decade and I have 2 University Courses in Aircraft Accident Investigation.
All I mention here is pure speculation based on the pictures available and does not pretend to be a technical analysis, however some relevant facts appear evident without too much analysis.
It seem obvious to me that the helicopter was not flying uphill. Impact marks and fuselage orientation show different.
Debris print on ground suggests a high vertical impact with not much horizontal speed. The debris on the slope is the path used by rescueres to access the crash site compounded by helicopter fluids and some parts that may have drift down the slope by gravity.
I do say this here because this is a rummors forum and I am in no way producing a "accident technical report" of this. I have only seen one picture of the crash and the avilable video. So take it with a pintch of salt
Withouth more data this is the fast initial idea that comes to my mind. So take it as it is, pure speculation.
if you have more solid data to sustain a CFIT with horizontal speed, I am all ears.

[212man]

I would say it looks exactly like CFIT, and the smear on the snow came from the impact. Here's one that hit the ground at 125 kts - look familiar?

http://news.images.itv.com/image/file/359545/image_update_img.jpg
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/73591000/jpg/_73591406_1094ac85-31f8-46ad-bda1-83178543728b.jpg

[RVDT]

Well that changes my perspective on accident reports.

I will look out for the ones with Furias name at the bottom.

Then look for a large sack of salt.

Just goes to show that there is a huge difference between "education" and "experience". Have you ever been to an aircraft accident?

Come back here when you have scraped about 20 or so off the hill and put them on a trailer.

Otherwise just more meaningless drivel and noise.

Just sayin'

[Furia]

I would say it looks exactly like CFIT, and the smear on the snow came from the impact. Here's one that hit the ground at 125 kts - look familiar?
So the aircraft flas flying uphill in a +45º slope. Crashed and turned around perfectly 180º to point with the nose where he was coming from? Or it was flying backwards?
What flying path you suggest he wes flying to leave that trace in the snow? Upslope?

[Non-PC Plod]

Why is everyone so confrontational on here? Been taking steroids?

[212man]

So the aircraft flas flying uphill in a +45º slope. Crashed and turned around perfectly 180º to point with the nose where he was coming from? Or it was flying backwards?

Did you actually look at the photos I showed? Having re-checked the accident report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/56162ac0e5274a625100000f/Agusta_Westland_AW139_G-LBAL_10-15.pdf), I see that it hit the ground at 90 kts and 25 degrees nose down - so, similar to flying level into a slope. Yes, the wreckage has ended up pointing in the opposite direction to the travel at impact. The fuselage absorbs most of the energy and the tail boom 'flops' over with insufficient energy to cause much damage.

[Furia]

Sorry I do not think the dynamics and forces that apply to crashing into a +45º slope are the same as flying into a flat field no matter what was the helicopter attitude at the moment. For me those are different scenarios.
I do not agree with your theory that after the impact the full helicopter rotated 180º. Cockpit remains are properly aligned facing front. Gearbox is in the proximity of its natural location and the tail is fairly in good condition.
It is not the same to make a 180º turn into a flat field than into a steep slope.
In any case I have already said, what I have said is pure speculation. Hopefully having both FDR and CVR recovered we will know for certain what happened soon.
Just watching a picture and a video is not the way to analyze and accident. There is a ton of relevant data missing in order to elaborate a serious conclusion. However this is a rummors forum ;)

[falcon12]

Does anyone happen to know whether this aircraft was fitted with LIDAR?

[NRDK]

Granted you have AW139 time then.

Hope you didn't personally pay for the 2 courses?

True this is a rumour network. I'll go with henra and 212 on this...impact down slope from final resting place with fwd speed. The vertical survival ability of a 139 is better than than.

[noooby]

Furia, that is not a 45 deg slope or the people wou;dn't be walking up it. 20, perhaps 25. CFIT into a mountain at speed looks exactly like this. Impact point in the snow at the bottom, debris field extending upslope.
Extensive crushing/impact damage to the front and minimal damage to the back.
Main Rotor contact with the snow would spin the aircraft around as the blades destroy themselves.
Not flying upslope at all. Flying straight and level, hence the extensive crushing.
Being a very early aircraft I'm not sure if this would have EGPWS/TAWS or not, it came out a bit later so might have had to have been a retrofit. Aser, do you know if it had EGPWS?
FDR will quickly give them the flight path of the aircraft.
Condolences to all those involved and their families. A sad day for SAR/EMS.

[jimf671]

The tail, unlike the remains of the front part of the fuselage, is still intact and not restrained by friction with the ground. Therefore of course it's momentum is going to carry it ahead of rest of the fuselage.

Essentially, this is the same effect that you get when lifting off the throttle in a front-drive car when going down a steep icy hill. The front is restrained and the tail wants to over take it.

[NRDK]

1672

Still from the video downslope. The rescue team on scene are recovering some of the the poor crews remains from the impact point. I haven't done any accident course, just regrettably attended too many crashes.

[chopjock]

White sky, white terrain no visible horizon...

[hueyracer]

Jesus.......

Always easy to comment on something knowing the outcome...but that was crap all over the place....

Take-Off is crap-something you can do when you are in good conditions, but this is neither a Cat-A departure nor a departure for white-out scenarios...

Then-difficult to see from the video (but again-knowing the outcome)-it looks like the weather is really crap...so maybe they were going to pull into the clouds on an "IFR"departure?
But then again-especially flying into IMC (if that´s what they intended to do) OR if you are flying in extreme weather, you set yourself up for a straight departure to avoid any vertigo and/or disorientation....

just my 2 ct

[Aser]

noooby, I don't remember about the egpws/taws in that aircraft, too many years ago since I flew it... I am getting old and they could have installed it afterwards.
I am with 212man about the accident in U.K., it was the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the picture of this accident.
Sadly it seems "just another" CFIT. :-(

[212man]

I am getting old and

40 isn't old! ;)

[rrekn]

SPIFR EMS in the 139?
Absolutely (but not in the US). Need the SPIFR Kit (which is essentially a map holder)

[mickjoebill]

Is there technical or operational reasons to have a virtually all white livery for a mountain rescue helicopter?


Mickjoebill

[nowherespecial]

It was probably painted in the SASEMAR colours so a quick white respray to get it out of that before a proper job on it in the future.

[jimf671]

Is there technical or operational reasons to have a virtually all white livery for a mountain rescue helicopter?
Mickjoebill

Isn't this EMS, not SAR?


And yes, white is not clever in land SAR conditions. I can also tell you that finding white aircraft wreckage in mist and snow (or mountains with quartz outcrops) is not easy.

[malabo]

Looked like it was on flotation skis at least. The standard AW139 avionics wouldn't be my choice for VFR mountain weather flying, just an iPad with a map and elevation information is already an improvement. Might have had something better installed but generally public service helicopters cinched by budgets rarely do. I see EGPWS mentioned, but would be of little value unless IMC - in mountain VFR weather you already know you are close to the ground, slow, eyes out and the EGPWS is just an irritation unless you are using it like a second rate map trying to find a valley route.

Takeoff looked ok, didn't linger to try create a snowball, didn't go off in a direction he didn't need to trying to comply with some performance standard. Got away downwind without any performance problems. Weather was what you get in the mountains in winter, like 212man said "blameless".

Don't know the experience of the pilots, if they had done winter mountain stuff before like Swiss/Austrian/Italian operators in the Alps. That becomes an operational control issue - matching the equipment and crews to a challenging environment.

Tragic loss of life. Why so many people on board for a skier with a bum leg?

[gulliBell]

also...and why launch in those conditions for a skier with a bum leg. Dunno. I better shut.t.f.up before I get told to shut.t.f.up

[arketip]

Why so many people on board for a skier with a bum leg?

1 pilot, 1 doctor, 1 winch operator, 1 injured, 2 rescuers that were working on the hotel avalanche going back down.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Yet another prune thread where terrible loss of life leads the great unwashed on here to start blaming the crew before even the preliminary report is published. Armchair accident investigators peddling their trade to try and convince the audience how very clever they are.

Just wait and see. Give the crew at least the benefit of the doubt until more information is realeased.

[S3R]

Hey Hueyracer or anyone else,

I inferred from post #31 that there is a video of the departure. I can't find it - please point me to it.

3R.

[RVDT]

Video -

Gli ultimi istanti dell'elicottero del 118 - ESCLUSIVA ANSA (http://www.ansa.it/sito/videogallery/italia/2017/01/24/gli-ultimi-istanti-dellelicottero-del-118_bfe0866f-1c8d-4abe-8d7c-e7ad7ef41692.html)

[hueyracer]

I am not indicating anything.....just saying that-depending on the weather situation (and knowing the outcome), it is not "common sense" to do a "Cowboy-Take-Off" like that in THIS situation...

We have all been in situation where we did stupid things...most of us have been lucky getting away.

Does not stop us from spreading the word on how we screwed up, so others can learn from it.

Especially in EMS, but also in long lining, pilots easily get "over-motivated", putting their own lives, the helicopter and the entire crew at unnecessary risks to "save lifes" or "do the job"-which in the end leads to the (unnecessary) loss of lifes....


It is important that we take ourselves a step back sometimes.......and ask ourselves "Is this-what i was about to do-really the best thing to do now?"

[[email protected]]

How on earth is that a 'cowboy' take-off?

They lift to the hover, turn slowly to face down the slope instead of up it and then transition?

Transitioning up slope gives you few options and you can't see what other obstacles might be in their way (wires/cables etc). His references downslope may also have been better.

A perfectly valid and safe technique for a mountain departure.

[[email protected]]

You can see from the video that the slope is in and out of cloud which is quite usual in the mountains - it is entirely possible they entered cloud inadvertantly and elected to make a turn to recover VMC - perhaps they turned the wrong way or there are wires and cables (its a skiing area with lots of lifts) in the 'safe' direction towards lower ground.

As to why they were there - that's what they get paid for - again, normal protocol would be for the MR/ski rescuers to get the casualty to the cloudbase for extraction by helo.

As Jim will doubtless confirm - a bum leg can mean anything from a twisted knee to a femoral bleed so you err on the side of caution and get them to hospital smartly.

A very sad accident but it does look like CFIT in whiteout conditions - for those that haven't been there, it is bloody scary since you don't usually have an IFR pull-up option.

[Non-PC Plod]

Crab - although I mostly agreee with what you are saying, I would disagree to the extent that there is not usually an IFR option. I would say that it is nearly always an option, just that very often it will be as bad or worse than the other options.
When it comes to IEIC low-level in the obstacle environment, I think the IFR pull-up is worth considering, even if you are going to get icing etc afterwards, and difficult decisions about where to go. Which is worst - frying pan or fire?

[hueyracer]

Doing a somewhat "Cat-A" start departure followed by a pedal turn while already low under clouds is "normal" to you?
No wonder we keep discussing accidents over and over again...

[[email protected]]

Try calculating a CAT A departure up a slope with wires/cables etc and a rather large mountain in the way and you will see that it is impracticable.

Much safer to depart downslope and they may well have had hover OEI performance available from the start.

Cat A has its place but mountain SAR really isn't applicable where you are not on a helipad nor have several hundered metres of clear area ahead.

[[email protected]]

Non - PC - I get what you are saying but maybe you haven't been in icing cloud in the mountains with the nearest instrument approach many miles away and a MSA of several thousands of feet.

In those conditions you can ice up and run out of power so quickly that it is a very last resort. If you have RIPS or similar you have more options but I don't know if they had it fitted. And RIPS only protects the rotors, not the airframe and it is the increase in AUM that causes the loss of spare power.

[havick]

Was the aircraft equipped with sandel HTAWS or AW equivalent?

[Non-PC Plod]

If this was an early model, it would not have had any icing protection fitted.

Crab - I agree icing is not fun, and as you say going into it may well be a last resort, but I think its 50/50 compared with trying to grope your way out of whiteout low level in a mountain/wires environment!

If it was a later model, with SAR modes fitted, there may have been other automated options to transition away, or get back into a steady hover at a safe height. With a basic helicopter, we have seen many times (eg G-LBAL) that "using the force" to transition away in very low vis is a bad idea.

[[email protected]]

It doesn't look like the vis was that bad whereas G-LBAL was in fog at night with no experience of an IF towering take off.

SAR modes really aren't suitable for over land work and if the weather had been that bad where they took off, I am sure they wouldn't have bothered. The SAR hover mode on the 139 - if it was fitted on this one, might have been an alternative to groping in the whiteout but we don't know if it was available.

Mountain conditions change so quickly that it is easy to get caught out and I think they launched in OK vis/cloudbase but were cut off from their escape route into clear air/lower ground - it happens unfortunately and what looks like a viable escape can quickly become a trap.

These guys were presumably SAR trained and mountain qualified?

For the IF option I suspect their MSA would have been upwards of 10,000 ft in the Alps at well below zero in icing conditions so really not an option at all.

[malabo]

Ask Gerold Biner, Air Zermatt, what he thinks, or Heli Austria, or any of the Canadian mountain/Heliski operators that fly day in day out in the same mountains and weather. When I hear discussions on IFR, EGPWS, PC 1, applied to mountain flying I automatically discount the source. Really, the 139 with its 40,000' business jet avionics and automation trying to mix it with the real mountain flyers?? Maybe with a mountain and location experienced pilot as Crab points out. Mountain flying is all about not getting trapped, even if you spend an hour hovering in front of a rock or a tree until the weather changes again. Allowing yourself to go IMC and then think you can bore your way out IFR is not an option.

[oleary]

..... Dennis (malabo) said.

[[email protected]]

Malabo - completely agree - there are some disciplines where the answer isn't more technology - just good training and intelligent flying:ok:

[Freewheel]

This accident reminds me of the Air NZ accident on Mt Erebus in Antarctica.

[Non-PC Plod]

Malabo & Crab,

When you apply Threat & Error management, I completely agree that training, experience and intelligence should enable a capable pilot to mitigate the many and varied threats in this environment, and not get into trouble in the first place.
However, technology has its place in helping you deal with the errors if you screwed up the threat management part. Its not a panacea, but its better to have than not to have (if you are properly trained to use it in appropriate circumstances).

[SuperF]

But does having all that technology give pilots a false sense of security?

Therefore they push the limits more, thinking that the technology will save them...

[[email protected]]

Non PC Plod - yes there are some technologies that help but some that hinder - an example would be EGPWS in the mountains where all the alerts could be very distracting and lead you to either disable them or ignore them, both of which completely defeat their addition to the cockpit.

The problem is that you cannot remove all the risks from something like SAR - by its very nature you often have to fly in conditions that a normal risk and threat assessment would preclude, but if you don't launch, what is the point in you being there? Your only mitigation of risk is (hopefully) excellent training and superior CRM - some technology will assist as long as you are well versed in its use and have trained for such scenarios.

An example of what Super F describes would be NVD where weather deterioration is sometimes more difficult to notice and you can get yourself further into the high threat scenario than you realised.

[Non-PC Plod]

Super F & Crab,

I think we all agree that excellent training is the most fundamental tool to avoid accidents, and part of that is CRM & TEM. We can't avoid risk in this environment, but if we can recognise the risks and take steps to mitigate them as far as possible, then we can go a long way to making missions safer (or less dangerous, depending on your standpoint!)
In this type of operation, where I imagine a degraded visual environment is common, you have to ask whether MP operations might go some way to mitigate risk. As far as technology is concerned, maybe a later generation of avionics with a safety/flyup function might provide a last ditch protection in some circumstances. Of course it won't work if you don't engage a collective mode, and of course it won't help if you fly into a cliff, but it might just have saved this helicopter.
There will always be the argument that technology gives you a false sense of security, and that pilots will rely on it when they shouldn't, but if you take that argument to extremes, it would suggest that we should all be flying around in unstabilised helicopters without FD, radalt, etc etc. In fact, if you are trained to use them appropriately, all these things can improve safety in particular environments.

[SuperF]

"but if you take that argument to extremes, it would suggest that we should all be flying around in unstabilised helicopters without FD, radalt, etc etc"

Thats all i fly! But then my work is Longline/Utility/ag etc, and if it gets that bad, i just don't fly... Plus the majority of my flying is in a very friendly environment, with a lot of easy places to land.

[[email protected]]

Non PC Plod - I would not recommend anything but MP crewing for this kind of operation.

With appropriate training, a 4-person SAR crew working well together can mitigate a lot of the risk, with two sets of eyes up front and lots of nav assist/sensor info/lookout input gratefully received from the rearcrew. Situational awareness is everything in that environment.

I suspect sadly that no collective program input would have saved them in this case since they may have been below the min speed for some modes to be engaged and the collective input would have had to have been quite considerable to outclimb the mountain.

[havick]

Non PC Plod - yes there are some technologies that help but some that hinder - an example would be EGPWS in the mountains where all the alerts could be very distracting and lead you to either disable them or ignore them, both of which completely defeat their addition to the cockpit.

That depends on the EGPWS. E.g. The sandel HTAWS you can change the sensitivity to an appropriate setting to avoid nuisance warning flying down low in valleys etc but it still provides valuable information/warnings and alerts that can be a life saver going inadvertent.

To be honest all the naysayers about HTAWS generally in my experience have been poor instrument pilots, no IF background utility pilots or haven't been trained properly in it's usage and/or have never used it at all. I don't mean to paint groups with the one brush but it's what I've experienced so far.

sandel HTAWS has most definitely saved my butt at least twice, once flying on fires when I zigged when I should have zagged. And the other when I was fairly inexperienced flying on NVG's allowed myself to fly into deteriorating wx/vis. Both inadvertent IMC occurrences were in high mountenous terrain in a 412.

I'm not saying it's a silver bullet to stop CFIT accidents but it is a great tool to have up your sleeve if proficient and properly trained.

SuperF also raises a good point about being disciplined not to press on into conditions that you wouldn't normally just by having HTAWS fitted.

It's also a moot point if icing conditions exist and the aircraft isn't equipped appropriately.

**By the way I have no idea what happened in this accident nor am
I speculating the cause. It could have been anything.

[Same again]

Any crews from the company operating this service care to comment on the currency training provided? I mean specific, realistic, daily allocation of training hours that the crews can and do utilise?

I am aware that the only training provided by some operators is bi-annual simulator visit and that on job tasking is deemed to fulfill the training requirement. Other operators have a daily training flying hour allocation that crews are encouraged to use.

[nowherespecial]

Same again,
Make up your own mind. Same company (Inaer), different branch but using one of the ex SASEMAR aircraft still on Spanish registration. You'll see on another thread that others are asking about Inaer (and I'm answering).

http://www.fomento.gob.es/NR/rdonlyres/C6E653F5-E80D-42A8-9562-B8EB29B71E0F/113643/2010_002_A_ENG.pdf

[[email protected]]

If they display the same attitude to mountain SAR training and currency as they did to maritime SAR then the accident report will be quite damning.

[Same again]

Yes - I am very familiar with the INAER offshore SAR accident and the alarming deficiencies in SOP's, knowledge, training and CRM. Just wondering if the situation is comparable with the Italian mountain SAR operation.

[minigundiplomat]

NWS/Same Again,


Lets not pre-judge the outcome based on INAER's iffy record, delivering a root cause verdict is the AAIB's job. A loosely related question, but are INAER part of Babcock? They seem to be, but not in the way Bond or Australian have been rebranded.

[212man]

NWS/Same Again,


Lets not pre-judge the outcome based on INAER's iffy record, delivering a root cause verdict is the AAIB's job. A loosely related question, but are INAER part of Babcock? They seem to be, but not in the way Bond or Australian have been rebranded.
Yes; they are.

[Same again]

Pre-judge? Moi? I am merely asking a question - which no-one seems to be able to answer.