Sheer Bad Luck [Archive]

Thomas coupling

6th Jun 2018, 09:17

Here is the thread (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/592873-missing-twin-squirrel-wales-ireland.html)

Pauk Hanannt saying it was "sheer bad luck", WTF?? [Whats an ex senior investigator doing by being subjective about an AAIB report anyway?
It is simple unadulterated poor airmanship - nothing more, nothing less. He killed half his entire family because he pushed his luck not because of bad luck. He wasn't qualified to be where he was when he was.

Bad luck - bad luck is getting to his destination late because he had to land because of the weather. That's bad luck FFS.

Early days and it is PPRuNe....

I was first on scene in the police helicopter when we found the wreckage of a FW that had stoofed just shy of the summit in this vicinity in Snowdon. The driver had bought the farm but there was one survivor who we airlifted to hospital. He recalled much later on stating that the pilot had worked out his MSA based on the leg he should have taken but was 'put off' by the bad weather in the area and deviated slightly but still used the MSA he had planned on. He hit just shy of the summit by 200 feet - CFIT.

I suspect (based on experience) that when the words PPL holder and IMC are thrown into the mix - it eventually forms the last two holes in the swiss cheese model.
Pilots who go inadvertent IMC who DO NOT have a current IMC rating WITH recent currency, are committing potential suicide.
If he was current and qualified - it could well have been miscalc of MSA / heading, or of course the rare issue of mechanical problem(s).
My money is on inadvertent IMC with a PPL attached.

RiP guys.

Next...........................

212man

6th Jun 2018, 10:57

Pauk Hanannt saying it was "sheer bad luck", WTF?? [Whats an ex senior investigator doing by being subjective about an AAIB report anyway?
It is simple unadulterated poor airmanship - nothing more, nothing less. He killed half his entire family because he pushed his luck not because of bad luck. He wasn't qualified to be where he was when he was.
It wasn't Paul that said that - it was the coroner:

In conclusion, HM Senior Coroner for North West Wales, Dewi Pritchard Jones, said Mr Burke's training and licence was for flying in conditions where he was able to see the terrain and that "ideally" he should have turned back in the thick cloud.He pointed out that near Trawsfynydd there was an area of "relatively flattish land" and said: "Had he seen that through the cloud I am certain that would have given him the false confidence that he was at a good and safe height above ground level.

"Unfortunately, Rhinog Fawr is not a mountain that gradually increases in height. It is more a series of walls of steep ridges and rocks.

"My belief is that his instruments would not have given him much warning of the ridges.
"Being at the height he was, it was inevitable he would hit that ridge. It led to the complete destruction of the aircraft.

Recording verdicts of misadventure for all five deceased, he said: "Here we have a situation of sheer bad luck. This aircraft was not greatly below its safe height. It just clipped the mountainside."

EESDL

6th Jun 2018, 11:53

It wasn't Paul that said that - it was the coroner:

This aircraft was not greatly below its safe height. It just clipped the mountainside."
complete lack of comprehension of what PPL and no IR means..........

Frying Pan

6th Jun 2018, 13:02

complete lack of comprehension of what PPL and no IR means..........

Er...irrelevant. If the aircraft clipped the mountainside then surely it was below it's safety height, regardless of the pilot's licence or qualifications? But perhaps that was your point?
FP.

[email protected]

6th Jun 2018, 14:12

TC has it right - this wasn't bad luck but pressonitis - the weather was forecast to be poor between his points of departure and landing but he cracked on, over very hostile terrain and into poor weather.

It would have been so easy to go around rather than through Snowdonia or just turn round - but he knew better......................................

Cows getting bigger

6th Jun 2018, 14:35

It was also sheer bad luck the he lifted out of J13 5-up and full fuel; that'll be 150kgs of bad luck. :rolleyes:

Most pilots who thump into hills in cloud aren't unlucky. This chap falls into the 'most' category.

OvertHawk

6th Jun 2018, 15:00

I suppose if you are "Only a little bit below safety altitude" then you only get a little bit killed?

For a coroner to describe that as "bad luck" is bordering on misconduct IMHO!

One man's bad luck is another man's egregious negligence. :ugh:

SASless

6th Jun 2018, 16:26

Bad Luck....errrr....perhaps not.

But...it is contagious amongst those who leave us early.

Smart Pilot - Flying the Alaska Highway...VFR? (http://smartpilot.ca/airmanship/airmanship-articles/9-airmanship/airmanship-articles/38-flying-the-alaska-highway-vfr)

B2N2

6th Jun 2018, 17:42

I'm taking several things from the linked article:
"complex weather system" in the Snowdonia mountains

surprise party

he had consumed cocaine at some point prior to the crash

That shows an attitude problem.
Unfortunate is that successful business owners rarely make successful pilots, those business decision making skills do not transfer over or rarely do.
If he'd been alone it would have been a more understandable decision to press on. In the company and being responsible for unsuspecting passengers, family members even, that shows me that he was probably a habitual "rule" breaker.
Paid the price too.

Thomas coupling

6th Jun 2018, 21:37

megan

7th Jun 2018, 00:39

How many more will die in this way? Lots

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2MVDY8o7Bs

paco

7th Jun 2018, 07:32

Fate is the hunter.....

OvertHawk

7th Jun 2018, 08:51

Fate is the hunter.....

Indeed Paco... But it seems to me that often it does not need to hunt too hard - People just throw themselves out in front of it!

paco

7th Jun 2018, 08:58

That's for sure. One reason why I refused to do private owners when I was a TRE.

OvertHawk

7th Jun 2018, 10:02

That's for sure. One reason why I refused to do private owners when I was a TRE.

Must be a real worry for TREs (especially the freelancers who don't have the protection of being part of an in-houe training system) in this day and age of aggressive litigation and finger pointing.

I know of more than one TRE who has ended up being cross examined about a check he'd carried out months or years before at inquests and inquiries by an aggressive barrister determined to shift the blame anywhere other than his client.

paco

7th Jun 2018, 10:20

Yes, especially for a freelance, but it wasn't so much that as not willing to be responsible for letting someone with an attitude problem loose....

The trouble is, they behave properly on the test, then revert to the attitude.

Bell_ringer

7th Jun 2018, 10:53

How many more will die in this way? What is it with people who display elements of wealth and/or power, that makes them think the rules don't apply to them?
I've lost track of those men (it's never women) who portray these traits killing themselves (which is fine) but why do they take so many innocent victims with them?
If ever there was a calling for compulsory human factors courses for starters - it is this and it is now!

Let's remember that a great many successful people manage to fly quite safely, we just only hear about the occasional fool.
On balance there are far more lowly paid pilots that manage to remove themselves from the gene pool through acts of sheer stupidity than any risk-taking entrepreneur.

nigelh

7th Jun 2018, 11:13

Ahh but that doesn’t satisfy the chippy nature of some of our professional pilots on this forum !!! The argument that rich people are spoilt and arrogant etc and this makes them dangerous pilots is flimsy .... I could say that the poor , working class pilots I have met and employed have a tendency to be a bit stupid ( lack of education) and are so humble that they will not question their bosses commands . Also their accents can be difficult to understand on the radio !!!!

[email protected]

7th Jun 2018, 11:21

Yes, I'm afraid regional accents really shouldn't be allowed on the airwaves.....;)

SASless

7th Jun 2018, 11:25

One reason why I refused to do private owners when I was a TRE.

I NEVER authorized, penned, or scribbled an Endorsement of any kind for any reason on any document or Logbook....relating to Autogyro's.

nigelh

7th Jun 2018, 11:41

Quite right Crab Old Boy ....!!
Sas... very relieved to hear that .

Sir Niall Dementia

7th Jun 2018, 12:35

F##k Me!

He was having a really unlucky day. A quick snort of white nose candy, take off over weight and fly into known crap weather, well outside the pilot's limits. The aircraft was a good one, full IFR and a pleasure to fly. At least she was when I managed her a good few years ago.

I'm not sure if this belongs in Rotorheads, It strikes me the Darwin Awards thread in Jet Blast would be more appropriate.

SND

nigelh

7th Jun 2018, 13:36

Careful SND ...... there were traces which could be from way beforehand and not relevant to the flight .
However I would agree that it doesn’t look good .

Sir Niall Dementia

7th Jun 2018, 14:38

nigelh,

Fair enough, but in this world of drugs and alcohol testing for working pilots a trace from any time can be enough to drop a pilot into a huge amount of poo from an enormous height.(I failed years ago for opiates, the traces disappeared when I dropped poppy seed rolls from my diet at the suggestion of the testers) In this case perhaps, more an indication of attitude to the task in hand and life in general.

SND

Bell_ringer

7th Jun 2018, 15:15

These days it's not so much the trace amounts that get people into trouble.
It is the vast amounts of grog that a trollied Captain has consumed before reporting for duty - if British Airways is anything to go by. :}

OvertHawk

7th Jun 2018, 17:19

Careful SND ...... there were traces which could be from way beforehand and not relevant to the flight .
However I would agree that it doesn’t look good .

I think that there is an argument that even if it was from before hand it is related to the flight.

It suggests that the individual had a "flexible" attitude to rules laid down by other people. Similarly the fact that he chose to take off significantly over the max weight of his helicopter is another such indication.

The earlier comments on this thread suggesting that there are owner pilots out there who a sensible and competent is certainly true. But there are also those who are not. I think that there are certain personality traits that allow people to become successful and wealthy that are not mutually compatible with being safe at the controls of a helicopter. The attitude to risk and rules for example and it applies to owners in general not just owner pilots.

I've seen one owner pushing his pilot to fly when it clearly was not safe or legal with the line "Do you think you'd even have a job at all if I had not taken a few risks and broken a few rules over the years to build my business?"

If people are successful enough to buy a helicopter it's because their risk taking and possibly rule breaking has paid off. This can instil a dangerous over confidence.

chopjock

7th Jun 2018, 17:31

Similarly the fact that he chose to take off significantly over the max weight of his helicopter is another such indication.

What the difference between taking off at max weight and climbing out at max power, and taking off over weight and climbing out at max power? Surely the stresses will be the same on the airframe and gears etc? If you don't over torque / temp anything what's the issue?

paco

7th Jun 2018, 17:48

The difference is whether the insurance is valid.....

Bell_ringer

7th Jun 2018, 18:30

If people are successful enough to buy a helicopter it's because their risk taking and possibly rule breaking has paid off. This can instil a dangerous over confidence.

That is a bit of a generalization, arrogance is something present in a broad range of people.
There are many ways to become successful.
Business owners are very good at managing risk, purely taking risk isn't a good strategy for getting ahead.
There are many, many private owners. Very few end up in a smoking hole with trace amounts of speed in the blood.
It's not that simple trying to put a large and varied demographic into one neat little box.
Personality traits are a leading factor in fatal accidents, it is something that applies to everyone both with thick and thin wallets.

Sir Niall Dementia

7th Jun 2018, 21:02

What the difference between taking off at max weight and climbing out at max power, and taking off over weight and climbing out at max power? Surely the stresses will be the same on the airframe and gears etc? If you don't over torque / temp anything what's the issue?

JESUS CHRIST! Another load of stupidity from chopcock! Please tell me you’re just taking the p###. An emergency overweight? The fact that the aircraft is designed around certain weights.

I flew about 600 hours on that particular airframe. One of those hours was on one engine. She was in fine fettle, but her performance was as limited as any 355F1 on one engine. Try it overweight and the one hour would have turned into a minute or so of regret before the landing site is forced on you.

I fired off at you on the IIMC thread about your idiotic pronouncements. Do me and rotary Aviation a favour, f#%# off and take up golf before someone thinks your stupidity is a great idea. I don’t know who taught you to fly, but I bet they’ll end up answering some stiff questions from AAIB and CAA during the preparation of your AAIB report.

SND

chopjock

7th Jun 2018, 21:39

SND
The fact that the aircraft is designed around certain weights.
As you know, aircraft G forces change in flight, therefore aircraft weight changes in flight too (not mass). So to answer my earlier question "What's the difference between taking off at max weight and climbing out at max power, and taking off over weight and climbing out at max power?"
If you are climbing out at MCP you will be the same load/stress at what ever weight, right? Lighter = higher ROC, heavier = lower ROC. Too heavy = no ROC.

ersa

7th Jun 2018, 21:52

Chop jock

Why do you think helicopter manufacturers have a max take off weight ?

chopjock

7th Jun 2018, 22:26

Why do you think helicopter manufacturers have a max take off weight ?

Mostly structural limitations but also OEI and autorotation performance would be effected if too heavy. My comments were aimed at the structural limitations being the same whatever the weight if flying on MCP and no mechanical failures. So yes, point taken...

Ascend Charlie

8th Jun 2018, 01:25

Make sure you never fly an aircraft after Chopjock has been in it.

Flying at max weight will cause brinelling in the rotor grip bearings, being overweight might just convince them to jam up completely. Engine and Xmsn chips will be more common, maybe not on Chopjock's flight (which is why he advocates it) but when some other poor bunny flies it later.

If you think the forces are the same whether overweight or not, try lifting an empty bucket with a rubber band, then fill it with water and try again. Goose.

Vertical Freedom

8th Jun 2018, 04:08

Bad luck is when I spill my Beer whilst driving over speed humps :=

IIMC is a lie! Going IMC is a choice by the Pilot! If You, your machine & legal procedures (plates etc) cannot enter cloud then, as a VFR Pilot if You do it is a criminal act, which sadly in this case led to the murder of some innocent Souls. :yuk: nuff said

OvertHawk

8th Jun 2018, 06:37

Many years ago I flew on a helicopter shuttle operation with an experienced and well liked pilot. We were flying the same type on multiple rotations in and out of a large event. His helicopter was slightly heavier than mine empty. we were both carrying max pax loads. I was at max all up weight on my machine. He was refuelling less frequently than me thus carrying more fuel. If I was at max all up then where was he? He was also flying faster than me. I was flying as max permitted power in the cruise and he was going past me on a more draggy machine.

He flew the machine that way for four days. The following week it ended up in a field with another poor sod at the sticks with the gearbox making more metal than British Alcan. Risked the life of the pilot and damn near bankrupted the owner of the machine with the cost of the gearbox.

This pilot subsequently killed himself and his pax in a CFIT. I was not surprised.

pilotmike

8th Jun 2018, 06:39

SND

As you know, aircraft G forces change in flight, therefore aircraft weight changes in flight too (not mass). So to answer my earlier question "What's the difference between taking off at max weight and climbing out at max power, and taking off over weight and climbing out at max power?"
If you are climbing out at MCP you will be the same load/stress at what ever weight, right? Lighter = higher ROC, heavier = lower ROC. Too heavy = no ROC.

WRONG! WTF? The head / rotor has to produce a force equal to the weight of what's hanging beneath it. So overweight = overstress on the design limits of the head / rotor. A bit like if you were hanging by your arms on monkey bars and some fat f$&ker grabs hold of your ankles for the ride. Are you seriously telling us your arms, wrists and grip wouldn't feel any difference?

Are you honestly a helicopter pilot??!!! SND summed up the best advice on where to go and the best manner in which to do it a few posts previously. You clearly don't understand even the very basics.

chopjock

8th Jun 2018, 08:59

pilotmike
WRONG! WTF? The head / rotor has to produce a force equal to the weight of what's hanging beneath it.
A bit like if you were hanging by your arms on monkey bars and some fat f$&ker grabs hold of your ankles for the ride. Are you seriously telling us your arms, wrists and grip wouldn't feel any difference?

In your analogy, If the monkey bars were accelerating upwards, faster if you are light but slower if you are heavy, then yes, I would feel NO difference because the stress is measured by the torque meter / tot gauge fitted to the bars. Ever gone up in a lift and felt heavier?
This limiting factor (controlled by the pilot) means a slower ROC when heavier, thus up to the SAME measured stress!

Ascend
If you think the forces are the same whether overweight or not, try lifting an empty bucket with a rubber band, then fill it with water and try again. Goose.
Yes the rubber band will stretch if my hand remains static. It will also stretch when you accelerate the hand holding the rubber band with empty bucket upwards!

OvertHawk He flew the machine that way for four days.
Obviously over temping / torquing and thus overloading the gearbox. Presumably had the other machine flown within the torqe / tot limitations then a slower / lower performance flight would have occurred without overloading the gearbox.

nigelh

8th Jun 2018, 12:21

Chop ... I would stop digging !!!

SASless

8th Jun 2018, 15:08

Stop digging? Hellfire Man....he done went out and bought himself a Mechanical Excavator to speed up the process!:rolleyes:

Thomas coupling

9th Jun 2018, 21:29

Chop - you sad f¥€er. I've told you before haven't i?
If you want to play in here with the pro's then act like one.
You're setting a bad example to newbie's and abbo's listening in.
stop showing your ignorance in public!

Excess weight causes excess strain on the drive train.
Excess weight stresses the airframe.
Excess weight affects your RoC and your RoD.
Excess weight affects your stall speed and Vmax
Excess weight alters your C of G.

ALL of the above Exceed that aircrafts limits for optimum performance which is why THERE IS A FUC**ING LIMIT TO THE MTOM.

Please behave in future..........

chopjock

9th Jun 2018, 22:07

TC
Excess weight causes excess strain on the drive train. Not if you don't pull the torque / tot out of the green arcs.
Excess weight stresses the airframe. Not if you don't pull the torque / tot out of the green arcs.
Excess weight affects your RoC and your RoD. Obviously, like I've been saying all along, but if you stay in the green arcs and trade ROC for the extra weight all is well.
Excess weight affects your stall speed and Vmax Stall speed? But if you stay in the green arcs and trade performance for the extra weight all is well.
Excess weight alters your C of G. That depends where you put it, so if you do a weight and balance calculation and remain within the moment limits...
Please behave in future.......... Of course, LOL.

You can also over stress everything at less than MTOM by pulling too much pitch... (If you have the power!).

nigelh

9th Jun 2018, 22:30

🙈......I hate to be on the same side as TC .... but really ???? Overload a car and you f**k it up eventually and the same goes for a Helicoper but the consequences can be much worse and probably with someone else flying !! We ALL know you can fly perfectly well , with deft handling , well over max weight . I did it on occasions crop spraying but it comes at a cost and should not be encouraged or condoned . If you want to carry more .... put your hand in your pocket and buy a more powerful Helicopter .... don’t endanger the lives of future passengers !!

SASless

10th Jun 2018, 00:42

Chopjock,

Explain to us all here what excessive weight does for Coning Angle, Angle of Attack, and Stress Loading on the Blades, and attached bits right down to the Transmission mounts will you?

In support of TC in this....I would never fly an aircraft after ChopJock did....ever!

Your attitude and knowledge or lack of....is very dangerous to others.

bront

10th Jun 2018, 03:23

Chopjock, your profile says you are a PPL(H) and an engineer with over 2000 hours. Please post a picture of you PPL, engineers lic and last page of your log book. Because from the stupid things you say I cannot believe that you are any of these.

If you are an engineer, then you would know, that by hanging more weight under the rotor system you would increase the stress on the rotor shaft and the bearings that stop this shaft from being pulled out of the gearbox. Plus the gearbox mounts and a whole lot of other stuff that I wont go into, just trying to keep it simple for you!

I don't know you so I am trying to give you the benefit of doubt but as you are getting on a bit perhaps you should get a check up for dementia because it is either that or you are a troll. No one that is sane and with the qualifications that you profess, could possibly say the things that you do. Some of the things you say would be funny, except that there are inexperienced people that come on here to learn.

I look forward to seeing your doc's.

[email protected]

10th Jun 2018, 07:06

So Choppy - you overload the aircraft and manage to stagger to the hover (at the very top of the green arcs as you love to insist) - what spare performance have you got to transition?

You may have a 5 min takeoff rating but you are extremely likely to be eating in to that just hovering.

Suppose you do stagger into forward flight and need to climb - have you accounted for your large decrease in climb performance, your reduced VNE (which graph are you going to use for that since you are above MTOM?)

If you have an engine failure, have you thought about how the remianing donkey is going to cope with that excess weight?

If you don't think that just hovering at above MTOM is stressing the aircraft - high torque/T4,more TR thrust and strain on the transmission - then you aren't an engineer.

Your assertion that there is no difference between MTOM and above MTOM ignores the fact that you are very unlikely to be able to do this 'in the green arcs'.

Non-PC Plod

10th Jun 2018, 08:54

"That depends where you put it, so if you do a weight and balance calculation and remain within the moment limits..."

Chop
Assuming you are familiar with weight & balance calculations... the moment limits are defined in the weight & balance part of the RFM imitations. They can change depending on the AUM, but above the max AUM and below the min AUM, there are no moment limits defined !

Also not mentioned earlier on the thread - the undercarriage can also be a limiting factor for AUM. Too heavy, and your gear/skids may collapse if and when required!

chopjock

10th Jun 2018, 08:56

Lovely response chaps...
SAS
Explain to us all here what excessive weight does for Coning Angle, Angle of Attack, and Stress Loading on the Blades, and attached bits right down to the Transmission mounts will you?

If you stay in the green arcs, excessive weight will do the same as normal weight. (The rotors are only pulling up at the same allowable rate, so coning angle etc is the same but with a much lower ROC if any).
In support of TC in this....I would never fly an aircraft after ChopJock did....ever! That's ok, but I never take off over weight and always remain within the green arcs...

bront
If you are an engineer, then you would know, that by hanging more weight under the rotor system you would increase the stress on the rotor shaft and the bearings that stop this shaft from being pulled out of the gearbox. Plus the gearbox mounts and a whole lot of other stuff that I wont go into, just trying to keep it simple for you!

If you are a pilot, you should know that adding more weight under the rotor system is balanced by the amount of thrust produced by that rotor system. If you only produce up to max allowable thrust (remain in the green) then there is NO MORE added stress! Your statement would be true if I added excess weight then tried to climb at the same ROC achieved with the lighter weight.
Some of the things you say would be funny, except that there are inexperienced people that come on here to learn.
I'm sure inexperienced people will read all the posts and make up their own mind, I am sometimes just giving a different point of view for the sake of discussion and it's working!
crab
you overload the aircraft and manage to stagger to the hover (at the very top of the green arcs as you love to insist) - what spare performance have you got to transition? Probably none so if you can't do it within the yellow arcs and within the time limits, put it back down.
Suppose you do stagger into forward flight and need to climb - have you accounted for your large decrease in climb performance, your reduced VNE (which graph are you going to use for that since you are above MTOM?) Yes, not sure a reduced VNE would be relevant as if you are over weight you would be using up to MCP and being a pilot, one would expect to fly gently within the normal cruise at all times anyway!
If you have an engine failure, have you thought about how the remianing donkey is going to cope with that excess weight?
No, you've got me there, I am assuming no mechanical failures during the over weight part of the flight. (After all, are you likely to have a failure if you remain in the green?)
Your assertion that there is no difference between MTOM and above MTOM ignores the fact that you are very unlikely to be able to do this 'in the green arcs'. Yes absolutely correct. But, if it's a cold morning at sea level...

pilotmike

10th Jun 2018, 09:33

Truly extraordinary ignorance being repeatedly displayed by chopjock.

Being totally ignorant of such fundamental principles of weight and lift is quite something by itself, when claiming to be a helicopter pilot.

Worse, flying helicopters when clearly of the mind that exceeding absolute limits by being overweight is 'OK' provided you keep within certain power limits is reckless, and displays a shockingly dangerous attitude to flying.

But worst of all, coming on here - REPEATEDLY - to justify such arrogant, cavalier, blatant disregard for limits based on with such ridiculously flawed and utterly fictitious mumbo jumbo made up myths and nonsense is way beyond stupid.

chopjock, the really frightening thing about you, is that you are SO ignorant, that you really don't have any idea just how wrong and stupid you actually are.

PLEASE, do yourself and everyone a very big favour by grounding yourself until you have undertaken a course of study to learn the very basics of physics as applicable to flight. You also need a fundament change in attitude to appreciate that EVEN if you are too stupid to understand why limits are applied to all aspects of flight, at the very least to realise that they are there to protect ignorant fools such as you from your own stupidity.

bront

10th Jun 2018, 09:36

Ok Chop I'm going to try one more time.

Lets assume that you are hovering on your cold day, at sea level, at design max gross weight and it is only taking you 95% of your max TQ. Lets make this a hypothetical helicopter with a max gross of 2000kg. Your conning angle is, lets say 5 degrees and there is now 2000kg, less the weight of the rotor (lets make that 100kgs), hanging from that rotor i.e. the mast will have a pull of 1900kgs on it. The bearings that hold the mast in will have an upwards pull of 1900kgs on them. You now put 200kgs onto the back floor, right at the C of G, so no effect on C of G. To stay in the hover you have to add pitch, which increases the TQ and will increase the conning angle. Now there will be 2100kgs pulling on the mast and an upwards pull of 2100kgs on the gearbox bearings. There will be 200kgs more trying to tear the gearbox off the roof of the helicopter and there will be 200kgs more load on the frame of the helicopter that holds the floor on, all of this is 200kgs more than it was designed for. Lets say you take off and do a 2G turn, now you will have an extra 400kg load on all those components.

I think your confusion comes from the fact that you think the stress on the engine and rotational components is the same as the stress on the structural components and that is where you are wrong and as an engineer you should know this. You are correct that the engine and the gears in the gearbox won't be able to tell what the weight is and only feel the effects of TQ but as I have shown you above, this is not correct for the structural component's. Excess weight also has effects on other things like auto rotational performance but then you are a pilot and you knew that, right?

Still waiting to see your licences.

chopjock

10th Jun 2018, 10:43

bront,
Thank you for your concern, obviously your hypothetical helicopter would not be safe to fly in your hypothetical scenario. (You would be over torquing as you know).
So your hypothetical helicopter is sat there in a ground effect hover, already at 95% torque with the max 1900kgs pull allowed on the main shaft. What happens to the amount of pull on the main shaft when you accelerate upwards? It increases, obviously. So there is a max safe limit of the amount of pull you can apply. I'm saying provided you do not exceed this limit, (measured on the torque /tot gauge) then from a stress point of view it's no different, obviously if you can't do it then don't. This max limit allows for a max all up mass aircraft to climb at a given performance. If you add a little more weight you will have to accept a little less performance in exchange, meaning the "max pull" on the main shaft is the same. I would obviously avoid 2g turns if I was over weight!
However there can equally be a scenario whereby you can be at max weight, on a cold morning at sea level and have enough power to climb out at say 800ft/min and measure the pull on the main shaft by observing the torque / tot gauges,(whilst staying in the green) say equivalent to 1500kgs pull on the main shaft.
If you then land and add weight putting you 150kgs over the limit, then take off pulling the same torque as previously noted and being equivalent to the same 1500kgs pull on the main shaft, you will have traded a lower ROC or none at all (perhaps only 250 ft/min) for the extra weight, but with the same pull. Surely?
Anyway, just my opinion every one, for which I am entitled to have... Newbies if you are reading this, when I say it's fine or OK I am referring to a stress point of view. I am not suggesting it's ok for general practice.

Bell_ringer

10th Jun 2018, 11:13

Anyway, just my opinion every one, for which I am entitled to have...

Actually, no.
This is about physics and physics has nothing to do with opinion. It is all scientifically proven concepts.

500e

10th Jun 2018, 11:18

I am not the brightest in the bunch CJ but please stop!! this is not opinion based it is fact, @bront 's explanation is simple enough to grasp surely

Bravo73

10th Jun 2018, 13:31

Why, oh why, does everyone keeping on feeding the troll?

Even by his own admission: I am sometimes just giving a different point of view for the sake of discussion and it's working!

Sir Niall Dementia

10th Jun 2018, 13:47

[QUOTE=Bravo73;10169702]Why, oh why, does everyone keeping on feeding the troll?
I’m wondering if chopcock has ever had kids. If not he’s a dead cert for a Darwin Award when his monumental arrogance and stupidity clears him from the gene pool. If he is a troll then he’s in danger of killing others with his posted stupidity, if he’s not a troll then whoever taught him to fly is obviously as big a C##t as our hero himself.

I do think a check should be made of N reg H500’s in the UK. If chopcock is real then his aircraft will be traceable and should be condemned, if he’s not real then he needs a kicking for posting stuff that new PPL’s could follow. And by following kill rhemselves or others.

SND

212man

10th Jun 2018, 14:02

https://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/news-items/2013/overloaded-helicopter-results-in-tragic-fatality.aspx
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11955120
and so it goes on. CJ, I’d take TC and SND’s advice!

chopjock

10th Jun 2018, 15:03

SND
If chopcock is real then his aircraft will be traceable and should be condemned
That's a bit harsh when I have stated but I never take off over weight and always remain within the green arcs...

if he’s not real then he needs a kicking for posting stuff that new PPL’s could follow. And by following kill rhemselves or others.

I also stated Newbies if you are reading this, when I say it's fine or OK I am referring to a stress point of view. I am not suggesting it's ok for general practice.

212 man and so it goes on. CJ, I’d take TC and SND’s advice!

Cheers. Advice taken long ago by the way...

Sir Niall Dementia

10th Jun 2018, 15:53

Sadly chopcock I have met at least one PPL who was going to do something illegal due to one of your postings from a couple of years ago about landing in congested areas.

You’re not funny, your theories on here could kill, and your theories are read by new PPL’s, the media as well as the professionals the forum is aimed at.

I’m not laughing, I don’t know anyone else who is, and let’s rwmember that this thread started because a “pilot” killed his passengers by behaving stupidly and a coroner thought it was “bad luck”. It wasn’t bad luck, that pilot might has well have used a gun on this passengers, the result is the same, the bad luck was a coroner too ill informed to tell the truth.

I don’t care if you haven’t flown your aircraft overweight, or flown the idiotic IMC let down from the other thread, I don’t care of you do or don’t fly into congested areas the way you’ve described before, I do care that someone may think you’re right and fly an aircraft over weight, attempt your IIMC let down, ignore the law on congested areas and kill a few more people than the owner of G-OHCP managed.

Right now in the UK a review into on-shore helicopter safety is in process. I have no doubts more restrictions are heading our way. I earn my living as a UK based helicopter pilot and the stupidity of the owner of OHCP is one of the reasons for that review, I hope he’s proud of himself wherever he is. People like you and him are just making the situation worse, troll or not, it really is time the mods banned you before you harm someone else.

SND

[email protected]

10th Jun 2018, 16:01

Chopjock - you regularly refer to the load on the main rotor shaft as being measured by Tq or ToT - where do you think those readings are taken from and how are they measured?

I think you are confusing engine performance parameters with the structural stresses experienced by the airframe when you hang extra weight on it.

EESDL

10th Jun 2018, 16:22

......if you are still here then ‘yes’ - that was my point exactly!

SASless

10th Jun 2018, 16:33

Cheers. Advice taken long ago by the way...

No....it was not. You continue to post drivel....very dangerous drivel....and despite dozens of offers of advice...you persist yet in posting garbage.

I think the expression in your part of the World is "Put a Sock in it!".

Over here where we are far less polished the saying is "STFU!".

Sir Niall Dementia

10th Jun 2018, 17:02

SAS;

You are obviously far too much of a gentleman! When they finally dig him out of the wreckage I do believe Chopcock will be found with a very surprised look on his face. I just pray he’s alone.

SND

DOUBLE BOGEY

10th Jun 2018, 17:17

Chop jock. WEIGHT is a function of the earths gravity acting on mass. So if you increase the MASS of your helicopter the earth will pull harder. The components of the helicopter are certified SAFE provided the helicopter is operated within the limitations in the flight manual. MAXIMUM TAKE-OFF MASS is always a limiting factor to prevent the earths gravity pulling so had things might break.

ROC ect is just performance. Some days the performance may be insufficient to even take-off at the maximum mass. Some days there may be enough performance to take off way over the maximum mass.

TQ and TOT provide no indication of the helicopters mass. These parameters are solely a result of LIFT or ROTOR THRUST to be more precise as DRAG increases proportional to LIFT and Tq must be increased to prevent the Nr decaying. TOT, N1, N2 increases as the engine responds to the TQ demand.

Finally, MAXIMUM take-off mass is affected by G forces. In fixed wing G force limits are sometimes specified. In Helicopters AOB IAS limits can suffice.

Needless to say, MTOM limitations should be considered abosolute. You statements on this thread are stone cold heracy to professional pilots and the venerable generation of SAS, Crab etc. In short, you understanding of basic physics and flight dynamics are seriously flawed.

Uplinker

10th Jun 2018, 18:08

@chopcock, you seem to be saying that you can go above the manufacturer’s certified MTOW as long as you don’t exceed the rotational torque limitations of the gearbox?

But to lift more than MTOW means applying more than MTOW to: the rotor, the gearbox bearings, the gearbox mountings and the structure of the helicopter. THIS APPLIES NO MATTER HOW SLOWLY OR GENTLY YOU CLIMB. WHETHER YOU REMAIN WITHIN THE GREEN ARCS IS IRRELEVANT: YOU WILL STILL BE SUBJECTING MORE THAN MTOW TO ALL THOSE COMPONENTS.

Your supposed assertion that you can be overweight but not necessarily exceed any green arcs is either wrong, or you are forgetting that the manufacturer will apply safety margins when he specifies limits.

I suspect that you are either a troll or that you only fly a desk-top flight simulator, which, being neither certified or accurate might very well appear to suggest that you can do what you keep claiming. It might fool you, but nobody can fool physics.

chopjock

10th Jun 2018, 18:25

DB & Uplinker,
Ok I see it now, I may have got it wrong. Yes I thought that staying in the green would not over stress anything. I have learned something today...
Cheers.

SASless

10th Jun 2018, 18:36

SND,

You are obviously far too much of a gentleman!

I very much object to that remark!

I have been called a lot of things in this life....but rarely a Gentleman....and never too much of one...except by my Flight Surgeon when observing my ever increasing Mass (and Cube).

pilotmike

10th Jun 2018, 19:25

DB & Uplinker,
Ok I see it now, I may have got it wrong. Yes I thought that staying in the green would not over stress anything. I have learned something today...
Cheers.

Why didn't you listen to the REALLY SIMPLE example I gave of hanging on some monkey bars and then someone hangs on to your ankles? It was such a blindingly simple scenario, even a 5 year old child could easily grasp (intended...) the concept. But no, it was way beyond you. You were so busy muddying and complicating things with irrelevant made up nonsense and fake 'science', accelerations, ROC, torque and other bullsh1t, in the way that you always try desperately to obscure the bleedin' obvious with, that you missed the simple feckin' point that OF COURSE IT WOULD STRESS YOUR WRISTS AND GRIP. Only once you stop talking b0ll0c4s to realise and accept the truth of that simple example, you'll make the relatively easy transition to realising that OF COURSE A HELICOPTER WOULD BE OVERSTRESSED ANY TIME IT IS OVER MTOM.

So now, in your new (and shockingly scary) world of "Wow, if I listen to pilots who actually KNOW what they're talking about, I might learn a whole lot of useful stuff, and I'll realise just how F'ing stupid I've been with my head wedged firmly up where the sun don't shine", you might just live a bit longer. But most importantly, you will hopefully STOP spouting the stupid, dangerous cr@p you filled many pages with, and made a total tool of yourself in doing so.

Re-read everything you've been told: Re-read all the rubbish you've spouted. Please stop thinking "it must be right because I've always tried to make myself believe it", and remember that - especially in your case - almost everyone will have something you can learn from, and it would be really, REALLY stupid to continue to spout forth on these pages in your defiant manner contradicting just about everything you're being told.

You might have made the first step in admitting that you've said some extraordinarily stupid, dangerous nonsense, but now you need to build on that and realise just how very far you need to go to even begin to understand the very basics, to have a chance of becoming anywhere close to being a safe pilot. You, chopjock, have a VERY long and difficult journey of learning ahead, because it all starts with the concept you find hardest - LISTENING. And to help you on your way, a key ingredient to that is to STOP talking.

You have shocked a lot of people on these forums, not just with your total ignorance, but the far worse defiance that goes with it.

Thomas coupling

10th Jun 2018, 19:49

Choppy me old shipmate - methinks you've just been on the biggest fishing trip of your life, haven't you......................................................... .............haven't you?

Sir Niall Dementia

10th Jun 2018, 19:51

SAS;

A gentleman always takes his weight on his knees and elbows!

My medical examiner is taking a very close interest in my personal MTOW at the moment. I’m really missing wine, beer and steaks☹️

SND

Lonewolf_50

11th Jun 2018, 00:20

For chopjock: Fatigue life.
Please go to your local public library and borrow a few college level text books that cover that principle. Spend some time studying them.
Then, with the pump primed, please visit with a professor who is teaching aerodynamics, and with accompaniment of tea or pints, your choice, discuss what you think you have learned.

When SND and others suggest to you that they don't want to be caught dead flying with you, that is easily understood that nobody should fly with you as being dead is a likely result ... based on the level of understanding that you display.
Suggestion: Improve understanding, decrease likelihood of being the next smoking hole. Please.
Fly safe.

wdew

11th Jun 2018, 00:44

Just a reminder that a Coroners report focus is different to the Investigation by the relevant aviation authorities. We all agree the "sheer bad luck " as reported is wrong.

Uplinker

13th Jun 2018, 09:43

...............My medical examiner is taking a very close interest in my personal MTOW at the moment. I’m really missing wine, beer and steaks☹️

SND

Please excuse the momentary thread creep.

Don’t worry about the steaks - protein is OK. Just cut out sugar and carbohydrates. Hence, alcohol and many many sauces contain sugar. So no sauce on your steak. The chips are pure carbohydrate, so avoid those too, have a big delicious salad instead (no dressing except a little drop of olive oil).

Unless you are running a marathon at the time, if you eat sugar and to a lesser extent, carbs, they will get converted to fat and will be stored in the body as fat. Eating protein, meat and fish etc, (without sauce) is fine.
Recognising and avoiding eating hidden sugar is quite a task, but it can be done - I am 5’ 10” and weigh 72kg. Most processed food contains sugar (and salt which you should also have none of in your food), Check the labels on the back of food, under the 100g column it will show carbs, of which xg is sugars, so that gives you a direct percentage.