View Full Version : AW 139 Hard Landing in Spain.
vaqueroaero
13th Jun 2019, 11:13
Surprised this isn't here already. It appears that a Babcock SAR 139 in Spain had an engine failure due to turbulence. An auto rotation was carried out resulting in a hard landing........
Incident AgustaWestland AW139 EC-NEH, 12 Jun 2019 (http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/226105)
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/img_0855_5d4449c6d1aad3718a1d911f15d4d89f43aa97e6.jpg
SASless
13th Jun 2019, 11:38
I suppose the question to be asked is why could the aircraft not maintain flight OEI to the extent the pilot determined the required action to be an autorotation?
The followup question is why would turbulence cause an engine failure?
Yes, something doesn't ring true here.
Maybe their 30% pay cut had something to do with it:E
SASless
13th Jun 2019, 11:47
You get what you pay for I reckon!
nomorehelosforme
13th Jun 2019, 11:51
Payback is a bitch!
gulliBell
13th Jun 2019, 12:18
Well, there goes another 30% pay cut to pay for the repair.
malabo
13th Jun 2019, 13:36
Alicante to Gijon is a ways, over 400 miles assuming no diversions or wx/headwinds. Wonder what his plan was after the low fuel lights came on?
ahh, scratch that, Albarracin is about halfway, shouldn’t have been a fuel problem yet.
Salusa
13th Jun 2019, 18:03
Apparantly both engines flamed out when aircraft went into 90 degree bank "due to turbulence".
noooby
13th Jun 2019, 19:32
You'd have to sustain negative G for a wee while to cause both engines to flame out.
I'd be looking at some other reason for fuel not getting to the engines.
FDR readout should be interesting.
industry insider
14th Jun 2019, 03:15
From the report:
Occupants 1 ??
Non-PC Plod
14th Jun 2019, 08:12
In one of the reports, it said 1 x pilot and 1 x passenger
Phoinix
14th Jun 2019, 08:52
Perhaps the pilot's side window, that was sucked inside, caused some issues with the overhead throttles?
Apparantly both engines flamed out when aircraft went into 90 degree bank "due to turbulence".
BOTH engines !!!! Again? Surely not possible, at least it's not over a hostile congested area :rolleyes:
ShyTorque
14th Jun 2019, 21:45
Looks like someone let the groundhog out.
DOUBLE BOGEY
15th Jun 2019, 08:15
ANFI you are making a very good point. This simply should not happen to MEH!! As your sarcasm alludes to, fuel starvation of any kind rather defeats the advantages of having more than 1 engine.
It will be really interesting to understand how this one has happened. I cant see turbulence causing a double flameout. Surely the pressure fuel in the feed line from the boost pump to the engine would last several seconds even if the boost pumps starts to cavitate!!
But with Clutha, now this one, ANFI, your arguments gather some momentum!
lobby
15th Jun 2019, 08:52
Thank god they had a life raft.
gulliBell
15th Jun 2019, 11:27
He picked a good spot to aim for. Too bad the bit at the bottom didn't go quite to plan. Off to the sim for some practice.
hueyracer
15th Jun 2019, 18:48
Guys,
Running out of fuel in most (though not all) multi engine helicopter leads to a failure of one engine only...
The second engine will continue to operate for a few more minutes....
This is due to the way the fuel tanks are arranged...
skadi
15th Jun 2019, 19:00
Guys,
The second engine will continue to operate for a few more minutes....
few more seconds would sound better..
C80
Same again
16th Jun 2019, 04:57
That depends on the levels of the tanks.
Hedski
16th Jun 2019, 22:42
But if you run out of fuel you run out of fuel and all goes quiet whether you be over congested hostile, open green (as in this instance) or even the icy waters of the Antarctic. There are many issues being described by the quoted crewmember, crm even when single pilot could have saved the day perhaps with the right training. But as per Almeria 139 fatal ditching a few years ago SASEMAR and Spanish operators in general aren’t big on CRM or even standards for that matter.
as365n4
18th Jun 2019, 20:23
I do not know if this is the same Aircraft but the last entry for G-CIJX on Flightradar looks a bit suspicious. 11:31 UTC at an altitude of 6450ft with 150kts ground speed an then it all stops.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-cijx#20dd2132
And a day later G-CIJW was ferried to the resuce, straight from Verigate to Alicante via St.Tropez.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/g-cijw#20e1b8ca
gulliBell
18th Jun 2019, 21:02
6450' with 150 kts GS final data point doesn't look like an OEI configuration to me.
minigundiplomat
18th Jun 2019, 21:11
SASEMAR and Spanish operators in general aren’t big on CRM or even standards for that matter.
Slightly unfair on SASEMAR, they are the customer, not operator. I believe the operator is still Babcock Espana, and agree with the comment on standards in that case. The former INAER operations that were purchased by Babcock in 2014 as part of the Avincis deal have suffered several incidents, and several anti-trust investigations in Italy and Spain. One may of expected an improvement when Babcock took over, but........
Still, they are cheap, which seems to be the key metric for customers these days.
nevillestyke
18th Jun 2019, 21:22
He picked a good spot to aim for. Too bad the bit at the bottom didn't go quite to plan. Off to the sim for some practice.
Wouldn't up slope be better, if possible, to judge the touchdown, unless the tailwind would be too great? Does down slope mean that too much collective, too early could cause a big drop from an over run? I'm fixed wing hanglider, so speculating, but I always go for an up slope to judge it spot on. Here's an extreme upslope at 0:54:
https://youtu.be/hvAEy2IcPnc
gulliBell
18th Jun 2019, 21:38
In to wind and not hitting anything is what you should be planning on. Slope doesn't matter.
Vortexringshark
19th Jun 2019, 07:51
Regardless of what caused both engines to go I would be happy with that outcome if it were me. An auto to walk away from and the aircraft not a complete waste is a tick in the box for me.
Non-PC Plod
19th Jun 2019, 11:10
In to wind and not hitting anything is what you should be planning on. Slope doesn't matter.
I'm with you on that. If you can find an area of open ground with minimum hard objects in this situation, you are lucky.
212man
19th Jun 2019, 11:31
I'm with you on that. If you can find an area of open ground with minimum hard objects in this situation, you are lucky.
plus there’s a world of difference in judging appropriate flare heights etc doing 80 kts and a partially obstructed view ahead, compared to a hanglider at what? 15 kts and unobstructed view.
gulliBell
19th Jun 2019, 13:33
..I would be happy with that outcome if it were me. An auto to walk away from and the aircraft not a complete waste is a tick in the box for me.
Maybe. Maybe not. If you don't screw up the initial transition into auto-rotation, and get a stable descent happening, and you have a big flat open area to aim for, you should be able to put it on the ground without a scratch. Call the fuel truck to top you up, maybe send another pilot and continue on.
nevillestyke
19th Jun 2019, 14:10
plus there’s a world of difference in judging appropriate flare heights etc doing 80 kts and a partially obstructed view ahead, compared to a hanglider at what? 15 kts and unobstructed view.
Pulling on enough speed on a kingpostless hanglider, to flare up a moderate slope is about 30 kts. Stalling speed is 15 kts.
Non-PC Plod
19th Jun 2019, 17:51
Maybe. Maybe not. If you don't screw up the initial transition into auto-rotation, and get a stable descent happening, and you have a big flat open area to aim for, you should be able to put it on the ground without a scratch. Call the fuel truck to top you up, maybe send another pilot and continue on.
If you get a big open area which has no rocks, ruts, rabbit holes, boggy ground or wires on it, you might get away without a scratch. If thats what you get, the gods are on your side.
SASless
19th Jun 2019, 18:33
Watching the video....and seeing all of the nice pretty flat clear areas the hang glider pilot forsake for where he did wind up....I would suggest he could have done a much easier job of getting his aircraft down than he did. Just saying!
Vortexringshark
19th Jun 2019, 20:32
If you get a big open area which has no rocks, ruts, rabbit holes, boggy ground or wires on it, you might get away without a scratch. If thats what you get, the gods are on your side.
Yeap. That nice flat open area you spotted when you enter auto tends to look a bit different about the stage you start to flare.
nevillestyke
20th Jun 2019, 00:23
Watching the video....and seeing all of the nice pretty flat clear areas the hang glider pilot forsake for where he did wind up....I would suggest he could have done a much easier job of getting his aircraft down than he did. Just saying!
Ah, but landing on the nice flat fields leaves you at the bottom of the hill, so you have to pack the glider away and load it onto a car to drive it back to the take off, where it has to be rigged again; a turnaround of 90 minutes. If you land on the slope, you can carry the glider fully rigged (a mere 105 lbs, with the harness) 200' back up to the top of the hill in just 15 minutes and be ready to take off into the next thermal. It also gives you a good workout.
SLFMS
20th Jun 2019, 01:47
Regardless of what caused both engines to go I would be happy with that outcome if it were me. An auto to walk away from and the aircraft not a complete waste is a tick in the box for me.
+2 on that comment. Slope is pretty hard to pick from 6000ft. Autos to the ground in twins are not something most civilian pilots get practice at. The Sim is great but it's not the real world. I tip my hat to the Pilot for the auto at least. Walked away with aircraft partially damaged. Babcock should be able to afford the insurance bill with all the savings they are making with wages.
gulliBell
20th Jun 2019, 03:37
...I tip my hat to the Pilot for the auto at least....
Yep. But IF he ran out of fuel, nope.
hueyracer
20th Jun 2019, 10:10
A good landing is any landing you can walk away from....
A great landing is any landing you walk away from AND can use the aircraft again!
90 degree bank “due to turbulence” that a severe one...
Unless keeping that attitude for few seconds, but the aircraft isn’t an aerobatic one, there no reason here to ran out of fuel.
Further more, if a pilot can do the same job with 30% pay cut, the engines can’t do the same range with 30% fuel cut... unfortunately
Helisweet
12th Jul 2019, 16:00
The flight data recorder has shown that in the event the pitch angle increased up to 19 ° and that there were two roll to the left: the first of 33 ° and the second of 140 °.
Phoinix
12th Jul 2019, 16:19
With cyclic input to support that roll or without or against it (correcting roll)?
SASless
12th Jul 2019, 16:33
Am I missing something?
"Turbulence" to my memory has never "rolled" the helicopter....pitched up...yawed...perhaps a very small amount of roll....lots of vertical oscillations....but never even remotely close to the roll being described here.
The one exception to that is wake turbulence which can produce large roll rates.
I am not buying the story of "clear air or mechanical turbulence" rolling the aircraft.
Milo C
12th Jul 2019, 18:03
A single crewmember onboard trying to have some fun?
212man
12th Jul 2019, 19:20
I am not buying the story of "clear air or mechanical turbulence" rolling the. Me neither! The FDR will immediately show cyclic position vs Aircraft attitude - if genuine, they will be in opposition!
Yara-ma-yha-who
12th Jul 2019, 19:47
Sounds a bit like RBS to me.
212man
12th Jul 2019, 21:32
Sounds a bit like RBS to me.
no way on a 139. RBS will happen way above Vne.
sycamore
12th Jul 2019, 21:57
What was the height of the ground where he landed..?
Surely it was enough to have tried a relight in auto....?
400hover
16th Sep 2020, 10:14
Hello pilots! Any rumours on this one??
On the official side... there is no updates...
https://www.mitma.gob.es/organos-colegiados/ciaiac/investigacion/2019/a-027-2019
topradio
17th Sep 2020, 07:08
I used Google Translate on that page
"The pilot was unhinged and left the aircraft on his own"
Ascend Charlie
17th Sep 2020, 07:47
Am I missing something?
"Turbulence" to my memory has never "rolled" the helicopter....pitched up...yawed...perhaps a very small amount of roll....lots of vertical oscillations....but never even remotely close to the roll being described here.
A late response here, Sassy, but in the late 80s I was flying a BK117 in the NSW Blue Mountains, planning to rescue a man from the bottom of a cliff. The wind was very strong from the west, and we would not have attempted the task in the B206, but we felt comfortable in the BK. Until we got into the mechanical turbulence from the cliffs - we rolled to 120 degrees, recovered, and decided to not rescue the man after all. Landed nearby and had a coffee while the ground people collected him. He was an attempted suicide, took pills, stood on the edge of the cliff and shot himself, fell down the cliff but survived. Some weeks later he was more successful.