H225 down in Korea

[vaqueroaero]

It would appear that an Airbus H225 has crashed into the ocean.

https://m.koreatimes.co.kr/pages/article.asp?newsIdx=278051

[Variable Load]

Fuselage found and one body recovered so far.

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191101000955315

[minigundiplomat]

Sad news and tragic for the families of those involved.

I think Airbus may have some difficult questions to answer - again.

[megan]

Police officers were watching the chopper after takeoff because it began to fly unsteadily at a low altitude and in a skewed direction. They said the helicopter crashed after flying about 200 metersI know we love to theorise, take off with no stab engaged? What is the handling like on the 225 in that case?

[HeliComparator]

I know we love to theorise, take off with no stab engaged? What is the handling like on the 225 in that case?

Pretty wobbly, just like any other helicopter (without a stabiliser bar). But with the 225 you engage the autopilot after start and leave it engaged until you are going to shut down. Or at least that’s what you should do!

[Flying Bull]

Pretty wobbly, just like any other helicopter (without a stabiliser bar). But with the 225 you engage the autopilot after start and leave it engaged until you are going to shut down. Or at least that’s what you should do!

You´re right - but depending on experience, finger trouble, not only disconnecting the upper modes - but all of the stabilization, is a possible scenario?

[Jimmy.]

A "finger fault" disconnecting the SAS is easy to imagine, but a SAR crew crashing an aircraft after take off at VMC and no turbulence is very, very surprising...

[malabo]

Midnight after the sliver moon had already set, shoreline helipad into the inky black. Nothing VMC about it. Should have been routine for a SAR crew, so something went sideways.

[SplineDrive]

They found the fuselage and are attempting to recover the crew/passengers... any news if the rotor and top case landed with the rest of the aircraft?

[Jimmy.]

Midnight after the sliver moon had already set, shoreline helipad into the inky black. Nothing VMC about it. Should have been routine for a SAR crew, so something went sideways.
You are correct. I have misread the takeoff hour. Happens sometimes when reading at commuting...
:ugh:

[nomorehelosforme]

They found the fuselage and are attempting to recover the crew/passengers... any news if the rotor and top case landed with the rest of the aircraft?

News report here

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-south-korea-searches-for-survivors-of-helicopter-crash-off-disputed/

[rrekn]

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1276/h225_cdph_1626_046_1_17552570574decfe7f3d226cbeb91d98320e7f6 9.jpg

[jolihokistix]

Further update dragging lumps of parts to the surface.
2 bodies from crashed Dokdo chopper retrieved - The Korea Herald (http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20191103000217)

[henra]

They found the fuselage and are attempting to recover the crew/passengers... any news if the rotor and top case landed with the rest of the aircraft?

Looking at the circumstances I would bet so. Takeoff from a lighted helipad into the pitch black night over sea. End of flight just 2 minutes after takeoff.
Even with all the gizmos on board Occam's Razor would give a clear direction where this will be going. Whatever the detailed circumstances will have been.

[gulliBell]

"Seven passengers were aboard: one person with a cut finger, five rescue officers and a friend of the injured person."

I'm gobsmacked. A night SAR deployment for somebody with a cut finger. Surely not.

[212man]

"Seven passengers were aboard: one person with a cut finger, five rescue officers and a friend of the injured person."

I'm gobsmacked. A night SAR deployment for somebody with a cut finger. Surely not.
The first article said a severed thumb, but still in no way justifying a night MEDEVAC!

[helonorth]

The first article said a severed thumb, but still in no way justifying a night MEDEVAC!
Not sure, but I doubt there is any differentiation between day and night for a flight like that, usually only weather. They should be well prepared to fly in the dark. Also, there are certain protocols that are followed by first responders called "quality of life". Nobody is going to die from a severed thumb, etc, but if a timely flight is the only way reattaching an appendage is possible, air is called. I don't make the rules.

[skadi]

The first article said a severed thumb, but still in no way justifying a night MEDEVAC!

Disagree! The outcome of a replantation is the earlier the better the patient is in an approbiate traumacenter. A thumb is not a part of your body you could easily renounce for manual work force, especially if you are of younger age.

skadi

[ShyTorque]

The first article said a severed thumb, but still in no way justifying a night MEDEVAC!

It doesn't surprise me. In my (pre-NVG) SAR days I was called to more than a few highly exaggerated, allegedly "life or death" cases. One involved going single pilot to a wire infested, unlit site in the hills on a moonless night to rescue a drunk who turned out to have a relatively minor cut on his hand, self induced on a broken beer bottle. Another involved a jungle landing to a soldier with an alleged broken spine. Having risked the aircraft and crew, the patient walked out normally with the rest of his platoon and climbed on the aircraft unaided. A third involved rescuing a "very seriously ill" sailor some 85 miles offshore from a fishing boat. On reaching him, he was stiff as a board and had obviously died the day before. We were probably called to avoid the boat having to dock or continue trying to fish with a cadaver on board, the latter being considered a bad omen.

[helonorth]

It doesn't surprise me. In my (pre-NVG) SAR days I was called to more than a few highly exaggerated, allegedly "life or death" cases. One involved going single pilot to a wire infested, unlit site in the hills on a moonless night to rescue a drunk who turned out to have a relatively minor cut on his hand, self induced on a broken beer bottle. Another involved a jungle landing to a soldier with an alleged broken spine. Having risked the aircraft and crew, the patient walked out normally with the rest of his platoon and climbed on the aircraft unaided. A third involved rescuing a "very seriously ill" sailor some 85 miles offshore from a fishing boat. On reaching him, he was stiff as a board and had obviously died the day before. We were probably called to avoid the boat having to dock or continue trying to fish with a cadaver on board, the latter being considered a bad omen.
Ah, memory lane. "And here I was..."

[jimf671]

Shy, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. :E

Time critical, life changing, though not life threatening. I'd expect this to be a GO for a specialist SAR aircraft.

[9Aplus]

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20191104002700315

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x636/pyh2019110309260005300_p4_f28a9df400918fd92211b5a30abec86ec3 4ffbc0.jpg

The main rotor is there...

[rrekn]

And in the right place... From the damage to the blades they were still rotating fast on impact.

[ShyTorque]

But what about the tail rotor? That sad sight suffered one hell of an impact, nose first by the looks of it.
No tail boom. Before or during impact sequence?

[212man]

But what about the tail rotor? That sad sight suffered one hell of an impact, nose first by the looks of it.
No tail boom. Before or during impact sequence?

It looks like it but I'm not convinced, as the bulk of the fuselage look relative uncompromised, so I suspect damage in the recovery. Having seen a few aircraft in the AAIB hangar that had high speed impacts with the water, I don't think you could do so in such a way as to destroy the cockpit section, but leave the rest looking like that. Just my thoughts

[ShyTorque]

It looks like what (not clear what you mean)?

It looks like the MR blades were still being driven at impact

[212man]

It looks like what (not clear what you mean)?

My comments were about this statement:

suffered one hell of an impact, nose first by the looks of it

[ShyTorque]

Thanks, understood. It would be disappointing if recovery caused such catastrophic damage.

Looking even closer at that depressing image it looks like the cockpit might have hit the water travelling from right to left and the impact forces completely detached it. Unless I'm mistaking a paint colour change, there also appears to be fire damage to the rear of the fuselage; obviously it wouldn't have burned underwater....

[Concentric]

... it looks like the cockpit might have hit the water travelling from right to left and the impact forces completely detached it.

Or met the rotor coming the other way.

[henra]

But what about the tail rotor? That sad sight suffered one hell of an impact, nose first by the looks of it.
No tail boom. Before or during impact sequence?

Looking at the damage (Cockpit section longitudinally crushed) this thing went in straight and fast with solid engine power turning the rotor at impact. Not spinning. And with enormous RoD.
Taking this together with the circumstances of visibility at the time of the crash, I don't expect much of a surprise...

[henra]

Or met the rotor coming the other way.
If we look at the break line of the cockpit section I would say we can pretty much rule this out. Even ignoring that we are not talking about a teetering rotor the typical Robby cut line looks totally different. Or that of the CH53 of the German Army that chopped off the top of the cockpit section a couple of years ago after a faulty maintenance for that matter.

[212man]

Looking at the damage (Cockpit section longitudinally crushed) this thing went in straight and fast with solid engine power turning the rotor at impact. Not spinning. And with enormous RoD.
Taking this together with the circumstances of visibility at the time of the crash, I don't expect much of a surprise...
so why no crush damage and deformation aft of the cockpit?

[Concentric]

Some pictorial info on the location in this link. I presume it lifted from the helideck on top of the rock. It didn't get very far.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Y8hnsgYD6o

[megan]

Similarities with this accident, night, TO over water.

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/623218-aw139-crash-bahamas-7-killed.html?highlight=139+crash

[DCP123]

The first article said a severed thumb, but still in no way justifying a night MEDEVAC!
I tend to think medevac flights are overused, but from a small island with perhaps no medical facilities beyond a first-aid kit? If it were my thumb that got detached, I'm pretty sure I'd be quite happy to jump at a chance to get my thumb reattached while it was still possible.

[jolihokistix]

The patient was said to be a fisherman, so a working thumb might be a useful thing to have.
Now reporting that a third body has been located, perhaps, it is said, the same one that they dropped when lifting the fuselage.

[malabo]

The 139 Bahamas, 505 crash Kenya (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/619062-5-dead-kenya-bell-505-crash-2.html#post10409563), I don't get the resigned "no surprise" connection, as if any night takeoff without a visible horizon is doomed. 30 years of offshore and medevac and the thousands of pilots I flew with handled it routine and safe. The EC225 is a very capable aircraft for that role and situation, probably the best. And flown by a SAR crew, which in my experience is better qualified, trained and experienced for those types of missions than anyone else, including offshore pilots. Good crews can make mistakes too, witness the Irish S92 SAR crew even with the FLIR operator gently tapping them on the back. And sorry to disappoint all the EC225 bashers that the tranny and head were still intact, maybe it's time to get over all that and move on. The 92 guys did.

[henra]

so why no crush damage and deformation aft of the cockpit?

If you look at the construction of the Puma you will find a significant difference in solidity of the 'greenhouse' front office to the rest of the fuselage.

[megan]

I don't get the resigned "no surprise" connectionNot the case, you draw the wrong conclusion, merely pointing out the similarity of circumstances. Done my share of night rig take offs.

[Outwest]

Video posted in post #34 says there was video of the crash? At 1:23 is that the heli-pad on top of that island? By the comments about the tail being 90 m away from the fuselage and 2 bodies found near the tail would that suggest that the tail was chopped off in flight? Violent control inputs?

[Concentric]

Video posted in post #34 says there was video of the crash? At 1:23 is that the heli-pad on top of that island? By the comments about the tail being 90 m away from the fuselage and 2 bodies found near the tail would that suggest that the tail was chopped off in flight? Violent control inputs?

Which suggests it wasn't quite as "inky black" as some have suggested. Yes, there is a heli-pad on top of the main islet (easily seen on Google Maps) but what is also noticeable are the cable-car wires stretching from the small harbour up to just under the heli-pad (at 1:22 in video). If the ceiling was low, could the SAR aircraft have landed at the harbour instead of the heli-pad, and struck the wires possibly with the tail rotor after take-off? "Skewed, unsteady flight"? If the TRGB then broke off, the sequence of events leading to the condition of the wreckage is not hard to visualise.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Liancourt+Rocks/@37.2428602,131.8670969,3a,75y,90t/data=!3m8!1e2!3m6!1sAF1QipMrlkGHDu9fwdxIUlJ61-0NM0OZz_iq4Hz5oQBQ!2e10!3e12!6shttps:%2F%2Flh5.googleusercon tent.com%2Fp%2FAF1QipMrlkGHDu9fwdxIUlJ61-0NM0OZz_iq4Hz5oQBQ%3Dw203-h152-k-no!7i4032!8i3024!4m5!3m4!1s0x5fe1800808859329:0xd55b157e96f1 a2ea!8m2!3d37.2429362!4d131.8668421

[ptflyer]

The tail was found "114 meters from the fuselage" according to news reports.
https://news.imaeil.com/inc/photos/2019/11/05/2019110517094287036_l.jpg

[Fareastdriver]

There wasn't any power to that rotor when it hit the sea so it departed in the air. A clean break at an assembly point?

[Outwest]

From the almost damaged free picture of that tail boom it couldn't have been chopped off by the main rotor.....what would cause it to separate in flight so cleanly?

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

Outwest it does not seem to have been chopped off.
Like Fareast says, looks like a clean separation at the transport joint.

[industry insider]

When we contracted 225s, we had a couple of aircraft with significant corrosion around the boom attachment. Isn’t it a metal / composite joint?

[tonkaplonka]

When we contracted 225s, we had a couple of aircraft with significant corrosion around the boom attachment. Isn’t it a metal / composite joint?
Metal on the tail boom side and composite on the aircraft side.

[Twist & Shout]

Poor Airbus.

Just when they convince themselves that the main rotor system won’t fall off anymore, a tail boom departs the scene.
Standing by for the Airbus press release that they have found the tail boom attachment bolts in a tool box*



* Referring of course to their initial claim they had the “parts” that should have attached the MRGB in the Norwegian 225.

[The Sultan]

Remember the Kuwaiti midair:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FMyoiNgiedg

The right hand ship’s tail failed at what looks like a similar station. So some sort of main rotor failure such as loss of a blade tip weight or a pitch link failure could easily have snapped the boom off.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

there are quite a few other video examples where the tailbooms depart the aircraft without being struck by the MRB's.
In those, its clearly an overloaded scenario dependent on the torque applied. The weakest point loses the fight.
What caused that in this case will be determined I am sure.

[The Sultan]

Gray,

In Kuwait the rotor did not hit the tail. The boom failed because the imbalance of the rotor resulting from the collision snapped it off.

[Flying Bull]

Also to be considered - the point, where you find parts on the seabed - doesn´t automatically mean, that they dropped in the water vertical above that point.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

Gray,

In Kuwait the rotor did not hit the tail. The boom failed because the imbalance of the rotor resulting from the collision snapped it off.

yeah, i know, thats what i was saying. I agreed with you saying theres many more examples of that out there.

[Outwest]

Outwest it does not seem to have been chopped off.
Like Fareast says, looks like a clean separation at the transport joint.
I think you missed my point, which was that exactly. It was NOT chopped off.

[Outwest]

Also to be considered - the point, where you find parts on the seabed - doesn´t automatically mean, that they dropped in the water vertical above that point.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.
Thats true, but you still can't dismiss the lack of damage to both the boom itself and the TR blades, suggesting it departed with plenty of time for the blades to slow down before impact with the water....

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

I think you missed my point, which was that exactly. It was NOT chopped off.


Yes sorry about that. Must read more carefully.

[Hompy]

Yet again people died in an EC225 and still we have armchair experts jumping to conclusions and most likely being proved wrong, again. I have heard the ‘it’s ok to speculate’ argument time and time again. When people are dead and their bodies are missing it just is not ok to speculate that it was likely to be two of the dead’s fault until there is at least some evidence to back that up. Two of you armchair warriors already have form if anybody cares to look at the Norwegian 225 thread. Maybe I should speculate and imply that you are receiving payment from Airbus to influence opinion on this public forum? I don’t believe that, but what has been implied here is worse. You denigrate the professions involved here with your pathetic amateur sleuth work!

[Outwest]

Yet again people died in an EC225 and still we have armchair experts jumping to conclusions and most likely being proved wrong, again. I have heard the ‘it’s ok to speculate’ argument time and time again. When people are dead and their bodies are missing it just is not ok to speculate that it was likely to be two of the dead’s fault until there is at least some evidence to back that up. Two of you armchair warriors already have form if anybody cares to look at the Norwegian 225 thread. Maybe I should speculate and imply that you are receiving payment from Airbus to influence opinion on this public forum? I don’t believe that, but what has been implied here is worse. You denigrate the professions involved here with your pathetic amateur sleuth work!

Wooo buddy, I'm not jumping to any conclusions at all, just stating the obvious that the tail boom and TR was basically damage free according to the picture. I, as you and everyone else have no idea on how or why it departed the a/c, but it sure looks like it did.

[Shell Management]

Hompy - neat move there seizing the moral high ground and then dumping your own biases as an aside. Classy.

[ShyTorque]

I recall an incident that almost cost an RAF Puma in the late 1970s. It was discovered to have flown with just three bolts holding the tail boom on
at the transport joint. There were supposed to be thirty six, iirc.

[jimf671]

Yet again people died in an EC225 ... ...

Not entirely happy with your intro there but maybe it's just the times we live in.

We all have an ambition for everyone to be safe in the air and it's right to want the H225 to never have another accident. However, I think that in this age of easy mass communications and easy access to news we can lose sight of the historical context. Sometimes it seems like what happened before the internet never happened. In terms of helicopter fatalities, large rotorcraft that have been in widespread service for 15 years and done hundreds of thousands of flying hours but only had a couple of dozen fatalities are an outstanding new feature of the helicopter market. So that would be the Airbus H225 and the Sikorsky S-92. Let's not forget the thousands of people who died in accidents in other large rotorcraft down the years (some models of which are still around and still having fatal accidents at an unacceptable rate). Think too about the many people who are alive today who might have been dead if Airbus had not produced the H225 and Sikorsky had not produced the S-92.

Onwards and upwards.

[Hompy]

Hompy - neat move there seizing the moral high ground and then dumping your own biases as an aside. Classy.

No moral high ground here but interesting you think I dumped any bias because I really couldn’t give a t8##! I just don’t like pilots/engineers/crewman or families of dead people suffering because some idiot has to massage their ego instead of getting a decent hobby, is all.

[Variable Load]

No moral high ground here but interesting you think I dumped any bias because I really couldn’t give a t8##! I just don’t like pilots/engineers/crewman or families of dead people suffering because some idiot has to massage their ego instead of getting a decent hobby, is all.

Don't fret things Hompy, SM has deep well-aged biases in favour of AS/ECF/Airbus products. He would much rather you find fault with pilots, as that fits nicely with his pre-conceived ideas of risk :ugh:

[megan]

Well, well, Shelly is back. We've missed the three years of no comedy you regularly provided in your various analysis of safety issues. Take no notice of the prat Hompy.

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

No moral high ground here but interesting you think I dumped any bias because I really couldn’t give a t8##! I just don’t like pilots/engineers/crewman or families of dead people suffering because some idiot has to massage their ego instead of getting a decent hobby, is all.
Hompy, to be fair to all the helicopters, (Birds!.........eeeew), many perfectly serviceable ones have been sent for an early bath by our brethren for a whole variety of reasons. Mostly **** training before hand or a copilot paralysed by lack of procedures and intervention policies.

so when a “Bird”.......eeeeew, goes in at night shortly after take off it’s as fair an assumption as any........until that image of the tail boom appeared on the thread. Oh how the old hill of hindsight makes everything and everyone that went before seem inept.

i think the current armchair thesis is.....”The tail fell off”

[Jdbelo]

Any news about preliminary report?

[HeliComparator]

Yet again people died in an EC225 and still we have armchair experts jumping to conclusions and most likely being proved wrong, again. I have heard the ‘it’s ok to speculate’ argument time and time again. When people are dead and their bodies are missing it just is not ok to speculate that it was likely to be two of the dead’s fault until there is at least some evidence to back that up. Two of you armchair warriors already have form if anybody cares to look at the Norwegian 225 thread. Maybe I should speculate and imply that you are receiving payment from Airbus to influence opinion on this public forum? I don’t believe that, but what has been implied here is worse. You denigrate the professions involved here with your pathetic amateur sleuth work!


Check the title. This is a rumour forum. It sounds to me like it’s not a suitable forum for you to read. Never mind, there are plenty of others.

[Crewjuice]

Anyone know if a preliminary report has been issued yet? Any official statements? It's been very quiet since the accident and no information to find on the web. Surely there must be causes the South Korean Accident Investigation Board has ruled out that should be shared with the public.

[pitchlink1]

Anyone know if a preliminary report has been issued yet? Any official statements? It's been very quiet since the accident and no information to find on the web. Surely there must be causes the South Korean Accident Investigation Board has ruled out that should be shared with the public. The silence is remarkable - not a preliminary report after close to 4 months must indicate they have found nothing so far - and that even with recovered CVR and FDR.

[JoeCool88]

The silence indeed is remarkable. If we consider a pilots error the clean cut off of the tailboom does not fit into this picture. The fact that Airbus seems totally relaxed shows that most probably there is no problem caused by the design of the h/c, nor by material fatigue. The (only) explanation remaining which makes sense is a connection between the accident and the maintenance which was done some weeks before the crash. Where a missing good torque of the bolts of the airframe - tailboom junction could perfectly explain the clean cut of the tailboom, too. Taking all this together with a far eastern mentality where an individual never does something wrong you'll maybe find the reason for the silence.

[Twist & Shout]

The silence indeed is remarkable. If we consider a pilots error the clean cut off of the tailboom does not fit into this picture. The fact that Airbus seems totally relaxed shows that most probably there is no problem caused by the design of the h/c, nor by material fatigue.# The (only) explanation remaining which makes sense is a connection between the accident and the maintenance which was done some weeks before the crash. Where a missing good torque of the bolts of the airframe - tailboom junction could perfectly explain the clean cut of the tailboom*, too. Taking all this together with a far eastern mentality where an individual never does something wrong you'll maybe find the reason for the silence.

# Assuming Airbus isn’t a morally bankrupt organization.
* History would suggest: Airbus would be very vocal about this explanation. They were in a previous EC225 fatal crash. Even the fact that it wasn’t a maintenance issue didn’t stop them.

[JoeCool88]

South East Asia region looks like the last market for non military brand new H225 h/c. Being Airbus, would you bite the last civil hand which feeds you?

[Crewjuice]

Korea National 119 Rescue is receiving a factory new S-92 for firefighting and search & rescue missions. Is this a sign of distrust in the H225 following the accident in 2019? Still haven't seen an accident report. Anyone else?

[JoeCool88]

Korea National 119 Rescue is receiving a factory new S-92 for firefighting and search & rescue missions. Is this a sign of distrust in the H225 following the accident in 2019? Still haven't seen an accident report. Anyone else?

A while ago I was in contact with someone from www.aviation-safety.net , they have the H225 HL9619 as occurance 230316 in their data base. He said that it is not unusual that an accident investigation takes some two years in South Corea. Corean Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board (ARAIB, www.araib.molit.go.kr ) is in charge. As the h/c recently had maintenance, the tailboom was separated razor sharp from frame 9900 and the TR was not turning anymore when it hit the sea. I have my own theory about what happened.