AW169 Rollover

[Nescafe]

https://www.giornaletrentino.it/cronaca/bolzano-elicottero-della-guardia-di-finanza-si-rovescia-in-fase-di-decollo-1.2874156?fbclid=IwAR08qKTxclDToYfo2HX0zXiBToaWIw6-2vesvSAooErsoQaT7ZNgJYuxSOE

Released the nose wheel lock with plenty of pedal applied?


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/fcc418d3_a611_4417_90c5_56248e5e3d41_7d05840a2a315ff02692312 af4b9b04857cdb7f3.jpeg
https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/a37edee2_e59a_47ab_afd6_7f9d083ffa74_82ae1fe4a564e5c480ea139 0f45c25e3b7e420b6.jpeg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/2f0d95ac_f2de_4b88_84df_3e16aa13a942_4579198b554a7b1ee14a7d8 55caee53e6bc6482c.jpeg
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/627x418/4021578f_d384_40c5_a637_2a68bcdb0ebf_efd81d84b5d249e5699da5f 8ae415d9ff6d10d03.jpeg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/900x675/449fe632_9cb3_4880_b1c8_0e2cf202e262_543074825cf90094f0cc889 d3b15961a73774703.jpeg

[malabo]

The AAIU has already determined it was not the crew’s fault. The pilot was licensed and qualified by the authority and followed the published SOP to the letter, nobody to blame.

But even less seriously...looks like he wanted to taxi to the left, aircraft resisted so he tried a little harder, then remembered the nosewheel lock and when it released the aircraft spun left with full left pedal applied. This threw the pilot to the right still hanging on to the cyclic and collective. So on top of the yaw the pilot has now got the collective coming up and full right cyclic. The aircraft is truly embarrassed at the overreaction by the pilot to the initial slow left turn and rolls over in shame.

fodder for weeks to come on pprune

[gulliBell]

What surprises me is pilots are still finding new ways to needlessly prang helicopters.

[ericferret]

What surprises me is pilots are still finding new ways to needlessly prang helicopters.


and new ways to kill the ground crew.

[Sir Korsky]

they should have just put a damper in and had done with it

[jimf671]

and new ways to kill the ground crew.

The guy legging it towards the corner of the hangar caught on pretty quick. Best decision-maker portrayed here!

[malabo]

Yep, watch his body language as the 169 inches forward - he knows bad things gonna happen.
Puma guys can sympathize.

[ShyTorque]

What surprises me is pilots are still finding new ways to needlessly prang helicopters.

But this looks like an old way!

However, I do wonder if this has any similarity to the tragic accident at Leicester football ground....it looked like yaw control was completely lost.

[helicrazi]

Looks more like a load of pedal then a sudden release of nosewheel lock.

I wonder of the paws were a hindrance when it started to go?

[nut]

https://bithome.ch/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/AW169Bolzano.mp4



https://youtu.be/UW7LVVl3-4Y

[ShyTorque]

Looks more like a load of pedal then a sudden release of nosewheel lock.

I wonder of the paws were a hindrance when it started to go?

Yes, that’s obviously how it started but why no opposite pedal once it began yawing?

[Fareastdriver]

The main gearbox breaking up doesn't fill me with much confidence. I've seen a couple of roll overs, have been in one, but the gearboxes have kept their integrity.

[collectivethrust]

The MGB looks intact as the shaft and beanie are still in place. The MR Head has come apart, little surprise. Fuselage retains shape and doors remain in place. Cabin door still slides open.

[Koalatiger]

Looks more like a load of pedal then a sudden release of nosewheel lock.

I wonder of the paws were a hindrance when it started to go?

Sure looks like that, you can see when the nosewheel lock being released that the nosewheel swings 90degrees immediately indicating alot of left pedal...

[212man]

The main gearbox breaking up doesn't fill me with much confidence. I've seen a couple of roll overs, have been in one, but the gearboxes have kept their integrity.
I’m watching on my phone, but don’t see the MGB breaking up?

[[email protected]]

Can't see MRGB break-up either.

Difficult to see why he didn't take any corrective action.

[homonculus]

Difficult to see why he didn't take any corrective action.

The AAIU has already determined it was not the crew’s fault. The pilot was licensed and qualified by the authority and followed the published SOP to the letter, nobody to blame.

Simple answer

[helicrazi]

Simple answer

I think you'll find that entire post is sarcasm... :ugh:

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

It looks like a hardcover to the anti torque side (negative power pedal). Absolutely no response on the pedals. OR full left pedal tryin to defeat the nose wheel lock that either fails or is removed. Just can’t see why the opposite pedal is not put in. The puma goes instantly when the nose wheel over centres so cabs will spin easily once the nose wheels are in the 90 degree position. Just can’t get why opposite pedal seems absent.

[krypton_john]

Yes, that’s obviously how it started but why no opposite pedal once it began yawing?

Is it yawing because of MR torque or because of TR torque?

[[email protected]]

Is it yawing because of MR torque or because of TR torque? it seems because he put far too much pedal input - he could have lifted to the hover and not crashed the aircraft

[ShyTorque]

The blades on the 169 rotate anti-clockwise as seen from above. The tail rotor is on the right of the tail, so it’s a “puller”, rather than a pusher.

It remains to be published whether or not the pilot actually retained control of tail rotor pitch.

If the control linkage failed, as in the Leicester AW169 accident, he may have initiated a yaw only for t/r pitch to run away to full travel. In this case it looks like an uncontrolled amount of positive (power) pedal pitch was involved, rather than the negative pitch that caused the Leicester aircraft to go out of control.

[It used to be part of the RAF Puma conversion course how to learn how “drive” the aircraft forwards out of the situation where the nose wheel had accidentally become fully cocked off to the side. The first part of that recovery was to centralise the yaw pedals to avoid the aircraft rotating uncontrollably, and use the independent main wheel brakes to help stabilise and steer, rather than big bootfulls of pedal. It was important to get this right, due to the high mounted tail rotor the Puma will roll very rapidly and markedly if too much pedal is used on the ground].

[Nescafe]

It appears that as the aircraft moves forwards pedal is applied to turn left, so much so that the aircraft actually leans over to the right. The pilot stops forward motion (at 26 seconds), releases the pin and its all over.

[jb68321]

So is this just a case of Italian authorities trying to sweep pilot error under the rug? Or did I misunderstand you? Certainly seems like a few pilot errors from my perspective, but I'm not so experienced with AWs. I've heard some stories about the company culture and Italian authorities before though...

The AAIU has already determined it was not the crew’s fault. The pilot was licensed and qualified by the authority and followed the published SOP to the letter, nobody to blame.

[SpindleBob]

As said above - That comment about the Italian authorities was just sarcasm - A joke!!

Fair play to the second ground crew - The one furthest from the camera - He was actually running towards the fire extinguisher and still ducking for cover while the aircraft was rolling and showering the ramp in debris. I don't know whether to put him forward for a medal or clip him round the ear!!

[Flying Bull]

Hi,
there is a video online on Facebook, where the scenario is replayed in a simulator.
The sim crashes even faster
-R&c[0]=AT2Ip82GROK-OC0FGukaE3KkBck4XtOJ8CVtD75qWZu6FYDWQ4MAKaxkXpxaaZfAPhF5st4a ytG6KQocI7vB23lT0jK1IRlopThWYJCgn7DGmNJ7Ca2W0IG9otSZ68THO5Q0 vpvowzoSGdkwJee0b2Uw-Ba0uyIwd9RxR-GVRrcj3lqa6UMKielU8Lg]Facebook-Link to video (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffb.watch%2F4xde2TX6td%2F%3Ffbclid%3DIw AR11cSN8zGJZ1ji-Hs3Ve0iOEWPBLlP1su5-OXHKP551gSWnsD7HUT4unWY&h=AT19ThIaCrPcUyBCjy_KlAy63R4bW-nPI6tdg4Xzs0HTm6NrqJaAdjeBjHP06SEbopWAp1zsF_FM-YmkkCG3KbP_3mPHBqsKxcsfNA3AMaqYOPI2qMnPrbKulbINugN3k8cfxP9F1 g&__tn__=R)

[hargreaves99]

it looks like they were trying to taxi and turn left (ie left pedal in) and the nosewheel lock was engaged, when the noseweel lock was taken out, the wheel "flicks" to the left quickly (you can see this in video if you look closely), as a lot of left pedal was already applied the aircraft started to rotate left quite rapidly.

like with any pedal/rotation scenario, once an aircraft has completed one or two 360s the pilot will be so disorientated/surprised/frozen in terror... in most cases it's "game over"

[ApolloHeli]

Here's a link to the Facebook video referenced earlier (same scenario replicated in a simulator)

https://imgur.com/a/1DA60zZ

I copied and re-uploaded the video as it was difficult to locate in its original form on Facebook.

[gulliBell]

And what does the flashing light on the CWP signify the moment things start to go pear shaped?

[Droopy]

That's the nosewheel going through the process of unlocking.

[ZAGORFLY]

I believe the explanation is incomplete because the pilots would have obviously apply correction rudder right to stop the uncommanded left rotation that let me think that is a hydraulic jam here in place.

[QU=malabo;11017649]The AAIU has already determined it was not the crew’s fault. The pilot was licensed and qualified by the authority and followed the published SOP to the letter, nobody to blame.

But even less seriously...looks like he wanted to taxi to the left, aircraft resisted so he tried a little harder, then remembered the nosewheel lock and when it released the aircraft spun left with full left pedal applied. This threw the pilot to the right still hanging on to the cyclic and collective. So on top of the yaw the pilot has now got the collective coming up and full right cyclic. The aircraft is truly embarrassed at the overreaction by the pilot to the initial slow left turn and rolls over in shame.

fodder for weeks to come on pprune[/QUOTE]

[etudiant]

Can only say 'Oh wow!'.
An aircraft in perfect shape, destroyed in seconds because of the nose wheel not being unlocked in time?
If this is representative of the sensitivity of helicopter flying, it explains a lot.
The question that remains is why do very wealthy people accept such low safety standards.

[hargreaves99]

unlikely, the fast left yaw would have taken them by surprise and they would have quickly got disorientated

>I believe the explanation is incomplete because the pilots would have obviously apply correction rudder right to stop the uncommanded left rotation that let me think that is a hydraulic jam here in place.

[helicrazi]

Can only say 'Oh wow!'.
An aircraft in perfect shape, destroyed in seconds because of the nose wheel not being unlocked in time?
If this is representative of the sensitivity of helicopter flying, it explains a lot.
The question that remains is why do very wealthy people accept such low safety standards.

I missed what this has to do with wealthy people?

[atakacs]

The question that remains is why do very wealthy people accept such low safety standards.
In this specific case I thnk those guys are supposed to go after the wealthy people (Italian fiscal police )

[SpindleBob]

OK, so if we accept that this may well be the cause. Certainly taking out the nose wheel lock with full left pedal, can go very wrong very quickly.

What is the learning? Pilot training? Lift into the hover like ground resonance - Last thing you want to do when you feel like you might have lost tail rotor control, is to get in the air! Perhaps with the violent rotation, your feet might get swept of the pedals?

If this has happened twice by the sound of it, would a software interlock be worthwhile? One that doesn't allow the nose wheel to be unlocked unless the pedals are set at no more than +/- 30% power for example?

[helicrazi]

I believe the explanation is incomplete because the pilots would have obviously apply correction rudder right to stop the uncommanded left rotation that let me think that is a hydraulic jam here in place.

This wasnt uncommanded, it was commanded, and as soon as they realised they had forgotten the nosewheel lock and unlocked it (the amber flashing lights in the sim) they got the yaw they commanded.

[helicrazi]

OK, so if we accept that this may well be the cause. Certainly taking out the nose wheel lock with full left pedal, can go very wrong very quickly.

What is the learning? Pilot training? Lift into the hover like ground resonance - Last thing you want to o when you feel like you might have lost tail rotor control, is to get in the air!

If this has happened twice by the sound of it, would a software interlock be worthwhile? One that doesn't allow the nose wheel to be unlocked unless the pedals are set at no more than +/- 30% power for example?

Only 1 aw169 that we know of. It happens on most types, especially puma as detailed earlier.

Pilots are trained, sop's are written, people dont follow them, the cause of many accidents.

[etudiant]

I missed what this has to do with wealthy people?
Think recent accidents in Alaska, earlier in France, the Caribbean and before that a UK stadium, all billionaires, wiped out by their helicopters

[helicrazi]

Think recent accidents in Alaska, earlier in France, the Caribbean and before that a UK stadium, all billionaires, wiped out by their helicopters

But this wasnt a privately owned helicopter with a crew being paid by HNW individual. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

[PlasticCabDriver]

It used to be part of the RAF Puma conversion course how to learn how “drive” the aircraft forwards out of the situation where the nose wheel had accidentally become fully cocked off to the side. The first part of that recovery was to centralise the yaw pedals to avoid the aircraft rotating uncontrollably, and use the independent main wheel brakes to help stabilise and steer, rather than big bootfulls of pedal. It was important to get this right, due to the high mounted tail rotor the Puma will roll very rapidly and markedly if too much pedal is used on the ground].

and was even more fun to teach from the LHS when only the RHS had brakes!

[etudiant]

But this wasnt a privately owned helicopter with a crew being paid by HNW individual. Wealth has nothing to do with it.

Exactly, seems a very touchy device even with a fully professional crew.
Something that zillionaires chose to ignore at their peril.

[ShyTorque]

and was even more fun to teach from the LHS when only the RHS had brakes!

Indeed it was. Along with the other dirty little tricks that type could play on an inattentive pilot! Turmo engines without anticipators backing right off then being very slow to catch up next time they were needed, in flight Y/R divergence and “wrong pedal” takeoffs, BARALT hold dropping out below 80kts and the aircraft wanting to surreptitiously go into a descent, etc.

[ZAGORFLY]

3 entire left rotation did not prompt the pilot to counteract with right pedal ? Nor down collective and close the throttle?these are memory items! BTW Leonardo why an helicopter need a wheel lock in first place?
did the pilot checked free of movements of all the controls before takeoff? maybe not. Embarrassing.
The AAIU has already determined it was not the crew’s fault. The pilot was licensed and qualified by the authority and followed the published SOP to the letter, nobody to blame.

But even less seriously...looks like he wanted to taxi to the left, aircraft resisted so he tried a little harder, then remembered the nosewheel lock and when it released the aircraft spun left with full left pedal applied. This threw the pilot to the right still hanging on to the cyclic and collective. So on top of the yaw the pilot has now got the collective coming up and full right cyclic. The aircraft is truly embarrassed at the overreaction by the pilot to the initial slow left turn and rolls over in shame.

fodder for weeks to come on pprune

[monkey_see]

Can only say 'Oh wow!'.
An aircraft in perfect shape, destroyed in seconds because of the nose wheel not being unlocked in time?
If this is representative of the sensitivity of helicopter flying, it explains a lot.
The question that remains is why do very wealthy people accept such low safety standards.

An aircraft in perfect shape destroyed in seconds because more or less full left pedal is applied on ground.
I have never flown a plane but somehow I am sure not following the RFM and SOPs is a path to wreck a perfect airplane as well.
This has nothing to do with low safety standards. Planes crash all the time as well. Already forgotten the 737 Max?

[hargreaves99]

i assume checking the nosewheel lock is off/out is part of a pre-landing checklist?

[helicrazi]

i assume checking the nosewheel lock is off/out is part of a pre-landing checklist?

In this situation, it's in the pre taxi checks, which it's being assumed, were missed.

[Flying Bull]

3 entire left rotation did not prompt the pilot to counteract with right pedal ? Nor down collective and close the throttle?these are memory items! BTW Leonardo why an helicopter need a wheel lock in first place?
did the pilot checked free of movements of all the controls before takeoff? maybe not. Embarrassing.

Well,
there is some information, we don’t have yet
ie who pressed the unlock switch?
Could have been without proper crew coordination and caught out the pilot by surprise (not excusing the inputs already applied and not reducing them when coming to a stop for error analysis)
You have to be 100% there to react fast enough- or you turn into a passenger in a matter of seconds.

About the need of nose wheel locks - yes, you need them, when you do a fast run on landing, ie with a tailrotor malfunction.
You can see on the accident video, how much torque could be counteracted with a locked wheel- excactly what you want in case of tailrotor emergencies.

Full and free movement of controls won’t test the nose wheel, its freely rotating - if not locked

[Reely340]

Indeed it was. Along with the other dirty little tricks that type could play on an inattentive pilot! Turmo engines without anticipators backing right off then being very slow to catch up next time they were needed, in flight Y/R divergence and “wrong pedal” takeoffs, BARALT hold dropping out below 80kts and the aircraft wanting to surreptitiously go into a descent, etc.
Damn, you are talking about a design from 2012 correct? :confused:

Even 60 years old S300Cs have peerless throttle correlators (no closed loop, but working very fine).

How can BARALT hold drop out except for clogged static port? :bored:
I can understand that RADALT can do funny thing when over water or crossing a dropoff,
but BARALT hold should be super reliable, except maybe when close to mining explosion with noticeable shock wave.

And what is a "wrong pedal takeoff" in an AW169 ?
Its MR turn Bell-style, so even non-metric pilots from overseas should feel at home.

[Bravo73]

Damn, you are talking about a design from 2012 correct? :confused:


No. He's talking about the original SA330 Puma, first designed in the early 1960s.

[[email protected]]

No. He's talking about the original SA330 Puma, first designed in the early 1960s. which had a rather late 'mid-life' upgrade and will be scrapped by 2025.

The Pumas were notorious for their lack of anticipators and the crewman would loiter between the seats to call the Ng/N1 above 75% - below that, at large application of collective would droop the Nr and drop the electrics and AP off line ISTR.

[etudiant]

An aircraft in perfect shape destroyed in seconds because more or less full left pedal is applied on ground.
I have never flown a plane but somehow I am sure not following the RFM and SOPs is a path to wreck a perfect airplane as well.
This has nothing to do with low safety standards. Planes crash all the time as well. Already forgotten the 737 Max?

Well, perhaps the analog is the A-340 crew destroying a brand new aircraft by running up the engines without wheel chocks. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/etihad-a340-accident/)
Still is very sobering to see how fast things can go pear shaped.

[Reely340]

No. He's talking about the original SA330 Puma, first designed in the early 1960s.
Pheeew, that is reassuring. thx

[ShyTorque]

No. He's talking about the original SA330 Puma, first designed in the early 1960s.

Correct! As I joined the RAF Puma fleet (over 40 years ago), I was handed a formal Flight Appraisal report written by a Boscombe Down test pilot. It mentioned the issues I included and the conclusion was along the lines of “until these design faults are corrected, this aircraft should not be accepted into service.”

Anyway, as we approach the Puma’s 50th anniversary in RAF service.....at least they fitted decent engines a decade or so ago. :D

[sycamore]

The list was a lot longer than that ,Shy.......!

[ZAGORFLY]

This wasnt uncommanded, it was commanded, and as soon as they realised they had forgotten the nosewheel lock and unlocked it (the amber flashing lights in the sim) they got the yaw they commanded.
and wait 3 turns before realizing that some thing was wrong? Wait two entire 360 before apply right pedal and kill the torque by lowering the collective? I don’t think so. The rudder was jammed. Btw if I will buy that helicopter I will request skids !...

[Flying Bull]

and wait 3 turns before realizing that some thing was wrong? Wait two entire 360 before apply right pedal and kill the torque by lowering the collective? I don’t think so. The rudder was jammed. Btw if I will buy that helicopter I will request skids !...
sorry Zagorfly,
you are showing, that you have no clue about what went on and which forces are working.
First mistake was not to unlock before starting to roll
second mistake was to increase pedal and collective, when the intended turn didn’t work - you can see the helicopter already tilting, which feels extremly odd and should make one uneasy...
third mistake was stopping with brakes instead of lowering the collective first - still torque applied
fourth mistake was to unlock the nose wheel in that configuration
and you think a pilot, not knowing what he did the whole time will be quick enough in his reactions and able to overcome the centrifugal forces after the first turn?
He needed to dump the collective within the first 90 to 180 degrees, if there ought to be a chance of recovery- after that he is only a passenger...

[helicrazi]

and wait 3 turns before realizing that some thing was wrong? Wait two entire 360 before apply right pedal and kill the torque by lowering the collective? I don’t think so. The rudder was jammed. Btw if I will buy that helicopter I will request skids !...

And this is the problem with pprune :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

I've flown two aircraft with lockable tailwheels (Wessex and Sea King) and two with lockable nosewheels (AS365 and AW 139) and they all need a little wiggle on the yaw pedals moving forward slowly to ensure the pin comes out and the wheel is unlocked - not a great bootfull of pedal like this guy did.

If it doesn't unlock, lower the collective, check the handle/selector and then try again - gently!

Just very poor piloting.

[Fareastdriver]

Anyway, as we approach the Puma’s 50th anniversary in RAF service.....at least they fitted decent engines a decade or so ago

Still the only helicopter in the world where the pilots have to crawl over the jump seat to get into the cockpit; the perfectly serviceable cockpit entry doors being mandated as to be permanently locked in 1972.

[ShyTorque]

FED, agreed - yet to properly secure the aircraft for the night, the cabin doors had to be P stropped to the internal structure! In my younger, snake hipped and athletic days, I used to fit the last strop then exit the aircraft via the cockpit window (I think I’d need hospital treatment if I tried that these days).

[sycamore]

A/Spatiale, as was,used to get their door locks from the Renault/Citroen car factory across the motorway in Marignane..

[megan]

First I've heard of a nose wheel type having a locking system, S-76 doesn't, explanation please as to why the difference?

[Sir Korsky]

First I've heard of a nose wheel type having a locking system, S-76 doesn't, explanation please as to why the difference?

The 76 has a damper so you can run it on at 60 knots and you'll not get a potentially damaging shimmy wobble. Fast run on landings in the 169 and 139 require the nose wheel locked. There is an electronic locking pin which secures the nose wheel in place. On touch down, you'll need to hit the unlock button on the gear panel to release the locking pin to taxi. Attempting to steer with high torque settings and the nose wheel locked can cause damage to the whole nose gear locking pin installation. The whole nose wheel assembly is a weak point on these machines, especially for towing. 76 undercarriage is bullet proof. The Augusta systems are far more delicate.

[megan]

Thanks SK. :ok: Is attempt at structure weight saving why they have gone the locking route?

[ShyTorque]

76 undercarriage is bullet proof

As long as you put the pins in before towing; due to the design needing hydraulic pressure to stay locked. I think all AW helis have mechanical down locks which don’t need pinning for towing.

Having flown both types, I prefer having a locking nose wheel, but then even some Sikorskys had them. The type I trained on actually had TWO! The Puma also has one.

[212man]

76 undercarriage is bullet proof.

Hardly - they don't like pot holes much!
First I've heard of a nose wheel type having a locking system, S-76 doesn't, explanation please as to why the difference?

Typically used for fast running landing (such as TR malfunction) and moving helidecks. Same as a tail wheel lock (S61).

[[email protected]]

And stopping the aircraft rotating during rotor start and shut down.

[etudiant]

Presumably these kinds of accidents are fairly common.
Certainly there are a number of somewhat similar cases here on PPRN, some involving dollies, but all with attempted maneuvers very near ground.
Does the training have a special syllabus for these?

[Sir Korsky]

As long as you put the pins in before towing; due to the design needing hydraulic pressure to stay locked. I think all AW helis have mechanical down locks which don’t need pinning for towing.


Yup, and when it's -30C out at night and you're on your back under the 139 nosewheel, trying to align up that ******* manual locking pin in the guide hole for the 17th time so it can get towed into the hangar - this brings you immense joy I can tell you. Never had such problems on the 76.

( These Augusta aircraft require another manual locking pin which must be physically inserted before towing that feeble nosewheel. This is to prevent the tow bar being attached and the aircraft towed with the electronic nose wheel actuator inadvertently fastened in the lock position. There are expensive sheer bolts fabricated into the tow bar to help prevent this from happening by fatigued flight and ground crews. The emergency gear down is fluid operated though and will lock into place once activated. Easy fix for the mechanic, unlike the 76. )

[megan]

Typically used for fast running landing (such as TR malfunction) and moving helidecksNever ever had any issues with the 76 on moving helidecks, nor heard of problems. What issues prevail, besides forgetting to lock the brakes?

Only tail wheel locking type I flew was the H-34, locking was only required on parking, running take off/landing or doing an auto. Any student who broke a pin was required to wear it on a lanyard around the neck for a week, I reckon it should have been the instructor who wore it as all trips were dual - inadequate supervision. :p

[PlasticCabDriver]

Still the only helicopter in the world where the pilots have to crawl over the jump seat to get into the cockpit; the perfectly serviceable cockpit entry doors being mandated as to be permanently locked in 1972.

S-92 cockpit accessed through the cabin as well. Often accompanied by the back of the life jacket switching something in the overhead panel on or off.

[helicrazi]

S-92 cockpit accessed through the cabin as well. Often accompanied by the back of the life jacket switching something in the overhead panel on or off.

Jackpot when you manage both AC Gens whilst getting in the LHS. Real great.

[sycamore]

Personally I think for a tactical troop aircraft the undercarriages of the AW and Bell are totally wrong with `pi%$y little high pressure tyres,and nosewheels that are likely to `dig-in` on first contact with any `soft` surface in any `tactical run-on..even your FLIR/optics turret is very vulnerable under the nose...They should have skids,,or wheels like the MH-60/AH64 /or Wessex...might be `retro and not aesthetically pleasing,but dynamically much better for `agricultural` driving...not like `ReliantRobins`.....

Hat,coat,big watch......

[helicrazi]

Personally I think for a tactical troop aircraft the undercarriages of the AW and Bell are totally wrong with `pi%$y little high pressure tyres,and nosewheels that are likely to `dig-in` on first contact with any `soft` surface in any `tactical run-on..even your FLIR/optics turret is very vulnerable under the nose...They should have skids,,or wheels like the MH-60/AH64 /or Wessex...might be `retro and not aesthetically pleasing,but dynamically much better for `agricultural` driving...not like `ReliantRobins`.....

Hat,coat,big watch......

Most are available with skids, 169 skid version now available

[Fareastdriver]

What I should have said was that of the 1,000 plus Pumas and Super Pumas produced the 23 operated by the RAF have their doors permanently locked. Over the last fifty years the rest seem to be perfectly happy with their pilots getting in and out of the doors designed for the purpose.

[ShyTorque]

Goodness knows who brought the rule in but I’d put money on it being an engineering officer.

[sycamore]

D120A might be along to comment......

[Fareastdriver]

Yes it was. The same SEO that suggested have the undercarriage locked down to avoid the nosewheel jack overunning. Curing by putting a restrictor in the down hydraulic circuit.

[ShyTorque]

After the fatal RAF Puma accident in Norway where a cabin door came off its rails and took out the tail rotor, a certain senior engineer decreed that all cabin doors were to be removed and crews just flew in extra clothing, bearing in mind that it was winter.

On returning to his station Mini, he found that the aircrew had repaid the favour and removed its doors.

[helispotter]

Still the only helicopter in the world where the pilots have to crawl over the jump seat to get into the cockpit; the perfectly serviceable cockpit entry doors being mandated as to be permanently locked in 1972.
I recently came across the video of the accident discussed in this thread, so have looked over comments about it.
But turning to the Puma, there must have been a reason behind the cockpit doors no longer being able to be used? Earlier accidents or incidents? Did it apply to all Pumas? Or only those of a particular operator?

[unknown.mp3]

The recent incident in Malaysia involving the AW189 appears it has some similarities to the AW169 event.

http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/fire-and-rescue-department-probe-into-saturday-s-helicopter-crash-underway-in-malaysia

[212man]

I recently came across the video of the accident discussed in this thread, so have looked over comments about it.
But turning to the Puma, there must have been a reason behind the cockpit doors no longer being able to be used? Earlier accidents or incidents? Did it apply to all Pumas? Or only those of a particular operator?
I think it was fairly clear that only the RAF ones....

What I should have said was that of the 1,000 plus Pumas and Super Pumas produced the 23 operated by the RAF have their doors permanently locked. Over the last fifty years the rest seem to be perfectly happy with their pilots getting in and out of the doors designed for the purpose.

Sadly, FED is no longer around to give a historical explanation about the decision (although others may be able to).

[albatross]

The cockpit doors, even on. a new EC225 LP tend to fit badly and are of such “Light” construction they are hard to close and lock as they tend to “flex” a bit.
They don’t get any better with age.
That has been my experience anyhow.

[helispotter]

I think it was fairly clear that only the RAF ones....

For unknown reason, when I first scrolled through this thread, it only took me as far as #60. Now I see the rest.

So if that RAF accident related to loss of a rear sliding door, then why the ban on the cockpit doors which are unrelated? Furthermore, was there any redesign activity to prevent such an occurrence on rest of SA330 fleet? I read somewhere else on PPRuNE of another case of loss of a Puma sliding door in flight. That one landed safely.

[212man]

For unknown reason, when I first scrolled through this thread, it only took me as far as #60. Now I see the rest.

So if that RAF accident related to loss of a rear sliding door, then why the ban on the cockpit doors which are unrelated? Furthermore, was there any redesign activity to prevent such an occurrence on rest of SA330 fleet? I read somewhere else on PPRuNE of another case of loss of a Puma sliding door in flight. That one landed safely.
I don't think there is any connection between the events and the fixed doors policy, but someone like ShyTorque will no doubt know the history. All of which is probably better placed in a separate thread to this one.

[megan]

212, you would be best placed to know but wasn't there a Puma (Bristow?) that lost a door in Borneo or there abouts with fatalities to all, early eighties an aging brain thinks?

[ShyTorque]

I don't think there is any connection between the events and the fixed doors policy, but someone like ShyTorque will no doubt know the history. All of which is probably better placed in a separate thread to this one.

My recollection is that at least one cockpit door had come adrift, resulting in the engineering edict, which most of us saw as an overreaction and at times a great inconvenience. But it was before my time (I didn’t join the Puma fleet until 1979, around the time when “Far East Driver” left the RAF.

As I mentioned earlier, it was very difficult to properly secure an RAF Puma for the night. The cockpit door keys were removed from the aircraft; although the cabin door keys were kept on the undercarriage switch pin. In my experience, problems sometimes occurred when aircraft were left parked in army barracks! Drunken squaddies do some very stupid things, such as climbing on top and jettisoning doors from the outside. I remember flying from base early one morning and passing two of our squadron Pumas returning from an overnight stop, going in the opposite direction with no cabin doors fitted! That certainly got the brain going, bearing in mind previous accidents caused by cabin doors coming off in flight. As soon as we landed we got on the phone to base to ask if we had missed some new edict about doors. In fact both aircraft had been parked up for the night and the crews returned to find the door jettison handles had been pulled! The aircraft were being flown back at low speed with the doors stowed internally.

[212man]

212, you would be best placed to know but wasn't there a Puma (Bristow?) that lost a door in Borneo or there abouts with fatalities to all, early eighties an aging brain thinks?
Hi Megan, I assume you are referring to this accident? https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/33132 Section 1.18.4 of this report discusses it: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422f86aed915d13710006cb/2-2011_G-REDL.pdf

The fact that you refer to a door coming off is intriguing because the only reference I have seen to that is in the Appendix to the formal report where Aerospatiale dispute the findings around the MGB failure and (lamely) attempt to blame it on a pilot's door coming of! Shades of the Norwegian EC225 aftermath and AH insinuating CHC had made errors.

With the Puma accident, the MGB had been making metal for weeks and the Chief Engineer had been diligently collecting the particles and sellotaping them to graph paper to monitor the quantity, in line with the maximum allowable from the AMM - 7 square millimetres. Unfortunately, he misinterpreted this as 7 millimetres squared. I think when the MGB failed it had about 29 square millimetres recorded and that was after it had already been flushed once and the count restarted! The UK AAIB did a substitution test using UK CAA engineering surveyors, and 50% of them made the same mistake! There was some waffle about confusing metric units, but I don't buy it as it's no different to square inches or inches squared, but it happened.

The flight was carrying Shell wives from Miri (Malaysia) to Bandar (Brunei) on a shopping trip, and the failure occurred just after crossing the border, so the aircraft fell into the swamp next to Kuala Belait. Accordingly, the Brunei Shell Aviation dept assisted in the recovery of wreckage etc, and they took a number of photos to show the scene before it was disturbed - I have seen them and they are not pleasant viewing!

[Phoinix]

Guys, switch to the puma topic :)

[megan]

The fact that you refer to a door coming off is intriguingThat was the word from an Oz based Bristow chap shortly after the accident, cabin door was mentioned. A very, very sad day for Shell, I can only imagine, wives out for a fun day. :(:{

[212man]

That was the word from an Oz based Bristow chap shortly after the accident, cabin door was mentioned. A very, very sad day for Shell, I can only imagine, wives out for a fun day. :(:{
Probably early conjecture then - the idea of the MGB seizing and the rotor head coming off probably didn't enter anybody's minds then!

[Copterdoc]

Wow!!