Gazelle crash

[Small Pilot]

BBC Essex website is reporting a helicopter force-landing at Hadleigh (near Southend). They said its a Gazelle and the pilot was uninjured but the 'copter is destroyed. Any further news/details? Hope everyone is ok?

[Smoketoomuch]

Glad to see no injuries.

Copter pilot escapes crash

A 53-year-old pilot has escaped with minor injuries after a helicopter crashed in a field.
The privately-owned Gazelle helicopter crashed in Hadleigh, Essex, said a police spokesman.
The pilot, who lives locally, walked away from the scene of the crash, the spokesman added.
Police said military firefighters attended the scene.
Striking firefighters also left picket lines to make themselves available, but did not assist servicemen once they realised that no lives were at risk.

Story filed: 14:23 Tuesday 26th November 2002

[EESDL]

Don't open that tin of worms.......don't even go there......next you'll be talking about competency/ability to stay proficient on high performance helis as opposed to Robos etc.

[Smoketoomuch]

My apologies, and you're right EESDL. I've edited my post and changed its 'tone'.
If I ever find the time / money I would dearly like to fly the magnificent whistling chicken leg so I'd better not jeopardise its prospects :)

[Brother]

The Gazelle should not be allowed to be flown by Private Pilots. It should be restricted to professionals who have sufficient hours and experience to handle it. If PPLs want to fly a turbine then they should stick with the 206 because of its relatively benign handling qualities.

Brother

[greatorex]

This from the BBC Site (http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/news/2002/11/26/helicopter_crash.shtml) :

A helicopter has crash landed at Hadleigh near Southend.
Striking fire fighters from a nearby station have left their picketline to attend, alongside army response vehicles.

The helicopter is reported to have crash-landed in a field at Poors Lane just before one o'clock.

Police say the single engined Gazelle helicopter developed a fault as it was landing. The aircraft got caught in boggy ground, flipped over onto its side, and caught fire, although the pilot was able to walk away with minor injuries.

A fire-engine from nearby Hadleigh Fire Station went to the scene. An army green Goddess, and two specialist rescue units were also dispatched.

Police have contacted the Air Accident Investigation Branch to look into the cause of the accident.

[Heliport]

Pleased you changed the tone of your post Smokey. For a moment I thought you were trying to get talent-spotted as a tabloid headline writer. :D (I've changed the topic title to match your new version)

From a reliable source:

Incident happened as the owner was in the process of landing in his garden.
Not mechanical failure
Not loss of tailrotor authority
Pilot uninjured
The Gazelle is a write-off
AAIB has been told what happened and do not consider it necessary to investigate further.


Brother
Why not restrict them to R22's - well-known for their "benign handling qualities." ;)

[Whipping Boy's SATCO]

For "specialist rescue units" read RAF firefighters on Op FRESCO.

[md 600 driver]

brother
are you saying that all private pilots dont fly enough hours /experience or

all profesional pilots fly sufficent hrs so they must be ok.

i fly more hours than most military pilots , more that some commercial pilots , i am a private pilot flying a turbine why should i fly a 206 i fly a 600 and enjoy every hour of it
Is that a suitable helicopter for me to fly?

[i still need a spellchecker ]

[t'aint natural]

Let's not get too smug. I'm told by CAA sources the accident rate for one ex-military helicopter (Scout) is one hundred times higher in civilian hands than it was in the military. The accident rate for the Gazelle was ten times higher before today's mishap.

[LOOSE NUT]

Brother,

was he a ppl ?
is he ex-mil ?
was he low time ?
was it an ex-mil gazelle ?
really hope it was not Flying Lawyer ?
should he be given time to deal/speak about the ordeal ?

I am not interested in your opinions I am interested in facts in which I do not know enough about this incident to comment.
What I do know is that the pilot is ok (thank God) and that the Gazelle is a very robust machine that stands up well to abuse and
impact damage.
I think the last thing the pilot needs right now is that sort of remark.

I have had my rant now, hope you don't take offence I look forward to your future posts,
all the best

Loose Nut.

[Gary Astazu]

It would seem that the Gazelle was a civie one. Fortunately there were no injuries!:o

[Helinut]

I would be very suspicious of the CAA source of those statistics about ex-mil helicopters without a whole lot more detail. One of the real problems with any non public transport flying is you usually have no source of flying hours stats. Without that you cannot get an accurate accident rate.

[misterbonkers]

just glad to hear pilot is ok.

MD600 driver - well said, BUT! you didnt just jump into your MD600, you built up your time on various machines in appropriate stages. Perhaps the chap before you on the list was trying to get at PPLs jumping in feet first, which we all know can be bad.

think comments made about restricting ppl(h)s to certain types are unjustified.

Think there should be more structure into what machines you can fly at certain stages of hours.

Besides, Gazelle is lovely to fly and I only have 160hrs! I've been with a friend of mine to Alderney and up to Mull, over London etc. Fly them properly and your sound as a pound.

[Flying Lawyer]

Thanks for your concern Loose Nut, but it wasn't me.
I know the pilot's name, but have never met him and don't know his experience either generally or on type.
What I do know is that he'd gone through a thorough training programme with an experienced instructor when he bought his Gazelle and, most important of all, that he walked away from the crash.
It appears from what I've been told that it was pilot error but, even if it was, we should be very careful about jumping to conclusions about the Gazelle as a type based on a few incidents. Isn't that the sort of thing we criticise the tabloids for doing?
The Gazelle is high profile at the moment because so many have suddenly come onto the market. If this had been another type, would we be having this discussion?

I'm obviously biased, but I don't agree with Brother's suggestion that the Gazelle should be restricted to high hours professionals. I accept there's a world of difference between being a professional and an amateur pilot, but the Gazelle was designed as a trainer and sold to civvy buyers as well as mil. It's fast, but not a complex type and, although not as benign as the B206, is much more forgiving than the type most popular amongst PPLs.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that this was a landing accident. If the pilot made a mistake, we should be synpathetic to him. He's not the first and he won't be the last - PPL or professional.
There but for the grace of God?

http://www.mwhelicopters.co.uk/MWHelicopters%20Left.gif

Edited for typos. I posted at the end of a very long day. :)

[The Nr Fairy]

My view ? Any pilot, whether PPL, CPL or ATPL, is only as professional as their attitude. We don't know about this guy so let's give him the benefit of the doubt.

And even then, lets' accept people can have off days. Indeed a case of "there but for the grace of god . . ."

[Brother]

Loose Nut

No offence taken whatsoever. Just my view, that's all. I too am glad the pilot is ok but it looks like it may have been his fault.

Flying Lawyer, you are quite right, the Gazell is not a very complicated type but nevertheless has some handling quirks which can be beyond pilots to catch in time, experienced or not.

This pilot was properly licensed to fly the Gazelle. Therefore, any of you could legally have been with him or could have had your nearest and dearest with him. I question whether any of you would have put your family members in this helicopter with this pilot, knowing and being educated to the fact that the Gazelle, in certain phases, can bite hard.

It is obvious that this aircraft was bought as a toy. I wouldn't put my family in a high performance toy which has an inflated accident record in the hands of those who have insufficient experience.

Its like a 17 year old with a Porsche Turbo versus that same 17 year old in a Focus. Which one are you going to put your kids in?

Brother

[aytoo]

Brother, have you actually flown the Gazelle?

I have over 3500 hours on them, all courtesy of HM Queen & Son PLC. That included my first ever rotary handling as an ab initio. It was not the basic trainer of all three services by accident, because it is just that - basic. There are no real 'vices' on this gentle lady of the skies - it's smooth, fast, comfortable and stable.

I echo the sentiments uttered above for the most part - you can fix or replace aircraft, but people...

[[email protected]]

aytoo,
thoroughly concur old chap - when I think of what we were allowed out to do solo in a Gazelle with a lot less hours than this poor unfortunate chap had....
It rather sounds like he picked a poor landing site (which can happen to anyone) rather than an inability to fly the aircraft.
I'd much rather be in a Gazelle with an average pilot than in an R22 with a great one.

[707]

Does anyone know the registration of the gazelle, as it may have been the one we saw flying around SEN on saturday23/11/02.
Thank you:confused:

[EESDL]

Great to hear that the unfortunate pilot is OK!
Knew this thread would elicit such a reaction from the 'I've been flying them for years and I'm only 17' to the 'oooh best stay away from sporty turbine types'..........
Speculation is best left to the panel of ex-defence experts discussing when would be the best moment to invade Iraq!!
Pilot could easily have been worse off he he crashed in any other type!

[Brother]

aytoo

Me too, but not 3500 just 500 or so.

Crab

I don't think we want to open the R22 debate again but suffice to say, I trained on a Bell 47. Never been in an R22 and don't want to go in one thanks, I'm too old for unnecessary adrenaline rushes!

Brother

[ppheli]

707 - the reg was G-BZDW, an ex MW machine. I believe the one which has been active around SEN recently is G-CBSK, an LHC machine.

Which reminds me... seems like a goodly number of the LHC batch of 12 (actually owned by JCM Disposals Ltd) at Redhill has recently "gone".. where to..?

[Max Contingency]

G-BZDW was a Gazelle HT3, Ex military and was registered as ZB 626. She certainly served at Shawbury and there will be many readers of this forum with that registration in their logbooks. I believe that it was reported as a post 'heavy landing' fire that destroyed her.:eek:

[Hoverman]

I've heard the same Max.
Seems the poor chap misjudged the approach, left it a tad late pulling in the collective, made a hole in the ground and the rest as they say is history. He was unlucky, didn't get away with it and he's learnt a lesson the hard (and expensive) way. I feel sorry for him and hope he's flying again soon.

Can't understand Brother's question "whether any of you would have put your family members in this helicopter with this pilot, knowing and being educated to the fact that the Gazelle, in certain phases, can bite hard." What do you mean "with this pilot"? I don't know anything about him, do you? He made a mistake on this instance. What does that prove? :confused:

[Grainger]

HM - given that Brother is perfectly prepared to slag off a helicopter he has never flown (R22) then I don't think it's supposed to prove anything except perhaps a rather judgemental and prejudiced attitude.

[ShyTorque]

I concur, ZB626 was an RAF HT3. I first flew it at CFS(H) Shawbury in February 1984.

[Holly_Copter]

Well, I'm not disposed to ranting normally, but I do get *very* irritated by the Professional/Private debate!

I have more hours (on 10 types) than a lot of commercial pilots I've known, and I'm not one. I've been complimented by many of them on my flying and attitude. (Right on the nail there, Nr Fairy!).

I've also seen quite a few "professional" pilots who I WOULDN'T entrust my loved ones to, and many PPL's who I WOULD.

How on earth can someone make a snap judgement about a pilot's ability just becaue he stuffed up a landing? Many do. Many get away with it. High-time, low-time, attitude, commercial or private doesn't come into it. Every time we take off, there's a chance this might happen. (Forget that fact, and it probably will, too!).

Would those who have commended MY flying suddenly turn and imtimate that I'm a bad pilot and say "I wouldn't fly with him!" if I did this? One day I may very well stuff up a landing. I'm proud of my flying, and I judge myself harshly. The day I'm not, is the day I'll consider giving it up.

Can't comment on the Gazelle debate, as I've never flown one (Flying Lawyer - you did invite me once, thanks - still up for it one day!).

Nevertheless, I'd suggest that until you're experienced in flying one, don't comment in that way. As far as I'm concerned, I've never yet encountered a type that doesn't have some psychopathic trait hidden away somewhere. It's a case of researching it, understanding it, being trained in handling it and remaining vigilant at all times for it.

Wow, a rant from me? It's a bit (lot) out of character. Maybe I haven't been near a woman for too long! (Or maybe the 2-month flying gap's getting to me!). Time for a cold shower, and a flight at the weekend - maybe I'll be myself again!

Holy_Copter

[Chuck K]

Don't think you should get too excited Holly_Copter. The comment about private pilots hasn't had the support of other pro's here. I'd expect the average pro to have better skills than the average private pilot, but we all know there are exceptions on both sides.
I've never noticed a pro/ppl divide on this forum. I think that's a tribute to the pro's for not being condescending about ppls and a tribute to the quality of the ppls who post here. Maybe best to let the comment go instead of risking causing a divide that doesn't exist?

[MightyGem]

The gazelle robust and stands up well to impact damage? Having seen a few revert to kit form, I think not. What it does do well is absorb the impact as it disintigrates.:eek:

[IVaughan]

I am pleased the two are safe and unharmed.
Is this the second or third ex-military Gazelle coming to grief?
If this trend continues someone, somewhere (CAA?) will step in and place restrictions. They will be forced to?

I own a Gazelle and can report that it is a superb machine but I have experienced 'the bite' refered to by another correspondent. I love it, think is is an outstanding aircraft and now don't fly anything other rotary as I have the best. But bite it has, especially for the unwary during the early days until you are flying in front of it.

Remember, at Midlle Wallop, most started on the Gazelle (?) and, in the early training had half a mile of flat ground in any direction and a good instructor with plenty of authority/power next to them. They didn't start on machine with the rotors going round 'the wrong way'. The young trainee pilots, keen and fast in reaction, weren't commercial customers. Indeed they faced the chop if they didn't/couldn't perform to minimum standards.

There is no such thing as cheap turbine helicopter flying. The machines at less then £200K are cheap, but, in my humble opinion, the type training at 5 hours (?) will not work for all pilots and should be considered an absolute minimum.
Sellers and buyers beware.
Especially Gazelle Owning Groups where the odds of a mishap must increase. All members must achieve high standards, know the rules, follow them and keep in practice.

[MrNosy]

CAP479 the World Aircraft Accident Summary list six other UK registered Gazelle accidents since 1990:- G-RIFF 7/3/90, G-HAVA 28/7/97, G-BCHM 5/7/97, G-PYOB 30/6/99, G-BXZE 3/9/01 and G-BZOS 14/7/02. Of these, two seem to have been, broadly, mechanical failure, the rest all look like loss of yaw control.

[SASless]

Holly.....assuming cool weather, low density altitude, etc.....no hostile indigenous personnel in the area.....daylight....crashing yer birdie to the point of seeing it destroyed by fire resulting from the landing technique.....well....actually that is not much of a recommendation but rather becomes a commentary upon a guy's ability, skill, and judgement. I know even monkeys can fall out of trees sometimes....but this event certainly evokes some fair criticism of the event. I support yer point about "Private vs Professional" and see that usual argument pointless having seen many "Professionally" operated aircraft scattered about over a very large area greater than the dimensions quoted in the Pilot's Flight Manual.

I do see the Five Hour checkout concept as being a bit short of what an inexperienced pilot might need to provide the actual time to waltz around the edges of the published performance envelope of a particular machine. No slam on groups of pilots but more a suggestion that mere hours and licenses do not define "experience" . It is the "experience" gained within those hours that counts. I would no more ride in the rear of an aircraft piloted by some of our most experienced "offshore" pilots for a mountain landing operation for example than I would let a crop sprayer take me out for a night winching op. Each would be out of his element. The conversion process should expose the learning pilot to the full performance parameters and peculiarities of the aircraft he is being transitioned onto.....or the training is incomplete and leaves the door open for such events as we read about.

I just finished a five hour factory course on an aircraft I used to instruct in.....and was exposed to a a unique tendency of this particular style of birdie that has led to some rather ugly outcomes.....and learned the correct method of countering that bit of "gotcha". Excellent training directed to all the necessary issues and given by a very knowledgeable instructor.....and will probably save my skin sometime in the future.

Instead of imposing restrictions as suggested by someone....the CAA might want to send some of its renown experts around to consult with the folks doing the training and ensure this interesting "butt biting" aspect of the Whistling Pig gets adequate treatment during conversion training and the problem would begin to go away as Pilots are trained...and trainers are trained. Education is far more effective than legislation.

[EESDL]

Concur!
Let us please keep the divide between fixed-wg and rotary. Again, speaking as someone who is mil/commercial/private/fixed-wg and rotary!!

[Heliport]

Mr Nosy
Just to complete the picture, the accident which prompted this thread was nothing to do with loss of yaw control.

SASless
It does look as though the poor chap got his approach badly wrong but he couldn't have had better training.
When he bought his Gazelle, he was checked out by a very experienced and respected instructor/examiner who is an ATPL, ex Army Air Corps and flies Gazelles in the TA (Army Reserve). And, the pilot had passed a currency check earlier on the morning of the crash.
I suspect it was just 'one of those things' which unfortunately happens now and again.

[greenarrow]

Please read into this as you may. Owners of ex mil machines need to be aware of the five piont harness fitted to the front seats of these aircraft. With duals fitted and the harness left undone on the co-pilots seat and the box lock left forward of the seat close to the cyclic? need i say any more!!

[SASless]

I wonder if a statistical study would support my firmly held belief that line flying following a checkride is fraught with peril? No slam meant towards the poor fellow that had the onset of "extra strong gravity".....just it seems that evil things often happen shortly after a checkride of some sort. A Better Helicopter Company in the Gulf of Mexico had a rush of engine failures due to fuel contamination and at least one of the pilots involved found himself treading water while surrounded by smaller pieces of Bell bits.....the day after doing his "splashes" to the canal on his regular checkride. If currency and proficiency are supposed to be the key to successfully completing autorative landings to the sea....he should have been as ready as anyone but notwithstanding that....he still found himself nose deep in the Big Salty.

[StevieTerrier]

GreenArrow -

Although common sense would dictate fastening the co-pilot's seatbelt when flying solo, is there anything in the FM / pilots notes concerning the possible dangers of flying with it unfastened?

If not, is it something that would be pointed out during the conversion?

Or is it so considered so blindingly obvious that it doesnt need pointing out?

[ShyTorque]

Can't comment on written warnings on the civvie Gazelle FM (and there should be no need) but if so I think it will be under the heading: "Basic Airmanship" along with such stuff as making sure there is fuel in the tanks, oil in the engine and all covers and blanks are removed etc.

[Flying Lawyer]

I did my conversion with Al Gwilt at MW Helicopters. He certainly covered that aspect but, even if he hadn't, securing unused harnesses is basic airmanship regardless of type. In a helicopter it's particularly important for obvious reasons.

That said, forgetting the obvious is easily done. My most embarrassing (to date) was when taking off from a friend's house in an R22 some years ago. Knowing the risk of being distracted by the group waiting for me to lift, I did my checks extra carefully. It was only as I cleared the trees at the end of their garden, and was about to tell Gatwick I'd lifted, that I noticed the heli was unusually noisy. I'd forgotten to put my headset on. :rolleyes: I'm sure there are pilots good enough to put a headset on whilst keeping an R22 the right way up, but I knew I wasn't one of them so it was quickly back to the lawn. :o

[KENNYR]

"Familiarity breeds contempt" is an old but very true saying. No matter how many hours a pilot has on a type of aircraft (I have over 3,000 on gazelle) it only takes a split second of indicision or lack of concentration to bite you in the butt. We all have been there at one stage or another of our flying career. It is not fair of professional aviators to immediately crucify a fellow pilot or his abilities without knowing all the information. The Gazelle is a wonderful aircraft but it can bite very very quickly (as I nearly found out in the Falklands).

[Brother]

Thank you Kenny

I am glad you agree that the Gazelle can bite back quickly. It never bit me but it has bitten others hard.

However, our opinion seems to be in the minority. I didn't crucify anybody by the way, I just said that maybe the Gazelle is not for the inexperienced.

Brother

[Lu Zuckerman]

On November 8, 2002, about 2325 eastern standard time, a Westland Helicopters Gazelle AH-MK1, N911XW, a former British military helicopter registered in the experimental category, was destroyed when it impacted the Atlantic Ocean near East Hampton, New York. The certificated private pilot was lost at sea, and presumed fatally injured. The helicopter departed Long Island-MacArthur Airport (ISP), Islip, New York, at 2304, destined for East Hampton Airport (HTO), East Hampton, New York. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight, conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to a report filed by the East Hampton Police Department, the pilot was expected home in Sag Harbor, New York on the evening of November 8, 2002. The pilot's wife was not immediately concerned when he did not arrive, because the pilot's business frequently caused his schedule to change. On the morning of November 9, 2002, the pilot's automobile was discovered parked at Long Island-MacArthur Airport, and debris from the helicopter was recovered from the beaches of East Hampton.

A review of Air Traffic Control (ATC) voice and radar recordings revealed that the pilot contacted the Long Island-MacArthur ground controller at 2256, and requested a "punch-out to the west." He later repeated his intention to depart VFR to the west.

When the pilot contacted the tower controller, he requested and received a clearance to depart VFR to the west. A few minutes after takeoff, the tower controller requested a clarification from the pilot.

Tower: "November nine one one xray whiskey, I show you radar contact. I thought you were going west?"

Pilot: "I'm showing a heading of one-two-zero right now."

Tower: "...That's southeast. West is two-seven-zero."

Pilot: "I'm sorry...I apologize. I am heading east."

The controller informed the pilot that he was 5 miles southeast of the airport, terminated radar services, and approved a radio frequency change. The pilot acknowledged the radio call.

A radar plot for a target identified as the accident helicopter depicted a ground track that departed the airport in a southeasterly direction, then turned to the northeast. The track continued in a generally east-northeast direction, until reaching Great Peconic Bay, when it turned easterly, towards Southampton. The track passed to the east of Southampton, then continued southeast, past the shoreline.

Cruise altitudes over Long Island varied between 600 feet and 2,500 feet. About 1 mile from the shoreline, and about 1,000 feet, the target entered a descent. Its initial rate of descent was about 1,400 feet per minute, but during the 12 seconds before reaching the shoreline, the descent rate was 2,500 feet per minute.

The target crossed the shoreline at 200 feet, and leveled off over the water at approximately 20 feet. The target continued to the southeast, at 20 feet, before radar contact was lost 24 seconds later, at 2323.

On November 18, 2002, a fishing vessel snagged and recovered a significant amount of wreckage identified as the accident helicopter. The main transmission was recovered, along with the main rotor mast, main rotor hub, and all three main rotor blade grips attached. Approximately 30 percent of the yellow main rotor blade remained outboard the grip, with the remainder of the skin and honeycomb either fractured or separated. The leading edge spar was exposed. The blue blade was fractured about 2 feet outboard of the grip, and the leading edge spar was splintered. The red main rotor blade was fractured just outboard of the grip, and the fracture surface was splintered and "broomstrawed".

Examination of the transmission input drive quill, and the tail rotor output drive quill, revealed the remains of driveshaft flexible couplings attached to each. Further examination of both couplings revealed rotational scoring, and flexplates twisted and fractured opposite the direction of rotation.

The engine was not recovered.

According to the pilot's father-in-law, the helicopter was recently purchased for the pilot's personal use. The pilot had just received his private certificate, and had performed all of his flight training at Long Island-MacArthur Airport. The accident flight was the second time the pilot had flown the helicopter solo.

During a telephone interview, the owner/operator of Helicopter Flight Training, Inc. (formally Eastern Helicopters), Islip, New York, said his company provided flight instruction to the pilot, rented him helicopters, housed the accident helicopter under a different business entity, and provided maintenance support.

According the operator, the pilot began his flight training about 18 months prior to the accident. The pilot did all of his flight training in a Robinson R-22 piston-powered helicopter, and performed the practical test for his private pilot certificate in the R-22 as well.

The operator also stated that the helicopter was recently purchased by the pilot for his personal use. It was purchased in Colorado, and delivered to Islip by truck. The pilot received about 1 hour of instruction in it from the previous owner, prior to taking delivery. After he took delivery, the pilot flew with a certificated flight instructor, who acted as a safety pilot.

According to the operator, the pilot's abilities were about average for a beginning helicopter pilot. He said that he counseled the pilot, as he did all of his students, that earning his pilot certificate "was a license to learn." He also cautioned him not to try to fly in "helicopter weather."

The operator further noted that there was a scud layer "running right down the island" on the night of the accident. Fog was also "moving in and out. Some places it was clear, but towards the ocean it wasn't. That ocean gets awful black out there. He shouldn't have been out there at night. He's been told."

When asked how much experience the pilot had flying at night, the operator said that the pilot had the minimum required for taking the practical examination for his pilot certificate. He added that he did not encourage beginning helicopter pilots to fly solo at night.

During a telephone interview, the certificated flight instructor who acted as the safety pilot state that he flew approximately 10 hours in the helicopter with the accident pilot, and that the helicopter performed and handled well. There was no stabilization system or force trim on the flight controls, only the friction on the cyclic control could be adjusted, and the helicopter required hands-on control at all times.

According to the safety pilot, the accident pilot was competent enough to take off from the airport on a good day, in good weather, in daylight, and come back. The safety pilot added that the accident pilot had difficulty with tasks that required a division of attention, and could not maintain heading, airspeed, or altitude if he looked down to tune the radios.

The accident pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for rotorcraft-helicopter. His most recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) third class medical certificate was issued March 8, 2001, and he reported 53 hours of flight experience on that date.

The pilot's logbook was not recovered. However, a review of training records revealed that he had accrued 115.9 hours of flight experience, all of which, was in the Robinson R-22.

Fuel records for the helicopter revealed that the pilot made six fuel purchases at Long Island-MacArthur Airport, for a total of 424 gallons of fuel. A survey of fuel vendors in the surrounding area revealed no other fuel purchases for the helicopter. Based on the manufacturer's standard fuel consumption rate of 43 gallons per hour, fuel records indicated an estimated 10 hours of operation.

The helicopter was a 1974 Westland Gazelle AH (Attack Helicopter) MK1, originally operated by the British Royal Army.

At 2256, the weather reported at Long Island MacArthur Airport included clear skies with winds from 220 degrees at 9 knots. According to the United States Naval Observatory, sunset was at 1637 and the moon set at 1952.

A pilot of a Hughes 500 helicopter, who was flying in the Islip area on the night of the accident, stated that there was a lower layer of "scud" around 400 feet that made it difficult to see ground lights. He added that it was clear above the cloud layer, and that conditions worsened to the east.

Index for Nov2002 | Index of months

[KENNYR]

Lu, A very interesting incident with very unfortunate outcome. However I think that this gentleman was an accident waiting to happen. He obviously bit off more than he could chew. This incident would probably have occurred no matter what aircraft was being flown. This is a very common type of occurrance where low hour pilots think that they can run before they can walk. I have actually experienced this type of disorientation but I lived to tell (or not tell) the tale.

Hey Lu, Just realised that I flew this Gazelle (xw911) on January 16, 1979 from Ostende in Belgium to Middle Wallop and on January 24, 1979 just prior to my FHT at Wallop. Small world isn't it.

[MightyGem]

Yep, it's in my logbook as well. Flew it on my pilots course back in
'84 and lastly as a QHI, again at Wallop in September '92

Lu, the AH for British Army Air Corps helicopters satands for Army
Helicopter. Not Attack Helicopter. The only armament that a AAC
gazelle carries is the crew's two 9mm pistols. :eek: