Bell 212 Crash - Belize
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Longitude Zero
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The technical cause of the crash was a failure of the Simrit seal (oil/fuel interface) on one egine that caused it to run down to ground idle. The crew were on a practice medivac from a clearing that required a vertical climb out. As they approached the treee tops, one engine ran down, Nr dropped, alternators came off line and everything went dark. The HC1 is a high energy machine with lots of power on two. Lose an engine on a vertical climb out at night and you you are poorly placed in a blacked out cockpit. Our mantra in those days was single-engine safety speed (about 40 - 45 kts) that would keep you climbing in the event of an engine failure. Sadly, this crew had no chance and the subsequent fatal crash was inevitable. I too walked the crash site in the late 70s and felt deeply moved by the remaining artifacts still in evidence on the ground. It might have happened to any of us but - that is military flying.
Pedro
Pedro
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the rainbow
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the Salamanca incident was in 1975/76. It was definitely before August '77 when I joined 230. My friend Barry Sutton was on the team that when down to recover bits for the BoI.
'We knew how to whinge but we kept it in the NAAFI bar.'
Alternators definately trip at 220, as I found to my cost when rolling out from an enthisiastic quickstop in the 'playpen'. Didn't hit the ground, but it was close (and that was when I had 3000hrs on Puma). Can't believe there are STILL no anticipators on the engines - criminal! The tail rotor problem mentioned earlier in the thread was quite scary! 'Twas the origin of the tap-test that went on until composite tail blades were fitted.
Shy Torque.
There were stacks of things wrong with the Puma when it arrived.. Pilot’s angle of view, windscreen reflections, cockpit lighting plus a host of other things. The general opinion was that it wouldn’t last five years because of it’s fragility of construction compared with the Wessex.. After a series of incidents where the nose wheel retracted at 90 degrees there was serious consideration that the undercarriage should be locked down and isolated but despite this after 37 years they are still in service. The Anglo French Puma, Lynx, Gazelle deal meant that we had to have it, warts and all.
Even with the EU 225 you still have a fuselage which will fit into the back of a Nordatlas or a Wagon-Lis truck because that was a French Army requirement. The biggest mistake was made in about 1968 when Aerospatial were considering a five bladed head to cure the inherent 4R then some GOON invented the barbeque plate, an Achilles heel that has remained throughout the 330 and 332 until the 225.
As far as I can remember I was the first operational pilot to fly a Puma with plastic blades. I had retired from the RAF and was flying the J model for Bristow on my terminal leave. I wrote a very strong letter to Wg. Cdr. Harding, my old boss, pointing out they were globe movers as opposed to the metal blades we had with 1 hour BIM inspections. As a result of this a set of blades kipping in stores at Boscombe were sent to Odiham for trialing. The rest is history.
A 330C at 7000kgs can fly a Perf A take off profile eyes shut, but they don’t, so it doesn’t matter, because you need a prepared surface, i.e. a runway.
As you infer it is a requirement to have two fire bottles in civil life but it is primarily as a backup for one that does not work, not very often, and if the first bottle doesn’t put it out the second has little chance. Both engines on fire, forget it, nothings going to put that out. Overseas 332s have a gearbox bay fire warning but no extinguishers. At Crossmaglen after a downwind landing I had a very senior officer in the jump seat frantically gesticulating at the fire warnings lights which were both on. A wave of the hand failed to pacify him and it wasn’t until we crossed the sports field boundary outbound and they went out that he settled down.
Old Beefer
The Puma was heavily Sikorsky copied. Both the head and tail rotor. The autopilot was very a la S61 apart from magnetic breaks. The Super Frelon had the S64 rotor and transmission which is why the Frelon rotors go round the wrong way French style. The BIMs for the MR blades. The tail rotor blades had the same problems as Whirlwind and Wessex, delamination. Thats why they used to tap it with a shilling, sorry, 5p.
If the Wright brothers had built a Puma instead of their Flyer the Battle of Britain would have been fought with Pumas and Bolkows. They have both been in service that long.
There were stacks of things wrong with the Puma when it arrived.. Pilot’s angle of view, windscreen reflections, cockpit lighting plus a host of other things. The general opinion was that it wouldn’t last five years because of it’s fragility of construction compared with the Wessex.. After a series of incidents where the nose wheel retracted at 90 degrees there was serious consideration that the undercarriage should be locked down and isolated but despite this after 37 years they are still in service. The Anglo French Puma, Lynx, Gazelle deal meant that we had to have it, warts and all.
Even with the EU 225 you still have a fuselage which will fit into the back of a Nordatlas or a Wagon-Lis truck because that was a French Army requirement. The biggest mistake was made in about 1968 when Aerospatial were considering a five bladed head to cure the inherent 4R then some GOON invented the barbeque plate, an Achilles heel that has remained throughout the 330 and 332 until the 225.
As far as I can remember I was the first operational pilot to fly a Puma with plastic blades. I had retired from the RAF and was flying the J model for Bristow on my terminal leave. I wrote a very strong letter to Wg. Cdr. Harding, my old boss, pointing out they were globe movers as opposed to the metal blades we had with 1 hour BIM inspections. As a result of this a set of blades kipping in stores at Boscombe were sent to Odiham for trialing. The rest is history.
A 330C at 7000kgs can fly a Perf A take off profile eyes shut, but they don’t, so it doesn’t matter, because you need a prepared surface, i.e. a runway.
As you infer it is a requirement to have two fire bottles in civil life but it is primarily as a backup for one that does not work, not very often, and if the first bottle doesn’t put it out the second has little chance. Both engines on fire, forget it, nothings going to put that out. Overseas 332s have a gearbox bay fire warning but no extinguishers. At Crossmaglen after a downwind landing I had a very senior officer in the jump seat frantically gesticulating at the fire warnings lights which were both on. A wave of the hand failed to pacify him and it wasn’t until we crossed the sports field boundary outbound and they went out that he settled down.
Old Beefer
The Puma was heavily Sikorsky copied. Both the head and tail rotor. The autopilot was very a la S61 apart from magnetic breaks. The Super Frelon had the S64 rotor and transmission which is why the Frelon rotors go round the wrong way French style. The BIMs for the MR blades. The tail rotor blades had the same problems as Whirlwind and Wessex, delamination. Thats why they used to tap it with a shilling, sorry, 5p.
If the Wright brothers had built a Puma instead of their Flyer the Battle of Britain would have been fought with Pumas and Bolkows. They have both been in service that long.
[QUOTE=Fareastdriver;3532803] After a series of incidents where the nose wheel retracted at 90 degrees there was serious consideration that the undercarriage should be locked down and isolated but despite this after 37 years they are still in service. [QUOTE]
It was actually the nose leg extending too far when the end blew off the jack (I should know, I had the first one (at night) at Odious. There was no sandbag plan then! A restrictor was subsequently introduced to reduce the pressure to the nose jack during extension. Luckily, I raised the emerg undercarriage lever which stopped the fluid loss and I was able to get the AP back.
It was actually the nose leg extending too far when the end blew off the jack (I should know, I had the first one (at night) at Odious. There was no sandbag plan then! A restrictor was subsequently introduced to reduce the pressure to the nose jack during extension. Luckily, I raised the emerg undercarriage lever which stopped the fluid loss and I was able to get the AP back.
Last edited by oldbeefer; 10th Sep 2007 at 11:30. Reason: finger trouble with quoting
Exacty the same thing happened to me, mate. That range whatever it was called near Thetford. Great men have instantanious reflexes and pull the emergency undercarriage handle up, that's two of us. The nosewheel leg was learning against the forward wall of the nosewheel bay and they asked me to fly it back. FOinFP was my answer. Personally I thought it was Andy Sollitt at Aldergrove who had the first one.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
nowherespecial,
I'm sure we can when someone comes up with some relevant info....meanwhile, by posting on the topic, even if not directly related, it stays at the top of the page.
Simrit seal failure - I'd forgotten that part. Double booster pumps eventually fitted to minimise the possibility of this happening again, as well as a back to back seal.
I'm sure we can when someone comes up with some relevant info....meanwhile, by posting on the topic, even if not directly related, it stays at the top of the page.
Simrit seal failure - I'd forgotten that part. Double booster pumps eventually fitted to minimise the possibility of this happening again, as well as a back to back seal.
I cannot find anything apart from channel 7 Belize archives. It crashed, quite gently, caught fire and two staff sergeants got out, one with slight injuries to his mouth, aircraft or instructor? They were picked up fairly quickly by another helicopter and the MPs sealed the site. Nothing more to add as it is probably sub judice. I must admit that I am surprised that a 212 would catch fire so easily so maybe the reasons go a bit deeper. My past experiences of analyzing aircraft crashes have always been 180 out so I will leave it at that.
"Which aircraft was it does anyone know?"
According to http://www.ukserials.com/ it was this one...
31170 ZJ965 Bell 212 Ex 5N-ALS, ex G-BJGU, w/o 05/09/2007
According to http://www.ukserials.com/ it was this one...
31170 ZJ965 Bell 212 Ex 5N-ALS, ex G-BJGU, w/o 05/09/2007
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: at the end of the bar
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
..and it wasnt this one, because the photograph was taken 2 Oct 07. From the UKAR website.
http://www.pbase.com/glane606/image/86569513.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/glane606/image/86569513.jpg
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect not repainted, just wiped 'clean'. This type of aircraft gets filthy (exhaust) there which is why the Cyprus aircraft arrived matt and was repainted gloss during its major servicing. Gloss is wipe clean and matt retains the muck.
Now where is my anorak?
Now where is my anorak?