Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Freight Dogs
Reload this Page >

AirLander take off then 2nd Flight Mishap

Freight Dogs Finally a forum for those midnight prowler types who utilise the unglamorous parts of airports that many of us never get to see. Freight Dogs is for pilots and crew who operate mostly without SLF.

AirLander take off then 2nd Flight Mishap

Old 25th Aug 2016, 17:25
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: germany
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Being a glider pilot, and a winch driver too, I am always aware of hanging cables, from where ever.

To prevent us from new legends, please have a look at the fourth last Photograph in this link:

World?s largest 'bottom' aircraft hits a telegraph pole and suffers cockpit damage | Daily Mail Online

It is clearly visible, that a rope or cable is hanging down from near the bow of the Airlander. It hangs down nearly perpendicular. May be not exactly, but by no means with a Tension to the back, which should be, if the cable had stuck in the fence, this way bringing the Airships nose down.

Compared with the video, the photo shows the situation, when the airlander hangs overhead the beginning of the runway, with nearly no speed, and right before it starts to dive.

If the cable is not tightened in this situation, it should, in a mechanical way, not be a factor.

Last edited by minimum clean; 25th Aug 2016 at 21:17.
minimum clean is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 18:41
  #242 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It makes sense now, as I drove past the entrance to the track that leads to the old R101 mooring mast position I saw a UK Power Networks vehicle parked there this morning.

Yesterday I saw the Airlander passing across the end of my garden and as it disappeared over the trees towards Cardington Airfield I noticed that it pitched down in a rather aggressive manner. It wasn't until later that I realised that it had made a hard landing, but I immediately thought back to what I had seen and took the view that the nose down attitude started well before the airfield boundary.

I couldn't see any lines hanging from the Airlander but that doesn't mean there wasn't one.
The power lines run out to one or two isolated farms between Cotton End and Cardington village.
Feathers McGraw is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 19:12
  #243 (permalink)  
Resident insomniac
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 78
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.
G-CPTN is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 19:17
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 24
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-CPTN View Post
You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.
Surely they have baffles like in planes to prevent a similar effect if you suddenly drop a wing?
crablab is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 20:18
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by G-CPTN View Post
You are all wrong.

When the pilot applied the brakes before landing, the helium all rushed to the front, causing it to be heavy and causing the nose to droop.
Surely helium rushing to the front would cause the front to be lighter? Perhaps he accidentally floored the accelerator pushing the helium to the back?
am111 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 21:16
  #246 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 76
Posts: 3,854
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Applied the brakes BEFORE landing? Surely not.
Herod is online now  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 21:28
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 73
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to UK Power Networks there were two causes, the arrester gear failed to hold and the arresting hook had been installed at the wrong end of the airplane. An understandable mistake as neither end is noticeably more pointy?
fenland787 is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 21:38
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the Airlander (Hybrid Air Vehicles) website:
Airlander 10 offers a new type of flight, with ground-breaking capabilities.
Seems as if they took that last phrase too literally.

Their media statement tonight about hitting the power lines was primarily concerned with saying that "No damage was caused to the aircraft and this did not contribute to the heavy landing." Only as an afterthought did they apologise for the "inconvenience" of causing a power cut to five local residents.

https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/ne...th-august-2016
Richard J. is offline  
Old 25th Aug 2016, 23:51
  #249 (permalink)  
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,088
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A Squared - Looks as though you missed my last sentence,


Is there likely to be a market to sustain a small fleet?

Used to fly the -400F, a single object weighing ten tons was never a problem provided it fitted the cargo cabin and didn't exceed floor loading limits.


Given the quoted economics of the Airlander difficult to see how a positioning flight from the states, followed by a revenue flight of three hours, followed by the empty return flight would be cheaper than the Lander and as for time, when the journey from source to airport and destination airport to required final destination of a heavy and awkward load is included would a freighter aircraft be any quicker?
parabellum is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 00:03
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,538
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Actually, the helium rushing to the front (and increasing the pressure and density there) would shift the cg forward. This might be partially or wholly offset by increased buoyancy forward, but only if the forward part of the envelope bulged out and increased displacement. I really doubt there'd be a significant effect either way.
Chu Chu is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 03:05
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: NEW YORK
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The news that this accident originated with a snagged power line is actually somewhat reassuring. It validates the basic safety of the vehicle, even as it highlights the much more demanding aspects of airship management near the ground. The latter can be learned with experience
Against that, the instant effort to deny the fact damages the credibility of the firm.
etudiant is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 04:12
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: GC Paradise
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hybrid Air Vehicles Ltd can confirm a mooring line attached to the Airlander did contact a power line outside the airfield. No damage was caused to the aircraft and this did not contribute to the heavy landing.
HAV state that the heavy landing was not caused by contact with the power line(s).

Therefore, in the absence of obvious adverse weather conditions, the accident must have been caused by one or more of the following:

1. Control system inadequate design.
2. Control system malfunction.
3. Buoyancy control malfunction.
4. Pilot error of technique, judgement or skill.
5. Other cause?
FlexibleResponse is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 10:50
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The company apparently IMMEDIATELY denied a witness report that it had struck power lines.

Why?

Corporations today really ought to be extremely conscious of how bad their image is becoming due, perhaps in part, to their seemingly limitless willingness to lie instantly about anything.

What could it cost them to say, instead, that they were investigating reports of the beast having struck a power line, rather than having to admit later on that their initial response was incorrect?
How people love to jump to conclusions and accuse others (especially evil "companies") of lying at the drop of a hat.

Perhaps the clue is in the word "immediately". If this refers to "immediately" after the accident it is highly likely that the company knew nothing of the wirestrike and as the entire ground team had witnessed it come in trailing a slack landing line (as shown in the DM's photo) and only develop a pitch down after crossing the perimeter where there are no wires it would have been utterly clear to everyone that this was impossible and would have sounded to them exactly like the sort of "witless witness" speculation we all so love to ridicule here...They also know that there are no wires in the immediate vicinity if the airfield perimeter for obvious reasons. Thus all concerned, except the pilots, would have been quite certain that no wirestrike had occurred.

It would take some time, several hours probably, before the results of the pilots' debriefing was disseminated within the company as this is always treated in confidence so some considerable delay might well be expected before mere PR wallahs knew anything about an unwitnessed and highly unlikely wirestrike some time prior to final approach especially as it doesn't/didn't seem to have been immediately connected with the incident.

For heaven's sake, lets not go around flinging about nasty accusations of "lying" before even we have all the facts? Just for once?

What possible motivation could they have to "lie"? What would be the point?
Pound to a pinch off the proverbial that statement was made before thePR officer had access to full details of the pilots' debrief and was thus made in good faith based on the info available at the time. Cut them a little slack, will you?

Why, why do so many people imagine that companies lie all the time? It just isn't rational.



It seems surprising that no video has surfaced of the wirestrike as surely dozens must have been filming it throughout it's flight? Did it make a big excursion in pitch before crossing the perimeter? If so that could have either damaged engine controls (fwd engines did not seem to be countering the pitch down) or broken equipment loose sufficient to affect the c of g.

Last edited by Wageslave; 26th Aug 2016 at 11:04.
Wageslave is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 10:56
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wageslave, you're criticizing folks for not waiting for all the facts. But it's fine with you when the PR people didn't wait for all the facts? Isn't there an element of comedy to that?
core_dump is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 11:17
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: uk
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There's more of an element of comedy to your reply! Me criticising folks? Ahem! You are not lying if you tell what you believe is the truth. I think Airlander had no reason whatsoever to believe, at the time, that a wirestrike had occurred out of sight. How the hell could they? Thus their PR statement was based on the as-know facts and was perfectly honest. Accusing them of lying is the opposite of that rationale as there is no evidence or logic or point for them to have done so. Thus your reply is a complete non-sequitur, a self-contradiction.

Wait for the facts? Come into the real world! They had them to everyone's best of belief. Joe Blow off the street randomly asks PR if the accident was caused by a wirestrike. Everyone had seen it come over the road with the mooring cable hanging slack. Everyone knows there are no wires in the immediate vicinity. The cable snagged nothing. Then there was an accident. As far as all who witnessed the event a wirestrike was a ludicrous suggestion, it didn't happen because they saw it didn't happen.

What on earth do you expect PR to say? "Ooh! Good theorey, I'll check and tell you in six hours" or "No, of course not, we all saw what happened, there are no wires there to hit".

No one could/would magically imagine that an apparent control accident on landing would be associated with a completely unguessed-at wirestrike in an earlier part of the flight that no one knew anything about at the time. PR are just journalists, not psychics.

Does anyone (least of all PR covering an unusual event on the spot ) go and do hours of research before answering a direct question who's answer is crystal clear because everyone saw the event? That really would deserve criticism for being super-evasive.

Last edited by Wageslave; 26th Aug 2016 at 11:36.
Wageslave is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 14:29
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nothing a few Azipod thrusters couldn't fix...if it could get them off the ground.
cattletruck is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 15:53
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I used JETEX


oldchina is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 19:05
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 55
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it's all in the wording of the statement. They could say within minutes that

the crew were safe and well, there was some damage to aircraft, and whilst they didn't think they touched any power cables, we are investigating eye witness reports.
Interested Passenger is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 19:12
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Certainly they could say right away that there was no contact with a telegraph pole.

Someone more worldly, please fill me in: Why is the UK still using telegraphs?
core_dump is offline  
Old 26th Aug 2016, 19:38
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wageslave:
It seems surprising that no video has surfaced of the wirestrike as surely dozens must have been filming it throughout it's flight?
Has anyone on the design team thought of some onboard video cameras? Both as navigation aids and an adjunct to whatever black boxes they have installed.


John Marsh is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.