AirLander take off then 2nd Flight Mishap
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.
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 20:17.
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.
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.
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 79
Posts: 1,873
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: localhost
Age: 25
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 75
Posts: 131
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Airlander (Hybrid Air Vehicles) website:
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
Airlander 10 offers a new type of flight, with ground-breaking capabilities.
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
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A Squared - Looks as though you missed my last sentence,
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?
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?
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.
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.
Against that, the instant effort to deny the fact damages the credibility of the firm.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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 10:04.
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?
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.
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 10:36.
Join Date: May 2013
Location: UK
Age: 56
Posts: 85
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.
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.
Wageslave:
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.
It seems surprising that no video has surfaced of the wirestrike as surely dozens must have been filming it throughout it's flight?