Canadian Cormorant
What's wrong with the photograph?
Is it just me? I find the photo to raise some questions about the Tail Rotor. One blade is missing a bit, another is bent mid-span and the others seem mostly intact. If that T/R was being driven when it hit the water....would one not expect more damage and about the same damage on each of the blades?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmmm....
Actually why are we focusing on the tail rotor when after all the 5 main rotorblades aren't there, surely that's the cause ?
(the above posted in 'jest' to show that uninformed spceculation is just that)
SAS, it doesnt necessarily follow that the tail rotor would be that damaged, if the aircraft rolled to the right and the MRB hit the water first the tail rotor would be stopped or moving slowly by the time it hit the water (speculation again)
The RTS covers all aspects of the aircraft operation and maintenance, anything arising from a design change or mod is approved (or at least checked)by the EA, especially if it imposes a maintenance burden. Manufacturers don't actually have the authority to unilaterally apply actions to any aircraft without MoD approval (in the UK at least).
Knowing the construction of the 101 in detail I would hypothesis that the amount of nose damage seen in the pics was caused by the recovery team, the 'failure' point is at the main lift frame (ie the strongest bit of the aircraft) not at a module joint, as always until we all know all the facts we know nothing
As an aside I am sure that if it had been a TR problem we would have heard about it by now!!! (you couldnt keep that news quiet and there are parties around that would spread news like that everywhere)
DM
(the above posted in 'jest' to show that uninformed spceculation is just that)
SAS, it doesnt necessarily follow that the tail rotor would be that damaged, if the aircraft rolled to the right and the MRB hit the water first the tail rotor would be stopped or moving slowly by the time it hit the water (speculation again)
The RTS covers all aspects of the aircraft operation and maintenance, anything arising from a design change or mod is approved (or at least checked)by the EA, especially if it imposes a maintenance burden. Manufacturers don't actually have the authority to unilaterally apply actions to any aircraft without MoD approval (in the UK at least).
Knowing the construction of the 101 in detail I would hypothesis that the amount of nose damage seen in the pics was caused by the recovery team, the 'failure' point is at the main lift frame (ie the strongest bit of the aircraft) not at a module joint, as always until we all know all the facts we know nothing
As an aside I am sure that if it had been a TR problem we would have heard about it by now!!! (you couldnt keep that news quiet and there are parties around that would spread news like that everywhere)
DM
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having seen the photos and some of the bits from both of the RN Merlin crashes, first impressions are terribly bad for making any assumptions. The crash at Culdrose which dropped in from a 30 foot hover after a tail rotor failure looked a right mess whilst the aircraft up at BUTEC which had things falling off it and breaking up all over the place was essentially in one piece when it ditched. I suggest you stop speculating on the evidence of one long range, partially obscured photograph and wait for the experts to do their job.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading this today made me quite angry:
http://http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/516287.html
The link is to a front page story in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Chronicle Herald newspaper. The article is titled, "Expert suspects pilot error."
The so-called expert is "a former Royal Navy helicopter and jet pilot," named Peter Jago.
Jago, who "examined photos of the downed chopper and read eyewitness accounts said he suspects human error caused the crash."
"If it was an engine failure, the guy would have immediately hauled back and would have settled into the sea," (Jago) said from California. "I am certain that they must have flown into the sea because they were in an extreme nose-down attitude."
The website of the Florida helicopter firm ( http://www.tigercopter.com/pilots/peterjago.html) which employs him as an occasional pilot contains a link to his own company's site. There, his biography say this:
"...having served in the British Royal Navy as an Executive Officer and as a Pilot of both jet fighters and helicopters in the 1960s. He was also 'lent' to the U.S. Navy for two years as one of the first 'Topgun' instructors at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego."
What's the gen on this man, he who thinks he can look at initial press reports and then be "certain" about events during a helicopter crash an ocean away?
Disclosure: I proudly flew with some of the crew members of that Commorant, in my previous life as a CF pilot.
http://http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/516287.html
The link is to a front page story in the Halifax, Nova Scotia, Chronicle Herald newspaper. The article is titled, "Expert suspects pilot error."
The so-called expert is "a former Royal Navy helicopter and jet pilot," named Peter Jago.
Jago, who "examined photos of the downed chopper and read eyewitness accounts said he suspects human error caused the crash."
"If it was an engine failure, the guy would have immediately hauled back and would have settled into the sea," (Jago) said from California. "I am certain that they must have flown into the sea because they were in an extreme nose-down attitude."
The website of the Florida helicopter firm ( http://www.tigercopter.com/pilots/peterjago.html) which employs him as an occasional pilot contains a link to his own company's site. There, his biography say this:
"...having served in the British Royal Navy as an Executive Officer and as a Pilot of both jet fighters and helicopters in the 1960s. He was also 'lent' to the U.S. Navy for two years as one of the first 'Topgun' instructors at Miramar Naval Air Station in San Diego."
What's the gen on this man, he who thinks he can look at initial press reports and then be "certain" about events during a helicopter crash an ocean away?
Disclosure: I proudly flew with some of the crew members of that Commorant, in my previous life as a CF pilot.
Last edited by ch135146; 18th Jul 2006 at 03:29.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saaaaaarf
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like it wasn't the tail rotor then
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0a250937-06a6-4761-a142-3d5e9e18ba31&k=34454
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0a250937-06a6-4761-a142-3d5e9e18ba31&k=34454
Sad days for families of crew. RIP peeps.
