Who's At Fault

[PPRUNE FAN#1]

My R-22 experience is scant, but somewhere in the deep, dark corners of my brain I seem to recall reading something in the R-22 manual about how you can lift up on the blade tip but can only apply <insert some incredibly low number here> pounds of pressure downward on the tip. And I mean it was *very* little pressure allowed. But maybe my memory is faulty. Can any Robbo drivers expand on this?

My questions would be: 1) Is this why we do not typically see Robbo's with their MR blades tied down? 2) If enough pressure was exerted downward on the R-22 blade so that it contacted the tailboom, was the maximum allowable exceeded?

Warren Buffet:

Some years ago I was lying under my 206B3 looking at a leaky fuel drain outlet point, parked at an airport with blades tied down and driver front door opened when a Dauphin landed next to me, blew the opened door forwards, damaging the door opener strut and tearing one hinge from the frame and cracking the other mount.

You didn't hear that horribly noisy Dauphin approaching? You were lucky, mate. I've seen those shock-strut mounts torn right out of the door frame. If that had happened, the door might have swung completely around and you would have had a bubble to replace as well.

It is common sense to not land too close to another helicopter with it's blades untied (or doors open) unless you truly don't care about damaging it. It is also common sense to get out and grab a MR blade when you hear another helo approaching, especially if it's going to land close. In the thirty years that I've been a part of this industry and observing helicopter pilots, common sense is one commodity that sadly doesn't seem to be in generous supply.

[HeliEng]

Cyclic Flare

Blade ties on the 22 only stop them from flapping up, they are still free to flap down.

The R22 has a tie down point at the front of the aircraft, therefore if the forward blade is tied down to stop it flapping up by default the aft blade will not be able to flap down.

I was always told that if tying down and only using one tie down the use the front as a preferance.

Just an observation.

[RDRickster]

The droop stops on the head of the R22 prevent the HEAD from teetering at low speed. I believe this was designed to help prevent the blades from contracting the tail boom if a sudden gust came during initial start up (both blades teetering as a unit). As a result, PPRUNE FAN#1 is correct in the fact that you may push UP on the blades and NOT down.

However, the droop stops do NOT prevent the BLADES from flexing themselves. If the front blade was slightly pushed up, the clearance in the back blade would be less... it wouldn't take much downwash to impact the boom. These blades have quite a bit of flexibility in them already.

Also, there are two tie-down points for the blades (not just one). Yes, there is a designated spot on the front of the aircraft where the cabin air intake is. In addition, you are supposed to tie the aft blade down via the tailboom, using the same type blade sling. In this configuration, both blades are somewhat rigid because of the SLIGHT downward pressure (locking them against the droop stops).

(all of this from memory, so I'm probably wrong)

[diethelm]

I assume people are going to think about themselves first. If I am sitting on the ground, I am going to close the doors. If I hear another helicopter, I am going to assume there will be some wind blowing around and I will do whatever necessary to avoid damage from this wind. Absent the other person landing right on top of me or using his/her blades to do some trim work, I am going to do whatever it takes to keep from having a dispute. This strategy, although cynical, works for just about everything in life.

Does Gazelle downwash go backwards for the same reason toilets swirl backwards in the Southern Hemisphere

[HeliEng]

RDRickster,

Surely it would therefore be common sense to push the aft blade up as much as possible then tie the forward blade down first giving as much clearance betweeen blade and boom as possible???


I believe, and am in no doubt that someone WILL prove me wrong, (I know what you guys are like!!) that if one were to exercise this practice, with the aft blade as high as possible, there would not be enough flex in the blade itself to strike to tailboom. Not without causing damage to the structure of the blade anyhow.

I am familiar with the R22, and through my experience, have only heard of one occurance where the blade has contacted the boom in such an incident. (I am not saying there haven't been others, just commenting on my experience )

[MD900 Explorer]

Poor Airmanship

Surely if the R22 pilot was ready to start up, he would be:-
1, listening to the radio,
2, and be in contact with ATC and would have heard the Gazelles request to park at that location.
3, Also, if he was about to start up, would he not surely have his red strobe on the tail boom ON

So if all these things were happening, the R22 pilot would have known that the Gazelle pilot was on his way to his location and the Gazelle pilot would have seen that the R22 was about to start-up, giving him an extra wide berth

So, what should the R22 pilot have done - stopped starting up, got out of the R22 and held onto the blades for dear life.... I think not. He would have assumed that the Gazelle pilot had the wherewithall to apply good airmanship and land in an appropriate distance from the R22, so he could get on with his engine and rotor start.

In my opinion, if we all shat ourselves because another helicopter was coming to park next to us, we would never fly at all

The Gazelle pilot should have known the specs on the machine he was flying and known that the Gazelle is alot bigger and more powerful than an R22 and should also have known that the downdraft was going to be extensive. Having the skills to avoid other aircraft, that are on the ground, when coming into land would indicate proper airmaship. What was demonstrated was no doubt percieved by many to be a cowboy attitude of flying, which is DANGEROUS and COSTS LIVES in the end.

As for who should pay who for the damage, the Gazelle pilot should start digging deep for a repair job on the R22.

MD

[Bronx]

My, oh my what an interesting spread of opinions we got.

MD900
Whadya mean by "was no doubt percieved by many to be a cowboy attitude of flying"? Are you saying he had a cowboy attitude to flying? Why? Coz he got it wrong on one day? For all you know he could be a careful pilot with 1000's of hours without any incident.


Story from the Richmond Times, Virginia

A Helicopter downdraft hurt woman, suit says
ROANOKE - The downdraft from a rescue helicopter forced a Lexington woman to the ground and broke her hip, according to a lawsuit filed on behalf of the woman's estate.
Ruby Graves, who died in 2003 at 84, was leaving Stonewall Jackson Hospital in July 2002 after an outpatient treatment when a helicopter passed overhead with a downdraft "of such force and violence that it knocked her to the ground," according to the suit.
Graves' hip was broken in the fall, said Michael Cleary, the estate's attorney. The suit claims the injury was severe and permanent.
Cleary has filed suit against Carilion Patient Transportation Services; unidentified pilots with Carilion's rescue helicopter service, Life-Guard 10 air ambulance service; Stonewall Jackson Hospital; and others for $300,000.

[MD900 Explorer]

Poor Airmanship

Bronx

Fair and valid point, but in MY opinion, if he wasnt a cowboy, then he would have had the pre-thought to give the necessary seperative distance from the R22. If he was that careful 1000's of hours pilot, then he obviously wasnt that careful and showed a smiging of complacency - Which i pointed out Kills in the end. I agree we all make mistakes and we sometimes get it wrong, but something simple like that is really hard to mess up eh

MD

[SilsoeSid]

I have to agree with MD,

He couldn't be a 'careful 1000s hours pilot', because he wasn't being careful, was he!
The one day you get it wrong, could be disasterous, I don't believe there is a no claims protection type policy on not being careful or failing to show airmanship, is there?

There seems to be a few people here of the 'driving in the middle lane attitude' here.
"I'm doing 70mph in the middle lane, no-one should be overtaking me. I'm not doing anything wrong, everyone else is breaking the speed limit."
Unfortunately, not all speedos are calibrated the same, so your 70mph could be my 67mph, so I CAN be going faster than you.[

[Bronx]

Sorry Sid, can't agree with you there. Even 'careful 1000s hours pilots' can make mistakes. Maybe the folk you think are too kind on the Gazelle driver are remembering pride often comes before a fall. If you've never made an error and got lucky you're a very rare pilot. Most of us have some time or other and just thanked our lucky stars we got away with it no harm done.

[TeeS]

Silsoe

The centres of the spots you mention are only about 26m apart, that is why I suggested that your requirement for 30m separation would only allow 2 aircraft on the apron at Battersea!

This discussion is really going nowhere, can we allow it to quietly fade away.

Cheers

TeeS

[Warren Buffett]

PPRUNE FAN #1

You didn't hear that horribly noisy Dauphin approaching?

No, I should have, I guess. Just like I should have known whether or not I left the iron on this morning, whether I left the gate opened last night, whether I just transmitted to ATC accidentally on VHF when I meant to be talking on my phone. You get the idea. At a busy GA airport you hear so much background noise that you are not alerted unless something louder than the normal background noise happens. Then it's too late. R22 Driver now faces a damaged tail cone.

However much you try and educate people on airmanship there will be a tiny proportion that just don't care. And this is what I mean when I say **** HAPPENS (can I say this again and still get away with it?).

[SilsoeSid]

Bronx, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall saying that I have never made an error. When I have, at least I have had the b@lls to admit to it and not try to hide or deny it or simply blame someone else!!

A lot of us NOT so 'holier than though' pilots are still making mistakes for various reasons, despite 1000s of hrs, surely it's only natural.

Blaming others for our own mistakes is simply not on!

Tees,

Fading away...... but, (you knew there was a but), short of getting my tape rule out on my next visit to LW, I'll settle for one on 8 one on 5 and the 3rd getting a refuel.

edit;
By the way, the 30m distance isn't 'my' requirement, it is a recommendation from the BHAB site.
I repeat from the CAA SS leaflet, "Always be mindful of the effect your own rotor downwash can have on parked aeroplanes and other surface objects."

[Sarik]

If you're in a car, you're responsible for any damage you do (certianly to stationary objects) while driving that car.

Downwash is a product of a heli, and the pilot should be responsible for any damage to any object that causes, regardless of what it is.

Unless there is some 'factual' rule that states you must never have your blades 6/12 while parked; the 22 driver was sitting in his machine, minding his own business. He may have been listening in on the radio, maybe not, he's parked up, he doesn't have to be.

It doesn't matter that it was the blade striking the tailboom, the downwash caused by the Gaz driver caused one object (regardless of what is was) to strike another.

Although with that said, I don't think either driver did anything wrong. Maybe if the Gaz driver parked another foot away, it wouldn't have happend, if the 22 drivers blades were 1/7 and not 12/6 it wouldn't have happend.

BUT it is the Gaz's drivers responsibilty, his downwash caused damage, and he probably should coff up. An unfortunate coming together of events.

But like so many people have said. **** HAPPENS. And this just happens to be on of those '**** HAPPENINGS'.

And this is all, of course, IMVHO.

S.

[MD900 Explorer]

Who is at fault.....erm....the Gazelle Pilot

SS

Sounds like we are pissing in the wind here buddy

But i was thinking about this some more last night, and came to the conclusion, and correct me if i am wrong here now, that either the Gazelle pilot came in right overhead, or the R22 pilot was actually starting up, as i think that the damage on the tail boom can only really be caused by a blade sail accident whilst in start-up or shut-down, due to the teetering hinge on the R22 blade it would be nearly impossible to create the necessary down draft to make the blade hit the tail boom unless you were pretty much ontop of the R22, or very close throwing down a large amount of rotor wash. creating the necessary wind conditions to sail the blades.

Now i could be speaking a load of tosh here, and i am sure someone will correct me if i am voicing out of tune here, but if i am right, then the Gazelle pilot is well out of order.

MD

[cyclic flare]

MD 900

The 22 was shut down blades stopped. The blade hit the boom hard, and i mean hard. He was clearly to close which was greatly increased with the downwind aspect 20kts.

The R22 pilot cannot be found at fault in any way. He could of been paying for his fuel in the tower and nothing would of changed.

The only way to change what happened would be if the gazelle had given more room / allowed for the downwind position of the 22.

[MD900 Explorer]

Who is at fault

Cyclic Flare

Sorry buddy, i was under the impression the R22 pilot was just starting up (Don't know how i got that impression)

Never said it was the fault of the R22 Pilot, and i still agree the Gazelle pilot was at fault. Your points are noted though.

MD

[Rich Lee]

Let's burn this Gazelle pilot at the stake. We certainly can't have his ilk loitering about in three dimensional space. While we have the prye burning at six gazillion degrees (C) we might as well burn the R-22 pilot for not demonstrating the divine omniscience necessary to anticipate danger and position main rotor blades accordingly.

What? Helicopter forum? Sorry, I was under the mistaken opinion that this was a railroad.

[Heliport]

Something which has always surprised me in the forum is the way in which pilots who've made a mistake are often condemned so strongly by some other pilots.
I assume the majority adopt more of a There but for the grace of God approach and are relieved it wasn't them who made the error.

[Rich Lee]

Something which has always surprised me in the forum is the way in which pilots who've made a mistake are often condemned so strongly by some other pilots.

Wisdom at last! I do thank you Sir.

The Court of Pprune can be a cruel and viscious arena where good men die like dogs. Were I only perfect I might feel more comfortable passing judgement on my fellow aviators - but having become an expert by making all the mistakes possible in my very narrow field - I somehow feel inadequate.