Video of Aircrane Getting LTE
Wow, I am fascinated by the investigation reaction, as I subscribe to both Nick's explaination and to the reaction of ptwaugh in relation to the pilots being able to give the lecture on recovery.
This extract is the bit that concerned me:
Sounds like a fundamental misunderstanding of the incident by the investigating officer to me. Has he heard of Loss of Tail Rotor Authority (LTA)? Does he know the difference with LTE? Why has he put it down to an LTE incident?
On one hand he suspends the licences, and on the other recommends they have a more forthright reporting culture. Does he understand the link between these at all?
I am even wondering if this incident is reportable at all. The guy got LTA and took recovery action. The problem about hover limitations? Why the flight manual exceedence bit? WTF? I have yet to see the need for a heavy water bomber to hover during application. Total waste of time and money.
Like the investigation and report.
This extract is the bit that concerned me:
1) Contractor instruct the flight crew identifying conditions for LTE and how to mitigate these conditions. 2) Contractor instruct the crew on immediate and forthright reporting procedures to the USDA Forest Service personnel when an incident occurs. 3) Contractor instruct the flight crew on hover limitations and reporting procedures of any flight manual limitation exceeded.
The cards for these two pilots were suspended till the completion of the report and written compliance by the contractor that these recommendations were covered with the flight crew.
The cards for these two pilots were suspended till the completion of the report and written compliance by the contractor that these recommendations were covered with the flight crew.
On one hand he suspends the licences, and on the other recommends they have a more forthright reporting culture. Does he understand the link between these at all?
I am even wondering if this incident is reportable at all. The guy got LTA and took recovery action. The problem about hover limitations? Why the flight manual exceedence bit? WTF? I have yet to see the need for a heavy water bomber to hover during application. Total waste of time and money.
Like the investigation and report.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet fire,
Yep, we agree LTE is not LTA. The investigator was bang on in his findings, I think, but he does mix LTA and LTE, as does most of the helo world, by now, perhaps by careful planning of some authorities.
I dislike doing armchair investigation, but here goes:
1) The aircraft was too heavy, and the low speed maneuver (near hover) that was attempted was not within the performance capability of the aircraft. That is the root cause of the maneuver seen in the film. Note the finding about understanding hover limitations. The recovery involved dumping 10,000 pounds of water, sort of proof of that fact!
2) LTE is way too loose of a term, and has no meaning in this case. The tail rotor was admirably effective throughout this incident, it was simply being forced to operate at too low of an rpm. Thus it was an LTA incident, but look at the thread to see how many pilots do not get the distinction.
Regarding the actions taken, I do think it is harsh, the pilot showed great airmanship in recovering, but he probably knows that he painted himself into a tight corner. I think this illustrates what I have always said, "The difference between training and experience is told in flying stories." That pilot has a flying story that we can all learn from.
The pilot stepped into something bigger than his incident. The US Forest service is under a microscope, because of the real safety problems they have had these last few years. That C-130 that shed its wings several years ago started the whole thing, and even the basic policies of letting contracts are under examination. I am sure some pruners know much more that I do about this.
Yep, we agree LTE is not LTA. The investigator was bang on in his findings, I think, but he does mix LTA and LTE, as does most of the helo world, by now, perhaps by careful planning of some authorities.
I dislike doing armchair investigation, but here goes:
1) The aircraft was too heavy, and the low speed maneuver (near hover) that was attempted was not within the performance capability of the aircraft. That is the root cause of the maneuver seen in the film. Note the finding about understanding hover limitations. The recovery involved dumping 10,000 pounds of water, sort of proof of that fact!
2) LTE is way too loose of a term, and has no meaning in this case. The tail rotor was admirably effective throughout this incident, it was simply being forced to operate at too low of an rpm. Thus it was an LTA incident, but look at the thread to see how many pilots do not get the distinction.
Regarding the actions taken, I do think it is harsh, the pilot showed great airmanship in recovering, but he probably knows that he painted himself into a tight corner. I think this illustrates what I have always said, "The difference between training and experience is told in flying stories." That pilot has a flying story that we can all learn from.
The pilot stepped into something bigger than his incident. The US Forest service is under a microscope, because of the real safety problems they have had these last few years. That C-130 that shed its wings several years ago started the whole thing, and even the basic policies of letting contracts are under examination. I am sure some pruners know much more that I do about this.
