French Cougar Crash VIDEO !
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 68
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are several exemple of aircraft being rebuild, even after this kind of crash. For administrative reason, it's possible to rebuild a destroyed aircraft because the money has been taken on an other budget, or chapter.
In the french army an aircraft may be moved from a unit to an other losing its regiment's registration. AD is dedicated to Compiegne. So the ADJ in green could be different from the sand camo ADJ s/n 1403 of 2004.
In the french army an aircraft may be moved from a unit to an other losing its regiment's registration. AD is dedicated to Compiegne. So the ADJ in green could be different from the sand camo ADJ s/n 1403 of 2004.
Much talk about cutting the FCL/speed selects, but what's wrong with dumping the collective? Much quicker, and probably a lot safer if done immediately. I realise that the Puma has an unusually high propensity to roll over with its high CG/narrow track, but most pilots should be able to react fast enough to get down before the spin builds up.
Yes, I have been there/done that (through my own fault, in a BK117), but total spin from a 20' hover to stopped on the ground was about 120 degrees, with a spread crosstube. Much better than spinning 3-4 times and rolling over, methinks?
Yes, I have been there/done that (through my own fault, in a BK117), but total spin from a 20' hover to stopped on the ground was about 120 degrees, with a spread crosstube. Much better than spinning 3-4 times and rolling over, methinks?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 55
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TR Failure
Had a look at this yesterday, notice just a little cheeky flare at the end just before touchdown? Then look closely at the hockey stick (TR protector) is bent, which means the TR hit the ground on first landing! With over 2500 hrs on type I can testify that you need to be a wee bit cautious about flare attitudes with Puma's. That's all, take care out there!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the aircraft is spinning so badly that one cannot reach the overhead engine levers (they are NOT throttles, guys) then one cannot control the helo, so all bets are off.
Having been the CP during a similar incident, I can assure you that overhead levers can be cut, quickly, by the CP. And if he waits for "permission" he is too dumb to be a CP.
If one cannot trust a CP to cut them, one should not have a CP
If one cannot lower the lever to reduce torque while at 1 foot height, and forget about the levers, one has forgotten how to fly, so it is already too late.
If one thinks that the engine lever location has anything to do with this accident, I have a nice bridge in New York to sell you, cheap, hardly used.
Having been the CP during a similar incident, I can assure you that overhead levers can be cut, quickly, by the CP. And if he waits for "permission" he is too dumb to be a CP.
If one cannot trust a CP to cut them, one should not have a CP
If one cannot lower the lever to reduce torque while at 1 foot height, and forget about the levers, one has forgotten how to fly, so it is already too late.
If one thinks that the engine lever location has anything to do with this accident, I have a nice bridge in New York to sell you, cheap, hardly used.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand one of the pilots could have gone for the power levers, but it would have been much easier and the odds of this accident having turned out much different if the power control would have been in the hands of the pilot, that I have no doubt of.
I am glad some manufacturers are deciding to change their OLD designs and going for collective mounted power control, I really don't see any problem with mounting them on the collective, and it sure makes us feel better as pilots.
We had an Agusta accident right outside this hangar where a TR malfunction occured and the pilot had diffculty letting the collective go to move the power levers, so he went for lowering the collective, but at the rate of turn it still became an accident as the aircraft came to rest on its side.
Sure lowering the collective is an option, but a much better one is rolling the power off first to slow or stop the spinning and then touch down, its a proven fact that TR malfuncions on helicopters that have the power in the hands of the pilot have a better outcome than their roof mounted counter parts. No wonder EC is going for this option in their newer models even if it means greater design complexity.
And let's not even get into stuck pedal emergencies in aircraft that have roof monted PL's
I am glad some manufacturers are deciding to change their OLD designs and going for collective mounted power control, I really don't see any problem with mounting them on the collective, and it sure makes us feel better as pilots.
We had an Agusta accident right outside this hangar where a TR malfunction occured and the pilot had diffculty letting the collective go to move the power levers, so he went for lowering the collective, but at the rate of turn it still became an accident as the aircraft came to rest on its side.
Sure lowering the collective is an option, but a much better one is rolling the power off first to slow or stop the spinning and then touch down, its a proven fact that TR malfuncions on helicopters that have the power in the hands of the pilot have a better outcome than their roof mounted counter parts. No wonder EC is going for this option in their newer models even if it means greater design complexity.
And let's not even get into stuck pedal emergencies in aircraft that have roof monted PL's
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The amazing thing about this thread is that we will go to war to settle a way to handle a stuck flight control or broken shaft (both systems that fail approximately once per millenium) and not even ask for the avionics, instrument procedures, visionics systems (like NVG) and integrated map/nav systems to protect our flights against ourselves to prevent the accidents that make up 75% of our helo fatalities.
Let us suppose that it would cost $40,000 and 10 pounds of weight to "fix" this horrendous engine lever location "problem", is this the FIRST place we should spend that effort on? Is this engine lever position crisis the reason why helos are considered less safe than airplanes?
I know this is a real stretch, but maybe we could look at what actually causes crashes, and fix that list in priority, don't cha think?
PS Only a group of helicopter pilots could look at a film of a tail rotor hitting the dirt, causing a crash, and discuss engine levers. Real people would be discussing how to protect tail rotors, but what the hell do they know!
Let us suppose that it would cost $40,000 and 10 pounds of weight to "fix" this horrendous engine lever location "problem", is this the FIRST place we should spend that effort on? Is this engine lever position crisis the reason why helos are considered less safe than airplanes?
I know this is a real stretch, but maybe we could look at what actually causes crashes, and fix that list in priority, don't cha think?
PS Only a group of helicopter pilots could look at a film of a tail rotor hitting the dirt, causing a crash, and discuss engine levers. Real people would be discussing how to protect tail rotors, but what the hell do they know!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Too high for the eye
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is easy for us sitting on our comfy chairs watching the video and analize it. "The pilot should have done that and he was out of the woods...bla bla"
I bet that if any of us was in that chopper won`t react like he reacts in his home chair. The difference is...in that choper...it is a possibility that you might die...in your home chair...unles the ceiling falls on you or a power surge from you computer...no. Watching the video...from exterior it is obvious that the TR failed. Cause? technical or pilot error....it is important that at one moment TR stoped doing its job. But...did the pilot know this? Not instanteneous(spelling)! He realised this a second later...wich is quite some time...events did/can evolve quite rapidly in that second. The pilot must analize in that second all the courses of actions he can take and choose one. He did make a decision he thought it was best(a bad idea is better than no idea). The first thing he did was push the left pedal(instinct)...it kinda takes around 1 second to think and push it...maybe 1,5 seconds. There you go...choper already spinining. He reached the point of no return. In every crash there is a point of no return...from where the aircraft becomes un-responsive whatever you do...pray to God...Allah...Buddha...make a sacrifice..whatever. Once it started spining in the air...you can do nothing...just wait. If you lower the collective...it is a posibility that you could hit quite hard...and boom...gone to the next plain of existance...or worse..spine injury = wheel chair(I rather be dead than stuck to a wheel chair). Of course...the fuel cut-off levers...reach them if you can. And if you reach them...when you reach them...it is too late...you already crashed.
Most of the pilots..in the initial stages of bad events happening...think that they can control the aircraft...in many ocasions...things tend to go from bad to worse.
I had my share of events...and I must say...inside the cockpit it is quite different than watching it on TV.
I bet that if any of us was in that chopper won`t react like he reacts in his home chair. The difference is...in that choper...it is a possibility that you might die...in your home chair...unles the ceiling falls on you or a power surge from you computer...no. Watching the video...from exterior it is obvious that the TR failed. Cause? technical or pilot error....it is important that at one moment TR stoped doing its job. But...did the pilot know this? Not instanteneous(spelling)! He realised this a second later...wich is quite some time...events did/can evolve quite rapidly in that second. The pilot must analize in that second all the courses of actions he can take and choose one. He did make a decision he thought it was best(a bad idea is better than no idea). The first thing he did was push the left pedal(instinct)...it kinda takes around 1 second to think and push it...maybe 1,5 seconds. There you go...choper already spinining. He reached the point of no return. In every crash there is a point of no return...from where the aircraft becomes un-responsive whatever you do...pray to God...Allah...Buddha...make a sacrifice..whatever. Once it started spining in the air...you can do nothing...just wait. If you lower the collective...it is a posibility that you could hit quite hard...and boom...gone to the next plain of existance...or worse..spine injury = wheel chair(I rather be dead than stuck to a wheel chair). Of course...the fuel cut-off levers...reach them if you can. And if you reach them...when you reach them...it is too late...you already crashed.
Most of the pilots..in the initial stages of bad events happening...think that they can control the aircraft...in many ocasions...things tend to go from bad to worse.
I had my share of events...and I must say...inside the cockpit it is quite different than watching it on TV.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must remember that even if TR malfunctions happen "once per millenium".
More than often, pilots stick their TR into wire fences, tree branches, wires, dirt mounds and other stuff every day, its a fact of life, and if it happens your odds of getting out of it are much better if "have the power in your hands".
More than often, pilots stick their TR into wire fences, tree branches, wires, dirt mounds and other stuff every day, its a fact of life, and if it happens your odds of getting out of it are much better if "have the power in your hands".
clockwise rotor....my bad. No wonder some of the passengers complained 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blenderpilot,
The fact is that you don't solve the TR problem with an engine cut, you just make it another problem - an immediate power off landing/ditch/crash. It might be a bit better, but only a bit in many cases.
Why not face the issue you identify, a very valid one - the exposure and vulnerability of the tail rotor.
As pilots we are suckered constantly by our training. We are trained on how to handle a TR failure - cut the throttle, which certainly does not handle anything, it merely replaces one emergency with another one. That way, we look at the film, and with no actual thought, begin to discuss engine controls. WRONG. We should be discussing TR vulnerability, and how to solve it. (Similarly, our OEI training conditions us to believe engine failure is the biggest problem, and we should have two big engines so that one is an option, unnecessary until the first fails.)
Look at the geometry of helos in the 332's class, and how most protect the TR with the tail cone, stabilizer and other strong meat but how the 332 uses a small, weak skeg as the only line of defense between the ground and a major emergency.
If we ppruners are to actually help our condition, we have to learn to discuss the real issues, and not drift off into la la land where traditional conditioned reaction is a substitute for real thought.
The fact is that you don't solve the TR problem with an engine cut, you just make it another problem - an immediate power off landing/ditch/crash. It might be a bit better, but only a bit in many cases.
Why not face the issue you identify, a very valid one - the exposure and vulnerability of the tail rotor.
As pilots we are suckered constantly by our training. We are trained on how to handle a TR failure - cut the throttle, which certainly does not handle anything, it merely replaces one emergency with another one. That way, we look at the film, and with no actual thought, begin to discuss engine controls. WRONG. We should be discussing TR vulnerability, and how to solve it. (Similarly, our OEI training conditions us to believe engine failure is the biggest problem, and we should have two big engines so that one is an option, unnecessary until the first fails.)
Look at the geometry of helos in the 332's class, and how most protect the TR with the tail cone, stabilizer and other strong meat but how the 332 uses a small, weak skeg as the only line of defense between the ground and a major emergency.
If we ppruners are to actually help our condition, we have to learn to discuss the real issues, and not drift off into la la land where traditional conditioned reaction is a substitute for real thought.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using my CAD software, my best guestimate is that this aircraft touched down with an 16-18 degree nose up attitude.
Plotting this angle against a side profile schematic of this type of aircraft clearly results in a hard tail strike.
The stinger will strike the ground at about 9 degrees. (May be someone with accurate figures can verify this).
Anyway, that's quite a nose up attitude! May have been the cause.
cl12pv2s
Plotting this angle against a side profile schematic of this type of aircraft clearly results in a hard tail strike.
The stinger will strike the ground at about 9 degrees. (May be someone with accurate figures can verify this).
Anyway, that's quite a nose up attitude! May have been the cause.
cl12pv2s
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Germany
Age: 68
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the french Army school in Le Luc, we teach that the stinger touch at 12 degre nose up the TR blades at 15.
Concerning the fact that the pilot on the left, who is in reality the captain, had his hand out of the window, it's bad, but Army doesn't use the puma as civilian company. Therefore having the engineer with the both hands on the levers at every operational landing is a nonsense and more dangerous than useful.
I was involved many times in such demos with special forces and a video camera, with a director asking you to give him the best pictures you could. The result has probably overtaken the director's wishes.
EC tried in 1975 to adapt a fenestron to the puma, the visible result was an ugly helicopter and bad hovering performance.
Concerning the fact that the pilot on the left, who is in reality the captain, had his hand out of the window, it's bad, but Army doesn't use the puma as civilian company. Therefore having the engineer with the both hands on the levers at every operational landing is a nonsense and more dangerous than useful.
I was involved many times in such demos with special forces and a video camera, with a director asking you to give him the best pictures you could. The result has probably overtaken the director's wishes.
EC tried in 1975 to adapt a fenestron to the puma, the visible result was an ugly helicopter and bad hovering performance.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Well they were always known as "throttles" in my twelve years or so of flying the old Pume, whatever they did.
But that's probably because the blades go the wrong way round and lucky left doesn't work. They also have those highly dangerous pressure fuel systems and weak hydraulic systems that are always on the point of jack-stalling. And they need more metal in that weak airframe, more metal I tell you.
As for that yaw/roll divergence and that ridiculously high C of G and narrow track undercarriage....... and what? NO ENGINE ANTICIPATORS? Well! It will never stand up to military service. What's that - 34 years?????
That tail stinger ricocheting off the tarmac into the tail rotor blades at 15 degrees nose-up on touchdown WAS always a bit of a gotcha though. (Why DID they fit it - it always made things worse!) Better to have no stinger and hit the tail on the ground at 10 degrees N.U. like the S-76 does, eh Nick?
Sorry, just couldn't help it......
BTW, XW231? Last flew her on Jan 4th 1994 - is she still going strong? Take care with the old lady, 230 Sqn!
But that's probably because the blades go the wrong way round and lucky left doesn't work. They also have those highly dangerous pressure fuel systems and weak hydraulic systems that are always on the point of jack-stalling. And they need more metal in that weak airframe, more metal I tell you.
As for that yaw/roll divergence and that ridiculously high C of G and narrow track undercarriage....... and what? NO ENGINE ANTICIPATORS? Well! It will never stand up to military service. What's that - 34 years?????
That tail stinger ricocheting off the tarmac into the tail rotor blades at 15 degrees nose-up on touchdown WAS always a bit of a gotcha though. (Why DID they fit it - it always made things worse!) Better to have no stinger and hit the tail on the ground at 10 degrees N.U. like the S-76 does, eh Nick?
Sorry, just couldn't help it......
BTW, XW231? Last flew her on Jan 4th 1994 - is she still going strong? Take care with the old lady, 230 Sqn!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Right side of zero
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well written... but also funny 
Magjam
"People who needs long explanations at times when everything depends on instinct have always irritated me..." Guy Sajer, WWII Soldier
Magjam
"People who needs long explanations at times when everything depends on instinct have always irritated me..." Guy Sajer, WWII Soldier
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: ?
Posts: 220
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
more with the way the overflow vents was designed or not. The 330 was known for burning after rollover. I know of at least 3 cases were this happened. In the 332 the design was changed and the hazard removed.
How did they remove the problem?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hotz, if I am not mistaken, what they did was take the vent from the left hand tank and routed it over the top of the fuselage so that it exited on the right hand side and visa versa. In the event of a rollover, which was a regular occurance in 330 accidents, the modified venting system greatly reduced the risk of fire.