Helicopter down in Madrid (1st Dec.)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter down in Madrid (1st Dec.)
Helicopter crash in Madrid, carrying Conservative Shadow PM. Happened after takeoff from a Bullring in Madrid. Aircraft about 20ft in the air, before spinning.
1 Slight injury, 3 others OK.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4489678.stm
1 Slight injury, 3 others OK.
Link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4489678.stm
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Monterrey Mexico
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LTE?
It looks like LTE, but why would it go down, if the pilot did not closed the throttle? Or did he after the LTE?
Weird.. I say the video, and the sound of the turbines hears very OK, although its video and its far.
It looks like a high power setting, with too much torque on a very confined area and on full passenger conditions. So... LTE? Anyone?
Im courious on what happened just for education.
Weird.. I say the video, and the sound of the turbines hears very OK, although its video and its far.
It looks like a high power setting, with too much torque on a very confined area and on full passenger conditions. So... LTE? Anyone?
Im courious on what happened just for education.
Article I read said seven on board!
http://www.channel4.com/news/content....jsp?id=137542
I don't know about a Twin-Ranger, but lifting seven out of a bullring would be tough for an L-3 - if it had any more gas on board than to make it to the parking lot outside the stadium. Poor old tail rotor probably broke from overstress! Hope they were seven skinny little fellers.
http://www.channel4.com/news/content....jsp?id=137542
I don't know about a Twin-Ranger, but lifting seven out of a bullring would be tough for an L-3 - if it had any more gas on board than to make it to the parking lot outside the stadium. Poor old tail rotor probably broke from overstress! Hope they were seven skinny little fellers.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the video several times, it looked as if he was doing a vertical takeoff and he ran out of power, drooped the MR RPM, and consequently the TR RPM also dropped losing authority as he settled back down.
On the video I get the impression that the MR RPM was low, the blades looked coned upwards more than usual.
I have flown a little in the 206 LT and I can tell you, power is not its virtue.
When Hot and High, say 10,000 FT DA the L4 runs out of pedal at about 85% Torque, which means the helicopter would start spinning but the MR would not droop, in this case I'm sure the Main and Tail rotor drooped considerably becasue he had no power to get out of the Bullfighting ring he has departing, he seem to have gone for vertical high performance TO, and he didn't even make an attempt to back into a corner and try to gain some speed before departure, which might have not been an option since those Bullfighting rings are pretty small.
On the video I get the impression that the MR RPM was low, the blades looked coned upwards more than usual.
I have flown a little in the 206 LT and I can tell you, power is not its virtue.
When Hot and High, say 10,000 FT DA the L4 runs out of pedal at about 85% Torque, which means the helicopter would start spinning but the MR would not droop, in this case I'm sure the Main and Tail rotor drooped considerably becasue he had no power to get out of the Bullfighting ring he has departing, he seem to have gone for vertical high performance TO, and he didn't even make an attempt to back into a corner and try to gain some speed before departure, which might have not been an option since those Bullfighting rings are pretty small.
Last edited by BlenderPilot; 2nd Dec 2005 at 13:53.
Guest
Posts: n/a
LTA/LTE has been debated well in other threads such as this. Without taking a position on the actual problem in this case, we've now seen a lot of accidents which start in the high hover, begin with a slide/spin and end up in a heap. For the overpitching/LTA case, several solutions are offered, not getting there in the first place (preferred), milking the collective, shutting the throttle, but whilst all these will help none are likely to prevent a hard landing at the very least.
I wondered if there are any proponents out there for the completely counterintuitive 'chickenhawk' solution, of backing off the power pedal ? I know this is going to make the spin worse to start with, but if you look at the videos, the spins seem to start slowly commencing a vicious circle of increased power requirement as the pilot sticks in pedal. I'm thinking that by doing the opposite you could buy yourself a little extra time to get things back under control in ground effect where the power requirement is lower. I seem to remember a logging video where the pilot started to spin, just let it happen and got things back, so I'm sure it has been done.
I suspect this is highly type specific. I remember comprehensively overpitching an R22 in a high hover during my original training, and there wasn't a hint of LTA, just a rather soggy sinking feeling and an instructor desperately milking the collective prior to a rather hard landing. On the other hand I saw a piston Enstrom trying to take off at Wellesbourne that spun like a dervish under the same circumstances.
Any thoughts ?
I wondered if there are any proponents out there for the completely counterintuitive 'chickenhawk' solution, of backing off the power pedal ? I know this is going to make the spin worse to start with, but if you look at the videos, the spins seem to start slowly commencing a vicious circle of increased power requirement as the pilot sticks in pedal. I'm thinking that by doing the opposite you could buy yourself a little extra time to get things back under control in ground effect where the power requirement is lower. I seem to remember a logging video where the pilot started to spin, just let it happen and got things back, so I'm sure it has been done.
I suspect this is highly type specific. I remember comprehensively overpitching an R22 in a high hover during my original training, and there wasn't a hint of LTA, just a rather soggy sinking feeling and an instructor desperately milking the collective prior to a rather hard landing. On the other hand I saw a piston Enstrom trying to take off at Wellesbourne that spun like a dervish under the same circumstances.
Any thoughts ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: barcelona
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
accident link for windows media player.
Inside the chopper and outside views
playervideohttp://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/051201accid-mostoles-EC-HCT-Rajoy.wmv
http://www.apythel.org/exterior/acci...les-EC-HCT.wmv
Looks like looses MRrpm, continues with take off, looses tail rotor authority due to loss of NR and falls down.
Very heavy for a vertical take off from that place with such conditions
This is my point of view.
Inside the chopper and outside views
playervideohttp://www.apythel.org/exterior/accid/051201accid-mostoles-EC-HCT-Rajoy.wmv
http://www.apythel.org/exterior/acci...les-EC-HCT.wmv
Looks like looses MRrpm, continues with take off, looses tail rotor authority due to loss of NR and falls down.
Very heavy for a vertical take off from that place with such conditions
This is my point of view.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.comcast.net/providers/fan...n%2Fhome%2Exml
There is also a link here with slightly clearer footage.
Hay tambien link aqui.
There is also a link here with slightly clearer footage.
Hay tambien link aqui.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What surprises me, watching the external video, is the speed of the take off and particularly transition to forward flight and presumably attempt to pick up translational lift. There was little evidence of the cautious approach necessary to give an "out" to a potential situation of loss of lift.
On the assumption that the acft was indeed power and TRA limited, I would have expected a much more defensive approach to the problem. If you can't at least hover OGE (which was going to be essential to get out of this bull ring) you are not going to have the power to translate to forward flight without losing altitude, so I would have adopted a Cat A helipad profile of slight reverse climb to a height (eg 150ft) that would enable me to get to a point where I could trade height for speed as translational lift was achieved and clear the structures around.
If on the initial climb over the bull ring there wasn't the power and TRA to maintain the climb on heading to effectively CDP it could have been put simply back on the ground. Yes there can be the option of unloading the tail rotor and I've used this to good effect in the past, but this is not the sort of thing to be considering in this high profile case - or anything resembling Public Transport.
Of course we might all be wrong and there may have been a mechanical failure, but even then the departure technique gave little room for coping with any such occurence.
On the assumption that the acft was indeed power and TRA limited, I would have expected a much more defensive approach to the problem. If you can't at least hover OGE (which was going to be essential to get out of this bull ring) you are not going to have the power to translate to forward flight without losing altitude, so I would have adopted a Cat A helipad profile of slight reverse climb to a height (eg 150ft) that would enable me to get to a point where I could trade height for speed as translational lift was achieved and clear the structures around.
If on the initial climb over the bull ring there wasn't the power and TRA to maintain the climb on heading to effectively CDP it could have been put simply back on the ground. Yes there can be the option of unloading the tail rotor and I've used this to good effect in the past, but this is not the sort of thing to be considering in this high profile case - or anything resembling Public Transport.
Of course we might all be wrong and there may have been a mechanical failure, but even then the departure technique gave little room for coping with any such occurence.
Rotorspeed,
Under your assumption that there was insufficient power to undertake this departure (which sounds reasonable) how could you possibly have conducted a vertical/back-up profile?
There is nothing magical about these types of Category A procedures; if there is insufficient power available for the rejected take-off, or a contined take-off, by climbing vertically (or rearwards) to 150ft you are only putting yourself in the HV diagram for longer.
Better that you have the AEO HOGE power that is required for this situation and take an oblique departure from the back of the bullring; that at least will leave you exposed for the shortest possible time.
There is also the point that if this was a Commercial Air Transport mission in Spain, it was certainly not in compliance with JAR-OPS 3. The protection of passengers from such accidents is one of the reasons why regulations are provided.
I hope now that the Mayor of Madrid is aware of such shortcomings - all-in-all a sad reflection on operating practices in Spain as there did appear to be open areas outside the bullring.
Jim
Under your assumption that there was insufficient power to undertake this departure (which sounds reasonable) how could you possibly have conducted a vertical/back-up profile?
There is nothing magical about these types of Category A procedures; if there is insufficient power available for the rejected take-off, or a contined take-off, by climbing vertically (or rearwards) to 150ft you are only putting yourself in the HV diagram for longer.
Better that you have the AEO HOGE power that is required for this situation and take an oblique departure from the back of the bullring; that at least will leave you exposed for the shortest possible time.
There is also the point that if this was a Commercial Air Transport mission in Spain, it was certainly not in compliance with JAR-OPS 3. The protection of passengers from such accidents is one of the reasons why regulations are provided.
I hope now that the Mayor of Madrid is aware of such shortcomings - all-in-all a sad reflection on operating practices in Spain as there did appear to be open areas outside the bullring.
Jim
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim
My point was that such a profile would surely have demonstrated that there was NOT enough power, and on realisation of that, as the heli lifted out of ground effect, the pilot could have descended Cat A style and landed back where he started.
I take your point about increased time exposure OGE, but at least during this time the option would always have remained of returning safely to the take-off point, should the heli not be able to climb any more or start to settle, as ground effect/wind/temperature affected available lift.
Whilst moving straight into forward flight as you suggest would reduce the time exposure without translational lift, the extra power available over that with AEO to HOGE to achieve forward flight to transition may not have been enough to prevent sink - perhaps as happened here. The problem is then once you are committed with even some forward speed you have lost your option of returning to the take off point and if you don't have enough lift will descend into what ever is just below you, perhaps with yaw/spinning as you lose TRA.
Agree entirely though that a properly conducted Cat A departure in a properly operated acft would have totally avoided any such risks and is what should have happened here.
Sadly looks like another - and high profile - unnecessary and unfair blow to the safety reputation of helicopters.
My point was that such a profile would surely have demonstrated that there was NOT enough power, and on realisation of that, as the heli lifted out of ground effect, the pilot could have descended Cat A style and landed back where he started.
I take your point about increased time exposure OGE, but at least during this time the option would always have remained of returning safely to the take-off point, should the heli not be able to climb any more or start to settle, as ground effect/wind/temperature affected available lift.
Whilst moving straight into forward flight as you suggest would reduce the time exposure without translational lift, the extra power available over that with AEO to HOGE to achieve forward flight to transition may not have been enough to prevent sink - perhaps as happened here. The problem is then once you are committed with even some forward speed you have lost your option of returning to the take off point and if you don't have enough lift will descend into what ever is just below you, perhaps with yaw/spinning as you lose TRA.
Agree entirely though that a properly conducted Cat A departure in a properly operated acft would have totally avoided any such risks and is what should have happened here.
Sadly looks like another - and high profile - unnecessary and unfair blow to the safety reputation of helicopters.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Planet Blue
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please visit:
http://www.apythel.org/modules.php?n...rticle&sid=852
http://www.apythel.org/modules.php?n...rticle&sid=852
The same article, via Babelfish:
The helicopter of Rajoy and Aguirre lost the tail in a wreck in Alicante in 1998
The pilot and the company attribute the fall of the airship to a "abrupt change" of the wind
JORGE To RODRIGUEZ - Madrid
THE COUNTRY - SPAIN - 03-12-2005
The helicopter that Thursday on board crashed in Móstoles (Madrid) with Mariano Rajoy and Esperanza Aguirre had undergone the 7 of 1998 July another wreck in whom it lost part of the tail, including the direction rotor. The incident happened during the extinction of a fire in Benimarfull (Alicante), when the apparatus not yet belonged to Helisureste and carried another matriculation. The pilot of the airship has presented/displayed a report in the Main directorate of Civil Aviation in which he attributes the "loss of lift" of the apparatus to "an abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind".
The Helisureste company, owner of the airship, has admitted that the apparatus underwent "an incident" (without victims) before it acquired it, in 1999 and rematriculase it with digits EC-HCT. The 7 of 1998 July, when the helicopter (then matriculation G-BXMP) participated in the extinction of a fire throwing water from a stock market bambi, the pilot ran into front with cables. In spite of the evasive maneuver, "he could not prevent to hit against cables the front part of the nose", according to the Commission of Investigation of Accidents and Civil Aircraft incidents of the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy.
"the pilot made a series of corrective maneuvers, that avoided the fall without control of the apparatus", just like Thursday next to the bullring of Móstoles. Due to the shock against the ground, "one took place the loosening of the tail cone and the deformation of the back inferior zone". One of the helicopter rotor blades "contacted with the superior part of the two fins of the horizontal stabilizer". The damages were "important". The apparatus was repaired, rematriculado and put under mandatory them inspection. At the present time, it had all the permissions in rule and it did not present/display you beat for the flight, according to the company and the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy. Previously, the helicopter had the N-58968 matriculations and the C-OCOP.
The hypothesis that breaks through on the wreck of Móstoles is the one of the "abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind", as they indicate to the pilot in his report and the Helisureste company in a press note, with the same phrase exactly. According to the National Institute of Meteorology, at the moment of the wreck the wind in Móstoles was of the northeast, and between 30 and 35 kilometers per hour. The turn or yaw that made the right airship before falling was in that sense.
Helisureste assures that the wind change only could feel when the airship rose and lost the defense of the enclosure for bullfighting. The election of the seat as lift-off point were of the own pilot, according to a report of the Municipal Police of Móstoles. Sources of Civil Aviation explained that the pilot of a helicopter is sovereign to choose, to accept or to reject to operate in a possible heliport.
The company affirms: "the helicopter took off of which technically confined zone is denominated, isolated of the wind by the walls of the bullring. The first information gather the impression that the wind change of direction and intensity, happening to be tailwind, and caused the loss of lift of the apparatus ". Jose Fonticova, one of the three pilots of dowry of the apparatus, declared yesterday to Efe that the enclosure for bullfighting is "a very feasible site to land and to take off".
Pilots of helicopters of the Forces of Security of the State think that the wind could be "fundamental" for the accident. Nevertheless, they consider that the apparatus went "to the limit of weight" or "very forced". This fact, of being certain, would take to that the helicopter took off to the maximum of its power and that the tailwind, shook vigorously it. The consulted sources assure that the authorized maximum weight for a takeoff in 206 Bell L4 Twin Ranger is of 2,063 kilos. In emptiness, the airship of North American manufacture weight 1,483 kilos (including the systems of communication and other incorporating, since without them weight 1,321 kilos).
"If six people went, the calculation is that between all a maximum of 480 weighed kilos, to which there is to add the weight to him of the fuel", they explain. If it went to the maximum, the weight of the fuel, according to the engineering specifications of the North American manufacturer, is of 250 kilos. The pilot assures in his report that took between 150 and 180 kilos of fuel. That is to say, the gross weight would surpass the 2,063 kilos (the maximum of takeoff) or was closely together.
The helicopter of Rajoy and Aguirre lost the tail in a wreck in Alicante in 1998
The pilot and the company attribute the fall of the airship to a "abrupt change" of the wind
JORGE To RODRIGUEZ - Madrid
THE COUNTRY - SPAIN - 03-12-2005
The helicopter that Thursday on board crashed in Móstoles (Madrid) with Mariano Rajoy and Esperanza Aguirre had undergone the 7 of 1998 July another wreck in whom it lost part of the tail, including the direction rotor. The incident happened during the extinction of a fire in Benimarfull (Alicante), when the apparatus not yet belonged to Helisureste and carried another matriculation. The pilot of the airship has presented/displayed a report in the Main directorate of Civil Aviation in which he attributes the "loss of lift" of the apparatus to "an abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind".
The Helisureste company, owner of the airship, has admitted that the apparatus underwent "an incident" (without victims) before it acquired it, in 1999 and rematriculase it with digits EC-HCT. The 7 of 1998 July, when the helicopter (then matriculation G-BXMP) participated in the extinction of a fire throwing water from a stock market bambi, the pilot ran into front with cables. In spite of the evasive maneuver, "he could not prevent to hit against cables the front part of the nose", according to the Commission of Investigation of Accidents and Civil Aircraft incidents of the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy.
"the pilot made a series of corrective maneuvers, that avoided the fall without control of the apparatus", just like Thursday next to the bullring of Móstoles. Due to the shock against the ground, "one took place the loosening of the tail cone and the deformation of the back inferior zone". One of the helicopter rotor blades "contacted with the superior part of the two fins of the horizontal stabilizer". The damages were "important". The apparatus was repaired, rematriculado and put under mandatory them inspection. At the present time, it had all the permissions in rule and it did not present/display you beat for the flight, according to the company and the Ministry of Public Works and the Economy. Previously, the helicopter had the N-58968 matriculations and the C-OCOP.
The hypothesis that breaks through on the wreck of Móstoles is the one of the "abrupt change in the direction and intensity of the wind", as they indicate to the pilot in his report and the Helisureste company in a press note, with the same phrase exactly. According to the National Institute of Meteorology, at the moment of the wreck the wind in Móstoles was of the northeast, and between 30 and 35 kilometers per hour. The turn or yaw that made the right airship before falling was in that sense.
Helisureste assures that the wind change only could feel when the airship rose and lost the defense of the enclosure for bullfighting. The election of the seat as lift-off point were of the own pilot, according to a report of the Municipal Police of Móstoles. Sources of Civil Aviation explained that the pilot of a helicopter is sovereign to choose, to accept or to reject to operate in a possible heliport.
The company affirms: "the helicopter took off of which technically confined zone is denominated, isolated of the wind by the walls of the bullring. The first information gather the impression that the wind change of direction and intensity, happening to be tailwind, and caused the loss of lift of the apparatus ". Jose Fonticova, one of the three pilots of dowry of the apparatus, declared yesterday to Efe that the enclosure for bullfighting is "a very feasible site to land and to take off".
Pilots of helicopters of the Forces of Security of the State think that the wind could be "fundamental" for the accident. Nevertheless, they consider that the apparatus went "to the limit of weight" or "very forced". This fact, of being certain, would take to that the helicopter took off to the maximum of its power and that the tailwind, shook vigorously it. The consulted sources assure that the authorized maximum weight for a takeoff in 206 Bell L4 Twin Ranger is of 2,063 kilos. In emptiness, the airship of North American manufacture weight 1,483 kilos (including the systems of communication and other incorporating, since without them weight 1,321 kilos).
"If six people went, the calculation is that between all a maximum of 480 weighed kilos, to which there is to add the weight to him of the fuel", they explain. If it went to the maximum, the weight of the fuel, according to the engineering specifications of the North American manufacturer, is of 250 kilos. The pilot assures in his report that took between 150 and 180 kilos of fuel. That is to say, the gross weight would surpass the 2,063 kilos (the maximum of takeoff) or was closely together.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In emptiness, the airship of North American manufacture weight 1,483 kilos (including the systems of communication and other incorporating, since without them weight 1,321 kilos)."
ahh those latins have a way with words .A fun thing with Bable fish is to tranaslate a tech document to another language and then back in to English .
ahh those latins have a way with words .A fun thing with Bable fish is to tranaslate a tech document to another language and then back in to English .
Translated into legalise then:
The pilot preferred to land inside the bullring for two reasons; one was that he was picking up VIP's and there was pressure from the company to get the job done in a slick and media perfect way. Two that the pilot purposely elected to ignore the clear area outside of the bullring, preferring instead to land and depart at a site that suited his ego.
The pilot then chose not to calculate his W.A.T. preferring to lick his index finger and position it outside the cabin window in the slipstream, thus obtaining density and wind data.
He then launched outside the safe flight envelope above the WAT in an a/c notorious for LTE, upon which he visited said phenomenon resulting in an unplanned heavy landing left skid low at the main entrance to the bullring [His original planned landing site].
The company are now looking for a suitable local weather report to support their mitigation and blame the environment.
The pilot preferred to land inside the bullring for two reasons; one was that he was picking up VIP's and there was pressure from the company to get the job done in a slick and media perfect way. Two that the pilot purposely elected to ignore the clear area outside of the bullring, preferring instead to land and depart at a site that suited his ego.
The pilot then chose not to calculate his W.A.T. preferring to lick his index finger and position it outside the cabin window in the slipstream, thus obtaining density and wind data.
He then launched outside the safe flight envelope above the WAT in an a/c notorious for LTE, upon which he visited said phenomenon resulting in an unplanned heavy landing left skid low at the main entrance to the bullring [His original planned landing site].
The company are now looking for a suitable local weather report to support their mitigation and blame the environment.
I have no wish to prejudge the causes of this accident - only to make a simple comment:
We have, on PPRune, had a number of discussions about the efficacy of cockpit voice recorders. There is a misunderstanding - probably brought about by one State's regulations (which only requires them when more than one pilot is carried) - that the fitting of these devices is related only to the capture of voice and communication.
When watching and listening to the camera soundtrack, you can begin to understand why the cockpit environment noise is required to be captured on one of the available channels, and why it is seen as so important by accident investigators.
Jim
We have, on PPRune, had a number of discussions about the efficacy of cockpit voice recorders. There is a misunderstanding - probably brought about by one State's regulations (which only requires them when more than one pilot is carried) - that the fitting of these devices is related only to the capture of voice and communication.
When watching and listening to the camera soundtrack, you can begin to understand why the cockpit environment noise is required to be captured on one of the available channels, and why it is seen as so important by accident investigators.
Jim