Helicopter pilot indicted with manslaughter
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 515
Likes: 0
From: Denver, CO and the GOM
From the NTSB report: The pilot opted to reduce airspeed to 60-80 knots and started a 15-20 degree right turn over the beach. The helicopter got about 160 degrees into the turn when the airspeed went to zero and the aircraft started to rapidly descend. The pilot attempted to control the helicopter with control inputs which had no effect. The pilot stated that he realized that they were going to hit the beach and applied full power. The rate of descent suddenly stopped and the helicopter went back up in the air momentarily and entered an immediate hard spin to the left. The pilot instructed the passengers to open the doors and he transmitted a MAYDAY call as the helicopter impacted the water, bounced back into the air, then impacted the water again, still spinning...
It could be that this pilot has no idea what happened - that doesn't absolve him of responsibility, but is he negligent if the operator allows or demands flights in conditions where a pilot could be pushed beyond their level of competence or training? It's one thing if the pilot knowingly flew into a situation he knew he shouldn't (or claimed expertise where none existed), another thing entirely if an operator puts a pilot into a situation that the pilot is unable to recognize as dangerous, until they are given the lesson by the hard school of experience.
I suspect in the end, the results of the trials and lawsuits will not reflect the reality of the day, nor will the pilot's recollection. It's human nature to truely believe "I could NOT have done that - I am better than that, it must have happened like THIS...". I just hope that something positive comes from all this, even if it's only that pilots to come benefit from the learning that this experience provides - even Paradise has clouds, and not all of those clouds have silver linings.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
..."started to descend rapidly..." "...control inputs had no effect...."
Sounds to me suspiciously like he got into (dare I say it???) Vortex Ring State, and was lucky that pulling power when he did got him out of it.
And then it appears he didn't anticipate that the maximum power heave on the collective might need some tail rotor to compensate...
If that's what really happened - without a data recorder, we'll never really know.
Sounds to me suspiciously like he got into (dare I say it???) Vortex Ring State, and was lucky that pulling power when he did got him out of it.
And then it appears he didn't anticipate that the maximum power heave on the collective might need some tail rotor to compensate...
If that's what really happened - without a data recorder, we'll never really know.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 563
Likes: 1
From: queensland australia
"oh no"" you dared to say it shawn.
doesn't sound like it at all if he "pulled power" and the machine stopped descending. that means he must have had the collective either down or in a normal position, not conducive to vortex ring or to use a more correct terminology, "settling with power".
sounds like he got into an unusual attitude in imc (flew into heavy rain) and couldn't recover in time.
especially looking at the damage.
he must have hit the water sideways at speed to rip the cabin off and the seats out to that extent.
doesn't sound like it at all if he "pulled power" and the machine stopped descending. that means he must have had the collective either down or in a normal position, not conducive to vortex ring or to use a more correct terminology, "settling with power".
sounds like he got into an unusual attitude in imc (flew into heavy rain) and couldn't recover in time.
especially looking at the damage.
he must have hit the water sideways at speed to rip the cabin off and the seats out to that extent.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Based on info in the Honolulu Advertiser article, it would appear the guy has not been charged yet, in fact he appears to have moved out of Kauai. It also appears that the pilots usually don't survive, so nobody's been around to charge before.
Basically the prosecutor's investigation is the same they would do in a suspicious car crash. In the end, nothing at all may come of it from the criminal point of view. You can bet there will be a civil lawsuit though (Why do we call them civil?).
The blown out canopy is a fairly classic result from a high speed water impact. I saw the wreckage of a CH-46 that crashed off the windward side of Oahu once after losing the forward rotor to tie-bar failure. The aircraft fell from 1000 feet and 120 knots impacting on it's back. The air pressure inside was so strong that one entire side of the fuselage blew out and was salvaged in one piece. Hit it hard and fast enough and water does not move out of the way, glass, plastic and metal do as seems to have happened here.
Floats might have done no good at all other than possibly making salvage easier. The available info seems to show the pax drowned, but I suspect they might have had severe head injuries based on damage to the canopy. If the aircraft touched down in an unusual attitude as it appears to have, floats might have simply caused an upside down machine to stay on the surface while the injured tourists inside breathed their last gulp of saltwater.
Basically the prosecutor's investigation is the same they would do in a suspicious car crash. In the end, nothing at all may come of it from the criminal point of view. You can bet there will be a civil lawsuit though (Why do we call them civil?).
The blown out canopy is a fairly classic result from a high speed water impact. I saw the wreckage of a CH-46 that crashed off the windward side of Oahu once after losing the forward rotor to tie-bar failure. The aircraft fell from 1000 feet and 120 knots impacting on it's back. The air pressure inside was so strong that one entire side of the fuselage blew out and was salvaged in one piece. Hit it hard and fast enough and water does not move out of the way, glass, plastic and metal do as seems to have happened here.
Floats might have done no good at all other than possibly making salvage easier. The available info seems to show the pax drowned, but I suspect they might have had severe head injuries based on damage to the canopy. If the aircraft touched down in an unusual attitude as it appears to have, floats might have simply caused an upside down machine to stay on the surface while the injured tourists inside breathed their last gulp of saltwater.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: UK
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing of course, however...
...Don't see how you can discount Vortex Ring, whether inadvertant (ie met induced) or not. We're not all American, so you can ease off on the "more correct" terms!
My concerns are more with the fact that the NTSB report highlights how many other aircraft were prepared to violate their minima to continue their tours. 100ft with fee-paying pax?! Mama mia - you'd better have a good reason for that versus doing a 180deg turn and saying sorry folks, the ride's over.
Was this a single-engine Squirrel? If so, the odds are massively against making any of the so-called suitable areas if the donkey stops. Did the pax have lifejackets for a prolonged flight over the water? Is the industry so focussed on the bottom line that it's prepared to put lives at stake. Does anyone in the safety chain care?
...Don't see how you can discount Vortex Ring, whether inadvertant (ie met induced) or not. We're not all American, so you can ease off on the "more correct" terms!
My concerns are more with the fact that the NTSB report highlights how many other aircraft were prepared to violate their minima to continue their tours. 100ft with fee-paying pax?! Mama mia - you'd better have a good reason for that versus doing a 180deg turn and saying sorry folks, the ride's over.
Was this a single-engine Squirrel? If so, the odds are massively against making any of the so-called suitable areas if the donkey stops. Did the pax have lifejackets for a prolonged flight over the water? Is the industry so focussed on the bottom line that it's prepared to put lives at stake. Does anyone in the safety chain care?
Joined: May 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 18,633
Likes: 1,072
From: Downeast
Beefer...
The entire helicopter industry puts lives at risk at some point. I would remind you of the North Sea in Winter....and how sea states in excess of Sea State Six put everyone at risk in the event of a ditching....particularly after dark.
That the Hawaii based tour operators would do something akin to that ....should come as no surprise to you.
The GOM operators reluctance to be rid of single engine helicopters is yet another way people are put at risk....winter operations over cold water in single engine machines with no immersion suits is not a very "safe" thing to do I would argue.
The "bottom line" drives all operator's safety programs...that is life.
The entire helicopter industry puts lives at risk at some point. I would remind you of the North Sea in Winter....and how sea states in excess of Sea State Six put everyone at risk in the event of a ditching....particularly after dark.
That the Hawaii based tour operators would do something akin to that ....should come as no surprise to you.
The GOM operators reluctance to be rid of single engine helicopters is yet another way people are put at risk....winter operations over cold water in single engine machines with no immersion suits is not a very "safe" thing to do I would argue.
The "bottom line" drives all operator's safety programs...that is life.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
From: UK
The "bottom line" drives all operator's safety programs...that is life.
...or rather, "a lack of".
Affirm SAS, please excuse my commercial naivety! My thrust is that as a SAR wallah of reasonable experience, I would want one of my pilots to be able to justify why he kept on going, if he'd encountered some problem and perservered. Popping down to 100ft (no doubt visually judged) with any pax (let alone mere tourists) sounds like a tough sell if it all goes wrong but I understand the imperative to keep your job is probably a very persuasive one.
SAR boys out there - spare me any tales of how tough the decisions can be - VMT! No pi**ing contest required. Unless we're gonna establish a standalone SAR page?
Affirm SAS, please excuse my commercial naivety! My thrust is that as a SAR wallah of reasonable experience, I would want one of my pilots to be able to justify why he kept on going, if he'd encountered some problem and perservered. Popping down to 100ft (no doubt visually judged) with any pax (let alone mere tourists) sounds like a tough sell if it all goes wrong but I understand the imperative to keep your job is probably a very persuasive one.
SAR boys out there - spare me any tales of how tough the decisions can be - VMT! No pi**ing contest required. Unless we're gonna establish a standalone SAR page?
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 3
From: Philadelphia PA
Regarding Hawaiian operators and floats. I had an interesting discussion with a senior FAA person (who, because he's a good friend and a good guy for helicopters, shall remain nameless) told me that by working with the various industry alphabet groups had been able to persuade the operators to fit floats. His contribution was to make sure that the Feds didn't put too many obstacles in the way of getting this done. We'll see what happens, but what a neat move.
