Russian Helicopter sea accident
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
From: UK
Seems to me you might be getting confused about the "impacts".
Impact 1 - hard landing possibly caused by one of the helicopters two engines failing.
Impact 2 - catastrophic and possibly caused by rollover due to insufficient power (see impact 1) during a water take off.
Impact 1 - hard landing possibly caused by one of the helicopters two engines failing.
Impact 2 - catastrophic and possibly caused by rollover due to insufficient power (see impact 1) during a water take off.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,937
Likes: 28
From: UK/OZ
Originally Posted by skadi
@last third
In my opinion You are right. Due to the hard OEI landing in the water, the belly ore the Radardome must have been damaged and the H/C took water. Check the high waterline just before the MR struck the water.... And in addition the extended Landinggear also made an SingleEngineWaterTakeoff ( a procedure like with a seaking or S61 ) much harder or even impossible.
skadi
In my opinion You are right. Due to the hard OEI landing in the water, the belly ore the Radardome must have been damaged and the H/C took water. Check the high waterline just before the MR struck the water.... And in addition the extended Landinggear also made an SingleEngineWaterTakeoff ( a procedure like with a seaking or S61 ) much harder or even impossible.
skadi
Would this be a planned action during either a forced or normal approach to water?
It would also allow the rapid take on of water.
Mickjoebill
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
From: One Mile High
Just a small observation, but I believe what several have referred to as floats are actually external fuel tanks. They seem to be located in the same place as on the non-maritime version of the Mi-8/14. Additionally, are inflatable floats generally installed on boat-hulled aircraft to begin with?
-Stan-
-Stan-
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 40
From: On the big blue planet
Originally Posted by slgrossman
Just a small observation, but I believe what several have referred to as floats are actually external fuel tanks. They seem to be located in the same place as on the non-maritime version of the Mi-8/14. Additionally, are inflatable floats generally installed on boat-hulled aircraft to begin with?
-Stan-
-Stan-
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
From: THE MANGROVE SWAMPS (RETIRED)
Back in 197.... forget the year, Bristow had an S61N on a medevac ditch in the North Sea after it lost a pocket or more from a main blade. The sea conditions were such that it turned over. In those days we didn't wear survival suits, just the UVIC 'floater' neoprene jacket. The pilot did a good job in hanging on to the casualty on the upturned hull and stopping himself being washed off by hanging on to the undercarriage. He was unconscious when winched into the rescue helicopter and actually lost his licence as a result of the accident. After that floats were fitted and the sea anchor was mounted such that it could be released from the cockpit, so I'd say that external floats are not that uncommon on boat-hulled helicopters.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,079
Likes: 5
From: Abu Dhabi
Originally Posted by Mama Mangrove
Back in 197.... forget the year, Bristow had an S61N on a medevac ditch in the North Sea after it lost a pocket or more from a main blade. The sea conditions were such that it turned over. He was unconscious when winched into the rescue helicopter and actually lost his licence as a result of the accident.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 921
Likes: 30
From: Europe
Mama,
As I remember it Lee Smith lost consciousness as a result of the lift; the sea anchor was always launched from the pilot's port window; two main innovations after the accident were the installation of the 'cling rope' (because of the difficulty of finding a hand-hold after a capsize) and the painting of the underside of the S61 to make it visible once it (inevitably) turned over.
A long time ago and the memory fades with age but didn't the casevac (with a broken leg) make it to the dinghy leaving Lee attempting to cling on to the upturned hull?
Lee's decision to ditch might have been influenced by fatal accidents (around that time) caused by spindle failures on the S61.
After that accident a loss of (blade) pocket was viewed as an incident that did not warrant a ditching. A similar policy change occured after an S61 was ditched because of a loss of a fan-cooler-belt (the flight manual was subsequently amended).
Jim
As I remember it Lee Smith lost consciousness as a result of the lift; the sea anchor was always launched from the pilot's port window; two main innovations after the accident were the installation of the 'cling rope' (because of the difficulty of finding a hand-hold after a capsize) and the painting of the underside of the S61 to make it visible once it (inevitably) turned over.
A long time ago and the memory fades with age but didn't the casevac (with a broken leg) make it to the dinghy leaving Lee attempting to cling on to the upturned hull?
Lee's decision to ditch might have been influenced by fatal accidents (around that time) caused by spindle failures on the S61.
After that accident a loss of (blade) pocket was viewed as an incident that did not warrant a ditching. A similar policy change occured after an S61 was ditched because of a loss of a fan-cooler-belt (the flight manual was subsequently amended).
Jim
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
From: midlands
A very sad but interesting video.
OK, here is how I see it.
Aircraft suffers a single engine failure at a weight that is too heavy for continued flight - committed. Ac does exactly what it says on the can and moves rapidly towards surface. Pilot attempts to cushion impact [conning angle] and makes a reasonable go at the landing - from my own experience it happens at exactly the rate seen in the video [although mine was on to land!]
Ac next seen pitching fore and aft. He probably didnt dissengage the stab system whilst on the water. It thus tries to fight the swell and it got out of phase. It probably stopped when he dissengaged it.
Pilot then attempts water take off. Advice is to get ac up to speed on the water before drooping NR to lowest in flight value to give the required energy to break the water suction. Way to judge this - bow wave just going over the windscreen. Look at the video, that is when he rotates forward. Bet there is a note in his manual that says if the nose bay fills with water it may not be possible to complete the take off! What you do not see is if he tried to reduce the weight for take off. If it wont hover on both it will not get airborne on one! The other thought was, why was it being filmed? There is an awful lot of safety style boats around etc. Was this a trial of its water take off ability?
Undercarriage. 2 thoughts. One, on impact the gear selector is forced down by the impact - without the pilot realising?[lets face it, he is a bit busy about then!] Second, he puts gear down for stability during the pitching about in the swell. I suspect he probably meant to retract it before he began the water take off.
All in all, very sad. Thoughts with family.
OK, here is how I see it.
Aircraft suffers a single engine failure at a weight that is too heavy for continued flight - committed. Ac does exactly what it says on the can and moves rapidly towards surface. Pilot attempts to cushion impact [conning angle] and makes a reasonable go at the landing - from my own experience it happens at exactly the rate seen in the video [although mine was on to land!]
Ac next seen pitching fore and aft. He probably didnt dissengage the stab system whilst on the water. It thus tries to fight the swell and it got out of phase. It probably stopped when he dissengaged it.
Pilot then attempts water take off. Advice is to get ac up to speed on the water before drooping NR to lowest in flight value to give the required energy to break the water suction. Way to judge this - bow wave just going over the windscreen. Look at the video, that is when he rotates forward. Bet there is a note in his manual that says if the nose bay fills with water it may not be possible to complete the take off! What you do not see is if he tried to reduce the weight for take off. If it wont hover on both it will not get airborne on one! The other thought was, why was it being filmed? There is an awful lot of safety style boats around etc. Was this a trial of its water take off ability?
Undercarriage. 2 thoughts. One, on impact the gear selector is forced down by the impact - without the pilot realising?[lets face it, he is a bit busy about then!] Second, he puts gear down for stability during the pitching about in the swell. I suspect he probably meant to retract it before he began the water take off.
All in all, very sad. Thoughts with family.
Joined: Aug 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 83
From: Gold Coast, Australia
JimL,
IIRC, Lee hung on to the passenger by holding on to the external cable to for the cargo release! The co pilot made it to the dinghy, but Lee was in the water in shirt and slacks for about 30 minutes before being winched. As you said, modifications to all S61's after that, but also we finally got goon suits for the drivers
Only the week before, those of us in the Brent Field had been firmly told that immersion suits were not required, and to stop agitating. A week later we had a telex requiring sizes for all crew, issued within a month!
Re the medevac, rumour had it at the time that it was a quite minor injury, certainly not a broken limb.
IIRC, Lee hung on to the passenger by holding on to the external cable to for the cargo release! The co pilot made it to the dinghy, but Lee was in the water in shirt and slacks for about 30 minutes before being winched. As you said, modifications to all S61's after that, but also we finally got goon suits for the drivers
Only the week before, those of us in the Brent Field had been firmly told that immersion suits were not required, and to stop agitating. A week later we had a telex requiring sizes for all crew, issued within a month!
Re the medevac, rumour had it at the time that it was a quite minor injury, certainly not a broken limb.
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,067
Likes: 40
From: On the big blue planet
Originally Posted by SARREMF
A very sad but interesting video.
The other thought was, why was it being filmed? There is an awful lot of safety style boats around etc. Was this a trial of its water take off ability?
The other thought was, why was it being filmed? There is an awful lot of safety style boats around etc. Was this a trial of its water take off ability?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,670
Likes: 1
From: UK
The reasons for the water landing are inconsequential here. From my time as a waterbird instructor I suspect the a/c suffered serious hull damage (hitting the water at that speed and height) and even for the few seconds it was on the deck, 1000's of gallons of water would have entered the front of the hull adversely affecting the fwd C of G with the very tragic consequences.
I'm at a loss to understand that given that the helo survived the landing and there was a ship 100 metres away, that the pilot did NOT elect to shut down and evacuate an otherwise intact airframe. There would have been no loss of life in that instance.
In my experience, within seconds, the water would penetrate the avionics bay (fwd) and knock out the stab systems causing aggravated control inputs in an already tenuous C of G situation. This together with the bow wave drag - determined his destiny. Sad really.
I'm at a loss to understand that given that the helo survived the landing and there was a ship 100 metres away, that the pilot did NOT elect to shut down and evacuate an otherwise intact airframe. There would have been no loss of life in that instance.
In my experience, within seconds, the water would penetrate the avionics bay (fwd) and knock out the stab systems causing aggravated control inputs in an already tenuous C of G situation. This together with the bow wave drag - determined his destiny. Sad really.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
Helo slides under the waves on Video
Here is a great video of what appears to be a test of a Mil helo. Not a pretty outcome:
No porn here please ... thanks
Try this which takes you straight to the file instead
http://videos.m90.org/videos/helicopter.wmv
PPRuNe Radar
No porn here please ... thanks
Try this which takes you straight to the file instead
http://videos.m90.org/videos/helicopter.wmv
PPRuNe Radar
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,165
Likes: 48
From: Kammbronn
More here, since it was covered some weeks ago.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=225537
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=225537
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 338
Likes: 0
From: UK
Thanks digininagain. At least most of the video available on the original link is from more savoury locations than Nick's link!!
Nick, don't tell me, you were surfing the net and this site just jumped out and hit you!!
Seriously though, I'm not sure if the original video is still available on the other link, but it should show the initiation of the problem when the Mil14 appears to suffer a power failure in the hover. Heavy coning of the disc followed by an early bath. The rest is pure agony.......
Nick, don't tell me, you were surfing the net and this site just jumped out and hit you!!
Seriously though, I'm not sure if the original video is still available on the other link, but it should show the initiation of the problem when the Mil14 appears to suffer a power failure in the hover. Heavy coning of the disc followed by an early bath. The rest is pure agony.......
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
Thanks for the cleaner link, dig, but the side photos are nowhere near as interesting.
I think that helo is being flown off, the pilot is trying to get some translational lift to get airborne. The plowing is his attempt at some increased water speed, where he needs extra lift because of the water his aircraft has taken on and the OEI condition. The final plop is a lift-tow where he lets the nose go too far down and he loses control, just like a dynamic rollover - dynamic flip-over?
I think that helo is being flown off, the pilot is trying to get some translational lift to get airborne. The plowing is his attempt at some increased water speed, where he needs extra lift because of the water his aircraft has taken on and the OEI condition. The final plop is a lift-tow where he lets the nose go too far down and he loses control, just like a dynamic rollover - dynamic flip-over?
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
From: stateside
Thanks Nick
I have a bit of experience with russian crews and russian trained pilots and im relieved to hear a sound explanation for the crash.
I was thinking he was half drunk and showing off, seen that before, but the way you explained it makes alot of sense.
They are an odd mix, incredible technical ability and prowess then the next minute dangerous like nothing ive ever seen.
I did read that the pilots died.
Why not just shut down then and wait to get picked up?
I have a bit of experience with russian crews and russian trained pilots and im relieved to hear a sound explanation for the crash.
I was thinking he was half drunk and showing off, seen that before, but the way you explained it makes alot of sense.
They are an odd mix, incredible technical ability and prowess then the next minute dangerous like nothing ive ever seen.
I did read that the pilots died.
Why not just shut down then and wait to get picked up?
Joined: Apr 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 10,959
Likes: 1,814
From: EGDC
TC I am 100% with you on the cause - losing the stab would account for the PIO in pitch and a flooded nose bay would certainly produce the nose-over as he tried to get airborne - all stuff taught on the Waterbirds course as you say - and an accident that could have easily been avoided.
