UK AAIB July 2007
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
From: Harwich
UK AAIB July 2007
206 in spot-turn to right loses 'tail rotor effectiveness'. Wind probably outside demonstrated limits.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ii__g_code.cfm
R44 accident on first solo XC, cause not known; surface wind outside limits, no technical defect.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ro__g_taty.cfm
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ii__g_code.cfm
R44 accident on first solo XC, cause not known; surface wind outside limits, no technical defect.
http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/sites/aai...ro__g_taty.cfm
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 31
From: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
You can read that accident report and come to any conclusion that you desire. We all know that witness statements can range from outrageously incorrect to perfect accounts. The unfortunate thing is that we never know which, without solid proof. As with the famous Chinook accident, we can guess, but it will all be speculation. The 'energetic manoeuvres' could be wazzing or could be a student under high pressure losing control. I know of at least one (chopped) military student who just got maxed out and was lucky his instructor was on board to recover. The wisdom of sending a slow student solo in certain conditions is the million dollar question for us instructors, do you risk destroying confidence against the risk of them crashing. It is a tough call. When I taught on Gazelle at Shawbury, I had a personal system in place for first solos. I figured that if a student had an engine failure on first circuit he had to jump through certain hoops. If the lever was lowered quickly the survival rate went up over 50%. Any speed in auto would do 
however a flare in the last 100' would mean probable survival of the crash. If they hit a decent field then checked/levelled and cushioned, it would be a miracle!! 
You have to give the student some rope, how much is the bit you have to justify at an enquiry.
however a flare in the last 100' would mean probable survival of the crash. If they hit a decent field then checked/levelled and cushioned, it would be a miracle!! You have to give the student some rope, how much is the bit you have to justify at an enquiry.
Joined: Jul 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL(H)
Posts: 3,054
Likes: 57
From: UK
Hmmm, something doesn't seem to stack up with the B206 accident either. 
The 17kts demonstrated crosswind is demonstrated for up to nearly 10,000ft (9800ft if I'm reading the table in the POH correctly). The TR performance for a B3 (with the longer tail rotors) at less than 1000ft (where the accident occurred) is far in excess of 17kts.
And even with full fuel, a B206 B3 with 2 POB shouldn't be near AUW so LTA shouldn't have been a factor.
I obviously wasn't there but from reading the report, it looks like the pilot is trying to use LTE as an excuse. I think that the actual reason might lie elsewhere...
The 17kts demonstrated crosswind is demonstrated for up to nearly 10,000ft (9800ft if I'm reading the table in the POH correctly). The TR performance for a B3 (with the longer tail rotors) at less than 1000ft (where the accident occurred) is far in excess of 17kts.
And even with full fuel, a B206 B3 with 2 POB shouldn't be near AUW so LTA shouldn't have been a factor.
I obviously wasn't there but from reading the report, it looks like the pilot is trying to use LTE as an excuse. I think that the actual reason might lie elsewhere...
Guest
Posts: n/a
Looking at the AAIB reports that get mentioned on here, I've noticed one thing that crops up time and time again. Old age (50+) and low hours = accident. Invariably hover accidents (uncontrolled yaw, hitting objects, catching skids, overpitching etc).
Great minds, eh?
