helicopter reported down in Ireland
Am I the only one here that thinks the criticism of Claudia's post is a shade harsh.
She makes some valid points, albeit a little insensitively.
As PIC I have also removed those cowlings in the past during post-flight inspections. The A109 A2+ I used to fly daily threw out so much oil from the exhausts that I used to clean under those cowls every few days - using rags! Nowhere have I seen it laid down that a pilot can't have possibly left a rag in a cowling. Claudia was defending the engineering organisation after someone else, rightly or wrongly, made an assumption that the fault must lie with engineers. Let's wait until the investigation is finished.
As for pilots not cocking up, I've never left a rag in a cowling, never left a cowling latch unfastened, never left a fuel cap off, never left a step out, never left the oil filler cap off, never exceeded Vne, never wet the bed as a child and never ever made a mistake whilst airborne...........I think you get my drift.
Healthy debate is great, but lets keep unfounded assumptions out of it.
JJ
She makes some valid points, albeit a little insensitively.
As PIC I have also removed those cowlings in the past during post-flight inspections. The A109 A2+ I used to fly daily threw out so much oil from the exhausts that I used to clean under those cowls every few days - using rags! Nowhere have I seen it laid down that a pilot can't have possibly left a rag in a cowling. Claudia was defending the engineering organisation after someone else, rightly or wrongly, made an assumption that the fault must lie with engineers. Let's wait until the investigation is finished.
As for pilots not cocking up, I've never left a rag in a cowling, never left a cowling latch unfastened, never left a fuel cap off, never left a step out, never left the oil filler cap off, never exceeded Vne, never wet the bed as a child and never ever made a mistake whilst airborne...........I think you get my drift.
Healthy debate is great, but lets keep unfounded assumptions out of it.
JJ
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Omnipresent
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Jelly. The statement in question may have been blunt but was nothing other than objective, as was Helimutt's previously criticised post.
We continue to wish John all the best whilst welcoming open discussion and debate on "a haven for.... pilots to discuss...."
H
We continue to wish John all the best whilst welcoming open discussion and debate on "a haven for.... pilots to discuss...."
H
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flyingbull
What are the flight characteristics of an A109 without the tail rotor turning?
Could you keep it flying like an EC 155 or BK 117 (both with either one giant fin or "surf boards" attached to the stabilizer, as long as you keep the speed up or is the tail-fin of the A109 to small to counteract the torque?
Could you keep it flying like an EC 155 or BK 117 (both with either one giant fin or "surf boards" attached to the stabilizer, as long as you keep the speed up or is the tail-fin of the A109 to small to counteract the torque?
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...HI%2012-07.pdf
Last edited by irc1804; 2nd Apr 2008 at 20:41.
Thank you irc1804,
so there is a tiny chance for some continued airborne time, evenso it seems, that the fin area of an A109 is to smal to conteract any considerable torque resulting from passengers/load/full fuel.
Evenso the A109 looks nice and has a comfy seat (tried to fit in
), I rather stick to the birds with the big feathers at the tail
Greetings Flying Bull
so there is a tiny chance for some continued airborne time, evenso it seems, that the fin area of an A109 is to smal to conteract any considerable torque resulting from passengers/load/full fuel.
Evenso the A109 looks nice and has a comfy seat (tried to fit in
), I rather stick to the birds with the big feathers at the tail Greetings Flying Bull
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: By a river
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without attaching blame to anyone, it just points out the need for crews to use the duplicate inspection for a multitude of things. As an engineer, I know how worrisome it can be at times when the question runs through my mind about the possibility of leaving something behind. Though it can't be done in all circumstances, I still try at every opportunity to get a separate pair of eyes to double check for me, just to remove the doubt.
Glad to see that this gentleman is doing well and best wishes for the future.
Regards,
carholme
Glad to see that this gentleman is doing well and best wishes for the future.
Regards,
carholme
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jellycopter
Thanks Jellycopter.
After reading Skytorque's excellent posts and now yours - both obviously by experienced 109 pilots. I think the "harsh" posters will feel rather stupid, especially that - "Norunway"
.
Regards
Claudia
After reading Skytorque's excellent posts and now yours - both obviously by experienced 109 pilots. I think the "harsh" posters will feel rather stupid, especially that - "Norunway"
. Regards
Claudia
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: uk
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hedski
Thanks Hedski
Indeed my statement was meant to be objective. But, I didn't expect it to be highjacked by people who obviously don't have a clue about the 109 and its many vices.
Regards
Claudia
Indeed my statement was meant to be objective. But, I didn't expect it to be highjacked by people who obviously don't have a clue about the 109 and its many vices.
Regards
Claudia
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What kind of "info" are you looking for?
The colour of the rag?
What type of cloth the rag was made of?
You seem to have the facts (ie) another rag found
Or is is it that you just want to throw more fuel on a fire !
The colour of the rag?
What type of cloth the rag was made of?
You seem to have the facts (ie) another rag found
Or is is it that you just want to throw more fuel on a fire !
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: EI-WT
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John is now at home recovering, I am sure he is much more comfortable there.
I am going to visit him tomorrow to see how he is doing and give him the photos of the helicopter being removed.
Also, another 109 has been grounded following investigation.
But thats all I am saying till reports are confirmed.
I am going to visit him tomorrow to see how he is doing and give him the photos of the helicopter being removed.
Also, another 109 has been grounded following investigation.
But thats all I am saying till reports are confirmed.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Someone's in for a ragging. This will be like a red rag to a bull to the authorities.
Hope you're OK, John.
Hope you're OK, John.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the Edge
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shytorque
I would think their in for a "Shagging" more than a ragging.
And a painful shag at that.
Hope he has a big jar of Vasaline
Bet he'll have an ass as sore as the pilot when the "authorities" are done.
Or maybe NOT !
I would think their in for a "Shagging" more than a ragging.
And a painful shag at that.
Hope he has a big jar of Vasaline
Bet he'll have an ass as sore as the pilot when the "authorities" are done.
Or maybe NOT !
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laois
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OEI, I’m up for a healthy debate now that John is safely recovering. I am not throwing fuel on the fire, I was asking for further info. I’ll expand my questions further as Debeer has also heard the same report:
Lets review the accident factually: (extract from AAIU’s ongoing investigation)
On arrival these Inspectors carried out an initial technical investigation and found a foreign
object in the tail rotor driveshaft tunnel. This object, of cloth material, was entangled in the tail
rotor driveshaft, between the first and second bearings. The driveshaft had failed just forward of
the second bearing, which resulted in the drive to the tail rotor being disconnected. Initial
indications are that the foreign object was causal to the shaft failure. The Investigation is
focusing on the failure mechanism of the shaft and the origin of the foreign object.
Now when I heard about another aircraft finding a rag, I now have a few other question that will encourage further, healthy debate:
1) What is a Part 145 Facility?
2) What are the requirements of a Part 145 Facility?
3) How many engineers must be present during an inspection?
4) What items require a second signature from another present engineer?
5) As a pilot, what can you do to check if a 50 hour inspection has been completed?
6) Where is the line drawn in respect to ‘A’ check and the pilot checking the work of an engineer?
7) Has commercial pressure been over looked and gone to the engineer department? I have the support of other pilots when I tell my boss it’s not safe to fly. Do engineers have the same support?
8) Now that a second aircraft has ad a rag found inside it, what are the IAA doing about it?
9) What powers have or should have the IAA or AAIU to review or close a facility?
10) Should pilots and engineers be trained together so that they both can understand each others job and rolls?
11) Who is allowed work on an aircraft, be it open a panel or clean the interior/exterior?
Thousand Island
Lets review the accident factually: (extract from AAIU’s ongoing investigation)
On arrival these Inspectors carried out an initial technical investigation and found a foreign
object in the tail rotor driveshaft tunnel. This object, of cloth material, was entangled in the tail
rotor driveshaft, between the first and second bearings. The driveshaft had failed just forward of
the second bearing, which resulted in the drive to the tail rotor being disconnected. Initial
indications are that the foreign object was causal to the shaft failure. The Investigation is
focusing on the failure mechanism of the shaft and the origin of the foreign object.
Now when I heard about another aircraft finding a rag, I now have a few other question that will encourage further, healthy debate:
1) What is a Part 145 Facility?
2) What are the requirements of a Part 145 Facility?
3) How many engineers must be present during an inspection?
4) What items require a second signature from another present engineer?
5) As a pilot, what can you do to check if a 50 hour inspection has been completed?
6) Where is the line drawn in respect to ‘A’ check and the pilot checking the work of an engineer?
7) Has commercial pressure been over looked and gone to the engineer department? I have the support of other pilots when I tell my boss it’s not safe to fly. Do engineers have the same support?
8) Now that a second aircraft has ad a rag found inside it, what are the IAA doing about it?
9) What powers have or should have the IAA or AAIU to review or close a facility?
10) Should pilots and engineers be trained together so that they both can understand each others job and rolls?
11) Who is allowed work on an aircraft, be it open a panel or clean the interior/exterior?
Thousand Island
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England... what's left of it...
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't believe anyone would deliberately leave rags anywhere near moving/rotating parts on an aircraft? What's the answer... a "rag count" like surgeons do with swabs?
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 281
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Veeany,
I spoke to the pilot involved yesterday, and he is well on the road to recovery I am happy to report, although he still has limited mobility he will hopefully make a full recovery in due time.
BC
I spoke to the pilot involved yesterday, and he is well on the road to recovery I am happy to report, although he still has limited mobility he will hopefully make a full recovery in due time.
BC
Cheers for that BC..
I'm sure this report will trigger some debate amongst A109 operators and maintainers.
The actual report by the pilot is extremely frightening and he did very well to walk away from it.
It also highlights the extreme nature of tail rotor failures at high speed cruise. I remember a report on one of the early Merlin crashes where they lost tail rotor drive due to a rotor brake fire and the description by the test pilot on how the centrifugal forces pinned him in the cockpit and how difficult it was to abandon the aircraft by parachute.
I don't think the reconstruction in the simulator was very realistic. The whole premis of an unannounced failure doesn't mean anything. They went into a simulator with the intention to failure tail rotor drive so they would have been mentally prepared for it. Why not during a normal simulator slot with an average pilot, undergoing some other training, get him to fly the profile flown during the accident and then fail the shaft and see what happens.
If they wanted to be realistic why not do it at 800ft with the AP engaged and have the collective friction on, which I assume it was as this seems to be normal practice. I think the proximity of the ground would have a substantial subconcious effects on their actions.
The recommendation to undergo simulator training is no good, they need to mandate it if a simulator exists. It doesn't have to yearly. Employers (non-offshore) sadly see trips to the simulator as "jollies", especially if they are in Florida! Mandate it and they can't argue.
I hope the pilot has recovered or is well on the way to full recovery.
FNW
The actual report by the pilot is extremely frightening and he did very well to walk away from it.
It also highlights the extreme nature of tail rotor failures at high speed cruise. I remember a report on one of the early Merlin crashes where they lost tail rotor drive due to a rotor brake fire and the description by the test pilot on how the centrifugal forces pinned him in the cockpit and how difficult it was to abandon the aircraft by parachute.
I don't think the reconstruction in the simulator was very realistic. The whole premis of an unannounced failure doesn't mean anything. They went into a simulator with the intention to failure tail rotor drive so they would have been mentally prepared for it. Why not during a normal simulator slot with an average pilot, undergoing some other training, get him to fly the profile flown during the accident and then fail the shaft and see what happens.
If they wanted to be realistic why not do it at 800ft with the AP engaged and have the collective friction on, which I assume it was as this seems to be normal practice. I think the proximity of the ground would have a substantial subconcious effects on their actions.
The recommendation to undergo simulator training is no good, they need to mandate it if a simulator exists. It doesn't have to yearly. Employers (non-offshore) sadly see trips to the simulator as "jollies", especially if they are in Florida! Mandate it and they can't argue.
I hope the pilot has recovered or is well on the way to full recovery.
FNW
