Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

UK AAIB(H) June 2008

Wikiposts
Search
Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

UK AAIB(H) June 2008

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Jun 2008, 07:55
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
UK AAIB(H) June 2008

AS332L nosewheel locking pin engages inadvertently during taxi, aerobatics on the ground before the crew rein it in - here.

R22 heavy landing off approach to hilltop site - here.

R44 fails to make it to destination in poor weather - here.

Steve
Hilico is offline  
Old 12th Jun 2008, 21:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,090
Received 39 Likes on 21 Posts
I read only the L2 report. Interesting and we had something a bit like that many years ago in BHL. But very sorry to see that the standard of the report is so bad. For instance:

During a ground taxi, the crew felt a control restriction
when attempting to turn left and realised that the nose
wheel locking pin had become engaged.
No, there was no control restriction, just a lack of apparent effect from the control input.

The nosewheel locking pin, when engaged, prevents the
helicopter’s nosewheel rotating
No - that would be a brake! - the nosewheel lock prevents it from steering. I suppose you could argue that its talking about rotating in a different plane, but how misleading is that!

The flag will drop as soon as the
lever is rotated, even...
No, the flag drops when the lever is pulled up, not when its rotated.

The locking pin is released by rotating the lever and
pushing it down, causing a spring to force the pin out of
the hole and allowing the body of the nosewheel to rotate
freely.
No, a spring does not force the pin out, its the force directly from the cable / lever.

The forces exerted on the aircraft
by the application of left yaw pedal whilst the helicopter
was unable to turn would have created a rolling
moment, exasperated by the increase in collective pitch
application.
No, exasperated means "greatly annoyed; out of patience" or whatever. Perhaps the author meant "exacerbated" or similair?

And no real comment on the potential safety hazard, especially the risk of rollover with accompanying destruction of the helicopter and possible death of bystanders, that can result from excessive yaw pedal application on this type of helicopter. Such excessive pedal input is typically induced by the helicopter's failure to turn eg when the nosewheel lock is in.

Come on AAIB, you are rightly world renowned for integrity and competance. Don't let your standards slip like this!

HC
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 13th Jun 2008, 13:39
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 1,079
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
Thanks for the links Hilico.
Really sad to read the R44 report, every year the same...

The commander stated
that he increased collective pitch with the intention of
reducing the pressure acting on the pin, so that it could
be released. In doing so he felt the helicopter become
unstable and so continued to lift it into the hover, this
being done with the Automatic Flight Control System
(AFCS) disengaged. The helicopter rolled and pitched
before it could be brought into a stable hover where
the AFCS was then engaged by the commander using
the engagement button positioned on the cyclic. The
helicopter was hover taxied the rest of the way to Spot 3
where it landed safely
I had a similar experience when taxiing over a taxiway light, the helicopter en/up in hover without AFCS, with some PIO (like in this case I assume) .
I prefer to engage the AFCS if collective is going up, even for a short taxi.

Regards
Aser
Aser is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2008, 15:13
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does make you wonder how (if?) these reports are checked before being issued.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 14th Jun 2008, 15:54
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Harwich
Age: 65
Posts: 777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I half feel like apologising for not proof-reading it first! All I do is look at the summary, condense it into a one-liner and post. Really, the standard of English is most exacerbating. Must do gooder.
Hilico is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2008, 13:05
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,329
Received 622 Likes on 270 Posts
That R44 crash should be used as a case-study at the safety evenings - it is a classic 'pressonitis' scenario where at any stage the crash could have been avoided by landing or turning back. Very sad waste of 4 lives.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 15th Jun 2008, 19:48
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: OS SX2063
Age: 54
Posts: 1,027
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crab

You are quite correct and it is, we have a contact at the AAIB and he has assisted (as far as he is permitted) with some of the content and photos we use at the safety evenings.

GS
VeeAny is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.