Helicopter Crash In Bettystown Ireland
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look even closer at the Sky Video and you see debris coming from the TR, would also explain the sudden yaw.
even when the CCTV fottage is enhanced
The left roll could be explained by the not unheard of reversing/whoops TR ding as the lateral drift effect would no longer be present.
On the question of the landing gear, having looked at the footage it is unclear if the gear is down in the hover but it is clearly down half way through the first rotation. Was the pilot putting the gear down just before the incident and he drifted backwards?
FNW
FNW
Last edited by FloaterNorthWest; 22nd Sep 2008 at 12:26.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Dublin,Ireland
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to the firewall issue I recalled a statement Nick Lappos made a while back and found it (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/197...l#post956984):
I googled and found references that the S-76 is indeed certified under FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft.
...and who would doubt the guy who took part in developing the aircraft?
But I can see that your decision making is somewhat clouded if your head is on fire, you have the hands full flying and no co-pilot to pull the fire bottle(s)!
Also I wouldn't want to try out if it does hold 15 minutes!
Even in the real thing, you have some time if your boss bought you a good helicopter. In a Part 29 transport twin, the fire zone must hold full integrity for 15 minutes in a rageing fire at 2000 degrees F. There are not 15 minutes of fuel in the fire zone. If you get the fuel firewall valve closed, the fire will burn itself out in most cases, even if the extinguisher fails (and the extinguisher has dual independant systems, with dual bottles, dual squibs on the bottles, dual plumbing and even dual double throw switches in the cockpit.)
...and who would doubt the guy who took part in developing the aircraft?
But I can see that your decision making is somewhat clouded if your head is on fire, you have the hands full flying and no co-pilot to pull the fire bottle(s)!
Also I wouldn't want to try out if it does hold 15 minutes!
Last edited by Phil77; 22nd Sep 2008 at 08:55. Reason: add link
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: dub, Eire
Age: 46
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swisstony
Im Just saying that you dont know what happened, just because there is cctv footage , which only shows the latter end of this indecent, you are very quick to blame the pilot, i am looking forward to the report from the aaiu.!!
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laois
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results
*Removed*
Address
*Removed*
Medical
Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER
Must have been flying it on his JAA then.
Name Inquiry Results
*Removed*
Address
*Removed*
Medical
Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER
Must have been flying it on his JAA then.
If you are licensed and current on the type in the country where an "N" registered aircraft happens to be you may fly it without a US license. (FAR Part 61.3 a (1)
Also as the operation would be Part 91 it may be conducted on a Private License.
FAR Part 61.113
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.
Also as the operation would be Part 91 it may be conducted on a Private License.
FAR Part 61.113
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.
Last edited by RVDT; 23rd Sep 2008 at 01:38.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: MSL
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a few other small observations.....
RVDT: how would he prove he was not doing commercial work on his FAA licence?
And also, why is he exempt from rule 3??
Subject to subparagraph (b) of this paragraph and subparagraph 6 (2) (a) of Rule 6 of these Rules, paragraph (1) (a) of this Rule shall not apply to a Performance Class 1 or Class 2 helicopter which is being flown without undue hazard to persons or property but, except with the permission of the appropriate authority and in accordance with any conditions specified therein, such a helicopter shall not be flown -
(a) over congested areas of cities, towns or settlements at less than
(i) such height as would enable it, in the event of the failure of a power unit, to make a safe forced landing;
(ii) a height of 300m (1,000 feet) above the ground or water,
All seems a bit unusual to me.
RVDT: how would he prove he was not doing commercial work on his FAA licence?
And also, why is he exempt from rule 3??
Subject to subparagraph (b) of this paragraph and subparagraph 6 (2) (a) of Rule 6 of these Rules, paragraph (1) (a) of this Rule shall not apply to a Performance Class 1 or Class 2 helicopter which is being flown without undue hazard to persons or property but, except with the permission of the appropriate authority and in accordance with any conditions specified therein, such a helicopter shall not be flown -
(a) over congested areas of cities, towns or settlements at less than
(i) such height as would enable it, in the event of the failure of a power unit, to make a safe forced landing;
(ii) a height of 300m (1,000 feet) above the ground or water,
All seems a bit unusual to me.
Read on...................
How would he prove what? Was there anyone else in the aircraft at the time of the accident? The operation would still be Part 91.
IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2004
3. Minimum heights
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:
(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.
The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue.
IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2004
3. Minimum heights
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:
(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.
The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue.
Just Dropped In
Join Date: May 2001
Location: um....er.....
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. Minimum heights
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:
(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.
The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue
Personally I think the whole paragragh may be an issue! Starting with 'Normal Aviation Practice'
FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results
*Removed*
Address
*Removed*
Medical
Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER
Must have been flying it on his JAA then.
'Prob one of the most experienced pilots in Ireland......'
.....But anyway....No word from the 407 Driver yet? He was orbiting the site throughout the initial beach landing & only left after the crash......
(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:
(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.
The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue
Personally I think the whole paragragh may be an issue! Starting with 'Normal Aviation Practice'
FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results
*Removed*
Address
*Removed*
Medical
Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007
Certificates
1 of 1
DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER
Must have been flying it on his JAA then.
'Prob one of the most experienced pilots in Ireland......'
.....But anyway....No word from the 407 Driver yet? He was orbiting the site throughout the initial beach landing & only left after the crash......
Last edited by Roofus; 23rd Sep 2008 at 11:18.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: No where
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S.I. 61 of 2006 The IAA Operations Order; Article
51(3)(b) Only a helicopter operated in Performance Class 1 shall be permitted to operate from
elevated heliports in congested areas.
S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.
hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.
Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.
My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.
51(3)(b) Only a helicopter operated in Performance Class 1 shall be permitted to operate from
elevated heliports in congested areas.
S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.
hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.
Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.
My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.
Electric69,
The Feds have to prove he "was".....the pilot does not have to prove he "was not".
Now in the UK...perhaps Ireland....the opposite might be true but not within US FAA proceedings.
However, a review of his time card, payroll sheet, job description, evaluations, letter of appointment, all better point out how the piloting was "not" his primary function at the firm. The flying part better be way..way..way...down the list of responsibilities in importance, pay, time, and compensation.
The FAA does have the power to demand records from the US firm owning and operating the aircraft. Add in the requirement for drug testing and the like if applicable to the operation and there might some thorny issues to be discussed.
Knowing the general attitude by EU Tax and Aviation authorities towards non-EU aircraft operations within the EU....this will be an interesting case that will no doubt draw plenty of lightning bolts from the heavens.
The Feds have to prove he "was".....the pilot does not have to prove he "was not".
Now in the UK...perhaps Ireland....the opposite might be true but not within US FAA proceedings.
However, a review of his time card, payroll sheet, job description, evaluations, letter of appointment, all better point out how the piloting was "not" his primary function at the firm. The flying part better be way..way..way...down the list of responsibilities in importance, pay, time, and compensation.
The FAA does have the power to demand records from the US firm owning and operating the aircraft. Add in the requirement for drug testing and the like if applicable to the operation and there might some thorny issues to be discussed.
Knowing the general attitude by EU Tax and Aviation authorities towards non-EU aircraft operations within the EU....this will be an interesting case that will no doubt draw plenty of lightning bolts from the heavens.