in law enforcement, they would call this a "clue"
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: Homer, Alaska
in law enforcement, they would call this a "clue"
NTSB Identification: ERA10LA172
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, March 11, 2010 in Naples, FL
Aircraft: HUGHES 369, registration: N8618F
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 11, 2010, about 0830 eastern daylight time, a Hughes 369D, N8618F, was substantially damaged following a hard landing at the Naples Municipal Airport (APF), Naples, Florida. The certificated commercial pilot and airline transport pilot-rated check pilot were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the instructional flight, which was conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91.
The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to complete a yearly checkride, which included all basic flight maneuvers and auto-rotations to landing. On the third auto-rotation, the pilot heard a "thud" and "no longer had use of the anti-torque pedals." The check pilot visually observed damage to the tail section. The helicopter was shut down and both pilots exited normally. The pilot stated that upon further inspection, it appeared that "one or more of the main rotor blades had struck the tail boom."
The APF automated weather observation, at 0853, reported winds from 130 degrees at 12 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, overcast clouds at 1,500 feet, temperature 22 degrees Celsius (C), dew point 20 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.83 inches of mercury.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, March 11, 2010 in Naples, FL
Aircraft: HUGHES 369, registration: N8618F
Injuries: 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On March 11, 2010, about 0830 eastern daylight time, a Hughes 369D, N8618F, was substantially damaged following a hard landing at the Naples Municipal Airport (APF), Naples, Florida. The certificated commercial pilot and airline transport pilot-rated check pilot were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the instructional flight, which was conducted under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 91.
The pilot stated that the purpose of the flight was to complete a yearly checkride, which included all basic flight maneuvers and auto-rotations to landing. On the third auto-rotation, the pilot heard a "thud" and "no longer had use of the anti-torque pedals." The check pilot visually observed damage to the tail section. The helicopter was shut down and both pilots exited normally. The pilot stated that upon further inspection, it appeared that "one or more of the main rotor blades had struck the tail boom."
The APF automated weather observation, at 0853, reported winds from 130 degrees at 12 knots, 10 statute miles visibility, overcast clouds at 1,500 feet, temperature 22 degrees Celsius (C), dew point 20 degrees C, and an altimeter setting of 29.83 inches of mercury.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
From: Australia
god damn
I am still gasssping to call it anything.
I'll bet the coppers would be calling it heaps of things other a blessed clue.
I am really waiting for some one to state the rhetorical, - but wait there's more.
I'll bet the coppers would be calling it heaps of things other a blessed clue.
I am really waiting for some one to state the rhetorical, - but wait there's more.
Thread Starter
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 177
Likes: 0
From: Homer, Alaska
First, there were no injuries, and if this was real life result of an engine failure, everyone would be delighted by the outcome.
My point, which obviously didn't translate well, was not to criticize these pilots, but say that as pilots we tend to be optimistic about our situation, and sometimes it takes a strong clue to realize things haven't gone quite as well as planned. You can imagine the pilot and IP discussing the touchdown and agreeing they needed to, for example, level more on the next one, or hold the collective until closer to the ground, and then go to wind up the throttle and realize that thud was worse than they imagined. As an extreme example of optimism, we had a Cessna CFIT two weeks ago in Alaska flying thru Lake Clark Pass in a snow storm, and their account said they thought they encountered severe turbulence and the next thing they observed was the flight controls didn't seem to be working properly.
My point, which obviously didn't translate well, was not to criticize these pilots, but say that as pilots we tend to be optimistic about our situation, and sometimes it takes a strong clue to realize things haven't gone quite as well as planned. You can imagine the pilot and IP discussing the touchdown and agreeing they needed to, for example, level more on the next one, or hold the collective until closer to the ground, and then go to wind up the throttle and realize that thud was worse than they imagined. As an extreme example of optimism, we had a Cessna CFIT two weeks ago in Alaska flying thru Lake Clark Pass in a snow storm, and their account said they thought they encountered severe turbulence and the next thing they observed was the flight controls didn't seem to be working properly.
