Sky Shuttle AW139 ditches in HK Harbour
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Beijing,China
Age: 61
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Black Kite
The birdies that are usually hanging around Shun Tak (SkyShuttle) Heliport at Black Kites.
Head to tail they are 55 to 60 CM
They Weigh in at 650 to 940 grams.
Big birds.
To me if they were to say, take out one or possibly two TR blades the resulting imbalance should be enough to dislodge the TRGB and some of that to which it is attached.
Personally however, I doubt the bird strike theory as well, these birds, being birds of prey are generally watchful of what is going on around them and well that big noisy helicopter lumbering off of the helipad should be fairly easy for them to see and avoid. This ain't no pigeon we are talking about. It is a little smarter than that.
If it were an inbound machine screaming in at 145 knotts might be another story but, in this case I don't think the birdie did it.
Head to tail they are 55 to 60 CM
They Weigh in at 650 to 940 grams.
Big birds.
To me if they were to say, take out one or possibly two TR blades the resulting imbalance should be enough to dislodge the TRGB and some of that to which it is attached.
Personally however, I doubt the bird strike theory as well, these birds, being birds of prey are generally watchful of what is going on around them and well that big noisy helicopter lumbering off of the helipad should be fairly easy for them to see and avoid. This ain't no pigeon we are talking about. It is a little smarter than that.
If it were an inbound machine screaming in at 145 knotts might be another story but, in this case I don't think the birdie did it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Beijing,China
Age: 61
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P1
Mandatory to wear life jackets for over water sectors? No, it is not any more mandatory to wear them in the multi-engine AW139 or S-76 than it is in the Airbus 320 over water.
Filthy, you're right about the bird species but I don't share your confidence in their ability to avoid helicopters. I have been forced to take avoiding action by these birds many times, including at low speed and just after take-off. A Heli Hong Kong (EAA/Sky Shuttle) B3 had a head on collision with one of them a few years back resulting in considerable damage (and not just to the bird).
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cyber Space
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noooby,
I flew this route for 12 years, Believe me, as JW & Malabo correctly said, this Cat A profile which departs every 30 mins day & night puts allot of stress on the airframe, and the crew. (plug)
What Im trying to say is, This company flies allot of hrs every day /year, soon they will surpass the flight times of other AW139s flying around the world.
Just as the now retired S76c+ did after only around 15 months of operations back in 1998.
Will be very interesting to see the findings on this from AW.
I flew this route for 12 years, Believe me, as JW & Malabo correctly said, this Cat A profile which departs every 30 mins day & night puts allot of stress on the airframe, and the crew. (plug)
What Im trying to say is, This company flies allot of hrs every day /year, soon they will surpass the flight times of other AW139s flying around the world.
Just as the now retired S76c+ did after only around 15 months of operations back in 1998.
Will be very interesting to see the findings on this from AW.
Interestingly, the TCDS for this type shows compliance with Part 29 amndt 45 and before, not amndt 47. Bird strike compliance was introduced at amndt 40 but only specifically mentioned windshields plus a general statement about continued safe flight (following impact with a 1kg bird at Vne up to 8000 ft.) Amndt 47 put the specific details about the rotors
, so it would be interesting to know what actual testing was done. Certainly the S-92 has been tested, and there is video evidence to show that the bird came off worse!
Good job by the crew!
Areas of impact that are of particular interest include flight control surfaces (which includes main and tail rotors) and exposed flight control system components
Good job by the crew!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Age: 53
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tail loss due bird strike
Never flown the 139, but if that much of the tail section was lost in flight, wouldn't it result in catastrophic CofG issues? Looks like very well controlled ditching - ie everyone survived, suggesting no such problems.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Far East
Age: 66
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail gearbox lost
If you were to look carefully at the video , you will notice a whole lot of the end of the tail gearbox section missing. This cannot be due to a bird strike or salvage operations but perhaps contributed by a structural failure of the upper part of tail assembly section thereby ripping out the whole tail rotor assembly. All this while the concentration was on AW139 the tail boom section....could this failure be an extension of the composite structure failing. Perhaps the whole tail boom and tail rotor assembly has to be looked in total.
Again Kudos to the crew for a clinical RFM execution
Agusta, any feedback after 48 hours?
Again Kudos to the crew for a clinical RFM execution
Agusta, any feedback after 48 hours?
Last edited by island eagles; 10th Jul 2010 at 03:49.
Island, the only parts missing from the top of the tail fin are directly related to the TGB and its enclosure and the relatively fragile aerodynamic plastic fairing that protects the controls run.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man,
The FAR 29 amendment 40 was inclusive of blades as bird targets, 47 added emphasis, but the requirement was clear in 45 (the 92 was certified to 45 originally, then added 47).
As a note (with recognition that this thread is in La-La Land where we have few facts, and are discussing vapourware) a bird strike on an unprepared tail rotor blade would probably remove the blade, which would shortly remove the TR gearbox assembly (due to the whirling imbalance of the disk stressing the gearbox housing and feet).
We must recognize that a water landing has some probability of a tail strike and TGB breakage due to the landing, and not as a cause of the ditch.
There is little doubt that HK officials will find the root cause and report same, they are known world-wide as professionals in the British Empire mold of thinking.
In other words, have patience, ppruners!
The FAR 29 amendment 40 was inclusive of blades as bird targets, 47 added emphasis, but the requirement was clear in 45 (the 92 was certified to 45 originally, then added 47).
As a note (with recognition that this thread is in La-La Land where we have few facts, and are discussing vapourware) a bird strike on an unprepared tail rotor blade would probably remove the blade, which would shortly remove the TR gearbox assembly (due to the whirling imbalance of the disk stressing the gearbox housing and feet).
We must recognize that a water landing has some probability of a tail strike and TGB breakage due to the landing, and not as a cause of the ditch.
There is little doubt that HK officials will find the root cause and report same, they are known world-wide as professionals in the British Empire mold of thinking.
In other words, have patience, ppruners!
Harbour birds
Thanks for the clarification Nick. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "unprepared blade"? It almost implies that test samples are not representative of in-service blades?
As an aside, I don't envy the investigators in their job of trying to locate the TGB - can you imagine how much junk (no puns intended) is on that river bed?
As an aside, I don't envy the investigators in their job of trying to locate the TGB - can you imagine how much junk (no puns intended) is on that river bed?
Last edited by 212man; 5th Jul 2010 at 22:58. Reason: Typos caused by podgy finger iPhone syndrome!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man, by "unprepared" I meant a blade designed to the old standards, where a bird strike could be a major problem, as opposed to a more modern design that meets the amendment 45/47 and that therefore has demonstrated the strength to survive the hit.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are no present efforts to salvage the TR assembly. Not even a police or fire launch to secure the area.
Those in the know will recall a few years ago, one of the rear sliding doors of a Eurocopter belonging to the local Government Flying Service detached in flight over Hong Kong harbour. The Fire Services diving search team were sent in and after a couple of weeks of exhaustive search found the door several kilometres down stream of the detachment point, such was the strength of the current. The incident was never reported in the media.
It is therefore surprising that the media is saying that salvage operations will only commence after the dislodged components are catalogued in order to assist recovery efforts. It's not that hard to identify the boom fairing even if the blades have disintegrated, is it ? Sounds to me like someone is really dragging their leg.
Those in the know will recall a few years ago, one of the rear sliding doors of a Eurocopter belonging to the local Government Flying Service detached in flight over Hong Kong harbour. The Fire Services diving search team were sent in and after a couple of weeks of exhaustive search found the door several kilometres down stream of the detachment point, such was the strength of the current. The incident was never reported in the media.
It is therefore surprising that the media is saying that salvage operations will only commence after the dislodged components are catalogued in order to assist recovery efforts. It's not that hard to identify the boom fairing even if the blades have disintegrated, is it ? Sounds to me like someone is really dragging their leg.
Who is dragging their feet? We do not know what went wrong and it could have been a series of factors, several of which do not involve AW.
It is just speculation at this time, like posted by Mr. Lappos.
Rather, it would be interesting to find out how long the MRBs (and hence the TRBs, provided they were still there) took to stop, considering the rotor brake will not work in a ditching.
It is just speculation at this time, like posted by Mr. Lappos.
Rather, it would be interesting to find out how long the MRBs (and hence the TRBs, provided they were still there) took to stop, considering the rotor brake will not work in a ditching.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Asia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is doubtful that the landing and flare had much to do with the disappearance of the tail fin and rotor components. Someone has taken off this thread, the pics that were on here yesterday which shows clearly the damage, but the aircraft sat upright for 10-15 minutes before one float eventually deflated and the aircraft turned over (I am only surmising that is what turned it over).
It is reported by the crew and unrelated witnesses that the approach and landing was very controlled, and the inflated and serviceable floats attest to that, as well as the successful evacuation of the pax with nil injuries. Yes one float deflated but it was quite a time after the aircraft was in the water. Don't know about the bird strike theory but I would put it down the list of possibilities.
It is reported by the crew and unrelated witnesses that the approach and landing was very controlled, and the inflated and serviceable floats attest to that, as well as the successful evacuation of the pax with nil injuries. Yes one float deflated but it was quite a time after the aircraft was in the water. Don't know about the bird strike theory but I would put it down the list of possibilities.
Chief Bottle Washer
Originally Posted by Iron Will
Someone has taken off this thread, the pics that were on here yesterday
