Weststar 139 tail incident 30th June 2011?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by Outwest
the latest photo failure point seems to coincide with where the main rotor might impact the boom
Originally Posted by helihub
causing the main blades flex enough to chop the tail
Aircraft was reportedly delivered from the Cascina Costa line three months ago. Pilot reported control issues at 50 ft.
Article 1
Article 2
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 30th Jun 2011 at 15:06.
Not sure about that Lola, I would have thought that the TR blades still attached to the hub in the picture would have shown more damage if it was a blade/ground strike given that they must turn at around 1200 rpm.
Could it be that there was a prior failure (drive?) to the hard landing which in turn may have caused the pylon separation?
Its interesting that its two exactly opposite blades which are missing.
Could it be that there was a prior failure (drive?) to the hard landing which in turn may have caused the pylon separation?
Its interesting that its two exactly opposite blades which are missing.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
I hear that the Malaysians are looking for a foreigner to blame but there were none on board at the time.
Surely there must've been one standing around minding his own business somewhere on the airfield .... !!
I hear that the Malaysians are looking for a foreigner to blame but there were none on board at the time.
Surely there must've been one standing around minding his own business somewhere on the airfield .... !!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lola - For the TRB's to still be attached and rotating but contacting the runway wouldn't the aircraft be nose high to the point of being almost vertical?
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, as an AW139 TC my thoughts go out to the TC involved.
Epiphany - "Attempting a CAT A helipad profile reject massively over gross training weight and with the aft C of G well out of limits might just do that?"
Are you confirming or speculating that it was a Helipad reject and CoG out of limit?
He has had a bad day in the office and doesn't need any speculating.
Epiphany - "Attempting a CAT A helipad profile reject massively over gross training weight and with the aft C of G well out of limits might just do that?"
Are you confirming or speculating that it was a Helipad reject and CoG out of limit?
He has had a bad day in the office and doesn't need any speculating.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Aircraft Problems found in FDR - Pilot Error only Remaining Root Causal factor
It seems that the gents in Milan were able to get the DCA and others to process the FDR data very quickly as they have now informed customers of the following :
There are two main points:
1.) They were doing training flight (cat A OEI procedures)
2.)It is confirmed that the accident had nothing to do with the tail rotor.
Further FDR data analysis has already confirmed that there was no mechanical failure. *
**DCA has not grounded the fleet and Weststar, after a precautionary stop, is now resuming flights with no limitations.
If this deduction of it having to be only pilot error that caused this mishap, one unique scenario has developed and - though highly presumptuous, is worthy of some thought:
At least 1 Instructor PIlot is an ex-RMAF Black Hawk pilot, is it possible that (if he was indeed the PIC conducting the training on this flight) he momentarily had a lapse in awareness and reverted to his Black Hawk procedures where the extreme aft-tail tailwheel arrangement is used as THE primary landing point and even a pivot point for arresting descent rate in the final 25-50 feet of descent and touchdown ? This could explain how such an extreme nose up attitude could have been allowed so late in the OEI approach.
Only the operator would know who was the PIC for this flight and if he is an ex-BH pilot but maybe this could explain it. . . but not excuse it.
There are two main points:
1.) They were doing training flight (cat A OEI procedures)
2.)It is confirmed that the accident had nothing to do with the tail rotor.
Further FDR data analysis has already confirmed that there was no mechanical failure. *
**DCA has not grounded the fleet and Weststar, after a precautionary stop, is now resuming flights with no limitations.
If this deduction of it having to be only pilot error that caused this mishap, one unique scenario has developed and - though highly presumptuous, is worthy of some thought:
At least 1 Instructor PIlot is an ex-RMAF Black Hawk pilot, is it possible that (if he was indeed the PIC conducting the training on this flight) he momentarily had a lapse in awareness and reverted to his Black Hawk procedures where the extreme aft-tail tailwheel arrangement is used as THE primary landing point and even a pivot point for arresting descent rate in the final 25-50 feet of descent and touchdown ? This could explain how such an extreme nose up attitude could have been allowed so late in the OEI approach.
Only the operator would know who was the PIC for this flight and if he is an ex-BH pilot but maybe this could explain it. . . but not excuse it.
Land of confusion
If it really turns out to be a cat A OEI training accident, I still have several unanswered questions. Primarily I am confused as to why the operator is not conducting this type of training in a full motion simulator? Isn't the associated risk the primary driving reason for the simulator? Why would an operator do this type of training in-house?
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mast Bumper's Question
Yes - MB; a good question indeed. Not to be too cheeky but your location "over there" probably doesn't mean "over HERE" too (in Asia) but it could be a different attitude here. THis being said, it has been trickling around for a number of months now that almost the entire group of pilots there in KL had difficulty getting through their training. That being said, practice OEI procedures are probably much more difficult than the real ones due to them being done in the worst possible time to occur. Balance this with the chances of an actual engine failure ever happening in a pilot's career, it could be argued that it is best never to practice the procedure. Certainly their SOP's should be reviewed and revised if necessary. In any case, I am sure that their insurance rate will be increased quite a bit immediately and could potentially be a big commercial factor for them until they demonstrate a complete change to conducting operations safely - revenue and non-rev flight . . . It would be interesting to hear from someone directly inside Weststar. My only in is with DCA :-(
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Primarily I am confused as to why the operator is not conducting this type of training in a full motion simulator? Isn't the associated risk the primary driving reason for the simulator? Why would an operator do this type of training in-house?
A pre-requisite for this, however, is competent training staff and a culture that believes in safety, procedures, checklists and CRM. If the operator does not utilise competent, experienced type trainers, and also employs pilots who do not use correct procedures, checklists or CRM then accidents will happen - as they do in Malaysia with monotonous regularity.
There are competent, experienced AW139 trainers available to this operator (or so I am told) but unfortunately these pilots are not Malaysian and are therefore treated as a threat by the local pilots and not utilised. How long before the next accident?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Terminal 5
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail Pylon detaching
Regardless of the cause I find it extraordinary that the tail pylon just 'snaps off' in this way. This sort of incident in all other types I am aware of would result in the tail cone distorting and thereby absorbing some of the impact reaction.
The 139 tailcone structure appears rigid (even brittle) and very unforgiving.
The 139 tailcone structure appears rigid (even brittle) and very unforgiving.
