Accident nr Lake Vyrnwy Hotel, Wales

[brantlyb2b]

Thanks for the apology

Thanks for the apology,scary was just a turn of phrase,I should of put "surprise at the required steepness of approach because of some rather badly positioned conifers" and only two routes in and out.But after the abuse received from a couple of members after my comments I think Ill stick to veiwing like I have for the last few years and watch everyone slag each other off much easier.Oh and Silsoe sid my wife is a Consultant Psychiatrist and takes more to impress than flying to some Hotel that only seems to serve rabbit.She suggests from your post that you may have some repressed issues at some past valentine event that prompted your comments chin up mate theres always Viagra!

[nigelh]

Flown pax in there for lunch a few times some years ago . Must say I didn't notice anything out of the ordinary ...maybe I landed at the wrong spot !!
Incidentally the owner is a friend who had an R22 also . Sadly his crashed with the loss of 2 lives .
My worry is that my insurance goes up due to the robbo effect .
Don't remember rabbit on the menu but did have an excellent bottle of wine !!

[Tailboom]

I've been in to this site quite a few times and never thought of it as being difficult, you say it's not a big site but the last time I landed there we went in with 2 R44's no problem.
I'm sure there was another helicopter there too, definatly not a small site.

[SilsoeSid]

Having looked at the job spec for a consult whatchamachiatrist, it says;

"The skills required of a consultant psychiatrist include active listening skills, critical thinking skills, complex problem solving skills and social perceptiveness. Being aware of others' reactions helps to assess each situation accordingly.

Next time you take her flying, let her make the descision to continue in or not!

[SilsoeSid]

Bother, I missed the obvious!

The consultant psychiatrist equation;

ym/Wy(√Rn + Py) = Case study

where;
ym = years married
Wy=No of years wife has held position
Rn = Robinson number
Py = No of years pilot licence held

[[email protected]]

Back to confined area techniques - it all comes down to performance and you should not be conducting CA landings, especially 'scary' ones, without adequate performance or you are asking to be included on Davy 07s list.

The ability to hover OGE should be the absolute minimum performance you should consider for GA flying into a CA (or most other flying for that matter) and this would be suitable for 'easy' CAs - the sort where as UK says, you can avoid losing translational lift until you gain the benefit of ground effect.

But, and it is a big but, where obstacles force you into steeper (or eventually vertical) approaches, you really do need more than OGE power and a good working figure is a 10% thrust margin. Work out your max AUM for the OGE hover, then deduct 10% of that figure and make that your new max AUM for your CA - adjust fuel/pax/luggage weights accordingly.

The 10% still isn't a huge amount of extra power but it should allow you some margin for error when the wind isn't as expected or you don't fly the approach quite as well as you might or you suddenly lose the effect of the wind as you descend behind trees.

If you can't meet the required performance criteria then don't go into the CA just because you have a lunch/dinner/hot date - the R22 isn't forgiving in limited power scenarios (because it doesn't have much to start with) and it is all too easy to overpitch, droop the Nr, start to lose TR effectiveness and generally end up in a world of hurt.

I'm sure that most pilots have been taught that if you can see the far end of the landing area in a CA then you can make a single angle approach and if you can't you should make an approach to the obstacles on the near side of the CA until you can see the far end. If you can't see the far end of the CA at all on the approach then you are into a hover OGE and vertical descent (with suitable lateral and forward markers).

A single angle approach invites the 'keep TL until the ground effect kicks in' technique and may sucker you into attempting this with only OGE (or even less) power available - the point where you can get severely embarrassed is when there are obstacles upwind which mask the wind effect you are enjoying at height and suddenly drop you off TL with few options but a heavy or overpitched landing.

Lastly, don't forget that having got in there, you have to be able to get out and an easy approach may lead to a more difficult departure - again the 10% thrust margin is what you need for vertical departures.

Treat CAs with respect folks and keep some performance in hand.

[brantlyb2b]

Missed the Obvious.

Yes you really did miss the obvious ,its wasnt an R22,you hoped to be slagging off an R22 jock with low hours.This will be an end to it, I think I hit a nerve judging by the kindergarten response.

[Aucky]

Powerlimited - But, I still stand by my comments required coming to an HOGE downwind, surely no one can justify this as sensible for a spot of lunch?

Most downwind approaches effectively lead to an HOGE whether you like it or not (given that a 10kt tailwind will leave you with 0 airspeed across the disc with 10kts of groundspeed on the approach), thats why we need to be very aware that we're downwind, aware that we'll lose TX lift earlier than usual, and aware that if you don't have sufficient power to HOGE + a reasonable margin that you'll get yourself in trouble (Settling with power, Vortex ring, and Over pitching/low rpm/heavy landing), however with sufficient skill, awareness and power it doesn't have to be so dangerous as to be prohibitive. You have a low airspeed for longer on the approach and need to keep your ROD under control accordingly, and be ready to catch any loss of TX lift before you start to sink. When hovering OGE stationary with respect to the ground it makes no difference that we are downwind, and you may even have a little translational lift form behind, the disc doesn't know which way were looking. I would suggest that any license holder that doesn't clearly understand the effects mentioned above and who is reading this should certainly not be attempting such manoeuvres without further training and appreciation of the effects of approaching from downwind, and should not be interpreting my comments as saying that it's easy or "go for it", as has been mentioned, there's probably a better field nextdoor And in general down wind approaches can be demanding enough without making the landing area a confined one.

And then you have to get back out of the site, which would pose the same issues only in reverse.

If that approach was really chosen because it's the best/clearest/safest entry option downwind, then you could probably depart the opposite track into wind Potentially more dangerous is getting into this site into wind (nice and easy perhaps) but having to depart with the opposite track (downwind, and perhaps lacking forethought unaware of it due to the shelter of the trees and lunch time interval) maybe vertical, then loosing TX lift from behind as an acceleration is attempted and getting a little close for comfort to the trees in front. At least you have time to think about a downwind approach with the initial recce...

[SilsoeSid]

Yes you really did miss the obvious ,its wasnt an R22,you hoped to be slagging off an R22 jock with low hours.

Far from it, I think your type is too obvious. However the equation works regardless, it's not all about you! Any other type means that √Rn = 0

It is a simple formula that conpsyc's use to see if their pilot husband/partner is an interesting case study or not.

Which one did you take in? ASXDG, AVIP, AWDU, OAPR or was it OMAX?
I think I know

[MattSquire]

Edited for time being.

[Thomas coupling]

Crikey - let's all take a chill pill everyone. After all this is about landing at a bloody hotel for lunch, it's not landing a modern jet into the hudson is it!!

Let's just all revel in the fact and be grateful that another Robbo has been reduced to scrap.

[rotorspeed]

Crab's post is the most valuable of all here. For confined area landings you must indeed be able to hover OGE as an absolute minimum, and the 10% margin is important.

Calculations of AUM for OGE hover are important, but even more critical is practical proof you can indeed hover OGE, with your acft, there and then. If there is any uncertainty, I like to try and bring the machine to an OGE hover, nearby the landing site, and see what power I'm using and what the reserve is. And high enough (eg 200ft) to regain TL afterwards if it can't be done. And when doing this it's vital to be patient and let the acft stabilise in a genuine OGE hover, for as the last 20kts bleed off, the power rise is big. Ok I know it might be in the avoid curve, but the risks of engine failure then are miniscule compared with risk of running out of lift and crashing on the way in.

If you pass the HOGE test you can approach the CA into wind with confidence. If not, you know you were right to divert to a clear area nearby and call for a lift.

[Thomas coupling]

Rotorspeed: why do you need to be inside the dead mans curve to do an OGE check?
Find out the height you need to be at (for your helo) to stay outside the H/V curve and then check your HOGE? Simples.

Advertising the possible use of the dead man's curve is not good karma for newbie's popping in for lunch now, is it? Wifey's prada handbag could get squashed in the subsequent forced landing

[Old and Horrified]

For those of you thinking of visiting the Vyrnwy hotel and who have not been there before, or those trying to understand this discussion, I thought I would dig out a couple of photos from November 2007 when my son took me there for lunch. Of course I immediately realised that the aircraft we were in was, in fact the one that crashed in Cambridge last week. Oh dear - with the terrible news from Welshpool yesterday, this has been a very bad couple of weeks.



The first one is the approach to the landing site from the South East. The site is just beyond the gap in the trees above the top left corner of the nav display. Sorry for the quality as my camera seems to have decided to focus on the screen rather than the outside.


The second shows the size of the landing site – claimed to be enough for 4 helicopters. This view is facing south east and shows the direction we approached from. The approach was steep, but no different to other confined area landings we had done.




The third one shows the view to the South, with the roof of one of the hotel buildings in the background. The landing pad is quite a bit higher than the main hotel.



The last shows the view towards the north west up the lake and shows the steep drop off at the edge of the site.

With Southerly breeze, as there was on the day of the accident, an approach from the North would be quite steep. I do not know where the accident happened with respect to these photos.

I know a lot of you don’t like R22s, but we had some very good trips in G-CHZN.

[powerlimited]

Hi Aucky,
Yes I appeciate the techniques involved with downwind approaches and that the fact the disk doesn't know which way its facing. However my point was originally aimed at the posts refering to the pilots become scared on approach etc, which does not inspire confidence.

I'm not going to get into the other issues with LTE and pilots gripping the Robbie throttle that hard when they tense up that they override the Governor and end up with Low RRPM. Don't shoot me down it does happen!

Having now seen the site (thanks old and horrified!), I would hope that any current pilot could safely make an approach, given the correct conditions.

[RotarySpanner]

I'm an engineer, and although it would appear that I am new here, I have actually checked in on PPRuNe periodically over many years to tap into what can be very interesting and valuable industry news/opinions. Certainly engineers talk, and we have our own means of doing so (cue abuse), but it's fascinating to see what you pilots really think about/do with the aircraft we leave outside the door.

Up until now, I have never felt the need to comment, as I am fully content in being a third party audience to the threads and opinions here. However, I couldn't quite get my head around certain comments made in this recent thread.

I know the Robbo's get a bashing here at times, and that certain members dissagree on various areas of the Robinson product line. I fully accept that, and everyone has their opinions based on their own experiences of the 22/44. But willfully talking about calculating hull losses? and enthusiastic talk of erradicating a product through continuation of current accident trends? Yes, people have survived the majority (how many will be put down to pilot error?) but a number of people have also died in the last couple of weeks. Post #28 of the CHZN thread shows that family and friends of (deseased) aviatiors can actually find their way onto these forums.

Don't get me wrong, there are many types out there that I'd love to crush with a wrecking ball, and I know all too well the humour involved in aviation that others dont understand or find offensive, but so many of these comments in just 3 pages of a relatively easily accessed forum, on an aircraft I have total trust in, was just enough to bring this lurking engineer out of the shadows.

With the greatest respect Thomas Coupling, as long as the pilots continue to follow the instructions on the side of Franks tin, there will be a large handfull of our Robbos that will not add to your target this year.

[topendtorque]

I would hope that any current pilot could safely make an approach, given the correct conditions.

doesn't look like a confined area's backside to me. methinks one could force land a Cessna 206 in there. The dumped aircraft site may be at six o'clock to the aircraft in picture two, behind the fence.

[RMK]

"Old & Horrified", Good pics of the landing area.

However, you know it's a rough crowd on here. On Picture #1 he's flying well out-of-trim. Quick, before anyone notices, you can switch the photo with this one below - I've digitally added some more right pedal.

[ShyTorque]

TET, I agree, it looks like a pretty good sized landing site from the photo posted above.

(measured on Google Earth: approx 55 metres by 78 metres).

[[email protected]]

Aucky - probably a point worth noting re downwind approaches - the disc may not care which way it faces once it is established in the hover but it does when you are flaring to reduce the speed to achieve that hover.

On an into wind approach you can flare to reduce the GS if you think your closure rate is too quick - flare effect is the result of a change in inflow angle giving an increase in AoA.

On a downwind approach, especially in the latter stages, the wind is already from behind you so that any flare has negligible effect because the inflow angle change doesn't increase the AoA.

This is the reason that most are taught that the key to a safe downwind approach is to keep the GS under control as a harsh flare at the end will just put the tail closer to the ground without washing off your speed - you will need a handful of collective to increase MR thrust with the vector pointing backwards - another reason for having a sensible power margin.