R44 Down on NSW South Coast Feb 2012
Flyting: "I was taught and have taught that if the door opened, either land or get some height and speed (depending on where you are in the take-off profile) before trying to close it."
The last thing you need is speed. On a 44 that sucks the door open. You need less than 20kts to be able to easily shut the door in flight. Bubble doors particularly.
The last thing you need is speed. On a 44 that sucks the door open. You need less than 20kts to be able to easily shut the door in flight. Bubble doors particularly.
The last thing you need is speed. On a 44 that sucks the door open.
Are there recommendations or restrictions in regard to removing doors on R44? ie can one door be removed or should all be removed?
Effects of removing one door on air pressure in the cockpit?
Please note, no word yet if any of the doors on this flight were removed to assist in aerial filming.
Mickjoebill
Whilst it may seem an obvious cause, the report doesn't say why/how the door opened nor does it actually report that the pilot was trying to close it.
Jimball - By speed I meant forward motion to help keep the door closed and for the heli to become a bit more stable.... not 100 kts. Although, I have never had the experience of the 44 door being sucked open while at speed while demoing this with students... & by height, I meant get away from the ground.
"Although, I have never had the experience of the 44 door being sucked open while at speed"
Well, some of us have. It's not uncommon (particularly on early models for some reason) for a door to not latch correctly. It's a human error not to check before lift.
Sometimes just the middle latch engages in the frame, whilst the top misses.
This becomes apparent after lift, during transition or even on climb-out as the door gets sucked out by the low pressure area created at "speed".
Trying to pull against this and latching with one hand can prove impossible until the machine is virtually in a hover.
Well, some of us have. It's not uncommon (particularly on early models for some reason) for a door to not latch correctly. It's a human error not to check before lift.
Sometimes just the middle latch engages in the frame, whilst the top misses.
This becomes apparent after lift, during transition or even on climb-out as the door gets sucked out by the low pressure area created at "speed".
Trying to pull against this and latching with one hand can prove impossible until the machine is virtually in a hover.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyting:
The fire also killed the occupant/s. I think it is just as vital to look at ways of reducing injuries/fatalities by focussing on survivability as it is to look at/discuss the cause of the accident!
mickjoebill:
The report actually states:
Any thoughts please as to whether the fuel tank is an issue with the R22 also?
TB
Forget about the fuel tank/lines that burnt the machine out right now. Deal with the cause of the accident so that others can learn from it.
mickjoebill:
Please note, no word yet if any of the doors on this flight were removed to assist in aerial filming.
The right rear door and some non-essential equipment were removed from the helicopter in preparation for the filming task.
Any thoughts please as to whether the fuel tank is an issue with the R22 also?
TB
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Oz Trailer
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the commencement of the takeoff the pilot's door opened and, in response, the pilot
probably released his right hand from the cyclic control to close the door
probably released his right hand from the cyclic control to close the door
More likely he let go the lever then changed hands on the cyclic, then over controlled because his brain is not used to his left hand on the cyclic.
I agree with CJ, with probably some inadvertent control inputs resulting from the action of trying to close the door. What is so sad about this is how unnecessary it was - he should have just stopped the transition and landed! This isn't the first, and won't be the last, accident caused by over concern about a door opening.
Last edited by 212man; 3rd May 2013 at 09:43.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: 'Stralia
Age: 58
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know nothing, but if I swapped hands so my left was on cyclic I can imagine the following:
Lift, door pops. Swap hands. Grab door. Inadvertent movement or gust/lull and I am sinking. My reflex? Pull with left hand. Unfortunately it is now on the cyclic so I pitch aft while sinking .....
Yes I have seen the threads on similar "hands-crossed" training. And I have seen ATSB report that says PIC maybe let go of cyclic.
Like I said, I know nothing but a guy with significant experience would not simply let go of the cyclic in a Robbie in a hover. I am surprised the report did not specifically contemplate the "swapping hands" scenario if at least for a precautionary tale.
Lift, door pops. Swap hands. Grab door. Inadvertent movement or gust/lull and I am sinking. My reflex? Pull with left hand. Unfortunately it is now on the cyclic so I pitch aft while sinking .....
Yes I have seen the threads on similar "hands-crossed" training. And I have seen ATSB report that says PIC maybe let go of cyclic.
Like I said, I know nothing but a guy with significant experience would not simply let go of the cyclic in a Robbie in a hover. I am surprised the report did not specifically contemplate the "swapping hands" scenario if at least for a precautionary tale.
Well, back in the 80s a well-known toy shop owner was picking up his B47 from the Sydney city heliport (we had one in those days) and in the hover, his door swung open. He tried to grab and close it, but hit the ground with 1 skid and rolled it up.
He freely admitted what went wrong and what a dill he was.
He freely admitted what went wrong and what a dill he was.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There does not seem to be any reference to the occupants ability to egress the wreckage in either this case or the more recent one in NSW.
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
At least in the '47 you quote AC, the pilot and many others in '47 prangs could just undo their seat belt and walk out through the foot window!
tet
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
At least in the '47 you quote AC, the pilot and many others in '47 prangs could just undo their seat belt and walk out through the foot window!
tet
There does not seem to be any reference to the occupants ability to egress the wreckage in either this case or the more recent one in NSW.
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
In respect to crash worthiness of the R44 and the R66 unless customers accept higher price and/or less payload Robinson will carry on.
Is the R66 out of the same mould as the r44 in respect to the crash worthiness of the frame?
Mickjoebill
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative as we do not know if hey were conscious or injured.
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
mickjoebill
With reference to the R66 and tanks, I don't know if they have bladder tanks or not, but they wouldn't have the R44 drive system where a short shaft from the gearbox ( when broken in an accident) flogs around with a flex plate like a knife blade against the tanks.
Was it a "private flight" if a member of the crew is being paid?
Was it a "private flight" if the pilot is part of the (presumably) paid management team benefiting from the footage?
No mention if video cables or pilots monitor were excluded as being the cause of fouling the door or pilots hand. Would be good to know one way or the other...
No mention if they were wearing life vests.
They were shooting 3d, where in general the best 3d effect occurs the closer the subject is to camera. Flying with a hand held camera, open door, over water without floats.. they had a few more slices of swiss cheese to avoid that day.
Here here.
The opinion that nomex flight suites would probably have been of no benefit does nothing to encourage their use! but does mitigate CASA of any blame for not mandating or pushing of Robinson's advice that nomex should be worn.
From the perspective of the man in the street.., a commercial flight, put together at the last minute, experienced aerial camera specialist apparently refused to fly, less than best camera equipment, no floats, with less than best PPE, restricted to clockwise orbits, over water, piloted by the owner-operator who is part of the management team.
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
The crews' willingness and keenness to get the job done to the best of their ability, under adverse conditions, although expected was admirable, yet tragically lethal.
From a film industry H&S perspective, the coroner will hopefully address the management of this flight.
Mickjoebill
Was it a "private flight" if the pilot is part of the (presumably) paid management team benefiting from the footage?
No mention if video cables or pilots monitor were excluded as being the cause of fouling the door or pilots hand. Would be good to know one way or the other...
No mention if they were wearing life vests.
They were shooting 3d, where in general the best 3d effect occurs the closer the subject is to camera. Flying with a hand held camera, open door, over water without floats.. they had a few more slices of swiss cheese to avoid that day.
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative
The opinion that nomex flight suites would probably have been of no benefit does nothing to encourage their use! but does mitigate CASA of any blame for not mandating or pushing of Robinson's advice that nomex should be worn.
From the perspective of the man in the street.., a commercial flight, put together at the last minute, experienced aerial camera specialist apparently refused to fly, less than best camera equipment, no floats, with less than best PPE, restricted to clockwise orbits, over water, piloted by the owner-operator who is part of the management team.
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
The crews' willingness and keenness to get the job done to the best of their ability, under adverse conditions, although expected was admirable, yet tragically lethal.
From a film industry H&S perspective, the coroner will hopefully address the management of this flight.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 6th May 2013 at 01:29.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
The cause of their demise was pilot error and an unforgiving machine.
There seems to be some ignorance regarding the use of Nomex suits - they MUST be combined with cotton undergarments to give the proper protection against fire.
When tests are done on the UK Mil flying kit - a series of burn tests are conducted on dummies with various levels of protection - the tests clearly show how the cotton underwear provides the insulating layer preventing the heat being transmitted directly from the Nomex to the skin.
When tests are done on the UK Mil flying kit - a series of burn tests are conducted on dummies with various levels of protection - the tests clearly show how the cotton underwear provides the insulating layer preventing the heat being transmitted directly from the Nomex to the skin.
