2 x Helicopters crash in Berlin
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yeah, where there marshalers but have you also noted the very close distance between them?
This was not very professional in any way!
And the Pilots are indeed "Low Timers" in comparison to the rest of the industry.
They have not enough money in the pot to keep the things afloat and training gets reduced to the legal minimum each year!
This was the swiss cheese who wanted to be happend.
This was not very professional in any way!
And the Pilots are indeed "Low Timers" in comparison to the rest of the industry.
They have not enough money in the pot to keep the things afloat and training gets reduced to the legal minimum each year!
This was the swiss cheese who wanted to be happend.
Hueyracer
Quote:
If i can´t find good reference, i ask the guys on the ground to drop something (like a heavy rucksack) that will do the job....even a smoke grenade does two jobs: Showing me exactly where the wind is coming from (in these conditions, even 1 kt wind can make the difference-if it is coming from the front, or from the back), and it burns a nice, dark hole in the snow...
Absobleedin correct! Spot on. If you cannot land safely without a reference make one. They could have used a marshaller or a toolbox or anything that will not blow away. We used to do a low pass and chuck out someone elses bergen if all else failed.
Puma number two made all the classic errors.
Quote:
If i can´t find good reference, i ask the guys on the ground to drop something (like a heavy rucksack) that will do the job....even a smoke grenade does two jobs: Showing me exactly where the wind is coming from (in these conditions, even 1 kt wind can make the difference-if it is coming from the front, or from the back), and it burns a nice, dark hole in the snow...
Absobleedin correct! Spot on. If you cannot land safely without a reference make one. They could have used a marshaller or a toolbox or anything that will not blow away. We used to do a low pass and chuck out someone elses bergen if all else failed.
Puma number two made all the classic errors.
Clearly there were flaws in the planning and execution of this evolution - not least trying to park too closely!- but I'm pretty sure 'chucking a rucksack out' would not have helped much!
Last edited by 212man; 24th Mar 2013 at 12:48.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Come on, guys...
You all know what i am talking about when i say "make your own reference".
In an ideal approach, the pilot got this small "doughnot" around the helicopter-the area, where he can see (and pick) his reference on the ground, before the cloud comes in.
No reference=no idea about the actual movement/disposition of the helicopter=go around!
It is exactly as described in all books:
Pick a (contrast) reference!
Doesn´t look like this has been done here.....
Yes-the americans are loosing aircraft-as does the rest of the industry....accidents happen...
But even in the military, there are "low timers"-in Afghan, Iraq and the rest of the world...
But don´t let this thread end in a discussion pro/con "military against the rest of the world" (again!)
No way....you might be able to see what´s happening 1 or 2 m away under your bubble....but you will never be able to see anything that´s further away....
Have you done dust landings before?
You all know what i am talking about when i say "make your own reference".
In an ideal approach, the pilot got this small "doughnot" around the helicopter-the area, where he can see (and pick) his reference on the ground, before the cloud comes in.
No reference=no idea about the actual movement/disposition of the helicopter=go around!
It is exactly as described in all books:
Pick a (contrast) reference!
Doesn´t look like this has been done here.....
Yes-the americans are loosing aircraft-as does the rest of the industry....accidents happen...
But even in the military, there are "low timers"-in Afghan, Iraq and the rest of the world...
But don´t let this thread end in a discussion pro/con "military against the rest of the world" (again!)
One would think that if you could see a rucksack for reference, you might also spot there helicopter you're about to chop.
Have you done dust landings before?
Last edited by hueyracer; 24th Mar 2013 at 15:03.
212man,
Vietnam, Dry Season, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, (Lots of Tracked Vehicles of all sizes and types), laterite type talcum powder kind of dust sometimes a foot deep or so.....Chinooks carrying max weight loads on slings into and out of unprepared LZ's......getting the image?
It is possible to Hover over to a waiting sling load....hook up....and depart when the dust cloud sometimes reached 300 feet high.
The Trick was to find a set of reference items....Rocks, Howitizer Projectiles, Ammo Cans, Sand Bags, Jeeps, logs....anything that was not going to blow away. Then, the brief to the NHP was your hover plan....this rock to that ammo can...to that cloverleaf of cannon shells...to the load....so he knew what cues you planned on and what to look for himself.
As you got the slings tight it was max power, Instrument Takeoff US Army Style...Hover Attitude with Max Power applied until positive rate of climb..then Five Degrees nose low....and wait to see something visually as you emerged from the dust.
Landing was just the opposite....pick a solid reference point....arrive ahead of the Dust Cloud, release the load, clear the load and land to your Reference point. If you lose sight of the Reference point it is Wings level and arrive with a fair rate of descent with no effort to feel for, seek, or hunt the ground....stand on the brakes, collective on the floor and wait for the dust to settle.
We wore Goggles to keep the dust out of our eyes.
Snow is no different except for the loss of surface definition in the classic Whiteout scenario... where Dust usually has only the loss of cues due to the dust cloud.
Long answer to your question....the short version is "Yes"...a Rucksack or anything else for that matter helps. The key on landing is not to make a slow, hovering approach and landing. You want to be firmly on the ground when the Dust/Snow Cloud catches up with you....even if it means a bit of ground run.
Night really complicates matters.
Vietnam, Dry Season, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, (Lots of Tracked Vehicles of all sizes and types), laterite type talcum powder kind of dust sometimes a foot deep or so.....Chinooks carrying max weight loads on slings into and out of unprepared LZ's......getting the image?
It is possible to Hover over to a waiting sling load....hook up....and depart when the dust cloud sometimes reached 300 feet high.
The Trick was to find a set of reference items....Rocks, Howitizer Projectiles, Ammo Cans, Sand Bags, Jeeps, logs....anything that was not going to blow away. Then, the brief to the NHP was your hover plan....this rock to that ammo can...to that cloverleaf of cannon shells...to the load....so he knew what cues you planned on and what to look for himself.
As you got the slings tight it was max power, Instrument Takeoff US Army Style...Hover Attitude with Max Power applied until positive rate of climb..then Five Degrees nose low....and wait to see something visually as you emerged from the dust.
Landing was just the opposite....pick a solid reference point....arrive ahead of the Dust Cloud, release the load, clear the load and land to your Reference point. If you lose sight of the Reference point it is Wings level and arrive with a fair rate of descent with no effort to feel for, seek, or hunt the ground....stand on the brakes, collective on the floor and wait for the dust to settle.
We wore Goggles to keep the dust out of our eyes.
Snow is no different except for the loss of surface definition in the classic Whiteout scenario... where Dust usually has only the loss of cues due to the dust cloud.
Long answer to your question....the short version is "Yes"...a Rucksack or anything else for that matter helps. The key on landing is not to make a slow, hovering approach and landing. You want to be firmly on the ground when the Dust/Snow Cloud catches up with you....even if it means a bit of ground run.
Night really complicates matters.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at that last video I fail to understand why the instinct for self preservation did not prevent the 2 puma captains from landing at a greater distance from the Ec155. The camera angle may distort the distance, but perhaps the first Puma got lucky with a slightly different wind and only 1 medium helicopter blowing snow, the other had a medium and heavy running rotors on the ground when he arrived (and as has been said in other posts with a less than optimal techique for the conditions).
Marshallers and other ground crew be damned, the captain decides where to land. In my days on HEMS I sometimes had ground crew cursing me for having to walk an extra 200 metres, but when I deemed it safer to land elsewhere it was done my way.
It would be interesting to see if "experienced" in government units means something different than in commercial operators.
But this seems a mistake due to lack of experience and/or confidence to make a command decision NOT to follow the script when circumstances are worse than scripted.
I hope that the accident investigation will take note of the preparation and planning for the excercise and the apparent lack of flexibility in the snowy conditions. It could and should have been prevented, and multiple layers in the system should have the authority to do so.
What SASless describes are actual combat missions, and I accept that sometimes the job simply has to be done and the crews have to find ways to mitigate the risks. War being one of the scenarios, which is why comparing Berlin to Afghanistan is not right IMO.
But in an excercise it should not be that way. If you find you cannot do what is in the script, bin it and save it for the debrief. It is a learning opportunity after all. This time the lesson was very costly and it needn't be.
Marshallers and other ground crew be damned, the captain decides where to land. In my days on HEMS I sometimes had ground crew cursing me for having to walk an extra 200 metres, but when I deemed it safer to land elsewhere it was done my way.
It would be interesting to see if "experienced" in government units means something different than in commercial operators.
But this seems a mistake due to lack of experience and/or confidence to make a command decision NOT to follow the script when circumstances are worse than scripted.
I hope that the accident investigation will take note of the preparation and planning for the excercise and the apparent lack of flexibility in the snowy conditions. It could and should have been prevented, and multiple layers in the system should have the authority to do so.
What SASless describes are actual combat missions, and I accept that sometimes the job simply has to be done and the crews have to find ways to mitigate the risks. War being one of the scenarios, which is why comparing Berlin to Afghanistan is not right IMO.
But in an excercise it should not be that way. If you find you cannot do what is in the script, bin it and save it for the debrief. It is a learning opportunity after all. This time the lesson was very costly and it needn't be.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hover Attitude with Max Power applied until positive rate of climb..then Five Degrees nose low....and wait to see something visually as you emerged from the dust.
The only "evidence" we have so far is two different videos-and we all know how things can change through the single eye of a camera...
Although it LOOKS like the pilot went completely wrong here (and I, too am speaking about "lack of proficiency" here-without having a proof)-i am curious what the accident report will show....
Yes-you´re right...
"Proficiency" HAS a different meaning in governmental organisations..
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will take a long long time till the germans publish an initial report.
The last updates on the Bulletin section of their website was from March 20 and included the accidents till the end of January.
They are not the quickest in these kind of things.
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung - Thema 1 (german)
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung - Interim Reports (english)
The last updates on the Bulletin section of their website was from March 20 and included the accidents till the end of January.
They are not the quickest in these kind of things.
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung - Thema 1 (german)
Bundesstelle für Flugunfalluntersuchung - Interim Reports (english)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man
Shows you have not been there done that then.
Clearly there were flaws in the planning and execution of this evolution - not least trying to park too closely!- but I'm pretty sure 'chucking a rucksack out' would not have helped much!
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@AS365N4:
Not quick but very thorough.
They estimate mid April for the initial report.
I personally think they´ll be a week or two faster than that but it takes some pressure of the investigators.
Tragedy but still fortunate that there was "only" one casualty and 4 or 5 injured.
As I read today the crashed Puma carried 16 pax.
The killed pilot was sitting in the EC155 and was apparently killed by a rotor blade hitting the cockpit.
(Source: Berliner Morgenpost)
Tom
Not quick but very thorough.
They estimate mid April for the initial report.
I personally think they´ll be a week or two faster than that but it takes some pressure of the investigators.
Tragedy but still fortunate that there was "only" one casualty and 4 or 5 injured.
As I read today the crashed Puma carried 16 pax.
The killed pilot was sitting in the EC155 and was apparently killed by a rotor blade hitting the cockpit.
(Source: Berliner Morgenpost)
Tom
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Thone1
How long takes it for the CAA to publish the first initial report after an incident?
A couple of hours, right.
So why can't the germans do the same?
It isn't rocket science to gather the basic facts and put an quick, short report online.
How long takes it for the CAA to publish the first initial report after an incident?
A couple of hours, right.
So why can't the germans do the same?
It isn't rocket science to gather the basic facts and put an quick, short report online.
AS365N4
The CAA don't publish bulletins or reports after an accident - AAIB does.
Depending on the circumstances of the accident the AAIB may well publish an initial bulletin soon after an accident detailing the know facts at the time. I've know them to do so after a couple of days on occasions, but never after "a couple of hours" as you suggest!
OH
The CAA don't publish bulletins or reports after an accident - AAIB does.
Depending on the circumstances of the accident the AAIB may well publish an initial bulletin soon after an accident detailing the know facts at the time. I've know them to do so after a couple of days on occasions, but never after "a couple of hours" as you suggest!
OH
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, sorry my bad for mixing up the two organisations.
As far as I remember, last year after the 225 ditched in the North Sea you had the first info from the AAIB within hours or at least the day later.
And this incident happend Thursday and still nothing from the germans, except media reports.
As far as I remember, last year after the 225 ditched in the North Sea you had the first info from the AAIB within hours or at least the day later.
And this incident happend Thursday and still nothing from the germans, except media reports.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: la la land
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Makes me sad to watch such an unnecessary waste of life! RIP!
Looks like they were trying to use those three marshallers as a reference. Brilliant idea, but why is the 155 keeping their guy on the left? I assume the pilot-flying was in the right seat. He should have kept his reference/marshaller on his side and landed a lot closer/right next to him instead of looking across the cockpit. Makes it a lot harder and he most likely lost his reference at the last moment. All three aircraft are approaching too slow and end up at a unfavourable hover height. Which is too high for a no-hover whiteout landing and too low for a high hover / blow-the-snow-away first landing. The second aircraft appears to actually drift backwards before they make it to the ground. Very dangerous in that situation. The snow hasn't settled yet, but number three comes in for a landing anyways. Why not wait an extra moment and let the snow settle? Professional heliski pilots approach a lot faster to keep the snowball behind the aircraft until they touch down. They "drive" their helicopters right into the snow and always always always end up with their reference right next to them. Never loose your reference! That approach technique might not work for helicopters with wheel type landing gear though. Why not come into a high hover first then, blow the snow away and then work your way down? Instead of marshallers, they should have used stakes as a target. Those marshallers are just standing there, not giving any signals anyway. Might as well get them out of the equation all together.
I dare to say that none of those pilots were proficient enough to land under those conditions. They were lured into a trap and got caught. Unfortunately!
Their superiors should scratch their heads and come up with a good explanation as of why this mission was being conducted under these circumstances with crews that were not properly trained for it. And they could have gotten them a lot of training for the price of those two helicopters alone!
What kind a riot control scenario needs troops to be inserted by helicopter anyways???
Looks like they were trying to use those three marshallers as a reference. Brilliant idea, but why is the 155 keeping their guy on the left? I assume the pilot-flying was in the right seat. He should have kept his reference/marshaller on his side and landed a lot closer/right next to him instead of looking across the cockpit. Makes it a lot harder and he most likely lost his reference at the last moment. All three aircraft are approaching too slow and end up at a unfavourable hover height. Which is too high for a no-hover whiteout landing and too low for a high hover / blow-the-snow-away first landing. The second aircraft appears to actually drift backwards before they make it to the ground. Very dangerous in that situation. The snow hasn't settled yet, but number three comes in for a landing anyways. Why not wait an extra moment and let the snow settle? Professional heliski pilots approach a lot faster to keep the snowball behind the aircraft until they touch down. They "drive" their helicopters right into the snow and always always always end up with their reference right next to them. Never loose your reference! That approach technique might not work for helicopters with wheel type landing gear though. Why not come into a high hover first then, blow the snow away and then work your way down? Instead of marshallers, they should have used stakes as a target. Those marshallers are just standing there, not giving any signals anyway. Might as well get them out of the equation all together.
I dare to say that none of those pilots were proficient enough to land under those conditions. They were lured into a trap and got caught. Unfortunately!
Their superiors should scratch their heads and come up with a good explanation as of why this mission was being conducted under these circumstances with crews that were not properly trained for it. And they could have gotten them a lot of training for the price of those two helicopters alone!
What kind a riot control scenario needs troops to be inserted by helicopter anyways???
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire, UK
Age: 48
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Normally they do this kind of riot control when they have their annual nuclear waste transport or on weekends when a football match takes places with a very high number of hooligans or on high security events like a G8-Summit for example.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hammerhead
It does. A zero zero landing we called it. Run out of height speed and ideas at the same moment - and NEVER LOSE YOUR REFERENCE.
Professional heliski pilots approach a lot faster to keep the snowball behind the aircraft until they touch down. They "drive" their helicopters right into the snow and always always always end up with their reference right next to them. Never loose your reference! That approach technique might not work for helicopters with wheel type landing gear though.
Many personal opinions here now.....
I my experience, a run-on landing (with skid or wheels) only work as long there is very little snow, and you are sure about the surface below the snow. With more snow on the ground (or unsure about the surface below) the high hover is nearly the only safe technique. But with larger hcp's and dry light snow, it never stops blowing snow. A very good reference is the only safe thing.
CB
I my experience, a run-on landing (with skid or wheels) only work as long there is very little snow, and you are sure about the surface below the snow. With more snow on the ground (or unsure about the surface below) the high hover is nearly the only safe technique. But with larger hcp's and dry light snow, it never stops blowing snow. A very good reference is the only safe thing.
CB
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@as365n4:
Quite simply because it is not required.
If a technical fault is suspected, sure enough the manufacturer of the aircraft will get notified and push out bulletins as deemed necessary.
In this case I´ve heard nothing about a suspected technial fault, all video points to pilot error.
So what should they publish? That 2 aircraft crashed?
Nothing new there.
Once the investigation is complete a thorough and well researched report will come out, detailing all factors contributing to the accident.
Faster is not always better.
Quite simply because it is not required.
If a technical fault is suspected, sure enough the manufacturer of the aircraft will get notified and push out bulletins as deemed necessary.
In this case I´ve heard nothing about a suspected technial fault, all video points to pilot error.
So what should they publish? That 2 aircraft crashed?
Nothing new there.
Once the investigation is complete a thorough and well researched report will come out, detailing all factors contributing to the accident.
Faster is not always better.