Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm coming to the conclusion that this was a tail rotor failure.
The resulting enquiry will probably suggest changes to the standard operating procedures. Police SOPs, I believe, are quite liberal even over built up areas. I can understand that for serious incidents anything goes. In the case of a transit or lesser events then defensive flying has to come into play. Its not like your PPL(H) flying or regular military flying. Sadly mechanical failures don't respect any of this. For our non helicopter pilot readers I would suggest that helicopters fly more by mechanical means than aerodynamic!! There's more to go wrong!
Pilot incapacitation trumps all of the above.
FAA QHI 3000 Hours Helicopters. 10000 Total.
The resulting enquiry will probably suggest changes to the standard operating procedures. Police SOPs, I believe, are quite liberal even over built up areas. I can understand that for serious incidents anything goes. In the case of a transit or lesser events then defensive flying has to come into play. Its not like your PPL(H) flying or regular military flying. Sadly mechanical failures don't respect any of this. For our non helicopter pilot readers I would suggest that helicopters fly more by mechanical means than aerodynamic!! There's more to go wrong!
Pilot incapacitation trumps all of the above.
FAA QHI 3000 Hours Helicopters. 10000 Total.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: england- up north (where it's grim)
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Northlight, CS is not allowed to be carried within the cockpit.
Most aircraft have an external container, often a tube attached to the skid to prevent the scenario you mention.
Most aircraft have an external container, often a tube attached to the skid to prevent the scenario you mention.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Nothing mentioned on this thread can explain how a modern helicopter at the point a millisecond before it first made impact with the pub roof; was upright, in a vertical descent with the rotors stopped and engines off, having avoided the surrounding buildings.
As posts from folk such as fortyodd, mg etc tend to be dismissed and ignored despite the facts and valuable information they contain, this thread is more entertaining than informative. More akin to 'Top Gear' than 'Top of the Form'!
the_flying_cop
Really!!!
Agaricus
And just what speed do you think they might have been at? Clue: you as a 'driver airframe' have forgotten one simple thing!
Am I the only one that thinks pilot incapacitation would leave a lot more mess than there was?
...and who mentioned the nitesun and skyshout for goodness sake? How many times does the engine intake system need to be explained? etc
Let's talk about the relevance of the collective override stop for instance, rather than flocks of Houdini-esque birds getting into the engine intakes!
As posts from folk such as fortyodd, mg etc tend to be dismissed and ignored despite the facts and valuable information they contain, this thread is more entertaining than informative. More akin to 'Top Gear' than 'Top of the Form'!
the_flying_cop
Northlight, CS is not allowed to be carried within the cockpit.
Most aircraft have an external container, often a tube attached to the skid to prevent the scenario you mention.
Most aircraft have an external container, often a tube attached to the skid to prevent the scenario you mention.
Agaricus
Unless anyone thinks they were in a hover or at very slow speed at the time (and I haven't seen any suggestion to this effect at all) fenestron and autorotation just don't add up.
Am I the only one that thinks pilot incapacitation would leave a lot more mess than there was?
...and who mentioned the nitesun and skyshout for goodness sake? How many times does the engine intake system need to be explained? etc
Let's talk about the relevance of the collective override stop for instance, rather than flocks of Houdini-esque birds getting into the engine intakes!
the last line of the eye witness statement below appears to suggest no engine noise, also I don't remember reading statements from any of the people inside the bar mentioning engine noise after the crash, can anyone confirm?
I raised this a few posts back.
However, in the meantime we have learnt that the pub roof consisted of three layers not including a layer of sound proofing material.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Eye witness statements can be quite unreliable and for a variety of reasons. I would discount the suggestion that there was no sound simply because in any situation such as this the brain tends to go into an overdrive situation which results in the impression that time slows down. This tends to create a mismatch between visual and aural perception.
The post crash evidence is that the blades were not turning under power otherwise they would have been damaged more extensively. After the initial impact it does appear that the cab settled into the building. The disc would have been relatively clear of obstruction until that happened and when a still turning rotor impacted something solid. The tail boom and fenestron appear to have broken off at initial impact.
The post crash evidence is that the blades were not turning under power otherwise they would have been damaged more extensively. After the initial impact it does appear that the cab settled into the building. The disc would have been relatively clear of obstruction until that happened and when a still turning rotor impacted something solid. The tail boom and fenestron appear to have broken off at initial impact.
Last edited by Munnyspinner; 5th Dec 2013 at 07:03.
Bit of info that was in the SIN from EC.
As the 4 main rotor blades are still attached to the main rotor mast, a crack in the mast is very unlikely at the origin of the accident.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I think we knew it was very unlikely to have been the mr hub, right from the first pictures.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Descent Angle
I have restricted my comments to the building structure and local area as thats all I know, but if you professionals look at the photographs, which show the flue on the roof, the remaining AC unit and the street lighting columns, by my reckoning the helicopter in the last 20 metres (or higher) was descending at an angle of between 45 and 90 degrees, if it was not, it would have damaged or destroyed some of these obstructions. I dont know whether this gives you something to look into or not.
PS I am not a journalist.
PS I am not a journalist.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Agaricus,
"Why do I have to reiterate the unlikeliness of "bird strike on the fenestron" fer chrissakes? At 120 Kts it ill hardly affect anything even if such a fantastical scenario could have happened. It certainly wouldn't result in the helo coming out of the sky like a fish supper. Do some people not understand what a fenestron is or how it works? If not, avast posting please. Let's keep this thread to real rotorheads, not sim walts please."
Unlikely does not equal impossible.
Do you know the aircraft was doing 120 kts???
If it had been close to the hover when the event occurred, then personally I think it would have been very much like a "fish supper"!
Yes, I am familiar with a fenestron, thanks, and I have spent many hours in the hover at night over even less-welcoming built up areas with a fenestron behind me (and only one engine to boot). I have also spent many hours doing the same job these guys were doing in a similar aircraft (hence my handle). So, please save your insults for people you know.
"Why do I have to reiterate the unlikeliness of "bird strike on the fenestron" fer chrissakes? At 120 Kts it ill hardly affect anything even if such a fantastical scenario could have happened. It certainly wouldn't result in the helo coming out of the sky like a fish supper. Do some people not understand what a fenestron is or how it works? If not, avast posting please. Let's keep this thread to real rotorheads, not sim walts please."
Unlikely does not equal impossible.
Do you know the aircraft was doing 120 kts???
If it had been close to the hover when the event occurred, then personally I think it would have been very much like a "fish supper"!
Yes, I am familiar with a fenestron, thanks, and I have spent many hours in the hover at night over even less-welcoming built up areas with a fenestron behind me (and only one engine to boot). I have also spent many hours doing the same job these guys were doing in a similar aircraft (hence my handle). So, please save your insults for people you know.
Unlikely does not equal impossible.
Do you know the aircraft was doing 120 kts???
If it had been close to the hover when the event occurred, then personally I think it would have been very much like a "fish supper"!
Yes, I am familiar with a fenestron, thanks, and I have spent many hours in the hover at night over even less-welcoming built up areas with a fenestron behind me (and only one engine to boot). I have also spent many hours doing the same job these guys were doing in a similar aircraft
Do you know the aircraft was doing 120 kts???
If it had been close to the hover when the event occurred, then personally I think it would have been very much like a "fish supper"!
Yes, I am familiar with a fenestron, thanks, and I have spent many hours in the hover at night over even less-welcoming built up areas with a fenestron behind me (and only one engine to boot). I have also spent many hours doing the same job these guys were doing in a similar aircraft
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plod, sorry, no insult intended, apologies. Shouldn't post post pub. There are an awful lot of wild and unconsidered theories flying about here which bear no resemblance to (what few) facts we know which is just clouding the water.
Unlikeliness does not equal impossible which is why I wrote "unlikely" instead of "impossible".
As I have stated before we were told the aircraft was transiting from a job back to base and it doesn't do that in the hover, so what speed do you suppose it would have been travelling at? Of course it might have transitioned to a hover to look at something it had spotted en route but again I suggest this is "unlikely" as they'd "probably" orbit first, but wouldn't they tell GLA APP which again we don't believe they did either. I would have done that in the similar aircraft I flew doing the same job...This leads me to believe the incident occurred in a transit - ie cruise speed. I can see no suggestion that it would be otherwise.
We all know what a fenestron failure can do in the hover but it's pretty hard to imagine a bird going through it in the cruise though there are other failure modes.
And as skadi said above there was no sign of bird remains visible, plus no sign of a high yaw rate upon arrival. That too tells us something.
Unlikeliness does not equal impossible which is why I wrote "unlikely" instead of "impossible".
As I have stated before we were told the aircraft was transiting from a job back to base and it doesn't do that in the hover, so what speed do you suppose it would have been travelling at? Of course it might have transitioned to a hover to look at something it had spotted en route but again I suggest this is "unlikely" as they'd "probably" orbit first, but wouldn't they tell GLA APP which again we don't believe they did either. I would have done that in the similar aircraft I flew doing the same job...This leads me to believe the incident occurred in a transit - ie cruise speed. I can see no suggestion that it would be otherwise.
We all know what a fenestron failure can do in the hover but it's pretty hard to imagine a bird going through it in the cruise though there are other failure modes.
And as skadi said above there was no sign of bird remains visible, plus no sign of a high yaw rate upon arrival. That too tells us something.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 5th Dec 2013 at 10:57.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Coventry
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know everyone keeps repeating that witnesses are unreliable, but there were 120 or so in the pub, none of which have reported hearing engine noise. Neither did the editor of the Scottish Sun. If the courts or police took the view that some do on here there would no point calling any witnesses to any trial.
A witness who heard the police helicopter shortly before the crash reported an "odd noise as if the engine was misfiring, with the rotor blades sounding fine for several beats before an odd metallic grating noise could be heard", The Guardian reports. Aviation consultant Struan Johnston told the paper that the noises were "consistent" with the helicopter's gearbox transmission system "breaking up".
Creamer,
"The resulting enquiry will probably suggest changes to the standard operating procedures. Police SOPs, I believe, are quite liberal even over built up areas. I can understand that for serious incidents anything goes".
Could you please explain why you believe this? Or, better still, why not have a look through the 270 odd pages of the CAP612 and be more specific? Most of us now work under the NPAS Ops Manual which is about three times the size. I can assure you that "Anything" does not go for serious incidents - simply a matter of "Priority" over other traffic - the aircraft Captain is still responsible for the conduct of the flight and it is his/her licence that will be taken if it all goes wrong - there's no claiming "it wasn't me" when you are flying a helicopter painted in high conspicuity colours and have "POLICE" in big letters down the side - everybody knows it was "you". We get OPC'd, LPC'd and line checked as much as anybody else does.
"In the case of a transit or lesser events then defensive flying has to come into play. Its not like your PPL(H) flying or regular military flying. Sadly mechanical failures don't respect any of this"
Why are you assuming that we don't fly defensively anyway? Do you not think that we and our crews all want to go home in one piece at the end of the shift? Has it escaped your attention that UK police ops are all twin engined, IFR capable machines and not piston singles?
I don't yet know what caused this aircraft to fall out of the sky. I have some facts, I have some ideas and some experience to base them on. The only thing I'm certain of is that a very experienced pilot lost the fight with gravity. Like everyone else I want to know why it happened but, unlike the Walts, Trolls, armchair experts and Journos skulking around this thread, it's because I want the ammunition/information I need to keep my crew and I safe as we go about our job - not to sell a few more papers or be able to say "See, I told you so". Today is my first day off since the accident. I have been doing the same job the crew of SP99 were doing when they met their fate and flown some 16 hours whilst doing it. As soon as the professionals at the AAIB have something to tell me I will be glad to hear it - then I can deal with it, learn from it and reassure the crew that our aircraft is still safe to fly and persuade the wife that she doesn't have to up the insurance.
"FAA QHI 3000 Hours Helicopters. 10000 Total".
UK ATPL(H) 8700 Hours Helicopters, 3600 EC135 in the Police Role, 45 hours Chipmunk. (Those in the know will understand).
"The resulting enquiry will probably suggest changes to the standard operating procedures. Police SOPs, I believe, are quite liberal even over built up areas. I can understand that for serious incidents anything goes".
Could you please explain why you believe this? Or, better still, why not have a look through the 270 odd pages of the CAP612 and be more specific? Most of us now work under the NPAS Ops Manual which is about three times the size. I can assure you that "Anything" does not go for serious incidents - simply a matter of "Priority" over other traffic - the aircraft Captain is still responsible for the conduct of the flight and it is his/her licence that will be taken if it all goes wrong - there's no claiming "it wasn't me" when you are flying a helicopter painted in high conspicuity colours and have "POLICE" in big letters down the side - everybody knows it was "you". We get OPC'd, LPC'd and line checked as much as anybody else does.
"In the case of a transit or lesser events then defensive flying has to come into play. Its not like your PPL(H) flying or regular military flying. Sadly mechanical failures don't respect any of this"
Why are you assuming that we don't fly defensively anyway? Do you not think that we and our crews all want to go home in one piece at the end of the shift? Has it escaped your attention that UK police ops are all twin engined, IFR capable machines and not piston singles?
I don't yet know what caused this aircraft to fall out of the sky. I have some facts, I have some ideas and some experience to base them on. The only thing I'm certain of is that a very experienced pilot lost the fight with gravity. Like everyone else I want to know why it happened but, unlike the Walts, Trolls, armchair experts and Journos skulking around this thread, it's because I want the ammunition/information I need to keep my crew and I safe as we go about our job - not to sell a few more papers or be able to say "See, I told you so". Today is my first day off since the accident. I have been doing the same job the crew of SP99 were doing when they met their fate and flown some 16 hours whilst doing it. As soon as the professionals at the AAIB have something to tell me I will be glad to hear it - then I can deal with it, learn from it and reassure the crew that our aircraft is still safe to fly and persuade the wife that she doesn't have to up the insurance.
"FAA QHI 3000 Hours Helicopters. 10000 Total".
UK ATPL(H) 8700 Hours Helicopters, 3600 EC135 in the Police Role, 45 hours Chipmunk. (Those in the know will understand).
Last edited by Fortyodd2; 5th Dec 2013 at 09:53.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no idea what has happened to the helicopter involved and will leave the technical aspects to those that are suitably experienced and qualified to assess them.
With regards to witness statements, I would never dismiss them out of hand, but they can be wildly wrong. A recent report on the Jet2 evacuation at Glasgow airport last year reported that passengers, when interviewed, had reported seeing flames and sparks coming from the engines. The "smoke" was actually condensation from the AC units and the engines were fine. The report suspected that the "flames" were in fact reflections from the anti-collision light on water spray when the reverse thrust was deployed. People under stress, with good intentions, sometimes misread the information that is presented to them.
I have been in the Clutha many times and when a band is playing it is loud. You cannot verbally communicate with the person standing next to you so hearing an approaching helicopter might have been impossible.
With regards to witness statements, I would never dismiss them out of hand, but they can be wildly wrong. A recent report on the Jet2 evacuation at Glasgow airport last year reported that passengers, when interviewed, had reported seeing flames and sparks coming from the engines. The "smoke" was actually condensation from the AC units and the engines were fine. The report suspected that the "flames" were in fact reflections from the anti-collision light on water spray when the reverse thrust was deployed. People under stress, with good intentions, sometimes misread the information that is presented to them.
I have been in the Clutha many times and when a band is playing it is loud. You cannot verbally communicate with the person standing next to you so hearing an approaching helicopter might have been impossible.
Oh dear....this is where the P of Pprune departs the scene! Too many getting too frustrated by other posts. Really, is this how we want this thread to develop. It will turn several away from Pprune and turn it into a joke.
Everyone means well - let them have their say and if you get angry with that post, bite the bullet and ignore it - simples
I offer up the "penultimate" picture presented by NORTHLIGHT Post 614 as my sole evidence that this cab hit the deck with absolutley NO fwd or sideways drift. Thus I would suggest it fell near vertically (with or without tumbling). Thus it commenced from a near zero fwd speed scenario.
There are NO witness marks depicted - showing fwd/sideways/aft movement of the main body of the aircraft across that roof. It also tells me that the a/c hit with enormous downward force - symptomatic of freefall from some considerable height without any form of arrestive action.
BBC News - In pictures: Helicopter wreckage lifted from Glasgow bar.
I for one, believe the two eye witnesses who said the a/c was quiet and the rotors were stopped.
The gearbox is still in the a/c. This tells me the rotors wound down and didn't stop suddenly. This tells me they wound down quickly. It tells me close to maximum pitch was applied to the rotors to cause this to happen. How the max pitch was applied is left to the AAIB to decide.
Should have the initial by this time next week, with luck.
I learned this morning that their ELT triggered and was picked up by the ARCC. Even though it is irrelevant in these particular circumstances - It did its job.
Everyone means well - let them have their say and if you get angry with that post, bite the bullet and ignore it - simples
I offer up the "penultimate" picture presented by NORTHLIGHT Post 614 as my sole evidence that this cab hit the deck with absolutley NO fwd or sideways drift. Thus I would suggest it fell near vertically (with or without tumbling). Thus it commenced from a near zero fwd speed scenario.
There are NO witness marks depicted - showing fwd/sideways/aft movement of the main body of the aircraft across that roof. It also tells me that the a/c hit with enormous downward force - symptomatic of freefall from some considerable height without any form of arrestive action.
BBC News - In pictures: Helicopter wreckage lifted from Glasgow bar.
I for one, believe the two eye witnesses who said the a/c was quiet and the rotors were stopped.
The gearbox is still in the a/c. This tells me the rotors wound down and didn't stop suddenly. This tells me they wound down quickly. It tells me close to maximum pitch was applied to the rotors to cause this to happen. How the max pitch was applied is left to the AAIB to decide.
Should have the initial by this time next week, with luck.
I learned this morning that their ELT triggered and was picked up by the ARCC. Even though it is irrelevant in these particular circumstances - It did its job.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: nice house
Age: 57
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi everyone,
What continues to amaze me is the fact that some posters get so frustrated in their replies.
I thought this forum is for all rotorheads, wether you're an old experienced dog who has seenit all, or a low timer, eager to learn something. Some of them even feel the need to include a copy of their logbook to add more weight to whatever they have written.
An incident like this creates a great disturbance in, especially, the EC135 community. (I'm a member of this community for more than 10 years......Sh*t,.....now I'm one of them...
We are all eager to find out what exactly went wrong, but fact is.....we only have a very limited set of details. Most things written here are pure speculation, some of it is pure nonsense ( in my opinion), and maybe the truth about what happened has already been discussed, but that's all ok.....it triggers you to think about the tools you work with (whether you're a professional, a PPL, or whatever)
So I should think that even if you disagree with someones remarks, there is no reason whatsoever to grill them publicly.
I hope I didn't make some stupid remark, or insult someone.....I apologize beforehand.
Ehhh.........3000+ PIC, 1500+ EC135........sorry about that!!
Ok TC I was writing my post when yours appeared on the thread.....apparently you beat me to it....
What continues to amaze me is the fact that some posters get so frustrated in their replies.
I thought this forum is for all rotorheads, wether you're an old experienced dog who has seenit all, or a low timer, eager to learn something. Some of them even feel the need to include a copy of their logbook to add more weight to whatever they have written.
An incident like this creates a great disturbance in, especially, the EC135 community. (I'm a member of this community for more than 10 years......Sh*t,.....now I'm one of them...
We are all eager to find out what exactly went wrong, but fact is.....we only have a very limited set of details. Most things written here are pure speculation, some of it is pure nonsense ( in my opinion), and maybe the truth about what happened has already been discussed, but that's all ok.....it triggers you to think about the tools you work with (whether you're a professional, a PPL, or whatever)
So I should think that even if you disagree with someones remarks, there is no reason whatsoever to grill them publicly.
I hope I didn't make some stupid remark, or insult someone.....I apologize beforehand.
Ehhh.........3000+ PIC, 1500+ EC135........sorry about that!!
Ok TC I was writing my post when yours appeared on the thread.....apparently you beat me to it....
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
There are so many possibilities that have not even been considered here yet - some more improbable than others, but not impossible.
How about something (maybe a set of binos, or the RFM or something) in the cockpit got stuck under the collective at precisely the most inopportune moment, so it wouldnt go down when needed. That could very quickly cause the loss of the Nr and become irrecoverable almost immediately when trying to autorotate. (If we think the engines were off for whatever reason).
How about something (maybe a set of binos, or the RFM or something) in the cockpit got stuck under the collective at precisely the most inopportune moment, so it wouldnt go down when needed. That could very quickly cause the loss of the Nr and become irrecoverable almost immediately when trying to autorotate. (If we think the engines were off for whatever reason).
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
A bird strike on the fenestron, for goodness sake!
I have concluded that there are a few Sir Arthur Conan Doyle readers on this thread;
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four
I have concluded that there are a few Sir Arthur Conan Doyle readers on this thread;
"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of the Four
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
TC
The collective override stop should be a good indicator of this.
It tells me close to maximum pitch was applied to the rotors to cause this to happen. How the max pitch was applied is left to the AAIB to decide.