Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sasless, earlier posts!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you forgotten that the skids were quite damaged, so I guess getting a sample from a level airframe would not be as easy as you seem to think. Yes of course they'd know to level it, perhaps that's just what they did when it got to Farnborough.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Cool, an expert.
I've pasted the post for everyone's entertainment, just incase it gets deleted later.
I've pasted the post for everyone's entertainment, just incase it gets deleted later.
They'd need to have checked the fuel contents in all tanks before removing the a/c from the roof otherwise fuel might have leaked in transit and they'd never have known. No way would they have used a monkey with a wrench to drain the tanks. It would have been an aircraft engineer licensed on type who would have known which components are normally level (i.e. spirit level) and then emptied all tanks in the appropriate way. Anything else would have been gross negligence. The engineer would have drained the tanks and felt and smelt around for spillage, if any, then replaced drain plugs. If they'd have had to cut to access the plugs, that's what they'd have done. Fuel is such an obvious potential reason for an a/c to force-land they would have seen to it that this was done with the greatest care, even if they'd have had to work for three days.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Uk
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as hidden in the detail is the warning going off early, the fuel not actually being low and at no time were there any empty tanks.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Thanks for the link 
Are you sure the ac that had the fault leading up to the checks ran out of fuel?
So how much water was found in the ac tanks?
Can you link us to what actually happened please. Clearly grapevines are different!
Are you sure the ac that had the fault leading up to the checks ran out of fuel?
So how much water was found in the ac tanks?
Can you link us to what actually happened please. Clearly grapevines are different!
Last edited by SilsoeSid; 1st Jan 2014 at 22:59. Reason: Grapevine confirmation
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cool, an expert....I've pasted the post for everyone's entertainment, just incase it gets deleted later.
Fuel exhaustion means no fuel getting to the engines.
That is "Starvation" if there is fuel available.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Auckland
Age: 81
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fuel starvation
The engines were closed down or failed. To both fail implies no fuel in the supply tanks.
Three possibilities: (1) The appropriate pump was switched off. (2) That pump was switched on but failed. (3) That pump was working but the fuel went through a nrv instead of into the supply tanks.
Any other possibilities?
Three possibilities: (1) The appropriate pump was switched off. (2) That pump was switched on but failed. (3) That pump was working but the fuel went through a nrv instead of into the supply tanks.
Any other possibilities?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JT2 -- No, it has not been stated explicitly that the engines were running. See http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf
Also worth noting the very sloppy English in the same report:
Who certified the amount 400kg of fuel? How, and when?
Also worth noting the very sloppy English in the same report:
"On board were the pilot and two police observers. The pilot had been
informed that there were no technical issues with the
helicopter, which contained 400 kg of fuel"
informed that there were no technical issues with the
helicopter, which contained 400 kg of fuel"
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: UK
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
pie Chaser,
I have looked at the fuel diagram and If I read correctly, the pilot posters suggest that with a nose up attitude, the fore pump in the main tank may be isolated or it will run dry, using the aft pump only.
The suggestion is that the check valve on the fore pump was jammed open so the fuel was merely being pumped from the back to the front of the bulk storage tank.
although the diagram doesn't show the pipe sizes, I would still expect fuel to reach the individual engine tanks, as there is far less restriction here, the pipework is shorter and it doesn't need to overcome a check valve, which I still don't accept as being jammed fully open, although it may well have been passing.
I would also have expected the pipework supplying the 2 engine tanks to be equal, I.e self balancing and not the unequal tee arrangement shown, though I'm not from aviation though as you can probably tell from my terminology!
also, I believe this is a German designed machine, and they are known for engineering clumsiness rather than simple and elegant engineering solutions, so they may just run higher pressures and not bother with hydraulic balance, as the tanks overspill anyway, in normal and single failure modes, it does work.
I have looked at the fuel diagram and If I read correctly, the pilot posters suggest that with a nose up attitude, the fore pump in the main tank may be isolated or it will run dry, using the aft pump only.
The suggestion is that the check valve on the fore pump was jammed open so the fuel was merely being pumped from the back to the front of the bulk storage tank.
although the diagram doesn't show the pipe sizes, I would still expect fuel to reach the individual engine tanks, as there is far less restriction here, the pipework is shorter and it doesn't need to overcome a check valve, which I still don't accept as being jammed fully open, although it may well have been passing.
I would also have expected the pipework supplying the 2 engine tanks to be equal, I.e self balancing and not the unequal tee arrangement shown, though I'm not from aviation though as you can probably tell from my terminology!
also, I believe this is a German designed machine, and they are known for engineering clumsiness rather than simple and elegant engineering solutions, so they may just run higher pressures and not bother with hydraulic balance, as the tanks overspill anyway, in normal and single failure modes, it does work.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Lemain;
That would have been found in the tech log, usually filled in by the duty pilot immediately after the last refuel. I don't know how the Scottish ac tech log is printed, but NPAS tech logs have boxes for, landing qty, litres in, kgs in & post refuel/next start qty.
Nothing to do with sarky arrogance, just the post you made, I think, was quite funny 
Sorry all, I was thinking of the 'unavailable fuel' side of the discussion Fuel starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Who certified the amount 400kg of fuel? How, and when?"
Are you for real? Given your identity is no secret and employers these days search Internet forums and online social media, this kind of sarky arrogance is not going to do your career a lot of good but that's your business. Politeness, respect, tolerance,...team-work,....?
Sorry all, I was thinking of the 'unavailable fuel' side of the discussion Fuel starvation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glasgow
Age: 77
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
German designed machine ... engineering clumsiness
I believe this is a German designed machine, and they are known for engineering clumsiness
Anyone else feel this is going round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round and .....
Of course it all goes round and round ... except when it doesn't!
The discussion about where fuel goes and how it gets there in the EC135 has been most interesting to this non-EC135 person. For all the disagreements and such, thanks to you all for helping one to understand all that.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would have been found in the tech log, usually filled in by the duty pilot immediately after the last refuel. I don't know how the Scottish ac tech log is printed, but NPAS tech logs have boxes for, landing qty, litres in, kgs in & post refuel/next start qty.
Nothing to do with sarky arrogance, just the post you made, I think, was quite funny 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
So by that last post, you are saying that every aircraft in the world is unsafe. You read the dials, if a problem occurs on a transatlantic flight....... oooops!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, of course not. Go back to Sid's post 1671 for context. A lot depends on the a/c and instrumentation and the accuracy of it. Fuel uplifted is just one factor and is absurdly confused by kg vs l.
I believe that mass (kg) should be the only measure in use by people. In the old days, before modern electronics, gauges almost invariably read volumetrically, and the kg computed from that. Given that there is a 20% difference between vol/mass this is an accident waiting to happen when some poor sod has his mind on other things....it happens. It'll be safer when all imperial measurements go for good, as well.
We are talking about an accident that happened when seemingly it shouldn't have. These are reliable a/c in service round the world and generally well-liked by pilots (usually the best endorsement).
Coming back to the actual question - do we know for certain that there was 400kg fuel on board? No. On the contrary we can be sure that there was not exactly 400kg (other than by sheer chance with long odds). How much more or less than 400?
I believe that mass (kg) should be the only measure in use by people. In the old days, before modern electronics, gauges almost invariably read volumetrically, and the kg computed from that. Given that there is a 20% difference between vol/mass this is an accident waiting to happen when some poor sod has his mind on other things....it happens. It'll be safer when all imperial measurements go for good, as well.
We are talking about an accident that happened when seemingly it shouldn't have. These are reliable a/c in service round the world and generally well-liked by pilots (usually the best endorsement).
Coming back to the actual question - do we know for certain that there was 400kg fuel on board? No. On the contrary we can be sure that there was not exactly 400kg (other than by sheer chance with long odds). How much more or less than 400?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Lemain, do you drive a car ...... with a fuel gauge?
How often do you calibrate it
Do you drive on motorways?
"Before setting off. You should ensure that you have sufficient fuel before commencing your journey, especially if it includes motorway driving. It can be dangerous to lose power when driving in traffic."
https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-mot...setting-off-97
How often do you calibrate it
Do you drive on motorways?
"Before setting off. You should ensure that you have sufficient fuel before commencing your journey, especially if it includes motorway driving. It can be dangerous to lose power when driving in traffic."
https://www.gov.uk/rules-drivers-mot...setting-off-97
Cool, an expert....I've pasted the post for everyone's entertainment, just incase it gets deleted later.
The facts:
There were no mechanical defects found in any part of the drive train during the initial investigation.
The engine showed no signs of failure.
The pilot was not incapacitated.
Bond grounded the sister machine immediately the AAIB started investigating an issue with misreading gauges.
The fuel was low, at best (the AAIB will have drained all fuel from the wreck before transporting it to Farnborough).
Fuel exhaustion means you've got empty tanks.
Fuel starvation means the engines are deprived of sufficient usable fuel enabling them to function (maybe due to fuel exhaustion).
I think the AAIB will release its report soon, describing a fuel starvation problem; I think the gauges were showing more fuel than was available. Despite that and given that there would (should) have been a short period between engine #2 and #1 flaming out, the questions remain: what were the red FUEL LOW warning lights doing and what did the pilot do (or not do) about it because whatever happened, it all happened rather quickly.
It seems all possibilities have now been considered on this forum, so further speculation is probably futile; let's wait and see what the report says...
Lemain,
So, do you know where we can get a fuel pump that dispenses in kgs?
Only asking 'cos we've been told more than once that it's Gallons or Litres only - which is why, in the door pocket of the aircraft there's a laminated card with the Kgs to Litres conversion on it to make sure that we put the right amount in. Then, at the end of each month when the Senior Pilot does the QA checks on the tech logs, one of the items to be checked is that the litres vs kgs figures do actually reconcile and add up to a "normal" average fuel consumption.
Sorry JT, we crossed!
So, do you know where we can get a fuel pump that dispenses in kgs?
Only asking 'cos we've been told more than once that it's Gallons or Litres only - which is why, in the door pocket of the aircraft there's a laminated card with the Kgs to Litres conversion on it to make sure that we put the right amount in. Then, at the end of each month when the Senior Pilot does the QA checks on the tech logs, one of the items to be checked is that the litres vs kgs figures do actually reconcile and add up to a "normal" average fuel consumption.
Sorry JT, we crossed!