Blackhawk Accident
Thread Starter
Blackhawk Accident
Just saw some footage of a Blackhawk accident on morning news. The accident occurred on a mountain side, in the snow; end result is aircraft coming to rest on its side after a number of rolls through the snow.
The clip provides an incredible, clear view of the accident.
I hope that all involved are OK.
Gibbo
The clip provides an incredible, clear view of the accident.
I hope that all involved are OK.
Gibbo
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, according to a CNN, one of the crew is in a critical condition.
GOVERNMENT CAMP, Oregon (CNN)
GOVERNMENT CAMP, Oregon (CNN)
A mission to rescue trapped climbers atop Mount Hood turned into disaster Thursday when a military helicopter crashed on a snowy slope.
The chopper, an Air Force Reserve Pave Hawk, slowly twirled out of control and crashed onto the mountainside. Its rotor blades broke apart and the chopper rolled over several times as it slid downhill.
The helicopter was carrying four people, one of whom was in critical condition after the crash, said Krista Vasquez of CNN affiliate KGW-TV, which captured the crash live.
At least one person was thrown from the aircraft and was run over by the chopper as it rolled in the snow.
The rescuers had been trying to reach three climbers who died and four others who were trapped in a crevasse after they fell while on a climbing expedition earlier in the day, a Clackamas County fire official said.
The climbers were with others in a group just 800 feet from Mount Hood's 11,000 foot summit when they fell, Clackamas County fire Capt. Jamie Karn said. Weather conditions in the Cascade Mountains at the time of the accident were "absolutely beautiful -- a clear, sunny day," Karn said.
No details on the ages or nationalities of the climbers were available.
Rescue workers on the mountainside went immediately to the wreckage to tend to survivors.
"We had one of our rescue helicopters go down, we're not sure of their condition," said Oregon Air National Guard Sgt. Nick Watt. "A rescue operation for the downed chopper was under way."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd told CNN the gleaming white snow could have diminished the pilot's depth perception, causing him to maneuver the helicopter too close to the mountainside. At such a high altitude, he added, it may become difficult for a helicopter to gain needed lift.
The chopper, an Air Force Reserve Pave Hawk, slowly twirled out of control and crashed onto the mountainside. Its rotor blades broke apart and the chopper rolled over several times as it slid downhill.
The helicopter was carrying four people, one of whom was in critical condition after the crash, said Krista Vasquez of CNN affiliate KGW-TV, which captured the crash live.
At least one person was thrown from the aircraft and was run over by the chopper as it rolled in the snow.
The rescuers had been trying to reach three climbers who died and four others who were trapped in a crevasse after they fell while on a climbing expedition earlier in the day, a Clackamas County fire official said.
The climbers were with others in a group just 800 feet from Mount Hood's 11,000 foot summit when they fell, Clackamas County fire Capt. Jamie Karn said. Weather conditions in the Cascade Mountains at the time of the accident were "absolutely beautiful -- a clear, sunny day," Karn said.
No details on the ages or nationalities of the climbers were available.
Rescue workers on the mountainside went immediately to the wreckage to tend to survivors.
"We had one of our rescue helicopters go down, we're not sure of their condition," said Oregon Air National Guard Sgt. Nick Watt. "A rescue operation for the downed chopper was under way."
Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd told CNN the gleaming white snow could have diminished the pilot's depth perception, causing him to maneuver the helicopter too close to the mountainside. At such a high altitude, he added, it may become difficult for a helicopter to gain needed lift.
Last edited by Heliport; 30th May 2002 at 22:31.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HH-60G Pave Hawk
Primary function: Combat search and rescue and military operations other than war in day, night or marginal weather conditions
Speed: 184 mph
Armament: Two 7.62mm machine guns
Crew: Two pilots, one flight engineer and one gunner
Source: U.S. Navy
Primary function: Combat search and rescue and military operations other than war in day, night or marginal weather conditions
Speed: 184 mph
Armament: Two 7.62mm machine guns
Crew: Two pilots, one flight engineer and one gunner
Source: U.S. Navy
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
Heliport,
Your picture is actually of a Seahawk, I think.
The Pave has a refuelling boom on the stbd side of the nose and the normal tailwheel at the extreme rear of the fuselage.
Your picture is actually of a Seahawk, I think.
The Pave has a refuelling boom on the stbd side of the nose and the normal tailwheel at the extreme rear of the fuselage.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are, of course, right!
I lifted the pic from the CNN site without checking.
Humble apologies.
Thrust: 1,560-1,630 shaft horsepower, each engine
Height: 16 feet, 8 inches
Speed: 184 mph
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 22,000 pounds
Armament: Two 7.62mm machineguns
Length: 64 feet, 8 inches
Ceiling: 14,200 feet
Range: 445 statute miles; 504 nautical miles (unlimited with air refueling)
Crew: Four (two pilots, one flight engineer and one gunner)
Date Deployed: 1982
Now that we have the pic resolved, I hope the crew, especially the man critically injured, will be in our thoughts and prayers.
Humble apologies.
Thrust: 1,560-1,630 shaft horsepower, each engine
Height: 16 feet, 8 inches
Speed: 184 mph
Maximum Takeoff Weight: 22,000 pounds
Armament: Two 7.62mm machineguns
Length: 64 feet, 8 inches
Ceiling: 14,200 feet
Range: 445 statute miles; 504 nautical miles (unlimited with air refueling)
Crew: Four (two pilots, one flight engineer and one gunner)
Date Deployed: 1982
Now that we have the pic resolved, I hope the crew, especially the man critically injured, will be in our thoughts and prayers.
Last edited by Heliport; 31st May 2002 at 00:28.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sad stuff indeed. Same thing (UH-60), almost to the elevation happened on Mt Shasta ( California) a few years ago.
Unknown to me the cause of either accident, but Im betting Altitude/Experience plays a big factor, even for such a good machine.
Unknown to me the cause of either accident, but Im betting Altitude/Experience plays a big factor, even for such a good machine.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve 76..... Could be your right, but I finally saw the pictures and as you see the aircraft facing the mountain is because what looks like it spun around. That sort of indicates Loss of tail rotor Effectiveness and back to Altitude/Experience...
Where is Nick Lappos or Lu Zuckerman (with one N) for an opinion... but again I think Nick will have to stay away from this based on where he works....Understandably so....
Where is Nick Lappos or Lu Zuckerman (with one N) for an opinion... but again I think Nick will have to stay away from this based on where he works....Understandably so....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest BBC reports:
All crew in a serious condition - one thought to be critically injured.
The exact cause of the crash is still unclear - not surprisingly.
The weather was sunny and winds were calm. The helicopter dropped off a rescuer and equipment above the crevasse and then started to lose altitude. Its refuelling probe got caught in the snow, according to officials - causing the helicopter to career sideways down the mountain. The rotor blades sheered off and the helicopter rolled over 300m (1,000 ft) before coming to rest.
Does anyone have experience of high altitude ops in snowcovered mountains?
Please no speculation about the possible cause of this sad accident - just general comments about difficulties faced in those conditions.
Hope all the crew pull through.
All crew in a serious condition - one thought to be critically injured.
The exact cause of the crash is still unclear - not surprisingly.
The weather was sunny and winds were calm. The helicopter dropped off a rescuer and equipment above the crevasse and then started to lose altitude. Its refuelling probe got caught in the snow, according to officials - causing the helicopter to career sideways down the mountain. The rotor blades sheered off and the helicopter rolled over 300m (1,000 ft) before coming to rest.
Does anyone have experience of high altitude ops in snowcovered mountains?
Please no speculation about the possible cause of this sad accident - just general comments about difficulties faced in those conditions.
Hope all the crew pull through.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 60
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We can start with the obvious I suppose. Whiteout and loss of tail rotor effectiveness.
On an overcast day in snow covered hills there is little or no depth perception when working near the ground and this has been the primary cause in far too many helicopter mishaps.
Loss of tail rotor effectiveness is something most mountain pilots will have on their minds while conducting high alt ops, particularly when operating near gross weight for that altitude. I can personally atest to being very short final for a peak or pinnacle on a few occasions only to find my left foot can no longer go any further forward. Round about that time the helicopter simply wants to start rotating to the right. If one is lucky and the aircraft gives enough advance warning, the pilot may have room to lower the collective, fly away and try again.
I can't comment on high altitude resuce ops though so will leave it at that.
My two cents.
On an overcast day in snow covered hills there is little or no depth perception when working near the ground and this has been the primary cause in far too many helicopter mishaps.
Loss of tail rotor effectiveness is something most mountain pilots will have on their minds while conducting high alt ops, particularly when operating near gross weight for that altitude. I can personally atest to being very short final for a peak or pinnacle on a few occasions only to find my left foot can no longer go any further forward. Round about that time the helicopter simply wants to start rotating to the right. If one is lucky and the aircraft gives enough advance warning, the pilot may have room to lower the collective, fly away and try again.
I can't comment on high altitude resuce ops though so will leave it at that.
My two cents.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: NC USA
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appeared the nose dropped/was pushed over rather abruptly and the pilot tried to back off and get some breathing room. There was apparently minimal wind and clear skies, whateverthat means - Can any pilots tell me-in general terms-
How linear is the loss of control authority with altitude?
How could/would tail rotor effectiveness affect the pitch?
How do mountian winds behave that close to the mountain? Could mountain winds force a nose over close to the side of the mountain? I'm guessing yes- but I'm curious for better info.
Respectfully submitted.
Thanks.
Again, my thoughts are with the crew (and climbers).
Disclaimer- I'm not a punter nor a journolist.
How linear is the loss of control authority with altitude?
How could/would tail rotor effectiveness affect the pitch?
How do mountian winds behave that close to the mountain? Could mountain winds force a nose over close to the side of the mountain? I'm guessing yes- but I'm curious for better info.
Respectfully submitted.
Thanks.
Again, my thoughts are with the crew (and climbers).
Disclaimer- I'm not a punter nor a journolist.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: California
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopes for a speedy recovery for all involved.
Watching the video it appears the pilot intentionally avoided the area occupied by ground personnel/ rescuers to his (or her) own detriment.
Could have been much worse.
Watching the video it appears the pilot intentionally avoided the area occupied by ground personnel/ rescuers to his (or her) own detriment.
Could have been much worse.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looked wobbly to me prior to the LTE rotation, possible they pulled in more power then available and drooped Nr ?
Can go with loss of situational awareness in those conditions.
Can go with loss of situational awareness in those conditions.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an example to talk about tail rotors. I flew a few thousand hours in Hueys. In fact just about all models. Hueys were in two different airframes for different reasons and various engines and rotor systems. In the civilian world they are both hueys, but in airframes. 204 or 205. The 204 being the smaller of the two.....
Anyway, the UH-1H is the better hauler and designed for just that. The UH-1 (C) or (M) was usually used as a Gunship. M being the latter designation until replaced in the inventory by the AH-1.
Bottom line when some M Models were used for hauling (minus guns etc) and further up in the Hills, pilots began to run into problems. It had a shorter tailboom, and different rotor system, which made all the difference in the world. My first IP would take me up to an LZ in the Mountains and We would do 50' OGE hover turns. Sometimes it would not turn. An important lesson for sure. So much so that if I were flying at Altitude with an (H) pilot and in an (M), the first thing I would do would be to go to some Ridgeline that was safe at High Altitude and have them try and land like they would in an (H). Everything would look good until down at the last few yards. I could see the guy was trying to shove the pedal through the chin bubble and got ready for the spin.... It almost always happend and then I would take it over the other side of the ridge and gain control....It was a good lesson for those guys that even with the same engine as the (H) the difference in tailboom/Tail rotor position made all the difference in the world.
I have found that at Altitude one must be more aware of things such as this and leave avenues of escape should this begin to occur. I understand its not always possible. Enough rambling, Back to Blackhawks....
Anyway, the UH-1H is the better hauler and designed for just that. The UH-1 (C) or (M) was usually used as a Gunship. M being the latter designation until replaced in the inventory by the AH-1.
Bottom line when some M Models were used for hauling (minus guns etc) and further up in the Hills, pilots began to run into problems. It had a shorter tailboom, and different rotor system, which made all the difference in the world. My first IP would take me up to an LZ in the Mountains and We would do 50' OGE hover turns. Sometimes it would not turn. An important lesson for sure. So much so that if I were flying at Altitude with an (H) pilot and in an (M), the first thing I would do would be to go to some Ridgeline that was safe at High Altitude and have them try and land like they would in an (H). Everything would look good until down at the last few yards. I could see the guy was trying to shove the pedal through the chin bubble and got ready for the spin.... It almost always happend and then I would take it over the other side of the ridge and gain control....It was a good lesson for those guys that even with the same engine as the (H) the difference in tailboom/Tail rotor position made all the difference in the world.
I have found that at Altitude one must be more aware of things such as this and leave avenues of escape should this begin to occur. I understand its not always possible. Enough rambling, Back to Blackhawks....
The final report should be interesting to read....I watched the video clip a couple of times over a few hours....and a few thoughts came to mind. My view of the thing seemed to show the aircraft in a high...OGE hover facing the slope....he had performed one successful hoist and was back for a second one....the aircraft began to accelerate downwards, at an ever increasing rate, the main rotor blades seemed to develop a noticeable coning angle, the nose dropped and began to rotate to the right.....my impression was he may have encountered settling with power (vortex ring state) and was trying to fly out of it when the mountain got in the way. High altitude rescue flying remains a hazardous business.....my hat is off to those that take those risks in order to save others. Sikorsky sure built a tough bird to survive all that as well as it did.
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Settling with power is a good thought. Facing the slope and trying to turn out of the situation. Coning of the blades a possible indication of an attempt to climb through, but as in Settling only increasing the problem....
Interviews with the crew will be the only sure way to verify....
Heres to a speedy recovery for those guys as that was one big snowboard......
Interviews with the crew will be the only sure way to verify....
Heres to a speedy recovery for those guys as that was one big snowboard......
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
From a previous life where I flew SAR, sometimes on the S-70 (and I have flown a few hours in the Pavehawk too), I have two lines of thought but no theories.
Whiteout is quite a major problem in this type of situation. Once you face a slope like this with nil detail you have no external visual pitch, roll or yaw cues. Facing a steep slope the horizon is well above normal eye-line and possibly out of view altogether. You then need to fly instruments whilst operating adjacent to the slope, with the obvious problems that this may cause. A movement that would be corrected instantly if visual cues were available might develop into something far more serious very quickly.
Secondly, The Blackhawk series have a moveable stabilator. At low speeds this automatically moves downwards at the trailing edge (like a large flap) and back up as airspeed increases again. If the automatic facility fails there is a manual reversion. From experience, it produces a large nose down pitching moment if airspeed increases too far with a large amount of downwards droop.
Thankfully, as the crew have survived we should know what happened at some later stage.
Best wishes and a speedy recovery to all involved
Whiteout is quite a major problem in this type of situation. Once you face a slope like this with nil detail you have no external visual pitch, roll or yaw cues. Facing a steep slope the horizon is well above normal eye-line and possibly out of view altogether. You then need to fly instruments whilst operating adjacent to the slope, with the obvious problems that this may cause. A movement that would be corrected instantly if visual cues were available might develop into something far more serious very quickly.
Secondly, The Blackhawk series have a moveable stabilator. At low speeds this automatically moves downwards at the trailing edge (like a large flap) and back up as airspeed increases again. If the automatic facility fails there is a manual reversion. From experience, it produces a large nose down pitching moment if airspeed increases too far with a large amount of downwards droop.
Thankfully, as the crew have survived we should know what happened at some later stage.
Best wishes and a speedy recovery to all involved
Last edited by ShyTorque; 31st May 2002 at 18:22.