F-HPUX accident just now
Thread Starter
F-HPUX accident just now
Crap, I’m heading back to he show to catch departures and been told the Enstrom has crashed into M40 on take off,
i saw it being towed last night after show ended
fingers crossed for the injured
cheers
i saw it being towed last night after show ended
fingers crossed for the injured
cheers
Seems par for the course.
We had one over here that ended up in a car park enroute to a show after it stopped producing horsepowers.
They are famously known for spending more time inside than out.
We had one over here that ended up in a car park enroute to a show after it stopped producing horsepowers.
They are famously known for spending more time inside than out.
being reported as hitting a car and 3 injured.
https://news.sky.com/story/madrid-he...-road-13020207
A helicopter has crashed on a motorway ring road in Madrid, hitting a car and leaving three people injured.
Two people were in the helicopter when it came down in the Spanish capital - one was able to leave on foot while the other had to be pulled from the wreckage by firefighters.
Both were injured in the crash, as was the driver of the car hit by the helicopter, emergency services said.
One of the crash survivors had a light head injury, another seems to have a broken femur and the third suffered light injuries, the spokesperson added.
Two people were in the helicopter when it came down in the Spanish capital - one was able to leave on foot while the other had to be pulled from the wreckage by firefighters.
Both were injured in the crash, as was the driver of the car hit by the helicopter, emergency services said.
One of the crash survivors had a light head injury, another seems to have a broken femur and the third suffered light injuries, the spokesperson added.
The following users liked this post:
Just to remind everyone that the Enstrom has probably the best safety record in the world !
super safe handling characteristics and very reliable . Yes I have owned two over the years …
super safe handling characteristics and very reliable . Yes I have owned two over the years …
The following users liked this post:
"Just a pilot"
A twin-engine aircraft has twice the likelihood of an engine failure, perhaps more depending on specifics of installation. The remaining power producing engine is not always enough to continue flight. Even when continued OEI flight is possible, often the best outcome possible requires sacrificing the airframe to maximize survival. IE- you're in a mountain valley, one engine fails but you can continue flight with remaining engine with insufficient power to crest the ridges and insufficient fuel to fly around the mountains.
I guess you are mixing commercial ops rules with private ops.. you are thinking of CAT in a PC3 as opposed to the what this guy was doing.. taking off thus allowed to be where he was..
The following users liked this post:
A twin-engine aircraft has twice the likelihood of an engine failure, perhaps more depending on specifics of installation. The remaining power producing engine is not always enough to continue flight. Even when continued OEI flight is possible, often the best outcome possible requires sacrificing the airframe to maximize survival. IE- you're in a mountain valley, one engine fails but you can continue flight with remaining engine with insufficient power to crest the ridges and insufficient fuel to fly around the mountains.
The following 6 users liked this post by 212man:
Quite apart from your baseless assumption that the problem was engine failure.
In which case you seem to be telling us that you think Enstrom builds aircraft engines too!
Wow!
Even when continued OEI flight is possible, often the best outcome possible requires sacrificing the airframe to maximize survival.
How often does any light twin fail to fly oei once it's accelerated much past translational lift? Only in the most extreme and unusual circumstances, I suggest.
"Often"? Seriously?
Once again more like "in the rarest of cases.."
Last edited by meleagertoo; 3rd Dec 2023 at 12:27.
Devil 49 has a valid point.
Let's take the MBB BO-105 Helicopter for example.....or say a Sikorsky S-58T with Dash 3 engines.....both of which I have flown and love dearly as they are icons in the Helicopter World.
Both had two engines...they both fly fine on two but when they revert to single engined helicopters they incur significant performance handicaps.
Take both of them to elevations and ambient temperatures that we all can agree would be "hot and high" and one is confronted with having reduce useful load weights if you stick to OEI limitations.
Reality is if you do so in utility work you shall soon go broke....financially. One should endeavor to be carrying that excess weight on the cargo hook otherwise the broke part might just be the aircraft and parts of you.
I was once offered a job flying a 105 on an EMS contract in a mountainous area of the East Coast....in the vicinity of where the highest mountain on the East Coast is located.
As I contemplated the wages offered and the idea of flying around in that mountainous area on hot summer nights I quickly realized the pay was not worth it....and politely declined the offer.
Even if you use the philosophy offered by Devil 49 which I would describe as the "Drift down to a run on landing somewhere"....you have to have two things to be successful at that....Height and a place within that glide down distance you can land on safely.
Yes...fly at a weight that affords you full single engine flight and two can be better than one....assuming one does not take out the other before you do on the4 landing....or you are confronted with what Devil 49 describes.
He is exactly right when he says the airframe is a reusable container to be used to safeguard the contents....you and the passengers.
I also suggest that helicopter engines are like Geese....they are life partners and one usually dies shortly after the other. (I suppose the CH-53E is an exceptions to that rule having three engines)
Either way....single or twin...following an engine failure you are going to have to land the helicopter....as there is not one in orbit yet. (well maybe on Mars perhaps).
The style and manner of landing depends on a lot of variables so trying to state with complete accuracy which has its advantage over the other remains a topic of debate.
I prefer the Two Engine kind myself.....but would not flinch to fly a four engine helicopter and hope the laws of probability were on my side of the equation.
I have had engine failures in both singles and twins....and found the twins to be far more a leisurely event.
One afternoon I did experience what amounted to a dual engine failure atop a pinnacle that prevented a landing from the hover that was a nearly religious event and not recommended to others.
What I see in the photo is an excellent bit of airmanship.....that helicopter landed in the spot it did between two road ways with high obstacles all around the landing spot.
The interesting part of this accident investigation will be the Pilot's account and an explanation why all those open areas were not possible landing sites.
The cause will be pretty straight forward as the aircraft and pilot are in pretty good shape.
Let's take the MBB BO-105 Helicopter for example.....or say a Sikorsky S-58T with Dash 3 engines.....both of which I have flown and love dearly as they are icons in the Helicopter World.
Both had two engines...they both fly fine on two but when they revert to single engined helicopters they incur significant performance handicaps.
Take both of them to elevations and ambient temperatures that we all can agree would be "hot and high" and one is confronted with having reduce useful load weights if you stick to OEI limitations.
Reality is if you do so in utility work you shall soon go broke....financially. One should endeavor to be carrying that excess weight on the cargo hook otherwise the broke part might just be the aircraft and parts of you.
I was once offered a job flying a 105 on an EMS contract in a mountainous area of the East Coast....in the vicinity of where the highest mountain on the East Coast is located.
As I contemplated the wages offered and the idea of flying around in that mountainous area on hot summer nights I quickly realized the pay was not worth it....and politely declined the offer.
Even if you use the philosophy offered by Devil 49 which I would describe as the "Drift down to a run on landing somewhere"....you have to have two things to be successful at that....Height and a place within that glide down distance you can land on safely.
Yes...fly at a weight that affords you full single engine flight and two can be better than one....assuming one does not take out the other before you do on the4 landing....or you are confronted with what Devil 49 describes.
He is exactly right when he says the airframe is a reusable container to be used to safeguard the contents....you and the passengers.
I also suggest that helicopter engines are like Geese....they are life partners and one usually dies shortly after the other. (I suppose the CH-53E is an exceptions to that rule having three engines)
Either way....single or twin...following an engine failure you are going to have to land the helicopter....as there is not one in orbit yet. (well maybe on Mars perhaps).
The style and manner of landing depends on a lot of variables so trying to state with complete accuracy which has its advantage over the other remains a topic of debate.
I prefer the Two Engine kind myself.....but would not flinch to fly a four engine helicopter and hope the laws of probability were on my side of the equation.
I have had engine failures in both singles and twins....and found the twins to be far more a leisurely event.
One afternoon I did experience what amounted to a dual engine failure atop a pinnacle that prevented a landing from the hover that was a nearly religious event and not recommended to others.
What I see in the photo is an excellent bit of airmanship.....that helicopter landed in the spot it did between two road ways with high obstacles all around the landing spot.
The interesting part of this accident investigation will be the Pilot's account and an explanation why all those open areas were not possible landing sites.
The cause will be pretty straight forward as the aircraft and pilot are in pretty good shape.
Meleagertoo, the airframe is so friging heavy that the poor Lycoming has the bollocks thrashed to get the piece of lard into the air, not surprising it fails, so while Enstrom build good airframes they are too heavy for the engine power.
you're in a mountain valley, one engine fails but you can continue flight with remaining engine with insufficient power to crest the ridges and insufficient fuel to fly around the mountains
On a base check the Chief gave a flight to plan IMC between A and B, OAT, AUW etc etc. Had to tell him not possible as the LSALT was above the single engine capability in the stated atmospheric conditions and AUW. Easiest flight ever.
You sound like yet another experience-free knocker of Enstroms.