Taiwan Coast Guard Dauphin Crash
Hello Greeny,
No, on the 365N I was refering to in my post, immersion probes were not installed... and it didn't ditch anyway.
As with this poor Taipei 365, I can't tell as we don't know yet what caused this crash. But the rotation rate looks pretty much what we experience in the sim when we simulate a tail rotor shaft failure on hover.
No, on the 365N I was refering to in my post, immersion probes were not installed... and it didn't ditch anyway.
As with this poor Taipei 365, I can't tell as we don't know yet what caused this crash. But the rotation rate looks pretty much what we experience in the sim when we simulate a tail rotor shaft failure on hover.
G'd evening Greeny
Understood too (I'd read your post a little too fast) but the interesting point here, is about uncommanded floats inflation in case of accidental short circuited immertion probe ... BTW, do you know if the so called "AFDS" system is modern enough for not being afected by this fault? (that's the one we have installed on our 76s)
Understood too (I'd read your post a little too fast) but the interesting point here, is about uncommanded floats inflation in case of accidental short circuited immertion probe ... BTW, do you know if the so called "AFDS" system is modern enough for not being afected by this fault? (that's the one we have installed on our 76s)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once the rotation starts, the continued acceleration of rate as the tail comes back towards the air flow seems to me to make TR shaft failure much more likely than LTE. I have not flown this model, but a 120 will "swap ends" like others say of the Gazelle, and once weather-cocked it all slows and gets considerably less exciting. In this vid, the excitement level just kept going up and up.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if I read that right - the poor soul on the end of the hoist was flung uno into the main rotor by centrifugal force?
Jesus - that's awful...
Jesus - that's awful...
The ASC note that due to the expense, simulators were not being routinely used by NASC crew.
===>
The copilot also heard the pilot saying, “What is happening to the aircraft?”
===>
The copilot also heard the pilot saying, “What is happening to the aircraft?”
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt you can replicate the exact behaviour of a fenestron failure in a sim. It will simply not rotate in the same manner. Perhaps it will teach the correct response. perhaps it will teach a wrong response that will work in the sim but not on the aircraft (very much like offshore landings).
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Croydon
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seriously doubt you can replicate the exact behaviour of a fenestron failure in a sim. It will simply not rotate in the same manner. Perhaps it will teach the correct response. perhaps it will teach a wrong response that will work in the sim but not on the aircraft (very much like offshore landings).
I would have thought a fenestron failure at low speed is relatively simple to simulate, as the aerodynamic modeling is less complex than forward flight. It's simple physics. The Helisim EC155 always seem to behave in the manner I'd expect, and the stuck TR controls certainly replicated real world training with jammed pedals. One session will always stick in my mind, where the crew were given a TR drive failure in the cruise st 2,000 ft. They decided to do a handling check (on an aircraft that was basically still straight and level). Eventually they washed off the airspeed and the 'thing let go'. Unfortunately, we never reached any 'crash' parameters to 'red screen' and freeze. Conversely, I couldn't reach the stop button as I was hanging on to the grab handle. My colleague had been thrown on the floor from his jump seat and was covered in books and papers. It took a while before we hit the ground. Seemed pretty realistic to me!
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Ridge
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simulating tail rotor failures (as well as fenestron failures) have far fewer unknowns in the low speed regime compared to the cruise environment. In general, such failures are relatively straight forward to have the simulator produce an "acceptable" response... acceptable being defined as a response predicted by a physics-based simulation that also satisfies the expectations of pilots.
That being said, the behavior will undoubtedly not be validate against actual aircraft behavior, so there will always be room for uncertainty.
That being said, the behavior will undoubtedly not be validate against actual aircraft behavior, so there will always be room for uncertainty.
I would have thought a fenestron failure at low speed is relatively simple to simulate, as the aerodynamic modeling is less complex than forward flight. It's simple physics. The Helisim EC155 always seem to behave in the manner I'd expect, and the stuck TR controls certainly replicated real world training with jammed pedals. One session will always stick in my mind, where the crew were given a TR drive failure in the cruise st 2,000 ft. They decided to do a handling check (on an aircraft that was basically still straight and level). Eventually they washed off the airspeed and the 'thing let go'. Unfortunately, we never reached any 'crash' parameters to 'red screen' and freeze. Conversely, I couldn't reach the stop button as I was hanging on to the grab handle. My colleague had been thrown on the floor from his jump seat and was covered in books and papers. It took a while before we hit the ground. Seemed pretty realistic to me!
I found it really impressing, how violent the the movement was even at a fenestron-failure at hover in ground effect.
Not slamming the collective down and bouncing all over the runway would lead to violent movements as noted above with loose parts flying through the SIM and a crash screen....
Wether the height would have been sufficiant for a complete recovery? I doubt it but may be a more controlled crash would have been possible with a slighty higher chance of survival.
Guess what? - It spins out of control and in a moderately high hover with a man on the wire, someone is going to get badly hurt, there is no good outcome because a crash is inevitable.
not doing sim raining because it costs money is an indefensible position
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Guess what? - It spins out of control and in a moderately high hover with a man on the wire, someone is going to get badly hurt, there is no good outcome because a crash is inevitable.
And the outcome is most likely with badly hurt and even dead crew.
The difference could be in the numbers and the severity of injuries, when the pilot has experienced an failure in the SIM, reacted right in slamming the Collective down while pushing the nose down and into the turn to gain speed which would stabilise a helicopter with a big fin like the Dauphin. It would be nose down - flare- crash, cause the altitude might not be sufficiant for an fly away - but chances of survival would be greater than spinning all the way into the sea.
If a company is thinking, SIM Training is expensive- they should look into the bill of a crash.... 🙁
You need at least 40 kts on something like a Dauphin for the fin to be effective and by the time you have slammed the collective down and pushed the nose forward, you are already in the water from the height they were at.
Been through these scenarios in the Sea King sim many times and even from 1000' when you know it is coming you are very lucky to survive.
Been through these scenarios in the Sea King sim many times and even from 1000' when you know it is coming you are very lucky to survive.