Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Helicopter down in East River, NYC

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Helicopter down in East River, NYC

Old 14th Mar 2018, 10:24
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 4,378
Received 24 Likes on 14 Posts
Originally Posted by chopjock
crab


Unless they are positioned along side each other perhaps?
But they aren’t in a Twin Squirrel: why persist in going down this rabbit hole? It’s as bad as a well known contributor opining that single engine is safer than a twin, and totally irrelevant to the accident.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 10:42
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: glasgow
Posts: 295
Received 29 Likes on 16 Posts
Understandably, the focus of this thread has been drawn to the harnessing of the passengers, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it played a major part in restricting their egress from the aircraft, with tragic consequences.
There are a couple of other aspects of the incident which seem to me to require further consideration though, none less so than the proposition that the fuel cut off could have ben accidentally operated by a passenger strap / harness of some sort.
I should say at the outset that whilst we have yet to have this proposition confirmed as the cause of the engine out, I am interested that nobody here has suggested that it is not possible or is even improbable. Certainly, with 5 PAX harnesses, and assorted camera and iphone tethers, there would be no shortage of snagging opportunity, and the photo reproduced earlier clearly highlights that there is much in the between seat area upon which to snag.

The fuel cut off lever would be just one of the potentially catastrophic options (and for those advocating twin engine aircraft as a mitigant, cutting off their fuel would have much the same outcome as here) : None of the Rotor brake, fuel flow, or collective would benefit from a sharp uncommanded tug in flight.

It is surely entirely foreseeable that something could snag a critical control in flight, and entirely reasonable that they should have been shielded or protected in some way?

Secondly, there is the question of the inherent risk of operations of this nature. Regardless of the quality of the safety briefings, these excursions were taking civilians into an inherently hostile terrain in the event of aircraft failure, with the most likely emergency landing venue being on water at a dangerously low temperature. The facts that they were tethered to the aircraft, and were not wearing immersion suits dramatically reduced their survival prospects from the level which they would otherwise have been at, which was itself by no means 100%.
Risk taking is unavoidable, and sometimes thrilling, but in this case it strikes me that the passengers could not have properly appreciated the risks they were taking, and the operators could.
falcon900 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 11:25
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sir Korsky
95% of twin pax will be in the back where they belong ! I estimate there are around 45 IFR twin aircraft operating in the NYC area regularly - all two pilot S76/139/430/109/429 part 135, part 91 corporate and government.




So nothing to do with twin engine, just "don't have passengers sitting in the front 95% of the time".


Actually - I routinely don't have unqualified passengers in the front seat when the duals are fitted. Shortly after getting my license I did but within a year I had experienced two "slight" interferences of the controls (I was not smart enough to learn from the first). I decided that passengers can't be relied upon to appreciate how easy it is for them to restrict the flight controls, let alone move the cyclic / collective / peddles or inadvertently move switches, no matter how comprehensively you brief them.


Now, I'm not running commercial sight-seeing or photographic trips, so the loss of 1 seat is not important to me.
John R81 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 12:36
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
There are plenty of military-issue quick release vests, including some which, I assume, can be clipped to a tether. Pull the cord/ring and they fall to pieces and fall right off you—no straps remaining around the legs or such. Specifically designed to save your life when you are laden with a hundred pounds or more of gear and fall into the water. So the technology is there. The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
2016parks is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 12:47
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 2016parks
The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
I agree. Regular pax I would not like have them manipulating the harness.

Now, looking at the perspective that a door-off flight is not a regular flight, which does not use regular harness, it might be a enhanced briefing needed.

Same for my peers that are flying helicopter precision flying at low level. I was tighten up last year holding the buoy down and hanging out of the helicopter. I would have not had any chance to get off the heli in case of a emergency. I was locked into position tighten from my back. Until now I would never have questioned this. Now I certainly do.
At the competition no team had a quick release harness, except the pilot of course.

Swiss Helicopter Federation is giving this a second thought as of today.
MartinM is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 13:03
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Falcon......I am not convinced the Operator was conscious of the risk imposed by the harness set up.
SASless is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 13:11
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Downeast
Age: 75
Posts: 18,267
Received 467 Likes on 191 Posts
Freedom is an amazing thing ain’t it!

We operate on the premise if it ain’t illegal it can be done.

Folks on the eastern side of the Saltwater Divide operate on the premise if it isn’t approved it can not be done.

From my military experience shooting a machine gun from a helicopter is a hoot....doing it without being shot at is a real hoot!





Originally Posted by Unregistered_
Oh, and this is ok too? I give up.

Live out your Black Ops or First Person Shooter Video Game fantasies in the ONLY gunship helicopter shooting range in Las Vegas!

Experience an open-door low flight-helicopter tour over our 71-acre private shooting range through the Mojave Desert.

Choose a belt-fed M249S SAW or an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.


SASless is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 13:16
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by 2016parks
There are plenty of military-issue quick release vests, including some which, I assume, can be clipped to a tether. Pull the cord/ring and they fall to pieces and fall right off you—no straps remaining around the legs or such. Specifically designed to save your life when you are laden with a hundred pounds or more of gear and fall into the water. So the technology is there. The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
That’s the whole point if you can’t trust them not to fall out the door with a quick release harness then they shouldn’t be on a harness in the first place. 5 dead people prove the point.
havick is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 13:22
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: At home
Posts: 503
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
Pictures from the NTSB.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/with/39899543385/

Should be quite clear for some... combined with the other available information.
Nubian is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 13:24
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Everyone seems to have latched onto the harness issue in the absence of any evidence thus far. I think this may just be a red herring in that looking at video and pics of the 5 pax, they were all young and all healthy. If anyone is going to extricate themselves from a tight space, under pressure, atleast one of them is. But they didn't. So is the culprit 5 x harness designs?
I therefore shift my attention to:
Cold shock syndrome.
Loose articles in the cabin area - snagging hazards.
Both of these will provide enough time to determine the fatal outcome.

My final observation.
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.
There is a word for this - it's called complacency (Never happened before, so won't happen in future brigade).
Safety Management requires: not reactive management, not pro-active management but predictive management if you are to stay ahead of the safety game. Go looking for problems and don't wait for them to come to you.
Thomas coupling is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 14:03
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.

Good points. And along those lines:
Assume there was, in fact, a critical (fuel) control accidentally moved to the wrong position. How long before the pilot realizes this has happened? Can it be reset, and if so, how long does that take? Is a full engine restart needed, and how long does that take? In other words, one this occurs, is it unrecoverable unless at a high enough altitude?
2016parks is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 15:16
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,321
Received 98 Likes on 49 Posts
Originally Posted by 2016parks
Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.
But please not by a device that needs to be unscrewed by someone else!
henra is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 15:25
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,321
Received 98 Likes on 49 Posts
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
Everyone seems to have latched onto the harness issue in the absence of any evidence thus far. I think this may just be a red herring in that looking at video and pics of the 5 pax, they were all young and all healthy.
Did you bother to check how to unleash the harness by oneself?
The Harness was NOT designed for that.
The band-aid was to attach a small knive somewhere to the harness (did they even know where? Someone said that in another flight this was not even really shown - but I guess it doesn't matter). I doubt even with proper HUET plus an immersion suit they would have had the slightest chance with that harness.
On the other hand the pilot got out.
In a Squirrel with Pax upfront he was in the midst of the same chaos and in the same cold water and he still made it out. That's no coincidence.
henra is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 15:39
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Right, the focus on harness designs is irrelevant except for the lawyers at this point. The fix for this situation is simple. Ban tourist flights with people sitting in the door with legs dangling, so they need a harness at all. Give them a door-less flight while they're belted normally in their seats without a full harness, so quick egress is possible in the event of ditching or fire.

This entire situation is caused by the way they're offering to let people sit in the door frame during the flight. That just shouldn't be done unless someone has experience, and a proper harness and crew to monitor the situation (i.e. professional photo/film crew on assignment).
Photonic is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 15:53
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Dallas
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flyting
https://youtu.be/V7reFbsBESU
Here you can see exactly how the pax were strapped in...
from 0:39 onwards
I made an earlier comment that in the event of a ditching the passengers should have been prepared to act and possibly extricate themselves from the helicopter.

After seeing the restraint (a standard building construction fall safety harness) and the location of the tether (apparently a light chain) attachment point (hard against the rear cockpit bulkhead) I see my comments were quite unreasonable.

With four passengers in the rear seating area, the inversion and immersion of the helicopter would have made it all but impossible for them to cut the heavy harness in four places to effect escape.
ThreeThreeMike is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 16:01
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: us
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A few random thoughts:

Report listed that two of the passengers who died were full time employees of flynyon. While we don't know their job function yet, it's pretty telling that if they can't make it out then tourists didn't stand a chance.

the 40min NYC rescue video linked upthread seems unnecessarily complicated, and likely cost time: rescue and divers getting into position, driving into what appears to be a park, walking quite a ways, and standing there listening to teams and strategies being announced while the helicopter riders were drowning or giving in to shock/hypothermia. Looked like 50+ responders in the video. I may have overlooked this, but how many minutes after the crash before divers were in the water?

Last edited by e7pilot; 14th Mar 2018 at 16:46.
e7pilot is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 16:14
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PLanet Earth
Posts: 1,321
Received 98 Likes on 49 Posts
Originally Posted by Photonic
Right, the focus on harness designs is irrelevant except for the lawyers at this point. The fix for this situation is simple. Ban tourist flights with people sitting in the door with legs dangling, so they need a harness at all.
So, you think had that happened to professional photographers instead of the touris, they would have been able to free themselves???

Yes I agree, this practice of tourist flights with feet dangling out the cabin should be stopped. But it shouldn't stop there. These kinds of of harnesses should not be allowed anywhere close to a helicopter. In no circumstance.
Edit: If you can't trust people to safely deal with an emergency release and to fall out accidentally well that is then obviously a scenario that can't be done (would probably apply here). /Edit.
The comment from the participant of the Helicopter championships shows to me that there is a wider problem with these harnesses in the industry. When I read that I had pictures of a toppled but largely intact yet burning Robbie with a poor soul strapped to it running through my mind.

Last edited by henra; 14th Mar 2018 at 16:42.
henra is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 16:33
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 46 Likes on 20 Posts
Originally Posted by henra
So, you think had that happened to professional photographers instead of the touris, they would have been able to free themselves???
A professional outfit and crew would not allow the use of such equipment. Also, airwork such as this would be limited to one photographer/camera operator and at most perhaps some sort of director (usually in the front with the pilot). Even then any extra persons on board other than a pilot and the sole camera operator would be met with heavy resistance unless it is proven the particular mission could not be achieved without them being on board, and then they would have to be appropriately equipped and trained to standard.

So yes, it’s likely that a professional crew/outfit would not be met with such difficulties exiting from a helicopter. Of course other factors at play such as type of impact, consciousness, airframe/door/window deformation etc
havick is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 16:38
  #179 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Redding CA, or on a fire somewhere
Posts: 1,956
Received 50 Likes on 15 Posts
Could a single fast launch team on standby with rescue knives, air tanks, and flotation devices have had a better outcome had they been there within 5min?
Police divers jumped out of a police helicopter within 4 minutes I believe. See here:

Gordy is online now  
Old 14th Mar 2018, 16:41
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
If operators continue to put tourists on any harness / monkey strap combinations there will likely be more fatalities.
If you are trained crew or professional camera operator (who has been trained to release your harness or hard point attachment point ) you will always have a better chance . . not perfect but better.
Tourists should not be on any system other than a seat belt or 4 point release they are familiar with.
This has now become obvious but at a high cost.
TylerMonkey is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.