Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the game on Saturday and confirm two facts the Police Drone was in action but was down a long time before the helicopter arrived, Wind conditions were good from what i remember and the footage on this thread is old footage as the club now has large video screens at each end of the pitch which are not in these videos.
On match days the owner flies into another location and is then driven to the ground but unsure where the Helicopter waits not sure if it goes to Leicester airport and then goes into the stadium once the area has been cleared. The arrival and departure was delayed on Saturday as there was some crowd trouble after the game.
From the aerial footage that has been released I firmly believe that there was no strike with a fixed object as no area is cordoned off for the AAIB and a number of witness have confirmed that it cleared the top of the stadium with ease.
On match days the owner flies into another location and is then driven to the ground but unsure where the Helicopter waits not sure if it goes to Leicester airport and then goes into the stadium once the area has been cleared. The arrival and departure was delayed on Saturday as there was some crowd trouble after the game.
From the aerial footage that has been released I firmly believe that there was no strike with a fixed object as no area is cordoned off for the AAIB and a number of witness have confirmed that it cleared the top of the stadium with ease.
Empty 412.....no shortage of power there is there?
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: UK
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update on Leicester helicopter accident (G-VSKP) - AAIB
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ccident-g-vskp
Update on Leicester helicopter accident (G-VSKP)
On Saturday night, an accident involving an AW169 helicopter at King Power Stadium, Leicester, was reported to us.
Published 29 October 2018
From:
Air Accidents Investigation Branch
A team of AAIB inspectors and support staff travelled to Leicester on Saturday night, with further inspectors travelling yesterday morning. Last night, the police said they believe that tragically all five people on board the aircraft died in the accident.
We have inspectors here from all four air accident investigation disciplines: engineering, operations, flight data and human factors.
We recovered the digital flight data recorder (voice and data) on Sunday afternoon and one of our inspectors travelled back to Farnborough with the recorder the same evening. Today, our inspectors in Farnborough will start working on the recorder, which was subject to intense heat as a result of the post-accident fire.
Our inspectors are continuing to work with the police on site. We expect to be here until the end of the week, at which point we will transport the wreckage to our specialist facilities in Farnborough for more detailed examination. In the meantime, we are still gathering evidence as part of our investigation.
Witnesses to the accident, particularly with videos or photographs, are urged to contact Leicestershire Police on 101, quoting incident number 546 of 27 October 2019.
On Saturday night, an accident involving an AW169 helicopter at King Power Stadium, Leicester, was reported to us.
Published 29 October 2018
From:
Air Accidents Investigation Branch
A team of AAIB inspectors and support staff travelled to Leicester on Saturday night, with further inspectors travelling yesterday morning. Last night, the police said they believe that tragically all five people on board the aircraft died in the accident.
We have inspectors here from all four air accident investigation disciplines: engineering, operations, flight data and human factors.
We recovered the digital flight data recorder (voice and data) on Sunday afternoon and one of our inspectors travelled back to Farnborough with the recorder the same evening. Today, our inspectors in Farnborough will start working on the recorder, which was subject to intense heat as a result of the post-accident fire.
Our inspectors are continuing to work with the police on site. We expect to be here until the end of the week, at which point we will transport the wreckage to our specialist facilities in Farnborough for more detailed examination. In the meantime, we are still gathering evidence as part of our investigation.
Witnesses to the accident, particularly with videos or photographs, are urged to contact Leicestershire Police on 101, quoting incident number 546 of 27 October 2019.
Not a contemporaneous one, but one derived from resources after the event. Point being, no way would positive identification have occurred so soon after the accident (given the post accident fire, nature of the likely injuries, access to dental records, etc).
No - that's not what I'm saying at all (I don't know whether a FP was or was not filed). But a flight plan is not a passenger manifest. A flight plan has numbers on board but not names.
Another thing that amazes me while reading the posts in this thread are the numerous suggestions the a/c ended up in tailwind once it cleared the stadium walls.
These clearly can only be wrong speculations. Would one consider any takeoff, being towering or Cat-A, that has the a/c end up in tailwind after the climb, gross neglect?
Given the crew's reputation I can't imagine any condition, that would have them choose a climb into tailwind, or am I just a PPL(H) missing something?
These clearly can only be wrong speculations. Would one consider any takeoff, being towering or Cat-A, that has the a/c end up in tailwind after the climb, gross neglect?
Given the crew's reputation I can't imagine any condition, that would have them choose a climb into tailwind, or am I just a PPL(H) missing something?
I agree it seems unlikely anyone would perform this transition knowingly with a 20Kt tailwind so the implication is that it the pilot mistook or misunderstood the wind strength above the stadium or else judged it sufficiently slight to be acceptable.
It is also worth noting that a departure to the SE takes place over somewhat more open and considerably less residential areas and doesn't involve a noisy 180' turn over the city itself. A considerate pilot would quite likely factor that into his departure plan too.
I'd still like to hear type-familiar pilots' comments on t/r effectiveness in downwind high power situations.
Last edited by meleagertoo; 29th Oct 2018 at 13:00.
It would be unusual to file a flight plan for a short distance trip of this nature, VFR and staying within the UK. If there was a planned IFR leg, or it was going outside of the UK mainland, more likely. But, as Overt says, it doesn't give names (quite often the Captain's name and mobile number is appended, but that's not a legal requirement).
If something was going outside of Great Britain (note the term) then a GAR form is required, and that does list passenger names
G
If something was going outside of Great Britain (note the term) then a GAR form is required, and that does list passenger names
G
with the numerous witness accounts that it was spinning, i would tend to believe these accounts at this point.
as for noises, perception is always variable depending on the person and location etc.
With the clear photo showing TR Blade damage, it would indicate the obvious. It hit something at some point.
Should the impact have been the initial start of this scenario it would appear the damage wasn't severe enough to lose blades, however, it could have been sufficient enough to lose its drive.
I dont know how robust the 169 TR drive is, but other accident/incident aircraft I have seen had sheered drive keys, sheared coupling rivets, twisted shafts and complete flex coupling failures.
Without a doubt, the investigators will focus on this damage being at the beginning of the incident, or at the end of it. Either scenario is possible at this point.
as for noises, perception is always variable depending on the person and location etc.
With the clear photo showing TR Blade damage, it would indicate the obvious. It hit something at some point.
Should the impact have been the initial start of this scenario it would appear the damage wasn't severe enough to lose blades, however, it could have been sufficient enough to lose its drive.
I dont know how robust the 169 TR drive is, but other accident/incident aircraft I have seen had sheered drive keys, sheared coupling rivets, twisted shafts and complete flex coupling failures.
Without a doubt, the investigators will focus on this damage being at the beginning of the incident, or at the end of it. Either scenario is possible at this point.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: North West UK
Posts: 390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not necessarily the ground.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area.
it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area.
it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident.
Firstly I'm merely a recreational S300C Pilot, who only once could experience a Cat-A takeoff demonstration during someone's EC135 rating renewal. (of course during daylight, at an airfiled)
I can't help but challenge the departure. I would have recommended/conducted
a) a vertical towering take off at the farthest possible place of the stadium so that the "Cat-A emergency path in front of me" would be as long as possible,
b) and of course from a position where the vertical takeoff would render the AC in headwind, once above stadium height..
Reasons:
Climbing vertically, the necessary amount of attitude change to "emergency nose down" is less than when being in the nose up "climb backwards portion" of a CAT-A dep.
I can't help but challenge the departure. I would have recommended/conducted
a) a vertical towering take off at the farthest possible place of the stadium so that the "Cat-A emergency path in front of me" would be as long as possible,
b) and of course from a position where the vertical takeoff would render the AC in headwind, once above stadium height..
Reasons:
Climbing vertically, the necessary amount of attitude change to "emergency nose down" is less than when being in the nose up "climb backwards portion" of a CAT-A dep.
The biggest risk of choosing a far end departure would be of losing situational awareness and hitting the roof of the stadium with a part of the aircraft you cannot see. The lateral and vertical references are not close in so there is a considerable risk of drift. The pilot of the incident aircraft had the pitch markings for lateral reference (and probably cockpit indication of drift too). He would also have been able to control the angle of his departure from these reference on the ground. If you are already well back and drift backwards unwittingly during the take-off, the distance to the obstacles behind and above would be further reduced increasing the obstacle collision risk. Objectively, this is probably the biggest risk during such a departure. One other consideration is that the AW169 would have been able to conduct a controlled rejected take-off in the event of power loss and do this with less distance required than an S300.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 29th Oct 2018 at 14:37.
not necessarily the ground.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area.
it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area.
it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident.
The ground it is on appears to be flat concrete, perhaps half derelict for a while, with pieces of broken concrete and some plant matter (such as might grow up through joints in old concrete) nearby.
But I'd distrust even that cursory look at one picture and it may turn out to be quite flat compacted soil.
Any impact can produce witness marks on both items, such as scratches in the rotor which may match scrapes on the other object, with paint fragments left on one or both objects.
I say again, leave it to the professional investigators, with access to far better evidence than a telephoto lens picture, video from a different day, fourth rate guesses based on third hand rumour of what some unidentified person may have said, miscellaneous other stuff.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Europe
Age: 34
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
looks something like this tail rotor strike, but on takeoff:
Stadium lights can blind pilots during take off maneouver. Those white posts are not iluminated and very high.
Tail boom catastrofic failure like the ones in AW139 would be really scary but improbable due to manufacturer experience.
looks something like this tail rotor strike, but on takeoff:
Stadium lights can blind pilots during take off maneouver. Those white posts are not iluminated and very high.
Tail boom catastrofic failure like the ones in AW139 would be really scary but improbable due to manufacturer experience.
A towering take-off is a SE profile. You wouldn’t normally do one in a ME helicopter unless there was an issue with power available, in which case, you might be asking what went wrong at the planning stage. If you were power limited and used a towering take-off, you would clearly run out of acceleration from ground effect before being able to safely gain forward airspeed in that environment. If you had the power to climb out, there is no advantage of that profile over a steady vertical climb at a weight and power setting allowing you to climb OGE.
Onyl partly understood. In both towering and Cat-A, you are at nil or negative horizontal speed and need to pick up forward speed to try and flare.
I merely suggested the towering (vertical) takeoff to reduce risk of drift at night, (which definitely is an issue with Cat-A backwards climb).
I must admit I don't know the crosssection of such a stadium:
when the inner roof tips are arched far inwards then climbing in any other location than smack dab in the middle of the stadium would be asking for building contact, I can see that.
I merely suggested the towering (vertical) takeoff to reduce risk of drift at night, (which definitely is an issue with Cat-A backwards climb).
I must admit I don't know the crosssection of such a stadium:
when the inner roof tips are arched far inwards then climbing in any other location than smack dab in the middle of the stadium would be asking for building contact, I can see that.
The biggest risk of choosing a far end departure would be of losing situational awareness and hitting the roof of the stadium with a part of the aircraft you cannot see. The lateral and vertical references are not close in so there is a considerable risk of drift. The pilot of the incident aircraft had the pitch markings for lateral reference (and probably cockpit indication of drift too). He would also have been able to control the angle of his departure from these reference on the ground. If you are already well back and drift backwards unwittingly during the take-off, the distance to the obstacles behind and above would be further reduced increasing the obstacle collision risk. Objectively, this is probably the biggest risk during such a departure. One other consideration is that the AW169 would have been able to conduct a controlled rejected take-off in the event of power loss and do this with less distance required than an S300.
My take is that climbing vertically or Cat-A style for whatever reason into a tailwind location nils TR failue recovery.
With the TR "gone", MR torque and tailwind will do to the airframe whatever they see fit, nullifying any Cat-A dep. "recovery options".
That is if there are any "recovery" options at all for "serious TR loss at the end of a Cat-A climb in confined locations", I doubt that, any takers?
So taking one step back, I'd say this accident is a case of "vanity killed the cat", considering that right outside his stadium there are plenty of better, not confined takeoff spots.
Given that fact that even the PPRuNe pros here have confirmed that in this kind of scenario a serious TR failure is next to impolssible to recover, and comparing alternatives right outside the stadium one can't help but wonder why this kind of showing-off departure got green lighted in the first place.
Last edited by Reely340; 29th Oct 2018 at 15:42.