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

Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club

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

Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club

Old 29th Oct 2018, 23:36
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Devon
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maintenance

I believe this a/c was only a couple of years old. Which firm carried out the maintenance on it in the UK?



G-VKSP
Aircraft Data G-VSKP, 2016 AgustaWestland AW-169 C/N 69018
Cabby is offline  
Old 29th Oct 2018, 23:43
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Devon
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Could be one of 3 maintenance organisations in the UK.
https://www.businessairnews.com/hb_a...l?recnum=AW169
Cabby is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 00:25
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: South Alabama
Age: 74
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Would this aircraft have had video as well as voice recording?
Old Boeing Driver is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 01:05
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Asia Pacific.
Posts: 206
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the CCTV vision, at or shortly after TDP, the helicopter dipped nose down and spun to the right, and entered into a high rate of descent. It's clear what the helicopter did, but there could be a few causes, like main or tail rotor control malfunction/hardover, physical failure of the tail rotor or drive, MGB failure, engine(s) failed resulting in a MR overpitch and loss of control, pilot incapacitation and consequent control loss due excessive inputs or (least likely) deliberate inputs from the pilot to crash. Crew responses to all these possibilities are different - suffice to say that when this machine malfunctioned there was no hope of recovery or steering in any direction as it descended at a very high rate to the ground. Appears the TR stayed with the helicopter until impact - unlikely it "fell off", even though the response of the machine is identical to what would happen if the the tail fell off.

Root cause is unknown - made worse by the fact that this is a near-new modern helicopter - and this will be watched carefully by all operators of Leonardo products world wide. This will be a much anticipated investigation, and one I sincerely hope is conclusive. Vale Khun Vichai and all POB.
What-ho Squiffy! is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 01:31
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 66
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by What-ho Squiffy!
From the CCTV vision, at or shortly after TDP, the helicopter dipped nose down and spun to the right, and entered into a high rate of descent. It's clear what the helicopter did, but there could be a few causes,...
Maybe just my eyes on a grainy CCTV video, but it is not so clear to me that it turned right. Looks to me like it was yawing to the left before impact. Yes, we are speculating, and investigators will do their work.. Since this machine has a CCW main rotor as viewed from above, then tail thrust in hover provides a left yaw input. Most tail rotor are designed and rigged with "neutral bias" that provides some of this anti-torque, that would help in a loss of tail control (not loss of tail thrust), to enable a run-on landing. If control was lost, with drive still intact, then a reduction in main rotor collective would result in excessive "anti-torque", in this case left yaw. Too late to pull back power and collective perhaps. Such a crash would typically result in impact on the blades. In this case the top, blackened tail blade is sheared near the hub, the right one is damaged closer to the tip. Given all the information publicly received, it appears to me (my initial opinion/ speculation only) a Flight Control problem rather than a drive problem. Such issues can take time to sort out, particularly in full AFCS, where the data recorder may yield a related, but indirect, parameter of interest.
OnePerRev is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 02:23
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by What-ho Squiffy!
1. like main or tail rotor control malfunction/hardover,
2. physical failure of the tail rotor or drive,
3. MGB failure,
4. engine(s) failed resulting in a MR overpitch and loss of control,
5. pilot incapacitation and consequent control loss due excessive inputs or (least likely) deliberate inputs from the pilot to crash.
6. even though the response of the machine is identical to what would happen if the the tail fell off.
1. No. This is clearly loss of TR drive, not TR control.
2. Yes.
3. No (unless the TR drive output on the MGB failed).
4. No.
5. No. He's lowered the collective in response to the failure (you can see the rate of rotation decreasing slightly as it descends).
6. You're saying that if the tail fell off, with all that weight suddenly missing so far from the CofG, it would respond identically to if the tail just lost drive but didn't fall off?
gulliBell is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 02:25
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by OnePerRev
..particularly in full AFCS...
Absolutely impossible for any AFCS malfunction to cause a helicopter to do that.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 03:06
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Asia Pacific.
Posts: 206
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by gulliBell
1. No. This is clearly loss of TR drive, not TR control.
2. Yes.
3. No (unless the TR drive output on the MGB failed).
4. No.
5. No. He's lowered the collective in response to the failure (you can see the rate of rotation decreasing slightly as it descends).
6. You're saying that if the tail fell off, with all that weight suddenly missing so far from the CofG, it would respond identically to if the tail just lost drive but didn't fall off?
1. Clearly? I would like to know how you can tell the difference.
2. Perhaps.
3. That's what I am talking about.
4. You ever tried to fly a helicopter with no NR? NR & TGT = the staff of life.
5. "He's lowered the collective" has he?? If I was going to deliberately crash (NOT saying this is the case here, so stand down your pitchforks) , I'd dump the collective. So, no logic to your conclusion.
6. From what I saw, the helicopter pitched down and yawed. That's what happens when the tail falls off, so I can see how people have come to that conclusion.
What-ho Squiffy! is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 03:39
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,569
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
1. Yeah sure, worst case TR control malfunction with the TR servo going full extension/retraction would likely not result in the high yaw rate seen on the CCTV.
4. Yeah sure, no NR and she falls out of the sky. But if you've hauled in full collective and sucked the NR out of the system (NR might go as low as 70% with both engines at topping??) the MR is still providing lift, and the TR is still providing some thrust, and you shouldn't get that high rate vertical descent, nor that very high yaw rate seen in the CCTV.
5. Yeah, I reckon....the power has been reduced evidenced by the initial high yaw rate reducing as it descends (the vertical fin is having more influence against the reduced engine TQ).
6. When you suddenly lose TR thrust the nose pitches down. The tail doesn't need to fall off for the nose to pitch down. This is the part many pilots have difficulty with in practicing this malfunction (The logic in my conclusion is I've done it hundreds of times). The instinctive reaction is for the pilot to lower collective and apply aft cyclic to counter the pitch down. This causes the NR to go off the scale, and I'm talking 130%+.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 08:04
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question from a PPL(H). Would autopilot ever be engaged on this sort of departure? At the top of the reverse climb? If there's a malfunction, does the computer compensate? How quickly can you disengage? Would it be used to allow the night blindness to settle having climbed out of a bowl lit for TV cameras into a night sky? It doesn't look sadly as there was ANY time to do anything but still interested to know the procedure for such eventualities.
rattle is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 08:10
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,386
Received 734 Likes on 331 Posts
Rattle - the AP(s) will be engaged, probably in ATT mode but not the flight director modes. The pilot is manually flying the aircraft but with AP stability assistance. He might engage a FD mode after the transition (ALTA for example).
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 08:50
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 4,381
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Forget the false idea that the pilot suffered ‘night blindness’ climbing out of the soccer stadium: there is ample ambient light from the surrounding built up area to give situational awareness and a solid horizon. After years of similar operations with the AW169 and preceding that the A109 the fearmongering implication of your post is nonsensical.

Checking with AW169 Pilots the departure procedure is absolutely in accordance with the Flight Manual, and raising the gear after 200ft is bog standard checklist stuff.
John Eacott is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 08:58
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Uk
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by John Eacott
Forget the false idea that the pilot suffered ‘night blindness’ climbing out of the soccer stadium: there is ample ambient light from the surrounding built up area to give situational awareness and a solid horizon. After years of similar operations with the AW169 and preceding that the A109 the fearmongering implication of your post is nonsensical.

Checking with AW169 Pilots the departure procedure is absolutely in accordance with the Flight Manual, and raising the gear after 200ft is bog standard checklist stuff.
similar types is 200’ AND Vtoss to raise gear. You want them down for the reject. Red herring anyway as the would’ve made c&@ck all difference here.
dingo9 is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 09:12
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Europe
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
gear up is obviously not always 200 Ft but in case of extended TDP gear up happens after TDP … logical since you must go back to the ground in case of engine failure before
Hovering-is-devine is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 09:24
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: the right seat
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Rattle - the AP(s) will be engaged, probably in ATT mode but not the flight director modes. The pilot is manually flying the aircraft but with AP stability assistance. He might engage a FD mode after the transition (ALTA for example).
Thank you.
rattle is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 09:29
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Amblesidel
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
John Eacott states....'Forget the false idea that the pilot suffered ‘night blindness.

It is not a case of complete blindness, however we are all taught through HP& L training that the eye takes some time to accommodate from daylight conditions to night conditions. I would be very surprised if this is not mentioned under human factors in the final report.
anchorhold is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 09:38
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
During rehearsals for the Melbourne Commonwealth Games in 2006 we had to ditch the idea of using the Bolte Bridge during the opening ceremony because the upward facing lights attracted large numbers of moths, which in turn attracted large numbers of circling birds; mainly seagulls. It happened every night during summer and autumn. Just a thought.
JerryG is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 10:04
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,719
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Thank heavens someone pointed out that 'gear up' varies according to what sort of departure you are doing.
So, if I have to climb to a 400' TDP, someone whom should know better suggested raising gear at 200'
Is this symptomatic of something else in the industry or can we simply assume NO ONE WOULD EVER RAISE THE GEAR BEFORE TDP?

Last edited by EESDL; 30th Oct 2018 at 10:22.
EESDL is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 10:48
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: HKG
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Leicaster City AW169 mishap

Originally Posted by chopjock
Yes and were seen still facing into wind before lifting. Why on earth do a 180 turn to depart downwind?
I'm not sure if this would explain it but in VIP ops, often the crew would position the direction of the nose to ensure that the VIP pax gets out and can directly walk to or enter from his destination (in this case it seems that from the other video footage that he was coming out from a stadium gate to the heli). This way, the VIP does not need to walk around the nose (or tail!) to go to his walking destination. The 180 turn could have been to reposition the nose into the winds when they reached above the stadium structure. Just a thought...
FlyHiGuy is offline  
Old 30th Oct 2018, 11:10
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: London UK
Posts: 7,730
Likes: 0
Received 70 Likes on 34 Posts
Originally Posted by FlyHiGuy
I'm not sure if this would explain it but in VIP ops, often the crew would position the direction of the nose to ensure that the VIP pax gets out and can directly walk to or enter from his destination .
No different to an airliner at the gate then ...

Regarding crew qualification, I suspect the pointed expression "Passenger" used in news reports to describe the left seat occupant, but not the remainder of those on board comes from the AAIB on site. Having peripherally observed a not dissimilar GA situation with qualified pilot and another without the right qualifications (actually the airframe owner), the AAIB report said "Passenger" almost every paragraph, to make their point.
WHBM 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.