Helicopter down outside Leicester City Football Club
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyems states.........Could the aircraft have responded in the manner seen on the video as a result of pilot incapacitation?
I think that has to be a possibility when faced with an aircraft with less than 300 hrs flight time and a single crew pilot aged 53. This is why the medical requires more frequent ECGs with age. Having said that, an ECG pass, doesn't mean you are not going to be incapacitated by a stroke or heart attack at anytime. That is why it is always better to have two qualified and type rated pilots, which is the case with the queens flight.
I think that has to be a possibility when faced with an aircraft with less than 300 hrs flight time and a single crew pilot aged 53. This is why the medical requires more frequent ECGs with age. Having said that, an ECG pass, doesn't mean you are not going to be incapacitated by a stroke or heart attack at anytime. That is why it is always better to have two qualified and type rated pilots, which is the case with the queens flight.
It is far from my place to suggest this type of scenario could be linked to the accident, and in no way would I speculate as to the cause as simply put, I do not have the knowledge required to comment. What I am saying however is that certain conditions can cause an almost instantaneous loss of consciousness, irrespective of how fit or healthy the individual, and no amount of medical testing can rule out such possibilities. What I can also do is describe the sensation when this loss of consciousness occurs, with tunnel vision being the first stage, followed very briefly by intense dizziness and confusion - during such a time, you have very little capacity to action any rational movements or thoughts, particularly the first time, as it is pure confusion.
I do hope that the above wasn't the case, but whatever was the cause, it is a tragic and saddening accident.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
It's long been like that on pprune. These crash threads are useful for finding links to external sites, but the conjecture ranges from laughable to infuriating and, in most cases, just demonstrates a spectacular lack of knowledge.
I don't know that many professionals in the industry, but I do know that anyone with an opinion worth listening too wouldn't post anything on here.
I don't know that many professionals in the industry, but I do know that anyone with an opinion worth listening too wouldn't post anything on here.
TBTSST, I do not know what you do, but many on this thread carry out these VTOL departures each time we fly, EMS, HEMS., Police and the Corporate sector. The reason why we have a lot of interest here, is that this failure, in this phase of flight, is theoretically ignored by certification. As such there is very little guidance in Flight Manuals on how to deal with it. There is a reason for that.....if you think about the outcome of this event!
In the end, its up to you if you choose to take part in the discussion or not. However, posing sanctimonious passive aggressive statements, like yours above, means to me you have no value to add at all. So why bother yourself to even visit the thread.
That would make you wrong. In our industry we have very little opportunity, as professionals and PPLs alike, to learn from each other. PPRUNE provides that forum. Yes some people can sometimes seems spectacularly stupid (me some of the time) and some of us love a good argument. That's "A" Type extroverts for you...
Conversation on incidents such as this between knowledgeable individuals is excellent and absolutely worthwhile, but some of the conclusions reached by supposed professionals in threads like this - while in possession of just a handful of facts - are astonishingly reckless. Based on the available evidence I have my own theory as to what has happened but, until the full story is told, I wouldn't consider making any definite conclusions and I absolutely wouldn't start point fingers at any particular party (and, even with a cursory glance, I can see that has already occurred numerous times throughout this thread).
It certainly wasn't my intention to appear sanctimonious but it is no secret that the media clearly view this forum and threads like this just fuel the nonsense that we see reported on these incidents in the press.
That said, I doubt very much if incapacitation will be found to be causal or implicated in this accident. Not only because it is highly unlikely in itself, but also because the pilot was sat next to another person, who although given as a passenger, would almost certainly have been able intervene given their experience and stop matters getting out of hand.
The problem is this:
It simply isn’t true. There quite a number of people on here who are both highly experienced, knowledgable and who make valuable contributions to this and other discussions. It isn’t hard to spot a troll or to distinguish between Carling Black Label and Budvar.
It simply isn’t true. There quite a number of people on here who are both highly experienced, knowledgable and who make valuable contributions to this and other discussions. It isn’t hard to spot a troll or to distinguish between Carling Black Label and Budvar.
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Norfolk
Age: 67
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that the weather at the time would appear to contradict the formation of a vortex ring, but could the explanation be as simple as that? High power vertical slightly reversed climb followed by a turn and drift into a vortex of descending air?
There are quite a few very highly experienced and imminently qualified folks who attend these pages and make very good contributions.
On the other hand there are some who think themselves all of that....but who indict that assumption with nearly every post they make.
The key, as in all things in life, is to be able to pick the good from the bad.
Most folks are able to do that but that ability seems to elude those who just do not get it and continue to post their lame views, ideas, concepts, and boasts of experience.
That at least makes it easy to begin the sorting of the good from the bad.
I may not always agree with the what is being posted by the genuinely qualified but then we all have our own views of matters as this flying thing we share is not an exact science that can be firmly framed in simple text.
Those differences tend to be based upon our individual life experiences flying helicopters, a notion that makes very good sense when considered.
As this is a Forum that includes people from all over the World, most using their second language to communicate, there will sometimes be difficulties in communicating what is intended as compared to what was understood.
Every conversation via Text suffers from such issues and Rotorheads is no different in that regard.
If you post here.....be prepared to corroborate what you say as very often you shall be challenged to do so.
If you object to that....please do not post for you do, at some point your feelings shall certainly be hurt.
On the other hand there are some who think themselves all of that....but who indict that assumption with nearly every post they make.
The key, as in all things in life, is to be able to pick the good from the bad.
Most folks are able to do that but that ability seems to elude those who just do not get it and continue to post their lame views, ideas, concepts, and boasts of experience.
That at least makes it easy to begin the sorting of the good from the bad.
I may not always agree with the what is being posted by the genuinely qualified but then we all have our own views of matters as this flying thing we share is not an exact science that can be firmly framed in simple text.
Those differences tend to be based upon our individual life experiences flying helicopters, a notion that makes very good sense when considered.
As this is a Forum that includes people from all over the World, most using their second language to communicate, there will sometimes be difficulties in communicating what is intended as compared to what was understood.
Every conversation via Text suffers from such issues and Rotorheads is no different in that regard.
If you post here.....be prepared to corroborate what you say as very often you shall be challenged to do so.
If you object to that....please do not post for you do, at some point your feelings shall certainly be hurt.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Planet in Aldeberan System
Age: 54
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ruling Out Pilot Incapacitation
Both Eric & Izabela (the pilots), followed a plant based diet and regularly exercised. They were healthier than most pilots, so I rule incapacitation out of the equation. Sabotage, something (a bird or drone) hitting the tail rotor or mechanical malfunction is the cause. We will find out soon.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: LHR
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has been a few years since I flew heavy helicopters but fundamentally the loss of TR control 200-500 feet above the stadium was not survivable.
The AAIB will want to quickly establish the '4 corners' of the accident to confirm that all the components of the aircraft are present at the crash scene. One video shot seems to suggest that a component flew away from the aircraft with high energy immediately before control was lost, the only components posessing such energy would have been a MR pocket (or two) or a TR blade. The fact that the aircraft immediately lost yaw control indicates it may have been a TR blade.... Crash site pictures indicate 2 TR blades present but one is half missing, you could argue it had been consumed in the post crash fire but the edges appear jagged as if it had been torn apart rather than burnt. The AW 169 has an impeccable safety record with no history of TR blade mishaps or other TR drive or contol problems. So why in this case?
TR blades are stressed in construction so as to survive a minor impact from a birdstrike and still perform their role. In this day and age modern helicopters do not crash because birds fly through the tail rotors. In-service failure due to substandard manufacturing is a possibility but frankly unlikely. It is much more likely that a foreign object struck the tailrotor causing sufficient damage to cause blade failure and separation.... But caused by what? The surrounding area several hundred yards in every direction will be thoroughly searched for debris.... who knows what else might be found?
Might we be looking at the first fatal aviation accident due to an aircraft colliding with a drone?
The AAIB will want to quickly establish the '4 corners' of the accident to confirm that all the components of the aircraft are present at the crash scene. One video shot seems to suggest that a component flew away from the aircraft with high energy immediately before control was lost, the only components posessing such energy would have been a MR pocket (or two) or a TR blade. The fact that the aircraft immediately lost yaw control indicates it may have been a TR blade.... Crash site pictures indicate 2 TR blades present but one is half missing, you could argue it had been consumed in the post crash fire but the edges appear jagged as if it had been torn apart rather than burnt. The AW 169 has an impeccable safety record with no history of TR blade mishaps or other TR drive or contol problems. So why in this case?
TR blades are stressed in construction so as to survive a minor impact from a birdstrike and still perform their role. In this day and age modern helicopters do not crash because birds fly through the tail rotors. In-service failure due to substandard manufacturing is a possibility but frankly unlikely. It is much more likely that a foreign object struck the tailrotor causing sufficient damage to cause blade failure and separation.... But caused by what? The surrounding area several hundred yards in every direction will be thoroughly searched for debris.... who knows what else might be found?
Might we be looking at the first fatal aviation accident due to an aircraft colliding with a drone?
What does a "Plant based Diet" have to do with the question of "Sudden Incapacitation"?
I also question the suggestion the "Second Pilot" could have handled the situation if it had occurred......just how do we know that?
I also question the suggestion the "Second Pilot" could have handled the situation if it had occurred......just how do we know that?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
In general....I would agree with MagPlug about the differences between small and large Helicopters when we talk of Tail Rotor failures.
The forces generated by the Rotor systems on large aircraft create a real design problem for the Engineers designing the aircraft.
How much Tail Fin area does it take to facilitate adequate weather vane effect for those large helicopters?
My trusty old Huey did pretty well.....the Huey Cobra derived from the Huey.....did not.
I would bet my other trusty steed, the Sikorsky S-58T, was far better than the Sikorsky S-61 or CH-53.
As in some other things in life....Size does matter along with technique.
The forces generated by the Rotor systems on large aircraft create a real design problem for the Engineers designing the aircraft.
How much Tail Fin area does it take to facilitate adequate weather vane effect for those large helicopters?
My trusty old Huey did pretty well.....the Huey Cobra derived from the Huey.....did not.
I would bet my other trusty steed, the Sikorsky S-58T, was far better than the Sikorsky S-61 or CH-53.
As in some other things in life....Size does matter along with technique.
We don’t. But were “passive” incapacitation or annnounced incapacitation involved, I think it’s reasonable to assume that a pilot of her experience would be able to apply control inputs to maintain a safe flight condition.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Brazil
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can only assume plant eaters will never ever die
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's my understanding that the passenger pilot had a fixed wing licence and not a rotary wing licence .if that is the case, and please correct me if I'm wrong, how would her fixed wing experience help her in a rotary wing environment?
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: somerset
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So speculation as ever but given what has been observed so far it seems most likely that:
a) The aircraft was high enough at the apparent point of failure to avoid hitting the TR on any part of the stadium or other fixed object
b) Therefore the failure was likely caused either by something else airborne hitting it - or some sort of separate mechanical failure
Assuming the mechanical failure option, (in the absence of any clear evidence of another airborne object) one thing that still puzzles me is why the pilot chose to lift to such an apparently unnecessary height before attempting to transition into forward flight. Could it be that he was aware of some sort of anomaly on the lift out that made him want to gain extra altitude to have the option of an autorotation away from the confined space of the take-off site? If there was a problem near the ground he would presumably have just put it straight back down - so whatever it was presumably occurred somewhere between the height at which he would normally have transitioned (200ft?) and the height he eventually reached (1000ft?).
To give this theory any validity, there would have to be some sort of anomaly warning (sound/vibration/warning system?) that would encourage the pilot to believe that continuing to gain height enough to attempt a safe autorotation was his best (or only) option. What might this have been?
a) The aircraft was high enough at the apparent point of failure to avoid hitting the TR on any part of the stadium or other fixed object
b) Therefore the failure was likely caused either by something else airborne hitting it - or some sort of separate mechanical failure
Assuming the mechanical failure option, (in the absence of any clear evidence of another airborne object) one thing that still puzzles me is why the pilot chose to lift to such an apparently unnecessary height before attempting to transition into forward flight. Could it be that he was aware of some sort of anomaly on the lift out that made him want to gain extra altitude to have the option of an autorotation away from the confined space of the take-off site? If there was a problem near the ground he would presumably have just put it straight back down - so whatever it was presumably occurred somewhere between the height at which he would normally have transitioned (200ft?) and the height he eventually reached (1000ft?).
To give this theory any validity, there would have to be some sort of anomaly warning (sound/vibration/warning system?) that would encourage the pilot to believe that continuing to gain height enough to attempt a safe autorotation was his best (or only) option. What might this have been?
At this point....without an official determination of what hellcopter flying skills experience, training, or knowledge the "Passenger Pilot" had at the time of the Accident....and without any information of "incapacitation" being an issue at all..... I would suggest we have not reached any level of being able to make an "assumption" and must limit the qualification of any such suggestion as being purely baseless pontification.
At this point....without an official determination of what hellcopter flying skills experience, training, or knowledge the "Passenger Pilot" had at the time of the Accident....and without any information of "incapacitation" being an issue at all..... I would suggest we have not reached any level of being able to make an "assumption" and must limit the qualification of any such suggestion as being purely baseless pontification.
Last edited by Torquetalk; 1st Nov 2018 at 16:48.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If she had only worked the radios it would have been valuable assistance in high work load situations.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Axminster Devon
Age: 83
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the case is that only the pilot is suddenly incapacitated, leading to an increasing yaw to the right, I suggest that an experienced fixed wing pilot in the other seat would know enough to stop the yaw.
If she knows the pilot has lost it, she would surely intervene with a bootful of rudder even if she did not know what else to do.
If she knows the pilot has lost it, she would surely intervene with a bootful of rudder even if she did not know what else to do.