AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed
Originally Posted by UKExpat
Looking into the Qatar A139 boom failure on the ground - would this aircraft (being a 2008 model) have still had the old/original composite nomex honeycomb boom vs. the new aluminium boom?
The tailboom on that Qatari aircraft failed because it had previously been whacked on a deck. AW139s do not have a reputation or history of their tailbooms falling in flight.
Neither do the newer, improved ‘3 banded’ tail rotor blades.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
...The aviation element here is that without the need for the flight, the accident wouldn't have happened so it is hardly unrelated..
Nothing has indicated the Tail Boom "fell off".
Rumor has it that the tail boom was found "500 feet" away.
Current and wind could explain it being that far away from the rest of the aircraft....even if it separated upon impact with the water for some other reason.
Rumor has it that the tail boom was found "500 feet" away.
Current and wind could explain it being that far away from the rest of the aircraft....even if it separated upon impact with the water for some other reason.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: USA/UK
Age: 39
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bravo73
You are barking up a red herring.
The tailboom on that Qatari aircraft failed because it had previously been whacked on a deck. AW139s do not have a reputation or history of their tailbooms falling in flight.
Neither do the newer, improved ‘3 banded’ tail rotor blades.
Yeah, I know. Just saying, if it did fall off. But it is unusual for the tail boom to completely separate at the aft cabin junction. Most of the helicopter crashes into water that I've seen, tail boom or remnants of tail boom remain somewhat still connected by cables or hydraulic lines or whatever. But this is the first high speed crash of an AW139 into water that I've seen (al-be-it photos only).
Originally Posted by Bravo73
The tailboom on that Qatari aircraft failed because it had previously been whacked on a deck. AW139s do not have a reputation or history of their tailbooms falling in flight.
If that were the case, then why did AW redesign the booms after that exact incident?
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ew-booms-aw139
Manufacturer promises new booms for AW139
by Mark Huber
- February 22, 2010, 9:06 AM
In the wake of the highly publicized tail-boom failure on a Gulf Airways AW139 last August 25, AgustaWestland has been quietly assuring customers with AW139s on order that it will begin equipping them with a new-design tail boom beginning next month. The boom on the Gulf AW139 failed while the aircraft was taxiing in Doha, Qatar, and there were no injuries. That boom exhibited signs of delamination, as have numerous other tail booms, according to operators who spoke to AIN. Some of the delamination is sufficiently severe to require replacement of the entire tail boom. The incident prompted AgustaWestland to issue an Alert Service Bulletin outlining emergency and then repetitive inspection techniques for the AW139’s composite tail boom. The EASA and FAA later issued emergency Airworthiness Directives.
The AW139 airframe and components are made under contract by PZL Swidnik in Poland and Turkish Aerospace Industries. The new boom will employ a different composite technique and use an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer who spoke to AIN. Not clear at this point is whether Agusta-Westland will offer the new-design boom to owners of existing AW139s and under what terms.
Operators contacted said that as of yet they have not been offered the new boom for existing helicopters. One said it was “a matter of ongoing negotiation” with AgustaWestland. On February 16, an AgustaWestland spokesman told AIN that the company would issue a statement regarding the AW139 tail boom “in the very near term.”
by Mark Huber
- February 22, 2010, 9:06 AM
In the wake of the highly publicized tail-boom failure on a Gulf Airways AW139 last August 25, AgustaWestland has been quietly assuring customers with AW139s on order that it will begin equipping them with a new-design tail boom beginning next month. The boom on the Gulf AW139 failed while the aircraft was taxiing in Doha, Qatar, and there were no injuries. That boom exhibited signs of delamination, as have numerous other tail booms, according to operators who spoke to AIN. Some of the delamination is sufficiently severe to require replacement of the entire tail boom. The incident prompted AgustaWestland to issue an Alert Service Bulletin outlining emergency and then repetitive inspection techniques for the AW139’s composite tail boom. The EASA and FAA later issued emergency Airworthiness Directives.
The AW139 airframe and components are made under contract by PZL Swidnik in Poland and Turkish Aerospace Industries. The new boom will employ a different composite technique and use an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer who spoke to AIN. Not clear at this point is whether Agusta-Westland will offer the new-design boom to owners of existing AW139s and under what terms.
Operators contacted said that as of yet they have not been offered the new boom for existing helicopters. One said it was “a matter of ongoing negotiation” with AgustaWestland. On February 16, an AgustaWestland spokesman told AIN that the company would issue a statement regarding the AW139 tail boom “in the very near term.”
Originally Posted by gulliBell
Yeah, I know. Just saying, if it did fall off. But it is unusual for the tail boom to completely separate at the aft cabin junction. Most of the helicopter crashes into water that I've seen, tail boom or remnants of tail boom remain somewhat still connected by cables or hydraulic lines or whatever. But this is the first high speed crash of an AW139 into water that I've seen (al-be-it photos only).
Circa 1982 in Whiting Field, FL, our trainng in Hueys was curtailed for a few days when one of the Hueys, in a hover, lost its tail boom. They put it down, all walked away, nobody dies.
An inspection of the four attachment bolts on all of our squadrion's Hueys was made. Quite a few were corroded to the point of needing to be replaced, and a whole load of bolts were ordered so that, one at a time, our Hueys were brought back up to serviceable condition
(My memory is hazy a few details there, Jack Carson or a few others who flew Hueys in Whiting may recall the details better than I ... we only got part of the story as flight students).
I'll suggests that most "tail boom just left the aircraft" incidents come as a major surprise.
As to drift of parts after impact: yes, I'll take the line gulliBell suggests unitl further detail is provided.
Originally Posted by SASless
Nothing has indicated the Tail Boom "fell off".
Rumor has it that the tail boom was found "500 feet" away.
Current and wind could explain it being that far away from the rest of the aircraft....even if it separated upon impact with the water for some other reason.
Rumor has it that the tail boom was found "500 feet" away.
Current and wind could explain it being that far away from the rest of the aircraft....even if it separated upon impact with the water for some other reason.
Also a total separation just upon impact is rather unusual. Those two aspects would at least not rule out a loss off the tail as initiating event.
On the other hand it would be a strange conicidence. Pitch black moonless night. 2 AM in the morning over flat sea, just starting from a private property with possibly sub- optimum lighting for transition into the dark (so all ingredients for spatial disorientation => LoC/CFIT) and then the tail boom falls off.
@henra: while the coincidence would be unusual, think about the harsh reality of the Pitch black moonless night. 2 AM in the morning over flat sea, possibly sub- optimum lighting for transition into the dark - and you lose the tail.
Not just that the TR stops turning (tough enough at night wil no visual reference and not a lot of altitude) but the tail boom.
(Based on a mishap from some years ago, (different aircraft type) as the main fuselage swaps ends the airspeed drops rather quickly ... that lateral separation might not be so out to lunch. Depends a lot on wind, and other factors)
That's a hard emergency procedure to train for with VMC as the assumed environment. At night with no horizon? degree of difficulty goes way up.
I'd expect that the upset would be hard to deal with for even the best pilots, when we toss in the surprise factor ...
Not just that the TR stops turning (tough enough at night wil no visual reference and not a lot of altitude) but the tail boom.
(Based on a mishap from some years ago, (different aircraft type) as the main fuselage swaps ends the airspeed drops rather quickly ... that lateral separation might not be so out to lunch. Depends a lot on wind, and other factors)
That's a hard emergency procedure to train for with VMC as the assumed environment. At night with no horizon? degree of difficulty goes way up.
I'd expect that the upset would be hard to deal with for even the best pilots, when we toss in the surprise factor ...
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
That's a hard emergency procedure to train for with VMC as the assumed environment. At night with no horizon? degree of difficulty goes way up.
I'd expect that the upset would be hard to deal with for even the best pilots, when we toss in the surprise factor ...
I'd expect that the upset would be hard to deal with for even the best pilots, when we toss in the surprise factor ...
I'm quite sure loosing the whole tail boom will mess up cg so badly plus strip you of the slightest weather vaning that I would consider that scenario simply unsurvivable (just depending on altitude/impact severity) even in the brightest daylight.
Lone is learning the art of that infamous British understatement thing it appears!
We could throw in a Swash Plate failure as a possible initiating event as well.
My money is on this was a mechanical failure caused event....rather than the stock CFIT thing
Who is in for a Pint of Beer on that?
We could throw in a Swash Plate failure as a possible initiating event as well.
My money is on this was a mechanical failure caused event....rather than the stock CFIT thing
Who is in for a Pint of Beer on that?
Something has caused all the blades to come off, and all the tail boom to come off. Which of those bits came off first in flight has no bearing on the outcome because neither scenario would be survivable. I'm inclined to think that flying a serviceable helicopter into the water at whatever unusual angle, at the speed they were likely to be traveling so soon after take-off, would not result in the damage observed. So I'm with SASless on this one.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Devon
Age: 68
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tail failure.
I would have thought the tail would have been nearby if it had been attached to the aircraft when it went into the water.
With the Qatar AW139 losing its tail it did make me wonder about known problems with composite material. The FAA were looking into composite delimitation problems on all composite a/c in 2010.
Vibration has caused a few cracks in some of the a/c made from composites which I've flown.
Salt water can be very corrosive on metal bolts even if operating over land near to the coast from what I've seen in the past..
Anyone heard if they have found the tail, or tail rotor, as the water didn't look very deep? Did the landing site on Grand Cay have any cctv cameras?
Update from the Bahamas air accident investigation unit.. Their facebook page says that 90% of the aircraft has been photographed.
July 9, 2019
Investigation involving N32CC helicopter approximately 90% of the craft has been photographed and documented over the last 2 days. The remainder of the craft will be completed over the next few days.
Components and parts requiring additional analysis have been removed and are being prepared for shipment to additional laboratories and facilities for specialized analysis in a more controlled environment.
No cause(s) or contributing factor(s) to this accident has been determined, as it is too early to say what may have caused it.
=68.ARD-i5wKBqR99Yw0gSBsrj6Ii_AM-btXMxvLxHuWFJPFA_8xrx27ZRSmokSpzq06OzqFp-kAVRCDSeoL36BuNczok6Gks5of-CaM0yq3086vAIM17jkjcFI4kRveSxBJYXXGnI2YdCrIqBC9bdx8zmXihJauj 3-64tVY4a3XbpTtDkV6c7eoYbwLYSpTKaAc0O8OO4jANh5ylxVdzim4-ukQ96bSTxXgCk1zbnQloINNsK6r-XJOOyQLjmlDcR2TIupcj9V7AElilVnIHx6UB4RpV_xSOMj73rZ97t7V0eO2r jfL-dMl6K3IuQPLNpXBUD-OJRX7TEWJmfi1IBseQg&__tn__=kC-R]https://www.facebook.com/baaid.mota/?hc_ref=ARTkSDPxsiOQNV3a7tWWvwTVecMD6VjfTXfwey6fptEyV5ydVzvd vDBXvU2c1pc6FEY&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARD-i5wKBqR99Yw0gSBsrj6Ii_AM-btXMxvLxHuWFJPFA_8xrx27ZRSmokSpzq06OzqFp-kAVRCDSeoL36BuNczok6Gks5of-CaM0yq3086vAIM17jkjcFI4kRveSxBJYXXGnI2YdCrIqBC9bdx8zmXihJauj 3-64tVY4a3XbpTtDkV6c7eoYbwLYSpTKaAc0O8OO4jANh5ylxVdzim4-ukQ96bSTxXgCk1zbnQloINNsK6r-XJOOyQLjmlDcR2TIupcj9V7AElilVnIHx6UB4RpV_xSOMj73rZ97t7V0eO2r jfL-dMl6K3IuQPLNpXBUD-OJRX7TEWJmfi1IBseQg&__tn__=kC-R
With the Qatar AW139 losing its tail it did make me wonder about known problems with composite material. The FAA were looking into composite delimitation problems on all composite a/c in 2010.
Vibration has caused a few cracks in some of the a/c made from composites which I've flown.
Salt water can be very corrosive on metal bolts even if operating over land near to the coast from what I've seen in the past..
Anyone heard if they have found the tail, or tail rotor, as the water didn't look very deep? Did the landing site on Grand Cay have any cctv cameras?
Update from the Bahamas air accident investigation unit.. Their facebook page says that 90% of the aircraft has been photographed.
July 9, 2019
Investigation involving N32CC helicopter approximately 90% of the craft has been photographed and documented over the last 2 days. The remainder of the craft will be completed over the next few days.
Components and parts requiring additional analysis have been removed and are being prepared for shipment to additional laboratories and facilities for specialized analysis in a more controlled environment.
No cause(s) or contributing factor(s) to this accident has been determined, as it is too early to say what may have caused it.
=68.ARD-i5wKBqR99Yw0gSBsrj6Ii_AM-btXMxvLxHuWFJPFA_8xrx27ZRSmokSpzq06OzqFp-kAVRCDSeoL36BuNczok6Gks5of-CaM0yq3086vAIM17jkjcFI4kRveSxBJYXXGnI2YdCrIqBC9bdx8zmXihJauj 3-64tVY4a3XbpTtDkV6c7eoYbwLYSpTKaAc0O8OO4jANh5ylxVdzim4-ukQ96bSTxXgCk1zbnQloINNsK6r-XJOOyQLjmlDcR2TIupcj9V7AElilVnIHx6UB4RpV_xSOMj73rZ97t7V0eO2r jfL-dMl6K3IuQPLNpXBUD-OJRX7TEWJmfi1IBseQg&__tn__=kC-R]https://www.facebook.com/baaid.mota/?hc_ref=ARTkSDPxsiOQNV3a7tWWvwTVecMD6VjfTXfwey6fptEyV5ydVzvd vDBXvU2c1pc6FEY&fref=nf&__xts__[0]=68.ARD-i5wKBqR99Yw0gSBsrj6Ii_AM-btXMxvLxHuWFJPFA_8xrx27ZRSmokSpzq06OzqFp-kAVRCDSeoL36BuNczok6Gks5of-CaM0yq3086vAIM17jkjcFI4kRveSxBJYXXGnI2YdCrIqBC9bdx8zmXihJauj 3-64tVY4a3XbpTtDkV6c7eoYbwLYSpTKaAc0O8OO4jANh5ylxVdzim4-ukQ96bSTxXgCk1zbnQloINNsK6r-XJOOyQLjmlDcR2TIupcj9V7AElilVnIHx6UB4RpV_xSOMj73rZ97t7V0eO2r jfL-dMl6K3IuQPLNpXBUD-OJRX7TEWJmfi1IBseQg&__tn__=kC-R
Last edited by Cabby; 11th Jul 2019 at 21:08.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Devon
Age: 68
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recovery photo.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was CFIT. Pitch black moonless night, takeoff over a black ocean at 2 o'clock in the morning from a remote island, with probably little crew rest...but NO! The tailboom fell off just after they were airborne! Please.....
I’m inclined to put my pint with SASless , but bearing in mind the extent of the damage to the aircraft will the investigation team/teams really be able to come up with a definitive answer.
Last edited by nomorehelosforme; 12th Jul 2019 at 01:11.
The two categories are....Mechanical Malfunction and CFIT.
You can take your pick of any number of events that fall under Mechanical Malfunction or a single choice under the alternative.
Remember the Foot Ball Stadium crash that killed the Team Owner....how many folks went for the Pilot Error option when it was actually a Tail Rotor Control mechanical failure?
We had a real time video of that one and all of the Keyboard Investigators got it wrong early on.
You can take your pick of any number of events that fall under Mechanical Malfunction or a single choice under the alternative.
Remember the Foot Ball Stadium crash that killed the Team Owner....how many folks went for the Pilot Error option when it was actually a Tail Rotor Control mechanical failure?
We had a real time video of that one and all of the Keyboard Investigators got it wrong early on.
