AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed
At "faa.gov", you can search the data base for his license details.
I just did so and exactly one entry using "David Jude" is returned.
I just did so and exactly one entry using "David Jude" is returned.
We have seen another Helicopter Manufacturer issue such public statements in the past.....and it later turn out they. had a major problem in the design of their aircraft.
How much credence can we put into Leonardo's Statement?
If it is credible and based upon the results of the examination of the wreckage.....then that would point a finger directly at the Crew as the weather was benign.
Has any more information surfaced about their backgrounds, training, medical history of the crew, and their 139 experience been made public?
Anything that would put into question their fitness for that particular flight or climatic conditions (dark, over water, lack of horizon....etc).
How much credence can we put into Leonardo's Statement?
If it is credible and based upon the results of the examination of the wreckage.....then that would point a finger directly at the Crew as the weather was benign.
Has any more information surfaced about their backgrounds, training, medical history of the crew, and their 139 experience been made public?
Anything that would put into question their fitness for that particular flight or climatic conditions (dark, over water, lack of horizon....etc).
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest letter issued from Leonardo, does not appear they think there was any mechanical failure !!
Following AW139 accident that occurred near Big Grand Cay Island, Bahamas on July 4th, 2019, Leonardo Helicopters immediately dispatched a team to offer support to the recovery and investigation and continues to work closely with
the Investigating Authorities.
At this point, Leonardo Helicopters do not. envisage the need to take any airworthiness actions as a result of present investigation outcomes
Following AW139 accident that occurred near Big Grand Cay Island, Bahamas on July 4th, 2019, Leonardo Helicopters immediately dispatched a team to offer support to the recovery and investigation and continues to work closely with
the Investigating Authorities.
At this point, Leonardo Helicopters do not. envisage the need to take any airworthiness actions as a result of present investigation outcomes
There is another very hypothetical possible cause factor which fits the little pictorial and other public media and preliminary report evidence available.
Background: the AW139 rotorhead incorporates leading edge pitch control horns i.e., the push rods are attached on the blade leading edge side. Same as the CH-53E.
The 1996 CH-53E fatal accident on the first hover of a standard production machine was traced to a bearing failure ( caused by a manufacturing defect in the supplied bearing ) in the rotating swashplate. One can easily imagine the rotating swashplate slowing down and the effect on rotor control. Those words imply it happened gradually, but the final bearing failure happened quickly and part of the result was that the blades chopped the tail off, while the remainder of the machine descended vertically from the 150-200 ft where they had been hovering. I had been walking toward the rear of the pilot office ( which has a somewhat cut-off view of the field ) and heard three distinct thumps, turned around and caught a glimpse of the machine before it disappeared behind a storage shack. The rear tail section was separated.
I’d imagine the NTSB will as a matter of course look at the swashplate bearing and ensure it still moves freely.
PS: the reason I used thee term “very hypothetical” is because the difficulties involved in design/manufacture and QA on a huge swashplate bearing as on the 53E are quite different than on much smaller vehicles.
Background: the AW139 rotorhead incorporates leading edge pitch control horns i.e., the push rods are attached on the blade leading edge side. Same as the CH-53E.
The 1996 CH-53E fatal accident on the first hover of a standard production machine was traced to a bearing failure ( caused by a manufacturing defect in the supplied bearing ) in the rotating swashplate. One can easily imagine the rotating swashplate slowing down and the effect on rotor control. Those words imply it happened gradually, but the final bearing failure happened quickly and part of the result was that the blades chopped the tail off, while the remainder of the machine descended vertically from the 150-200 ft where they had been hovering. I had been walking toward the rear of the pilot office ( which has a somewhat cut-off view of the field ) and heard three distinct thumps, turned around and caught a glimpse of the machine before it disappeared behind a storage shack. The rear tail section was separated.
I’d imagine the NTSB will as a matter of course look at the swashplate bearing and ensure it still moves freely.
PS: the reason I used thee term “very hypothetical” is because the difficulties involved in design/manufacture and QA on a huge swashplate bearing as on the 53E are quite different than on much smaller vehicles.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 30th Jul 2019 at 15:01. Reason: additional information
So if you have a CPL with C/AW-139 type rating, and then you get an ATPL, the type rating will be changed to A/AW-139? Even if you didn't do the ATPL practical test in a AW-139?
Could it be that the reason for the CPL Type rating is the applicant had insufficient hours to qualify for the ATPL or had not passed the Written Exam for the ATPL, but passed the same Practical Test (Check Ride) as he would have had he the ATPL?
Perhaps someone currently conducting FAA Type Rating practical tests can explain how the procedure works so we can all understand the nuances of Type Ratings under the FAA system.
Ask and you shall receive.......from a friend still active in the business out in the wilds of Louisiana....still doing this stuff.
Perhaps someone currently conducting FAA Type Rating practical tests can explain how the procedure works so we can all understand the nuances of Type Ratings under the FAA system.
Ask and you shall receive.......from a friend still active in the business out in the wilds of Louisiana....still doing this stuff.
\Training under part 142 follows specified standards.
The Training Curriculum is listed in the Training Center Manual approved by the FAA assigned TCPM
All type-ratings are issued to ATPL Standards and follow the relative Practical Test Standards.
The PTS are to become amended to ACSs and follow new standards
in accordance with 61.58 Proficiency Check requirements and applies to
ALL type ratings.
The Training Curriculum is listed in the Training Center Manual approved by the FAA assigned TCPM
All type-ratings are issued to ATPL Standards and follow the relative Practical Test Standards.
The PTS are to become amended to ACSs and follow new standards
in accordance with 61.58 Proficiency Check requirements and applies to
ALL type ratings.
Last edited by SASless; 30th Jul 2019 at 18:51.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest letter issued from Leonardo, does not appear they think there was any mechanical failure !!
Following AW139 accident that occurred near Big Grand Cay Island, Bahamas on July 4th, 2019, Leonardo Helicopters immediately dispatched a team to offer support to the recovery and investigation and continues to work closely with the Investigating Authorities.
At this point, Leonardo Helicopters do not envisage the need to take any airworthiness actions as a result of present investigation outcomes
Following AW139 accident that occurred near Big Grand Cay Island, Bahamas on July 4th, 2019, Leonardo Helicopters immediately dispatched a team to offer support to the recovery and investigation and continues to work closely with the Investigating Authorities.
At this point, Leonardo Helicopters do not envisage the need to take any airworthiness actions as a result of present investigation outcomes
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without going into why I ask this question.....but is there reliable/credible information to describe the reputation/record/quality/complaint record of Cloud Nine LLC's operation and business standards?
I have found one FAA Action taken on "2014WP230061" dated 01/18/13 which resulted in the Suspension of Cloud Nine LLC's Operator Certificate (no Fine/Penalty shown) with a closing date of 08/01/14.
I have found one FAA Action taken on "2014WP230061" dated 01/18/13 which resulted in the Suspension of Cloud Nine LLC's Operator Certificate (no Fine/Penalty shown) with a closing date of 08/01/14.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly. All this BS about the tailboom being found 500 ft from fuselage (according to whom? Not NTSB), and a t/r blade separating in flight, and an eyewitness 1.6 miles away (at night) counting the fuselage making THREE ROTATIONS TO THE LEFT. I think after almost 2 months of NTSB and Leonardo poring over dynamic components and no emergency AD, we know what happened.
With the NTSB Preliminary Report already out last month, it will be at least 12-18 months before anything else will "officially" come out. And it can possibly be longer due to it technically is still under Bahamian jurisdiction even though the NTSB accepted delegation authority. But as noted above, if there was/is an urgent aircraft issue the OEMs usually issue documents way before any official reports.
Spray,
The lights wet from right to left, not the fuselage. If tail lights that is consistent with loss of tail rotor thrust. After the early problems with the t/r blades the new blades are probably so over designed that a repeat is not even being considered. If the data/wreckage shows no drivetrain issue you are down to t/r bird strike or FOD as the likely cause.
The lights wet from right to left, not the fuselage. If tail lights that is consistent with loss of tail rotor thrust. After the early problems with the t/r blades the new blades are probably so over designed that a repeat is not even being considered. If the data/wreckage shows no drivetrain issue you are down to t/r bird strike or FOD as the likely cause.