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

AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed

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

AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed

Old 9th Jul 2019, 01:22
  #161 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
Is that a pelican size hole in the pilots windshield?



No, that is an acrylic windshield that has deformed, probably due to huge hydraulic (sea water) loads on it.
noooby is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 01:24
  #162 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by Kulwin Park View Post
You're right !! On the above pictures, there is no sign of the blades at all, even the rod end of the Damper has torn off taking any part of the blade & that claw fitting with it. Very strange. It's almost like the inner blade root hub has cracked, and failed under high loads in translational flight, letting the blades go, leaving just the inner hub ring where the dampers attach to? A weird one if you just analyse the pictures..........

Look closer. The blades don't mount to the head do they, they mount to the tension links. The tension links got wiped out on impact with sea water, hence the blades are gone. The tension links are composite.

When you find the blades you'll find the bolts and the tension links still attached but broken.
noooby is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 01:28
  #163 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: daworld
Posts: 599
Originally Posted by malabo View Post
If you are experienced and current on black-hole helipad departures it is a purely mechanical exercise, more so with a 139 that will transition easily to forward flight without loss of altitude. From the hover all references are on your panel with sequential power and attitude changes. Has been done safely for years even in helicopters with no AFCS at all. We’d practise engine failures before and after rotation from a night helideck at the 139 sim every year.

With the impact damage seen, flotation isn’t especially relevant. Except as a disparaging comment on aircraft management if it wasn’t there. Pretty sure the previous owner had floats and Phase4 - noooby? Under Part 91 I don’t know what is required in addition to life jackets on board for all occupants. I’d insist on floats and rafts for a 150nm overwater trip with passengers, but that’s just me.

We don’t know where the aircraft was hiding out prior to landing to pick up passengers at 2am. Entry and exit from the Bahamas has to be from an AOE, closest would be Nassau. Was it headed for KFLL (24 hr customs) direct or via MYNN? If I’m departing from a remote location in the US or Canada I ask for an “assumed departure” when I file a flight plan - that way my flight plan opens automatically, even if I were to crash on takeoff.

Yeah, I don't recall if this was 4.8 or 5.6. Definitely had floats. Hard cover floats. First picture on this thread with it in N-reg shows floats. But the photos just above do not. The hard covers over the floats are very fragile and quite obvious. And I don't see them yet. Wouldn't make much of a difference probably but still something that the FAA may not be happy about.
noooby is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 07:05
  #164 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Lost again...
Posts: 523
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme View Post


TC,

There have been a few crashes in the UK with N-Registered aircraft that were not investigated by the NTSB, probably because of the nationality of those involved or owning the aircraft. I guess things could get complicated if an aircraft, regardless of its country of registration, is owned by a secretive off shore company.

As already stated above, under ICAO Annexe 13 the responsibility for investigating any civil aircraft accident lies with the country of occurrence (regardless of where the aircraft is registered or who was onboard it). As also said that country may delegate responsibility to another agency - it is common for smaller countries to have agreements with larger countries.

Investigators from other nations are usually invited to send "Accredited Representatives" to advise and participate in the investigation. These countries would normally include: The state of registration; the state of airframe manufacturer, the state of engine manufacturer and; states with large representations in the passenger manifest. Any information required from organisations within these countries (eg the manufacturer) is supposed to be requested through the accredited representative of the investigation agency (although in practice this is often rubber stamped at the beginning of the investigation and direct contact between the lead investigator and the manufacturer takes place).

However, the state of occurrence retains primacy unless it devolves authority.

So to the above comment - an N reg crash in the UK would not be investigated by the NTSB - It would be investigated by UK AAIB, who would (depending on severity and necessity) invite NTSB to observe / contribute as necessary.

Hope that's helpful
OH
OvertHawk is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 12:19
  #165 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
Cannot the 139 Autopilot system do a takeoff from the hover, climb out, then level at a predetermined altititude....with just a couple of "button" pushes?

Is that not being taught to the Pilots in training?
SASless is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 12:29
  #166 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,990
His Attorney is now being quoted "A mechanical issue may have caused the helicopter crash that killed seven people...according to an attorney for one of the victims. The evidence points to catastrophic mechanical failure, probably having to do with the tail,” Brian Glasser told MetroNews’ Hoppy Kercheval.

I'm yet to see a photo of the tail boom, tail rotor or main rotor blades. You just don't see them on any of the barge photos.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 12:38
  #167 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
His Attorney is now being quoted "A mechanical issue may have caused the helicopter crash that killed seven people...according to an attorney for one of the victims. The evidence points to catastrophic mechanical failure, probably having to do with the tail,” Brian Glasser told MetroNews’ Hoppy Kercheval.

I'm yet to see a photo of the tail boom, tail rotor or main rotor blades. You just don't see them on any of the barge photos.
Well a word of caution - the attorney will chase the money and there’s more money in Leonardo’s pockets than the estates of the pilots.

Either way - it’s worrying if it is a structural failure for the rest of the fleet but I’d be more than happy to see the pilots absolved of the blame heaped on them so quickly in this thread.

BaronG is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 12:51
  #168 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
I disagree with "blame" being assessed.

Topics have cropped up and the discussion has been far more about those than criticizing the two Pilots.

The comments in general have been very supportive of the pilots as they seem to be very well regarded by those that know them.

Many times posts have been made clearly stating it is hoped a mechanical failure of some kind caused the crash....which could happen to any of us.

Simple truth is....it could have been any of us as we are all human....and thus are subject to make mistakes.

The investigation is just beginning and no one at this point that is in the know....has gone on record.

I put zero credence in some Lawyer's comments at this point and even then one has to consider what bias said Lawyer brings to the microphone when he speaks.
SASless is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 13:26
  #169 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 141
Originally Posted by noooby View Post
Yeah, I don't recall if this was 4.8 or 5.6. Definitely had floats. Hard cover floats. First picture on this thread with it in N-reg shows floats. But the photos just above do not. The hard covers over the floats are very fragile and quite obvious. And I don't see them yet. Wouldn't make much of a difference probably but still something that the FAA may not be happy about.
Why would the FAA be unhappy?
JimEli is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 13:54
  #170 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
The FAR's are not exactly written by scholars for sure.

First thing you have to do is figure out which FAR's apply to the Operation.

If it is a part 91, non-air tour operation, the Rules go awfully vague about floats.

The question becomes who owns the aircraft, is it a lease, charter, privately owned and operated, used in an Air Taxi operation when not being used by the owner, etc.....

When you get all that figured out then you can begin to sort out which rule applies.

I am sure the insurance company will have an interest in all of this.

Keep in mind the FAR's are "Airplane" centric and evolve rather than being written anew thus be careful to remember it must state "aircraft", "helicopter" or "rotorcraft" to apply uniquely to helicopters.

When it specifies "airplane" than it applies only to airplanes.

Commonsense tells one that floats, personal flotation devices, life rafts, and emergency beacon(s) would be reasonable for flights to/from the Islands.....but would they be "required" is altogether different issue.
SASless is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 14:00
  #171 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wales
Age: 64
Posts: 70
Previous AW139 tail boom separation

Re a previous AW139 which lost its tail boom in Qatar while on the ground. Something to look at when the tail boom photo's surface.
Photo link of previous incident.
https://www.avweb.com/news/tail-boom...arationGallery

Previous PPRuNe thread.
AW139 lost tail taxying DOH
Cabby is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 14:43
  #172 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 1,990
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
...Commonsense tells one that floats, personal flotation devices, life rafts, and emergency beacon(s) would be reasonable for flights to/from the Islands.....but would they be "required" is altogether different issue.
Common sense, yes, but floats probably not mandated. When a helicopter is operating beyond autorotational distance from land, all occupants should be wearing a life jacket, and not just have a life jacket within reach. Having 2 engines shouldn't have any bearing on this aspect. Not that wearing life jackets would have affected the outcome in this instance. Nor floats fitted for that matter.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 16:11
  #173 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 597
Originally Posted by SASless View Post
Cannot the 139 Autopilot system do a takeoff from the hover, climb out, then level at a predetermined altititude....with just a couple of "button" pushes?

Is that not being taught to the Pilots in training?
Not if it had phase 4 software, which I think I read earlier.
Non-PC Plod is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 16:34
  #174 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,704
Originally Posted by Cabby View Post
Re a previous AW139 which lost its tail boom in Qatar while on the ground. Something to look at when the tail boom photo's surface.
Photo link of previous incident.
https://www.avweb.com/news/tail-boom...arationGallery

Previous PPRuNe thread.
AW139 lost tail taxying DOH
Is that the same aircraft which had previously had an undeclared tail strike whilst landing offshore?
Bravo73 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 17:21
  #175 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Nigeria
Age: 52
Posts: 4,444
Originally Posted by tottigol View Post

The very same one.
was it undeclared or incorrectly damage assessed and repaired?
212man is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 17:29
  #176 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: NY
Posts: 27
Originally Posted by abdunbar View Post
Rich guys have much more opportunity for everything, including getting into trouble. Seems as if there should be a rich guy survival class. What was the right answer to this situation? What were the alternatives? Assuming that the medical emergency was acute, not just uncomfortable. Was it possible to get a medevac from Florida or Nassau? Would that medevac company have been a better qualified operation? I have no idea but Monday morning thinking says that this information should have been part of a Bahama out island SOP. On the other hand no one appreciates being restricted by more rules and regulations. But wouldn't it be nice to know where the line is. I just googled some medevac companies. They do brag about their NVG and IFR training. But I saw no mention of when and if they operate one or two pilot, how they handle dispatch, what crew rest rules they follow...
I thought the same. $10 says these guys have no idea how safe or unsafe their operations are. They hire a reputable charter, and that's that. And 99% of the time there's nothing wrong with that. Interestingly, being a pilot has changed my risk assessment of basically everything I do. Not to assume that its pilot error, but if it is, he had the resources to reduce the risk level. Being out there on your own island in the middle of the sea is a blast... until something bad happens.
mryan75 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 17:37
  #177 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 485
Originally Posted by mryan75 View Post

I thought the same. $10 says these guys have no idea how safe or unsafe their operations are. They hire a reputable charter, and that's that. And 99% of the time there's nothing wrong with that. Interestingly, being a pilot has changed my risk assessment of basically everything I do. Not to assume that its pilot error, but if it is, he had the resources to reduce the risk level. Being out there on your own island in the middle of the sea is a blast... until something bad happens.
And yet the stats aren’t dominated by rich guys, they’re full of poor pilots leaving craters in the countryside. They too get away with it 99.9% of the time.
Bell_ringer is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 17:57
  #178 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: "Deplorable but happy as a drunken Monkey!
Age: 70
Posts: 16,262
Someone suggested the photo taken of the aircraft pre-crash....and posted here raised a couple of questions about the Mark Tail Rotor blades installed on the aircraft (in the photo).

The comment mentioned "Two Ring" versus "Three Ring" which is meaningless to me but perhaps some of you 139 guys can discuss that for us.
SASless is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 18:42
  #179 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 538
$10 says these guys have no idea how safe or unsafe their operations are. They hire a reputable charter, and that's that.
You obviously dont know much about Chris Cline or his ops otherwise you would know he has a whole aviation department that consists of Embraer business jet, AW139, just took delivery of a new H130T2 and also I think has the Koala. So just hiring a company is totally off the mark in this case.
KiwiNedNZ is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2019, 18:50
  #180 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vega
Posts: 38
Originally Posted by 212man View Post

was it undeclared or incorrectly damage assessed and repaired?
Both in that case.
m32k is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.