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

H225 down in Korea

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

H225 down in Korea

Old 8th Nov 2019, 12:22
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 90
Originally Posted by Outwest View Post
Video posted in post #34 says there was video of the crash? At 1:23 is that the heli-pad on top of that island? By the comments about the tail being 90 m away from the fuselage and 2 bodies found near the tail would that suggest that the tail was chopped off in flight? Violent control inputs?
Which suggests it wasn't quite as "inky black" as some have suggested. Yes, there is a heli-pad on top of the main islet (easily seen on Google Maps) but what is also noticeable are the cable-car wires stretching from the small harbour up to just under the heli-pad (at 1:22 in video). If the ceiling was low, could the SAR aircraft have landed at the harbour instead of the heli-pad, and struck the wires possibly with the tail rotor after take-off? "Skewed, unsteady flight"? If the TRGB then broke off, the sequence of events leading to the condition of the wreckage is not hard to visualise.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...!4d131.8668421

Last edited by Concentric; 8th Nov 2019 at 12:39. Reason: Added video reference.
Concentric is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 12:00
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 18
The tail was found "114 meters from the fuselage" according to news reports.
ptflyer is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 13:10
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 4,683
There wasn't any power to that rotor when it hit the sea so it departed in the air. A clean break at an assembly point?
Fareastdriver is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 13:33
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 561
From the almost damaged free picture of that tail boom it couldn't have been chopped off by the main rotor.....what would cause it to separate in flight so cleanly?
Outwest is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 14:11
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 57
Posts: 1,213
Outwest it does not seem to have been chopped off.
Like Fareast says, looks like a clean separation at the transport joint.
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 15:31
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Inside the Industry
Posts: 777
When we contracted 225s, we had a couple of aircraft with significant corrosion around the boom attachment. Isn’t it a metal / composite joint?
industry insider is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 17:50
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 30
Originally Posted by industry insider View Post
When we contracted 225s, we had a couple of aircraft with significant corrosion around the boom attachment. Isn’t it a metal / composite joint?
Metal on the tail boom side and composite on the aircraft side.
tonkaplonka is offline  
Old 13th Nov 2019, 23:40
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 177
Poor Airbus.

Just when they convince themselves that the main rotor system won’t fall off anymore, a tail boom departs the scene.
Standing by for the Airbus press release that they have found the tail boom attachment bolts in a tool box*



* Referring of course to their initial claim they had the “parts” that should have attached the MRGB in the Norwegian 225.
Twist & Shout is online now  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 00:26
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 600
Remember the Kuwaiti midair:


The right hand ship’s tail failed at what looks like a similar station. So some sort of main rotor failure such as loss of a blade tip weight or a pitch link failure could easily have snapped the boom off.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 11:47
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
there are quite a few other video examples where the tailbooms depart the aircraft without being struck by the MRB's.
In those, its clearly an overloaded scenario dependent on the torque applied. The weakest point loses the fight.
What caused that in this case will be determined I am sure.
GrayHorizonsHeli is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 14:18
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Arlington, Tx. US
Posts: 600
Gray,

In Kuwait the rotor did not hit the tail. The boom failed because the imbalance of the rotor resulting from the collision snapped it off.
The Sultan is offline  
Old 14th Nov 2019, 23:39
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 822
Also to be considered - the point, where you find parts on the seabed - doesn´t automatically mean, that they dropped in the water vertical above that point.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.
Flying Bull is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 02:16
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 309
Originally Posted by The Sultan View Post
Gray,

In Kuwait the rotor did not hit the tail. The boom failed because the imbalance of the rotor resulting from the collision snapped it off.
yeah, i know, thats what i was saying. I agreed with you saying theres many more examples of that out there.
GrayHorizonsHeli is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 03:24
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by DOUBLE BOGEY View Post
Outwest it does not seem to have been chopped off.
Like Fareast says, looks like a clean separation at the transport joint.
I think you missed my point, which was that exactly. It was NOT chopped off.
Outwest is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 03:26
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Flying Bull View Post
Also to be considered - the point, where you find parts on the seabed - doesn´t automatically mean, that they dropped in the water vertical above that point.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.
Thats true, but you still can't dismiss the lack of damage to both the boom itself and the TR blades, suggesting it departed with plenty of time for the blades to slow down before impact with the water....
Outwest is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 07:16
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 57
Posts: 1,213
Originally Posted by Outwest View Post
I think you missed my point, which was that exactly. It was NOT chopped off.

Yes sorry about that. Must read more carefully.
DOUBLE BOGEY is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 11:51
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
One of these threads

Yet again people died in an EC225 and still we have armchair experts jumping to conclusions and most likely being proved wrong, again. I have heard the ‘it’s ok to speculate’ argument time and time again. When people are dead and their bodies are missing it just is not ok to speculate that it was likely to be two of the dead’s fault until there is at least some evidence to back that up. Two of you armchair warriors already have form if anybody cares to look at the Norwegian 225 thread. Maybe I should speculate and imply that you are receiving payment from Airbus to influence opinion on this public forum? I don’t believe that, but what has been implied here is worse. You denigrate the professions involved here with your pathetic amateur sleuth work!
Hompy is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 15:25
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 62
Posts: 561
Originally Posted by Hompy View Post
Yet again people died in an EC225 and still we have armchair experts jumping to conclusions and most likely being proved wrong, again. I have heard the ‘it’s ok to speculate’ argument time and time again. When people are dead and their bodies are missing it just is not ok to speculate that it was likely to be two of the dead’s fault until there is at least some evidence to back that up. Two of you armchair warriors already have form if anybody cares to look at the Norwegian 225 thread. Maybe I should speculate and imply that you are receiving payment from Airbus to influence opinion on this public forum? I don’t believe that, but what has been implied here is worse. You denigrate the professions involved here with your pathetic amateur sleuth work!
Wooo buddy, I'm not jumping to any conclusions at all, just stating the obvious that the tail boom and TR was basically damage free according to the picture. I, as you and everyone else have no idea on how or why it departed the a/c, but it sure looks like it did.
Outwest is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 15:53
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 75
Posts: 767
Hompy - neat move there seizing the moral high ground and then dumping your own biases as an aside. Classy.
Shell Management is offline  
Old 15th Nov 2019, 15:59
  #60 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,498
I recall an incident that almost cost an RAF Puma in the late 1970s. It was discovered to have flown with just three bolts holding the tail boom on
at the transport joint. There were supposed to be thirty six, iirc.
ShyTorque is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

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