H225 down in Korea
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/...!4d131.8668421
Last edited by Concentric; 8th Nov 2019 at 11:39. Reason: Added video reference.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Scotland
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Depending on current, shape, weight, trapped air, parts can travel quite a distance before hitting the ground.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
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.
at the transport joint. There were supposed to be thirty six, iirc.
