Fukushima Prefecture AW139 crash land, no immediatefatalities
When you actually have something of value to say AnFI, then we can debate it but I think you should apologise publicly for trying to tarnish the reputation of a the Wessex pilot with this
You have no idea what happened and the fact was that he saved the lives of most of the people on board with some skillful flying following a failure that would have tested any pilot. You should be ashamed.
You live in a world where when a pilot simulates an emergency with cadet passengers on board(!), causing a TRDS failure, then screws up the response, everyone gets a medal and its a 'training problem'. You live in a fantasy world. Must be nice.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have a point and I really hate criticism of pilots but you are a hypocrite having made a much worse criticism of a similar kind.
One case was incompetence (by system or pilot), with fatalities.
The other you criticise was not the pilot and was a 'success'
There is no evidence for your false assertion: "saved the lives of most of the people on board with some skillful flying".
and I AM NOT really criticising the pilot.
It is quite clear that the training (competence) was not there, as the reports make clear.
(so because the training was not there the pilot was not equipped to apply "Skillful Flying", was he?) .
BUT seriously for a moment:
You teach in this type. We hear from ST how schockingly badly the SIM behaves.
What is the actual behaviour of the aircraft if you fly at zero TR thrust, are you just a passenger in a Forrest Gump world?
Is it like this: "...you're an involuntary test pilot and might have little say in what the aircraft does, at least for a few seconds. With a rapidly rotating fuselage, pitch may become roll and roll may become pitch."
Do you understand this subject yourself?
One case was incompetence (by system or pilot), with fatalities.
The other you criticise was not the pilot and was a 'success'
There is no evidence for your false assertion: "saved the lives of most of the people on board with some skillful flying".
and I AM NOT really criticising the pilot.
It is quite clear that the training (competence) was not there, as the reports make clear.
(so because the training was not there the pilot was not equipped to apply "Skillful Flying", was he?) .
BUT seriously for a moment:
You teach in this type. We hear from ST how schockingly badly the SIM behaves.
What is the actual behaviour of the aircraft if you fly at zero TR thrust, are you just a passenger in a Forrest Gump world?
Is it like this: "...you're an involuntary test pilot and might have little say in what the aircraft does, at least for a few seconds. With a rapidly rotating fuselage, pitch may become roll and roll may become pitch."
Do you understand this subject yourself?
In a Wessex?
Towards the end the instructor got us to set the aircraft in a particular configuration, then failed the TR without warning (we knew it was coming of course, that was the point of the exercise, but not exactly when). To a man we all crashed. We were then told that this was the configuration of the Wessex when the TR failed. When we repeated the exercise knowing it was coming, and got the throttles chopped smartly, most survived.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
BTW - who on earth refers to 'a sexy mushroom'????????
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"in a Wessex?" I presume you disagree with the CAA on this:
"
Maybe you are right and they are wrong?
"and got the throttles chopped smartly"
chopping the 'throttles' is normally a really bad idea, lowering the lever does what you need, most of the time, unless you want to lose the RRPM too??
and the Wessex case was not entirely without warning:
"However, the simulated yaw channel runaway manoeuvre involved the application of considerable sideforce, which with the resultant requirement for higher TR thrust, generated a high load on the tail structure. This caused increased bending forces in the tail boom, which tended to stretch the transmission train, and resulted in the minimal engagement of the disconnect coupling being lost. "
have a nice day.
"
- This depends heavily on the yaw stiffness of the aircraft without TR thrust. For example, the Gazelle, Squirrel, Jetranger, Sea King and Wessex are relatively stable, whereas the Lynx and Puma are relatively unstable.
Maybe you are right and they are wrong?
"and got the throttles chopped smartly"
chopping the 'throttles' is normally a really bad idea, lowering the lever does what you need, most of the time, unless you want to lose the RRPM too??
and the Wessex case was not entirely without warning:
"However, the simulated yaw channel runaway manoeuvre involved the application of considerable sideforce, which with the resultant requirement for higher TR thrust, generated a high load on the tail structure. This caused increased bending forces in the tail boom, which tended to stretch the transmission train, and resulted in the minimal engagement of the disconnect coupling being lost. "
have a nice day.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Btw. e.g. S76 behaviour was modelled a similar way and AS332L1 (of course the nose was then turning to the left) as well.
Btw. I can understand your description: ”There are accident reports, an H369 in Australia is one, non-event. and a gazelle in UK where the drive shaft failures were bearly noticeable (in the Gazelle for HALF AN HOUR !!)”
Especially concerning ”the Gazelle case”... IMHO. the helicopters with a Fenestron Tail are different... when I got my EC135 TRI training in Germany, the EC TRI Didi B. told me his experience with a TR shaft failure... He could fly level flight with that failure and autorotate later on, when he was close by a suitable landing area. I don’t have any other referencies from pilots, who have experienced a real TR shaft failure.🤔
Cheers! 😉
Last edited by Search&Rescue; 10th Feb 2020 at 10:15.
skadi
Still waiting for some detail on your experience in medium twins, either in the aircraft or a full motion sim AnFI.
When you can demonstrate that you have any understanding of what you are talking about then people might listen.
Some of us have been teaching TR malfunctions in aircraft and simulators for many years.......
BTW, the skillful flying was not becoming a passenger and managing to keep the aircraft upright and in a condition where a landing could be cushioned - that is why they didn't all die but you obviously know better......
When you can demonstrate that you have any understanding of what you are talking about then people might listen.
Some of us have been teaching TR malfunctions in aircraft and simulators for many years.......
BTW, the skillful flying was not becoming a passenger and managing to keep the aircraft upright and in a condition where a landing could be cushioned - that is why they didn't all die but you obviously know better......
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Concerning AW139, most of the ATO’s are instructing the pilots to autorotate in case of TR shaft failure during the cruise flight...
And the QRH Emerg guidence is vey clear concerning cruise flight:
Lower collective immediately!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanx for the additional info Skadi!
Concerning AW139, most of the ATO’s are instructing the pilots to autorotate in case of TR shaft failure during the cruise flight...
And the QRH Emerg guidence is vey clear concerning cruise flight:
Lower collective immediately!
Concerning AW139, most of the ATO’s are instructing the pilots to autorotate in case of TR shaft failure during the cruise flight...
And the QRH Emerg guidence is vey clear concerning cruise flight:
Lower collective immediately!
If you start farting about "assessing your running landing capability", and think you can carry out a running landing with suitable power and speed", the chances are, its going to be a messy finish!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Not sure of the original thread is on Mil Av or Rotor heads. )
I hate that wording.
If you start farting about "assessing your running landing capability", and think you can carry out a running landing with suitable power and speed", the chances are, its going to be a messy finish!
If you start farting about "assessing your running landing capability", and think you can carry out a running landing with suitable power and speed", the chances are, its going to be a messy finish!
ISTR the Apache was a TR drive failure and it was a very fast landing.
MBB pushed the Run On Landing technique for the BK-117 and one Operator I worked for incorporated that into our training and check rides.
When doing a stuck right pedal exercise we found ourselves whizzing down the runway at 110 Knots IAS....I had the temerity to challenge our Chief Pilot's wisdom.
I proposed entering autorotation, pulling the engines to "Off", and landing with no engine power going to the drivetrain and a near zero groundspeed, saying I felt that would be far safer, smarter, and have a much better outcome.....it was not received well.
After all....did not the maker of the aircraft know better than anyone else about their machine?
The thought of doing that kind of landing....at night...with engines and rotor at full chat....with no pedal control....touching down at 110 knots having only collective movement to assist in yaw control......well...that just scared me to death.
I have done lots of touch down autorotations over my career...including two for real....and those are far easier on the flight suit and underwear than the other option would be.
When doing a stuck right pedal exercise we found ourselves whizzing down the runway at 110 Knots IAS....I had the temerity to challenge our Chief Pilot's wisdom.
I proposed entering autorotation, pulling the engines to "Off", and landing with no engine power going to the drivetrain and a near zero groundspeed, saying I felt that would be far safer, smarter, and have a much better outcome.....it was not received well.
After all....did not the maker of the aircraft know better than anyone else about their machine?
The thought of doing that kind of landing....at night...with engines and rotor at full chat....with no pedal control....touching down at 110 knots having only collective movement to assist in yaw control......well...that just scared me to death.
I have done lots of touch down autorotations over my career...including two for real....and those are far easier on the flight suit and underwear than the other option would be.
As we mention successes....how about failed attempts..... I am sure there are plenty of those to recall.
S&R, from memory it was a write up in "Rotor & Wing" many, many years ago, as to details I don't recall, other than they ran off the side of the runway and came to a stop in the grass without inflicting further damage.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
by Flight Safety in case of TR shaft failure... that’s why I was asking. 😉
