An angel at my pad (Keck hospital rooftop crash)
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: Mesopotamos
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The crashworthiness of that aircraft in the second video is quite impressive, it really did hit the heli-pad quite hard on its side which is not where the best impact cushioning for the occupants lies.
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like an AS350?
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like an AS350?
The crashworthiness of that aircraft in the second video is quite impressive, it really did hit the heli-pad quite hard on its side which is not where the best impact cushioning for the occupants lies.
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like a B206 or AS350?
I've not flown an AW109, and like Alpha-Romeo's I don't seem to fit in them very well, but I'm told that unlike say an AS350 they are quite benign on the piano pedals through most phases of flight. Can the pedals also be operated without power assistance much like a B206 or AS350?
If it wasn’t a driveshaft failure it must have been a hard right pedal input, or control runaway. It’s difficult to tell if the tail rotor rpm changed because we’re not watching in real time and camera frame rate masks what’s going on.
As per the previous post, the aircraft are totally different types (169 versus 109) and their tail rotor control systems are totally different.
As per the previous post, the aircraft are totally different types (169 versus 109) and their tail rotor control systems are totally different.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
The tail rotor blade pitch of the 109 is designed to revert to a neutral setting without hydraulics. However, to move them from that setting you have to use so much foot force on the pedals (to get limited effect) it feels like something is likely to bend or break.
The good news is that the aircraft remains flyable in most circumstances, provided that it doesn’t happen at very low speed!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
The RFM advice for the 109 advises a slow reduction to 90kts and not using any AOB greater than 25*. It also warns against flight regimes needing high control inputs.....
If this is what happened here, it just wasn’t the pilot’s day. At least they all escaped major injury, or worse.
Last edited by ShyTorque; 10th Nov 2020 at 16:03. Reason: Slight change to clarify AOB advice.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The #1 Hyd fail approaching the hover is something I regularly train on the A109 FFS. It is controllable, but you have to recognise it quickly, and give it a seriously hard load of left boot. If it takes you by surprise, it could easily give you a rapid right yaw before you can react.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the modest amount of damage to the aircraft, and that there were no injuries, the basic cause of this surely has to be known by now. Particularly for those of us that fly 109s, the most important thing is having this info asap so at least we/maintenance can know if there is anything that needs extra attention. Thankfully mechanical failures are very rare, but, if it was one, this could easily have had been an accident of as much tragedy and sensation as the Leicester 169.
Having carried out a ‘Check A’ on the 109 every working day for the last decade and a half and having over 3,000 hours on type, I do have some idea of how the thing is put together.
One other “gotcha” on this type is that out of the two hydraulic systems, only #1 boosts the yaw servo. If #1 hydraulics drop off line, servo assistance is lost and the pedal feedback forces can be very high. It’s then very difficult to apply enough “boot” to keep the aircraft straight at low speed. The normal way to land in that condition is a running landing at about 30 kts, ideally with a crosswind from the left.
One other “gotcha” on this type is that out of the two hydraulic systems, only #1 boosts the yaw servo. If #1 hydraulics drop off line, servo assistance is lost and the pedal feedback forces can be very high. It’s then very difficult to apply enough “boot” to keep the aircraft straight at low speed. The normal way to land in that condition is a running landing at about 30 kts, ideally with a crosswind from the left.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
Nooby, two years? You missed out the other half decade but I’m always grateful for an engineering point of view. 
Normally if Leo is concerned about the aircraft they would have communicated as such by now. But it is still silence. Which would SEEM to indicate that all was well with the aircraft, or at least that it wasn't a design/manufacturing defect.
Googling show there's an initial factual one - http://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/ap...ort/102246/pdf
Nothing further.
Nothing further.
