1986 UK Chinook Disaster Mini-Documentary

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I believe HUMS data stopped the rather punchy RAF Chinook display.

Not strictly HUMS, but an enhanced data recorder package that was fitted to a selection of aircraft. Some rather wince-inducing numbers came back, and subsequent investigation of the stresses that had been put on the blades was even more eye watering.... Health and safety gone mad it was definitely not!

[[email protected]]

Shame, it was a very good display but you can't argue with the data.

I displayed the Lynx at Cosford this year and I'm sure people were disappointed that there were no backflips, loops and rolls but you just can't do that stuff any more - the Blue Eagles Lynx had G meters and in the F700 all the manouevres were recorded , each of which reduce component life significantly.

A private owner can't afford to do that and the permit to fly wouldn't allow it anyway.

[212man]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Shame, it was a very good display but you can't argue with the data.

I displayed the Lynx at Cosford this year and I'm sure people were disappointed that there were no backflips, loops and rolls but you just can't do that stuff any more - the Blue Eagles Lynx had G meters and in the F700 all the manouevres were recorded , each of which reduce component life significantly.

A private owner can't afford to do that and the permit to fly wouldn't allow it anyway.

was that XZ179?

[[email protected]]

was that XZ179?

No, XZ 616 from Historic Helicopters, the first Lynx back on permit to fly

[MightyGem]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

No, XZ 616 from Historic Helicopters, the first Lynx back on permit to fly

Nice one, Crab.

[ShyTorque]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I believe HUMS data stopped the rather punchy RAF Chinook display.

Slapping the tail rotor blades against the tail pylon stopped the Puma display!

[HeliComparator]

Originally Posted by SASless

HC.....thank you for confirming what I said....so perhaps what you missed is I was noting that exactly as stated in the Accident Report...new designs might not work as anticipated and that would include systems like Hums and similar technology and we should be very careful our consideration of their effectiveness.

I am old enough to remember rotor track and balance being done with a pole and flag and some grease pencils and lived long enough to see the Chadwick system come along and change the standard for the better.

Same for. Hums....I saw the old bent knuckle advance to the state of the art systems we enjoy today.

That being said....just as your comment reminds us there is a limit to every system's ability to give advance warning of failures.

But as in your example....the chip detector system had to be altered and improved didn't it?

Did Eurocopterr ever come out with the exact cause of the failures....the actual root cause?

I recall they were being a bit quiet about it despite stating they had it figured out and fixed.

I know it was a sad day for you when those Cabs got hauled off for use as potting sheds.

I felt the same when that happened to the Chinook on the North Sea.

The only good of that was Columbia got some darn good helicopters cheap and. have flown them since and made a lot of money tn the process.

Forecasts are the Chinook design shall be flying well over a hundred years after coming to service with the US Military.

My point was that HUMS was never expected to identify planet gear flaws, it was not designed into the system. Which is a bit different from expecting it to work and then finding out the hard way that it didn’t.