Italian Army Bell 205 Close Call
My question is - he would obviously known that he hit the top of the hill. WHY would he turn around and fly it back to base instead of just put it down immediately where he was. With the damage to the T/R surprised it didnt come off during the flight back to base.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by KiwiNedNZ
My question is - he would obviously known that he hit the top of the hill. WHY would he turn around and fly it back to base instead of just put it down immediately where he was. With the damage to the T/R surprised it didnt come off during the flight back to base.
Downwind, moving out of the updraft, pulling in an armful of collective, that tail rotor couldn’t produce anywhere near enough thrust to stop that machine going end for end. It obviously tried to, beyond limits.
I’d be very thankful for the people who designed and put together something that could take so much abuse and still keep flying
There by the grace of my “Invisible Friend” go I 😊
Originally Posted by KiwiNedNZ
My question is - he would obviously known that he hit the top of the hill. WHY would he turn around and fly it back to base instead of just put it down immediately where he was. With the damage to the T/R surprised it didnt come off during the flight back to base.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,084
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes
on
17 Posts
Really questioning the "downwind" bit - he would not have been able to reverse away as quickly as he did if his tail was into wind, particularly as he was running out of T/R power.
That second video is even more scary.
And for Ned's question as to why he didn't land straight away, it is obvious that landing at that altitude wasn't going to work, so going somewhere a lot lower was the option, and he probably had spare underwear back at base.
That second video is even more scary.
And for Ned's question as to why he didn't land straight away, it is obvious that landing at that altitude wasn't going to work, so going somewhere a lot lower was the option, and he probably had spare underwear back at base.
The following users liked this post:
No LTE here IMHO, just LTA which is a common 205 gotcha. Different thing, different cause, different recovery and personally I feel that every 205 pilot should know this intimately because if you fly a 205 you will eventually experience LTA. Probably never LTE.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
Did the aircraft bleed any Nr immediately prior to beginning the uncontrolled yaw?
Looking at the Coning Angle as the aircraft begins to gain some separation from the hillside....it would be quite probable that it did.
If so...the loss of tail rotor thrust l is a side effect to that in the standard Huey.
Looking at the Coning Angle as the aircraft begins to gain some separation from the hillside....it would be quite probable that it did.
If so...the loss of tail rotor thrust l is a side effect to that in the standard Huey.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,084
Likes: 0
Received 27 Likes
on
17 Posts
Originally Posted by helmet fire
No LTE here IMHO, just LTA which is a common 205 gotcha. Different thing, different cause, different recovery and personally I feel that every 205 pilot should know this intimately because if you fly a 205 you will eventually experience LTA. Probably never LTE.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
Originally Posted by ngfan
From wikipedia:
“… Vertigo is a condition where a person has the sensation of movement or of surrounding objects moving when they are not. Often it feels like a spinning or swaying movement.This may be associated with nausea, vomiting, sweating, or difficulties walking…”
Originally Posted by helmet fire
No LTE here IMHO, just LTA which is a common 205 gotcha. Different thing, different cause, different recovery and personally I feel that every 205 pilot should know this intimately because if you fly a 205 you will eventually experience LTA. Probably never LTE.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
I think Tail rotor authority is what we need to focus on for this one, and avoid confusing it with LTE and effectiveness. Great to see the crew come home to share the lesson.
NB: I have been wrong before.
The following users liked this post:
Originally Posted by bront
It was definitely downwind, just look at the grass in front of the cameraman.
It looks like he was trying to yaw right in the very late stages of the intended arrival so that he ended up pointing into wind in the hover - unfortunately the loss of ETL increased his power demand and therefore TR demand - the audio certainly suggests some NR decay which will reduce TR thrust further as it slows down.
The following users liked this post:
Wise pilot once said “In, hot, high, heavy conditions Pedal turn to the left because if you go right you won’t have enough left pedal to stop the darn thing from spinning. If you don’t have enough power available or left pedal authority to do a left pedal turn you need a new plan!”
Rhetorical question.....did the Crew conduct an inflight power and flight control authority check at the same altitude as the landing site height or do a high Recon orbit around the hilltop to confirm the wind before commencing the approach?
Was this the first/only landing attempt at that site?
Then there is the question of whether this was a Pinnacle or Ridgeline location considering the terrain?
Thinking along with Albatross....perhaps it was a new Plan A that was needed rather than a Plan B....as a proper Plan A always has a Plan B built in to it.
Was this the first/only landing attempt at that site?
Then there is the question of whether this was a Pinnacle or Ridgeline location considering the terrain?
Thinking along with Albatross....perhaps it was a new Plan A that was needed rather than a Plan B....as a proper Plan A always has a Plan B built in to it.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would appear to have happened here (see the first of the three photos in the reel), in the area of Meran 2000, roughly between Bozen and the Austrian border in the province of South Tirol in North Italy; elevation 2361 m.
https://www.kuhleiten.it/
https://www.kuhleiten.it/
Originally Posted by SASless
Rhetorical question.....did the Crew conduct an inflight power and flight control authority check at the same altitude as the landing site height or do a high Recon orbit around the hilltop to confirm the wind before commencing the approach?
Was this the first/only landing attempt at that site?
Then there is the question of whether this was a Pinnacle or Ridgeline location considering the terrain?
Thinking along with Albatross....perhaps it was a new Plan A that was needed rather than a Plan B....as a proper Plan A always has a Plan B built in to it.
Was this the first/only landing attempt at that site?
Then there is the question of whether this was a Pinnacle or Ridgeline location considering the terrain?
Thinking along with Albatross....perhaps it was a new Plan A that was needed rather than a Plan B....as a proper Plan A always has a Plan B built in to it.
That’s a point. At least 2 filming suggest they may have already landed at least once, or done a flyover/checks.
Maybe the wind conditions changed between a first and second landing ?
Originally Posted by johni
the two videos are of the same landing. there was only one landing attempt.
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
I were suggesting that having two cameras going from a group of people suggested there were an expectation of a landing. I’m wondering were the ground party part of the military ops ?
It is a valid operational technique but you need to do it to the left and maintain ETL until you are halfway round the turn into wind.
