AS350 Crash South Korea.
Looked at the video a of times, it looks like something went flying off to the left as, or just after, the pilot pulled up out of the unexpected water contact.
Was it perhaps a piece of his tail rotor? (Or was that the water bag?)
Was it perhaps a piece of his tail rotor? (Or was that the water bag?)
Millpond surface, misjudged the height, dunked the tail rotor, away it went. Shoulda chopped the throttle when it started to spin, but the excitement and unexpected action perhaps distracted him/her/they/it.
The following 2 users liked this post by Ascend Charlie:
Looked survivable, surprised pilot didn't make it out. Most operators flying snorkel tankers require HUET training, inflatable life jackets worn, and in some cases even HUEBA (with training to match). Even on glassy water you can catch the rotor wash creeping ahead out of your peripheral vision to help you gauge closure rate, but it is challenging flying.
Looked survivable, surprised pilot didn't make it out. Most operators flying snorkel tankers require HUET training, inflatable life jackets worn, and in some cases even HUEBA (with training to match). Even on glassy water you can catch the rotor wash creeping ahead out of your peripheral vision to help you gauge closure rate, but it is challenging flying.
The following 2 users liked this post by trim it out:
You reckon being knocked unconscious during the impact could have had a small effect on the outcome?
All the equipment and training in the world does you no good if you are not able to function due to the force of the impact with the water.
Other questions migtt be whether the pilot seat remained attached to the floor structure or how far it was compressed from the G forces.
All the equipment and training in the world does you no good if you are not able to function due to the force of the impact with the water.
Other questions migtt be whether the pilot seat remained attached to the floor structure or how far it was compressed from the G forces.
The following 4 users liked this post by SASless:
Guessing a tail rotor blade. Thanks for getting me to take a second look.
Very sorry to hear the pilot didn't make it out.
For SASless: a bit over 30 years ago a colleague of mine was in a Seahawk that lost tail rotor drive from a few hundred feet up during departure. Getting knocked out at impact is a thing.
Spoiler
Chief Bottle Washer
Chopping the SSL between the seats, down past the collective, isn’t an easy thing to do in a Squirrel. Especially once spinning 😢
He had height references from the trees in front of him - I wonder if he was just showboating a little bit because of all the spectators - but as others have said, glassy water can be very deceptive.
As for being knocked out - the Wessex in Snowdonia many years ago that suffered a TRD failure was estimated to have hit the water generating a 27 g deceleration - that would incapacitate most people.
As for being knocked out - the Wessex in Snowdonia many years ago that suffered a TRD failure was estimated to have hit the water generating a 27 g deceleration - that would incapacitate most people.
There have been, sadly, a number of accidents involving water impacts that "may" have been survivable but where the individual was incapacitated and subsequently drowned.
You cannot mitigate everything.
But i wholeheartedly believe that any crew carrying out operations at low level over water should be:
1) Wearing helmets to reduce the risk of a disabling head injury (Some will argue that a helmet can impede escape - see 2 & 3)
2) Be trained and current in realistic HUET wearing kit representative of what they fly in to maximise their chances of successfully escaping
3) Equipped with STASS / HABD breathing bottles as well as ensuring that their kit is maximised to allow escape - such as having splitter cables on their helmet intercom leads that will pull apart rather than direct into the socket which can jam.
That won't save everyone but I think it makes a big difference.
Crab will correct me but in the awful accident in Wales he refers to I think that the crew (presumably HUET trained and wearing helmets) survived whilst the three pax (not HUET trained - were they wearing helmets Crab?) sadly did not.
You cannot mitigate everything.
But i wholeheartedly believe that any crew carrying out operations at low level over water should be:
1) Wearing helmets to reduce the risk of a disabling head injury (Some will argue that a helmet can impede escape - see 2 & 3)
2) Be trained and current in realistic HUET wearing kit representative of what they fly in to maximise their chances of successfully escaping
3) Equipped with STASS / HABD breathing bottles as well as ensuring that their kit is maximised to allow escape - such as having splitter cables on their helmet intercom leads that will pull apart rather than direct into the socket which can jam.
That won't save everyone but I think it makes a big difference.
Crab will correct me but in the awful accident in Wales he refers to I think that the crew (presumably HUET trained and wearing helmets) survived whilst the three pax (not HUET trained - were they wearing helmets Crab?) sadly did not.
Flat water is horrible to let down on , remember a few years ago with a bucket on a 50 ft line in the middle of a lake ( mistake ) looking down to fill the bucket up , everything seemed fine until bucket touched the water and `i was flying backwards at about 10 kts ! Next time peripheral vision had the shoreline visible !
The following 2 users liked this post by Hughes500:
Crab will correct me but in the awful accident in Wales he refers to I think that the crew (presumably HUET trained and wearing helmets) survived whilst the three pax (not HUET trained - were they wearing helmets Crab?) sadly did not.
I went to see them in hospital the next day and in a bed round the corner was a female cadet who not only got out, but did so with a broken pelvis and spent well over a minute underwater! A very lucky girl, I hope she went on to do something spectacular with her life.
The following 2 users liked this post by OvertHawk:
