Helicopter crash New York City

[AAKEE]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

What difference would getting the collective down have made to an aircraft without a tailboom, and soon thereafter, no rotor system?
I can only hope that as interest wanes in this accident, the quality of discussion improves.

Did this ship even have van Horn components?

Its looks like it could have been a seized/raptured MGB or something. That could maybe explain how the 90 degree yaw happened and why the MGB seemed to have cone loose.
in that case, no collective movement would have helped I guess.
Not at all sure what direction the yaw was…

[TwinHueyMan]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer;[url=tel:[phone]

11866168[/url]]What difference would getting the collective down have made to an aircraft without a tailboom, and soon thereafter, no rotor system?
I can only hope that as interest wanes in this accident, the quality of discussion improves.

Did this ship even have van Horn components?

This video purports to be from the same helicopter recently to the crash and the blade tip profile matches VH blades.

CBS Video

Also looks like grip plates (only on VH blades) are visible in the pre-takeoff picture of the group.

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by comingup

If it were a newer aircraft in the beginning of it's production run, I would agree. But after almost 50 years of production and millions of hours on these machines, probably an overreaction.

Each event is mutually exclusive. Any example could be one flight away from failure, you simply don’t know and can’t predict.

[SplineDrive]

Originally Posted by TwinHueyMan

This video purports to be from the same helicopter recently to the crash and the blade tip profile matches VH blades.

CBS Video

Also looks like grip plates (only on VH blades) are visible in the pre-takeoff picture of the group.

Agree, those are clearly Van Horn blades. Not sure if the Van Horn 2P hop is at play or not but the loss of the MR drive, apparently including the nodal beam pylon and roof deck, makes me think the MR itself was generating unusually severe vibrations and there have been tail boom damage incidents related to the Van Horn blades. Dunno. If there isn't something clearly causal with the tail rotor, TRGB, or boom structure, it's a theory worth considering.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by comingup

If it were a newer aircraft in the beginning of it's production run, I would agree. But after almost 50 years of production and millions of hours on these machines, probably an overreaction.

However, there have been changes in component suppliers including errors in parts production processes which have resulted in fatal accidents or serious incidents with other long established helicopter types (not only from Bell), some mentioned in this thread already. So that could finally prove to be the case here also.

Dick Smith is able to be cautious, and I would do same in his position. Gets harder to make such a decision if operating a 206L on ongoing income earning commercial work.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by Bell_ringer

What difference would getting the collective down have made to an aircraft without a tailboom, and soon thereafter, no rotor system?
I can only hope that as interest wanes in this accident, the quality of discussion improves.

Did this ship even have van Horn components?

TwinHueyMan has since shown indications of this 206L-4 having been fitted with VH blades.

The guidance in the VH information letter is to raise collective if the vibrations are experienced but BEFORE those vibrations become excessive. However, as indicated by RVDT in the separate thread on forced landing of 206L-3 VH-JSU, the Nodamatic suspension for the rotor is doing its best to prevent those vibrations being felt by those on board. To quote RVDT:

"Part of the downside of the 206L "Nodamatic". It can be beating itself to bits with vibration and you won't feel it in the cabin.
Really evident if you fly an L for a while then get back in a B model."

[Dave 92 LSC]

I am new but this happened not far from my job in midtown.

I pulled this post from this forum regarding Van Horn blades.

Originally Posted by Salusa
As a side note VHA blades seem to be very "rigid".

They don't have the same flex in them as Bell OEM blades.

Easy to Track and Balance with usually just some PCL change and no tab required. Maybe a bit of span weight only presuming chord alignment is good during initial assembly.

Strange for composite blades which I would naturally assume would have more "flex" than OEM metal blades?

Our pilots have been experimenting with the "vertical hop" when low on fuel and no pax during mainly mountain flying. Can anticipate it and cyclic will offload the vibration.

Not a good situation to get into for a new operator with new newly installed blades.

OAT approx 7
DA 11k'+
Low gross weight (single pilot and fuel).
Rough air due to local environment.
I've been hearing for a while now that the van horns are actually beating the crap out of helicopters. Especially utility ships. Premature failure of transmission mounts, bearings, etc. 110% rumor but thats why the OH58 blades aren't out yet too stiff.

[Dick Smith]

As there is a good chance that all of the structural parts of the aircraft have been recovered by now, I hope there is an immediate announcement by the investigator if there is a fault that could have been caused by fatigue or another unknown factor, so it can be propagated around the world to existing Longranger owners. This will reduce the chance of a similar accident occurring.

[Sam W]

"Part of the downside of the 206L "Nodamatic". It can be beating itself to bits with vibration and you won't feel it in the cabin.
Really evident if you fly an L for a while then get back in a B model."

The nodal beam is designed to only reduce fundamental main rotor 2/rev vibration and actually reduces loads in the airframe and on the xmsn/rotor side by allowing it to move in response to 2/rev rotor loads. It has no ability to mask any other vibration frequencies. Therefore, any abnormal vibration will be felt by the pilot just like in the 206.

[BugBear]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

As there is a good chance that all of the structural parts of the aircraft have been recovered by now, I hope there is an immediate announcement by the investigator if there is a fault that could have been caused by fatigue or another unknown factor, so it can be propagated around the world to existing Longranger owners. This will reduce the chance of a similar accident occurring.

Quite Agree. It took two recently, EgyotAir paid a terrible price ... The problem after the first one was identified very quickly. Just not by the ones who would have issued a Bulletin, ostensibly

[bryancobb]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

You’d need to ask yourself, which is more likely?

1. Tail boom folds and subsequently the main gearbox disconnects

2, The main gearbox disconnected and the tail boom folded

I think there's very little chance the freewheeling unit could be expected to accelerate a 1000# fuselage and 800# of pax from ZERO to 180 deg/sec as fast as the video shows the tail swinging 90 degrees.
The formsprag would instantly explode with that much load applied in milliseconds if it froze. The only thing with enough muscle to snap the tail around that fast is the tail rotor. I just can't imagine anything that would stomp full right pedal in straight & level cruise. I do see ways the MRGB could progressively tear away first, and in the process, fold the tailboom into. I just am baffled. I am anxious to see the main rotor assembly when it comes up.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by Sam W

The nodal beam is designed to only reduce fundamental main rotor 2/rev vibration and actually reduces loads in the airframe and on the xmsn/rotor side by allowing it to move in response to 2/rev rotor loads. It has no ability to mask any other vibration frequencies. Therefore, any abnormal vibration will be felt by the pilot just like in the 206.

Understood. But if it is masking 2/rev vibrations, what if those are reaching the limits of travel of the Nodamatic suspension system? Such limits must be reached eventually? What loads are transmitted between the parts once that is happening?

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by helispotter

what if those are reaching the limits of travel of the Nodamatic suspension system? Such limits must be reached eventually? What loads are transmitted between the parts once that is happening?

The nodal arms have up and down stops that limit the travel. In Post 127 just below the break in the lift link, you will see one of the up stops. Once the nodal arms hits those stops that result is directly transmitted to the airframe which you will feel in the aircraft. For example, if the minimum blade angle or autorotation RPM is not set properly, the nodal beams will bounce against the down stops and produce a noticeable "knock" in the cockpit with the collective full down. The common "fix" is to simply pull a bit of collective to pull the beams off the stops, however, the correct fix is to adjust the min blade angle or auto rpm.

[albatross]

I have heard the New York. Times had a very unflattering report on the operator on. Sunday but have not seen it as I am nota subscriber.

[The Sultan]

I once witnessed (from extremely close range) an AH-1W running on the ground at 100% rpm release an internal main rotor blade weight due to a decade old manufacturing error. When the weight departed it:

1. Blew the end of the blade off,
2. Snapped the main transmission horizontally in half,
3. As the rotor/top case exited the still attached controls put in full pitch,
4. The aircraft was lifted 6’ or so by the control tubes which then failed dropping the fuselage back to the ground,
5. The now unattached rotor climbed 80’ before loosing energy and crashing down in front of the airframe.

The magnitude of the unbalance was so large the xmsn was snapped within one revolution of the rotor so no large 1/rev forces were transmitted to the fuselage. The only fuselage damage was to the cross tubes on one side. The pilot commented that he heard a bang, the aircraft smoothly lifted before falling back to the ground. The airframe was refurbished and returned to service.

if the weight had been less and not immediately snapped the xmsn case, the excessive 1/rev would probably have broken the pilot’s neck and damaged at least the tailboom.

So back to this thread. It is plausible a failure in a blade caused excessive 1/rev which buckled the tailboom and put in full tail rotor pitch through the still connected controls tubes causing the observed yaw. Then a combination of 1/rev loads and aero forces caused the rotor/xmsn/nodal beam to depart with the rotor appearing to fly away intact.

Won’t know until we see both blades.

[comingup]

Originally Posted by bryancobb

I think there's very little chance the freewheeling unit could be expected to accelerate a 1000# fuselage and 800# of pax from ZERO to 180 deg/sec as fast as the video shows the tail swinging 90 degrees.
The formsprag would instantly explode with that much load applied in milliseconds if it froze. The only thing with enough muscle to snap the tail around that fast is the tail rotor. I just can't imagine anything that would stomp full right pedal in straight & level cruise. I do see ways the MRGB could progressively tear away first, and in the process, fold the tailboom into. I just am baffled. I am anxious to see the main rotor assembly when it comes up.

This guy gets it.

[Dick Smith]

At the time of the Qantas Airbus A380 flight number QF32 non-contained engine failure incident at Singapore, Qantas grounded the whole fleet. Later inspections by Rolls Royce found that over 20 engines had the same fault. The cost to Qantas was obviously high, but I believe it was the conservative decision to make until the full information was available as to the fault. Fortunately, it only took a number of days for Rolls Royce to ascertain where the fault was that caused the engine failure.

Hopefully we will get information in a short time as to the cause of the Longranger accident, and the regulators can make a well-balanced decision.

[Smalahove]

Originally Posted by albatross

I have heard the New York. Times had a very unflattering report on the operator on. Sunday but have not seen it as I am nota subscriber.

I am a subscriber. Apparently I am entitled to "gift" a few articles per month, so try this link:

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/12/n...smid=url-share

[ericferret]

Originally Posted by The Sultan

I once witnessed (from extremely close range) an AH-1W running on the ground at 100% rpm release an internal main rotor blade weight due to a decade old manufacturing error. When the weight departed it:

1. Blew the end of the blade off,
2. Snapped the main transmission horizontally in half,
3. As the rotor/top case exited the still attached controls put in full pitch,
4. The aircraft was lifted 6’ or so by the control tubes which then failed dropping the fuselage back to the ground,
5. The now unattached rotor climbed 80’ before loosing energy and crashing down in front of the airframe.

The magnitude of the unbalance was so large the xmsn was snapped within one revolution of the rotor so no large 1/rev forces were transmitted to the fuselage. The only fuselage damage was to the cross tubes on one side. The pilot commented that he heard a bang, the aircraft smoothly lifted before falling back to the ground. The airframe was refurbished and returned to service.

if the weight had been less and not immediately snapped the xmsn case, the excessive 1/rev would probably have broken the pilot’s neck and damaged at least the tailboom.

So back to this thread. It is plausible a failure in a blade caused excessive 1/rev which buckled the tailboom and put in full tail rotor pitch through the still connected controls tubes causing the observed yaw. Then a combination of 1/rev loads and aero forces caused the rotor/xmsn/nodal beam to depart with the rotor appearing to fly away intact.

Won’t know until we see both blades.

Vibration also generates nodal points. that is an area where the vibration becomes concentrated away from the source.
This was explained to me following a mid air collision between a Bell 47 and a Hughes 500.
The 47 suffered a buckled blade, the 500 lost about 7 inches off one blade including all the blade weights.
The grim reaper must have been busy elsewhere that day as everybody walked away.
However I couldn't understand the damage pattern on the 500 so I spoke to the AAIB (AIB).
It was possible to lift the tail gearbox and boom up and down about 3 feet.
I assumed this had happened in the forced landing..
What I didn't understand was why the instrument console had sheared off completely from the structure with no impact damage..
I was told that the area had become a nodal point strong enough to shear the structure, same applied to the tail boom support structure.
It certainly paid testament to the inherent strength of the 500 and Bell 47 main rotor blades..

[Otterotor]

AH-1W incident

Howdy Sultan,
Was Mr. G. Colvin the pilot on that AH-1W?
Otter