North Sea Super Puma hit by giant water-spout!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North Sea heli damaged by waterspout
from the Guardian
and
from The Scotsman
To read the AAIB Report click on the photograph.
A helicopter carrying oil workers from a North sea oil rig suffered serious damage to its tail rotor after being pitched about by a giant waterspout off the Shetland Islands, accident investigators have reported.
The Super Puma helicopter, with 18 people on board, was flying at 500ft in February last year when it encountered a vortex of air, the result of a miniature tornado, which caused seawater to shoot into the clouds.
An official report by accident investigators revealed that the pilot had left the engine on autopilot. When it reached the spout the helicopter "violently pitched, rolled and yawed".
The change in direction was so fast that all five of the tail rotors touched the tail pylon, leaving a 15cm gash which was later discovered by engineers.
An on-board flight recorder showed the helicopter had rolled 9.5 degrees to the right then 34 degrees to the left within two seconds, with the nose pitching sharply down.
The incident was far more severe than the helicopter was required to withstand for certification. The 51-year-old captain was quickly able to regain control and made an announcement to reassure shaken passengers on the helicopter's public address system.
A spokesman for Bristow Helicopters, which owns the aircraft, said: "Waterspouts aren't that unusual around the coast, but actually flying into one is. In this case there was nothing the pilots could do to avoid it."
The flight was ferrying staff from Shell's Dunlin Alpha oil platform to the remote Scatsta airfield, 24 miles north of Lerwick.
The Super Puma helicopter, with 18 people on board, was flying at 500ft in February last year when it encountered a vortex of air, the result of a miniature tornado, which caused seawater to shoot into the clouds.
An official report by accident investigators revealed that the pilot had left the engine on autopilot. When it reached the spout the helicopter "violently pitched, rolled and yawed".
The change in direction was so fast that all five of the tail rotors touched the tail pylon, leaving a 15cm gash which was later discovered by engineers.
An on-board flight recorder showed the helicopter had rolled 9.5 degrees to the right then 34 degrees to the left within two seconds, with the nose pitching sharply down.
The incident was far more severe than the helicopter was required to withstand for certification. The 51-year-old captain was quickly able to regain control and made an announcement to reassure shaken passengers on the helicopter's public address system.
A spokesman for Bristow Helicopters, which owns the aircraft, said: "Waterspouts aren't that unusual around the coast, but actually flying into one is. In this case there was nothing the pilots could do to avoid it."
The flight was ferrying staff from Shell's Dunlin Alpha oil platform to the remote Scatsta airfield, 24 miles north of Lerwick.
from The Scotsman
EIGHTEEN helicopter passengers experienced violent pitching, rolling and turning after their aircraft encountered a waterspout, an official accident report said yesterday.
A huge gust caused the aircraft to climb about 200ft and turn to the right while significantly losing speed as the two pilots tried, and eventually managed, to regain control.
The incident, which damaged all five tail rotor blades, was far more severe than the helicopter was meant to withstand.
The crew was able to land the Super Puma helicopter, which was flying from a North Sea drilling platform, safely in the Shetland Islands.
After the incident on the morning of 28 February, 2002, the captain spoke to the passengers on the public address system to explain what had occurred and to reassure them that the aircraft, owned by Bristow Helicopters, was safe.
A waterspout is like a tornado at sea, in which a continuous vortex can extend from a cloud all the way down to the surface of the water.
The report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said: "There is little doubt that G-TIGB [the helicopter] was subjected to a violent upset from a gust, estimated to have been in the region of 40 knots, as a result of encountering significant atmospheric disturbance in the vicinity of a water- spout."
The AAIB added that the crew had made every effort to avoid the bad weather and that the effects of the waterspout had occurred within seconds of the captain sighting the disturbance on the surface of the water.
The report added that a new standard of tail rotor blade on the helicopter was considered "to have contributed significantly to the helicopter’s ability to continue flight after the blades sustained serious damage".
A huge gust caused the aircraft to climb about 200ft and turn to the right while significantly losing speed as the two pilots tried, and eventually managed, to regain control.
The incident, which damaged all five tail rotor blades, was far more severe than the helicopter was meant to withstand.
The crew was able to land the Super Puma helicopter, which was flying from a North Sea drilling platform, safely in the Shetland Islands.
After the incident on the morning of 28 February, 2002, the captain spoke to the passengers on the public address system to explain what had occurred and to reassure them that the aircraft, owned by Bristow Helicopters, was safe.
A waterspout is like a tornado at sea, in which a continuous vortex can extend from a cloud all the way down to the surface of the water.
The report from the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) said: "There is little doubt that G-TIGB [the helicopter] was subjected to a violent upset from a gust, estimated to have been in the region of 40 knots, as a result of encountering significant atmospheric disturbance in the vicinity of a water- spout."
The AAIB added that the crew had made every effort to avoid the bad weather and that the effects of the waterspout had occurred within seconds of the captain sighting the disturbance on the surface of the water.
The report added that a new standard of tail rotor blade on the helicopter was considered "to have contributed significantly to the helicopter’s ability to continue flight after the blades sustained serious damage".
To read the AAIB Report click on the photograph.
Last edited by Heliport; 7th Aug 2003 at 17:08.
Bronx: I am fairly sure that this is not a spoof. Personally I have never flown into a waterspout but I have seen one quite close to the descibed location.
If I am not mistaken I seem to remeber another incident involving a Bristow Tiger a few years back. I don't remeber the facts but it also involved heavy turbulence, a tailrotor damage and must have been somewhere close the Shetlands. Anyone know more?
Woolf
If I am not mistaken I seem to remeber another incident involving a Bristow Tiger a few years back. I don't remeber the facts but it also involved heavy turbulence, a tailrotor damage and must have been somewhere close the Shetlands. Anyone know more?
Woolf
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
There is a requirement in the FARs 29.661, if memory serves me right, that says none of the rotors shall touch the airframe in any condition of flight.
Bell had to modify the 407 and 427 as a result of some incidents that caused the tail rotor to touch the tailboom (OK- the 407 severed the tailboom, but this isn't much farther away from severing if it put creases or cuts in the tailboom...)
Wonder what the authorities will say.
Bell had to modify the 407 and 427 as a result of some incidents that caused the tail rotor to touch the tailboom (OK- the 407 severed the tailboom, but this isn't much farther away from severing if it put creases or cuts in the tailboom...)
Wonder what the authorities will say.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I'll show you a Super Puma/Tiger with an "N" reg! N170EH, N171EH,N5800Z are the 3. FAR = FAA = USA. I somehow think that the 332 designers probably never really considered Part 29. This is probably one of the few helicopters ever built that "appreciates" in value.
How would that Part 29 statement stand up to "any" condition of flight? Lets roll all the Part 29 machines inverted and push!
Dredge the following to see if it applies to the grandfather.
INFORMATION PERTINENT TO ALL MODELS
Certification Basis For Models SA330F, SA330G, SA330J.
FAR 21.29, FAR 29 effective 1 February, 1965 including:
- for Models F and G, amendments 29-1 through 29-5.
- for Model J, amendments 29-1 through 29-9 plus para. 29.951(c), 29.1183 and
29.1305(a)(16) of amendment 29.10
Plus FAA Special Conditions No. 29-29-EU-5 dated 19 August 1970 and criteria for
compliance with FAR 29.141 for IFR operation transmitted to SGAC by FAA letter
dated 15 February 1971.
For Models AS332C, AS332L, and AS332L1
FAR 21.29. FAR 29 effective 1 February 1965 including amendments 29-1 to
29-9, plus paragraph 29.951(c), 29.1183 and 29.1304(a)(16) of amendment 29-10.
Appllicant has elected to comply with FAR 29 amendments 29-10 through 29-16,
except FAR 29.397 at amendment 29-12 as concerns rotor brake; and the
Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight dated December 15, 1978.
Date of Application for Type Certificate: 15 December 1969.
For Model AS332L2
FAR 21.29.
FAR 29 effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 29-1 to 29-9, plus
paragraph 29.305, 29.307, 29.571, 29.603, 29.605, 29.609, 29.610, 29.629,
29.691(c), 29.1183, 29.1305(a)(16) and 29.1529 through Amendment 29-10.
The applicant has elected to comply with FAR 29 Amendments 29-10 through
29-16, except paragraph 29.397 at Amendment 29-12 as concerns the rotor
brake; and the Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight dated
December 15, 1978.
After dredging:
Sec. 29.661
Rotor blade clearance.
There must be enough clearance between the [rotor blades] and other parts of the structure to prevent the blades from striking any part of the structure during any operating condition.
Amdt. 29-3, Eff. 2/25/68
Looks like EC is deep in the doodoo and any chance of continuing in the US market is completely doomed! Quel catastrophe!
Arnie for President! Looks like your onto something!
How would that Part 29 statement stand up to "any" condition of flight? Lets roll all the Part 29 machines inverted and push!
Dredge the following to see if it applies to the grandfather.
INFORMATION PERTINENT TO ALL MODELS
Certification Basis For Models SA330F, SA330G, SA330J.
FAR 21.29, FAR 29 effective 1 February, 1965 including:
- for Models F and G, amendments 29-1 through 29-5.
- for Model J, amendments 29-1 through 29-9 plus para. 29.951(c), 29.1183 and
29.1305(a)(16) of amendment 29.10
Plus FAA Special Conditions No. 29-29-EU-5 dated 19 August 1970 and criteria for
compliance with FAR 29.141 for IFR operation transmitted to SGAC by FAA letter
dated 15 February 1971.
For Models AS332C, AS332L, and AS332L1
FAR 21.29. FAR 29 effective 1 February 1965 including amendments 29-1 to
29-9, plus paragraph 29.951(c), 29.1183 and 29.1304(a)(16) of amendment 29-10.
Appllicant has elected to comply with FAR 29 amendments 29-10 through 29-16,
except FAR 29.397 at amendment 29-12 as concerns rotor brake; and the
Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight dated December 15, 1978.
Date of Application for Type Certificate: 15 December 1969.
For Model AS332L2
FAR 21.29.
FAR 29 effective February 1, 1965, including Amendments 29-1 to 29-9, plus
paragraph 29.305, 29.307, 29.571, 29.603, 29.605, 29.609, 29.610, 29.629,
29.691(c), 29.1183, 29.1305(a)(16) and 29.1529 through Amendment 29-10.
The applicant has elected to comply with FAR 29 Amendments 29-10 through
29-16, except paragraph 29.397 at Amendment 29-12 as concerns the rotor
brake; and the Airworthiness Criteria for Helicopter Instrument Flight dated
December 15, 1978.
After dredging:
Sec. 29.661
Rotor blade clearance.
There must be enough clearance between the [rotor blades] and other parts of the structure to prevent the blades from striking any part of the structure during any operating condition.
Amdt. 29-3, Eff. 2/25/68
Looks like EC is deep in the doodoo and any chance of continuing in the US market is completely doomed! Quel catastrophe!
Arnie for President! Looks like your onto something!
Last edited by Giovanni Cento Nove; 8th Aug 2003 at 04:36.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I once flew through a waterspout in a 206. I was flying under a small cloud, saw a small disturbance on the water, & before I could change course a small spout developed & I flew through it. All I got as a couple of small bounces, just light turbulence really. It hadn't had time to develop very much, fortunately.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Classified
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woolf,
You not thinking about the Super Puma, G-TIGK, that got hit by lightning and then had to ditch, around Jan 1995.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_502987.hcsp
You not thinking about the Super Puma, G-TIGK, that got hit by lightning and then had to ditch, around Jan 1995.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_502987.hcsp
Have had the thrill of popping through a water spout....Eket, Nigeria in a 212.....as another pilot was commenting about the lovely sight he was watching(the water spout)....we trundled out into the open air right through the thing. He had a nice view of it....all I saw was lots of water and cloud until I hit clear air. No big deal then....bit of turbulence but not exciting.
I would surmise the size of the spout could make that a different kettle of fish....in this case "Sardine" size would be just fine.
I would surmise the size of the spout could make that a different kettle of fish....in this case "Sardine" size would be just fine.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home and abroad
Posts: 582
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As flying through waterspouts is probably not a Flight Manual approved manoeuvre it should not count as "operating condition".
But then again, when has logic ever been a factor?
But then again, when has logic ever been a factor?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scotland
Age: 45
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woolf, this incident did happen Feb last year, could be this you heard about.
This has been well known about in both Bristow and around Shell for whom the aircraft was flying for, it's only now the report is out that the media has set upon it! I know one of the guys on it, and he really thought that his time was up! Still is amazing that it didn't end up in a more serious state!
This has been well known about in both Bristow and around Shell for whom the aircraft was flying for, it's only now the report is out that the media has set upon it! I know one of the guys on it, and he really thought that his time was up! Still is amazing that it didn't end up in a more serious state!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: No Fixed Abode
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ouch
The pilot concerned didn't think it was a waterspout, more like windshear, I know because i asked him. Although there was evidence of a waterspout about half a mile off. And for those bickering about whether the helo should take those extremes, they're not designed for that, the Tiger is perfect for the east Shetland basin. They got home did'nt they?
