Todays gem of wisdom from news.scotsman.com

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1520782007


Last time I checked the crash aircraft still wasn't a Twin Squirrel and even if it was I don't remember the engine driving the rotor blades via means of a belt on the twin or single squirrel (not rated on AS350 so may be wrong, :ugh:) !!!!!

I've emailed the reporter to suggest he checks his facts.

GS

The constant reference to a Twin Squirrel in this accident is odd.

There are no drive belts on a 355 - maybe an after market A/C system perhaps - however, the hydraulic pump on the 350 is driven by a belt.

All things being equal, hydraulic failure in a 350 shouldn't be catastrophic.

They are going to have to look a long time for a transmission drive belt on a AS350 :suspect:

It is often said air travel is safer than road travel. Yet most road crashes involve teenage drivers in built-up areas. Take out those crash figures from the equation (because few pilots are teenagers and few aircraft operate on busy roundabouts at rush hour) and I would be interested to see a comparison of air travel accidents with road travel per mile flown/driven. I suspect air travel isn't quite as safe as we think.

Well if you do that you may as well take out of the equation all the helo crashes due to bad weather. Now look at the results.

Not saying in any way that the CMAC crash was due to this factor so lets not let this thread go down the bad weather disorientated pilot route.

Something of a sweeping statement which, even if true, probably doesn't account for the majority of road fatalities (due to speeds involved.)

Yup, agreed, strike 'most' and insert 'many' in my earlier remark.

I once read somewhere that over a 600 mile journey, conducted by road by adult drivers in fair weather and away from dense traffic (ie light motorway traffic), the probability of being involved in a fatal collision was much the same as for an air journey of a similar distance.

I have an interst in helicopter accidents from the accident prevention point of view. I have skimmed through the posts. I am none the wiser as to what happened.

Did the engine fail? Did the Hydraulic system Fail? Did the pilot roll over on landing?

Is there any factual information yet?

IHL - The only thing I can comment on re your post is that he didnt roll over on landing. For some reason he ended up in the trees before he got to his landing area.

Hopefully the accident report will shed more light on what really happened.

To IHL
 

Other than pure speculation, some of it without any knowledge of aviation it would seem, there have been no official findings published.

The AAIB will deliver their findings in an official report when they are satisfied with their investigation.

The 'police sources' quoted above obviously have no idea what they are talking about - let alone what they are looking for.

TRC, CDME

Thanks:

Ended up in the trees before landing; uhm.

The AS 350 is a very popular aircraft, there have been numerous accidents related to hydraulic system issues.

Many operators over here are repowering the B models with the LTS 101 engine which is ironic, they first appeared in North America with the LTS 101.

It would be interesting to know if it was powered with the aeriel or lycoming engine.

There have been a few accidents in North America [recently] related to issues with the Lycoming LTS 101 conversion; though an auto-rotation into the trees shouldn't result in fatalities.


I quess we will have to wait and see.

Colin had an AS350B2.

Powered by an Arriel engine.

I was not suggesting that a hydraulic system problem caused this accident, by the way. It's just that it's the only drive belt on the aircraft - and it was in response to the post earlier - that's all.

That recent Scotsman post does make the point most eloquently about incompetent journalism, which is what was suggested earlier in this thread. If all that was done was to report that the helicopter involved was a Mk 2 Skyranger (when it was not) that is one thing. But this nonsense is of a different order. If they are going to try and do their own accident investigation, it is completely irresponsible to do it in this way. Whilst we do not know what the causes of this terrible accident are, the whole of that article was a tissue of nonsense based on incorrect information that could have been checked fairly easily. :ugh:


Like VeeAny, I was also inclined to contact the Scotsman to complain about their poor journalism. Before I do, I would be interested to know what response VeeAny gets, if any? Can you report back idc??

I have just written to the article's author, and CC'd the email to the Editorial desk in the hope that someone will pull the article from the site (it's still up) and issue a correction/retraction.

I find it hard to believe that this gentleman has not exercised even the most basic of journalistic instincts: fact checking being one of them.

Seems to me that there are a few ppruners out there eager for as yet, non existant explanations as to why, a friend to some and fellow aviator to others lost his life and that of his passengers through no apparent fault of there own.. Thus the page of posts about YET ANOTHER clueless journalist. Come on guys, we see these articles after every crash, we know they are ill informed and know nothing about aviation. Difficult though this is, we must all wait for the AAIB to do their job, we know where the facts will originate and how they will be published, no point getting revved up over anything else is there?

As I said, emotions aside, patience.:ok:

To Alloa Akbar
 

Yes AA - that's the point.

I don't know if you are in the helicopter business, but those involved in aviation who are "getting revved up" about this foolish reporting by journalists are sick and tired of such mis-information. Reporters who have suddenly become arm-chair aviation experts, quoting 'inside sources' that are so far off the mark that they quote the likely cause is a part that doesn't exist on the crashed helicopter. The Scotsman article compounds things by quoting the wrong helicopter type (on which the phantom part doesn't exist either) and goes on to remind us of other high-profile accidents that have occurred to the incorrectly reported helicopter type.

This is what Joe Public reads and believes to be fact.

What REALLY annoys me is had this accident occurred in, say, a high-powered rally car - of which I know little - and some cock-and-bull story emerged from so-called 'inside sources' as to the cause, I would probably have believed it. My opinion of rally cars would have plummeted thinking that they were held together by rubber bands.

Why do so many people think that travelling by helicopter is dangerous?

Buggered if I can think of a reason............

AA

Pilots will always speculate about a crash it is in our nature. These will, however, usually be based on the knowledge of what can and does go wrong when we leave terra firma. What annoys us is the ill informed and usually overdramatic reports by the press. If they took a little time to talk to the experts before spouting garbage we would have more respect for them.


It is interesting that you criticise fellow pilots for speculating but in fact you have speculated as well as by saying that:-

"lost his life and that of his passengers through no apparent fault of there own"

In this tragic accident there can be many causes but none are apparent at the moment, so no cause can be ruled out.

The AAIB have a very difficult job to do which is why it takes so long for them to publish their reports. They have to be accurate and sometimes the crash site gives them few clues to work with.

As well as having attended crash sites I have lost a few friends in air accidents, including my Best Man, and I hope I lose no more.

HF

Guys,

yes I am in the helicopter business, and have been for the last 20 years. My point was simply that getting irritated by these chimps is natural, yet pointless. Its like trying to round up a field of cats, you nail one and six dozen others will step out of line.

I'm not questioning an aviator's ability or right to speculate either, especially on a rumour site, all I'm saying as why do we even give the ill-informed a split second of our time?? OK so Joe Public may well be swayed one way or another depending on which ill-informed rag he reads, but I think the important point is that those who relate to the victims, personally or professionally, really are capable of rising above the sensationalist drivel that we see in papers every day. I also think that Joe Public's final opinion on the accident will also be swayed by the article which reads "Helicopter investigation official findings released".. and not "Pilot was having oral sex whilst high on drugs whilst me and my kids feared for our lives on return from holiday of a lifetime"... which as I understand, is journalist speak for "A spot of Turbulence on the Alicante flight":rolleyes:

Not criticising fellas, just ignore the feckers.. :ok:

Colin McRae
 

Just seen this, hope it's a not true.

http://www.midlothianadvertiser.co.u...red.3364169.jp

Brom.