Wreckage - best wishes for a full recovery
 

Just read your update on John from Mater
 

Thanks to Fletch for keeping us all posted.

John is indeed a very nice chap and highly respected by all that know him.

It is very difficult for a patient and family to begin adjusting to the situation until it stabilises.

Hopefully no more injuries to be discovered and the very best of luck to John with his operation and the results achieved.

His previous attention to strength and fitness will pay dividends now I would imagine.

My thoughts are with J and family.

Regards,

It gets worse

Bladecrack,
I think you should note that Helimutt is half of the driving force behind helicoptersafety.org and would not in my opinion make comments in a manner which you accused him of, he is still a Geordie though:}. He has since expained this himself anyway.
The post incident discussion element needs to be promoted on this forum in my opinion as some of us aren't in an easy position to attend the safety evenings at the moment, therefore I welcome further comments, constructive of course, as this is certainly an event I would like to learn more about.
H

Update
 

Johns surgery has been postponed until tomorrow.
A specialist will be carrying out a new micro surgery on him,
which will mean a much quicker recovery process.

Thoughts and prayers are with J and his family.

specialist coming in from uk....besta luck mate.

I'd just like to add my best wishes to John and his family. As another 109 pilot I know how little time he had to make the decisions he did.

Well done and get well soon,

Regards,

Lunar

HeliBaron, Shytorque.

The Italian authorities issued AD 2000-371 which I believe covers the rotating scissors issue. Mandatory for UK registered aircraft. No reason for the CAA to issue an AD.

Manufacturers mandatory bulletins are only mandatory if backed by an AD!!!!!!!!!
It is the operators choice as to what action they take in respect of them.
If they choose to ignore them they might have to explain their decision in court at a later date.

But it would be difficult to ignore the word MANDATORY in bright red, inch high, letters on the BTs sent by the manufacturer to owners and operators.

Never mind in court, try explaining why something marked thus wasn't done to the aircraft insurance company. I think the words NULL, and VOID, might feature in any conversation.

Different topic to whether something is a cover-up, or not, which was my point. Also, I presume, totally irrelevant to the subject here, just in case journos mis-read any intonation.

Update
 

I dont think this will apply to this case.

Anyway, John had a very successful back operation today and is on the road to recovering!

Thank God.

thanks de beere for updates....great news....we were all worried.

That's the only thing that is important! :ok:

New pics uploaded of the aircraft removal from the crash site.. They arn't my photos..

http://www.flickr.com/photos/muineac...th/2350982784/

before all of the armchair critics kick off, I see from the photos the tail rotor blades are still intact so wondered if this was probably because they had stopped spinning before impact?? I would have expected them to have broken off fairly sharply if they'd been spinning. Just wondering that's all.

First of all, thank god J is making a full and speedy recovery. It has been no doubt a terrifying experience for him, his family and his colleagues and I hope he's able to get back in the air soon.

Had a look through the other photos of the recovery also Helimut, and I agree, the tail rotor must have not been rotating during the impact and roll-over. I also noticed that tail rotor drive shaft appears to be broken after the first visible bearing where the cowling had been opened. This can be seen in three photos but it looks like there is some thing extra around the shaft after the first bearing? Is it possible for a bearing to have come out of it's mount?

TI

EricFerret, Shytorque

AD2000-371 referred to BT109EP-12, inspection of scissor links. I have not seen BT109EP-86 but you say that it deals with marking of the link to aid correct installation.

As far as I am aware (and I stand to be corrected) the link can still be installed the wrong way round - is Mr. Murphy still alive and well?? It was this design fault that was never addressed following the previous accidents, the UK CAA seemed to ignore it.

I hope that I am wrong concerning the cause and I wish the pilot a speedy recovery.

The BT's can be found here:

http://customersupport.agusta.com/technical_advice.php

Anyone operating the type but not receiving this information would be rightly concerned; we certainly do receive it in good time.

After looking at the photos of the wreck, it seems to me, that the airframe is not severely bent, especially in the cockpit area. Are the seats of a 109 not as crashworthy as the seats of a 900/902 or EC 135?
The pilot did obviously a very good job, but at last the hard landing wasnt good for his spine, maybe better seats may have prevented these injuries?

skadi

ShyTorque

Thanks for the link, not operating the A109E presently but still interested.

The BT may help but the link can still be installed the wrong way round - still a design fault that could cause serious problems and a design fault that the Aviation Authorities have long been aware of.:ugh:

Thanks for the photos. It seems that just about everything is bent except for the Tail rotor blades. So they were more than likely not turning at impact. These are the Orginal "C" model Agusta tail rotor blades. Seeing the driveshaft cowling open the inspectors were obviously looking for the cause of no rototational blade damage.
I pray the pilot has a speedy recovery from this and a discovery of what occured is found. While most accidents are of some type of Pilot Error this seems to be a obvious mechanical part failure.

Godspeed.

Brent

Update
 

Saw J at mid day today and he asked me to tell you that he was out of bed walking with his brother. As you can imagine, this is a huge leap in his recovery and I am truly amazed at the speed in which he is on his feet, be it a few steps.
He is very lucky to have such massive support of his friends and family and I wish him a speedy recovery.
Ketchup

I was also in visiting John today, I gave him a copy of this thread so he could read everyones good wishes and support.

To hear that he was walking is amazing! His determination to get back flying wont keep him in bed for long!

Well Done John!

I don't know the gentleman but this shall not stop me wishing him a speedy recovery!!!!!!!

I just hope the withdrawal symptoms won't be to vicious.:ok::ok::ok:

A good question, here is an interesting crash test of seat cushions....


http://www.ostiv.fai.org/NPAref11.pdf
Extract
"An impact test was carried out using a layered seat cushion (Ref. 9).
A ½ inch (1.25 cm) thick firm grade energy absorbing foam layer, was placed on top of a 1 inch (2.5 cm) thick hard grade energy absorbing foam layer. A pilot manikin was fitted with an accelerometer at the base of the spine. The manikin was strapped firmly onto the seat on the test sledge. The seat was then rotated through 90°, so the foam was loaded to 1g. The impact velocity for the test was 8.1 m/s. The following peak g readings were
recorded.
Bare seat 35g
Ordinary soft foam cushion 45g
Energy absorbing layered foam cushion 26g

These test results showed that the layered energy absorbing foam cushion absorbed considerable impact energy, as well as providing pilot seating comfort. A further point of considerable interest and importance was the demonstration of the increased acceleration experienced by the spine on impact when ordinary soft foam was used as a seat cushion."

In my view all light aircraft seats should be fitted with EAF and pilots and crew should hassle the CAA to create this rule.
A 1/2 square meter of dynafoam is £18.




Mickjoebill

could dynafoam be bought and cut to be used as a seat cushion on a present a/c seat?

I see it can be cut and used anywhere really. Might buy some and test it. Anyone spent 6 hours at a time in a S76 seat!!! No wonder I have a bad back!

Any update on how the pilot is now??
Wishing him a speedy recovery....

Tiny

Preliminary Report
 

For Info:

Published 01 April 2008

http://www.aaiu.ie/AAIUviewitem.asp?...g=ENG&loc=1652

Well, that report answers all questions!

Great job from the pilot! Hope he is back in the cockpit soon.

I wouldnt like to be in the engineering company as there may not be one when this is all sorted out, we like to trust our engineers as we place ours and passengers lives in there hands.
Best of luck to the pilot on a speedy recovery

Best wishes to the pilot and a speedy recovery! :)

Can't believe it was due to a bit of a rag round the TR drive shaft..

Hope john is doing well, how is he now??

Maxvne
 

You are very quick to blame the engineers. Who said that the engineering company left this foreign body on the TR drive shaft? What about the pilot's Check A before the flight? Why didn't he find it? Or, could it have been him (the pilot) that left it there?

Wait and see.

When was the last time that you looked under the TR driveshaft cover on a Check A??? :confused::confused:

That sounds a bit libellous to me... :ugh:

"You are very quick to blame the engineers. Who said that the engineering company left this foreign body on the TR drive shaft? What about the pilot's Check A before the flight? Why didn't he find it? Or, could it have been him (the pilot) that left it there? "

Does the RFM require the pilot to remove the tail rotor drive shaft cowlings in his walk round?

Claudia - what else should a pilot look for in his walk round. Does he need to strip the ship into its individual components just to be sure nothing is amiss?

Looks to me that the pilot did a fine job in an extreem situation, and i wish him a speedy recovery.

ATB

Red

Red white and blue
 

I do agree with you, the pilot did a fine job and I also wish him a full and speedy recovery.

I do, quite regularly, on that type, because it says in the RFM pre-flight "full" checklist to check for grease leaks from the bearings.

I also check the "jiggle pins" are loose, as intended.

And as soon as I saw those photos (in fact one in particular), before I heard any rumours on the cause ........ I went in to work specially and had an extra special good look on the aircraft I fly most, although I wasn't sure what I was looking for. :)

Having said that, there is no reason for a pilot to have a rag up there while he's looking - there should be nothing to wipe up. If there was, I'd be calling for engineering advice.

Hi all,

Helicopter pilots nightmare - loosing the tail rotor.

Checking the tail rotor drive shaft and bearings? I haven't flown any helicopter, where you could remove the cover without tools - so I just use a light and the holes to take a look, where I can. Wouldn't blame the pilot on missing the rag in there!

Regarding the saying, every landing, you can walk away from, is a good landing,
every landing you can use the aircraft again is a very good landing

Was there a chance for a "very good landing"? (i.e. a run on at the next airport?)
What are the flight characteristics of an A109 without the tail rotor turning?
Could you keep it flying like an EC 155 or BK 117 (both with either one giant fin or "surf boards" attached to the stabilizer, as long as you keep the speed up or is the tail-fin of the A109 to small to counteract the torque?

Still, the time for the decision is short and with a broken drive shaft there might have been additional banging noises out of the back, indicating further damage to be, so that the decision to autorotate was immanent.

Just curious cause a have my next go at helisim in a few days and I'm sure, there will be the one or the other fenestron failure to be dealt with - and I'm sure, without that training I certainly would have bent any bird with such an failure!

Glad to hear, that the pilot survived the nightmare and can walk again!


Greetings Flying Bull

With regard to the 'Check A', when a Heli is located at an EASA 145 facility in Ireland, (I assume it is a European wide standard..hence EASA) there is a requirement for the actual 'Check A' (Daily) to be conducted by a
Lic. Engineer. A Pilot may be given authorization subject to a plethora of protocol requirements when he/she are away from the support facility and in accordance with EASA Part-145A30(j)(4).

Either way, the actual preflight can be made as comprehensive as the PIC deems to undertake. Reasonable expectations are that all concerned exercise
safety, caution and respect the duplication and redundancy checks, as is the industry norm.

Having said that, we are ALL capable of human error, great or small, and we
must learn from these events, regardless!:cool:

Flying Bull, the cowling on the A109 I fly has "Wing nut" Dzus fasteners. This is standard factory fit; no tools needed.

The 'nut stranglers' do the check 'A' at base/ maintance organisation and sign for it, pilot does his own check in as much or little detail as he/ she wishes. Pilot not allowed to do check 'A' at base/ maintance organisation if they are at the same location if that makes sense.

Away from base/ maintance organisation pilot has to do it, of course a check 'A' authoristion has to come from the maintance organisation for the pilot so that means you can end up with having to do a check 'A' run around with an engineer for the same type of a/c but different a/c maintained at different organisation.

This is AOC, UK, JAR, EASA or what ever we are on today which is standard stuff, so at base you come in check paper work walk around a/c looking for the obvious, wouldn't start un-doing anything, you have to trust the engineers.

Unfortunatley '**** happens', and every now and then your most trusted engineer makes a mistake, well he's not a pilot :E , didn't say it was a good thing.

Best wishes to the pilot.

Tail Rotor failures aren't nice.

My congratulations to the pilot for getting down as safely as possible.

Here's hoping for a speedy recovery! :ok: