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: