Yes farrell, it will be interesting to see what the full story is.
So, no external signs of fire from the footage we have seen so far. Maybe there is some out there that can back up a fire theory. Maybe it was a fire indication.
Why would anyone land a 76 in such a small place in the first place.
He was initially over a beach. So between dropping off the pax then repositioning he had a fire indication, then he hovered for a while over a car park instead of staying out clear of built up areas. ???wtf????
A/C clips something which causes it to yaw and spin out of control with the obvious result.
Lets just wait and see what the truth is about it all.
We all have our own opinions. After all, this is a 'rumour' network', is it not?

PS, quite a few of us spend a lot of our working days in the 76, not playing flight sim!

The landing gear might not look like it's down in the video footage, but it certainly looks like it is down in some of the still shoots,including the photo on the front page of yesterdays Irish Independent.

Is that a feature of the S76? With the small stuff i've flown, i've assumed to date that anything in the cockpit would be a slow evolving fire of electrical origin and that you'd never have to rapid loss of sight and breathing difficulties?

In common with others I'll await the official report. Lots of factors I'd like to hear the final viewpoint on (most of which have been highlighted already).

HM, I don't recall the FSI sim yawing for a fire indication real or spurious, do you :confused:

And considering the previous comments, with a substantial engine firewall and masses of power even OEI in a B model (especially a light one), it sadly doesn't look too clever :(

FWF - No it's not a 76 feature. Must have been a major engine fire for the smoke to have not been visible from the outside, but so fierce that it breached the firewall, filled the MRGB compartment, crossed the overhead bay containing the mixing unit and then filled the cockpit before confirmation of a fire or a safe landing could be made :hmm: Possible electrical fire in the cockpit????? But then those in the know have stated it was an engine fire :rolleyes:

FW

Sorry fellas but i couldn't help but laugh at this..

Seriously glad no-one was hurt!

Have to say....fantastic to see the passer-bys running to help! :D

Did anyone notice the CCTV footage jumps from 16:41:13 to 16:41:36??

When I first watched it I was truly horrified the fire caught so quickly, on realising there was 24 seconds missing.....whilst still horrified, it explained the pilot's escape! & explained the severity of the fire seen on the tape!
Reminded me of the Bristows S-61 near Portland.......scarey stuff! :ooh:

Again.....I'll wait for the report. Glad no-one was hurt!

davy o7 how is this funny .stand near an s76 rotors running and see how long you stay in the one place.if he moved to close to a lady and the down wash hit her, she may have got hurt.He was correct by not trying to move her away from the landing site by moving close to her.I will wait for the report before making further comment.

To many experts with to few hours on this network.

Wow.. arrogant AND intelligent.. you're on a winner!

It looks like the topic isn't open to conversation, lets get a moderator in here to close this thread down, might as well, the opinions of us people are no longer tolerated, however it seems there's a double standard here, we're not entitled to question the events of the accident yet you're able to make a "fully informed" attack on other members, arrogance is obviously flavour of the day.. for what it's worth, if thats the result of your many years of flying I'd rather quit now while I'm still ahead. What happened to the topic of conversation BEFORE the slating of other members started, or is that all you're capable of doing with YOUR 19 inch monitor? Why don't you instead, set a good example to us small fry instead of painting a bitter picture. We're only discussing the accident.

I believe we were discussing the theories and causes of the helicopter crash in Bettystown - just like you, we are all anticipating the AAIU report, we're not out to slate the pilot. I'm not trying to slate you either but it appears you want to have a go at people..

I don't see any mention of an R44 (R22 would be more appropriate) but regardless of that I think you're missing the point, nobody is comparing them, rather it was more a question about even attempting to land a robbie in such a spot, not to mention an S76.. but as some have already mentioned, there may have been governing factors that led to him to end up where he did.

I can see this conversation getting heated so lets just get back to the discussion of the sequence of events, possible causes and what other information has emerged about the accident, that's what we're here for, right?

I believe you'll find flight simmers hanging out in other forums, I wouldn't know, I guess I can only assume it seeing as I know so little about the rest of you, and visa versa.

I wasn't laughing at the situation, just that comment!

Anyway, as you say il wait to hear what the report says also.

Firstly, best wishes to the pilot and those others who received injuries of any kind, including having the life frightened out of them. He was very lucky to get out of it in one piece!

Disregarding all the speculation and comment, but .......

.........has anybody spoken to the man and actually heard him say there was a fire or fire indication, or even a problem of any kind in those moments before going down?

And no, I don't mean " heard it from a mate of his neighbour" stuff.

22

I hate to dwell on the past.. but Farrell, you clearly have anger issues:

http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/3431...ml#post4395477

Perhaps take a moment and get some fresh air, you've got quite a lot of posting done on pprune (1,207 from last count), hang up the keyboard mate and stick to the aviation if that's what you're really into, all you seem to do is hop from thread to thread looking for arguments.

So far you have not mentioned one relevant piece of information about the actual event itself, all you have done is ranted. Go annoy another thread

It must be that time of the month for a lot of ppruners or something! There's quite a few topics with cranky and snide comments at the moment!

Relax da kaks lads or take a chill pill or something!:ok:

If you actually read the context of the statement instead of jumping in feet first screaming at people, you'd see that they were saying that there was barely room for a little R22, never mind a helo the size of a S76.

If you talk to people in the real world like this I can guarantee you now that nobody, and I mean nobody ever actually listen to you. They probably just stand around saying, "ooh here comes Farrell with his big crazy head"!!!

Nobody on here are claiming to have all the answers, but their informed theories and educated guesses(aided by researching certain things like google earth for example) can give some insight into what happened. Why do we all want to know what happened?? I'll answer for myself here; Because, as a pilot I feel that knowledge is power. It gives me the tools to apply the last guys mistakes to my equation when it comes to my own flying, hence reducing my own risk and making the skies a little safer.

I think a certain amount of speculation is healthy in this realm. Since I joined here and VR 2 years ago as a student pilot working to become a CFI and Professional Pilot I have used these sort of topics to enhance my knowlege by taking into account informed speculatory posts and discarding the posts that do not add up. I have listened to many Professional Pilots from both the Civilian world and the Military and learned from their stories and mistakes. I have also learned from people discrediting both my own & other peoples theories using sensible language and statements, and not just coming out swinging.

If you have a problem with speculation then thats your problem, as this industry is rife with it, be it a good thing or a bad thing. Even the top guys use speculation based on their prior knowledge. Take for example, Greg White who wrote Fatal Traps for Helicopter Pilots. While almost all his case studies show just the facts, there are quite a few where he or others speculate as to the events running up to the accidents in question. This is how we learn.

Some of the people on here may be Sim fliers and many are Professional Pilots. I suggest you show some respect to all of them, as you'll find that most of them have a great deal more experience and knowlege than you.

Great response though, you have very valid points - without the contributions of everyone and making an open minded analysis of the information available it's hard to learn from others accidents, actions, or otherwise.

Well said Darren, healthy conversation is the only way forward. As whatsarunway points out, this is not a place for mud-slinging.
I think this trend should be closed and let the AAIU / NTSB do there jobs and publish a preliminary report, then it should be discussed further. We are gaining nothing here and risk the media miss quoting replies and harming the image of this very delicate industry further.
Ketchup

We are gaining nothing here and risk the media miss quoting replies and harming the image of this very delicate industry further.....

wise words ketchup.

Pilot will have enough knives out for him not to mention the demons in his own head. IF it is determined as a poor judgement call it will have a serious effect on the guy. Experience is relative, I think it naive to say he one of the most experienced in ireland although he is a nice chap.

NB

It certainly looks like the gear is down, contrary to Coatesy's spin on the events, (Coatesy should hire a PR spin expert of you want to change the story ref your pilot) even when the CCTV fottage is enhanced, and from the still footage of the heli burning on its side it certainly looks like its down, if he only took off a few short moments before, why would he bother to pull the gear up

The pilot is a very nice individual, and as good a pilot as anyone, however if a mistake was made on the day, we are all prone to making bad judgements and most times only ourselves will ever know,
We do however need to support our friend and fellow pilot in times like this, The one who thinks they will never make a mistake or misjudgement will themselves be the next to do so :=

Does anyone know who was in the Blue (appeared blue anyway) 407 circling overhead at the time of the crash?
Obviously a birds eye view would shed alot of light & prevent speculation!

Noblades :D Absolutely spot on to state experience is relative!

'Prob one of the most experienced pilots in Ireland' is a very bold claim!!

Because without wishing to mud-sling.......I'd suggest that was not the best place to try & land at anytime (What is it......50yds from an open beach!?) & certainly not IF there was a problem with the aircraft.

From the aerial shot of the scene i am struck by how close the crash site was to the beach, even if my head was on fire i would maneouvre the machine over a few yards and land on the beach... i am amazed nobody was seriously hurt. Was there an engine/electrical/xmsn fire? From the footage it apears quite clear cut...pilot trys to land in a (very?)confined area, clips his tail and crashes. Thank god the Pilot is ok and will hopefully return to fly in the future (a little more cautious of his landing sites). I await the AAIU interim report with interest.

Whats that old saying...."Even Monkey's fall out of trees every now and then!"

This will all be sorted at the conclusion of the many investigations that are on-going. After the reports are published then we can properly sit as a jury and make our verdicts known.

Until then....is it just not a bit presumptious of us to take a definitive view of things?

EB,

Unless you have had your "head" on fire before....there is no telling what you would do if it really happened.

I have sat in a cockpit full of fire (in flight) and I can assure you it alters your normal line of thinking and there is no training that will prepare you for the event. We might like to assume what we would do....but until you smell yourself burning it is only hypothetical thinking at best.

You see a dot of something on a very low frame rate video with artifacts from either/both of the compression algorithms of the cctv recording and the sky flash video encoding. I think the low frame rate also makes it difficult to see how it evolves. The other question would be how the shutter speed would capture a (small?) piece of debris from the (high rpm) tail rotor.

You'll need that stuff from Blade Runner to get a definitive answer from the CCTV frottage.

The left roll could be explained by the not unheard of reversing/whoops TR ding as the lateral drift effect would no longer be present.

sasless ,
lighten up!

On the question of the landing gear, having looked at the footage it is unclear if the gear is down in the hover but it is clearly down half way through the first rotation. Was the pilot putting the gear down just before the incident and he drifted backwards?

FNW

I see the FAA are sending some of their own over to investigate the accident and work with the AAIU on trying to establish what went wrong.

Robino,
Could you post the link for that?
Thanks
K

FNW surely you meant does have a firewall.

S-76 would have a firewall or it's equivalent between the engines - they are quite widely spaced, but would require a firewall for certification.

In regards to the firewall issue I recalled a statement Nick Lappos made a while back and found it (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/197...l#post956984):

I googled and found references that the S-76 is indeed certified under FAR Part 29 Transport Rotorcraft.
...and who would doubt the guy who took part in developing the aircraft? :)

But I can see that your decision making is somewhat clouded if your head is on fire, you have the hands full flying and no co-pilot to pull the fire bottle(s)! :eek: Also I wouldn't want to try out if it does hold 15 minutes!

swisstony
 

Im Just saying that you dont know what happened, just because there is cctv footage , which only shows the latter end of this indecent, you are very quick to blame the pilot, i am looking forward to the report from the aaiu.!!

Indecent!! who was indecent?:E

Is the pilot on JAR or FAA licence? Or both?

Not that it matters, i'm just curious....

FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results

*Removed*

Address

*Removed*

Medical

Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007

Certificates

1 of 1

DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER

Must have been flying it on his JAA then.

If you are licensed and current on the type in the country where an "N" registered aircraft happens to be you may fly it without a US license. (FAR Part 61.3 a (1)

Also as the operation would be Part 91 it may be conducted on a Private License.

FAR Part 61.113
(b) A private pilot may, for compensation or hire, act as pilot in
command of an aircraft in connection with any business or employment if:
(1) The flight is only incidental to that business or employment;
and
(2) The aircraft does not carry passengers or property for
compensation or hire.

But wasnt the helicopter an N reg? hmmmm....

Just a few other small observations.....

RVDT: how would he prove he was not doing commercial work on his FAA licence?

And also, why is he exempt from rule 3??
Subject to subparagraph (b) of this paragraph and subparagraph 6 (2) (a) of Rule 6 of these Rules, paragraph (1) (a) of this Rule shall not apply to a Performance Class 1 or Class 2 helicopter which is being flown without undue hazard to persons or property but, except with the permission of the appropriate authority and in accordance with any conditions specified therein, such a helicopter shall not be flown -
(a) over congested areas of cities, towns or settlements at less than
(i) such height as would enable it, in the event of the failure of a power unit, to make a safe forced landing;
(ii) a height of 300m (1,000 feet) above the ground or water,


All seems a bit unusual to me.

Read on...................
 

How would he prove what? Was there anyone else in the aircraft at the time of the accident? The operation would still be Part 91.

IRISH AVIATION AUTHORITY (RULES OF THE AIR) ORDER, 2004

3. Minimum heights

(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:

(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.

The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue.

3. Minimum heights

(5) Nothing in this Rule shall prohibit an aircraft from:

(a) (i) taking-off, landing or practising approaches to landing,
in accordance with normal aviation practice at an aerodrome or heliport within the State, or at an aerodrome or heliport in any other state, and without causing undue hazard to persons or property.

The interpretation of "undue hazard" or unnecessary risk would be the issue


Personally I think the whole paragragh may be an issue! Starting with 'Normal Aviation Practice'

FAA Registry
Name Inquiry Results

*Removed*

Address

*Removed*

Medical

Medical Class: First Medical Date: 12/2007

Certificates

1 of 1

DOI: 10/30/2006
Certificate: PRIVATE PILOT
Rating(s):
PRIVATE PILOT
ROTORCRAFT-HELICOPTER
INSTRUMENT HELICOPTER

Must have been flying it on his JAA then.

'Prob one of the most experienced pilots in Ireland......' :oh:


.....But anyway....No word from the 407 Driver yet? He was orbiting the site throughout the initial beach landing & only left after the crash......

S.I. 61 of 2006 The IAA Operations Order; Article
51(3)(b) Only a helicopter operated in Performance Class 1 shall be permitted to operate from
elevated heliports in congested areas.

S.I. 216 of 2005:
(d) in the case of a rotorcraft or balloon, not being used for public transport, any place where
the aircraft may take-off or land without undue hazard to persons or property and in respect of
which the owner or occupier of that place shall have given permission for such use, except that,
in the case of a rotorcraft, where that place is of an elevated construction, located on the roof of
a building or a structure, it shall also be licensed by the Authority under this Order for such use
by that rotorcraft.

hypothetically:
1) The aircraft is operated Privately. (same Pilot)
2) The site is big enough for the heli to land safely. (same site in Bettystown)
3) They have site owner permision.
4) No accident occures.

Now have a read of the Hughes 500 AAIU report but replace the aircraft with the SK76 and remove the car parking attendant injury (hence no need for an AAIU report) and that they had permission.

My question is what laws or rules or guidelines are being breached in this scenario because as I see it, there are no issues landing a SK76 on a roof (provided it's stong enough) in a congested area, so what problems would there be landing in the carpark? I find the SI, AOM, SI(A) very cryptic.

Electric69,

The Feds have to prove he "was".....the pilot does not have to prove he "was not".

Now in the UK...perhaps Ireland....the opposite might be true but not within US FAA proceedings.

However, a review of his time card, payroll sheet, job description, evaluations, letter of appointment, all better point out how the piloting was "not" his primary function at the firm. The flying part better be way..way..way...down the list of responsibilities in importance, pay, time, and compensation.

The FAA does have the power to demand records from the US firm owning and operating the aircraft. Add in the requirement for drug testing and the like if applicable to the operation and there might some thorny issues to be discussed.

Knowing the general attitude by EU Tax and Aviation authorities towards non-EU aircraft operations within the EU....this will be an interesting case that will no doubt draw plenty of lightning bolts from the heavens.