AAIB report in.

See Air Accidents Investigation: Agusta A109A II, G-ELTE

Tory leader death leap from critical helicopter...
 

Revealed: How David Cameron was forced to jump to safety from helicopter in landing drama | Mail Online

Well not quite that dramatic, but is the kind of title i'd expect from the Daily Mail or Sky News

It gets better :

Here's the text from the teaser on the website (Daily Mail)

In the text it says :

Please refrain from using thread titles that get people's hopes up! :p

Thought this was old news:

Why was the commander attempting to land with only 15 minutes fuel remaining :eek:

toptobottom

Read the report for yourself............AAIB report Jan 2010 G-ELTE

Major credit to the skipper. Some brilliant thinking and decision making resulted in the no injuries and very little damage to the helicopter.

Contrast that with the airfield general manager's thinking......
AAIB conclusion:T'bug :ok:

What a disgraceful case of NIMBYism by the airfield manager! :eek:

i.e. "Go and have your accident at someone else's airfield!"

After all, he'd already had one tail rotor failure near Biggin Hill.....good job on that one, too, btw.

T'Bug - got it, thanks. It doesn't explain why the AGM was not in favour of the commander's intentions, but rather unhelpful in any event.

A refuel during a low hover was an interesting suggestion though; I suspect it may have had interesting consequences given the downwash too...

I know that it does happen at other airfields as well, but is it sensible and safe to have the fire crews doubling up as refuellers? If a sudden fire occurs during a refuel and the refueller is injured or incapacitated, will he then be able to operate as fire crew?

Do you think that the Redhill Aerodrome General Manager's thoughts were influenced by the fact that David Cameron was on board and the likely media frenzy if it all went wrong?

see this article in the Sun....

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/a...2g_480756a.jpg

Thing is it didn't go wrong, and we're all still here, so till next time!

Not sure I understand. Surely that would be a good move. I allways land when the fuel light is on.:) That is what you are supposed to do.

There is an interesting series of photos in one of the 78 Sqn RAF historical albums concerning a Wessex at Sharjah, I think, which somehow clouted its starboard mainwheel before landing. The upper strut failed and the wheel assembly rotated around the lower strut, putting the starboard mainwheel somewhere level with halfway up the fuselage - not ideal in a Wessex.

As the photos clearly showed, the Wessex was refuelled (more than once, I think) in the hover while those on the ground created a suitable pile of sandbags etc and, in addition, a hover pilot change was also carried out (dual controls, remember) to give the original pilot a bit of a breather. Once the pile of sandbags etc was ready, being just the right height for the Wessex fuselage at rest, it was safely landed with the starboard side of the aircraft supported by the sandbags and the starboard wheel still in a fairly unconventional position.

Given the layout of the Wessex it would have been impossible to land any other way without the helicopter falling on its side and some very expensive noises ensuing...

Louis

Not sure I would have used the rotor brake in this instance (sitting on a pile of tyres,) but obviously it had no ill effects. Good job :ok:

212man

I know that's a quote from the report but the 109 rotor brake isn't connected to the weight on wheels switch anyway, its activated by the landing gear selector, when selected 'down' pressure is allowed into the rotor brake circuit from the utility hydraulic system, so with the wheels selected up (as in this case) it won't work anyway. The only electrical connection to the rotor brake system is the microswitch that puts the light on, on the instrument panel.

The weight on wheels switch does operate the pin that prevents undercarriage up selection when on the ground.

GS

But doesn't the quote state that Phil didn't use the rotor brake? :confused:

A fantastic effort by the pilot if you ask me and the NIMBY at Redhill should be bloody ashamed of himself IMHO.

Joel :ugh:

Shytorque,
I'm genuinly not sure, and I was simply seeking to learn something about the decsion process (it wsn't a criticism.) My interpretation of this:

was that the signal required the battery on and that he therefore left the battery on to allow the use of the brake.

From the AAIB report:
The only thing that operates is the (rotor brake) light on your instrument panel. In short: No wheels, no rotor brake.