Video of TV News Helicopter Crash in Brazil
 

At around 0920 GMT today February 10, the brazilian "Rede Record" News Network helicopter crashed at São Paulo's Jockey Club after the pilot reported tail rotor problems.

Another news network helicopter, from Globo network was on the scene and filmed the accident.

Both helicopters were covering a robbery.

The pilot of the Globo helicopter was interviewed, saying that the Rede Record pilot reported failure with the tail rotor and was heading for the Jockey Club, which is a clearing amid buildings in the city. Then he noted that the Record helicopter was sideways, and suddenly it started yawing and losing altitude rapidly. A smoke is seen during the altitude loss, and the helicopter crashed on the ground.

The Globo helicopter which filmed the accident landed after the accident to help. There were 2 on board the crashed helicopter, the cameraman and the pilot.

Unfortunately, the pilot died with the impact, while the cameraman survived with injuries, and was conscious while taken to the hospital.

The Globo helicopter pilot said that after landing and switching off the battery and fuel pump, he ran for the crash, and noted the cameramen was alive and conscious complaining about pain, while the pilot was "bent" on the controls unconscious.

The crashed helicopter is probably an Eurocopter "Esquilo" AS350B.

These are similar videos in case the link breaks after some time, the first one showing the other helicopter landing next to the crashed one.

Helicóptero sofre pane e cai em São Paulo - Globo Vdeos Player

Globo Vídeos - VIDEO - Helicópetro da TV Record cai em São Paulo



UPDATE: Video of the onboard camera from the crashed helicopter

Long version since the robbery:
Helicóptero da Rede Record cai em São Paulo

Short version of the last minute:
Piloto do helicóptero da Rede Record morre após acidente aéreo em SP

Portuguese news with the pictures of the crew onboard and the videos above:
Piloto de helicóptero da TV Record morre após queda de aeronave no Jockey Club


Another news source with a on scene picture of the crash:
Helicóptero da 'Record' cai no Jockey Club de SP; 1 morre

http://p1.trrsf.com.br/image/get?o=c...9267-atm14.jpg

Any thoughts on the cause of the accident?

And what should the pilot have done to prevent it?

Investigation authorities are already on the scene.

In a helicopter, if you loose the tail rotor i.e. gearbox/shaft/rotor failure, you have to keep your forward speed up so the tail fin can act as the "anti-torque" control. This requires a run on landing.

C2j

Actually, if the tail-rotor DRIVE fails, you're going down closeby............Have to enter autorotation and cut the engine fuel flow (torque) for an autorotative landing right nearby. If the power (ie torque) is kept on, the heli WILL spin rapidly resulting in disorientation and rapid loss of control. Otherwise an autorotative landing is the ONLY choice in this case (but you've only got seconds to recognise and take action.................) and on landing the heli will try to turn slowly in the SAME direction as the main rotor (gearbox friction) but can be controlled.
However, if the tail rotor is still spinning but CONTROL (ie pitch) is lost, then in many cases you can continue at some speed for a run-on landing (or other manouevre as recommended by the Manufacturer!) onto a smooth surface, as previously mentioned.
Poor guys probably never knew what hit them...............Tail rotor drive failure at low speed/ hover is a killer in no time unfortunately.

Cubs2jets;
I'm a fixed-wing pilot - (never been in a machine where all the important bits is trying to get away from all the other important bits, although in fairness, Sergei Sikorsky, who was the keynote speaker at an ALPA Safety Conference in Washington DC stated that helicopter pilots were a lot smarter because, like our feathered friends and very much unlike our fixed-wing group, they stopped before alighting), but I wonder if "auto-rotation" is another solution? No torque, therefore no rotation - or does it work that way? I understand the choice of landing field is limited but it is with any "run-on" landing as well.

Newgen Jock, you anticipated the question, thanks...I thought as much.

Well....If the driveshaft fails, and the vertical stabiliser is intact, and you have forward speed (more than 20 kts), you should be able to continue without the tailrotor if you reduce the power. Then you can find a suitable landingspot, set up a steep approach, enter autorotation, cut the fuelflow and make an autorotational emergencylanding.

If you loose tailrotor control on an AS 350, you should reduce power to 60-70 kts, press Hyd Test for 5 sec (or accu-test depending on model), then make a shallow approach with a side-slip to the left, and touch down when the machine gets aligned with the direcion of travel (probably with forward speed). It's easier with the wind coming from the right.

If you loose the vertical stabiliser AND the gearbox, you will probably be well out of CG, plus you don't have the "weather-cock" effect from the tailfin, so the machine will most likely come to a spin nose-down, impossible to recover from.

-AS 350 pilot.

In an autorotation, the airflow from below, keeps the blades turning (PROVIDED you "dump" collective pitch immediately) thus building up enough rotor system energy for a "flare" and to apply pitch before touchdown when the rotor rpm then decays as you touch down. And it is a repeatable, practiseable (!) and survivable manoeuvre, almost anywhere.
Tail rotor drive failure is altogether another (lethal) animal though it is POSSIBLE to mitigate the forced-landing by autorotating if immediate and correct action is taken.

Hope this helps..........

BTW, not current though have a fair few heli hours........;)

It doesn't need to be lethal if you react correct....

As said, in flight, it shouldn't be that big a problem if you recognise the malfunction (sudden yaw, and no reaction when moving the pedals).

It's more risky to dump the collective and autorotate where you are, than actually fly to a suitable landingsite (airfield etc).

What you SHOULD do in any case is cut the fuel-flow before you cushion the landing, orelse you'll be spinning all over the place on touchdown...

Whatever happened to that Astar undoubtedly began well before the spin/crash. If you watch the the report that includes video from the accident ship, at about 2:00 minutes in, "something" happens and then camera snaps around to film backward toward the tail rotor. The aircraft assumes a left yaw/right bank attitude and continues flying, somewhat erratically. Around 4:50 the aircraft enters a left bank and it appears that it does a left 360 turn around the mast. But the pilot remains in control. You can see him get lower and lower, until it finally starts spinning and we lose the video feed at around 7:20. Time from the onset of the problem to the crash: a little over five minutes.

Switch now to the video shot from the other newscopter. In the first link, the video begins with the Astar arriving high over the site, and already rotating slowly to the left. It quickly picks up speed. While spinning, the ship begins droppping vertically, very fast. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the puff of smoke from the engine comes when the pilot shuts it down to stop the spin. At the bottom, either he doesn't even pull any pitch or the rotor rpm has gone away and there's no cushion left.

Very sad to watch, and it must have been gut-wrenching for the crew in the other newscopter.

Maybe we'll never know why the pilot elected to do a landing in that small site with a tail rotor problem - instead of taking it to a bigger area or an airport.

Not every helicopter pilot is Chuck Yeager.

A helicopter suffers what appears to be some sort of mechanical failure, at no more than a couple of hundred feet with no apparent warning and crashes killing the pilot and seriously injuring the passenger and what do we get here ?
Self appointed experts telling us where the poor guy went wrong and what he should have done.

There should be an idiot monitor set up on this forum that prevents fools from posting.

Tarman, why so angry? Perhaps you missed the part of the OP's post where he stated that the pilot of the crashed Astar reported a problem and said he was heading for the Jockey Club to put it down. If true (and from the looks of the video feed from the ship itself it does appear that this was the case), this means that the problem did not occur at "a couple of hundred feet with no apparent warning."

I might agree with your idea of an idiot monitor for this site. Then again...it might have detected your post and prevented it from showing.

It is sad - whatever happened - but tail rotor EP's are spelled out and we, as professional pilots are supposed to know how to perform them. Taking his Astar to that small, obstructed site was a questionable decision. Tragically, it proved to be the wrong one.

To add, the pilot who watched the crash advised the other pilot to do what I think is a "straight-in landing". The pilot of the helicopter with problems then said he was going to try the "straight-in landing".

If you see the bottom of this news page, you can see on the map where it crashed, and it's noticeable why it's a place chosen for emergencies, since it's got a large strip, used for horse racing.

G1 > Edição São Paulo - NOTÍCIAS - 'Ele relatou pane pelo rádio', diz piloto que viu queda de helicóptero em SP

Also the pilot who landed and assisted said that he "switched off the battery, fuel pump, all these things" of the other helicopter.

I think that some people have been a bit harsh and I hope the ACME book of helicopter flying is all I ever need if faced with such a situation, some of us have clearly swallowed it.

Speculation is one thing but none of us where in it with them, over a very congested area with one tail rotor that seems to have caused the problem, I don't think any of us at this moment in time can say what he should have done, I doubt anyone will be able to do that until an accident report appears, and even then perhaps we should limit it, to what he could have done, he may have considered his options to be very limited.

I agree with FH1100 pilot about the smoke that it could have been the pilot turning off the fuel cock/valve whatever its called on an AS350, I have seen several turbine engines shutdown by use of the fuel cock and they all gave a short burst of smoke just like the one seen in the video.

Can I suggest a little more respect for the guy, particularly on the day he died.

May he rest in peace.

Very sad - R.I. P - Thouhgts are with the pilot's family, friends and colleagues.

Pugachev Cobra - There seem to be two threads with similar titles and identical content started by you ( this one and another half hour previously ).

Mod's - can they be merged ?

Coconutty

Yes, I was not sure if Rumours & News or Rotorheads was the best place, so I cross posted in the hopes of it reaching a broader audience. Mods eventually moved the Rumours & News here, which is the one with more replies.

Didn't find anything in the FAQ where to post regarding News about helicopters. Now i know.

With that spin rate, the fact that he was able to make his intended spot at all is remarkable.

There but for the grace of God, as they say.

With a Loss of Tail Rotor induced spin, what ability does one have to control airspeed and direction for a (successful) auto?
Edited to add: with no pedal control managing directional and speed control becomes much more complicated, and possibly cross controlling (cyclic for lack of pedal) further complicating matters...

I would imagine falling down at the angle he did there would not have been enough Rotor RPM to arrest the landing?

With the little we know and can see from the video, is one able to draw any speculation?

How do you practice a hovering tail rotor failure in a AS350 when you can't get to the throttle lever?:confused: Indeed does any A star pilot practice auto rotations on his own because of this?

I haven't watched all of the linked videos, but I did see the ship's camera footage... it wasn't clear to me that he was ever in a hover. What I'm trying to figure out (and admittedly perhaps watching the rest of the videos might clue me in) is how, with as much forward airspeed as he was carrying, he ever got involved in such a violent spin to begin with.

Absolutely gut wrenching to watch.

Video looks to me like:
Flying around ENG like normal until the tailrotor problem, then he tucks the camera away (or maybe was trying to see if he could see his own tailrotor) He flies banked and crabbed crosscountry for a while until he can reach the open field of the Jockey Club. Approaching the field he descends down to a lower altitude and starts to slow down. As the slipstream effect decreases and finally lets go, the aircraft starts to spin -unfortunately he is still a ways in the air (100'?). He manages to keep the aircraft level as it spins, probably chops the throttle after the second turn (you can see the yaw slow down), and then hits the ground heavily but still in a flat attitude in the middle of the clearing away from obstacles. Almost made it. Easy to armchair now, but in the cockpit this pilot looked like he was going to give it his best shot and not stop trying.

Sad - brave effort
 

If you study the directional microwave antenna - it acts as an 'artificial horizon / attitude indicator' ... the gyros of the camera also provide a very high quality attitude indicator - it seems to be particularly high quality - since there is very little 'horizon drift' wrt the horizon.

It appears that the tail rotor has ceased to provide thrust for a very long period of that flight - it also looks like the pilot maintains sufficient speed to prevent uncontrolled yaw rate. The degree of roll indicates the side slip - there is one 'lapse' in speed and you can see the degree of roll caused reduces as the speed reduces - there is then a short loss of control in yaw - and then the pilot regains a speed power combination which controls the yaw again - he has almost taught himself to control the machine with no yaw authority. Maybe he has never been taught this? For some reason the speed drops again - either by choice (perhaps to land in the perceived small space) - or perhaps due to to some further issue...?

Once control is lost the high yaw rate maybe causes such high precession loads on the engine bearings that the engine is severely damaged and releases oil (at least). (60 degrees per second yaw rate limit in AS350) .. or perhaps oil starvation from hight 'centrifugal' loads....

Very difficult to judge 'pitch pull' timing when yawing at very high rate...

Poor chap - very sad :( - nearly makes it - is the right training given?
(refer to: Wessex in Wales and Bell 206 near Black Bush - very sad)
Vietnam era army training may not be appropriate any more?
Have you practised landings with no tail rotor thrust?

... or is it something else? - accident report.....

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Care to expand.
How do you do that?

yet another scene of the cabin roof decapitation and deceased pilot.
Apparently zero shock absorbed by the seats.

Would be great if the cabin roof were designed to deflect/sheer a rotor blade.

I'd trade the nice leather for energy absorbing foam and a helmet.


In respect to the video, the camera seems to have been put into stow mode. which is a user programable position activated by a single switch (lens pointing backwards with lens raised to prevent bug strikes in transit and ground contact)
This could have been a (good) reaction of the cameraman to prepare himself and the equipment for an emergency landing or simply a fast way to get the camera to point toward the tail.
How fortunate that the gearbox was displaced backward and not into the cabin.

I wish him a speedy recovery

Mickjoebill

The smoke definately looks like the engine being stop cocked from flight power. I've seen that done by a slightly over-enthusiastic TRE and the effects were very similar.

I haven't flown a 350 for some time, but our TREs used to simulate a tail rotor control jam at high power by putting in enough foot and making us land without any pedal inputs.

A TR drive failure is the time we all become test pilots. Very few people know how any aircraft will behave without TR drive (even fewer survive the experience to tell the rest of us what to do) The designers will have a model of the idea and that is what goes in the AFM, and most of the idea will come from the textbooks.

I had a TR drive failure a long time ago and the AFM was totally wrong in what it thought should happen. Even in auto-rotation directional control was a hell of a lot less, and a lot harder to manage than I expected. Luckily we were fairly low and the impact was with a fair chunk of forward speed. However I could feel that we were on the edge of a severe spin, probably with catastrophic results.

I also wonder what the pilot's survival chances would have been with the new seats fitted to the 350 range. From the picture this aircraft had the old ones, the new ones would have crushed a long way down and maybe kept him clear of the roof and cyclic.

Niall, one of my primary instructors was a former Air Cav pilot, and made me land an R-22 several times with his foot jammed firmly against one pedal, then up and around to try the other. We did it several times, often without warning.

I'll always be grateful to him for that.

I shudder to think what a full TR loss would feel like, especially as the green/brown/black stuff got closer and experimentation became a matter of survival.

Tarman:
As proffessionals. we should discuss other people's mistakes, so we learn from them and don't make them ourselves. "You don't have to break a leg to know it hurts"
That's why we have accident reports.
Nobody has claimed to be experts or better than anyone, and the easiest thing after an accident, is to say what the poor guy should have done. But when we discuss it, we become aware. And that saves lives!:ok:

Chopjock:

On the AS 350 B3 the trottle is on the collective and easily accessible.
But on the older B2's one would have a problem cutting the throttle with a TR failure in hover. One solution would be to lower the collective as soon as possible to stop the yaw-rate, and cushion the best one can, spinning all over the place.
We don't practice that. It's too risky as we don't have a 350-sim. But we just got a 350-sim in Norway that would be a welcome training aid, as you can do certain emergencies exactly as in real-life. (ex fire-drill).
We do practice "stuck pedal" with running landings, and hover-autos, as the instructor cuts the throttle.
I practice autos (power-on of course) on my own all the time to know the gliding-distance and practice to hit clearings. It's good training.

In our company we specialise in sling-load ops, and our workday is mostly at 15m with a sling, with obstacles around the machine. Our worst nightmare is to strike the tail into a tree or something at that altitude, and with rough terrain all around. You don't have the best odds if it happens.
The 350 also has a pretty low tailrotor, so it's easy to get a strike when landing confined. We are pretty tail-rotor focused.

Nam
 

Brian

Vietnam:
My understanding was that due to very high loss rates in training tr failure - there was a descision to stop teaching how to deal with tail rotor failure - and the advice became just to enter auto rotation ... is that about right? (historians?)
I guess pilot's learnt pretty soon in SE Asia anyway through the Darwinian process ... no?

How? :
The instructor just sets thrust to simulate the tr characteristics he wants. Maybe neutral thrust , (maybe also a little negative thrust to simulate the lost drag). The trainee can then practice the application of torque independantly from pitch/thrust untill he can land in a docile manner - get used to power/speed management etc. (there are many subleties eg non rotating tr still has pitch control so you may find a location where the tr blades don't oscillate... etc)

My condolences to friends and family of the pilot. May he RIP in the knowledge that in response to this incident he avoided any injury to third parties.

For TR failures the recommended EPs are really just best educated guesses as to what might be a good idea. No one really knows. Such failures are frequently categorised into "stuck pedal" and "TR failure" but life is more complicated than that and diagnosis can be a real problem. The failure may amount to more than a loss of TR control or thrust.

As others have said, there is only so much you can do in simulation on a real helicopter. Simulators have some advantages (you can crash them without consequences) but they only show what has been written into the code of the computer. If that code is not based on hard flight data, there is guesswork in there too.

We have to take every opportunity to learn from such awful incidents as this one, but I don't think most of us are criticising the pilot, even if our hastily chosen words might suggest that to some. In such incidents the pilot is beyond his previous experience and being subject to some very disorienting physical effects.

AnFI mentions that at some point the aircraft speed reduces to the point where a noticeable yaw occurs. If, god forbid, it had been me flying this, I might well have reduced speed at height to see at what point I began to lose yaw control. This would be a useful indicator, if I was contemplating a run-on landing.

Being an aero engineer in the simulation industry for the past 11 years, I can say that almost every simulator operator asks for the loss of TR thrust failure to be made easier to fly than flight test data suggests.

You may be asking yourself "Sim validation data exists for tail rotor failures?!" Well.... no, but we are able to infer how the aircraft will perform without the tail rotor using several specialized flight test maneuvers. But in the end we are just making a guess, albiet a fairly educated one.

I can assure you that's codswallop. The first time I had practical training in tail rotor failures was with the US Army in Vietnam, never heard of any accidents (not saying there weren't any) but would have been few, if any. Our unit continued with the practice on checkrides till the end. Was never taught the failure in either the US Navy or Oz Navy.
What level of experience do you have?
On the 76 years ago one training organisation was teaching for a tail rotor drive failure in the hover, assuming you had the power available, to climb vertically to 1,000 or so, nose it over to get airspeed, and fly to a suitable strip for an auto. Practiced it in the sim, but always questioned the possibility of being able to do so in real life. The reasoning behind the procedure was that we flew single pilot and not enough hands for collective, cyclic and throttles.

Helinut good point ...
 

Helinut Sure.... Testing 'loss-of-yaw-control' speed might be a good idea and it might be the case that that is what has happened here and sure you might well do that - but it is unlikely you'd deliberately go to the point of a full rotation (as soon as it looked like getting past 90degrees you might reduce the torque - no? Pick up a bit more speed - that sort of thing) - it appears more like - as you say "pilot is beyond his previous experience and being subject to some very disorienting physical effects." - and he was self teaching by neccessity - nearly got it.

Nobody is criticising the pilot in the negative sense - poor fellow - good effort - very sad.

You can train for this if you think the maths justifies it.

Was he trained to perform landing in the event of TR FAIL?

It's not such a mystery to teach - a competant handling pilot can make a simulation as realistic as you like in a real machine (with the exception of GoG issues in the event of loss of TR GBox)

That's one reason for the uncomfortable feelings in flying a machine without engine control on the lever.

FCL's on the floor:= - the ceiling:= - 'on/off' FCL's:= (eg B3Plus)
- not good.... for a pilot...

I agree that twist grip always feels best for the pilot. Many moons ago I used to fly Robinsons. The combination of the twist grip and the responsive engine allowed you to exercise really good control, almost feeling it onto the ground (as an in-practice instructor). My recent types EC135/MD902 also have twist grips x 2. Bit more of a handful, although you can always do one at a time. The mechanisms and engine responses are more difficult than single piston engine though. OK for in-flight shutdown, but trying to finesse TR control failures would be interesting.

To me one of the most impressive pieces of flying ever was the Bristow Puma crew who got down after a lightning strike, when the whole TRGB pulled out of the tail. Astonishing handling and amazing CRM.

I've got a couple of thousand hours on the 332 and tried TR drive failures on every visit to the sim. IIRC I got the crash into a reasonably small area, but never managed what that Bristow crew did.

When TR drive failure happened to me I was probably led by the sim into thinking it couldn't be as bad as it actually was, admittedly the failure was on a different type, but I expected some similarities. BIG WRONG.

smooth flying
 

... there was a rather smooth pilot in the UK who lost the rear part of his tail boom during his second mid air collision and still landed well !:D

I had a colleage lose the entire tail boom of a 407 (1 0f a handfull around the world) He immediately dropped collectice with out closing throttle, came down in an auto style descent and towards the end of the flare, the ship began to spin, at which time he cut the throttle and cushioned the landing, bending only the skids, in a 180 or so style landing. It was his fortune that this was a technique taught to him just previous to the accident.

Eurocopter
 

Another Eurocopter tr failure:

Sad to hear,

- I have seen at least 3 instances on where AS350's lose their tail rotor control or thrust without hitting anything, and I have never seen a Bell do that in flight just out of the blue.

- I don't know what model it looks like it was not a B3 model that had collective mounted throttle, I can't believe why any helicopter designer manufacturer would still do this today.

RIP

Firstly---RIP to the pilot.

Secondly---this is one of those failures that you can deal with and put the thing on the ground. It comes down to training. Without training, it comes down to basic understanding of the aircraft and luck. As most on here know, I had a similar failure back in 2001, and luck was on my side. I had never been trained in the procedure, I did exactly what he did, except, I was only about 5 feet when I started to spin and cut the engine. Obviously my outcome was different to his.

I have since been trained in the maneuver, and continue to recieve annual training on how to do it. Without trying to advertise, I recommend Glen White for the training, ask me where if you are serious about it.

Helinut - MD 902 / twin torque control
 

Helinut:
" My recent types EC135/MD902 also have twist grips x 2. Bit more of a handful, although you can always do one at a time. The mechanisms and engine responses are more difficult than single piston engine though. OK for in-flight shutdown, but trying to finesse TR control failures would be interesting."

That is very interesting - yes it is very easy to have very good control in the highly responsive piston - but it still works ok in other light single turbines - so how does it work in the twin/902 - do you manipulate the pair of engines to make the torque change? Very low energy rotor head in the 902 not much energy to borrow from whilst not supplying energy from the engine...

... there was a chap who landed the 902 brilliantly somewhere near London with a T/R fail - great job !! - Was he trained in TR fail?
... and a 902 in Germany not so successful - was he trained?

How would you deal with it with FCL's on the ceiling?

Brian - which method?
 

Just out of curiosity - if you can remember when you were not experienced - before you went to Vietnam were you trained in TR fail?

and

What was the officially recomended method At that time?

1 - Give up - tail rotor failures are unrecoverable (It has been willed from above)
2 - Auto rotate - cut engine accept the possibilty of gentle roll over.
3 - Running landing with Engine-Torque yaw control.
4 - Don't worry about it since it might not happen and if it does you'll think of something on the spur of the moment - nothing to lose.

It's quite an interesting question I suppose - which method where people here shown ? Where, when? eg. self taught, UK, 1958


Q

Q

An interesting question about when and where.

What I recall of my history of Tail Rotor Failure Training.
During PPL training I don't believe it was mentioned [1995-1998]
Edited to Add it was part of an R44 type rating in 1998, with autorotation being suggested as the option. No discussion of control jams, loss of drive or loss of components.
During FI training no mention [1999]
During FI renewal was demoed stuck neutral by Philip Sheldon [2000 or 2001]

Then had to demonstrate it back, which was easy having just watched him do it.

Being naturally inqusitive ( in case you hadn't noticed) I then set about trying learn about different peoples techniques and effectively expanded my envelope of Tail Rotor failure training skills based upon those techniques.

I think I built up from stuck neutral / feet off through to stuck right then to stuck left.

Because of the nature of training out of Biggin Hill when I was there and us not being able to do circuits on a regular basis I would then use the transit time back from Redhill to set the student up for an engine off or tail rotor malfunction of some kind to our FATO (big patch of grass) almost every time.

I suppose experience helps you plug some of the holes in your training in any subject but it should not be that way in aviation.

It is interesting to note what Sir Niall Dementia says about his experience being very different from training.



GS