Relax Chin Sin Gei Si, I don't think anyone is having a go at the pilots here, in fact, quite the opposite. As to comments about maintenance/engineering issues playing a part, hey, this is a RUMOUR website remember??? :ugh:

With respect to your comment about "cover up", anyone who's ever worked for EAA knows they've never been accused of taking the moral high ground when it mattered so yeah, if this situation is going to stink anywhere, it is going to stink at EAA. Get realistic.

JW

Malabo
 

As always patience is a virtue.

One is constantly aware that with every 'event' a new type suffers there is a line of 'nay-sayers' armed with bricks waiting to throw a few despite the lack of justification.

In this case I think they will be disappointed. If you want more info you can judge by the operators response that they are happy with the answers they are getting.

The tail rotor failure training in the sim is certainly advantageous for it allows us to demonstrate that the instinctive reaction to a sudden loss of tail rotor control is to lower the collective - even in the hover. As luck will have it, today I am having lunch with an old friend who many years ago pulled alongside my Wessex 3 in his Wasp and promptly shed his tail rotor. It was quite exciting for us all, especially his marshaller who fortunately escaped the debris unhurt. My old friend will tell you that wasting one second thinking about the problem only adds to dynamics of the eventual coming-together with terra-firma and the forces involved are unlikely to enable you or your copilot to get to the engine controls in time to make a difference.

G. :ok:

Joker's Wild,

Don't worry. I'm actually enjoying this whole fiasco.

The fact that the situation ended relatively well (we all know what circumstances could have prevailed), and that the crew clearly did a majestic job whatever the causes and reasons, makes it all the more easy to discuss this without getting too emotional.

Yes, this is a 'Rumour' network. It is human nature to gossip and speculate. It's human nature to find a reason for everything we don't understand, just to satisfy our lack of knowledge, isn't it? We tend to find a line of reasoning which fits (even though there might actually be no complex reason). The problem is, when the facts steer towards alternatives (normally more simpler - Ockham's Razor - sometimes unbelievably simple), people who have already formed complex opinions are normally the last to accept the new facts. Kind of reminds me of Douglas Adams' little prose about the Origin of God! (At least the 'Puddle Analogy' in the last 20 seconds.)



(Have I just opened pandora's box?)

We all want to know the details, don't we. Afterall, its us and our friends around the world that have to step into the same aircraft type everyday. If there's something wrong, we need to know.

What amuses and bemuses me though is some of the way the speculation runs...some people will talk of fact when clearly no facts have been found...people will point fingers and lay blame without considering the consequences of their words. We are all in this industry together (pilots, mechanics and even joe blogs who cleans the hangar floor), and the smallest tidbit or bad smell will be snapped up by anyone with anything less than a good motive. We have a self-confessed 'transport consultant' (whatever that is) reading this thread and linking an unrelated incident to this one (can we say Doha was unrelated?). I would love to know how many journos are lurking in the background, looking for a lead which could make juicy reading for the uneducated masses. Every headline and every rumour makes it that little bit harder for people to do their job - - to make a living. Good grief, our industry is up against it enough already with Hollywood! We don't need our colleagues making it harder for us.

Rumours are inevitable and everyone has the right to start one. But being a rumour's network, anyone who creates a rumour should expect to have that challenged right down to the facts which are found. I think that is equally a right. If they're unable or unwilling to justify their words, then they should not start the rumour.

Then it is left to the masses...by definition the rumour bandwagon is a party place for the ill-informed. Its up to every individual to decide whether to jump on or not!

This thread has been better than most though, and way better than some other web forum threads on this or similar incidents. The readers and comentators seem a little more intelligent, a little more thoughtful.

However, it still needs 'checking' every now and again. Hopefully, at least in this thread, people might think and ask questions before they post - On what evidence do I base my post? What are the potential consequences of my post for parties involved (and non-involved i.e. other heli industry companies in the region)? Is my post in any way libelous or slanderous? - only after considering all of these questions, should the 'POST' button be pressed.

As for the 'ethical and moral' standards of the various players on the stage, I cannot comment for anyone's direct experiences, but understand how personal experience will naturally sway a person's judgement on a scenario whether relevant / related or not. Consider this though; I may have problems and grievances with a company in issue XYZ. Does that mean I can carry those over to issue ABC? Well that's for the individual to decide.

Its all healthy food for thought, isn't it?

Back to the issue...any more news (facts!) on the part which was found? (Or is that a rumour itself?!!)

CSGS

Geoffers +1

SN and AFH
 

Does anyone know what the airframe number is and the airframe hours ? Has this been fitted with the old tailboom or the new/modified one? Thanks

No human error in helicopter accident

Not sure why this was in today's news on RTHK.

Thats a very dull report from RTHK......:ouch:

Ive heard third hand,,
The company has found CCTV footage of ( a part ) or parts falling into the sea from the departing AW139 from Shun Tak.

& They are looking at the "elastic numeric bearing " area on the failed blade.
Only one blade is missing, broken near the attachment point.

& This week Macau AACM has issued an (immediate inspection notice) of the TR blades to the Company.

Anyone have a diagram or photo of the AW139 blade ....

Aircraft in Detail - Helicopter Rotorhead Image Gallery Index

http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages...75_15052-1.jpg
http://www.b-domke.de/AviationImages..._275_15040.jpg

HK TVB-HD News tonight,
CAD reporting they have found some missing parts...( 5 days ago )
crew & weather not to blame.:ok::ok::ok:

Hi there Chi Sin, to quote from your post #234:
I believe you are referring to my post #49. No need to single me out - almost everyone on Pprune is a self-confessed transport consultant.

Besides, I do have a business card to prove it, you know. :E

yep...a business card is definitely proof. I will run down and have some of them printed up in the morning.

Yes, indeed I was referring to that post.

It's not that I don't believe you. It's just that I don't know what a 'transport consultant' is!!!!
:O

So when I read your post, I thought at first that must be a synonym for 'Press'. At least I could not work out your motives. Not that press = malicious, but misunderstood information in the wrong hands could be damaging to the local industy. A point which sometimes (from experience) can seem minor compared with the need for readership.

You seem to know Hong Kong quite well (you even know Wan King Path), you are Gwailo (Scottish?), and you claimed in a previous thread 'not' to be a journo. Yet, you take an in-depth interest in the Fragrant Harbour aviation. I must confess, I even thought you may be Niall Fraser himself!

I'm racking my brains to work out what a 'transport consultant' in Hong Kong might do with all the information gathered on sites like this. Who would consult with someone who's information comes from a web forum such as this, which is, as we know, the aviation equivelent of the high street tabloid?

I have no reason to disbelieve you are not press (I have never met you to know whether you are honest or not - - so I may as well assume you are honest.) I do wonder whether you are objective or subjective (and if so which way inclined) when you do your 'consulting', since I really don't know what a 'Transport Consultant' does.

So no real issue at hand. Does that make sense? I hope so.

And once again we are shown why it's never a good idea to come home from D2 and go straight to the Prune!!! :hmm:

Love those pics of the 139 tail rotor though, looks to be a rather stout bit of engineering. Don't think the bird-strike theory is holding quite as much weight as it did several days ago.

JW

T/R blade missing
 

I'm a novice. Can any of the experts and Mr Nick Lappos throw some light as to how a blade can dislodge from the root. This bird strike theory is just not digestable.

The jury is still out, but to help your understanding, possibly - why would it surprise you that a plastic blade hitting a 2kg bird at 900km/hr might not damage it? The blade, that is!

Only one blade?
 

212man

The bit I have difficulty in accepting is that a bird big enough to weigh 2kg would be impacted by only one blade.

I also note from your "plastic" description that these may be composite blades. Is this correct? Any details?

Regards

blakmax

I appreciate all the attention this thread is giving me. Did you not notice the dirty grin in my last post (:E) ? I swear I got my cards run off at a back street printer nearby. :eek: And yes, sometimes I am terribly subjective, although those who know me well understand why and support me. Apologies if I offended anyone.

Jokes aside, and back to the main purpose of this thread please. I am not a journalist, no need to prove that. Actually I have a lot of respect for the guys who fly the SkyShuttle every day, and I hope all of you do so too. I think that says it all really.

Enough rant from me.

Or god forbid, the Bell 222 with the infamous LTS101 engines during the EAA pre-Jurassic times which BTW didn't give us any serious problems.

Shell Management,
do you mean not as advanced as BP? :confused: :uhoh:
Sorry, I couldn't resist. ;)

Quote:
Agusta's bulletin says consistent with FOD
Can anyone post a link to the Agusta bulletin please?

Di http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...s/embarass.gif

A little more respect there Huey. Shellie invented HUMS, along with a heap of other good stuff. Tell him Shellie, don't hide you light beneath a bushel. :cool: