Weststar 139 tail incident 30th June 2011?
 

Anyone heard any news. Heard they lost a tail! :eek:

Yep



http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g1..._3850820_n.jpg

.
The tally to-date:

1
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-q...52520Qatar.jpg
A7-GHC Doha, Qatar: 25th August 2009

2
https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-r...252520Kong.jpg
B-MHJ Hong Kong: 3rd July 2010

3
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-7...g/IMG_2958.jpg
A7-GHA Doha, Qatar: 2nd May 2011

4
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g...252520loss.jpg
9M-??? Malaysia: 30th June 2011

.

Speculation tally...

1xBonding failure
2xTR Gearbox (1x misplaced tool)
1x??

.
Not really speculating. Simply a list of 139 tail-related incidents.

1 Tail Boom failure connected to a previous damage on the same tail leading to collapse;
2 Loss of TRB in flight - possible Bird Strike - investigation ongoing;
3 Loss of TRB o the ground, investigation ongoing;
4 Separation of the tail rotor fin - possible hard landing - investigation ongoing

Aircraft being used for training? Hard landing?

Even so, it doesn't seem to take much to break the tail off these 139s.

Sav- item 3 was A7-GHA at Doha Intnl Apt (you know where to look for that info... ;-) )

All - you may find searches easier if you spell Weststar correctly - yes, it has a double "st" in the middle

Not wanting to jump on the speculation bandwagon, but the latest photo failure point seems to coincide with where the main rotor might impact the boom.

"Even so, it doesn't seem to take much to break the tail off these 139s."

It hit the ground so hard the freakin main gear is wiped off! Of course the tailboom is going to be damaged!!!

I find it fairly interesting that you have four tail rotor separations of one type or another with no significant injury or loss of life.
Fairly fortunate I feel.

noooby

"It hit the ground so hard the freakin main gear is wiped off! Of course the tailboom is going to be damaged!!!"

You may well be right, it does seem down at the rear.

.
Exceedingly fortunate Jemax and probably why quite a few in the industry make light of the 139's tail escapades .. even referring to it as the 'Italian Doberman'!

However, when one of these incidents does result in loss of life we may see a sharp rise in apprehension towards the 139 - specifically regarding its tail section. Let's hope such a day does not arrive.

From what I am hearing, the training captain (with two students) aborted the first flight of the day due to some sort of handling problem and he just let it go down like a stone, causing the main blades flex enough to chop the tail. Is it true the TC only had 200 hours on type? The ground clearance of an AW139 is not that much, and the pic of the lonely tail rotor has a grounded helicopter behind, consistent with a very heavy landing and the u/c being pushed up into the fuselage which then ends up sitting on the tarmac.

The ground clearance of what rotating part is not that much?:rolleyes:

Seems a bit far back for blade strike, but time will tell.

The tyres, certainly.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ilies/nerd.gif
love this comment UL:D:D:D

Ground clearance from lowest point of fuselage to the tarmac

Happy to see rotorcraft certified to the latest standards are proving to be much safer than old pieces of junk that have been out there for 20+ years (212/412/76) :ugh:

At least the 'old stuff' does tend to stay in one piece :}

.
You have to bear in mind that we now live in a disposable culture Encyclo! ;)

"From what I am hearing, the training captain (with two students) aborted the first flight of the day due to some sort of handling problem and he just let it go down like a stone, causing the main blades flex enough to chop the tail."


I wonder if the handling problem was related to the tail before the landing?

Weststar has grounded all 139s apparently.

That's scary Savoia :sad:

I'm more than 20 years old... how much longer till i'm also considered 'obsolescent':E

Fairly sure this was not a MR strike. Other photos do not seem to show any damage to the MRBs.

http://182.54.218.29/rss/files/350x3...t110630w06.JPG

http://mynewshub.my/bm/files/2011/06...in-565x322.jpg

Aircraft was reportedly delivered from the Cascina Costa line three months ago. Pilot reported control issues at 50 ft.

Article 1

Article 2

I/C

Managing Director, what was that you were saying about sim training being too expensive ;)

Saw a photo of the marks of the TR blades deep in the asphalt. Tend to believe they were attached and they hit the ground with tail

Not sure about that Lola, I would have thought that the TR blades still attached to the hub in the picture would have shown more damage if it was a blade/ground strike given that they must turn at around 1200 rpm.

Could it be that there was a prior failure (drive?) to the hard landing which in turn may have caused the pylon separation?

Its interesting that its two exactly opposite blades which are missing.

Lola - For the TRB's to still be attached and rotating but contacting the runway wouldn't the aircraft be nose high to the point of being almost vertical?

I hear that the Malaysians are looking for a foreigner to blame but there were none on board at the time.:E

Mmmm ....


I hear that the Malaysians are looking for a foreigner to blame but there were none on board at the time.


Surely there must've been one standing around minding his own business somewhere on the airfield .... !!

:E

they can probably add a couple of seat covers to the bill...:}:}:}

Epiphany, you don,t know just how true your comments are !!!

Attempting a CAT A helipad profile reject massively over gross training weight and with the aft C of G well out of limits might just do that?

Firstly, as an AW139 TC my thoughts go out to the TC involved.

Epiphany - "Attempting a CAT A helipad profile reject massively over gross training weight and with the aft C of G well out of limits might just do that?"

Are you confirming or speculating that it was a Helipad reject and CoG out of limit?

He has had a bad day in the office and doesn't need any speculating.

No Aircraft Problems found in FDR - Pilot Error only Remaining Root Causal factor
 

It seems that the gents in Milan were able to get the DCA and others to process the FDR data very quickly as they have now informed customers of the following :

There are two main points:
1.) They were doing training flight (cat A OEI procedures)
2.)It is confirmed that the accident had nothing to do with the tail rotor.

Further FDR data analysis has already confirmed that there was no mechanical failure. *

**DCA has not grounded the fleet and Weststar, after a precautionary stop, is now resuming flights with no limitations.

If this deduction of it having to be only pilot error that caused this mishap, one unique scenario has developed and - though highly presumptuous, is worthy of some thought:

At least 1 Instructor PIlot is an ex-RMAF Black Hawk pilot, is it possible that (if he was indeed the PIC conducting the training on this flight) he momentarily had a lapse in awareness and reverted to his Black Hawk procedures where the extreme aft-tail tailwheel arrangement is used as THE primary landing point and even a pivot point for arresting descent rate in the final 25-50 feet of descent and touchdown ? This could explain how such an extreme nose up attitude could have been allowed so late in the OEI approach.

Only the operator would know who was the PIC for this flight and if he is an ex-BH pilot but maybe this could explain it. . . but not excuse it.

Land of confusion
 

If it really turns out to be a cat A OEI training accident, I still have several unanswered questions. Primarily I am confused as to why the operator is not conducting this type of training in a full motion simulator? Isn't the associated risk the primary driving reason for the simulator? Why would an operator do this type of training in-house?

Mast Bumper's Question
 

Yes - MB; a good question indeed. Not to be too cheeky but your location "over there" probably doesn't mean "over HERE" too (in Asia) but it could be a different attitude here. THis being said, it has been trickling around for a number of months now that almost the entire group of pilots there in KL had difficulty getting through their training. That being said, practice OEI procedures are probably much more difficult than the real ones due to them being done in the worst possible time to occur. Balance this with the chances of an actual engine failure ever happening in a pilot's career, it could be argued that it is best never to practice the procedure. Certainly their SOP's should be reviewed and revised if necessary. In any case, I am sure that their insurance rate will be increased quite a bit immediately and could potentially be a big commercial factor for them until they demonstrate a complete change to conducting operations safely - revenue and non-rev flight . . . It would be interesting to hear from someone directly inside Weststar. My only in is with DCA :-(

You obviously have not tried to book simulator slots in the worlds only two available full-motion AW139 simulators for 90 pilots at short notice. There aren't any. Pilots cannot fly without current LPC's/OPC's and these checks require OEI practice. This training can, and is, achieved in the aircraft quite safely by many operators throughout the world.

A pre-requisite for this, however, is competent training staff and a culture that believes in safety, procedures, checklists and CRM. If the operator does not utilise competent, experienced type trainers, and also employs pilots who do not use correct procedures, checklists or CRM then accidents will happen - as they do in Malaysia with monotonous regularity.

There are competent, experienced AW139 trainers available to this operator (or so I am told) but unfortunately these pilots are not Malaysian and are therefore treated as a threat by the local pilots and not utilised. How long before the next accident?

business opportunity :ok:

Tail Pylon detaching
 

Regardless of the cause I find it extraordinary that the tail pylon just 'snaps off' in this way. This sort of incident in all other types I am aware of would result in the tail cone distorting and thereby absorbing some of the impact reaction.

The 139 tailcone structure appears rigid (even brittle) and very unforgiving.

Mmmm ....

As usual Epiphany is spot on with his observations .... :D


:hmm:

Is that document written in English?:ugh: