|
Pasadena Police - two OH-58s make contact
Early reports suggest one was in the process of taking off and the other one landing - time was 4pm local Saturday. General scene of the result, followed by closer up shots of each - one with apparent damage to the rear fuselage, and the other to the front screen
http://kfmb.images.worldnow.com/images/20127952_BG1.jpg http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/ka...34_600x338.jpg http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/201...er_620x350.jpg That last one is none too clear, but the only still I can find at the moment. There are some videos including this one Pasadena police helicopter crash: Feds to probe collision | abc7.com ALTADENA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY (KABC) -- A federal investigation is set to get under way into a crash involving two Pasadena police helicopters. The National Transportation Safety Board was expected to begin their investigation Sunday morning. Six people were injured - five officers and one civilian observer. All were taken to area hospitals to be treated for minor injuries. Officials say the helicopters' rotary blades may have touched during a maneuver at the police helipad on Yucca Lane in Altadena Saturday at about 4 p.m. One helicopter was taking off while the other was landing at the time of the incident. Each Bell OH-58 helicopter was extensively damaged. One helicopter was on routine assignment to calls for service and the other was assigned to the USC-UCLA game at the Rose Bowl. Each helicopter had a pilot and an observer. Two of the injured were not on board. These helicopters monitor not only Pasadena, but also Altadena, Glendale and Monrovia. Some residents were concerned that the damaged helicopters could affect police patrol coverage. Authorities say there's nothing to worry about. "Well, obviously having two helicopters down is a major problem for us. But because we have six, four of which are still completely operational, we will be able to patrol our area as well as provide our mutual aid service to other areas in our partnerships and our taskforce," said Lt. Phlunte Riddle with Pasadena police. |
One aircraft terminally mangled from the cargo compartment aft and the other looking thoroughly second-hand above the gearbox platform and - am I mistaken, considerable disruption to the fuselage aft and boom too? Neither with gearbox or rotor system present.
one with apparent damage to the rear fuselage, and the other to the front screen |
I wonder what the insurance value of even two 40+ year old Bell OH-58A's is.... bearing in mind that the buying in price was somewhere between zero and $100 .... insurance company's tend not to pay out on home improvements.....
They were lucky no-one was hurt. It looks like they may have to look back into the cupboard at the Enstrom's they still seem to have in their charge to fly at all for the next few months. |
I'm off to buy shares in T-Cut. It is going to take gallons to polish that out :)
|
Six people injured, two aircraft written off.
Professional pilots... Not! |
We can't really judge till we know a little more - but, on the surface, I admit it looks bloody silly.
|
It looks as if someone was reading my mind.... one of the latest reports on this accident states that.... 'damaged helicopters are Vietnam War-era Bell OH-58 models, and had minimal insurance coverage because they were obtained through a military program' and that they have three functional aircraft available for continued operations.
|
Whilst they still have airworthy helicopters, perhaps they'll consider recruiting pilots capable of flying them.
|
|
How the hell did the guy stood by the nearest aircraft not die?????? Very lucky boy.
It isn't easy to see but it looks like there are painted squares on the dispersal which, if both aircraft are on them, give rotor clearance. But, the one dragged out for what looks like a ground run, is positioned off to one side. If the incoming pilot assumes the one on the ground is in the right place and just positions himself over the 'second' spot without checking, then intermeshing rotors do what intermeshing rotors do............... |
Have you read the NTSB report, crab@?
|
Disappointed in the hittee, mostly:
a. didn't switch off his strobe on vacating the aircraft. b. didn't wander straight across to the hitter and thump him. |
Disappointed in the hittee, mostly: a. didn't switch off his strobe on vacating the aircraft. b. didn't wander straight across to the hitter and thump him. b. Would have been difficult to hit him seeing its a her! |
Have you read the NTSB report, crab@? An interesting discrepancy in the pilots opinions on parking outside the 'box' - the less experienced guy on the ground says it was normal practice to park the aircraft outside the box - the very experienced lady who has been there 22 years said she had never seen the aircraft parked outside the box! Perhaps the HF element of this is that if you operate in the same place for 22 years you get into a very established routine, make assumptions that it will always be the same and then fail to notice when something is out of the ordinary. |
Experienced lady ?? I wouldn't expect a ppl to make such a fundamental error of judgement. Nothing quite like spacial awareness :ugh:
|
Reading the official report the female pilot stated visual conditions were not great with rainwater beading on the side windows. Fair enough I suppose, she also stated she was unsure if the other helicopters rotor was rotating, again I thought under those weather conditions it would be difficult to spot a rotor aligned front to back.
Until the actual impact. Then I could see the parked heli's rotor (as it fell off) had white strips. Not sure how she missed the spinning rotor with those white markings. |
To me it sure looks like the departing AC was not rolled out to the yellow marked pad and the inbound looks like they were landing on their yellow marked pad...:ugh:
|
For the life of me, I can't understand how this could happen. It says "DANGER" right there on the tarmac. In two places!
|
The Police Chief....said there were some "Lessons learned"....would one of them be hiring Professional Pilots and not putting experienced police officers through a very brief training course and making them Pilots be the wiser option?
I see some very STUPID actions in the video. You cannot account for fits of Dumb Ass no matter who you hire, train, promote, retain. |
And although the rain might have been beading on the sidewindows, she clearly yaws to point at the other aircraft after coming to the hover and moves forwards to the landing spot.
By the time she turns the tail again for landing, there is no way she couldn't have seen that the other aircraft was rotors running or that it wasn't on the square, yet she still carried on. Sas - if she was a cop turned pilot, she can't have done too badly to get so many hours and have flown for so many years - unless she has had a long list of incidents that didn't make youtube. |
Ive heard of police departments going great lengths to convince managers that a fleet upgrade to B3e's was necessary....this takes it to a whole new level. Congrats on the unique fleet renewal program that not many will undertake.
|
Landing on the same spot, in the same way day after day for years, then one day things are slightly off and visibility is poor,...?
Sometimes **** just happens, and the scary truth is this could easily happen to any of us! Complacency's a bitch, and the only real way to avoid it, is to change jobs/aircraft/location every couple years or so. ,...or watch a video like this and remember in time. |
The first complacency and lack of professionalism was from the doughheads that pushed the helicopter out and didn’t put it on the spot. Spots that are there to assure a safe distance. I’ve operated from a tight Apron with 8 pads, and if you were even a few inches off your ears got boxed. Chief needs his boxed for failing to promote a professional operation - as seen from the miscreant’s comments on positioning.
|
I think the report states that initially the second aircraft was intended to be tasked as well as the first one, so presumably the expectation was that ship #2 would be airborne long before ship#1 returned - that makes the positioning less vital if you are under pressure to get the aircraft airborne.
|
Among the other failings mentioned, the report notes there was no established UNICOM or uniform procedure for a helicopter on approach. Incoming aircraft were apparently detected only by hearing them, which nobody on the tarmac apparently did prior to this incident due to the bird running on the ground.
To their credit, the report states that after the fact, PFD did add monitored UNICOM and approach procedures to their toolbox. I Googled PFD air support section to see how/if they replaced these two ships, but the only reference I could find was one dated 2010 which still mentioned the OH-58s lost in the 2012 prang. Does anyone know the current state of affairs there? |
There is the root cause, which is that the pilot of the moving helicopter hit a stationary machine. No getting around that fact (blades turning or not, that part is kind of like saying "I didn't know if it was loaded and it just went off"). Guns are always loaded and things are always in your way until you know they are not. Then there is the list of mitigating factors, the incorrect parking, the rain, hard to see turning rotors (the strobe should have been a giveaway, cant miss that), the intended departure prior to return of second aircraft all made it so that by being complacent and assuming clearance the pilot guided the aircraft into the other. What if it had been real gusty....still the pilot's fault. Pitch black and power failure of helipad lights....still pilot's fault. There are always safer but perhaps less convenient options that we simply ignore because we are basically sort of lazy. This happened because someone was complacent. That needs to be accepted. It is a real shame they parked the stationary ship where they did and I could see splitting the root cause and blame but one ship was moving and one was not.
|
Originally Posted by roscoe1
(Post 10078773)
There is the root cause, which is that the pilot of the moving helicopter hit a stationary machine. No getting around that fact (blades turning or not, that part is kind of like saying "I didn't know if it was loaded and it just went off"). Guns are always loaded and things are always in your way until you know they are not. Then there is the list of mitigating factors, the incorrect parking, the rain, hard to see turning rotors (the strobe should have been a giveaway, cant miss that), the intended departure prior to return of second aircraft all made it so that by being complacent and assuming clearance the pilot guided the aircraft into the other. What if it had been real gusty....still the pilot's fault. Pitch black and power failure of helipad lights....still pilot's fault. There are always safer but perhaps less convenient options that we simply ignore because we are basically sort of lazy. This happened because someone was complacent. That needs to be accepted. It is a real shame they parked the stationary ship where they did and I could see splitting the root cause and blame but one ship was moving and one was not.
|
"she also stated she was unsure if the other helicopters rotor was rotating" Isn't it a fact that sometimes a rotating blade simply cannot be seen on reasonably quick examination--because it is moving! If so, are pilots trained to know that fact? How then could she safely rely on "the absence of a visible blade"?
|
Or she could have just landed outside the other aircrafts estimated rotor disc like she should of, regardless of where it was parked...
There is only one person to blame for this accident. The crew in the parked machine were bloody lucky... |
Originally Posted by roscoe1
(Post 10078773)
There is the root cause, which is that the pilot of the moving helicopter hit a stationary machine. No getting around that fact (blades turning or not, that part is kind of like saying "I didn't know if it was loaded and it just went off"). Guns are always loaded and things are always in your way until you know they are not. Then there is the list of mitigating factors, the incorrect parking, the rain, hard to see turning rotors (the strobe should have been a giveaway, cant miss that), the intended departure prior to return of second aircraft all made it so that by being complacent and assuming clearance the pilot guided the aircraft into the other. What if it had been real gusty....still the pilot's fault. Pitch black and power failure of helipad lights....still pilot's fault. There are always safer but perhaps less convenient options that we simply ignore because we are basically sort of lazy. This happened because someone was complacent. That needs to be accepted. It is a real shame they parked the stationary ship where they did and I could see splitting the root cause and blame but one ship was moving and one was not.
|
Originally Posted by 2016parks
(Post 10078886)
"she also stated she was unsure if the other helicopters rotor was rotating" Isn't it a fact that sometimes a rotating blade simply cannot be seen on reasonably quick examination--because it is moving! If so, are pilots trained to know that fact? How then could she safely rely on "the absence of a visible blade"?
Now the other chopper starts to spin up and WHACK they hit! Who's to blame now? |
This incident reminds me of a similar helipad collision on an offshore pad on the Great Barrier Reef, IIRC out of Cairns, back in the early 90s. The pilot of the shut down helicopter (Bell 222?) had shut down with the blades fore and aft but unable to be tied down as the tail was out over the water. The landing helicopter (LongRanger?) collided with a blade and there was a fatality as a result. The 222 pilot was nowhere near the machine, yet ultimately was blamed for the accident which turned nasty with charges laid against him. IIRC his defence against accusations that he should have secured the blades with the rotor brake was that such an application was specifically prohibited in the Flight Manual.
I've searched for a reference without luck, someone else out there may remember the accident and have more accurate details but it never ceases to amaze me the unexpected outcomes of an accident. The pilot was well known and lost a significant amount of money on legal expenses which were unrecoverable as charges were ultimately withdrawn. |
Seems there is lots of real estate behind those helicopter landing points. The sensible thing to do, in case of any doubt of tip clearance, would be to have landed on the grass and sorted out the parking issue later, using a marshaller if necessary.
|
According to Google Maps, looks like the two parking spots have now been replaced by one.
|
Originally Posted by Flyting
(Post 10079158)
According to Google Maps, looks like the two parking spots have now been replaced by one.
Altadena, Kalifornien 91001, USA https://goo.gl/maps/EkE1fdja3NA2 |
that makes the positioning less vital if you are under pressure to get the aircraft airborne. That is why the bl00dy things are painted on the tarmac, to prevent this kind of accident. Same as guidance lines and parking bays for fixed wing aircraft. They are there for a reason. |
"Say the other chopper's blades weren't spinning and she parks in her spot without incident,...they're still too close. Now the other chopper starts to spin up and WHACK they hit! Who's to blame now"
I would think that regardless of what markings are painted on the ground, the arriving machine has a duty to stay far enough away from the parked machine so that both can be safely operated. But: in addition, the parked machine should not , thereafter, spool up unless it knows that it can do so safely. It's like driving your car--"who has the right of way" becomes secondary when one has the opportunity to avoid an accident. The doctrine is called "last clear chance". |
Originally Posted by 2016parks
(Post 10079218)
"Say the other chopper's blades weren't spinning and she parks in her spot without incident,...they're still too close. Now the other chopper starts to spin up and WHACK they hit! Who's to blame now"
I would think that regardless of what markings are painted on the ground, the arriving machine has a duty to stay far enough away from the parked machine so that both can be safely operated. But: in addition, the parked machine should not , thereafter, spool up unless it knows that it can do so safely. It's like driving your car--"who has the right of way" becomes secondary when one has the opportunity to avoid an accident. The doctrine is called "last clear chance". Is that why those markings are there? Anyone know for sure, 'cause I'm just guessing? |
If the first one had been pulled out of the shed and positioned on to the waiting square this accident wouldn't have happened.
|
No That is why the bl00dy things are painted on the tarmac, to prevent this kind of accident. Same as guidance lines and parking bays for fixed wing aircraft. They are there for a reason. This is a little 2-pad heliport not an international airport. If you are expecting to launch immediately and the other aircraft isn't expected back until later then why be pedantic and take more time over exact positioning of the aircraft? The failure to leave enough clearance by the pilot of the landing aircraft is the overriding cause of this accident - the other bits are additional holes in the swiss cheese. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.