S Jones your post#213
 

Can you please clarify you position/experience with fall from heights and the fact that the crew should be walking wounded at the worst? Check any HSE publication and they consider any fall over 2 meters to be a risk of a fatality let alone without been involved in a serious helicopter crash prior to a fall, if that's what happened!

Please stop your speculation on this thread and respect the fact that friends and families of those involved will by now be reading this forum. As many others say lets wait for investigation results. Rant over

RedHillPhill;


A brilliant bit of fishermans' tall tales! The 135 has two engines driving one set of rotors through free power turbines into a combiner box then the main gear box, (at least the one I spent 3 hours 40 min in today does)


There are no clutches, pulling up the collective too early in an auto can slow the blades dramatically (enough to totally screw your day) pulling back on the stick tends to "g load" the rotor disc and increase the rotor rpm.


:mad: me! I thought the BBC was bad, maybe they're getting their info from angling sites now.


Doubtless others will criticise my description, but I'm trying to keep it simple for the care in the community cases who have come out of the woodwork again.

I am thinking he was talking about the freewheeling units at the gearbox inputshafts? And a combining gearbox in the 135?? The B212 had one...

Can't help wondering how much the eyewitness account from the Sun editor on the car park roof can be relied upon given the fact that it was late at night and there can have been little or no moon. Just how clearly could he have seen what the aircraft was doing? Yes, there are lights on the ground, but how high would their illumination have reached?

Even twin-engine helicopters have a Height Velocity curve. Loss of one engine can be a terminal malfunction if within the curve.

EC135 HV....CAT A OPS
 

Firstly, my sincere condolences to all those directly and indirectly involved in this sad incident.

I usually lurk on this forum and when these sad incidents occur I, like many who are fascinated by aviation but not lucky enough to work in it or know little more than the basics, watch the threads out of a real desire to understand more. More about how things normally work, and how they fail. I see some very interesting opinions and, yes, speculation, but this all adds to my understanding of all things aviation. Thank you to those who share knowledge freely!

What always amazes me is how these threads degenerate into slanging matches where some individuals seem unable to discuss things rationally without sneering at those whose opinions differ. If you know things then why not tell us civilly instead of mocking those that don't?

How does this behaviour honour those that have sadly lost their lives? Surely discussing things in a civil manner - even with those that don't know much - will at least help some good come from this bad situation?

It's the nature of forums the world over. Everyone is a keyboard hero, some just want to trigger an argument. However, here it's pretty easy to pick out the qualified opinions from the Walter Mitties. Serving HEMS and Police pilots with significant hours on the type posting here provide all the information you need. Just skim over the rubbish.

I'm sure that there must be some deep thoughts this morning as they drove to work, even though they know the facts are that it's a safe machine. Thank you to those for adding information and explaining the systems. Let's hope there's no knee jerk reactions from authority.

"Check any HSE publication and they consider any fall over 2 meters to be a risk of a fatality let alone without been involved in a serious helicopter crash prior to a fall, if that's what happened!"

There was a circular around 6 months ago to airport ground staff after an unfortunate fatal accident at another airport where a member of ground crew fell 4 feet from the side ladder of an aircraft catering truck, hit their head and died.



In relation to this incident I put more faith in one of my Scottish colleagues who was in Glasgow and was driving past and had her window down when it happened than the account of the Sun Editor who just 'happened' to see the entire incident from the roof of a multi-storey car park in the dark of night despite there being other buildings that would block their sight lines for crucial parts of the incident.

She states that she saw and heard absolutely nothing until a sudden SINGLE very loud bang which she likened to an explosion when the helicopter impacted. I would expect that if autorotation had been attempted then she would have heard something (especially being as she is from an aviation background and uses frequent heli-ferries). Her account also fits with the images of main rotor blades being craned out almost fully intact.

Further re the Scottish Sun Editor's account, I can't see how he could have seen if the main rotor was turning or (virtually) stationary from "a few hundred yards away" at night. Unless, perhaps, the a/c had previously been much closer to him than that, which seems unlikely. However, if the AAIB are in luck, he may also be able to report any horizontal movement of the a/c as it descended.

Those of us non-helicopter pilots who are merely accustomed to helicopters overflying our back yards at about 500 ft or so - sometimes in transit, sometimes at low speed for survey purposes, and occasionally in the hover near railways or road junctions - have probably never witnesssed an autorotation training exercise. Don't think I have. Therefore, I'm wondering if I would describe an autorotation in similar terms to his account, i.e., "it fell like a stone." .

Assuming there was little or no forward airspeed, I have a question for you helicopter pilots. Starting from 500ft, and in the extreme case of no initial airspeed, what sort of stabilised ROD would be likely, and would it be normal to trade part of the height initially for some airspeed?

'scuse my ignorance...

Tankertrashnav, I do applaud your post #191. Having myself harrumphed at M Parris this morning, I was inspired to email Broadcasting House:
I'll let you know if any of them get back to me. But not holding breath

Here Here Richard #237
 

I made a similar observation earlier in this thread & see (with no surprise) that the condescending comments from self styled professionals / experts continue.
Far be it for us miserable mud-skippers to dare to stick our filthy noses into the sacred realms of Top Gun territory; how dare we offer our stinking two-penneth worth of guillemot-5hit theory to the golden-wings of such aerial Gigantes.

Some of the culprits on here may have been blessed with the opportunity, skills & knowledge to fly these machines that fascinate all sorts of people (including "care in the community cases" #232) However it is a far greater person that can recognise, communicate instructively & debate with one who's ability's, knowledge levels & opinions differ from their own.

Well the 135 around here is flying, so looks like they ain't be grounded for a possible mechanical malfunction. Or are they treated like any Piper and they just soldier on.

We're talking here about helmet wearing crew, properly strapped in a 4 point harness on an crash resistant seat (at least 15G spikes vertically), mounted in an energy absorbing fuselage. Not what HSE is talking about...

The "stationary" rotor, reported by the eyewhitness, could just be an illusion caused by the flashing strobe lights! It was a dark night!

Armchair Ace - the frustration from helicopter professionals trying to discuss a matter which affects all those who ply their trade with these machines sometimes comes to a head when their train of thought is constantly interrupted by those who do not come under the category of the Rotorheads forum as defined as at the top of the forum "A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them".

We are quite happy to explain the ins and out of our trade to those who are not part of it and who have genuine questions but when they pontificate about this accident and call us self styled professionals/experts then I trust you will understand why those who post such comments may receive rather short shrift from us.

Skadi - If you see the images of the rotors (particularly the ones of the blades being removed from the scene) they are almost entirely intact. The almost complete lack of denting, twisting, bending, breaking or any damage would indicate that they were at very low energy at the point of impact with the structure i.e. very slow or stopped which does lend support to the witness statements of stationary rotors.

Standard Overhaul,
Re: the link you directed me to - 2nd post.
"2. There is no strict relevance to operations in PC1 or to Cat A standards, as the procedures developed for such operations specifically avoid the HV curve and are detailed in a separate FLM supplement".

All UK Police Operations are conducted according to PC1/CAT A standards.

Well said.

You forget, in their minds editors of such publications are second only to The Almighty in their ability to know all, see all, and relate all facts once they have been suitably embellished and embroidered so as to attract more purchasers of their, eventually, kennel floor liners (HSE doesn't like food to be wrapped in newsprint). ;) Some appear to regard themselves as superior to him.
OAP et al, I'm not a helicopter pilot, in fact I have never even been in a helicopter, I have my PPL(A) and am a member of a Police family. It would appear that whatever happened was sudden and catastrophic and leaves a large, empty space in your community which is very sad. \my thoughts are with all of you.