Sid, the GLBAL report seems to proved very detailed information on the flight profile and performance of both the aircraft and the crew actions from before takeoff to point of impact and beyond, the GSPAO gives vey little apart from fuel starvation being the reason the engines stopped? That was my point about CVR/FDR.

Don't know if I missed this
Air Accidents Investigation: S2/2014 Eurocopter EC135 T2+, G-SPAO

Here's where I'm struggling...based on known facts..
 

1 Eye-witness account and AAIB reports state MR and TR not turning prior to, and at point of, impact. (Seemingly no attempt at auto-rotation)

2 Double engine-failure confirmed but post-accident analysis showed engines, fuel-system and transmission serviceable.

3 Fuel in main tank but little/none in supply tanks and filters... and transfer-pump switches off.

4 Shed-bus switch found in "Norm" But restoration of non-essential services following double engine (and thus double generator) failure at lowish level above a built-up area probably rejected by pilot

5 Other similar aircraft in fleet not grounded.

I knew David to be a very professional and cautious aviator and can not reconcile for a moment him not instantly entering auto-rotation the very instant that the 2nd engine failure became apparent... but I am not blind to the fact that humans make mistakes - sometimes as a result of incapacitation .
If and when the AAIB determine the cause of the double engine failure I believe that other questions will remain unanswered.

Regards, TP.

Or a very early flare leading to the blades stopping.

I don't see where you get the idea that there is anything to support the idea that no attempt at auto rotation was made.

What about the eye witnesses that saw the aircraft "tumbling". If it was in auto rotation then presumably this would not happen? More likely RRPM was lost causing this?

Thank you chopjock...
 

.for your supporting comment.

Airpolice.. I used the word "seemingly" for good reason; I have only the eye-witness statement and AAIB reports to go on.

With respect however, early flare? What at 600-700' ? And, as chopjock implies, how do you reconcile the aircraft "tumbling with main-rotor blades not turning"

Rgds

TP

Family hire engineering expert
 

Pilot's family hire engineering expert for Clutha crash probe | Herald Scotland

"Pilot's family hire engineering expert for Clutha crash probe

Tuesday 5 August 2014

A VETERAN air accident investigator who led the probe into the Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash has been hired by lawyers involved in the Clutha disaster.
...
Tony Cable, a former senior investigator at the Air Accident Investigations Branch (AAIB) has been engaged by the legal team representing the family of pilot David Traill.
...
The decision by the Traill *family's lawyers to recruit Mr Cable could suggest that they are anticipating an FAI and the likelihood of having to argue against human error in favour of mechanical failure."

Really.....

Funny old thing;


I did an LPC/OPC/IRR on a 135 on Tuesday and I'm sure I remember doing manual throttle drills in a simulated FADEC failure, but maybe the journalist knows more about the aircraft and its' checklists than I do...............


SND

I guess Babcock will also pick up the tab for the tragic NS accident where the mrh detached?

The one where our colleagues and passengers were tragically killed - tab:rolleyes:

Herald
 

Looks like the journalist has just got mixed up with the Chinook FADEC. What she says applies to that aircraft and I reckon she's pretty close on the rest. A minor error compared to some of the rubbish we read in the press. I think the underlying story is important though.

So the inference to be drawn from the Herald story is that the family have been given advance notice that the AAIB report will conclude that pilot error was the main cause of the accident? I can't see any point in engaging an independent accident investigator for any other reason.

The inference I draw is that one party, with financial wherewithal, has engaged legal and technical people and been making noises about cause and liability. And given the many contradictions another has reacted by employing someone one to check the evidence. Good move IMO.

Been out of touch for a while!
 

Have been out of touch/area for a while so might have missed it, but any news on this one?
TF

Not that I've heard.

Nothing new ...
 

Hi Gents, Ladies,

I can't remember if it has been mentioned before and I can't see it anywhere, but with the acknowledged 'dodgy CAD', could it be that the numerical fuel indication was somehow 'tripped' to make it show in lbs and not kgs?

"CPDS
A fault relating to one of the display systems was recorded and further work is being undertaken to establish the meaning and possible causes of the fault."

In this scenario with 47/43 lbs indicating, there would only be 21/19 kgs in the tanks. By the time this may have been fully, if at all realised and the warnings came on (late?), a dirty dash back to base may have been the only reasonable course of action at the time.

Just another thought :confused:

FFS... :ugh:

Says the person that previously told us;

"Haven't there been problems with the EC135 suffering from fuel gauge issues recently? I understood there to have been a number of complaints to EC about this. I appreciate tech logs should show correct uplift/consumption, but it wouldn't be the first time a helicopter had less fuel in it than the PIC thought and if the gauge wasn't reading correctly, it would hide the issue until too late. I believe both engines flamed out when they ran out of fuel before the Low Fuel warning lamp came on."
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528850-police-helicopter-crashes-onto-glasgow-pub-19.html#post8193456

Yep - thanks for reminding us all SS. Not a bad guess at all, even though I say so myself; he ran out of fuel...

Can't believe all the bull$hit that comes from your over-active brain (sic) :=