I am not an Aviator of any type, but I do read the forum occasionally.

I frequently work in this area at height (so am used to looking down on Glasgow) and find it hard to believe that this was chosen even mistakenly for an emergency landing site:

1) If flying east to west, it would just have flown over Glasgow Green, a large open park, I reckon this is less than 100 yards away and deserted at night.
2) Just 50 Yards to the North is a large open car park, which is mostly empty at night, which would have been a minor deviation of flying w-e or e-w (though the aircraft would need to clear / navigate around some higher buildings.
3) The bar is boxed in on an L shape by the much higher Briggait building, any planned landing would have brought the rotor just a few metres from the permiter walls, again.
4) That area is a busy road junction, the bridges and buildings are all all floodlit, its exceptionally well illuminated (if not over illuminated), and press photos confirm what I thought in that the street lighting columns are higher than the Clutha Bar's roof, so you it wasn't an anonymous black entity.

I just thought I bring this to the fore, I don't think the pilot had a choice as to where the aircraft ended up.

@CJ Romeo. I agree with you. I don't think this accomplished pilot landed where he wanted, which suggests it wasn't a fully controlled autorotation.

I am not a helicopter pilot but I did have a catastrophic engine failure in a single last month. I was lucky, everything was in my favour.

Maybe those demanding we all await an official report are right.

And calm descended on the forum..........thanks SP.

Peter-RB: Good morning to you. I think you'll find that just by looking at the pictures of intact RB's - it would seem they were more or less stationary on arrival at the roof.
The river is close by - he didnt even have time to make for that.

However, I don't discount what was said earlier about a relatively successful forced landing, blades are then stopped, then roof caves in.

If I was doing the investigation this morning and looking at the debris - I would be keen to get a very close look at the combiner gearbox........

What about the scenario that they did an almost successful emergency landing, the blades were stopped and then the roof collapsed?
From the reports out of the pub it was quite a time from first impact to the collapse. And also there was so far no report where the bodies of the crew were found, inside or outside the cabin?

Just my opinion

I've been asked many questions about this tragic event by concerned passengers, this weekend.

I think that what Sven Sixtoo has suggested seems to fit in best with the little we know.

River Option
 

I should have added to my local knowledge thread that the river I wouldn't think would be an option for landing on at this stretch of the Clyde, its quite narrow at this point and there are 4 low bridges in quick succession as well as weir type arrangement (neither an expert on flying or rivers, sorry) ,

Looking at that latest video, clearly there was not a major impact when it first arrived on the roof.

Agreed. I had a partial combining gearbox failure on another type. One engine then oversped when the shear shaft broke as designed and the engine automatically shut down at its overspeed limit. Fortunately my combining gearbox failure allowed the other engine to keep going. Maybe this crew were not so lucky and both engines shutdown as a result of a catastrophic combining gearbox failure. Not saying it was the case, just floating an idea.

With the latest photos of the helicopter being lifted out. It looks like the nose impacted first and the cabin has been distorted up to the point where the cabin doors on there hinges have turn almost 90 degrees down. It look like it has been a very substantial impact.

Dear God, where do these people come from......:ugh:

Can someone upload a piccy for me if I send it to them please?

Charlie 16: what a/c was that?
Lucky guy eh?:eek:

Skadi:

"Three of these eight fatalities were found within the helicopter and were our colleagues in the helicopter crew," said Sir Stephen"

T'was a Bell 214ST

The BBC video showed lots of damage to the front end of the helicopter.

Two of the Main Rotor Blades appeared to show some damage at the Root Ends.

Neither of the two vertical stabilizers appeared to have been struck by the Main Rotor Blades.....although the Tail Boom separated just behind them.


http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/image...6_71471900.jpg

I Disagree!

If the aircraft were to have landed-on the roof, shut-down the engines, and then fallen through the roof,the drop would have been no more than 10 ft.

The amount of damage to the aircraft (the whole nose of the aircraft iscrushed in on itself) and the fact that the crew all had fatal injuries, makesit clear that there was a lot more energy involved in the crash than a 10 ftfall after the collapse of the roof.

Furthermore, if the roof failed, leading to the main body of the aircraftfalling into a hole, then the tail loading would not be excessive, so why hasthe large mass of the tail rotor detached?

Finally, if there had been a controlled landing on the roof (which ahelicopter pilot would not do in any case), then the pilot would have hadenough time to make a radio call, and the ATC transcripts would likely alreadybe spoken of in the press (I suspect).

The more serious damage was on the left side of the aircraft as well....the right hand skid is still attached and visible but the left hand skid is just part of the collapsed fuselage structure.

Very serious impact damage....far beyond anything that could be produced by merely falling through the roof.

Here's a video of a MD 500 being drop tested from 40 Feet.....for the second time.

What dreadful luck if it turns out that the crew survived a low altitude night autorotation only to perish as the roof caved in shortly afterwards.

I recall that there used to be Lynx at Portland that was used for training after a crash with loss of the crew. Most of the airframe was immaculate, and it was hard to believe that it had been written off in a high energy impact. The problem was the nose - a few thin struts and some plexiglass do not offer a lot of "crumple zone", and it was significant intrusion of the nose/instrument panel that made the crash unsurvivable.

I wonder just how much protection the front of an EC135 would offer as is toppled forwards through a roof, especially if the crew were unstrapped and ready for a hasty exit?

One of the rescue and recovery officers has reported that there were three roofs on the pub - the original ceiling of the ground floor building, the floor of the previously demolished first floor of the tenement block and the timber and felt roof installed to provide weather protection.

The space(s) between the roof structures contained sound-absorbing materials (which explains the considerable debris that fell into the bar).

The strength of the 'roof'' was greater than previously anticipated, and the severity of the impact that resulted in the aircraft penetrating the structure was accordingly greater than a simple autorotating landing.

BBC News - Glasgow helicopter crash: Aerial views show pub damage

Is it possible remembering doing a auto in daylight is not that easy ,at night it is very difficult and the pilot could have thought the dark area was a car park or a clear area he did a good auto a good flare ad good check with the collective slight nose down on the level and into the building .

I mean no offence, merely that others had mooted that the pilot had 'misjudged' the height of the structure and that the 'landing' might have been heavier than ideal.

Without proper control and judgement of distance, it would have been difficult (if not impossible) to achieve a gentle landing.

Statement just made to the media that the cause was not associated in any way with previous incidents involving this type.

Somebody knows the cause and it might even be incapacitation of the pilot . . .