2 pilots
 

fortyodd2 would you say this is possibly the time for two pilots with Helis getting more complex and the real possability of NVG work load through the roof

Well said, sir. I agree and I'll toast him too.

For what it's worth, I have over 5000 hrs at night in helicopters and about 18K total.

If it's a MGB failure, they may mandate HUMS on all UK civil helicopters not just O&G? Along with a CVFDR cost, this would push the price of the helicopter up quite a notch but what's the price on safety? Why is HUMS and CVFDR only mandatory on larger type passenger carrying aircraft? This incident has claimed 9 lives, the last O&G crash, just 4, there shouldn't be a distinction, human lives lost are human lives lost.

As for a lot of posters on here with the ''let's wait on the AAIB report'' bore off. Without the speculation posts, what would this thread consist of? What is the purpose of this forum if we are not allowed to voice our thoughts? It may be a good year before an AAIB report is released so should we just twiddle our thumbs and remain in silence until then? Get real, its 2013, this is the internet, don't like it, don't read it, but dont clog the thread up with drivel of how its wrong to speculate.:=

Latest
 

The Beeb are reporting that investigators have said that the aircraft was intact when it hit the roof. They are not looking for bits and pieces in the local area.

That shortens the odds of the drive train being at the root of the cause. MRGB seize? TRDS fail? Fenestron Fail?

If that's the case then the pilot would have found himself driving an unmanageable brick.

We practice TRDS fail at low speed/height in the sim and it is no fun, no fun at all.

I think there is such an argument for helicopters undergoing this type of operation - spending a lot of time at low speed over built-up areas. But not for all helicopters in this weight range regardless of role. But these days it is more up to EASA than UK CAA so I doubt one little accident in a far away corner of Europe will carry much weight. And of course it would have to be shown that not only was it a transmission failure, but one with a good prospect of detection by VHM.

Quite a tribute to the EC135 fuel tank installation - clearly a very heavy impact with some debris on impact to potentially pierce the main structure, yet no fire, or even mention of leaking fuel. Though if the reports of being airborne for just over 2 hours were correct, I guess residual fuel levels were likely to be quite low.

UMS will be mandatory by 2014 for smaller helicopters like the EC135, at least in the HEMS role.

Could you point me to that piece of legislation? Presumably it's an operational requirement?

UMS will be mandatory (without the 'Health' part)

TANDEMROTOR
 

"The one thing that seems pretty obvious from today's pictures is that this wasn't a 'crash' per-se. As others have suggested it seems like a pretty superb attempt at a forced landing. The cause of the aircraft's rapid, and undoubtedly involuntary descent is likely to remain the subject of speculation for some time yet. But the fact remains, this aircraft was 'landed', albeit in the most difficult circumstances it is possible to imagine.

Every bone in my body strongly suggests that this pilot did the most fantastic job in those crucial seconds. Tragically, he and others were dreadfully, dreadfully unlucky.

Such a great shame. I'll offer a toast tonight."

Nicely said:D Tandem.

My understanding is that HUMS is mandatory in the UK on all oil and gas helicopters as directed by the CAA in CAP753?

In Europe, I don't believe there is any such legal requirement to have HUMS fitted, however in general the majority do as it's a customer requirement (not a legal one) I don't think EASA have made it mandatory but I may be wrong?

We don't hear about the 'HUMS successes' we generally only hear of the failures.

But yes, you're correct, if it is a transmission related failure and it's proven that VHM could have caught it, then you never know, they may introduce it as a mandatory requirement in EMS too.

UMS? That seems pointless as with the traditional HUMS systems we have fitted it's the usage part that is not utilized, only the health (vhm)

Would be no point fitting a usage only based system, not going to tell you much other than what is already in the paperwork log cards.

I hope that an interim report from the AAIB will come out a bit quicker than the reported "a few weeks" by the BBC.

elsewhere
 

Skadi, can you tell us where that information comes from? As in 2014 is one month away?

Well I think a UMS with some kind of hardened memory capability might be a very useful tool for an investigation like this one. Lots of parameters recorded....at least more than just the info from eecu etc...

EASA CAT and all other parts.......I believe oct 28, 2014

2 Pilots
 

Whodictus,
Police ops or across the board?
I can only comment on the former. In this case, I believe, having 2 pilots would only have given the rescuers another body to find. Police work, in the UK, whilst demanding at times, is not overly difficult. Pilot wise it's about positioning and anticpation on the part of the pilot and working as a team with the crew - which is generally why those with a military background fit in well.
The other issue is weight. If you put a second pilot, a set of controls and flight instruments into a typical police fit light twin - what are you going to leave out if you still want it to have a meaningful endurance? Most police 135's depart on task close to max all up weight as it is.
For police ops in my part of the world and with over 400 hours using them in my previous past, NVG would actually reduce the workload in some of the darker and lumpier areas I am called upon to operate in.
Hope that answers.

I've forgotten where the rule is right now (JimL will have to tell us!) but amongst other things, it's part of the dispensation to continue non-compliant with PC1 over hostile terrain offshore. CAP753 is really just the acceptable means of compliance, not the rule itself.

UMS is useful for detecting that on the previous flight, the crew didn't overtorque, overtemp the engines etc and is obviously much easier to achieve than VHM because, certainly in a modern helicopter, the necessary data is already present on a data bus. VHM of course requires the fitting of numerous vibration transducers and lots of wiring, plus a not insignificant effort to set and refine the thresholds.

I am a recreational pilot. Serious mechanical failure has been suggested as the likely cause, yet the type has not been grounded. Briefly, what does that mean, please.

Because the AAIB either do not believe that that was the cause, or if it was, it is unique to this incident and not to the type as a whole.