SASLESS,
this appeared to be a perfectly serviceable aircraft that was crashed by the pilot. it did not burn either.
i dare say that the same guy would have had the same problem with the 407 that i am flying in the arctic right now, and he would have had to worry about the #2 bearing that apparently has still not been fixed.
regards
fp

The fact the Fire Wagon was yards away while the aircraft was spinning about round and round....added greatly to the lack of fire this time.

Check the Stats on the Astar and you will understand from whence I speak about its proclivity to turn itself into ashes following a survivable impact....and far too often killing its occupants in the process.


http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/articles/helicopters/


http://www.9news.com/story/news/inve...fety/30752301/

but this one didn't...

or did the Fire Wagon have to spray it down? i did not see anything in the pictures that looked like foam or retardent at the scene. honestly, just asking...

fp

SAS ..... the sniping really does detract from your otherwise valid points about crashworthy fuel tanks

I have worked with Exxon, Chevron - they had stopped cards well ahead of the Europeans .... and their solution for preventing this accident would be simple - you wanna use a dolly, then chock it - and if I catch you not doing that, we'll sack you

The News Reports indicate the aircraft did catch fire and it was extinguished by the Crash Fire Crew.

That the aircraft continued to spin around for such a long time is what enabled the Crash Truck to be on scene and able to put out the fire as quickly as it did.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/11/18/h...lomar-airport/

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/11/19/m...sh-identified/

Tis.....Tis not sniping.....just asking if the burden of HSE Rules in the UK and Europe really prevent accidents to the extent the HSE Mob would want you to think.

The Collateral Damage such Rules (when in excess of need) do to competitiveness and efficiency is also a question that is begged.

Despite all the rules and regulations aimed at improving Safety.....we continue to be undone by those very same Rules.....as exemplified by the use of non-crashworthy fuel systems in new build but design aircraft such as the AStar and its plastic fuel tank.

I didn't see any black smoke in the video.

SAS: I have looked again and again at the better video on page one and cannot see any intervention whatsoever from the fire crew. No extinguishant was used after the fuel spewed out towards the end and it then vapourised.
The news report probably refers to the fire tender spraying the cab after it all calmed down and they spotted fuel everywhere.

Why this never fireballed is anyone's guess but I still maintain that someone should have done something before it all ended so tragically (even if it was the pilots fault).

Handy - yes I recall doing landings on dollies in the early days - hairy!

Not sure what relevance UK HSE legislation has to an aircraft crash in the USA or to aircraft build standards??????

Yes, HSE can be a pain in the backside sometimes but usually because some over-zealous jobsworth applies rules without any thought. The legislation has improved safety in many areas but it was designed for industry not aviation.

The report quoted the "authorities" as to the Fire Brigade extinguishing a fire.

Until proven otherwise....I will go with that statement as confirming a fire existed at some point and the Crash Crew put it out very quickly as they were in the immediate vicinity of the spinning aircraft waiting for it to come to a rest.

So a question.....why do we still fly around in Astars with plastic Fuel Tanks despite knowing they are patently unsafe in a High Impact Crash and would not be allowed under current Certification Requirements?

Legally we can because of the way Aircraft Type Certificates are treated under Law.

If UK HSE Standards are so effective.....why has EC not been forced to install Crash Worthy Fuel Tanks in new build AStars?

In the USA....it is simple....the FAA ignores the NTSB and the Operators do not want to spend the money except perhaps in the case of Air Methods the nation's largest EMS Operator.

My very first Police duty, with a grand total of 5 hours on type, involved landing on a dolly. :eek:

Because the HSE has nothing to do with airworthiness as I said before.

If you are concerned about people getting injured working in the aviation environment with regards to slips, falls, noise and other hazards then HSE is there to protect them but as far as fuel tanks in an ASTAR it is not even close to their remit.

I think it is time to start giving medicine to the Dead......might prove to be more productive.

So you are wearing your hi-vis Vest, your Noise Cancelling Headset, natural fibre clothing, foot gear that covers your ankles, and your RAF Leather Gloves.....in your mid's 70's Certified AStar.

Remind me about this Safety Culture Concept again.

err....because they don't build them in the UK!!

disclaimer: The previous comment is not written to support the contention that

Quote:

---

UK HSE Standards are so effective

---

Surely it's more relevant to stick to discussion about the survival aspects (or very sadly, the lack of) of this particular accident which occurred in USA, not the UK.

In any case, it apppears this accident was almost certainly precipitated by pilot training/competence/confidence issues. Not anything to do with H&S issues outside the cockpit..

I'm just a lowly PPLH with a fair amount of time and experience.
I used to land SA341 on a dolly a fair bit bigger than this. But always with safety
Pilot so no issues there.
Also rated on R44 and I remember getting access to an R44 which was kept on
a dolly. When I asked the owner if he wanted me checked out for landing on it
He said he was happy for me to do it as he knew of my flying experience.
However I wasn't confident without instruction so I paid an experienced
Instructor who also used them in his daily job to show the correct technique
Once he had done this I found it to be fine to do.
Even so,after using it a lot on one occaision when I returned to land by myself
The wind had got up from an unfavourable direction so without even risking it
I stuck the R44 on the grass by the hangar and phoned the owner and told him
I was not happy about putting on the dolly that day. He was happy with my
Decision and thanked me for it.
R

Two things led to the death (directly) of these people:

1. Lack of experience in landing on trolleys - hence his OVEr reaction every time he compensated for the dollies movement.
2. Not wearing a proper crash helmet.

As soon as he overcontrolled - driving the tail rotor into the tarmac, the chopper spun and the G forces smacked his head up against the cockpit rendering him unconscious.
The rest is contentious.

No-one fought any fires, no one rescued them. No fuel tanks errupted into a ball of fire, no FAA rules killed them.

Possibly one of the most tragic accidents I have ever seen, watching fellow professionals die very slowly in the most bizarre way??

TC:

Where is the autopsy report on that?

Who was Flying this helicopter
 

25,000 hrs - practice landings - who had hands on ?

Not sure you need one - they were clearly incapacitated or they would have shut down the engine. Unless they both had heart attacks or strokes at the same time, the most likely cause is head injury leading to unconsciousness. Explain the lack of engine shutdown another way if you prefer.

SAS - not sure you are getting the message that UK HSE is irrelevant in this case or any other similar crash.

@TC - to which I think should be added (1.5) not lowering the collective super-gently and testing for stability if there's even the slightest doubt about stability, or even if not.

You guys all have at least 10x the heli time and experience than I do, but this point seems kind of basic.

After hesitating for ages and clearly being uncomfortable with the landing, he then (I interpret, from the video) dropped the collective. Heli whaps back onto tail, cyclic shoved forward, residual lift brings nose up but then runs out, heli whaps back even harder, most likely breaking the tail rotor. THEN he yanks the collective, but since there's no tail rotor any more, it whips round (as we see from the one frame with the nose visible) and the rest follows.

Very sad. And amazing that it happened to someone with 25K hours. But then, it always is.

As previously noted:

I suspect the sustained G forces killed them and prevented engine shutdown. Have you tried moving your arm in 5G?

Gordy: "Where's the autopsy report" you talk of. If you look at yourvideo in post #1, at minute 3:38, they notice blood on the door, as Aesir states in his post, too.

Thanks for the calcs- I was thinking about that this morning, on the train - 5G, not enough to kill you for a short period perhaps, but that - sustained and in persons of their age - and if it is proven - hitting the cockpit - almost certainly led to their incapacity preventing the driver from lowering the lever fully.

Do you know what is the strangest thing to come out of this? He lost control of a dynamically unstable vehicle, falling off a raised (moving?)platform causing the fragile undercarriage to collapse underneath him and STILL, the damn helo remained upright - allowing the rotors to spin. Who would have forecast the chances of the helo remaining upright, especially as it continues to beat the living daylight out of the underbelly of the a/c. In most other cases - surely the cab would have almost immediately rolled over onto its side and the rotors would have stopped instantaneously, thus stopping the sustained spin and possibly keeping both alive.

My thoughts too, TC. How did it stay upright and level? Surely the collective could not have stayed centered so how come the whole machine wasn't thrown on it's side, nose or tail?

TC....the last bit I fully agree with. Sod's Law can work in odd ways.


Crab....you and some others miss the point being made.

All the HSE Rules and Safety Measures taken under whatever motivation.....can be undone if there is a false underpinning caused by full compliance to related but separate rules and procedures.

We had a recent EMS crash of an AStar that resulted in an instantaneous post impact fire.

That the Crew had Helmets, Nomex Flight Suits, Leather Boots and Nomex Gloves but NO CRASH WORTHY FUEL SYSTEM...it became a fatal accident rather than a Survivable Accident.

I understand HSE is not of CAA doing necessarily....and that Aircraft Certification is not the HSE folks turf....but the two should be complimentary if it is to be applied to Aviation don't you think?

What we are talking about is a Comprehensive Approach to developing an Effective Safety Culture that must flow from the Top....down.....with feedback from the Bottom....up.

SASless, was that the accident where the a/c took off with the collective mounted hydraulic switch in the aft position? :ugh:

Remember this would not be the regular fight-pilot's 5G pushing you into the seat and pushing the blood to your legs. This would be 5G pulling your torso and head forward and pushing the blood into your head. Whole different deal obviously. I'm pretty clueless about the physical side of this but I imagine there is some serious damage done to the soft parts inside your skull very quickly. :(

I don't think so.....but will check to see if I can find a decent account of it. I have posted some links either in this thread or another recently.

This Video is a good start.....contains some Statistics and information.

It does not give much specific information about individual crashes.

I am thinking the Seattle News Crash might have been the one you are thinking of with the Hydraulic Switch issue.



http://www.9news.com/story/news/inve...fety/30752301/

-5G is no huge deal for a short time. That's 5G upwards, not sideways, but I don't really see that it would make a difference. The Pitts is rated for -5G which implies that people do it from time to time. -3G to -4G is fairly unpleasant but no more than that. In an outside loop you push a sustained -3G for 10-20 seconds. It gives me a headache especially after two or three, but that's all (which is why I don't do them any more).

A more likely explanation is that the sudden yaw whacked their heads against the cabin interior. Even then though... it wouldn't be any more violent than a tumble initiation (Lomcevak etc). I've had plenty of bruises from that but I don't think it would knock you unconscious.

Of course after whirling around like that for several minutes, it's no surprise there was blood. But in the first couple of seconds..?

All very odd.

5g laterally is a very different thing for the human body to contend with than 5g vertically - the neck becomes the weakest link with a few pounds of mass above it - remember Formula 1 drivers have neck braces to help them cope with much lower lateral forces.

A sudden spin would force the head outwards at an rate impossible to resist unless you are built like Arnie - instant head injury and incapacitation.

The aircraft was very badly over controlled during the pre-impact, failed attempts at landing. Very surprising, if he had as much experience as reports have said (25,000 hours is a very high number for a helicopter pilot).

It made me wonder if the pilot was not securely strapped in from the beginning and perhaps got thrown forwards away from his seat. I've flown with a couple of pilots in the past who have only secured their lap belt, not the shoulder straps, not something I'd ever do.

It seems to me that a lot of torque was going through those rotors for it to remain spinning so rapidly for so long. If the pilot was "doubled up" in his seat and then pinned forward by rotational forces, he would have been unable to reach the controls properly.

Obviously, all is speculation at this stage and doubt the accident investigation will discover evidence, one way or the other.

A tragedy, whatever the cause.

The reference to the 25,000 hours was supposedly on the bank website--it is not.

I think we can all agree this the pilot did not have 25,000 hours.

Are rotational forces alone at the level calculated above really enough to totally incapacitate a pilot, beyond the level to push the collective down and/or chop the throttle? I suspect that violent pitch excursions/impacts of which we saw only the first two on the video might have had a more severe effect.

Gordy,

25000 hours reference here: https://www.americanbankmontana.com/...aft-financing/
Allthough I find 25000 hours as a private pilot to be an extreme high number.... and could be a 0 too much...

Now, this was a private pilot Fixed-wing and helicopter, details can be found on FAA.gov airman info, open to anyone with a FAA license.
He was also rated on the CE550, which is the jet in the video where all goes to ****.
My bet is that he had a lot of his hours in fixed wing, and not so much in helicopters. The brand new B3e which he crashed, was reg'ed to him in October this year according to FAA. Maybe his first 350?!?
The friend that got killed was also a Private rated helicopter pilot as well, and could very well have got out and chocked the dolly without the pilot needing to shut down, if it was in fact moving about.

By the erratic over-controlling, practicing landings would be a sensible thing for this guy to do, but not on moving dollies.:ugh:

From what I have observed in the civil world, pilots who have inertia reels don't bother locking them - ever. Military, it was lock them for take off, landing, or at any other time when in a risk window, such as hoisting. Same rules for fixed wing.

Inertia reel lock?
 

I thought he whole idea of inertia reels was that they automatically lock on either the belt being pulled out quickly, or upon increased G forces acting upon them. This capability can very easily be observed or demonstrated even under normal operating conditions (unlike air bags where the G switch settings are so high that only a real accident should activate it).

None of the inertia reel seat belts I have ever seen in civilian aircraft or cars had a manual override lock.

The more i look at this accident and thread, the more i shake my head.
Even if this clown had managed to land on an unchocked dolly, what did he think would happen when he rolled the twist grip (it is a twist grip in a B3e) to the idle position. There is a very good chance that the whole works would start spinning on the ground causing an accident anyway. The flight manual states clearly to exercise caution on slippery surfaces and i can't imagine something more slippery than wheels on a hard surface!

:ugh:

if you look at the video in quarter speed (in youtube in the cog setting in bottom right of vid u can slow it down) you can clearly see him tag the tail twice but it is not enough to snap the tail. if you go frame by frame you can
see after both contacts the tail is intact. also.. for those that fly a-stars we all know how strong that stinger is. if you go frame by frame it looks like the tail and TR are intact but there is such a strong forward cyclic correction that it gets into an extreme nose down attitude and may have had a MR stike? look at the video in slow mo and see what u see. i orig thought it was the TR becoming inop from the strike and that causing the spin but really doesn't look like it when viewed in slow-mo.

I agree with turbine turkey. The critical moment is not shown in the video, as the camera man took shelter when the pilot lost control.

Coming soon
 

https://youtu.be/Ip_WqX8nmKY
Takes away some of the required skills - interesting engine off landings !

Fuel Tanks
 

Sasless,

Regarding older design and safety standards: If you take a look at the new EC 130 T2, the fuel tank is a totally different animal. The certification testing included a full tank drop test of 80 ft.
This system is going to be available on new B3 variants as well (and retrofittable by Service Bulletin on the B3)
When added to the Energy Attenuating seats that are standard, the aircraft has evolved greatly during it's life regarding occupant safety.
I am very interested to see how many operators carry out the upgrade.......

Regards,

Rigidhead