Pan Am Sikorsky building crash NYC, 1977
 

Just came across this on the web:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/...icle-1.2214161

It happened in 1977 and was said to be a tyre burst which then caused a sequence which killed 5 people and injured another 8.

I am wondering how often has a tyre burst occurred after landing, and have they caused this kind of result again? Did it impact on such operations in the future?

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopo...00/dn03334.jpg

This link may assist:

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...ts/AAR7709.pdf

It wasn't the tire.

Gosh, I remember that. I'd just taken New York Airways the week previously, on my first ever trip to the New York area. My flights to/from London used JFK, and I was meeting a customer in New Jersey, and this seemed a lot simpler than trying to navigate my way across the city. It helped that it was included my Pan Am fare.

It was a bit of a shock when this happened about a week after I returned.

Yes, in the sense that it hastened the end of the use of rooftop pads in NYC.

Was this the only helicopter crash associated with the Pan Am building? Or was there another accident where the helicopter actually fell off the roof? From reading the accident report, this accident was neither caused nor influenced by the fact that it was a rooftop operation: The same sequence would have happened, if the gear had collapsed on a ground level pad.

In my mind I always had images of a helicopter falling off the roof, and then exploding at ground level, killing droves of 'innocent' bystanders on the streets of Manhattan.

The report understandly discusses whether - all things considered - hot boarding of pax should be avoided in future (but dismisses this suggestion). It is difficult to see though how this accident could reasonably have been used to ban rooftop operations.

The reason NYC stopped rooftop ops was because a woman down on the street two blocks away got killed by a piece of flying rotor blade. In a city as crowded as that, do you really need that kind of risk?

Agree
 

Well said John. The tire had nothing to with the accident. A tire failure would probably have resulted in a ground resonance situation. A mechanical failure of a component was the cause. I worked in Penzance up until my retirement and this incident was constantly on my mind mainly because one of our aircraft had achieved 140,000 landings!!!

Mtoroshanga, some background re your observation on tire failure leading to a ground resonance situation. The typical mechanical stability ( engineering language for ground resonance ) testing involves various levels of tire servicing and strut servicing. The 61 model followed the S-58 model, which had its share of ground resonance history, and which led to a landing gear reconfiguration ( talking about the 58 gear ) as one corrective action.

An interesting follow-on was Court Helicopters cut the wreck up into pieces small enough to go down the elevator and rebuilt it in Capetown......at least that is what I was told by a soutpiel ;-)

Thanks for the replies and discussion, everyone.

That "Soutie" was quite correct. Rebuilt in Cape Town and used offshore. Sold to Namibia Sea Fisheries in the mid 90's. Operated out of Arandis (near Swakopmund) for awhile. Flew a good number of hours in her, nice machine. Wonder where she is now?

Latest i could find on the net:
2007 Port Alberni Canada
Looking neat but without tail?
https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/5986485

Cheers SLB

True, but rebuilt in the USA. Knew one of the engineers that was involved in the rebuilt. Flew it a few years later when it was in Namibia.

Sikorsky S-61N - Namibia - Government | Aviation Photo #0006173 | Airliners.net

Freak accidents
 

I fully agree. But would then also suggest to ban the use of cars in any crowded city. Luckily so far it has never happened that a car hits a pedestrian, or has it? :E

Haha, but the fact is some places are trying to do that, or at least make the option so expensive it's not that attractive. Ostensibly for other reasons, of course.

I flew some helo shuttles from southwest Houston to IAH back in the 80s oil boom. About 12 minutes, it sure beat the traffic (by road it would have normally have taken at least 60-90 minutes). No rooftop landings, though I think one may have been on the top of a parking garage in the Galleria area. Nowhere near as tall as the PanAm building, but great stuff. Nice memories of another era that seems to have all but disappeared.

A smaller but earlier accident in NY City with a rooftop helipad. https://www.britishpathe.com/video/n...licopter+crash

Page 8 of the NTSB report, paragraph 1.15, makes reference to a two-panel sliding cockpit door. I've not come across any S61 with a cockpit door. Was this factory fitted or an operator modification ?

Max, the writer was probably referring to the two piece split door right behind the cockpit.

Thanks for the reply John, however, the NTSB report section 1.15 (page 8) spcifically uses the term 'cockpit door' and details the captain's inability to enter the cabin from the cockpit. Also the attached photograph of N619PA, taken prior to the accident, shows the aircraft has an airstair door just aft of the cockpit forward of the right landing gear.

http://imgproc.airliners.net/photos/...799-v40-15.jpg

I reread that page and it's just a poorly worded sentence. Three quick ways out of the cockpit: both emergency exits ( actually the cockpit Windows ) and to the rear, first immediately into the cabin and then immediately out the forward cabin door. The Captains side emergency window exit and the exit by way of the forward cabin door were both not available since the right main gear had failed and the ship was resting on its right side.