mnntech - yes, spot on, you can fly a constant angle approach reducing speed and increasing power until you get close to your max available - we tend to leave a little in hand to cushion the touchdown if required.:ok:

Was this another gearbox failure in a twin engined helicopter? TBC I guess

If so it's part of the price of engine redundancy and cannot be ignored.
It is worth it IF the saving in catestrophic loss from engine failure is outweighed by all these other catestrophic failures.
That's a big IF :rolleyes:

Anfi, dude, this is like trying to have a conversation with a budgie..

One which is pining for the fjords and has been nailed to its perch to stop it dropping off:E

That same old cracked record has been put on yet again.....

The aircraft had video/audio recording so someone already knows the cause.

My only observation is from the crash photo...the aircraft appears to have landed skids level, no ground scars, no debris scattered about...just burned in place. Seems unlikely that the xmsn seized and it landed level with no apparent crash damage/debris field. Looks more like it landed, maybe on fire, and the occupants could not/did not egress.

SASLESS:

Check out the legendary heroics statements on the Qld website.

Endless repetitions of the 'heros saving lives' horsesh!t and breathless dramatics around absolutely routine inter-hospital transfers and low-acuity scene responses.

Eventually they start believing their own media and everything becomes a 'mission' with crew running to aircraft, focusing on achieving rapid launches rather than careful flight planning and risk assessment.

The Normandy D Day landings were a 'mission'. Aeromedicine is a job.

And this is relevant how?

He refers to the trap that awaits the unwary who cannot grasp the concept that Helicopter EMS flying is all about providing a safe, reliable, system of aeromedical transportation.

Following fatal crashes of EMS Helicopters we far too often see the deceased glorified in the media and by some in the industry as being gallant heroes who offered themselves upon the altar of grand sacrifice while engaged in saving lives at great risk to themselves.

These folks at Duke were taken on a pretty day on a standard medical transport flight thus not particularly applicable to this tragedy.

Why do you ask?

That's why.

Okay, so…, I’m gonna call this my “22 cents” worth – because “two cents” worth would have only taken three or four lines.

I would tend to agree with the above question regarding “relevance”. In this particular event, the fact this was an aeromedical flight looks to be, at most, a casual relationship. Would the outcome of this particular flight have changed had this been (semantics aside) an executive transport flight – let’s say transporting the CEO of Duke University Healthcare System or, an area orientation flight or, any other descriptor other than a bona fide “aeromedical” flight? From my perspective (limited as it may be) it certainly doesn’t appear the pilot was pressured into flying into weather that was anything less than “CAFB”, and I haven’t heard anything about any glaring maintenance discrepancies plaguing this particular aircraft the pilot was pressured into overlooking.

My only interest in this event (and thread) is to eventually learn how/ why a modern, multi-engine helicopter, flying from Point A to Point B suddenly and tragically pancakes into a drainage ditch. Personally, I’m also a bit intrigued because, back in the day, I was fortunate enough to work a BK some when the outfit I was flying for leased one short term. They never bought one, but I enjoyed the hours I got to spend behind the stick and, although it's not up there at the top of my favorites list, I thought I might have enjoyed working one again someday.

Granted, like everyone else, I will patiently wait for the official and final reports to be published however, in the interim, I look at this thread for bits of "real" information devoid any useless diatribe. Over the years, I have come to find “Rotorheads” to be, for the most part, a very diverse group of technically intelligent professionals who have shed much insight on many facets of rotary-wing aviation. (I’ve actually been coming here for years as: “SandBlaster-214”, but the dad-burn name thing quit working and I recently had to re-register without the hyphen). My reality is, I’ve spent 43 years in the seat and believe I can turn jet-fuel into noise with the best of ‘em but, technologically speaking, I don’t have as many dots on my domino as a lot of you folks here, so when it comes to intrinsics and insights, along with the manufacturer(s) and other technical sites, I enjoy the exchanges on Rotorheads, and quite frankly I’ve learned quite a bit in the time spent here.

So…, with all of that said, I think it would be a shame to see this thread digress into one of the old, worn out debates such as;
“Safety – Twin v. Single” or,
“Aeromedical – Necessity, Convenience or Marketing Scheme?” or,
“Aeromedical Pilots – Heros or Reckless Public Nucience?”.

I’m certain there are numerous old threads on those and many other similar and related subjects that could be called up or re-opened – as well as a whole other forum that is overflowing with such horse crap. And that’s coming from an old ranch boy who knows his horse crap.

Thanks for the time and please,

Be Safe!

SandBlaster214:

"My only interest in this event (and thread) is to eventually learn how/ why a modern, multi-engine helicopter, flying from Point A to Point B suddenly and tragically pancakes into a drainage ditch."

Same here, anyone know yet? Rumours?

Not stating any new information while blaming everyone but the Pope - almost.
Sorry folks, I don't have my TS yet allowing me to embed links

dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/Barlett%20Complaint%20-%20Filed%20Stamped.pdf

dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs/Harrison%20Complaint%20-%20Filed%20Stamped.pdf

SB214

Para 58 strongly suggests that it IS an engine failure. It is an inconvenient truth that the theory supporting twin engine use is further undermined by these impossible events. TBC

In Europe the regulator would join that list of plaintiffs because they force people to fly with 2 engines either one of which it appears can result in the loss of all on board. TBC

If you read the document, all the claims are concerned with the lack of correct actions when dealing with a single engine failure - not at all that a single engine failure would result in a crash.

Any emergency can be badly handled by a poorly trained or incompetent pilot and the same problem in a single would have been equally disastrous if handled in the same way.

So your point is??????....as if we didn't know:ugh:

What's your point? That a f***ed up emergency handling can lead to a severe accident? Wow. That is News for you? What are you doing as a profession? Hopefully nothing to do with aviation!

Clickable link for the document:
http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wtvd/docs...%20Stamped.pdf

If I had not had two donks all the years I flew Bell 212/214ST and SK61/76 IFR offshore I woulda been dead a long time ago.












And I would have been at the bottom of some Very tall trees in Borneo and at the bottom of the South Atlantic amongst some other interesting places.


Who is this Anfi? We already have a village idiot so he is not from around here!:sad::sad:

oleary and georg1na
dead or wet?
2 peeps with 4+ total engine failures, statistically implausible or something systematic about that?
lucky that one of the other downsides of a twin didn't get you, its killed plenty of others. Gearboxes etc etc
twin immunity did not work for the subject of this post
and its perfectly possible that the twin has had some successes, they just have to outweigh the negatives.
what were the success cases you claim exactly? (and factor those by 50% at least)

lay off the shabby insults eh?