Eurocopter crash Grand Canyon Feb 2018
 

I am not a helicopter pilot, just a retired ATCO from LACC. Sadly the son of a good friend of mine died in the crash at the Grand Canyon in February. At the moment the investigation is centred around the requirement for self sealing fuel systems in helicopters. In this case 6 out of the 7 occupants died from burns and the pilot who survived was also badly burned. They had no other injuries so if the helicopter had not caught fire they would all have walked away from it.
Apparently the requirement is that any helicopter designed after 1994 does not have to have a fuel sealing system even if it was built much later. I am trying to find out if this is also the case in Europe. Does EASA or the CAA have the same requirement or are their requirements more stringent?
Apparently over 50 people have perished in this way over the last 10 years in the US. They all had no other injuries!
I do feel that this is an issue that needs addressing

I fully agree.

Due to bureaucracy that cripples any notion of achieving that and sheer expense that also plays a large role in it happening....that being retro-fitting Crashworthty Fuel systems....do not hold out much hope to see that come to fruition.

It is being looked at. I am part of a safety working group made up of 20 people from industry, FAA, NTSB, & HAI that met in Washington DC back in June. This is one topic that was discussed during the 3 days of meetings.

Public perception drives retrofitting right now. I believe the after market manufacturer of the crash resistant fuel cells is struggling to keep up with the demand.

https://robertsonfuelsystems.com/

https://nypost.com/2018/02/27/helico...de-fuel-tanks/

there's lots out there. google is your friend

What is the cost of the retrofit to an AS350?

This is from a Vertical magazine story, and I think the elusiveness of the cost is still out there until you place an order.

"For this story, Airbus and Vector declined to provide cost estimates for their CRFS solutions, noting that detailed pricing information is available upon customer request. However, other sources estimated the cost of these systems at around $90,000. Confronted with this sticker shock (and, for the H125 system, a weight penalty of 41 pounds/18.5 kilograms), many helicopter operators have adopted the philosophy, “Just don’t crash.”"

We are attempting to change attitudes.....

The potential liability for being aware but deciding to save costs is huge.
$90k wouldn't even cover the initial legal fees.
Insurer's may even start bumping up premiums for operators that have not fitted the mod.

Anybody knows if the military version of the 350, known as the Fennec in some air forces, is equipped with crash resistant fuel tanks, or if its the same type that is fitted to the civi version?

A simple solution to increase crew/pax survivability without the 90K modification, could be to ensure everybody on board is wearing a Nomex type, fire resistant flight suit. In my air force we had an accident with a small piston trainer that beside the pilot also carried a civilian photographer. Since the photographer was not wearing a flight suit he was burned badly when the AVGAS ignited during the crash. One of the recommendations in the accident report, stated that everyone onboard should wear a fire resistant flight suit. The recommendation was followed and written in the rules and regs.

^ I opened that can of worms once.
I got spanked by the PPrune crew.

There is no automatic connexion between a heavy landing and the aircraft being engulfed in flames within 2 seconds. I would say, in the vast majority of heavy landing the aircraft doesn't catch fire at all.

Thats a tough budget decision, buy a bunch of improved tanks or buy a new fleet.....hmmm....I'd have to consult my magic 8 ball

http://www.ask8ball.net/

Except for one brand that shall not be named here :mad: OwCrap :\

Have to agree.. I would love to sit down and perform a statistical analysis, but I wouldn't have the time. Fact is on these particular aircraft, if the gearbox coming through the roof doesn't get you.. then the ensuing fire will. I haven't seen to many that crash not go up in flames... unless of course they ran out of fuel.

How some OEMs are allowed get away with it is beyond me. I like to see a video of the 350 drop test during certification.

Nomex will protect you regardless of the make and model you fly, and if the circumstances are right, I will bet that a Bell will burn just fine....

On another note, just got word from a former colleague who used to operate the Fennec. According to him it is fitted with self-sealing crash resistant fuel cells from the factory.

EDIT: The self sealing tanks are apparently not standard but an add on option on the ones we operate.

And the data/reports, both private and public, reflect that. Hence no AD. The facts speak whether you agree or disagree with them. However, retrofitting with crash-resistant tanks will cure only a part of the issue. The US military learned decades ago that pressure-type fuel systems are a major cause of post accident fires. That is the reason most military and transport cat rotorcraft have suction type fuel delivery systems. While its tragic to read through the Astar reports, when you lay out all these types of incidents from the past 15 years you might be surprised at the causes, results, and number. Especially when compared to the GA avgas side.

Nomex is fine if your exposure is very limited in duration and severity.

Preventing the fire is the best solution by far.

Oh right, so you did....sorry about that. Yes true, if the fuel tank is compromised you're at the mercy of the fuel coming into contact with an ignition source. Fuel tanks shouldn't be compromised in mishaps that aren't even heavy enough to compromise the people on board. Warning signs are unlikely to have any affect on the outcome however, or defer liability away from anywhere where liability might be due.

The twin start had the bladder tanks but wasn't really popular back then to the point where EC did not see a business case going forward with the singles.

And yes, a tank that actually demonstrated crashworthy instead of "crash resistant" actually cost that much. If you want to be safe, pay the price.

No one wants to see anyone hurt, ideally we would have no accidents.
But unfortunately we try to reduce accidents in aviation, each helicopter goes through certification process to try an iron out as many problems as they can, but some choices are always a compromise.
Plus owners when purchasing helicopters are given so many options, basically unless it is forced on operators/owners some things just don't happen until there is an incident/accident.
It's the same in all businesses.
Merry Christmas to all and fly safe.:{

Some poor journalism there, I think. Having crashworthy fuel tanks would not have prevented the accident. It may have made it survivable, but it wouldn't have prevented it.

I see that the inquest has opened into the accident at the Grand Canyon and has thrown up many issues, some of which are reported in the Times today. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/p...9115050ec9daab

So: imagine you are on vacay at the Grand Canyon, you want to go for a Helicopter ride. Option a) you don't go because you have heard of the fuel cell issue.
b) heard of the fuel cell issue, have the option to go with operator xyz who has fuel cell installed and is $100 bucks more a ride than Operator abc who hasn't. go with cheaper? if you can go in a BH407, would you know there is a soft fuel cell in it? (can still rupture!!!)
c) you have heard that 100 people go on that ride every day, no problem, just go.
The fuel cell would only be installed if the Insurance will give a significant reduction on the install., I think.

This accident happen in the US with a US registered helicopter and company. Why is the inquest happening in the UK?

The victims were British

Actually nothing new that I can see “thrown up” there.

Everything of relevance to this incident has been discussed in detail in this PPRUNE thread over 163 posts:

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/60...l#post10970487

The Coroner has issued a prevention of future deaths report addressed to the CAA:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/..._Published.pdf

I'm sure it's well meant and perhaps provides some comfort for the relatives of the deceased but it's a matter of international regulation; I cannot see how the CAA can meaningfully respond.

As a follower of the aviation scene for forty years but with professional roots elsewhere I don't feel qualified to express an opinion of crash resistant fuel systems but surely mandating them going forward is going to be a battle. Is retro fitting to existing aircraft even technically feasible?

It's also odd that he published version of the report has had the aircraft type excised. Why? I mean it's reported by the press, in the NTSB report etc etc. It's limited to a choice of two from an non - excised comment later in the report.

Yes, you can buy the kit and retrofit the aircraft. The operator in this accident has already updated their whole fleet. The USFS has just mandated that for all future contracts utilizing the AS350 series helicopters that crash resistant fuel tanks be required.

I'm guessing 99% of vacationers at the Grand Canyon are only vaguely aware that helicopters have fuel tanks, and 99.99% have never heard of the fuel cell issues.

I flew in the tour industry in Hawaii for 7 years. My wife at the time worked in the office of another company---this company had an accident killing 6 people and would still tell tourists they had a 100% safety record----most people never even check. All they had to do was look at the news paper, even the day after the accident, they were telling people it was a different company......

They wouldn't know where to go to check for factual information, I can only think of one web site that would possibly/maybe provide the information.

Me, too.
google.com

FAA SAIB for crashworthy fuel tanks
 

The FAA has published an SAIB with a link to a list of approved crashworthy fuel system designs.

https://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgSAIB.nsf/0/8997c0a7f5f7a5a6862584c70076cefa/$FILE/SW-17-31R2.pdf