It is inevitable that an open internet forum will attract all sorts of nonsense whenever an accident occurs. That does mean such discussion is completely valueless. There are experienced rotor jocks posting here (I am not one such) who make a valued contribution to a subject which hopefully makes all helicopter pilots revisit their own emergency drills etc. The dissemination of accident reports and crew room chatter has always been, and will always be, a vital source of flight safety awareness for the professional aviator.

Guys and girls that fly helicopters, or are learning to fly helicopters, will be able to discern the valuable posts from the obvious "b*****ks" or at least ask questions if they require clarification.

Accident debates often offend somebody or other, it is the nature of things...but in all matters aviation it is important - nay, vital - that they continue. Hopefully, soberly, respectfully and advisedly. But it's the internet and sometimes that's not always going to be the case.

As for journalists stepping by and picking up and printing horse manure...seriously who the heck cares? Surely all educated people know that a large percentage of what is printed these days in newspapers is agenda-led, headline-grabbing codswallop, irrespective of the subject matter. Sure it will influence Joe Public, but that's going to happen regardless of anything that is posted on here.

Dear all, I am SLF but have been flown by experts in such aircraft and have a bit of experience in crash reconstruction. My I start with condolences to all in this tragedy? I have studied the sad Sun video closely, and I am struck by the appearance of the tail anticollision light as the aircraft rotates. There are two clear images of this. In the first, at almost exactly the 1 minute mark, the image is blurred by the spinning tail rotor.
In the second, about 2 seconds later, the tail anticollision light is small and apparently not blurred. Would a suggestion that this was now due to the rate of rotation of the tail rotor having reduced be reasonable?
Regrettably I cannot post my screen captured images as the forum thinks I am trying to post URLs.

The light is not omni-directional, don't assume it's a point source shining equally in all directions. And therefore as the aircraft rotates and pitches etc the light might be blocked on that observational angle by parts of the aircraft, or it just might not shine in a particular direction by design. It's very difficult to drawn any conclusions from the light.

That's right. Only yesterday Sky News slyly used file vision of an AirAsia plane getting fished out of the Java sea from 2 years ago and fobbed that off as the Lion Air plane that crashed on Monday morning.

For those interested in survivability in a similar accident, I refer to this report into a photo flight where and EC130 from a hover, spun from 220 feet and crashed into sand dunes. Even with the EC crash absorbing seats 3 passengers and pilot perished. There was no fire. The report goes into detail regarding vertical G forces.

https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/ond...725A7A690814F2

The crash was recorded on video from a distance so the rate of descent is accurate.
Note that pictures of the wreck show the cabin forward of the seats missing, it appears this was done to remove one of the passengers whose limb was trapped rather than being sliced by rotor impact.

Mjb

I remain to be convinced by that explanation....I've never seen a PWC engine do that before, and I've seen many many starts over many years (but not on this particular model engine). During the start cycle of this engine do the igniters energize as soon as the starter is engaged? I suspect so, so if that was fuel being blown out the engine I'd expect it to be like a flame thrower and not smoke like. To me that looks like oil smoke, from oil that has leaked past a seal that shouldn't. And leaking seals can turn into bad bearings. And bad bearings can turn into failed engines.

The result of a failed engine would not be as per that seen in the videos. A poor igniter can result in fuel vapour being emitted from the exhaust during the start sequence of many turbine engines - obviously there is more than one igniter.

One thing that puzzles me here (and has done in the past)... WHY are the throttles placed in the ceiling, essentially unreachable if you're already in the middle of sorting out an emergency that needs hands on the collective and cyclic? It would make me horribly uncomfortable if I couldn't control the engines at the same time as everything else. The "motorcycle" throttle on the collective just seems such an obviously good idea. I can see a practical problem for a twin (like, needing two throttles) but I'm sure that's not beyond the imagination of man.

For helicopters with mechanical plumbing that connects moveable throttles to the engines, it's a simpler installation when the throttles are on the ceiling. But many modern helicopters now just use electrical controls and switches.

It's long been like that on pprune. These crash threads are useful for finding links to external sites, but the conjecture ranges from laughable to infuriating and, in most cases, just demonstrates a spectacular lack of knowledge.

I don't know that many professionals in the industry, but I do know that anyone with an opinion worth listening too wouldn't post anything on here.

Could the aircraft have responded in the manner seen on the video as a result of pilot incapacitation?

You seem to be the only one - see mine of 30/1902, then #294 now #287 or less.
I hope the police know everyone's name who had access to the aircraft after it arrived at the stadium. I hope the investigators would recognise the signs of noxious products in the cabin.

I think that has to be a possibility when faced with an aircraft with less than 300 hrs flight time and a single crew pilot aged 53. This is why the medical requires more frequent ECGs with age. Having said that, an ECG pass, doesn't mean you are not going to be incapacitated by a stroke or heart attack at anytime. That is why it is always better to have two qualified and type rated pilots, which is the case with the queens flight.

Unlikely that incapacitation could cause a reaction like that. and the coroner in the Bournmouth crash seemed to be dreamimg. The ATC tapes that recorded the pilot talking to himself, trying to talk himself out of the loss of control made things fairly clear as to what happened. In fact I belive the ATCO dealing with the flight didn't work for some time due to word she heard.

SND

I understand where you are coming from gulliBell - but having watched, watched and watched again I am convinced that is fuel. Admittedly over-fuelling should not occur, even more so with FADEC equipped machines, but it clearly has in this case - now whether it is caused by unburnt fuel from the previous flight, or fuel being introduced too early, I for one cannot speculate as I am not type rated on my engineers ticket on the 169. For the aircraft which I AM engineer type rated, the introduction of fuel in comparison to ignitor activation varies from type to type in some cases from variant to variant. Hell I've seen the same engine installed on different airframes started with different sequences!

What we can deduce is that an engine failure would not normally result in a fully developed torque induced spin as in this case; however I am far more experienced as an engineer than I am as a pilot, so if someone with more flying experience wants to point out why an engine failure would result in a spin, please do so and educate me. A day without learning is a day wasted after all!!

I live in Leicester just a few miles from where the tragedy occurred. As the various news services have shown an incredible number of people have been involved in the mourning of the enormous loss to Leicester. Minor and major TV, radio and newspapers have actively interviewed helicopter pilots (largely ex-military Lynx pilots) and people involved with Vichai’s various interests. Absolutely nobody has suggested that any foul play/sabotage was involved – there was absolutely no reason. The almost universal guess of the pilots interviewed was that there was a mechanical gearbox failure of some sort at the worst part of Dead Man’s Envelope and that the end was inevitable. I flew Alouettes 55 to 60 years ago and was not allowed to make high vertical departures unless it had been a serious medical emergency that demanded it.

I have recently flown frequently as a helicopter passenger on numerous occasions in both Switzerland and Australia and the pilots would not land if they could not get a good run for take off without high obstruction in front.

In response to the above, whilst I am not a pilot, I can talk of incapacitation (from experience). As a very healthy and fit 34 year old, with regular medicals, and no history of any heart (or other) conditions, I feinted out of the blue (the first of 134 episodes in a 3 year period). Upon examination, no tests (ecg, tilt table, exercise stress test, repeated holter monitor testing and mri scans) could identify a definite cause - it was clear that this was a transient condition. Only following the implantation of an internal loop recorder, could a problem with my heart be found, or more to the point, the vagus nerve, which exercises a degree of control over blood pressure, which can lead to loss of consciousness. Without the loop recorder testing, there is no way to test for the potential for this condition in any person - no medical will pick this up.

It is far from my place to suggest this type of scenario could be linked to the accident, and in no way would I speculate as to the cause as simply put, I do not have the knowledge required to comment. What I am saying however is that certain conditions can cause an almost instantaneous loss of consciousness, irrespective of how fit or healthy the individual, and no amount of medical testing can rule out such possibilities. What I can also do is describe the sensation when this loss of consciousness occurs, with tunnel vision being the first stage, followed very briefly by intense dizziness and confusion - during such a time, you have very little capacity to action any rational movements or thoughts, particularly the first time, as it is pure confusion.

I do hope that the above wasn't the case, but whatever was the cause, it is a tragic and saddening accident.

That would make you wrong. In our industry we have very little opportunity, as professionals and PPLs alike, to learn from each other. PPRUNE provides that forum. Yes some people can sometimes seems spectacularly stupid (me some of the time) and some of us love a good argument. That's "A" Type extroverts for you. But taken as a whole PPRUNE offers an opportunity to learn from each other especially when an accident like this happens.
TBTSST, I do not know what you do, but many on this thread carry out these VTOL departures each time we fly, EMS, HEMS., Police and the Corporate sector. The reason why we have a lot of interest here, is that this failure, in this phase of flight, is theoretically ignored by certification. As such there is very little guidance in Flight Manuals on how to deal with it. There is a reason for that.....if you think about the outcome of this event!
In the end, its up to you if you choose to take part in the discussion or not. However, posing sanctimonious passive aggressive statements, like yours above, means to me you have no value to add at all. So why bother yourself to even visit the thread.

I am in absolute agreement with you with regards to discussion. This incident has certainly dominated the conversations of all the pilots and engineers I work with this week, as everyone wants to understand what has happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again...

...on this point we disagree though: Prune certainly offers the chance to learn, but when the conversation is littered with as many (sometimes more) falsehoods than truths I would question the merit of what you could glean from threads like this. There are several aspects of this particular incident that I am clueless about, but given that the responses on here concerning the things I do know about are so mixed there is no way I trust the information concerning something I don't fully understand.

Conversation on incidents such as this between knowledgeable individuals is excellent and absolutely worthwhile, but some of the conclusions reached by supposed professionals in threads like this - while in possession of just a handful of facts - are astonishingly reckless. Based on the available evidence I have my own theory as to what has happened but, until the full story is told, I wouldn't consider making any definite conclusions and I absolutely wouldn't start point fingers at any particular party (and, even with a cursory glance, I can see that has already occurred numerous times throughout this thread).

It certainly wasn't my intention to appear sanctimonious but it is no secret that the media clearly view this forum and threads like this just fuel the nonsense that we see reported on these incidents in the press.

There are quite a few very highly experienced and imminently qualified folks who attend these pages and make very good contributions.

On the other hand there are some who think themselves all of that....but who indict that assumption with nearly every post they make.

The key, as in all things in life, is to be able to pick the good from the bad.

Most folks are able to do that but that ability seems to elude those who just do not get it and continue to post their lame views, ideas, concepts, and boasts of experience.

That at least makes it easy to begin the sorting of the good from the bad.

I may not always agree with the what is being posted by the genuinely qualified but then we all have our own views of matters as this flying thing we share is not an exact science that can be firmly framed in simple text.

Those differences tend to be based upon our individual life experiences flying helicopters, a notion that makes very good sense when considered.

As this is a Forum that includes people from all over the World, most using their second language to communicate, there will sometimes be difficulties in communicating what is intended as compared to what was understood.

Every conversation via Text suffers from such issues and Rotorheads is no different in that regard.

If you post here.....be prepared to corroborate what you say as very often you shall be challenged to do so.

If you object to that....please do not post for you do, at some point your feelings shall certainly be hurt.

Ruling Out Pilot Incapacitation
 

Both Eric & Izabela (the pilots), followed a plant based diet and regularly exercised. They were healthier than most pilots, so I rule incapacitation out of the equation. Sabotage, something (a bird or drone) hitting the tail rotor or mechanical malfunction is the cause. We will find out soon.

It has been a few years since I flew heavy helicopters but fundamentally the loss of TR control 200-500 feet above the stadium was not survivable.

The AAIB will want to quickly establish the '4 corners' of the accident to confirm that all the components of the aircraft are present at the crash scene. One video shot seems to suggest that a component flew away from the aircraft with high energy immediately before control was lost, the only components posessing such energy would have been a MR pocket (or two) or a TR blade. The fact that the aircraft immediately lost yaw control indicates it may have been a TR blade.... Crash site pictures indicate 2 TR blades present but one is half missing, you could argue it had been consumed in the post crash fire but the edges appear jagged as if it had been torn apart rather than burnt. The AW 169 has an impeccable safety record with no history of TR blade mishaps or other TR drive or contol problems. So why in this case?

TR blades are stressed in construction so as to survive a minor impact from a birdstrike and still perform their role. In this day and age modern helicopters do not crash because birds fly through the tail rotors. In-service failure due to substandard manufacturing is a possibility but frankly unlikely. It is much more likely that a foreign object struck the tailrotor causing sufficient damage to cause blade failure and separation.... But caused by what? The surrounding area several hundred yards in every direction will be thoroughly searched for debris.... who knows what else might be found?

Might we be looking at the first fatal aviation accident due to an aircraft colliding with a drone?

What does a "Plant based Diet" have to do with the question of "Sudden Incapacitation"?

I also question the suggestion the "Second Pilot" could have handled the situation if it had occurred......just how do we know that?

If you are correct...…..its a depressing and sobering statement!

In general....I would agree with MagPlug about the differences between small and large Helicopters when we talk of Tail Rotor failures.

The forces generated by the Rotor systems on large aircraft create a real design problem for the Engineers designing the aircraft.

How much Tail Fin area does it take to facilitate adequate weather vane effect for those large helicopters?

My trusty old Huey did pretty well.....the Huey Cobra derived from the Huey.....did not.

I would bet my other trusty steed, the Sikorsky S-58T, was far better than the Sikorsky S-61 or CH-53.

As in some other things in life....Size does matter along with technique.

I can only assume plant eaters will never ever die

So speculation as ever but given what has been observed so far it seems most likely that:
a) The aircraft was high enough at the apparent point of failure to avoid hitting the TR on any part of the stadium or other fixed object
b) Therefore the failure was likely caused either by something else airborne hitting it - or some sort of separate mechanical failure

Assuming the mechanical failure option, (in the absence of any clear evidence of another airborne object) one thing that still puzzles me is why the pilot chose to lift to such an apparently unnecessary height before attempting to transition into forward flight. Could it be that he was aware of some sort of anomaly on the lift out that made him want to gain extra altitude to have the option of an autorotation away from the confined space of the take-off site? If there was a problem near the ground he would presumably have just put it straight back down - so whatever it was presumably occurred somewhere between the height at which he would normally have transitioned (200ft?) and the height he eventually reached (1000ft?).

To give this theory any validity, there would have to be some sort of anomaly warning (sound/vibration/warning system?) that would encourage the pilot to believe that continuing to gain height enough to attempt a safe autorotation was his best (or only) option. What might this have been?

At this point....without an official determination of what hellcopter flying skills experience, training, or knowledge the "Passenger Pilot" had at the time of the Accident....and without any information of "incapacitation" being an issue at all..... I would suggest we have not reached any level of being able to make an "assumption" and must limit the qualification of any such suggestion as being purely baseless pontification.

If she had only worked the radios it would have been valuable assistance in high work load situations.