check post 562, engines fail more often than tailrotors.
And I ˋm not talking engine chips, had actually parts of the compressor going through the engine, a friend a loose generator smashing the engine bay, but no tailrotor related issues so far....

I can't decide whether it's the alien insects, white swans, black swans, ghosted black trash bags, capitalist friendly communist saboteurs, monkey wrenching ghosts escaping the tailpipe right before our very eyes. Or if it's just plain old 'built on a Friday afternoon' to the irresistible call of the 'dolce vita' that is the root cause of this unfortunate event.

I know the 'old hands' here, know the hopelessness of the situation but I would like to address those with 'Walter Mitty' ideas of an ideal outcome to the scenario. Seeing as the manufacturers with their relatively bottomless time and intellectual resources haven't been able to accurately model yaw rate outcomes in the simulator. I wouldn't fault this fellow for overestimating his keel surface area while in the midst of a mortal split second decision in which the other option (while yaw free) looks like the drop of doom.

It's a classic crew room argument regarding autorotation deep within the vertical part of the HV curve, you have your nose diver/lawn dart school versus your saner and more conservative,keep the disc mostly level , 'bottom and pull ' school. The nose divers reassure themselves of their superiority by getting away with preplanned and pre rehearsed practice autos in the shady portions of the curve. It's a high risk gamble that doesn't allow time for any necessary thought or hesitation when the real thing happens. Much helped with a significant headwind and a field free of obstructions. I am going to cast this option out as pure 'holeshot' fantasy. ROD building to free fall speeds with insufficient height and airspeed to carve a proper flare trajectory..= lawn dart. Though Walter Mitty would have the panache to plant it across 'the away teams' goal line. Leaving us with the 'parachute' option.

It's an oft repeated statement in rotorcraft engineering textbooks that steady state vertical autorotation rates are very close to, if not a little greater, than what a parachute with an effective diameter equal to that of the rotor disc would yield. Knowing this we can build an idea of what the ideal 'bottom and pull' reaction is going to look like.

You can spare yourself the freshman physics headache by using the modern miracle of the internet, to enlist the help of a physics engine to calculate free fall with air resistance. https://www.omnicalculator.com/physi...air-resistance. Go to advanced settings, set your coefficient of drag to 1(flat plat area) ,enter disc area and approx weight, height,air density is obtained within the sites database itself. Lock those parameters in. I've got that AW169 coming to pitch pull height with round about 55 mph of vertical velocity. (Equal to the cab dropped free fall by a crane at 100 feet) Sure the pitch pull might scrub 5 even 10 mph off, it's somewhat of a bone of contention. The real studious among us will figure this out by the height at which hover chop exercises can arrest the descent rate to zero.

It's nothing but ugly......but may encourage respect for the curve...or a change of profession. Paratroopers eat your heart out, Robinson drivers don't subtract anything for the pitch pull....

I don't pretend aspiring billionaires are safe in anything flown at this profile but would offer a shameless plug for a restricted weight ,modernized 212 or 214st. Beautiful Americana. Leave the martinis till the after party. Laughable as VIP ships but likely still the most favourable autorotation index of anything out there "off the shelf"

Beautiful indeed, and sounds even more beautifuller.

FW Pilot here.

Perhaps the the type of departure chosen was precisely because there was a good chance it would be filmed being as they were departing the scene of a Premiership footy match. I think if the eyes of the world were on you, you would conform with the procedures in the book to prevent a polite request to come to Gatwick and explain why you didn’t do it by the book, should that type of footage become available to the chaps down there.

That might explain why one option was chosen as opposed to another? Not sure.

I’ve learnt a lot reading this thread. Thanks for education. Apologies for chipping in if the above is irrelevant.

Thanks DB.

I should have mentioned Towering Departure Viz a Vis the back up as opposed to not following regs 👍 but thanks for taking the time there.

Eric was regarded very highly in the FW world. I’m sure that’s the case in the RW too.

Non pilot question. I (think) I understand the need for the yaw to port so the pilot can keep line of sight with his departure point.
Once he yaws back to starboard and loses sight of his departure point, is this part of the TDP (ie, he is now committed to generating some airspeed), and at this point when he yaws round to his intended departure route, has he ceased climbing?

Hope you guys are ok with layman questions of this nature.

Back in the day, we would have taxied down to one goal and charged at the other with a zoom climb...
the BO105 had zero performance and a strange reliance with Allison engines 😱😱

Engines are rated to provide different power settings over prescribed time intervals. An example being 1 hour power and another being Max Continuous.
Yes. T/R cables can fail causing a predefined pitch to be introduced allowing a degree of control rather than a hard over control.

I was a very bad influence upon young Griffo!

I shall accept some blame for his lapse......not a lot but some!

Thanks for the explanation. That makes perfect sense,and aligns with my years of N Sea passenger experience,...although I have never been involved in that kind of take off personally.
That being the case, was there an operational reason for the (controlled?) yaw to starboard immediately prior to the incident?

Apologies again if the questions appear inane. In no way am I trying to “solve the mystery” in my own head. Having been a passenger in commercial helicopters for 40 years, the insights here are an education in themselves, and help me to gain some understanding of what was a significant part of my life for so long.

Haven't seen it (yet?). Last I have on record dates Oct 22nd.
Anyone else!?

In the instance of the 169 variable TDP procedure it’s not necessary because flown correctly you should have the pad (and reject area) in full view between the pedals through the chin window all the way up to TDP. You aren’t needing a good visual picture of what is hidden by the instrument panel. Offsetting could actually lead to a condition where you have the wrong sight picture through the pedals. There is nothing in the video to suggest he did offset the nose left during the initial manoeuvre - it’s looks perfectly straight.