I believe that pre-game it lands outside of the stadium and the passengers are conveyed the final distance by car it's only after the game it lands on the pitch. Generally there is a game played on the pitch once a week or so.

Surprised this sort of operation is even countenounced on a regular basis esp. at night

god bless them all im sure I know the pilots, have flown many hours in 109 with them! again lets not invent reasons for the accident god bless heli speediii

Thank you helicrazi. If a helicopter had more height and speed and the tail rotor failed are there options. Again I do not want to cause thread drift.

SFIM. This is Forum for aviation professionals. Accordingly,it is perfectly appropriate for other members to put forward PURELY informal comment as to whether this sort of operation is even "countenounced on a regular basis especially at night". Many of my own aircrew colleagues have also openly stated that they too are currently somewhat confused about such a Regular Operation. Naturally the authorities will be do their formal work on all aspects of this very sad event. Far more to the point is that so little from The "Press" seems to be concerned that apparently 4 other POB also perished in this accident. Human Life should not be so much more important just because one of the victims is a billionaire owner of a football club. ALL those on board deserve exactly the SAME amount of Attention; Respect and Sorrow at this time.They too have families. I am confident that The Chairman of Leicester Football Club would be the first to agree with me. I am now 68,so I remember when not Everything was so shamelessly Linked to Fame and Fortune. This is simply a sport;a game of football,and now is not the time to be focusing on FOOTBALL,but ALL of the 5 HUMANS whom have just perished in an horrific aviation accident. I assure you that AIB will have commenced their investigations almost immediately. Like other great Clubs before them,Leicester FC did NOT DIE last night,and will come back in sombre mood,but I suspect more united and determined than ever. The Fans will see to that.

Yep, normal technique

Committed perhaps?
 

Yes, its not an uncommon procedure for a PC1 type take off, it keeps the reject area in front of the aircraft until committed.

Standard technique
 

Really? Never done that type of take off from any rig or platform offshore in my 40 almost years in the industry. I learn something everyday.

Perfectly normal. The technique was originally intended for use from a restricted area where category "A" performance was required - ie land or fly away from a single engine failure. The reversing element was to allow the pilot to retain sight of the pad through the chin window as he climbed to the critical height from which he could dive on speed and fly away if an engine failed. Prior to that point a descent onto the still visible pad is accomplished on the remaining engine.
It was, afaik, introduced in the UK in via the offshore oil industry as mentioned above and was adopted on land for use on helipads that did not allow a conventional acceleration, transition and run-on, typcally needing 5-600m of flat ground for a light twin. It lends itself to use on elevated pads, eg rooftop sites and also to sites surrounded by tall obstacles such as trees or even stadium roofs
For this technique to work successfully it may require the machine to be below a calculated weight for performance reasons.

I agree entirely with that comment.

For some time last night there were even denials that the owner was on board, which might imply that a rhetorical question why no quotable comment yet by the owner, so where is he, hadn't occurred to those writers and some editors. Even early on it was obviously a strong chance of fatal to whoever was in it, but as you say a bit too much focus on yes or no about just one.

It very much depends on what is approved for that Type in the RFM which, in turn, is finalised and approved during certification.

Even two Variants of the Type may have two different profiles. The AS332L2 Super Puma, for instance, has a backwards climb profile in its helipad departure. However, The EC225 Super Puma has a vertical (straight up) profile.

Offshore oil & gas drifting up & back is a big no no, like Industry Insider I've never done a take-off profile like that from an offshore rig / platform in my 20+ years flying offshore oil & gas.
Onshore some aircraft have a vertical profile like that, don't know if the AW169 has that profile in its RFM.

Sky news shows day light photos from the air of the burnt out airframe, all chard except a door looking section 7-8 feet away still with paint. Looks like 2 windows, could that be a escape hatch? Never been in a 169.

I understand that in an incident like this one might well perish from the crash alone. But one might also perish from an ensuing fuel fire. I know that Robertson Fuel Systems, for one, makes fuel tanks that are more crash resistant. The Robertson tanks are available for at least some civil aircraft; I can’t tell from their website if the AW 169 is one of those. Was it available for this aircraft? Anyone here have experience or knowledge as to this type of system and its effect? If you were wealthy and owned a helicopter, would you specify such?

It looks like one of the rear sliding doors...

skadi

FWIW I've grabbed an image from Google maps and using the various photos on the news feeds identified the place (point B) where the aircraft came down. They really didn't get very far at all and would have had almost no height to play with even if they had any control. RIP.

http://i.imgur.com/MLgA6ksh.jpg

Well, if we're being pickety ..... he said 'generally' and I have done it from UMI's with no obstructions above deck, but the helideck was smaller than 1D, so there .....

Gear retracted
 

From the video immediately after the crash the gear seems to be up. The gear doors are still closed and there doesn't appear to be significant impact damage. No gear to soften the impact and no resistance to stop it spinning and flipping.

I thought there was I minimum altitude of 500' before transitioning into toward flight in residential/built up areas?

If Wikipedia is to be believed, this is the first AW169 accident. Anyone know otherwise?

airsound

Edited to add - just seen a tweet in which Leonardo Helos states just that -

You are very correct, and this is not a new observation. US Army (USAAMRL) did a very comprehensive study of aviation crashes particularly in Korean and Vietnam wars, and determined that a significant majority of the deaths were from the heat of the ensuing fire. Crashworthiness standards were created for fuel systems that do not apply to commercial rotorcraft, but have resulted in minimal loss of fuel in aircraft since the late 1970's such as H-60 and later. The movie "BlackHawk Down" would not have been a story if not for such survivability features inherent in the design. Includes for example crash resistant tanks, self-closing connections and valves for fuel systems. Some commercial helicopters include this capability, but it is not without additional cost and weight penalty. Therefore people purchasing VIP helicopters may not really be in tune to the available technology to them, nor the very real importance. I am not aware if such options are available for this model helicopter, probably not. To be sure also, we do not know details of this case, including impact velocity, which can render crashworthy systems ineffective anyway. Again, the statistical reality is that the loss of life was likely due to fire, much as an over water mishap results tragically in death by drowning.

Maybe there's several greiving families, here and in the far east, that need to be informed before you are... :ugh:

A "UAV & DRONE TRAINING PROFESSIONAL" according to my quick google search heli1!!

Cheers

TeeS

A quick look on LinkedIn shows the full details - Ex-RAF Puma/Griphon Crewman then a bunch of other stuff followed after leaving.