|
Originally Posted by HarryMann
(Post 10295416)
Here we go again in the press... Hero pilot steers helicopter away from crowds/city/hotel/school
"Witnesses said...." |
Would be interesting if the club has a model of the stadium, then the AAIB could put it in a wind tunnel and see the effects of wind shear across the top of the stadium.
|
Originally Posted by BigEndBob
(Post 10295350)
North and north easterly winds here in the Midlands so lifting out with a tailwind crosswind across the top of the stadium?
And what are those metal triangle structures above the stadium, could they have struck tail rotor on one of those? . |
Originally Posted by MATELO
(Post 10295395)
..If the main rotor failed, could it stop straight away?? & would t/r put the helicopter in a spin if that was still working?? 2. Yes. For example, TR servo fail to full extension/retraction will cause it to spin one way or the other (very unlikely however, the other servo would probably need to have an undetected internal leak as well). |
Irrespective of the cause I imagine there are many pilots contemplating why oh why billionaires and/or their staff accept pseudo 2-crew ops? I have to admit that several years ago I sat ‘in the left’ to give the impression of 2 pilot ops for a corporate job - but atleast I was an ATPL(H), PIC on similar sized machine and it was a day VFR. Not for one minute am I saying that the end result would have been any different if it was operated by a qualified ‘crew’ but why would the flight not have been operated as such - for all sorts of reasons? Are we (the industry) our own worst enemy? I also hasten to add that this ‘practice’ is not just restricted to rotary as a recent biz-jet ‘overun’ Incident in US has highlighted |
Originally Posted by EESDL
(Post 10295463)
Irrespective of the cause I imagine there are many pilots contemplating why oh why billionaires and/or their staff accept pseudo 2-crew ops? I have to admit that several years ago I sat ‘in the left’ to give the impression of 2 pilot ops for a corporate job - but atleast I was an ATPL(H), PIC on similar sized machine and it was a day VFR. Not for one minute am I saying that the end result would have been any different if it was operated by a qualified ‘crew’ but why would the flight not have been operated as such - for all sorts of reasons? Are we (the industry) our own worst enemy? I also hasten to add that this ‘practice’ is not just restricted to rotary as a recent biz-jet ‘overun’ Incident in US has highlighted |
Firstly I'm merely a recreational S300C Pilot, who only once could experience a Cat-A takeoff demonstration during someone's EC135 rating renewal. (of course during daylight, at an airfiled)
I can't help but challenge the departure. I would have recommended/conducted a) a vertical towering take off at the farthest possible place of the stadium so that the "Cat-A emergency path in front of me" would be as long as possible, b) and of course from a position where the vertical takeoff would render the AC in headwind, once above stadium height.. Reasons: Climbing vertically, the necessary amount of attitude change to "emergency nose down" is less than when being in the nose up "climb backwards portion" of a CAT-A dep. Being at the farthest possible downwind position at takeoff would give me the longes possible headwind emergency escape. Pls point out any errors in my "suggested" stadium takeoff. |
I have some points to throw into the pot. I don't mean to imply they have any relevance to this accident but are perhaps useful while everyone is thinking TR. Many years ago I lost drive to the TR in an A109 Mk1. I was in the cruise at 5,000' when it went. Here are the things I learned …
In the end, if I'm honest, there was an awful lot of luck involved. |
Another thing that amazes me while reading the posts in this thread are the numerous suggestions the a/c ended up in tailwind once it cleared the stadium walls.
These clearly can only be wrong speculations. Would one consider any takeoff, being towering or Cat-A, that has the a/c end up in tailwind after the climb, gross neglect? Given the crew's reputation I can't imagine any condition, that would have them choose a climb into tailwind, or am I just a PPL(H) missing something? |
Originally Posted by tartare
(Post 10295421)
Well in this case it appears he might have.
|
One would assume it would spin downwind, as looks in this case.
Or would point of failure cause a resonance or bias as it pitches up and down. |
Originally Posted by Reely340
(Post 10295494)
..I can't imagine any condition, that would have them choose a climb into tailwind...
|
Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme
(Post 10294719)
Is there any reason that there has been no official confirmation of who was on board? RIP |
Originally Posted by FlightlessParrot
(Post 10295520)
...For this to happen, there needs to be positive identification...
|
Originally Posted by hargreaves99
(Post 10295536)
- hitting an obstacle on departure (main rotor or tail rotor)
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....48c27acda7.png |
There has been some comment on the decision to take off from a inside the stadium. Two things strike me. This has been standard practice for this flight for many years, so I would imagine most scenarios would have been considered. Secondly operating in confined spaces would appear to be part of standard training for helicopter pilots. Near where I was working a few years ago, there was a copse with a small clearing in the middle. Regularly we would see helicopter training flights drop into the clearing and manoeuvre inside. There wasn't much room and occasionally we would hear twigs being broken... So I imagine that a pilot of the experience involved in this flight would have had the competence required to conduct the take off. Further it appears that as reported earlier in this thread that the video which has attracted much comment was not filmed on the night of the accident. |
The usual suspects are making statements of certainty already.....as is their habit...despite knowing nothing of what caused the accident.
Would you rocking chair experts give it a rest and at least have the courtesy to stipulate that you are working off pure fantasy. Perhaps ya'll might just put a sock in it until some real facts are provided where by you might begin to have a reasonable basis for your conjecture. Yes....this is pprune but even that does not excuse some of the posts being. made. |
Originally Posted by Dawdler
(Post 10295572)
There has been some comment on the decision to take off from a inside the stadium. Two things strike me. This has been standard practice for this flight for many years, so I would imagine most scenarios would have been considered. Secondly operating in confined spaces would appear to be part of standard training for helicopter pilots. Near where I was working a few years ago, there was a copse with a small clearing in the middle. Regularly we would see helicopter training flights drop into the clearing and manoeuvre inside. There wasn't much room and occasionally we would hear twigs being broken... So I imagine that a pilot of the experience involved in this flight would have had the competence required to conduct the take off. Further it appears that as reported earlier in this thread that the video which has attracted much comment was not filmed on the night of the accident. All true. At my prof.check in 2017 the FI had me land in a clearing in the woods and do a towering takeoff. Of course it was the size of two tennis courts as he's the owner of the ATO and the helos, so he positively does not want me whack any twigs. The video just proves that there were departures done from the stadium as vertical takeoffs as well as Cat-A departures. What is missing is - actual takeoff position and type done that night - reliable information about wind right above/around the stadium, - the information flow (phone,hand signals, word-of-mouth, online internet-lookup of rooft-top stadium weather station, close by ATC, whatever) of wind parameters to the crew hence the enormous amount of specualtion. But thats what PPRuNe is designed for, right? Those who only want "official" facts should resort to the AAIB website. |
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10295540)
Not really. The passenger manifest is sufficient. Positive identification in all likelihood wouldn't have happened yet.
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10295540)
Not really. The passenger manifest is sufficient. Positive identification in all likelihood wouldn't have happened yet.
I'm not saying it's right but I am saying that it's the way it is for the vast majority of private / corporate helicopter flights in UK. |
In
reply to those questioning , nothing unusual in the flight from the KP happens nearly every home game As a regular supporter myself the chairman is often in and out the stadium and nearby Belvoir drive training ground surrounded by houses and structures We have also had for the remembrance game Griffins landing with the match ball and taking off in a packed stadium One thing no one has mentioned is the huge number of swans and geese that overfly the whole area being right next to the river Soar and nature reserves. I am sure AAIB will already have a fairly good idea if this was the case as the flight envelope is in a very compact area to South East corner covered by decent CCTV around the ground and scores of nearby buildings. If there was a TR collision with a structure on the stadium (the support pillars are not that high above the roof line and there are no lighting towers and the national grid lines are well away from where it was operating at the front North and west of the stadium or object in the air although the fact the AAIB press conf due for 0900 is now over 3 hrs late sounds like something in the initial brief is being still worked on or cleared for release As some have brought up, there are drones up during and after the games but I would have expected them to be grounded while the helicopter is operating Again AAIB will already know if it was a drone. After the Clutha tragedy though, nothing is going to be a quick answer UPDATE AAIB progress link just released https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ccident-g-vskp |
I was at the game on Saturday and confirm two facts the Police Drone was in action but was down a long time before the helicopter arrived, Wind conditions were good from what i remember and the footage on this thread is old footage as the club now has large video screens at each end of the pitch which are not in these videos.
On match days the owner flies into another location and is then driven to the ground but unsure where the Helicopter waits not sure if it goes to Leicester airport and then goes into the stadium once the area has been cleared. The arrival and departure was delayed on Saturday as there was some crowd trouble after the game. From the aerial footage that has been released I firmly believe that there was no strike with a fixed object as no area is cordoned off for the AAIB and a number of witness have confirmed that it cleared the top of the stadium with ease. |
Empty 412.....no shortage of power there is there?
|
OvertHawk... Are you saying that for this flight a flight plan would not be filled?
|
Update on Leicester helicopter accident (G-VSKP) - AAIB
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/u...ccident-g-vskp Update on Leicester helicopter accident (G-VSKP) On Saturday night, an accident involving an AW169 helicopter at King Power Stadium, Leicester, was reported to us. Published 29 October 2018 From: Air Accidents Investigation Branch A team of AAIB inspectors and support staff travelled to Leicester on Saturday night, with further inspectors travelling yesterday morning. Last night, the police said they believe that tragically all five people on board the aircraft died in the accident. We have inspectors here from all four air accident investigation disciplines: engineering, operations, flight data and human factors. We recovered the digital flight data recorder (voice and data) on Sunday afternoon and one of our inspectors travelled back to Farnborough with the recorder the same evening. Today, our inspectors in Farnborough will start working on the recorder, which was subject to intense heat as a result of the post-accident fire. Our inspectors are continuing to work with the police on site. We expect to be here until the end of the week, at which point we will transport the wreckage to our specialist facilities in Farnborough for more detailed examination. In the meantime, we are still gathering evidence as part of our investigation. Witnesses to the accident, particularly with videos or photographs, are urged to contact Leicestershire Police on 101, quoting incident number 546 of 27 October 2019. |
Originally Posted by OvertHawk
(Post 10295605)
Do you really for one second imagine that there was a pax manifest for that flight?.
|
Originally Posted by anchorhold
(Post 10295648)
OvertHawk... Are you saying that for this flight a flight plan would not be filled?
|
Originally Posted by Reely340
(Post 10295494)
Another thing that amazes me while reading the posts in this thread are the numerous suggestions the a/c ended up in tailwind once it cleared the stadium walls.
These clearly can only be wrong speculations. Would one consider any takeoff, being towering or Cat-A, that has the a/c end up in tailwind after the climb, gross neglect? Given the crew's reputation I can't imagine any condition, that would have them choose a climb into tailwind, or am I just a PPL(H) missing something? I agree it seems unlikely anyone would perform this transition knowingly with a 20Kt tailwind so the implication is that it the pilot mistook or misunderstood the wind strength above the stadium or else judged it sufficiently slight to be acceptable. It is also worth noting that a departure to the SE takes place over somewhat more open and considerably less residential areas and doesn't involve a noisy 180' turn over the city itself. A considerate pilot would quite likely factor that into his departure plan too. I'd still like to hear type-familiar pilots' comments on t/r effectiveness in downwind high power situations. |
It would be unusual to file a flight plan for a short distance trip of this nature, VFR and staying within the UK. If there was a planned IFR leg, or it was going outside of the UK mainland, more likely. But, as Overt says, it doesn't give names (quite often the Captain's name and mobile number is appended, but that's not a legal requirement).
If something was going outside of Great Britain (note the term) then a GAR form is required, and that does list passenger names G |
with the numerous witness accounts that it was spinning, i would tend to believe these accounts at this point.
as for noises, perception is always variable depending on the person and location etc. With the clear photo showing TR Blade damage, it would indicate the obvious. It hit something at some point. Should the impact have been the initial start of this scenario it would appear the damage wasn't severe enough to lose blades, however, it could have been sufficient enough to lose its drive. I dont know how robust the 169 TR drive is, but other accident/incident aircraft I have seen had sheered drive keys, sheared coupling rivets, twisted shafts and complete flex coupling failures. Without a doubt, the investigators will focus on this damage being at the beginning of the incident, or at the end of it. Either scenario is possible at this point. |
Originally Posted by anchorhold
(Post 10295362)
We know that P1 was a FI(H) but there are questions to be asked about the role of the occupancy of the pax in the left hand seat?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6a4d64e93.jpeg |
Normally P1-RHS
|
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10295554)
To my untrained eye that TR looks like it's whacked something whilst under power.
The investigators will determine what it hit (another object; the ground) and when. |
Originally Posted by gulliBell
(Post 10295554)
To my untrained eye that TR looks like it's whacked something whilst under power.
The ground? |
not necessarily the ground.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area. it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident. |
Originally Posted by Reely340
(Post 10295488)
Firstly I'm merely a recreational S300C Pilot, who only once could experience a Cat-A takeoff demonstration during someone's EC135 rating renewal. (of course during daylight, at an airfiled)
I can't help but challenge the departure. I would have recommended/conducted a) a vertical towering take off at the farthest possible place of the stadium so that the "Cat-A emergency path in front of me" would be as long as possible, b) and of course from a position where the vertical takeoff would render the AC in headwind, once above stadium height.. Reasons: Climbing vertically, the necessary amount of attitude change to "emergency nose down" is less than when being in the nose up "climb backwards portion" of a CAT-A dep. The biggest risk of choosing a far end departure would be of losing situational awareness and hitting the roof of the stadium with a part of the aircraft you cannot see. The lateral and vertical references are not close in so there is a considerable risk of drift. The pilot of the incident aircraft had the pitch markings for lateral reference (and probably cockpit indication of drift too). He would also have been able to control the angle of his departure from these reference on the ground. If you are already well back and drift backwards unwittingly during the take-off, the distance to the obstacles behind and above would be further reduced increasing the obstacle collision risk. Objectively, this is probably the biggest risk during such a departure. One other consideration is that the AW169 would have been able to conduct a controlled rejected take-off in the event of power loss and do this with less distance required than an S300. |
Originally Posted by GrayHorizonsHeli
(Post 10295734)
not necessarily the ground.
I know it's a poor picture under magnification, but there's no dirt, grass or other ground debris embedded into the damage area. it sustained enough damage that it was turning with sufficient inertia when it struck an object. One witness account i believe said the rotor wasn't turning, so if that is true, then the impact was early on in the incident. The ground it is on appears to be flat concrete, perhaps half derelict for a while, with pieces of broken concrete and some plant matter (such as might grow up through joints in old concrete) nearby. But I'd distrust even that cursory look at one picture and it may turn out to be quite flat compacted soil. Any impact can produce witness marks on both items, such as scratches in the rotor which may match scrapes on the other object, with paint fragments left on one or both objects. I say again, leave it to the professional investigators, with access to far better evidence than a telephoto lens picture, video from a different day, fourth rate guesses based on third hand rumour of what some unidentified person may have said, miscellaneous other stuff. |
Hi,
looks something like this tail rotor strike, but on takeoff: Stadium lights can blind pilots during take off maneouver. Those white posts are not iluminated and very high. Tail boom catastrofic failure like the ones in AW139 would be really scary but improbable due to manufacturer experience. |
Night Vision
Thats it. Climbing out of floodlit daylight to darkness, he probably couldn't see anything, especially as they approach the ground.
|
AOX. its a rumour network! Rumours are OK...……..apparently!
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:57. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.