My take is that climbing vertically or Cat-A style for whatever reason into a tailwind location nils TR failue recovery.
With the TR "gone", MR torque and tailwind will do to the airframe whatever they see fit, nullifying any Cat-A dep. "recovery options".
That is if there are any "recovery" options at all for "serious TR loss at the end of a Cat-A climb in confined locations", I doubt that, any takers?

So taking one step back, I'd say this accident is a case of "vanity killed the cat", considering that right outside his stadium there are plenty of better, not confined takeoff spots.
Given that fact that even the PPRuNe pros here have confirmed that in this kind of scenario a serious TR failure is next to impolssible to recover, and comparing alternatives right outside the stadium one can't help but wonder why this kind of showing-off departure got green lighted in the first place.

How many AW169's are operating in the UK?
Have any AW169 operators received an AD from Augusta Westland relating to checking the TR or transmission drive train since the crash?

A brief search of previous AW169 AD's didn't bring up much with it being a new type. Nothing related to the TR or drive train that I could see?
The second AD AD 2018 -0197 was published on the 5th Sept 2018, and relates to the Emergency Exit Windows.

B/E Aerospace Fischer GmbH Attendant Seats and Pilot

https://services.casa.gov.au/airwort.../2017-0255.pdf

https://services.casa.gov.au/airwort.../2018-0197.pdf

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-201...2018-19736.pdf

Well, the rumour about tall floodlight towers has been shown to be false, as the lights are in the front edge of the stand roof, as already mentioned here yesterday, and as seen on video of takeoff, yet now someone is suggesting it again.

The much speculated tail rotor has been anything between failed and already stationary while still in the air, or damaged by hitting the ground while still turning.

The hero pilot has been fighting the controls until the last moment, avoiding hitting the huge crowds, despite that the takeoff is about an hour after the end of the match, by which time most of them are at home, in the pub, or a few miles away by car ...

Proper accident diagnosis doesn't involve rumour.
​

So staistically speaking at night a stadium departure IS the better choice compared to the "parking lot" outside, understood.

The Daily Mail has just published this, apparently new, CCTV footage:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ter-crash.html

Landing Pad Risk Analysis
 

We have to assume the operator of the helicopter had previously undertaken a detailed risk assessment of the landing/take-off site and had concluded that a CAT A rearwards climb out was an appropriate manoeuvre for the helicopter, payload and weather conditions. Equally we must assume that the operator communicated all of this to the pilot on the day and that the pilot had current knowledge of the operator's SOPs for this site. I note the AAIB have dispatched 4 teams to the site, one of which is the Operations Team so this aspect will be thoroughly investigated. Until we know otherwise it seems reasonable to assume that the pilot was operating in accordance with the limitations set out in the operator's SOP's for this site and that those SOP's were put together after rigorous risk assessment and analysis.

It also appears that the aircraft was on fire before it hit the ground
Having watched the video again following replies below, I would agree, it looks like the aircraft lights.

I didn't assume that.

It's bright from other background lighting as it climbs, and about the same descending. There's a much brighter flicker, but this could be a forward facing landing light lining up with the camera for an instant. Think of a lighthouse on the coast, and watch again.

It also appears that the aircraft didn't come into contact with the stadium roof.

I would suggest it's the landing light.

I think the theory of a tailwind influence could also been ruled out , as the helicopter seems to be on a normal climbout way above the arena.

skadi

Looks like something went catastrophically wrong close to TDP.
At least it seems to prove the Pilot did not hit the Stadium on the way back.
Sobering video as a lot of us do this technique everyday, in one form or another.

There is no requirement to file a flight plan for this type of flight.

Well I agree it has definitely hit something and it does look like it has been sheared off.

But that on its own doesn't help. The picture alone can't explain if the damage was; a potential cause of the accident, or simply caused by the accident. The impact with the ground will also have been very violent and it could for example have been sheered off by the main rotor blades.

For the picture to be meaningful we need to know when it happened and what it hit.

The AAIB will be able to determine the correct sequence of events as there will be traces of whatever it hit on both the rotor and external objects.

Also studying the picture I keep asking why the TGB is orientated to the bottom of the aircraft, you can even see one blade bent over what is either the stab or a small wall / lip. I guess this could have happened on impact but worse is that it came detached in flight, perhaps the blade damage could have been an impact with the H-stab?

The camera footage is in night mode (infrared).
That's not easy to watch, something catastrophic happened out of frame, unlikely anyone would have survived that impact.

I have today spoken to a friend who is a freelance cameraman for BT sport who although did witness the collision with the ground did not pay that much notice to the helicopter lifting off as such a regular thing at Leicester games. But he does clearly remember a noise before it went out of control which he described as a grinding noise like when you try and put a car into reverse while driving along he has confirmed that BT do have more footage of it lifting out of the stadium which has been passed to the Police

since you quoted me, I'll offer up my personal experience that I have been involved in many component inspections that have been in accidents. I'm not some bloke guessing here. I've seen plenty of damaged parts in my career. I have been involved in some accident investigations because of my experience, those investigators ask questions because they dont have the answer. My experience and other like me, have helped them find their answers. So while you might lump me into the category of amateur detective, I have a bit more experience than that.
I know the limitations of what a picture can offer, but I see in that picture evidence that offers alot of information to the possible cause, and alot for post incident.

He was into the wind...Look at the flags on the video......
And beside that, nobody does a Cat A take-off tailwind, it is head wind, crosswind with a head wind component....
You can climb to 400ft like that.....the confined area is 100ft to 400 ft TDP....
And it is a stadium, do you need something bigger when you have a huge flat surface with all reference you need to land?????
All those PPruners who can already determine everything.....
Painful !

I agree with previous posts on the reverse departure .I would be looking for tail rotor strike marks on the stadium structure.

I've formed some theories on this too, but more important to me is a step back at a larger picture in terms of avoidance. My flight-time was in the armed forces. I never flew in combat, or anything close to it. All training sorties, and some general ferrying of people here and there, with the obvious check-rides. Much later in life, I taught a course in business ethics at the undergrad level. I found that what it came down to was what I term 'situational ethics'. Applying some of the means-test to this flight and crash, I'd like to bring up a couple of things surrounding the decision-making of the flight in question.

1. What profiles I would fly during training, and check-ride would be far more discrete and cautious than the profile I would choose in a combat situation(would the mission likely fail if the profile were not flown?). In the case of this flight, I would want to know the pressure for completing this flight from the pilots perspective concerning his job, and his continued position. i.e. if he should decide the profile is not suitable for the mission what would happen to him for rejecting the flight profile?
2. If this profile were an established recurring run, and they had not had any issues previous, was the profile the best-case to complete the mission?
3. What cost-benefit would there be to an alternate landing site, and what customer impact would that have?
4. Knowing the risk of the low/slow regime of flight that helicopter pilots typically minimize, the greater exposure here would the pilot have done more prior to the flight approach to accept or reject based on; day/night, wind, visibility, weight, time to alternate. Maybe some other critical path decisions that I'm not familiar with on this ship, relating to how it handles the unusual(or normal, if that is the case) flight regimes.

These are the things that everyone who pulls pitch would probably consider, but the most important to me would be the perceived, or potential pressure to complete the flight, given the risks that are present, and the alternatives available. One of the tests I was given on a check ride was the choice to drop materiel right on the defensible position and NOT pick up casualties, or to fly another 250-300 meters, and land in a suitable(but still tight) LZ, offload smartly, and pick up what I could to get out of harm's way. It was one of the tests which got me thinking along the lines of alternatives, and the risks, which seem to be increasing, or might have been rationalized along the way as the flight profile was done repeatedly. If the previous 6 or 8 or 15 flights had been made with this profile successfully, there is every reason to believe that this one would work out. However, it is no guarantee that the next profile would proceed much better in terms of escape actions, should the feces hit the rotational air moving device, at the worst possible time(backward flight, OGE, non-translation speed, paying pax, night, wind, etc). I will say with no illusions that based on what I've read here, and seen on the few videos, this profile gives me the willies. I don't like having the willies with a stick between my legs, and my feet on the pedals.

How safe is helicopter flying
 

Jeez, there's some real guff being posted on here by so called 'experts'. The flight manual gives you a handful of profiles that will work in pretty much all normal situations and the pilot flies them, as he appeared to do CORRECTLY on the video (only an guess). He doesn't make it up as he goes along because it isn't a check ride FFS. The EC135 has a modified profile that fits a stadium type departure perfectly, I guess the 169 does as well.
It's a single pilot aircraft, so the copilot is a red herring on all your wacky theories. Those pilots who DO THIS JOB understand the reason that single pilot aircraft have copilots that are non type rated. It's common practice in the industry when customers request a 2nd crew member in the front.
Lowering the lever pretty much removes the torque, but engines down is a big bonus.
The fact is that this helicopter had a critical failure at the worst possible moment; I would hazard a guess that HEMS pilots, Corporate pilots Offshore pilots, or any pilots! would struggle to get away with this one. I for one would not fancy my chances. Remember the Sully Hudson River incident?? It could be done, but the startle effect would work against you.
Sometimes life just deals you a sh*t hand and even the best can fail to pull it off

Non survivable accident
 

You need to look at the video again. The helicopter dropped out of the sky from somewhere between 300ft and 400ft agl . The subsequent fire had nothing to do with the survivability of the crew and passengers.

Yes, but in those accidents, the tail was completely severed, which wasn't the case here.

Does neither look like it hit something on climbout nor does it look like a tailwind hitting when leaving the 'Bowl' caused it.
What I find a bit strange is that it didn't seem to start accelerating into a forward direction even after being already quite high above the stadium. It seems to have come down several seconds later relatively close to where it left the picture of the CCTV.

Did you watch the CCTV???
Survivable???
At that RoD?
No way.

I don't think so. Look at the sink rate. Impact with the ground at that vertical speed is probably not survivable, even in a helicopter with impeccable crash-worthy design.

Looking at the CCTV video the helicopter had ample climb performance coming out of the stadium, there did not appear to be any downwind, there appeared to be ample clearance from obstacles, the helicopter disappears out of view and then reappears, spinning to the right, nose pitched down, and dropping like a stone. That is sudden TR drive failure at high power setting, probably with the collective full down after the failure. The pilot wasn't steering that thing away from anything, absolutely impossible at that rate of rotation. Probably not enough time to shut down the engines before impact, or even find/reach the switch to do it.

Auto cut
 

Good point, but how do you detect it reliably and without false positives? Lowering the collective is always going to be first on the to-do list.