Is there any requirement to have a fire service vehicle nearby when landing in a confined public place...?

Maintenance
 

I believe this a/c was only a couple of years old. Which firm carried out the maintenance on it in the UK?

https://farm9.static.flickr.com/8865...1b26e9f3_b.jpg

G-VKSP
Aircraft Data G-VSKP, 2016 AgustaWestland AW-169 C/N 69018

Could be one of 3 maintenance organisations in the UK.
https://www.businessairnews.com/hb_a...l?recnum=AW169

Would this aircraft have had video as well as voice recording?

From the CCTV vision, at or shortly after TDP, the helicopter dipped nose down and spun to the right, and entered into a high rate of descent. It's clear what the helicopter did, but there could be a few causes, like main or tail rotor control malfunction/hardover, physical failure of the tail rotor or drive, MGB failure, engine(s) failed resulting in a MR overpitch and loss of control, pilot incapacitation and consequent control loss due excessive inputs or (least likely) deliberate inputs from the pilot to crash. Crew responses to all these possibilities are different - suffice to say that when this machine malfunctioned there was no hope of recovery or steering in any direction as it descended at a very high rate to the ground. Appears the TR stayed with the helicopter until impact - unlikely it "fell off", even though the response of the machine is identical to what would happen if the the tail fell off.

Root cause is unknown - made worse by the fact that this is a near-new modern helicopter - and this will be watched carefully by all operators of Leonardo products world wide. This will be a much anticipated investigation, and one I sincerely hope is conclusive. Vale Khun Vichai and all POB.

Maybe just my eyes on a grainy CCTV video, but it is not so clear to me that it turned right. Looks to me like it was yawing to the left before impact. Yes, we are speculating, and investigators will do their work.. Since this machine has a CCW main rotor as viewed from above, then tail thrust in hover provides a left yaw input. Most tail rotor are designed and rigged with "neutral bias" that provides some of this anti-torque, that would help in a loss of tail control (not loss of tail thrust), to enable a run-on landing. If control was lost, with drive still intact, then a reduction in main rotor collective would result in excessive "anti-torque", in this case left yaw. Too late to pull back power and collective perhaps. Such a crash would typically result in impact on the blades. In this case the top, blackened tail blade is sheared near the hub, the right one is damaged closer to the tip. Given all the information publicly received, it appears to me (my initial opinion/ speculation only) a Flight Control problem rather than a drive problem. Such issues can take time to sort out, particularly in full AFCS, where the data recorder may yield a related, but indirect, parameter of interest.

1. No. This is clearly loss of TR drive, not TR control.
2. Yes.
3. No (unless the TR drive output on the MGB failed).
4. No.
5. No. He's lowered the collective in response to the failure (you can see the rate of rotation decreasing slightly as it descends).
6. You're saying that if the tail fell off, with all that weight suddenly missing so far from the CofG, it would respond identically to if the tail just lost drive but didn't fall off?

Absolutely impossible for any AFCS malfunction to cause a helicopter to do that.

1. Clearly? I would like to know how you can tell the difference.
2. Perhaps.
3. That's what I am talking about.
4. You ever tried to fly a helicopter with no NR? NR & TGT = the staff of life.
5. "He's lowered the collective" has he?? If I was going to deliberately crash (NOT saying this is the case here, so stand down your pitchforks) , I'd dump the collective. So, no logic to your conclusion.
6. From what I saw, the helicopter pitched down and yawed. That's what happens when the tail falls off, so I can see how people have come to that conclusion.

1. Yeah sure, worst case TR control malfunction with the TR servo going full extension/retraction would likely not result in the high yaw rate seen on the CCTV.
4. Yeah sure, no NR and she falls out of the sky. But if you've hauled in full collective and sucked the NR out of the system (NR might go as low as 70% with both engines at topping??) the MR is still providing lift, and the TR is still providing some thrust, and you shouldn't get that high rate vertical descent, nor that very high yaw rate seen in the CCTV.
5. Yeah, I reckon....the power has been reduced evidenced by the initial high yaw rate reducing as it descends (the vertical fin is having more influence against the reduced engine TQ).
6. When you suddenly lose TR thrust the nose pitches down. The tail doesn't need to fall off for the nose to pitch down. This is the part many pilots have difficulty with in practicing this malfunction (The logic in my conclusion is I've done it hundreds of times). The instinctive reaction is for the pilot to lower collective and apply aft cyclic to counter the pitch down. This causes the NR to go off the scale, and I'm talking 130%+.

Question from a PPL(H). Would autopilot ever be engaged on this sort of departure? At the top of the reverse climb? If there's a malfunction, does the computer compensate? How quickly can you disengage? Would it be used to allow the night blindness to settle having climbed out of a bowl lit for TV cameras into a night sky? It doesn't look sadly as there was ANY time to do anything but still interested to know the procedure for such eventualities.

Rattle - the AP(s) will be engaged, probably in ATT mode but not the flight director modes. The pilot is manually flying the aircraft but with AP stability assistance. He might engage a FD mode after the transition (ALTA for example).

gear up is obviously not always 200 Ft but in case of extended TDP gear up happens after TDP … logical since you must go back to the ground in case of engine failure before

Thank you.

John Eacott states....'Forget the false idea that the pilot suffered ‘night blindness.

It is not a case of complete blindness, however we are all taught through HP& L training that the eye takes some time to accommodate from daylight conditions to night conditions. I would be very surprised if this is not mentioned under human factors in the final report.

During rehearsals for the Melbourne Commonwealth Games in 2006 we had to ditch the idea of using the Bolte Bridge during the opening ceremony because the upward facing lights attracted large numbers of moths, which in turn attracted large numbers of circling birds; mainly seagulls. It happened every night during summer and autumn. Just a thought.

Thank heavens someone pointed out that 'gear up' varies according to what sort of departure you are doing.
So, if I have to climb to a 400' TDP, someone whom should know better suggested raising gear at 200'
Is this symptomatic of something else in the industry or can we simply assume NO ONE WOULD EVER RAISE THE GEAR BEFORE TDP?

Leicaster City AW169 mishap
 

I'm not sure if this would explain it but in VIP ops, often the crew would position the direction of the nose to ensure that the VIP pax gets out and can directly walk to or enter from his destination (in this case it seems that from the other video footage that he was coming out from a stadium gate to the heli). This way, the VIP does not need to walk around the nose (or tail!) to go to his walking destination. The 180 turn could have been to reposition the nose into the winds when they reached above the stadium structure. Just a thought...

No different to an airliner at the gate then ...

Regarding crew qualification, I suspect the pointed expression "Passenger" used in news reports to describe the left seat occupant, but not the remainder of those on board comes from the AAIB on site. Having peripherally observed a not dissimilar GA situation with qualified pilot and another without the right qualifications (actually the airframe owner), the AAIB report said "Passenger" almost every paragraph, to make their point.

If the aircraft is certified for single pilot ops, there is no requirement other than a customer / owner one.

My God have we not got it yet ???? V often a pax may feel safer having someone with some knowledge up front with the pilot . This is often due to fear of possible pilot incapacitation. I have done this over the years in many aircraft . This operation was single pilot but having someone capable with you to look outside , remember frequencies etc can only be a help . It looks like you are all willing there to be a legal problem .....

Do we anticipate an incoming temporary flight suspension or emergency AD?

AW169 AD's.
 

Have wondered the same thing about AD's? Any news from other AW169 owners, OR whoever provided the maintenance on the 169 involved in the crash?
The only AD's that I can see for the AW169 are enclosed in the PDF below..

https://www.caa.govt.nz/assets/legac...ives/AW169.pdf

Whilst I agree that 'any old pilot' in the other seat of a single crew operation could quite likely be a liability, the two Pilots in this case were both highly experienced Corporate Crew who had flow together professionally for a long time, understood CRM and had a wealth of knowledge between them, even if one was fixed not rotary.

Having flown single pilot ops in complex types many years ago I did appreciate a competent pilots assistant as they used to be termed. As long as they are briefed/trained in the scope of their input I have only seen it as a good thing.

G-VKSP maintenance provider
 

Some images of G-VSKP at a the Specialist Aviation Service maintenance company.
I believe they are the importer of the AW169 type into the UK.

When was the a/c last checked for the latest AD about the emergency windows being difficult to push out? 5th Sept AD posted earlier.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...313983994).jpg

This photo taken in 2016 at same place.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/F...401335502).jpg

As we reach the end of day three of the AAIB investigation, the fact their are no ADs and the aircraft type has not been grounded suggests the following.

(a) There is no reason to suspect that the aircraft was in anyway defective.
(b) The primary causal factor is a result of the aircraft sustaining damage during flight as a result with contact with a structure or other object.
(c) If not (b) then due to the handling of the aircraft by the pilot in command, pax or both, either in error or intentionally.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....cdf1f35a97.jpg
Leonardo is assisting the AAIB according to their press release. Also mate of mine in Leics was quoting a local rumor of drone impact, which I believe was mentioned somewhere earlier in this thread. Has the stadium CCTV showed anything out of place on immediate lift off? Without digressing , sadly its two 'firsts' crashes this week.

Accident at Leicester City Football Club's stadium - DETAIL - Leonardo - Aerospace, Defence and Security

I do like a certain tabloid this morning that showed photo of G-LCFC when criticising the Beeb sports editor for his assumptions on the relationship between two members of the deceased

ATB
cheers

(d) The cause has not yet been positively determined by AAIB.

AAIB might as well go home then. When are you releasing your report? :D

Bravo Sir! At least someone has recognised that the investigations are still ongoing.

New footage emerges
 

SASless: "The usual suspects are making statements of certainty already.....as is their habit...despite knowing nothing of what caused the accident."

I haven't

but this quote from JimL (a prime architect of the PC1 'upwards and backwards' take off that delivers 'engine accountability') might be pertinent:
"The arguement that simplicity is safer than complexity is a given, only the consequence of failure is in question"

Lets wait for the report, whatever it was, many here lost a great friend and a "top banana".
Always v sad for many people.

Of course but actually you will struggle to find an example where the early rumour differs significantly in terms of the headline to the multi year final report...

Glasgow ran out of fuel...Shoreham pilot...North Sea EC225 let those down wearing big boy pants...etc

At frame 00.54 something appears to fly from above and to the right of the aircraft and then, at a different angle, move very fast off to the lower left of frame, around 5 second before it transitions into forward flight and immediately begins to rotate.

It's an insect lit by the stadium lights, I get them on my CCTV daily...

It's worth reading the article, even if it is the Sun...