AW 139 Hard Landing in Spain.
 

I suppose the question to be asked is why could the aircraft not maintain flight OEI to the extent the pilot determined the required action to be an autorotation?


The followup question is why would turbulence cause an engine failure?

Yes, something doesn't ring true here.

Maybe their 30% pay cut had something to do with it:E

You get what you pay for I reckon!

Payback is a bitch!

Well, there goes another 30% pay cut to pay for the repair.

Apparantly both engines flamed out when aircraft went into 90 degree bank "due to turbulence".

You'd have to sustain negative G for a wee while to cause both engines to flame out.

I'd be looking at some other reason for fuel not getting to the engines.

FDR readout should be interesting.

From the report:

Occupants 1 ??

The 139 can be SP or MP

In one of the reports, it said 1 x pilot and 1 x passenger

Perhaps the pilot's side window, that was sucked inside, caused some issues with the overhead throttles?

BOTH engines !!!! Again? Surely not possible, at least it's not over a hostile congested area :rolleyes:

Looks like someone let the groundhog out.

damned rude

ANFI you are making a very good point. This simply should not happen to MEH!! As your sarcasm alludes to, fuel starvation of any kind rather defeats the advantages of having more than 1 engine.
It will be really interesting to understand how this one has happened. I cant see turbulence causing a double flameout. Surely the pressure fuel in the feed line from the boost pump to the engine would last several seconds even if the boost pumps starts to cavitate!!
But with Clutha, now this one, ANFI, your arguments gather some momentum!

Thank god they had a life raft.

He picked a good spot to aim for. Too bad the bit at the bottom didn't go quite to plan. Off to the sim for some practice.

Guys,

Running out of fuel in most (though not all) multi engine helicopter leads to a failure of one engine only...

The second engine will continue to operate for a few more minutes....

This is due to the way the fuel tanks are arranged...

That depends on the levels of the tanks.

I do not know if this is the same Aircraft but the last entry for G-CIJX on Flightradar looks a bit suspicious. 11:31 UTC at an altitude of 6450ft with 150kts ground speed an then it all stops.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-cijx#20dd2132

And a day later G-CIJW was ferried to the resuce, straight from Verigate to Alicante via St.Tropez.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...-cijw#20e1b8ca

6450' with 150 kts GS final data point doesn't look like an OEI configuration to me.

Slightly unfair on SASEMAR, they are the customer, not operator. I believe the operator is still Babcock Espana, and agree with the comment on standards in that case. The former INAER operations that were purchased by Babcock in 2014 as part of the Avincis deal have suffered several incidents, and several anti-trust investigations in Italy and Spain. One may of expected an improvement when Babcock took over, but........

Still, they are cheap, which seems to be the key metric for customers these days.

Good Spot; Best Direction?
 

Wouldn't up slope be better, if possible, to judge the touchdown, unless the tailwind would be too great? Does down slope mean that too much collective, too early could cause a big drop from an over run? I'm fixed wing hanglider, so speculating, but I always go for an up slope to judge it spot on. Here's an extreme upslope at 0:54:

In to wind and not hitting anything is what you should be planning on. Slope doesn't matter.

Regardless of what caused both engines to go I would be happy with that outcome if it were me. An auto to walk away from and the aircraft not a complete waste is a tick in the box for me.

I'm with you on that. If you can find an area of open ground with minimum hard objects in this situation, you are lucky.

Maybe. Maybe not. If you don't screw up the initial transition into auto-rotation, and get a stable descent happening, and you have a big flat open area to aim for, you should be able to put it on the ground without a scratch. Call the fuel truck to top you up, maybe send another pilot and continue on.

Pulling on enough speed on a kingpostless hanglider, to flare up a moderate slope is about 30 kts. Stalling speed is 15 kts.

If you get a big open area which has no rocks, ruts, rabbit holes, boggy ground or wires on it, you might get away without a scratch. If thats what you get, the gods are on your side.

Watching the video....and seeing all of the nice pretty flat clear areas the hang glider pilot forsake for where he did wind up....I would suggest he could have done a much easier job of getting his aircraft down than he did. Just saying!

Yeap. That nice flat open area you spotted when you enter auto tends to look a bit different about the stage you start to flare.

Ah, but landing on the nice flat fields leaves you at the bottom of the hill, so you have to pack the glider away and load it onto a car to drive it back to the take off, where it has to be rigged again; a turnaround of 90 minutes. If you land on the slope, you can carry the glider fully rigged (a mere 105 lbs, with the harness) 200' back up to the top of the hill in just 15 minutes and be ready to take off into the next thermal. It also gives you a good workout.

+2 on that comment. Slope is pretty hard to pick from 6000ft. Autos to the ground in twins are not something most civilian pilots get practice at. The Sim is great but it's not the real world. I tip my hat to the Pilot for the auto at least. Walked away with aircraft partially damaged. Babcock should be able to afford the insurance bill with all the savings they are making with wages.

Yep. But IF he ran out of fuel, nope.

A good landing is any landing you can walk away from....

A great landing is any landing you walk away from AND can use the aircraft again!