Yes, I can confirm that a good part of this discussion was about whether we should show understanding for otherwise qualified pilots who fail to mentally prepare for and then execute well established procedures for a black hole departure. I am not sure who started this debate, but it was argued that a pilot with the right aptitude and attitude would ensure not to become spatially or situationally disoriented and lose control.

That while no human is perfect (hence the repeated mention of "it can happen to all of us", it actually mustn't happen to none of us.

Fully agreed!
That is indeed the first picture that comes to ones mind when reading the prelim. All four blades detached, one completely missing and the TRGB torn off matches all too well a situation where one blade departs.
When considering that the tail was found 500ft away and the wreckage was in only 16ft of water plus the Eye witness report of spinning lights (basically ruling out extreme forward velocity which could otherwise explain the tail ending up 500ft away) it is very hard to conceive that all this would be the mere result of the impact. Can't be completely ruled out, but Occam's razor would have a pretty clear verdict here...

I think I will also send my jury away to gather more evidence. If there is a mechanical failure which cannot be isolated to that particular aircraft or a run of MSNs, it could be a large exercise to potentially inspect the whole 139 fleet.

At some point if it is reasonably suspected that a Tail Rotor Blade did depart the aircraft and cause the accident....there will in all likelihood be an AD issued to inspect the Tail Rotor for certain defects or evidence of a pending failure.

If I owned some 139's I would consider getting a head start on that possibility and undertake a one time fleet-wide inspection as a purely precautionary action.

Not knowing what exactly to look for....just some added emphasis to the existing maintenance actions in place could not hurt.

Just Saying!

I know most anything is possible when rotor blades, main or tail, depart the aircraft.

We seem to isolate the events when there is a chance a Main Rotor blade departing could lead to the other Main Rotor blade leaving too....and perhaps one of them taking out a Tail Rotor blade in the process thus kicking off the loss of the other Tail Rotor blades.

Hopefully, the missing TR blade will be found and the NTSB can determine what components failed or were catastrophically damaged should all this be caused from a mechanical failure.

The top section of the vertical fin, the tail rotor and tail gearbox assembly and the associated drive shaft, control rods and cover fairings all separated from the aircraft in flight.

There were 13 POB so that is a lot of forward CofG with all those bits missing off the back end. As I mentioned, the aircraft was controllable and a successful landing on the water was carried out with no injuries to any passengers.

FH1100, where are you reading that the TGB separated? I can't find that anywhere.

Ohhhhh, I dunno. Maybe because the NTSB preliminary report said: "The tail rotor assembly, which was also separated was subsequently recovered." I guess I assumed that to mean the t/r gearbox came off, but now that I think about it, maybe just the tail rotor itself came off and not the whole gearbox? Beats me.

Yeah. To me, Tail Rotor Assy means just that. The Tail Rotor. And their definition of that may also be a bit hazy. How much of the tail rotor? Was the hub left on the output shaft or was the output shaft broken off and still attached to the tail rotor?

I've not seen any photos of the tailboom to see what is still attached. And as for the boom being 500ft away from the wreckage..... It weighs practically nothing for the size of it. It should float for quite a while, drifting away from the main wreckage and of course the fuselage doesn't come to rest at the point of impact. It too is travelling at speed.

And seeing as I'm here :) I'll address all the posts about the "new" tailbooms that came out after the Qatar incident. They aren't new. The AIN news bulletin is wrong. It says "The new boom will employ a different composite technique and use an aluminum skin bonded to honeycomb, according to one U.S.-based AW139 customer who spoke to AIN."
That is not correct. The tailboom always had an external Alloy skin. What changed was the honeycomb. They went from nomex honeycomb to alloy honeycomb. There is an Optional bulletin to change your tailboom over from nomex to alloy honeycomb but boy oh boy is it expensive. The other relevant bulletin is the one that has the external longerons put on (which this aircraft has). That removes all the repetitive inspections and AD's for the boom.
There is now a new boom on the 7000kg machines. They wanted to reduce weight and complexity so went with the same honeycomb fin but a conventional boom of sheet metal, frames and stringers, with no honeycomb. Looks exactly the same on the outside.
The boom failing in flight is an extremely remote possibility. Same with a TR Blade failing in flight. The new blades have had no issues since coming into service many years ago.
Need more info from NTSB to rule out possible scenarios.

Surely, if a MR blade was shed in flight, the resulting out of balance forces would dislodge the main rotor gearbox attachments.

In the two 225/332 events....did the gearbox depart either or both aircraft prior to final impact?

If you point out which events you are referring to, it would help.

If you mean the tragic accident where the top of the main gearbox departed, complete with the rotor head and all four blades still attached, there wouldn't be the same out of balance forces as if a single blade came off.

You are quite right Shy....but there would have been some very unusual forces for sure....and the question was actually about the stress damage to the gearbox mounts.

My question was not clear enough upon re-thinking it.

There was the third crash where a main blade did let go....and I cannot recall if that gear box departed following the one blade.

I am looking for that video....but am having trouble remembering where that occurred.



Found it......it appears the gearbox stayed with the aircraft but the video is very short and the aircraft falls behind a building immediately after the blade separates and the rest of the rotor head departs.

Watch this video.....and count the pieces!

I wonder where the tail rotor blades wound up after this tragedy?

Does anyone have the certificate details of David Jude (the CPL pilot)? I've been trying to find his cert number but it isn't in the prelim.

Latest letter issued from Leonardo, does not appear they think there was any mechanical failure !!

Following AW139 accident that occurred near Big Grand Cay Island, Bahamas on July 4th, 2019, Leonardo Helicopters immediately dispatched a team to offer support to the recovery and investigation and continues to work closely with the Investigating Authorities.
At this point, Leonardo Helicopters do not envisage the need to take any airworthiness actions as a result of present investigation outcomes

At "faa.gov", you can search the data base for his license details.

I just did so and exactly one entry using "David Jude" is returned.

Excuse my ignorance, but what does the C/ mean in the FAA C/AW-139 type rating, and what does the A/ mean in the A/AW-139 type rating?

We have seen another Helicopter Manufacturer issue such public statements in the past.....and it later turn out they. had a major problem in the design of their aircraft.

How much credence can we put into Leonardo's Statement?

If it is credible and based upon the results of the examination of the wreckage.....then that would point a finger directly at the Crew as the weather was benign.

Has any more information surfaced about their backgrounds, training, medical history of the crew, and their 139 experience been made public?

Anything that would put into question their fitness for that particular flight or climatic conditions (dark, over water, lack of horizon....etc).

Hmmm...three weeks since the accident and the manufacturer has been on-site and there's been no emergency AD. Maybe Leonardo knows more than all the acronym experts on this thread.

A/ = ATPL
C/ = CPL
P/ = PPL
(source FAA.)

So if you have a CPL with C/AW-139 type rating, and then you get an ATPL, the type rating will be changed to A/AW-139? Even if you didn't do the ATPL practical test in a AW-139?

Could it be that the reason for the CPL Type rating is the applicant had insufficient hours to qualify for the ATPL or had not passed the Written Exam for the ATPL, but passed the same Practical Test (Check Ride) as he would have had he the ATPL?

Perhaps someone currently conducting FAA Type Rating practical tests can explain how the procedure works so we can all understand the nuances of Type Ratings under the FAA system.

Ask and you shall receive.......from a friend still active in the business out in the wilds of Louisiana....still doing this stuff.

I think this ones just going to be as simple as the flew it into the water.
Hard to take it for some but **** happens.

This. All these rare mechanical failures are discussed but 85% of the time it's pilot error per the insurance industry.

Without going into why I ask this question.....but is there reliable/credible information to describe the reputation/record/quality/complaint record of Cloud Nine LLC's operation and business standards?

I have found one FAA Action taken on "2014WP230061" dated 01/18/13 which resulted in the Suspension of Cloud Nine LLC's Operator Certificate (no Fine/Penalty shown) with a closing date of 08/01/14.

Exactly. All this BS about the tailboom being found 500 ft from fuselage (according to whom? Not NTSB), and a t/r blade separating in flight, and an eyewitness 1.6 miles away (at night) counting the fuselage making THREE ROTATIONS TO THE LEFT. I think after almost 2 months of NTSB and Leonardo poring over dynamic components and no emergency AD, we know what happened.

With the NTSB Preliminary Report already out last month, it will be at least 12-18 months before anything else will "officially" come out. And it can possibly be longer due to it technically is still under Bahamian jurisdiction even though the NTSB accepted delegation authority. But as noted above, if there was/is an urgent aircraft issue the OEMs usually issue documents way before any official reports.

Just throwing this out there. Has there ben confirmation of who was occupying the pilot and co-pilot seats?