and was even more fun to teach from the LHS when only the RHS had brakes!

Exactly, seems a very touchy device even with a fully professional crew.
Something that zillionaires chose to ignore at their peril.

Indeed it was. Along with the other dirty little tricks that type could play on an inattentive pilot! Turmo engines without anticipators backing right off then being very slow to catch up next time they were needed, in flight Y/R divergence and “wrong pedal” takeoffs, BARALT hold dropping out below 80kts and the aircraft wanting to surreptitiously go into a descent, etc.

3 entire left rotation did not prompt the pilot to counteract with right pedal ? Nor down collective and close the throttle?these are memory items! BTW Leonardo why an helicopter need a wheel lock in first place?
did the pilot checked free of movements of all the controls before takeoff? maybe not. Embarrassing.

An aircraft in perfect shape destroyed in seconds because more or less full left pedal is applied on ground.
I have never flown a plane but somehow I am sure not following the RFM and SOPs is a path to wreck a perfect airplane as well.
This has nothing to do with low safety standards. Planes crash all the time as well. Already forgotten the 737 Max?

i assume checking the nosewheel lock is off/out is part of a pre-landing checklist?

In this situation, it's in the pre taxi checks, which it's being assumed, were missed.

Well,
there is some information, we don’t have yet
ie who pressed the unlock switch?
Could have been without proper crew coordination and caught out the pilot by surprise (not excusing the inputs already applied and not reducing them when coming to a stop for error analysis)
You have to be 100% there to react fast enough- or you turn into a passenger in a matter of seconds.

About the need of nose wheel locks - yes, you need them, when you do a fast run on landing, ie with a tailrotor malfunction.
You can see on the accident video, how much torque could be counteracted with a locked wheel- excactly what you want in case of tailrotor emergencies.

Full and free movement of controls won’t test the nose wheel, its freely rotating - if not locked

Damn, you are talking about a design from 2012 correct? :confused:

Even 60 years old S300Cs have peerless throttle correlators (no closed loop, but working very fine).

How can BARALT hold drop out except for clogged static port? :bored:
I can understand that RADALT can do funny thing when over water or crossing a dropoff,
but BARALT hold should be super reliable, except maybe when close to mining explosion with noticeable shock wave.

And what is a "wrong pedal takeoff" in an AW169 ?
Its MR turn Bell-style, so even non-metric pilots from overseas should feel at home.

No. He's talking about the original SA330 Puma, first designed in the early 1960s.

which had a rather late 'mid-life' upgrade and will be scrapped by 2025.

The Pumas were notorious for their lack of anticipators and the crewman would loiter between the seats to call the Ng/N1 above 75% - below that, at large application of collective would droop the Nr and drop the electrics and AP off line ISTR.

Well, perhaps the analog is the A-340 crew destroying a brand new aircraft by running up the engines without wheel chocks. (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/etihad-a340-accident/)
Still is very sobering to see how fast things can go pear shaped.

Pheeew, that is reassuring. thx

Correct! As I joined the RAF Puma fleet (over 40 years ago), I was handed a formal Flight Appraisal report written by a Boscombe Down test pilot. It mentioned the issues I included and the conclusion was along the lines of “until these design faults are corrected, this aircraft should not be accepted into service.”

Anyway, as we approach the Puma’s 50th anniversary in RAF service.....at least they fitted decent engines a decade or so ago. :D

The list was a lot longer than that ,Shy.......!

and wait 3 turns before realizing that some thing was wrong? Wait two entire 360 before apply right pedal and kill the torque by lowering the collective? I don’t think so. The rudder was jammed. Btw if I will buy that helicopter I will request skids !...

sorry Zagorfly,
you are showing, that you have no clue about what went on and which forces are working.
First mistake was not to unlock before starting to roll
second mistake was to increase pedal and collective, when the intended turn didn’t work - you can see the helicopter already tilting, which feels extremly odd and should make one uneasy...
third mistake was stopping with brakes instead of lowering the collective first - still torque applied
fourth mistake was to unlock the nose wheel in that configuration
and you think a pilot, not knowing what he did the whole time will be quick enough in his reactions and able to overcome the centrifugal forces after the first turn?
He needed to dump the collective within the first 90 to 180 degrees, if there ought to be a chance of recovery- after that he is only a passenger...

And this is the problem with pprune :rolleyes:

I've flown two aircraft with lockable tailwheels (Wessex and Sea King) and two with lockable nosewheels (AS365 and AW 139) and they all need a little wiggle on the yaw pedals moving forward slowly to ensure the pin comes out and the wheel is unlocked - not a great bootfull of pedal like this guy did.

If it doesn't unlock, lower the collective, check the handle/selector and then try again - gently!

Just very poor piloting.

Still the only helicopter in the world where the pilots have to crawl over the jump seat to get into the cockpit; the perfectly serviceable cockpit entry doors being mandated as to be permanently locked in 1972.

FED, agreed - yet to properly secure the aircraft for the night, the cabin doors had to be P stropped to the internal structure! In my younger, snake hipped and athletic days, I used to fit the last strop then exit the aircraft via the cockpit window (I think I’d need hospital treatment if I tried that these days).

A/Spatiale, as was,used to get their door locks from the Renault/Citroen car factory across the motorway in Marignane..

First I've heard of a nose wheel type having a locking system, S-76 doesn't, explanation please as to why the difference?

The 76 has a damper so you can run it on at 60 knots and you'll not get a potentially damaging shimmy wobble. Fast run on landings in the 169 and 139 require the nose wheel locked. There is an electronic locking pin which secures the nose wheel in place. On touch down, you'll need to hit the unlock button on the gear panel to release the locking pin to taxi. Attempting to steer with high torque settings and the nose wheel locked can cause damage to the whole nose gear locking pin installation. The whole nose wheel assembly is a weak point on these machines, especially for towing. 76 undercarriage is bullet proof. The Augusta systems are far more delicate.

Thanks SK. :ok: Is attempt at structure weight saving why they have gone the locking route?

As long as you put the pins in before towing; due to the design needing hydraulic pressure to stay locked. I think all AW helis have mechanical down locks which don’t need pinning for towing.

Having flown both types, I prefer having a locking nose wheel, but then even some Sikorskys had them. The type I trained on actually had TWO! The Puma also has one.

Hardly - they don't like pot holes much!
Typically used for fast running landing (such as TR malfunction) and moving helidecks. Same as a tail wheel lock (S61).

And stopping the aircraft rotating during rotor start and shut down.

Presumably these kinds of accidents are fairly common.
Certainly there are a number of somewhat similar cases here on PPRN, some involving dollies, but all with attempted maneuvers very near ground.
Does the training have a special syllabus for these?

Yup, and when it's -30C out at night and you're on your back under the 139 nosewheel, trying to align up that ******* manual locking pin in the guide hole for the 17th time so it can get towed into the hangar - this brings you immense joy I can tell you. Never had such problems on the 76.

( These Augusta aircraft require another manual locking pin which must be physically inserted before towing that feeble nosewheel. This is to prevent the tow bar being attached and the aircraft towed with the electronic nose wheel actuator inadvertently fastened in the lock position. There are expensive sheer bolts fabricated into the tow bar to help prevent this from happening by fatigued flight and ground crews. The emergency gear down is fluid operated though and will lock into place once activated. Easy fix for the mechanic, unlike the 76. )

Never ever had any issues with the 76 on moving helidecks, nor heard of problems. What issues prevail, besides forgetting to lock the brakes?

Only tail wheel locking type I flew was the H-34, locking was only required on parking, running take off/landing or doing an auto. Any student who broke a pin was required to wear it on a lanyard around the neck for a week, I reckon it should have been the instructor who wore it as all trips were dual - inadequate supervision. :p

S-92 cockpit accessed through the cabin as well. Often accompanied by the back of the life jacket switching something in the overhead panel on or off.

Jackpot when you manage both AC Gens whilst getting in the LHS. Real great.

Personally I think for a tactical troop aircraft the undercarriages of the AW and Bell are totally wrong with `pi%$y little high pressure tyres,and nosewheels that are likely to `dig-in` on first contact with any `soft` surface in any `tactical run-on..even your FLIR/optics turret is very vulnerable under the nose...They should have skids,,or wheels like the MH-60/AH64 /or Wessex...might be `retro and not aesthetically pleasing,but dynamically much better for `agricultural` driving...not like `ReliantRobins`.....

Hat,coat,big watch......

Most are available with skids, 169 skid version now available

What I should have said was that of the 1,000 plus Pumas and Super Pumas produced the 23 operated by the RAF have their doors permanently locked. Over the last fifty years the rest seem to be perfectly happy with their pilots getting in and out of the doors designed for the purpose.

Goodness knows who brought the rule in but I’d put money on it being an engineering officer.

D120A might be along to comment......

Yes it was. The same SEO that suggested have the undercarriage locked down to avoid the nosewheel jack overunning. Curing by putting a restrictor in the down hydraulic circuit.

After the fatal RAF Puma accident in Norway where a cabin door came off its rails and took out the tail rotor, a certain senior engineer decreed that all cabin doors were to be removed and crews just flew in extra clothing, bearing in mind that it was winter.

On returning to his station Mini, he found that the aircrew had repaid the favour and removed its doors.