PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Rotorheads (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads-23/)
-   -   G2 down in Switzerland - 15 June 2022 (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/647423-g2-down-switzerland-15-june-2022-a.html)

TimdeBoer 23rd Jun 2022 17:24

G2 down in Switzerland - 15 June 2022
 
Just came across this video on a Dutch website:
https://www.dumpert.nl/item/100034058_461b7738

Likely linked to this accident?
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/279275
https://www.polizei-schweiz.ch/epagn...r-abgestuerzt/

Looks like a close call initially... :ooh:
Great save and survivable landing apparently.

ShyTorque 23rd Jun 2022 17:27

Well that one didn't want to go quietly, did it? :eek:

Hopefully no serious injuries caused.

Reely340 23rd Jun 2022 17:38

G2s crashworthiness is truly amazing 👍

Hughes500 23rd Jun 2022 17:57

I bet there was a change of underwear required there

Ovc000 23rd Jun 2022 18:37

Wonder if there's some similarity to the UK crash..

twinstar_ca 23rd Jun 2022 18:54


Originally Posted by Hughes500 (Post 11250640)
I bet there was a change of underwear required there

Any crash requires new underwear!!!

Prizmatic 23rd Jun 2022 20:17


Originally Posted by hands_on123 (Post 11250683)
again, not enough right pedal!

seems to be a theme for Cabris.

You have no idea what happened in this incident yet you knock the G2? I thought this crap was over.... yawn.

MightyGem 23rd Jun 2022 20:46

Good effort. :ok:

Robbiee 23rd Jun 2022 21:29


Originally Posted by Prizmatic (Post 11250685)
You have no idea what happened in this incident yet you knock the G2? I thought this crap was over.... yawn.

Seems more like a knock on the pilot.

Robbo Jock 23rd Jun 2022 21:58

How on Earth did he/she save that? Tremendous outcome.

Agile 24th Jun 2022 04:37

Feels good to see a light helicopter with its tail boom still attached after that tiny bit of aerobatic.

[email protected] 24th Jun 2022 08:47

Don't think a Robinson would have survived those gyrations intact even before the ground intervened.

Robbiee 24th Jun 2022 15:15


Originally Posted by [email protected] (Post 11250885)
Don't think a Robinson would have survived those gyrations intact even before the ground intervened.

​​​​​​
I knew a Robinson that had a tail rotor failure (bird strike) shortly after takeoff (as described here). It survived long enough to get them down, and they both walked away.

Rotorbee 24th Jun 2022 15:19

Since Robisons were certified a long time ago, when crash worthiness and general strength wasn't so high on the list, no probably not. Neither would have a JetRanger or a H300 and many other helicopters. Composite materials have their advantage. It is absolutely impressive, how the Cabri holds together. And how the pilot saved it.
On the other hand, Robinson helicopters are know for their good tail rotor authority. Probably the same accident wouldn't have happened in the same way with an R22.

In the days, I had situations in the R22 where it started to spin with full opposite pedal, because the customer wanted me to fly very slowly with a (light) tail wind (Notice to self: learn to say NO when you are still young and alive). A bit of forward speed and everything was fine again. But I learned two methods to stop the spinning when I felt it coming. Just wiggle the cyclic for a second and it disappears. The second is a quick down and up movement of the collective. Don't like that one, but it works, too.

But that it the second accident with a spinning Cabri in a few days. In this accident, after the plunge toward the earth, the pilot recovered and flew for a very short while straight and level and the spinning started again. This might point to a mechanical failure.
On the other hand, if the Cabri can get away from you and you can't to nothing against it (if that is the case), I wonder if it is such a good training tool. Students tend to be a bit slower or wrong in their reaction and I feel, that a good training helicopter should be more forgiving. Strong it is already, no doubt about that.

Two's in 24th Jun 2022 16:27

Is it just me thinking chopping the throttle might have led to a less exciting arrival? That or make sure your right boot is touching the perspex...

Reely340 24th Jun 2022 19:36


Originally Posted by Rotorbee (Post 11251093)
In the days, I had situations in the R22 where it started to spin with full opposite pedal, because the customer wanted me to fly very slowly with a (light) tail wind (Notice to self: learn to say NO when you are still young and alive). A bit of forward speed and everything was fine again.

Weird. S-300C AFM states something like hovering with wind from all directions has been demonstrated for up to 17 kts. :E

Being the curious guy that I am I tested that on a 10-15 kts day, right on the apron, 20 ft below the tower and 25 yards from emerg. vehicles garage.
After all the LTE stories and wind azimut caveats I was very very cautious. Of course the smack at the fuselage when wind direction swung past 180° is impressive, but it was clearly hoverable in a controlled fashion.
Up to now I not sure what is wrong with tail wind or wind from 5 or 7 'o clock below say ~12 kts when hover taxiing. :8

I admit that looong ago I reversed for ~ half a mile from the training square to the gas station when nasty wind picked up to 20ish kts.
Felt stupid and looked inept for sure, but we didn't want to do a full circuit on low fuel.

B2N2 25th Jun 2022 00:10


Originally Posted by Hughes500 (Post 11250640)
I bet there was a change of underwear required there

Well, pilot was 65 and his passenger 70….that in itself requires it.

Hughes500 25th Jun 2022 05:50

do we actually know if was a mechanical failure or a pilot failure ?

Ascend Charlie 25th Jun 2022 05:55


After all the LTE stories and wind azimut caveats I was very very cautious. Of course the smack at the fuselage when wind direction swung past 180° is impressive, but it was clearly hoverable in a controlled fashion.
Nick Lappos, long-time member of this forum and chief test pilot for Sikorsky (and later Bell) would have something like this to say:

When the US Army had bought a lot of early model B 206 / Kiowa, they had a lot of accidents where the pilot lost yaw control. Army asks Bell to investigate, and rather than admit that the tail rotor was too small to do the job, they came up with LTE.

Their spin merchants were VERY good at their job, even convincing FAA and a lot of others that LTE was real, and applied to every helicopter, and was the cause of the loss-of-yaw-control accidents. Pilot error for letting the wind get into the wrong quadrant, rather than an inadequate tail rotor. LTE appeared in every text book, pilots then said "It was LTE" for any and every case where the pilot didn't control the aircraft, or put it into a situation where the piddly tail rotor could not perform.

A bigger tail rotor subsequently appeared, but the LTE Urban Myth still persists. And mysteriously, it has never been proven to exist on any other helo type, especially NOT the Robinson line, because Frank was a tail rotor specialist and designed it correctly from the start.

Rotorbee 25th Jun 2022 07:04

Just for the record, I never said I had LTE. What I experienced in the R22 was a rather gentle affair. Nothing like the wild spinning of a Cabri. And it wasn't LTE. I suspect that it was just an interaction of the main blade tip vortex and the tail rotor.
Anyway, if you live in a legal system - the US legal system -, where admitting a mistake can bring a company down due to stupid lawsuits that make at least the lawyers rich, the culture is bound to move towards spin doctoring, creatively finding explanations that are natural causes that could not be seen because physics wasn't advanced enough.

megan 25th Jun 2022 07:16


it has never been proven to exist on any other helo type
The UH-1H manual has a section on LTE with an diagram of the warning areas mapped out. That being the case you would expect to see the same warning/diagram in 212, 412 and AH-1 manuals, but don't

Hot and Hi 25th Jun 2022 13:00


Originally Posted by B2N2 (Post 11251315)
Well, pilot was 65 and his passenger 70….that in itself requires it.

I believe you think you are funny. However, I am unsure whether your post is in-line with this network’s policy prohibiting discriminatory posts.

joe_bloggs 25th Jun 2022 14:59


Originally Posted by Rotorbee (Post 11251382)
Anyway, if you live in a legal system - the US legal system -, where admitting a mistake can bring a company down due to stupid lawsuits that make at least the lawyers rich.

This immediately brought back Frank Robinson’s words when I was fortunate enough to attend a Factory Safety course quite some years ago. He asked for questions and I enquired about the doors off speed limit… oh… he said…pausing… thats’s the lawyers!
You see, if the door is off and you stick your arm out you might get injured.
So it was decided, to minimise claim risk, speed would be limited for door/s off.
(No aerodynamic or structural reasons)

Robbiee 25th Jun 2022 15:13


Originally Posted by joe_bloggs (Post 11251559)
This immediately brought back Frank Robinson’s words when I was fortunate enough to attend a Factory Safety course quite some years ago. He asked for questions and I enquired about the doors off speed limit… oh… he said…pausing… thats’s the lawyers!
You see, if the door is off and you stick your arm out you might get injured.
So it was decided, to minimise claim risk, speed would be limited for door/s off.
(No aerodynamic or structural reasons)

,....but if you stick your arm out at 99 kts (or at 100 kts in the R22) you'll be just fine! :hmm:​​​​

Rotorbee 25th Jun 2022 16:23


,....but if you stick your arm out at 99 kts (or at 100 kts in the R22) you'll be just fine! https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif​​​​
Perhaps not you, but Robinson. They told you so. It is always hard to admit one made a mistake, much easier to blame somebody else. Especially in a society that is fixated on success and always being the best. At least pilots should be familiar with situations where we mess up and hopefully catch our mistakes before anything happens. That is the idea of the regs we follow ... more or less, but there are many people out there, who never, ever make any mistakes. Therefore if something goes wrong, it must be the fault of somebody else and they find a lawyer that is only too happy to sue for ridiculous amounts of money on the basis of psychical distress because somebody got an outchy on their picky. Therefore companies must protect themselves from anything a stupid person might do, despite common sense. There is this saga that when Dornier certified the 228 in the US, they had to add, that the plane has to be turned in the direction of the runway for takeoff. I truly hope it isn't true, but it sounds like the loop hole a ambulance chaser would love to see.

Robbiee 25th Jun 2022 16:59


Originally Posted by Rotorbee (Post 11251589)
Perhaps not you, but Robinson. They told you so. It is always hard to admit one made a mistake, much easier to blame somebody else. Especially in a society that is fixated on success and always being the best. At least pilots should be familiar with situations where we mess up and hopefully catch our mistakes before anything happens. That is the idea of the regs we follow ... more or less, but there are many people out there, who never, ever make any mistakes. Therefore if something goes wrong, it must be the fault of somebody else and they find a lawyer that is only too happy to sue for ridiculous amounts of money on the basis of psychical distress because somebody got an outchy on their picky. Therefore companies must protect themselves from anything a stupid person might do, despite common sense. There is this saga that when Dornier certified the 228 in the US, they had to add, that the plane has to be turned in the direction of the runway for takeoff. I truly hope it isn't true, but it sounds like the loop hole a ambulance chaser would love to see.

Well, Robby did eventually give us governors, hydraulic controls, and bladder tanks. Don't know if they admitted that not having these things was a mistake, but its still nice to have the improvements.

Maybe one day Bruno will just decide to make a version of the Cabri with a more "traditional" tail rotor,...just for the hell of it.

Ascend Charlie 26th Jun 2022 03:31


The UH-1H manual has a section on LTE with a diagram of the warning areas mapped out. That being the case you would expect to see the same warning/diagram in 212, 412 and AH-1 manuals, but don't
Never Proven to exist on other types, and anyway, the tail rotors on the newer birds rotate upwards into the flow and are on the flipside of the tail boom.

megan 26th Jun 2022 05:16

Forgot about that AC, even our 205's had them on the opposite side to the Hotel. The Hotel data plate said "Manufacturers Model 205" and "Customer Model UH-1H", were civil 205's originally with the left mounted tail rotor?

Edit, found a thread

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/45...ail-rotor.html

Ascend Charlie 26th Jun 2022 07:11

And didn't the 205s have dual hydraulics?

albatross 26th Jun 2022 13:06


Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie (Post 11251794)
And didn't the 205s have dual hydraulics?

205A single hyd. 205A-1 dual hyd. as I vaguely recall.
It was also advised that when flying with no collective hydraulics not lower the power below 35 PSI as raising it again would be difficult. …it was! ( I may be +- wrong about the 35 number.)
I luved flying the 205. Noisy, fun and forgiving…what more could a young boy want?

megan 27th Jun 2022 02:10

Our 205A-1 were single hydraulic, one guy had a failure and being on fixed floats put it down in a sewerage farm pond/lake. Not a nice way to treat a lady. The 205A-1 maintenance manual says they may be single or dual systems.

TimdeBoer 27th Jun 2022 10:34

Interesting to see where this thread is going...

So, back to the G2.
Structural wise I think the occupants were very lucky with the design!

Anyone with experience with regards to tail rotor authority?
A fenestron has it pros and cons I can imagine.

Mutley1013 27th Jun 2022 13:34

Now there is a can of worms! We probably need a new subforum just for that topic. And another for Robinson vs the Rest

Robbiee 27th Jun 2022 13:48


Originally Posted by TimdeBoer (Post 11252276)
Interesting to see where this thread is going...

So, back to the G2.
Structural wise I think the occupants were very lucky with the design!

Anyone with experience with regards to tail rotor authority?
A fenestron has it pros and cons I can imagine.

This is all hear/say, as the G2 is out of my price range, but I've heard that though the tail rotor produces plenty of thrust, it takes a lot more pedal input than one might expect to get it.

So, if you're not Fred Astaire you might run into some issues? :eek:

ShyTorque 27th Jun 2022 22:53

I instructed on RAF Gazelles in 1984/5. The fenestron tail was quirky but worked well enough.

I went back to fly it three years later and by then I was surprised to find that they had invented fenestron stall. It still flew the same, but it was far more restricted in cross winds.

[email protected] 28th Jun 2022 08:15

I posted this on another thread

Like many fenstron equipped helicopters, the Cabri requires anticipation of the pedal requirement - in forward flight the fin is producing a lot of the anti-torque.

As you lose ETL, the fan has to work harder to replace that loss of fin-lift and so requires a great deal more power pedal.

Add in a crosswind where the aircraft wants to weathercock and it is quite easy to end up with undemanded yaw - not LTE - and often FULL right pedal is required to maintain or correct the heading.

So not much to do with the engine - until the very high rate of yaw has an effect - but mostly to do with lack of skill and possibly training.

Not saying this was the cause of the fatal accident in this thread - more a comment on the other accident linked above.

[email protected] 28th Jun 2022 08:16

I posted this on another thread

Like many fenstron equipped helicopters, the Cabri requires anticipation of the pedal requirement - in forward flight the fin is producing a lot of the anti-torque.

As you lose ETL, the fan has to work harder to replace that loss of fin-lift and so requires a great deal more power pedal.

Add in a crosswind where the aircraft wants to weathercock and it is quite easy to end up with undemanded yaw - not LTE - and often FULL right pedal is required to maintain or correct the heading.

fenestrons have a different thrust to pedal position curve - a conventional TR is almost linear in its thrust, a fenestron is more S shaped. Training and anticipation are required but the fenestron still works fine.

[email protected] 28th Jun 2022 08:24

SHY - Fenestron Stall was much misunderstood even though it didn't exist. Hover taxiing sideways at 10' in and out of dispersal put us in the avoid curve, just as well the Astazou was such a reliable engine.

Rotorbee 28th Jun 2022 13:45

I give you that from 2001. PPrune Rotorheads. Interesting read.

eden
19th Feb 2001, 02:22
Having flown the Gazelle in a wide variety of flight regimes ..... and during a time where many pilots were coming unstuck with Fenestron related problems .......and during a time when some very telling tests were done with Aersospatiale using some Fleet Air Arm instructors. I have a few views and observations which would suggest that FENESTRON STALL is infact an excuse used to describe MISHANDLING,rather than a Stall of the blades. Mighty Gem – makes a point with regard to this and I’m sorry that it happened to you …. As long as you only dented the pride as opposed to yourself …. Do we know each other???

1. The term FENESTRON stall became obselete within the RN when - as a result of careful examination of circumstances surrounding the departure from controlled flight of a number of aircraft being flown by student pilots and some very expereienced instructors at low speed or in the hover.

The Navy severely damaged several airframes as a result and felt compelled to look deeper into the problem …….. they visited Aerospatiale and carried out some extreme flight tests in the hover …….all captured on video and all VERY ALARMING to watch. The aircraft was put in a spot turn to the left and then allowed to continue to turn …… the rotation was allowed to accelerate and at a point where the rotation was becoming almost disorientating the opposite (RH) pedal was applied using FULL deflection. It caused a massive sustained overtorque but the aircraft rotation stopped (as I recall) pretty much as described by Mighty Gem(within about 270 – 360 deg). These test were carried out at differing rates of rotation and different amounts of opposite pedal were used. The final outcome – illustrated that the aircraft is able to recover from a high rotational left turn but needed FULL APPLICATION of the opposite pedal. It would also cause a massive overtorque and was obviously a flight regime to be avoided.

2. The RN then decided that the term FENESTRON STALL – was no longer valid and the term YAW DIVERGENCE was born – which actually described the problem fairly well. The recovery action required from any apparent loss of control in a LH spot turn was to apply – FULL Right pedal. If FULL RH pedal was not applied – there was a risk that the aircraft might not recover and continue to suffer the YAW DIVERGENCE – which manifested itself as an increasing acceleration to the left. By way of demonstration – I used to show student pilots an incipient level of the problem:

I used to sit in the hover into wind and I would apply……1-2 inches of RH pedal, the aircraft would Yaw right and settle reasonably quickly within 20 – 40 deg of I/W heading (approx). I would then return the aircraft to the I/ w position and repeat the process with 1-2 inches of left pedal ….the aircraft would continue past the 40 deg point and begin to accelerate, if left uncontained, the rotation would continue to accelerate in a dynamic and unstable way. I used to start recovery after 360 deg before any excessive yaw rate had developed. The demonstration was effective and illustrated the caution required in handling low speed left hand yaw applications.

3. YAW DIVERGENCE – incidents were significantly reduced as a result of the increased awareness and if encountered were prevented by using the FULL application of the RH pedal. It is believed that many of the occurrences and incidents involving alleged F/STALL were infact errors or misinterpretation in handling; and whilst many pilots believed they had applied FULL RH pedal it is considered likely that they never achieved FULL DEFLECTION in order to counter the problem. Many of the incidents were dealt with as if they had experienced a TR FAILURE – ie shutting the engine down . The subsequent high rotation – perceived as a TR FAIL’ and the ensuing EOL combined to make a mess of several airframes.
Sorry that I have taken so much time to explain what MIGHTY GEM said in a few lines – but it perhaps puts some background into the thinking behind the MYTH. It would be good to get the views of the Light Blue and Green – if possible?

Robbiee 28th Jun 2022 14:22

I almost hate to ask, but what's the difference between "undemanded yaw" and LTE?


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:40.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.