That looks to me like the battery compartment... :ooh:

I had flown many 135 from 1997 on, all of them had the bottles installed. Never saw one without. As for the supplements, the SAS is also in there and I've never seen one without

skadi

Welcome to the USA, where those pesky heavy fire bottles can be seen as a weight shave. I'd be surprised if any HAA 135's in the US had them installed.

Discussion of whether fire extinguisher bottle(s) were fitted/used is a moot point considering the location of the fire.

and that the crew seemed unaware they were on fire (ATC recording)

Pretty sure FMS 9-2-9 Engine Fire Extinguisher (available in 1 shot or 2) is required if you are going to use the Cat A supplement.

Isn’t the 135 IFR capable? I would have thought that would require fire suppression, or is that the point of the option?
It’s crazy it’s a choice.

Watching the ABC News vid, the initial shot viewing the port side with ac moving right to left, the ‘source’ may be more inboard, under the ‘connecting flange’.

I wonder if the ac had recently been washed.

If it is an uncontained fuel driven fire, that will be like a blowtorch so no wonder the TRDS and tailboom gave way.

Talking of possible blowtorches, the hydraulic line connectors are directly above the connecting flange, with fluid at a far greater pressure than fuel.
(Hyd@103 bar / Fuel press caution @ 0.6 bar P/W, 1.3 bar Arr2B1)

Effect rather than cause of fire?

This looks like part of the fire was in the boom where it failed?.

It is not the firewalls, the problem is that structure, attaching tailboom and/or tailboom itself failed. Tailboom is completelly made of composite, while attachment flange and fuselage is metal structure - Aluminum and titanium apron and firewalls. I worked many years on EC-135 and am astonished how fast the fire destroyed the primary structure. Like Concorde in Paris.

there was no tailboom baggage compartment on this helicopter-or any separate "baggage compartment" at all, as it is an EC-135 type.

If, as someone suggested above, the initial failure was a turbine burst with blades being shed - that would make a lot of sense Sid.:ok:​​​​​​​

Well, the crew did report an engine failure, so it seems more like the fire was a consequence.

The op link says:

’According to officials, on Monday, the chopper had just taken off from the Pompano Air Park at 8:42 a.m. and was heading to a call in North Lauderdale regarding a car crash where a vehicle hit a bus stop at Prospect Road and State Road 7. Three minutes later, the BSFR helicopter had an engine failure that occurred shortly after takeoff.”

However, it also says… “It is unclear how they managed to maneuver onto the roof.”

:confused:

This was my initial thoughts too, engine failure cause the fire. Seems most likely given engine failure was reported assuming that was correct

If an engine does go bang as opposed to just turning itself off, who knows what collateral damage there could be and to which systems.

Agree. But for a "fuel" fire he's trailing a lot of smoke for a long time if the valve was closed. Oil/Hyd fire something different. Maybe an oil leak ingested by engine causing performance issues then a fire at the end? Have even seen oil leaks on the xsmn deck dump excessive oil down the intake tunnel.

I've heard the ATC tape, but can't find a link. It was on LI.......

They say they had an engine failure and are requesting a priority landing using a runway. ATC (Pompano Tower) clears them to land RWY06 (or, RWY Six, as they say over there.....)