F-HPUX accident just now
 

Crap, I’m heading back to he show to catch departures and been told the Enstrom has crashed into M40 on take off,

i saw it being towed last night after show ended


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f38840cf6.jpeg

fingers crossed for the injured

cheers

Seems par for the course.
We had one over here that ended up in a car park enroute to a show after it stopped producing horsepowers.
They are famously known for spending more time inside than out. :E

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....0ca06b9fd6.png
being reported as hitting a car and 3 injured.

https://news.sky.com/story/madrid-he...-road-13020207

Hope everyone mends ok
testament to the type think if they were in a Robbie they Proberbly wouldn’t have made it

A Robbie probably wouldn’t have crashed.

Just to remind everyone that the Enstrom has probably the best safety record in the world !
super safe handling characteristics and very reliable . Yes I have owned two over the years …

I'm more impressed with where it ended up, right in the middle of the ring.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c2dd976916.jpg

so much for single engine in a built up area or am i missing something from SERA ?

If you ask the single engine guys, they will tell you that the engines of those single engine helos never fail…. 🤔

You've got it backwards. Its twin guys who always claim that singles always fail. :rolleyes:

A twin-engine aircraft has twice the likelihood of an engine failure, perhaps more depending on specifics of installation. The remaining power producing engine is not always enough to continue flight. Even when continued OEI flight is possible, often the best outcome possible requires sacrificing the airframe to maximize survival. IE- you're in a mountain valley, one engine fails but you can continue flight with remaining engine with insufficient power to crest the ridges and insufficient fuel to fly around the mountains.

wasnt asking about single engine failures was curious how they got round SERA rules ?

I guess you are mixing commercial ops rules with private ops.. you are thinking of CAT in a PC3 as opposed to the what this guy was doing.. taking off thus allowed to be where he was..

AnFi has returned!

It's par for the course that everyone got out alive; were you to know the first thing about Enstroms you'd know they have one of, if not the best safety record of any SE helo.
Quite apart from your baseless assumption that the problem was engine failure.
In which case you seem to be telling us that you think Enstrom builds aircraft engines too!
Wow!

"Even when"?
How often does any light twin fail to fly oei once it's accelerated much past translational lift? Only in the most extreme and unusual circumstances, I suggest.

"Often"? Seriously?
Once again more like "in the rarest of cases.."

Devil 49 has a valid point.

Let's take the MBB BO-105 Helicopter for example.....or say a Sikorsky S-58T with Dash 3 engines.....both of which I have flown and love dearly as they are icons in the Helicopter World.

Both had two engines...they both fly fine on two but when they revert to single engined helicopters they incur significant performance handicaps.

Take both of them to elevations and ambient temperatures that we all can agree would be "hot and high" and one is confronted with having reduce useful load weights if you stick to OEI limitations.

Reality is if you do so in utility work you shall soon go broke....financially. One should endeavor to be carrying that excess weight on the cargo hook otherwise the broke part might just be the aircraft and parts of you.

I was once offered a job flying a 105 on an EMS contract in a mountainous area of the East Coast....in the vicinity of where the highest mountain on the East Coast is located.

As I contemplated the wages offered and the idea of flying around in that mountainous area on hot summer nights I quickly realized the pay was not worth it....and politely declined the offer.

Even if you use the philosophy offered by Devil 49 which I would describe as the "Drift down to a run on landing somewhere"....you have to have two things to be successful at that....Height and a place within that glide down distance you can land on safely.

Yes...fly at a weight that affords you full single engine flight and two can be better than one....assuming one does not take out the other before you do on the4 landing....or you are confronted with what Devil 49 describes.

He is exactly right when he says the airframe is a reusable container to be used to safeguard the contents....you and the passengers.

I also suggest that helicopter engines are like Geese....they are life partners and one usually dies shortly after the other. (I suppose the CH-53E is an exceptions to that rule having three engines)

Either way....single or twin...following an engine failure you are going to have to land the helicopter....as there is not one in orbit yet. (well maybe on Mars perhaps).

The style and manner of landing depends on a lot of variables so trying to state with complete accuracy which has its advantage over the other remains a topic of debate.

I prefer the Two Engine kind myself.....but would not flinch to fly a four engine helicopter and hope the laws of probability were on my side of the equation.

I have had engine failures in both singles and twins....and found the twins to be far more a leisurely event.

One afternoon I did experience what amounted to a dual engine failure atop a pinnacle that prevented a landing from the hover that was a nearly religious event and not recommended to others.

What I see in the photo is an excellent bit of airmanship.....that helicopter landed in the spot it did between two road ways with high obstacles all around the landing spot.

The interesting part of this accident investigation will be the Pilot's account and an explanation why all those open areas were not possible landing sites.

The cause will be pretty straight forward as the aircraft and pilot are in pretty good shape.

Not really here in UK one would need to get exemptions to land in a congested area in a single engine.looking at that site i doubt it would be given

Meleagertoo, the airframe is so friging heavy that the poor Lycoming has the bollocks thrashed to get the piece of lard into the air, not surprising it fails, so while Enstrom build good airframes they are too heavy for the engine power.

You just failed flight planning.

On a base check the Chief gave a flight to plan IMC between A and B, OAT, AUW etc etc. Had to tell him not possible as the LSALT was above the single engine capability in the stated atmospheric conditions and AUW. Easiest flight ever. :p

That's about as unscientific and irrational an explanation of engine failure that I've ever heard.Engines operate at the rated power set by the manufacturer. The engine knows nothing of the weight of the aircraft it's attached to, just how many HP its producing. If the aircraft is underpowered it won't fly or won't fly readily. Enstroms do both. Well.
You sound like yet another experience-free knocker of Enstroms.