Was once with an FAC (forward air controller) attempting to contol a USAF A10 on to a target. He gave the instruction 'right 9 o'clock!'. The young man in the A10 was ahead of the game (and us) as he inverted and then asked which way?

Anyone able to directly control an A-10 is a better man than I Gunga Din!

As soon as they left the IP, all you could do was confirm they were looking at the correct target, clear them in and get the flask out. They seemed to enjoy taking out the Porsches at various points around the Nürburgring on one particular exercise, and the enemy command bunker cunningly disguised as the Mercedes building, took quite a hammering that day …

… Clear Dry! :ok:

Just a mo choppy old bean, it was you that came out with the worlds worst analogy in this thread of; "That's almost as bad as saying "The car took a left turn, viewed from the front or the rear?" "!
… especially as you make it clear that even in reverse you would turn left when told to turn vehicle left regardless of the viewpoint.

Are you a retired AFV recognition instructor with a garden full of silver birch trees and models of T-64's, with the searchlight (if fitted) on the right side of the barrel, 'when viewed from the front' :8
1 BR Corps Recognition Guide

You seem to be going round in circles, however I'm just trying to work out in which apparent direction :p

since it was probably due to the tail rotor being disabled by the fence then the observer must have been applying the 'universal standard' :}

Aircraft Response Vs Cause
 

I can’t believe that this forum has focused on the response of the machine and not the very probable cause. Once again, an AS-350 crashed and the cause is unknown and due to the resulting post crash fire we may never know the actual cause. Was this ship equipped with a single hydraulic system? If so, a hydraulic drive belt failure could possibly explain the erratic maneuvers and contact with the perimeter fence. The rest is just the result of a potentially survivable crash involving a not so survivable post crash fire.

I guess any damage to the barrier would be a good indicator!

Why is the barrier 'welded up'?

Have you guys looked at this roof on google earth?

The barriers are way out on rails much wider than the pad and the area around it.

But I'm not an aviation professional ( or amateur!) so it may still be tight.

From an engineers perspective, couldn't these be designed with say a 42 degree slope down off the pad for 3 metres then bring the balustrade back up to 1200mm, that way it would be below the level of the pad, but unless you're a free runner, you can't fall off it.

Sid said The only time in my low hours I flew off a similar pinnacle landing pad, there was a barrier at the edge of the pad around the entire perimeter. I was cautioned to rise more than a normal hover before pushing over, or our flight would be quite short. It was there to prevent people from stepping off and soiling the pavement 50 feet below. A retractable barrier makes much sense for reducing the obstacles to flight, but I don't think the laws allow for it here. I can just see someone going over the side during the 2 minutes that the barrier is down for TO/Ldng, and lawyers cueing to sue for the barrier not being fixed.

NTSB Prelim report

NTSB Identification: WPR14FA137
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, March 18, 2014 in Seattle, WA
Aircraft: EUROCOPTER AS 350 B2, registration: N250FB
Injuries: 2 Fatal,1 Serious.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On March 18, 2014, about 0740 Pacific daylight time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B2, N250FB, was destroyed when it impacted terrain following takeoff from the KOMO TV Heliport (WN16), Seattle, Washington. The helicopter was registered to, and operated by Helicopters Inc., Cahokia, Illinois, under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The commercial pilot and one passenger were fatally injured and one person, located in a stationary vehicle, was seriously injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the local repositioning flight that was originating at the time of the accident. The pilot's intended destination was the Renton Municipal Airport (RNT), Renton, Washington.

Multiple witnesses located adjacent to the accident site reported observing the helicopter lift off from the helipad and begin a counterclockwise rotation. The witnesses stated that the helicopter pitched downward, while continuing the counterclockwise rotation, and descended into an occupied vehicle and terrain near the intersection of 4th Avenue and Broad Street; postimpact fire ensued.

Preliminary review of three security camera recordings, provided by the Seattle Police Department, revealed that the helicopter initially landed at WN16. The videos depicted the helicopter stationary on the helipad for about 15 minutes prior to takeoff. Further review revealed during the takeoff sequence, the helicopter began rotating counterclockwise and ascending slightly in a near level attitude. The helicopter continued rotating counterclockwise for about 360 degrees of rotation before it pitched forward in a nose low attitude. The helicopter continued the counterclockwise rotation in a nose low attitude until it disappeared from the camera's field of view.

Examination of the accident site revealed that the helicopter came to rest on its right side, oriented on a magnetic heading of about 050 degrees. A vehicle located east of the main wreckage was fire damaged. Another vehicle, located immediately west of the main wreckage was oriented on a southerly heading and exhibited downward crushing of the roof and hatchback structure. All major structural components of the helicopter were located in the immediate area of the main wreckage. Wreckage debris was located within an approximate 340 foot radius to the main wreckage.

The wreckage was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Various components were retained by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge for further examination.

Spinning counterclockwise suggests tail rotor fault. Did this model have the throttle control twist grip on the lever or in a silly position on the cockpit floor/roof? If so, BAD DESIGN.

B2 have the silly lever on the floor. CC-spin does make tail rotor failure a culprit.

How many of you pprune experts argued about the direction of rotation?

Any of you naysayers care to admit how wrong you were?

Boudreaux Bob
I notice Bob, that you didn't make any comment when the discussion was going on, but now the initial report is out, you have voiced a firm stance :rolleyes:

It's not a matter of being wrong or right, because if you actually read the very first comment on the direction of rotation you would have read;

The fact of the matter is that the direction of rotation would appear to be different depending on where the person making that comment was viewing the ac from. I think that point was cleared up.

Now that we have a report, a report using a 'universal standard' (although the aircraft yawed to the left might be a clearer description) can we can now assume a tail problem for whatever reason?


Anyway, there's no mention of any contact with the barrier.
Looking at it from a different angle, it doesn't appear to be too high in relation to the pad surface;

http://media.komonews.com/images/660...ed_helo_2a.jpg

Oh goody, a conspiracy theory. MH370 was beginning to disappoint (well, other than the hard-core tinfoil hat folk).

What are all these other cases of "unknown cause" AS350 crashes that you're referring to?

... well I got it the right (or should i say Starboard:p) way around.

That is a bunch of BS.....the frame of reference determines the direction of rotation and that is always the Longitudinal axis of the helicopter centered upon the Mast on single rotor helicopters as is the aircraft in question.

Have you never been involved in an accident investigation?

One uses a standard reference datum for the aircraft.

Seems you are very secure in your opinions.

Assuming is always a dangerous enterprise but I see you are quite comfortable in taking risks.

Bob, if you don't mind me calling you Bob, please read the previous posts on the matter and you'll learn that we weren't discussing assumption, but apparency :ugh:


I'd love to know where that came from and what risks those may be. Besides, if you have a problem with me, text me. If you don't have my number then that means you don't know me well enough to have a problem with me.

Sid,



I took no position on the matter as I was not privy to the facts.

Just as you and so many were not.

I wisely elected to wait until reliable info came into the public realm.

You and others did not and continue to make assumptions based on mere speculation as evidence by the quote above.

I merely pointed out those facts to you.

It would appear you have made yourself an "Expert" with scant basis for doing so.

Deal with facts and make far fewer assumptions and you might one day appear to be a credible commentator of events.

Bob;
When will you start reading threads before posting on them?
I made no assumptions, I highlighted the fact that the eye witness stated that the aircraft appeared to rotate counter clockwise. We don't know where that eye witness was standing and we certainly don't know if they were using a standard reference because of the use of the phrase 'appeared to'.

Because this direction of rotation was apparent to an individual, the true direction of rotation wasn't necessarily the one described. Just because someone sees an object appear to do something, doesn't mean it did!

http://www.thirdeyehealth.com/images...llusions-2.gif


Has 'Ye Olde Pilot' been resurrected?

Here are just 3 I'm familiar with:

Vortex ring state blamed

No conclusion here

Pilot error