Helicopter safety
 

Hi all! First post here from a long time helicopter enthusiast looking for thoughts from professionals...

Just wondered if you anyone could offer insight in helicopter safety worldwide. Someone I know tweeted that an helicopter that recently made an emergency landing was very lucky as when something mechanical goes wrong with helicotpers they normally "drop out of the sky", hence why they have to follow waterways where possible in the UK.

He also added that stats for helicopter crashes were "way worse" than for planes...

From what I've read, it's simply not true that they almost always drop out of the sky (they can do in case of tail rotor issues, but in other cases you can use autorotation and other forms of emergency landings), but they fly over water where possible because they fly low and can't glide as far. And I also read 3/4 of crashes are survived.

As for stats, I read that in the U.S., airliners aside, helicopters are actually slightly safer than small planes. And even when comparing helicopters to general aviation stats (so including airliners), it seems helicopters are only slightly worse, not way worse. Didn't find stats for Europe but can't imagine it'd be that different as to be "way worse". Apparently his mate is a UK transport lawyer and told him that helicopter safety is "horrific".

Wonder what your thoughts were? 😀

The numbers per flight hour for helicopters are somewhere between commercial airlines and private small planes. If you go by traveled passenger miles there is a huge difference between commercial airlines and helicopters.

However there are also differences between helicopter operators. Large operators generally have better safety stats than small ones (better organsiations for maintenance and training). North America, EU, Japanese operators have better safety stats than South America, Eastern Europe, Central Asia and Afrika. These differences can be more than 100 fold in the statistics.

There are particularily dangerous flight regimes (hover in intermediate altitude above ground, hover in the mountains, landing in urban areas or on slopes) that are simply not possible with fixed wing aircraft. Therefore safety comparisons are even more difficult.

Landing with failed engines is possible with so called autorotation. This can be even possible with failed tail rotor, if there is sufficient forward speed and the stabilizer provides antitorque. This means in similar flight conditions where a fixed wing aircraft can land, a helicopter can land, too. However the gliding distance is much shorter.

Flying low is more dangerous than flying high and waterways are dangerous places to land with a helicopter.

I can't remember the exact numbers but way more than 3/4 of crashes are survived (probably depends on the definition of "crash").

If you want to see horrible safety stats then look for ultralight and Paragliding.

Thanks! So that broadly confirms what I had read. I assume US and Europe safety is quite similar?

With regards to autorotation, I had previously read this was taught to all new pilots as basic training (land with engines shut off), and is apparently even easier to learn than hovering. However the person I was talking to said in real life scenarios, "the number of successful auto-rotates performed is in single figures" and "in reality helicopters fall out of the sky". Is this true?

The US Private Pilot Rotorcraft Practical Test Standards require the applicant to demonstrate their ability to autorotate. Per page 1-18:

B. TASK: STRAIGHT IN AUTOROTATION REFERENCES: FAA-H-8083-21; POH/RFM.
Objective. To determine that the applicant:
1. Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to a straight in autorotation terminating with a power recovery to a hover.
2. Selects a suitable touchdown area.
3. Initiates the maneuver at the proper point.
4. Establishes proper aircraft trim and autorotation airspeed, ±5 knots.
5. Maintains rotor RPM within normal limits.
6. Compensates for windspeed and direction as necessary to avoid undershooting or overshooting the selected landing area.
7. Utilizes proper deceleration, collective pitch application to a hover.
8. Comes to a hover within 200 feet of a designated point.

For a commercial rotorcraft certificate the standard is within 50 feet of a designated point.

Depending on the pilot it can be easier, the same, or harder. For me it was easier.

Total nonsense. As usual, successful auto's don't make media headlines. All the media prints is that a helicopter made an emergency landing. They don't wax poetic about whether it was due to an autorotation or not. But if a helicopter crashes, then it automatically "fell out of the sky".

Helicopters only fall out of the sky if the pilot allows the helicopter to lose rotor RPM below a certain value, which can happen even in powered flight where nothing at all is wrong with the helicopter, or the helicopter undergoes a dramatic mechanical failure (loss of a main rotor blade, loss of a tailboom which can happen for a variety of reasons, etc.). Low RPM accidents are, unfortunately, not all that rare, and are a failure of pilot decision making and/or technique. Serious mechanical failures like shedding a rotor blade, while dramatic like the crash of an airliner, are similarly exceedingly rare.

It is probably fair to say that some (many?) emergency autorotations often result in damage to the helicopter, typically a rollover on touchdown, which may be due to the unavailability of suitable terrain or poor technique. If the day ever comes for me where I have to perform an autorotation in anger, all things being equal I'd rather roll one at touchdown due to a failure of my piloting technique than "fall out of the sky". The first is eminently survivable, the latter is not. Not to say that my intent would not be a perfect autorotation, because it certainly will be!

Thing is, we all know we can hover because we do it often.
On the other hand most pilots have only ever practiced autos and are yet to find out if they are any good at it.
Good news is the Robbie drivers will probably find out first :}

Most accidents are from people doing autos in training, but the real autos are relatively rare.

In 15,000 hrs I would have done thousands of practice autos, but NEVER in 45 years had a real auto or even an engine problem.

Good points, all (except for the Robbie crack ;)). I was answering the question about what was easier for me to learn. But you are absolutely right, BR: after the initial learning period we hover all the time but rarely autorotate.

Personally I make it a point to grab an instructor and practice autos quarterly, rather than be one of those pilots that only does them during a biennial flight review. By shear coincidence, I'll be doing my first quarter 2021 practice tomorrow.

I must have been doing it wrong all these years I will need to look out for a waterways then

To the OP: it would appear that the Twitter account that you saw is based on the principle of ‘a little knowledge is a dangerous thing’.

Have you got a link to the account, please? Maybe someone could then correct the author’s misunderstandings.

B73 - if the twitter accounts owner tweets based on you'll find his account has just been permanently suspended in the USA:)

As an aside, I was involved (as a passenger) with professional helicopter firms for television for a few years a while back, and I only once witnessed the pilot climb up and have a really good look at the main rotor hub and all its ball joints and tie rods etc. before starting up. And on this one occasion, the CAA were in attendance !!

That is just stupid

Uplinker, I don’t know who you were flying with but checking the rotor head on any helicopter is an essential part of the daily check.

Not surprising, seeing that most accidents happen at the departure or approach-and-landing phases, but sector times and lengths, and passengers per aircraft, are far greater in commercial airliners than in helicopters. A one-hour sector in a 100-seat airliner at 300mph gets you 30,000 passenger-miles - a half-hour sector in a 4-seat helicopter at 100mph gets you 200 passenger-miles - but each aircraft does just one takeoff and one landing. Numbers per sector would be more useful.

Surely less dangerous than the streets and houses of a city centre. As I understand it, the restriction of single-engine helicopters to waterways in major conurbations like London is not for the safety of the helicopter but for the safety of the people underneath.

One of the obvious differences in failure modes between fixed and rotary wing is predicated on the fact that the lifting surfaces on a helicopter are spinning at around 400 rpm and are connected to the airframe via a very complex system of hinges, pivots, drive shafts, dampers, bearings and tie-bars. Not only is this engineering triumph spinning at 400 rpm, but it is (hopefully) finely balanced and tracked to provide a smooth ride. On a fixed wing, the lifting surfaces are fixed with bolts, fasteners, spars and welding and are an integral part of the airframe, attached in a far more sedate and civilized manner.

"So what" you ask?

Back to failure modes. You can do some serious damage to a wing assembly and still stay safely in the air. There are plenty of examples in history of losing quite important bits from a wing, and in the case of an Israeli F-15, almost the entire wing, only to land relatively safely and have a great story to tell in the bar. Not so with a helicopter. If you are unfortunate enough to either lose a piece of the spinny bits on top, or have something cause an major imbalance, the natural desire of the helicopter is to try and shake itself to pieces, shedding all the important bits along the way. It doesn't need to be the whole blade (which is instantly catastrophic), the loss of a tip cap, trim tab or chunk of filler will all cause your work/life balance to deteriorate rapidly.

Luckily these are rare events, but in terms of suffering damage to a rotating assembly, it will by its very nature lead to unstable and amplifying events. When things go wrong, they go wrong suddenly and violently.

I don't know any more context but it depends if it's the first flight of the day or not. On some types there's no detailed inspection of the rotor head required between flights (turnaround/inter-flight checks), only before the first flight of the day (daily check).

Years ago I did a statistical comparison between helicopters and other modes of transportation, the fatality rate is less than motorcycles operated on public roads.

On a training flight, the most dangerous thing you will do is drive to the airport.

Survived recurrent training today. First auto was a bit rough but serviceable. The remainder smooth. As always, very worthwhile. Perfect practice makes perfect. Sat in the back to watch a newbie's second hour of training. That was far more frightening :} But very educational to this budding CFI.

Which brings up an interesting point about comparison of auto and aircraft accident rates. It might make more sense to base comparison numbers on accidents/trip rather than per mile, as the median aircraft trip might be 500 miles and the median car trip might be 5 miles; the average driver might make 500 trips/year while the flyer might make 5/year......

Years ago I published a spreadsheet of data, itemising every known aviation incident where the primary purpose of the flight was professional aerial filming or photography, for the period 2000 to 2013.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tgfazec7qe...%20ro.xls?dl=0 Please note, at the time, this list was made available privately for fact checking, if there is any conjecture regarding the facts please drop me a line.

It is impossible to statistically compare accident rates because of an extraordinary lack of data.

A few things can be learnt from the list of accident data;
1/ outside of war zones, more media people were killed in aerial filming than all other filming endeavours, combined.
2/ If you are a media professional (or a pilot) and find yourself in an (reportable) emergency situation, there is a 30% chance someone will be killed or seriously injured.
3/ High medium and low hour pilots all make mistakes.
4/ The (obvious) common denominator is the effect of the presence of a film crew on the human performance of the pilot, caused by film crew taking control of flight planning (often mid flight) and pilots overstepping their own safety parameters having succumbed to luvvie fever.
5/ Sudden mechanical failure is very low, but speaking from personal experience, pilots can be lured into keeping the "show on the road" even in the face of a mechanical issue
a), even when taking off for a night flight low level over a capital city despite two tail rotor chip lights on flights earlier in the day. The third chip light went off at 750 feet during an orbit over the city. The following morning the engineer pulled the chip and almost fainted as stuck to it was a topping of large metal bits:(
b)Another was flying a tracking shot of a large boat of the Dutch coast where fog was clinging off-land. A tricky shot as presenter on bow of the boat had to perform a piece to camera. Visibility seaward was a few hundred meters, but landward was better, completely pilots choice to have a look land then revaluate. Production team were aware of cancellation costs ect, I made it dead easy for the pilot to say no. But he said yes, we barely got the shot and he said that it was the most difficult flying he had ever had to do. F*ck that, it was a TV doc not a rescue.
c)A mate who told a pilot to calm down as they were flying a bit too close to a cliff whilst tracking a car, 60 seconds later they crashed.
d) hundred of other incidents !

My advice to camera crew in similar situation (where there is ground action doing its thing) is to makeup an excuse to stop the shoot, because, if a pilot has done something dodgy his judgement is already compromised by the environment and a revision of flight safety whilst still in the same environment may not achieve the desired outcome.

A good rule of thumb is to be aware of the potential pressures on small operators where flight planning and management is not overseen by others.

Another interesting fact, during the period, there were nil bystander fatalities or serious injuries caused by the accidents. I reckon drones have caused more injuries to bystanders than helicopters ever did...

Thankfully the death rate of media crew and their pilots has since lowered, perhaps due to greater awareness and also the increasing use of drones for low and slow filming. It does beg the question that in a decade or so there may be a shortage of pilots with aerial filming experience, on the other hand, due to the massive increase in aerial filming using drones, there will be more media folk and pilots who are aware of the choreography associated with aerial photography.


mjb

How is this to do a "Risk Assessment" on, the idea behind it I believe was to rescue a disabled Minesweeper out of a Minefield without having to send another vessel in to tow it out. I am not a Helicopter Pilot but I would guess that getting the vessel moving would be the major problem, once that period of tension was over it would be a bit less of a problem to keep the vessel moving, still.😰

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....6ce7bf0ce4.png

Helos are regularly used to tow stuff, the first a twenty ton sled on ice, second towing a LPD. tramontana, your snap comes from the following trial.

https://www.alamy.com/nov-11-1957-sh...e69348962.html


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d4c251371a.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c20b1ef765.jpg

The large Red V denotes Gavington was based then as part of HMS Vernon Squadron which I remember well and at the time we had more Ton Class Minesweepers than you could shake a stick at if things went horribly wrong, the picture showing the Chinook is even more startling.