wrench1: I assume you are referring to an 'enhanced' version of the video posted on Reddit? Is that an enhancement you made? If so, are you able to share some screen shots to illustrate? Seems to me it would be difficult to enhance something so apparently low resolution to start with?

In #97 Obba posted a link to a Juan Browne review of the accident and at 6:10 he is of the opinion that the main rotor with its gearbox parted first, but that differs to what most here interpret as what happened, namely that the tail rotor and part of tail boom separated first. That is how I also interpret the various videos when considered together. But many components, including cowlings, must have separated from the main fuselage on the way down, so hard to say what is actually seen in the footage.

An enhanced version of the photo from the NY Post article. Original photo Christopher Sadowski

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e38086e3ea.jpg

"IF" fuel was critically low, wouldn't the pilot elect to land at that jetty when the fuselage crashed, or opt to inflate the skid fitted float bags, and just land safely on the water or the jetty? (maybe experienced pilots could comment)

If referring to the full length version where it shows the aircraft in level flight prior to the break up the yes. But it was done by a friend of which I have no copy. The sequence I noted was the tailboom folding to the right at the same time the nose rotates right then everything goes south. At least thats my interpretation.

Fuel is a red herring. It has nothing to do with what happened here.

The critical thing is how long the MGB stayed attached after something broke, if that was the start of the inflight breakup sequence. If the link broke and shunted the MGB out of alignment, it's feasible those forces could have resulted in a sufficient yaw rate to snap off the tail boom when suddenly faced with 80kts of cross wind. Once the tail boom departed the scene the already compromised MGB mounts failed entirely under additional loads and the MGB with rotors still attached departed the scene.

Some reports imply that he flew helicopters in the Navy, but I'm pretty sure he was an enlisted man, not a Naval Aviator. One report says he learned to fly at Embry Riddle. Someone claiming to be his shipmate says he served with him on an aircraft carrier as a Gunners Mate.
I wonder if he was a Gunners Mate attached (at some time or another) to a support unit in support of a SEAL team or if he actually graduated from BUDS training.

He was a Navy SEAL. His last job prior to moving to NYC was as a co-pilot with a friend of mine Earl on a CH47 for Billings. He moved to NYC to further his aviation career. Sad to see this.

Was up shooting some air to air today in a 407 here in Florida and have to say kept thinking back to what happened in NY the other day and for the first time in a long time I had the nerves going. Even at 500ft high its still a long way down. May they Rest in Peace. :(

One photo of him appeared to be as he sat in the right hand seat of a Blackhawk....might that have been taken during his time in Montana?

There are numerous photos of him at the Billings Face Book page including one of him flying a Chinook during the firefighting season.

This talk of the fuel call being a disguised mayday is fanciful at best. He called for fuel as he no doubt needed fuel, probably like he would do 10 times or more per day! Presumably to get the fuel guy/gal out at the pad ready to hot-fuel, saving time and money.

Kulwin Park: If you took the time to see my above post, you would see that Fuel WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AN ISSUE...
It simply appears that the pilot requested that he might need re-fueling on landing, as one assumes he had another flight.

Considering the StrechedBanger was made from the 70's through to around 2017, with thousands made, and an enormous amount of flight hours, it is a proven platform.
There is no indication what actually happened nor the root cause. It is not used for scheduled passenger services, nor can it carry hundreds of people, which authorities tend to treat with much greater caution.

You could speculate that one of the mounts failed, as was made further up in this discussion.
If that were the case, there have been 3 previous accidents, all which survived, two landed in one piece, one rolled over, and were ultimately attributed to inadequate maintenance.
They all involved partial loss of control, and reports of the nose pitching up and a roll to the left.

On such a mature type, It is highly unlikely that this an inherent flaw, or something previously undiscovered.

"It is not used for scheduled passenger services"

Oddly enough, it has been, in what was then the largest helicopter network, between Glasgow and various destinations in the west of Scotland, including Fort William, Oban, Rothesay, etc. with a list of exemptions as long as your arm. It was a safe machine then and it is now - this I feel is a one-off, like the incidents with the 212 and TT straps. As bell ringer says, it is a proven platform and I believe it was at one time (if not still) the safest single engined aircraft, based on hours flown.

You’d need to ask yourself, which is more likely?

1. Tail boom folds and subsequently the main gearbox disconnects

2, The main gearbox disconnected and the tail boom folded

Some will assume, because it is the first thing we see, that the tailboom failure was the cause. However, it's what we can't see that matters.
My feeling is that the tail folding was secondary to the transmission, or mountings, letting go.

(But if you are a follower of British tabloids, it was definitely the Jesus nut) :suspect:

There were a couple of heli’s collided years ago and can be seen on those YouTube shorts where the main rotors collide and the first thing that happens is that the fuselage turns 90 degrees and the tail boom snaps straight off.

What I’m wondering is if it was a catastrophic transmission failure, would the blades keep spinning for an auto rotation, as once the blades and transmission left the fuselage, they were freely rotating with the transmission hanging below, so the transmission wasn’t seized? It’s not possible surely that the blades AND transmission were spinning through the air is it? (Thinking of a child’s toy here)

What about the engine, quite often in these events, something let’s go and the engine rpm goes through the roof; does anyone hear an engine in any of the videos? Mike Pateys turbine Lancair went from cruise RPM to zero in about a second, I fully expected that to at least tear the engine off the mounts or at least some torsional damage, but seemingly nothing.

A case, (re post 80 above)…
https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/188940

If the MRGB is allowed to move (as a result of one of the nodal beams or other fixings giving way), it would twist the TR drive out put which could, feasibly, create enough imbalance and drag along the TRD shaft to overstress the boom and cause it to fail.

What is puzzling is that it looks like the rotors take only the top part of the MRGB with them when they separate rather than ripping the whole gearbox out.

Whatever the initial trigger, it rapidly becomes a catastrophic in flight breakup which even the best pilot in the world wouldn't survive.

Ah, I already knew the theoretical answer, it’s just everyone keeps saying otherwise. My first post theorised the same.

Squawk7000 - I guess this is the paragraph you are referring to in that report So a slipping freewheel suddenly biting again could generate the forces required to make the tail boom fail.

Re-introducing two components turning at different speeds when they are designed to drive at the same speeds is a recipe for disaster - see the Wessex crash in the Welsh lake back in the early 90s - that was a disconnect coupling allowing the TR to slow down and then taking up the drive again as the yaw input was changed.