Scotland Helicopter Crash
Discussion
AAIB say crash caused by double engine failure as a result of fuel supply problem.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bullet...
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bullet...
Edited by ralphrj on Friday 14th February 14:44
It's an interim report at the moment.
It can be read in full here -
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bullet...
Oops - there wasn't a link posted in the previous post.
It can be read in full here -
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/special_bullet...
Oops - there wasn't a link posted in the previous post.
amancalledrob said:
You'd expect it to have autorotated, wouldn't you? I wonder what happened
Exactly, a very curious incident.AAIB still trying to establish:
1. Why the engines flamed out when there was still 76kg of fuel onboard.
2. Why no emergency call from the Pilot.
3. Why the Pilot wasn't able to autorotate.
Page not found coming up for me on the interim report. Even when I found it through Google and relinked it the page throws a wobbler, but is linked in the below article and works that way:
BBC Article
Sounds like it raises as many questions as it answers, but good that they're keeping a steady stream of information coming out as and when appropriate.
BBC Article
Sounds like it raises as many questions as it answers, but good that they're keeping a steady stream of information coming out as and when appropriate.
ralphrj said:
amancalledrob said:
You'd expect it to have autorotated, wouldn't you? I wonder what happened
Exactly, a very curious incident.AAIB still trying to establish:
1. Why the engines flamed out when there was still 76kg of fuel onboard.
2. Why no emergency call from the Pilot.
3. Why the Pilot wasn't able to autorotate.
both transfer pumps were turned off, so as soon as the fuel level in the main tank was below the 'dam', the supply tanks would start to run down, till, as in this case, they ran out.
it would appear the pilot ignore the LOW FUEL 1 / LOW FUEL 2 warnings or did not understand their significance (ie, checked with the main tank gauge, check transfer pump switches)
either way, on receipt of these warnings, the manufacturer’s flight manual for the helicopter instructs the pilot to ‘LAND WITHIN 10 MINUTES’.
that clearly did not happen.
ralphrj said:
Exactly, a very curious incident.
AAIB still trying to establish:
1. Why the engines flamed out when there was still 76kg of fuel onboard.
2. Why no emergency call from the Pilot.
3. Why the Pilot wasn't able to autorotate.
It seems that 1) may be linked to the fact that the transfer pumps were switched off..? Fuel available in main tank (albeit seemingly below the operator minimums demanding an immediate landing)AAIB still trying to establish:
1. Why the engines flamed out when there was still 76kg of fuel onboard.
2. Why no emergency call from the Pilot.
3. Why the Pilot wasn't able to autorotate.
You wonder about some form of incapacitation..
GadgeS3C said:
essayer said:
You wonder about some form of incapacitation..
skimming that report it's hard to see a pilot of that experience could have got it wrong otherwise.the fact that no radio call at fuel warning was given suggests the pilot was not 100% situational aware...
Edited by Scuffers on Friday 14th February 16:00
Scuffers said:
yes, it's not like from first fuel warning you have no time to react, you have more than 10 mins fuel at that point, also, as the two feed tanks are different sized, one engine would flame out before the other, more warning of impending doom before total failure...
the fact that no radio call at fuel warning was given suggests the pilot was not 100% situational aware...
This is total speculation from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about the fact that no radio call at fuel warning was given suggests the pilot was not 100% situational aware...
Edited by Scuffers on Friday 14th February 16:00
you don't hear that often on PH!
but if the pilot had been incapacitated for several minutes would things not have gone wrong sooner? Or would the passengers have been able to use the radio?
AAIB Report said:
Commander’s Flying Experience 5,592 hours (of which 646 were on type)
Last 90 days - 38 hours
Last 28 days - 192 hours
It is a real puzzler. From the diagram, the engines pick up the fuel from the sub-tanks, which were both effectively empty. Plenty (enough anyway) in the forward tank, but nothing being pumped to the sub-tanks. That part is relatively simple. Zero comms and zero rotor speed are the big head-scratcher. It all seems to point to the pilot having autorotated and flared way too early, and lost all rotor inertia at considerable altitude. Last 90 days - 38 hours
Last 28 days - 192 hours
Maybe the comms gear dropped out quickly due to low voltage when both generators powered down? That should be easy enough to check, as all the equipment seems to have been functionally undamaged.
Kudos to the design and development engineers who worked on the fuel tanks, fuel supply system and engines though. From the report, they remained largely intact and functional despite high shock loads.
GadgeS3C said:
This is total speculation from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about
you don't hear that often on PH!
but if the pilot had been incapacitated for several minutes would things not have gone wrong sooner? Or would the passengers have been able to use the radio?
How so?you don't hear that often on PH!
but if the pilot had been incapacitated for several minutes would things not have gone wrong sooner? Or would the passengers have been able to use the radio?
All i am doing is quoting the aib report and parts of the ec135 manual.
Simple facts are that for whatever reason, the pilot did not react to the main tank fuel gauge, did not turn the xfer pumps on, then did not react to the low fuel warnings from running tanks 1 and 2, carried on for another 12-17 minutes before both engines flamed out.
At any point, switching on the xfer pumps would have gained them access to the remaining 73kg of fuel.
I'm probably being stupid here, but why didn't he autorotate, was he totally confused and essentially he simply dropped with no inertia in the blades into the roof?
Remembering images in the media at the time the blades didn't have any evidence of being 'bent' which leads me to believe they weren't turning.
As a non-pilot it doesn't make any sense to me
Remembering images in the media at the time the blades didn't have any evidence of being 'bent' which leads me to believe they weren't turning.
As a non-pilot it doesn't make any sense to me
Scuffers said:
GadgeS3C said:
This is total speculation from someone that doesn't know what they're talking about
you don't hear that often on PH!
but if the pilot had been incapacitated for several minutes would things not have gone wrong sooner? Or would the passengers have been able to use the radio?
How so?you don't hear that often on PH!
but if the pilot had been incapacitated for several minutes would things not have gone wrong sooner? Or would the passengers have been able to use the radio?
All i am doing is quoting the aib report and parts of the ec135 manual.
Simple facts are that for whatever reason, the pilot did not react to the main tank fuel gauge, did not turn the xfer pumps on, then did not react to the low fuel warnings from running tanks 1 and 2, carried on for another 12-17 minutes before both engines flamed out.
At any point, switching on the xfer pumps would have gained them access to the remaining 73kg of fuel.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff