Helicopter crash at breighton east yorks
Discussion
Eric Mc said:
Why should one crash bring about more crashes. Some people are totally dumb.
I don't think that was the context. The basis of the crash concern appears to be people flying lower and lower, not this particular crash.This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
Why should one crash bring about more crashes. Some people are totally dumb.
I don't think that was the context. The basis of the crash concern appears to be people flying lower and lower, not this particular crash.This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
telecat said:
Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
Why should one crash bring about more crashes. Some people are totally dumb.
I don't think that was the context. The basis of the crash concern appears to be people flying lower and lower, not this particular crash.This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
Mave said:
I don't think that was the context. The basis of the crash concern appears to be people flying lower and lower, not this particular crash.
This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
It's still a bit dumb.This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
I'm sure this helicopter crash had nothing to do with it "flying lower". It probably was a mechanical problem.
In fact, I am sure that the fact that the crash happened from a fairly low altitude was instrumental in everybody surviving it.
Mave said:
Eric Mc said:
Why should one crash bring about more crashes. Some people are totally dumb.
I don't think that was the context. The basis of the crash concern appears to be people flying lower and lower, not this particular crash.This crash simply validated their previously expressed concerns.
Obviously the 'media' will be after headline grabbing scare stories, but the reality is any accident should lead to safety improvements.
In this country we have the very excellent AAIB, and through their thoroughness it should be clearly established what caused this particular accident.
In most cases it isn't one cause - most accidents follow a number of preventative incidents - so they will look at a range of factors such as the helicopter design, its maintenance history , the pilot's background and flying skills, the weather on the day, the operational procedures at the airfield and the general 'culture' of all concerned.
The eventual report will be highly critical of any weaknesses in the system and will apportion blame where necessary in order to prevent reoccurrences. That way, we can all learn from what happened and fly safer in the future.
In the meantime, yes, there will be rumour and conjecture, but that's human nature.
Saw this report in the local paper
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15410231.Investiga...
Here is the AAIB report
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation...
Conclusion
The helicopter was well maintained, serviceable and in good condition prior to the accident.
All the damage to the helicopter’s structure, its components and systems is attributable
to the main rotor disc striking the tail boom structure in the vicinity of the stabiliser cross
tube. There was no evidence of pre-accident defects of the flying controls or transmission
system which could have led to the rotor disc colliding with the tail boom, therefore it
probably occurred as result of control inputs.
The helicopter was close to or above the MAUW of 1,588 kg (3,500 lb). Also, the CG was
towards the forward limit of the allowable range detailed in the Flight Manual, thus the
margin of clearance of the rotor disc from the tail boom in flight may have been reduced,
increasing the risk of the disc striking the tail boom.
It is probable that whilst a quick stop was carried out, coarse control inputs associated
with the dynamic manoeuver caused the main rotor disc to contact the tail boom.
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/15410231.Investiga...
Here is the AAIB report
https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/aaib-investigation...
Conclusion
The helicopter was well maintained, serviceable and in good condition prior to the accident.
All the damage to the helicopter’s structure, its components and systems is attributable
to the main rotor disc striking the tail boom structure in the vicinity of the stabiliser cross
tube. There was no evidence of pre-accident defects of the flying controls or transmission
system which could have led to the rotor disc colliding with the tail boom, therefore it
probably occurred as result of control inputs.
The helicopter was close to or above the MAUW of 1,588 kg (3,500 lb). Also, the CG was
towards the forward limit of the allowable range detailed in the Flight Manual, thus the
margin of clearance of the rotor disc from the tail boom in flight may have been reduced,
increasing the risk of the disc striking the tail boom.
It is probable that whilst a quick stop was carried out, coarse control inputs associated
with the dynamic manoeuver caused the main rotor disc to contact the tail boom.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 14th July 09:42
I did see the reconstructed helicopter at Farnborough whilst the AAIB were carrying out their investigation.
Unfortunately, if the a/c exceeds its MAUW or CofG limits, the flight is technically illegal, and would give the insurers an opt out.
Don't know if that's the case here as the margins were very tiny. However, in the operating manual, it will normally warn that, at higher weight limits the a/c should be flown very cautiously with no abrupt or high load manoeuvres, and it seems that a 'quick stop' caused the main rotors to contact the tail.
A great shame, whilst enthusiasts were probably enjoying a great day in a nice helicopter, but a reminder that the limitations are there for a reason.
Unfortunately, if the a/c exceeds its MAUW or CofG limits, the flight is technically illegal, and would give the insurers an opt out.
Don't know if that's the case here as the margins were very tiny. However, in the operating manual, it will normally warn that, at higher weight limits the a/c should be flown very cautiously with no abrupt or high load manoeuvres, and it seems that a 'quick stop' caused the main rotors to contact the tail.
A great shame, whilst enthusiasts were probably enjoying a great day in a nice helicopter, but a reminder that the limitations are there for a reason.
The AAIB report is fairly clear on the cause of this accident...HA-PPC was a super old aircraft and was in the best of shape having only recently been overhauled to the highest standard. Nigel was a true enthusiast and devoted himself to his passions. He was the kindest , warmest guy you could wish to meet........I type this on a laptop supplied by Nigel.....super laptop....the day after the crash, i texted Nigel and we batted texts back and forth.....my last text to him said how good the laptop was and that it was the only machine he had touched that week that had'nt crashed....... miss him.
Steve Hislop was flying a Robinson R44, which as a two-blade teetering rotorhead, and very susceptible to 'mast bumping' which can quickly lead to the blades going through the helicopter (sometimes through the cabin!). Not nice, and the cause of many unfortunate Robinson accidents, which is why they divide opinion. Robinson's safety programme teaches avoidance techniques, but S.H. was relatively inexperienced and made some basic errors.
The Aloutte II has a fully-articulated three-blade rotorhead, which is more sophisticated, and blade contact is far less common and quite unusual, but must have been exacerbated by the circumstances and loading - unfortunately.
The Aloutte II has a fully-articulated three-blade rotorhead, which is more sophisticated, and blade contact is far less common and quite unusual, but must have been exacerbated by the circumstances and loading - unfortunately.
4x4Tyke said:
The report implies pilot error, but surely it should be impossible by design for the rotors to hit the tail.
I understand this was an historic craft but that doesn't change the fact this is clearly a design flaw/limitation from a time these sort of this were less understood or able to be modelled.
You said it yourself, it's a design limitation, exceed those limits and things can go wrong, just like any machine.I understand this was an historic craft but that doesn't change the fact this is clearly a design flaw/limitation from a time these sort of this were less understood or able to be modelled.
Geneve said:
Steve Hislop was flying a Robinson R44, which as a two-blade teetering rotorhead, and very susceptible to 'mast bumping' which can quickly lead to the blades going through the helicopter (sometimes through the cabin!). Not nice, and the cause of many unfortunate Robinson accidents, which is why they divide opinion. Robinson's safety programme teaches avoidance techniques, but S.H. was relatively inexperienced and made some basic errors.
The Aloutte II has a fully-articulated three-blade rotorhead, which is more sophisticated, and blade contact is far less common and quite unusual, but must have been exacerbated by the circumstances and loading - unfortunately.
R44 pilot here. Keep the disc loaded and your fine. Teetering heads are perfectly safe as long as you respect their limits and fly in accordance with your training. When you don't adhere to one or the other you come unstuck quickly.The Aloutte II has a fully-articulated three-blade rotorhead, which is more sophisticated, and blade contact is far less common and quite unusual, but must have been exacerbated by the circumstances and loading - unfortunately.
Personally I think the R44 is a fantastic machine in terms of £/payback ratio and before the armchair experts kick in, yes I also have non Robinson turbine time in my heli logbook to use as a comparison.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff