Huntington Beach helicopter crash
Discussion
I was surprised to not see a thread here about this.
There are a few videos from different angles.
Maybe a seized tail rotor gearbox?
https://youtube.com/shorts/LemUSjYlwQ8?si=dCH8sDQH...
There are a few videos from different angles.
Maybe a seized tail rotor gearbox?
https://youtube.com/shorts/LemUSjYlwQ8?si=dCH8sDQH...
Eric Mc said:
It does show the hallmarks of a tail rotor failure. However, the part flying off (which could be one of the blades of the tail rotor) came off after the helicopter was already in trouble. So I think the tail rotor had already stopped working before bits started falling off.
My thinking: the tail rotor gearbox had a major issue, either internal or mountings came loose, began to seize. The big lump that hits the ground with a thud is, I think, the gearbox/head without blades. The aircraft had lost directional control before the gearbox (?) became detached, so I think we can count out a sheared driveshaft.
Tony1963 said:
Eric Mc said:
It does show the hallmarks of a tail rotor failure. However, the part flying off (which could be one of the blades of the tail rotor) came off after the helicopter was already in trouble. So I think the tail rotor had already stopped working before bits started falling off.
My thinking: the tail rotor gearbox had a major issue, either internal or mountings came loose, began to seize. The big lump that hits the ground with a thud is, I think, the gearbox/head without blades. The aircraft had lost directional control before the gearbox (?) became detached, so I think we can count out a sheared driveshaft.
normalbloke said:
t appears to have lost a pitchlink, shed a single blade first, then the massive TR imbalance then released the remaining blade, then the part of the TR gearbox sat proudly in the car park. Possibly. Maybe. The massive kinetic energy in this wide chorded 222 blades probably helped reduce the injuries to the crew, although conversely, may have added to the injuries on those watching.
Agreed, it’s looking that way. 
Slightly OT but when I tell people I have no problem with flying but wouldn't get in a helicopter, they usually say why not, they're brilliant etc. etc.
I just show them videos like this, catastrophic unrecoverable failure out of nowhere, on a fairly new looking machine. Same goes for hot air balloons actually, great until they fail.
I just show them videos like this, catastrophic unrecoverable failure out of nowhere, on a fairly new looking machine. Same goes for hot air balloons actually, great until they fail.
Peterpetrole said:
Slightly OT but when I tell people I have no problem with flying but wouldn't get in a helicopter, they usually say why not, they're brilliant etc. etc.
I just show them videos like this, catastrophic unrecoverable failure out of nowhere, on a fairly new looking machine. Same goes for hot air balloons actually, great until they fail.
You could also counter that with it’s not a new machine by a long way ( but that should work in its favour if maintained correctly) , that it’s flown by a ppl, possibly in a manner and into an area that’s less than ideal( ie reduces options if something doesn’t behave). I just show them videos like this, catastrophic unrecoverable failure out of nowhere, on a fairly new looking machine. Same goes for hot air balloons actually, great until they fail.
Perception of risk is a funny thing.
Peterpetrole said:
I have no problem with flying but wouldn't get in a helicopter.
Any aircraft can suffer sudden, catastrophic failure. The advantage of a helicopter is that in the absence of catastrophic failure it can glide and land anywhere. Unlike a fixed wing it doesn't need to make it back to an airfield. Big advantage for the helicopter.Panamax said:
Peterpetrole said:
I have no problem with flying but wouldn't get in a helicopter.
Any aircraft can suffer sudden, catastrophic failure. The advantage of a helicopter is that in the absence of catastrophic failure it can glide and land anywhere. Unlike a fixed wing it doesn't need to make it back to an airfield. Big advantage for the helicopter.Eric Mc said:
Unfortunately, the theory that a helicopter might be safer to land following a catastrophic in-flight failure is not backed up by reality.
No-one has said that!! Most failures are non-catastrophic, such as engine cut-out, and you have the opportunity to glide. If a wing comes off your aircraft it's equally catastrophic whether it's a big wing, a small wing, a fixed wing or a rotating wing. Sounds as though people were remarkably lucky with this one.
Panamax said:
Eric Mc said:
Unfortunately, the theory that a helicopter might be safer to land following a catastrophic in-flight failure is not backed up by reality.
No-one has said that!! Most failures are non-catastrophic, such as engine cut-out, and you have the opportunity to glide. If a wing comes off your aircraft it's equally catastrophic whether it's a big wing, a small wing, a fixed wing or a rotating wing. Sounds as though people were remarkably lucky with this one.
Bear in mind a helicopter will have a glide ratio of around 4:1 (approx 1 mile per 1500 feet of altitude) whereas a fixed wing aircraft will be double that. Yes you need less space to land a helicopter but from the same height and airspeed a fixed wing aircraft will stay in the air longer giving the pilot more time to "do the 5 S's" (Size, Shape, Slope, Surface, Surroundings) and pick a landing spot.
All I can say is that even a "simple" failure on a helicopter often results in a catastrophic crash. Yes, there are scenarios where, if the pilot reacts VERY quickly and does PRECISELY the right things in the right order they have a chance of getting the chopper down without total disaster.
But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
Eric Mc said:
All I can say is that even a "simple" failure on a helicopter often results in a catastrophic crash. Yes, there are scenarios where, if the pilot reacts VERY quickly and does PRECISELY the right things in the right order they have a chance of getting the chopper down without total disaster.
But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
How many fairly benign failures are you aware of? I worked on U.K. Apaches for 15 years and in my time we didn t lose a single aircraft. Bear in mind that for much of that they were in a conflict zone. But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
Running out of fuel isn t the helicopter s fault! It often also results in a fixed-wing aircraft having a bad day
Eric Mc said:
All I can say is that even a "simple" failure on a helicopter often results in a catastrophic crash. Yes, there are scenarios where, if the pilot reacts VERY quickly and does PRECISELY the right things in the right order they have a chance of getting the chopper down without total disaster.
But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
That’s never happened in a fixed wing though…But there have been many, many cases of helicopters crashing - even when the failure was fairly benign. A good example is the crash in Glasgow a few years ago when the helicopter simply ran out of fuel. All the controls were functioning and nothing had fallen off - but they still crashed.
Panamax said:
Eric Mc said:
Unfortunately, the theory that a helicopter might be safer to land following a catastrophic in-flight failure is not backed up by reality.
No-one has said that!! Most failures are non-catastrophic, such as engine cut-out, and you have the opportunity to glide. Yes, you can perform an autorotation in the event of an engine failure, but an auto-rotation isn't really gliding by any stretch of the imagination......
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff