"GB" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2013 19:38, Nightjar wrote:

Ok...wouldn't that actually simply cause autorotation, and surely gas
turbines don't 'backfire'

If the compressor stalls, they can* and the noise will be similar.
However, the helicopter had an advanced engine management system that
should have prevented compressor stall.

* Airflow through the compressor is disrupted, compression stops or is
seriously reduced and air that has already been compressed reverses
direction and comes out of the intake. The engine will probably flame
out through lack of air and stop.

What would cause that to happen to both engines at the same time?

Pilot, instruments, fuel.

GB writes:

On 09/12/2013 18:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html


This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.


The AAIB report indicates that the rotors were stationery. That's a bit
odd. Why would he have done that?


I've wondered from the beginning if there was *any* fuel at all in the
copter.
That's more common than one would hope it might be ('Gimli Glider', Air
Transat, ...........).

The eventual accident report (maybe years from now) should explain, but
in the meantime a lot of people will want to keep quiet for one reason
or another.

The BBC did say, quite early on, that the manufacturers would not be
taking any action, apparently having decided that the accident was the
result of 'operational factors'.
Maybe they knew something which we still don't.

If there was in fact fuel in the tanks, I would have expected someone
to clearly say so at the time, just because it is an obvious
possibility that there was none.

No fire, and no indication that the fire brigade were worried about the
possibility of fire.

All I did hear was someone saying that the tanks were designed to be
'crash proof' (?) and that the fuel had anti-misting additives to
reduce the likelihood of inflammable vapour. Which says nothing really.

Of course if the spooks were involved we might never know anything.

--
Windmill, Use t m i l l
J.R.R. Tolkien:- @ S c o t s h o m e . c o m
All that is gold does not glister / Not all who wander are lost

Graham. wrote:

The day after, one of the red-tops was heralding the pilot as a hero,
for averting a more serious incident in the final seconds.

Just how much worse did they expect it to be?

With the rotors stationary, I'm not sure that the pilot has any
further means of influencing matters.

It is reminiscent of the reports, following the rail crash at
Grayrigg, like "The train driver, Iain Black from Dumbarton, whom
Virgin trains boss Sir Richard Branson described as a hero after
the crash...". With the emergency brake applied and the train
derailed, all the driver can do is cling on, nothing further can
make a difference.

Chris
--
Chris J Dixon Nottingham UK


Plant amazing Acers.

On 10/12/2013 01:03, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 00:04, Brian Gaff wrote:
The thing is though, you cannot just stop the rotors, as I said
earlier it
would take time to do that, and as it was not that high, there was no
time,
so I'd suggest that bit was wrong.

The AAIB wouldn't have included that statement in their preliminary
report unless they were 100% certain about it.

Also, surely it would be quite easy for AAIB to see whether the rotors
were still turning? They would have smashed against parts of the
building, and the leading edges in particular would have suffered damage.

On 09/12/2013 23:15, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/12/2013 22:53, DerbyBorn wrote:

Perhaps time to mandate a Pilot Voice recorder - built into the helmet.
Recording time could be short - always recording last 2 minutes. Saves on
high G force. Wouldn't cost much.

For single pilot aircraft, it probably won't record much that isn't on a
recording at ATC either.

Reputedly, the most common phrase on modern airliner CRVs is 'I wonder
why it did that' or variants.

I remember, when the children were small, dreading the question: "What
does this button do, Daddy?", because they *always* pressed it at the
same time as asking!

On 10/12/2013 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html


This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.

Or maybe instrument failure.
One depends on them in bad vis.

That is why the blind flying instruments have built in redundancy. Not
that it is relevant as the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Colin Bignell

On 10/12/2013 08:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:58:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html

This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.

How do they know the rotors weren't rotating? Was it just from eye
witness accounts; is there some on-board indicator which tells them,
or was it from the damage, or lack of it, on the rotors themselves?

It would have been from examining the damage to the rotor blades, its
nature and direction of impact.

Colin Bignell

On Monday, 9 December 2013 21:26:50 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 21:21, GB wrote:

On 09/12/2013 19:38, Nightjar wrote:

* Airflow through the compressor is disrupted, compression stops or is
seriously reduced and air that has already been compressed reverses
direction and comes out of the intake. The engine will probably flame
out through lack of air and stop.

What would cause that to happen to both engines at the same time?

probably something pretty unusual. I have never heard of a turboprop
flaming out. A violent manoeuvre might do it I would suppose.

or maybe not..

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332919-...gine-flameout/

Sounds to me like all you have left is the weather. There is a type of wind sheer that is a massive downdraught but I can't recall the name of the phenomenon.

That might not appear on weather reports as it is localised but the overall conditions in which it might occur are well known. What was the date of the event?

On 09/12/2013 22:25, GB wrote:
On 09/12/2013 21:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/12/2013 21:21, GB wrote:
On 09/12/2013 19:38, Nightjar wrote:

Ok...wouldn't that actually simply cause autorotation, and surely gas
turbines don't 'backfire'

If the compressor stalls, they can* and the noise will be similar.
However, the helicopter had an advanced engine management system that
should have prevented compressor stall.

* Airflow through the compressor is disrupted, compression stops or is
seriously reduced and air that has already been compressed reverses
direction and comes out of the intake. The engine will probably flame
out through lack of air and stop.

What would cause that to happen to both engines at the same time?

We don't actually know that it did. In 1989 an aircraft crashed on the
approach to East Midlands airport after the crew shut down the wrong
engine in response to an emergency. They were not the first to make that
mistake.

However, assuming both compressors did stall, it would almost certainly
have to be something external. A bird strike is probably the most common
cause of compressor stall, but both engines would have involved a
multiple strike and that should have left evidence. Other possibilities
are severe air turbulence around the air intakes or ingesting some form
of contamination. Among its other faults, the Starfighter used to suffer
compressor stall after ingesting its own gun smoke.

Amongst .....

Whichever the writer prefers, although I tend towards the Old English
while and among, rather than the Middle English whilst and amongst myself.

German Starfighter crashes

A total of 298 German F-104 Starfighter were lost in accidents, losses
on the ground and damaged beyond repair (including MAP F-104G serial
number 62-12312)
with the tragic death of 116 pilots, but 171 pilots ejected safely, 8
pilots ejected twice

There's a list of the crashes here.
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm

How did they persuade people to fly them?

Military pilots fly what they are given to fly. The RAF lost 22 Vampire
jets, with 10 fatal crashes, in a single year. The German Starfighters
had a particularly unfortunate record. The Americans claimed that was
due to poor maintenance, but the fact that they were a low level variant
and often flew in relatively bad weather were certainly factors.

Colin Bignell

On 10/12/2013 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html



This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one
engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.

Or maybe instrument failure.
One depends on them in bad vis.

That is why the blind flying instruments have built in redundancy. Not
that it is relevant as the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Which translates as Ceiling and Visibility OK

GB wrote:

On 10/12/2013 09:20, Nightjar wrote:

the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Which translates as Ceiling and Visibility OK

They changed the discription from "CAVOK" to "visibility greater than
10km with a few clouds at 4000 feet" as far as I can tell CAVOK implies
no clouds below 5000 feet, so probably little difference in reality,
just getting the facts straight.

On 10/12/2013 09:37, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Monday, 9 December 2013 21:26:50 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 21:21, GB wrote:

On 09/12/2013 19:38, Nightjar wrote:

* Airflow through the compressor is disrupted, compression stops or is
seriously reduced and air that has already been compressed reverses
direction and comes out of the intake. The engine will probably flame
out through lack of air and stop.

What would cause that to happen to both engines at the same time?

probably something pretty unusual. I have never heard of a turboprop
flaming out. A violent manoeuvre might do it I would suppose.

or maybe not..

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332919-...gine-flameout/

Sounds to me like all you have left is the weather. There is a type of wind sheer that is a massive downdraught but I can't recall the name of the phenomenon.

That might not appear on weather reports as it is localised but the overall conditions in which it might occur are well known. What was the date of the event?


From the AAIB report:

At 2220 hrs the weather at GIA (Glasgow airport) was CAVOK with the wind
from 300° at 7 kt, temperature 5°C, dew point 2°C and the QNH was 1025 hPa.

I don't see any especially high buildings in the area that might give
rise to unusual winds.

Colin Bignell

On 10/12/2013 09:44, GB wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html




This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one
engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.

Or maybe instrument failure.
One depends on them in bad vis.

That is why the blind flying instruments have built in redundancy. Not
that it is relevant as the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Which translates as Ceiling and Visibility OK

It translates to visibility 10km, no cloud below 5,000 feet, no
cumulonimbus, precipitation, thunderstorms, snowstorms, dust storms,
shallow fog, low drifting dust, sand or snow.

As Harry has told us he flies gliders, I assume he knows that.

Colin Bignell

On Monday, 9 December 2013 16:58:27 UTC, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html

"The report found that the aircraft struck the building with a “high rate of descent” but little or no forward motion. This tallies with eyewitness reports that it “dropped like a stone”."

Microburst. The word escaped me earlier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downdraught

It would have rotated on engine failure unless impeccably balanced.
Maybe the bangs heard were thunder of some sort or the blades clashing?

"On 29 November 2013, a police helicopter crashed into the Clutha Vaults, a pub on the north bank of the River Clyde in central Glasgow."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Gl...licopter_crash

29 November that is a day to remember. My forecasts for a major geo-physics event went awry on that day. Something to do qwith tornadoes that never occurred IIRC.

Yes, that's right:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!to...er/AA1DGNtatCE[1-25-false]

I seem to recollect that some, at least, F-104s had downward ejection
seats, which wouldn't help much.

Regards

Syke

On 10/12/2013 09:44, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/12/2013 22:25, GB wrote:
On 09/12/2013 21:47, Nightjar wrote:
On 09/12/2013 21:21, GB wrote:
On 09/12/2013 19:38, Nightjar wrote:

Ok...wouldn't that actually simply cause autorotation, and surely gas
turbines don't 'backfire'

If the compressor stalls, they can* and the noise will be similar.
However, the helicopter had an advanced engine management system that
should have prevented compressor stall.

* Airflow through the compressor is disrupted, compression stops or is
seriously reduced and air that has already been compressed reverses
direction and comes out of the intake. The engine will probably flame
out through lack of air and stop.

What would cause that to happen to both engines at the same time?

We don't actually know that it did. In 1989 an aircraft crashed on the
approach to East Midlands airport after the crew shut down the wrong
engine in response to an emergency. They were not the first to make that
mistake.

However, assuming both compressors did stall, it would almost certainly
have to be something external. A bird strike is probably the most common
cause of compressor stall, but both engines would have involved a
multiple strike and that should have left evidence. Other possibilities
are severe air turbulence around the air intakes or ingesting some form
of contamination. Among its other faults, the Starfighter used to suffer
compressor stall after ingesting its own gun smoke.

Amongst .....

Whichever the writer prefers, although I tend towards the Old English
while and among, rather than the Middle English whilst and amongst myself.

German Starfighter crashes

A total of 298 German F-104 Starfighter were lost in accidents, losses
on the ground and damaged beyond repair (including MAP F-104G serial
number 62-12312)
with the tragic death of 116 pilots, but 171 pilots ejected safely, 8
pilots ejected twice

There's a list of the crashes here.
http://www.916-starfighter.de/GAF_crashes.htm

How did they persuade people to fly them?

Military pilots fly what they are given to fly. The RAF lost 22 Vampire
jets, with 10 fatal crashes, in a single year. The German Starfighters
had a particularly unfortunate record. The Americans claimed that was
due to poor maintenance, but the fact that they were a low level variant
and often flew in relatively bad weather were certainly factors.

Colin Bignell

On 10/12/2013 09:56, Andy Burns wrote:
GB wrote:

On 10/12/2013 09:20, Nightjar wrote:

the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Which translates as Ceiling and Visibility OK

They changed the discription from "CAVOK" to "visibility greater than
10km with a few clouds at 4000 feet" as far as I can tell CAVOK implies
no clouds below 5000 feet, so probably little difference in reality,
just getting the facts straight.

The description of visibility greater thah 10 km with a few clouds at
4000 feet was five minutes after take off, CAVOK was noted at the time
of the incident, according to the AAIB report. Both at GIA, which is
five miles from the crash site.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 10/12/2013 09:37, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Sounds to me like all you have left is the weather. There is a type of wind sheer that is a massive downdraught but I can't recall the name of the phenomenon.

That might not appear on weather reports as it is localised but the overall conditions in which it might occur are well known. What was the date of the event?

Windshear wouldn't have stopped the rotor blades. The report notes that
neither the main or tail rotors were rotating at the time of impact. It
doesn't even say that they were "apparently" stationary, so they are
100% certain that they were not rotating.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article , John Williamson johnwilliamson
@btinternet.com scribeth thus
On 10/12/2013 09:37, Weatherlawyer wrote:

Sounds to me like all you have left is the weather. There is a type of wind
sheer that is a massive downdraught but I can't recall the name of the
phenomenon.

That might not appear on weather reports as it is localised but the overall
conditions in which it might occur are well known. What was the date of the
event?

Windshear wouldn't have stopped the rotor blades. The report notes that
neither the main or tail rotors were rotating at the time of impact. It
doesn't even say that they were "apparently" stationary, so they are
100% certain that they were not rotating.



Interesting thread/s here from some chopper pilots...


http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...-crashes-onto-
glasgow-pub-53.html

--
Tony Sayer

On 10/12/13 08:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:58:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html

This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.

How do they know the rotors weren't rotating? Was it just from eye
witness accounts; is there some on-board indicator which tells them,
or was it from the damage, or lack of it, on the rotors themselves?

at a guess the latter

Also, if the power to the rotors stops for some reason, and the
helicopter goes into free fall without changing the angle of attack of
the rotors, they will start to rotate in the opposite direction, which
means that at some point, rate of rotation is zero. Depending on the
height from which it falls, that point of zero rotation may occur just
before or as it hits the ground.

yes...

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 21:26:50 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/12/13 21:21, GB wrote:

probably something pretty unusual. I have never heard of a turboprop
flaming out. A violent manoeuvre might do it I would suppose.

or maybe not..

http://forum.avsim.net/topic/332919-...gine-flameout/


A V S I M

It's someone sat indoors playing flying


--

On 10/12/2013 10:01, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:44, GB wrote:
On 10/12/2013 09:20, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 07:14, harryagain wrote:
"Bob Henson" wrote in message
...
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html





This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one
engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash
was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss
the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.

Or maybe instrument failure.
One depends on them in bad vis.

That is why the blind flying instruments have built in redundancy. Not
that it is relevant as the weather at the time was CAVOK.

Which translates as Ceiling and Visibility OK

It translates to visibility 10km, no cloud below 5,000 feet, no
cumulonimbus, precipitation, thunderstorms, snowstorms, dust storms,
shallow fog, low drifting dust, sand or snow.

As Harry has told us he flies gliders, I assume he knows that.

Colin Bignell

OOI some of us fly other things too.
This speculation is ridiculous and will achieve nothing - wait for those
with access to the information to work out what happened.

On 10/12/2013 13:35, unknown wrote:
....
This speculation is ridiculous and will achieve nothing - wait for those
with access to the information to work out what happened.

It won't solve the reason for the crash, but I disagree that it will
achieve nothing. At the very least it gives those who do not know much
about the subject some indication of what could not happen. On past
performance, the full AAIB report could take anything up to a couple of
years to appear.

Colin Bignell

On 10/12/13 15:40, Nightjar wrote:
On 10/12/2013 13:35, unknown wrote:
...
This speculation is ridiculous and will achieve nothing - wait for those
with access to the information to work out what happened.

It won't solve the reason for the crash, but I disagree that it will
achieve nothing. At the very least it gives those who do not know much
about the subject some indication of what could not happen. On past
performance, the full AAIB report could take anything up to a couple of
years to appear.

Colin Bignell

And still be inconclusive.

Did you watch the series on air accident investigations a few years
back? One crash they reckoned that almost certainly one instrument of a
pair had duff wiring and they switched the good one off..but they never
found the broken joint.

Or the chinook that hit a mountain. Why would the very experienced pilot
pull up into cloud?

The official reason is still IIRC 'pilot error' but chinook pilots say
that if the rotors went into dangerous overspeed due to a wide open
throttle, that was the thing you would do...and this is not an unknown
occurrence.

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:19:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Or the chinook that hit a mountain. Why would the very experienced pilot
pull up into cloud?

Ask the hundreds of other very experienced pilots who discovered the
perils of hard centred clouds. Controlled flight Into terrain even
has its own acronym it is so common (CFIT).

On 10/12/2013 17:14, Peter Parry wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 16:19:47 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

Or the chinook that hit a mountain. Why would the very experienced pilot
pull up into cloud?

Ask the hundreds of other very experienced pilots who discovered the
perils of hard centred clouds. Controlled flight Into terrain even
has its own acronym it is so common (CFIT).


One reason I had a radar altimeter fitted to one of my aircraft.

Colin Bignell

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 16:58:27 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html

This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.

"Around this time, a witness described a noise like a loud “misfiring
car” followed by silence. He then saw the helicopter falling rapidly."

Flame out.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 20:10:41 +0000, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

"Around this time, a witness described a noise like a loud “misfiring
car” followed by silence. He then saw the helicopter falling rapidly."

In aircraft incidents it pays to be very cautious about witness
descriptions. The brain tries to fit reality into its concept of what
reality should be and the two are rarely the same.

For one classic incident I was involved with of controlled flight of a
perfectly serviceable aircraft into a hill witnesses described the
aircraft exploding in the air, burning in the air, tumbling. In fact
almost anything except "flew into hill in straight and level flight"
because "everyone knows" aircraft don't do that..

On 10/12/2013 07:21, Windmill wrote:
Snip
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf
Snippetty snip
If there was in fact fuel in the tanks, I would have expected someone
to clearly say so at the time, just because it is an obvious
possibility that there was none.

The preliminary report linked to ^ up there ^ says that it had 400 kg of
fuel at departure from base and they drained 95 kg of fuel out of it at
the investigation hangar. 95 kg of fuel is about 20% of a full load.

Basically, the report says they have no idea what caused the crash, as
there was plenty of fuel on board, and they haven't yet found any
mechanical faults that couldn't only have been caused by the impact.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On 10/12/2013 07:21, Windmill wrote:
....
I've wondered from the beginning if there was *any* fuel at all in the
copter....

Once the helicopter had been removed from the building, 95 litres of
fuel were drained from the fuel system. No details are given of where it
was found, but the two engine supply tanks between them hold about that
much when full.

Colin Bignell

Windmill wrote:
GB writes:

On 09/12/2013 18:18, Bob Henson wrote:
On 09/12/2013 5:01 PM, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 09/12/13 16:58, The Natural Philosopher wrote:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1050...elicopter.html


This is getting weirder and weirder. No signs of at least one engine or
any gearbox failure.



http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...-SPAO%20v2.pdf

is the actual preliminary report.



The PM on the pilot may be more conclusive. The fact that the crash was
so sudden that no mayday call was made, and that no attempt to miss the
building was made, would, in the absence of obvious catastrophic
mechanical failure, indicate something like a heart attack.


The AAIB report indicates that the rotors were stationery. That's a bit
odd. Why would he have done that?


I've wondered from the beginning if there was *any* fuel at all in the
copter.
That's more common than one would hope it might be ('Gimli Glider', Air
Transat, ...........).

The eventual accident report (maybe years from now) should explain, but
in the meantime a lot of people will want to keep quiet for one reason
or another.

The BBC did say, quite early on, that the manufacturers would not be
taking any action, apparently having decided that the accident was the
result of 'operational factors'.
Maybe they knew something which we still don't.

If there was in fact fuel in the tanks, I would have expected someone
to clearly say so at the time, just because it is an obvious
possibility that there was none.

Um, all the recent reports quite clearly state that 95L of fuel was drained
from the tanks after the accident.

Do try and keep up if you want to add anything new to the speculation.

Tim

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:51:43 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Do try and keep up if you want to add anything new to the speculation.

Where's the fun in that?

In article , tony sayer
writes

Interesting thread/s here from some chopper pilots...

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...-crashes-onto-
glasgow-pub-53.html

A very active and informative discussion there, thanks for the link.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

fred presented the following explanation :
In article , tony sayer
writes

Interesting thread/s here from some chopper pilots...

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...-crashes-onto-
glasgow-pub-53.html

A very active and informative discussion there, thanks for the link.

The consensus seems to be, if I'm understanding it(?) that it was maybe
confusion over fuel tanks and fuel transfer pumps and that it ran out
of available fuel (?).

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

In article , Harry
Bloomfield writes
fred presented the following explanation :
In article , tony sayer

writes

Interesting thread/s here from some chopper pilots...

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...-crashes-onto-
glasgow-pub-53.html

A very active and informative discussion there, thanks for the link.

The consensus seems to be, if I'm understanding it(?) that it was maybe
confusion over fuel tanks and fuel transfer pumps and that it ran out
of available fuel (?).

My impression was that they are simply throwing up possibilities for
discussion without any real consensus as yet.

This one interested me:

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...ml#post8199352


"Don't know much about helicopters-I'm a fixed wing man myself, but my
partner said to me today on my return home that the helicopter may have
been making a strange noise quite a few miles east of the eventual crash
site according to some local kids would be around the Uddingston-South
Lanarkshire area
Don't know how much cognisance should be made of this, but you never
know.. "

Uddingston it is about eight miles East of the crash site which in turn
is about a mile east of the helicopter's operating base.

No speculation into what that may mean about the incident is intended.
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:45:01 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

The preliminary report linked to ^ up there ^ says that it had 400 kg of
fuel at departure from base and they drained 95 kg of fuel out of it at
the investigation hangar.

95 l so not quite 95 kg.

95 kg of fuel is about 20% of a full load.

But close enough. B-)

The fuel is also turbine fuel aka kerosene, parrafin etc. It's not
that easy to light, it needs to be vaporised first, either by heat
(on wick) or by atomisation through a nozzle.

Basically, the report says they have no idea what caused the crash, as
there was plenty of fuel on board, and they haven't yet found any
mechanical faults that couldn't only have been caused by the impact.

Aye, the screwing up of transfer pumps is a possibilty but with 20
mins flying time on a full seperate supply tank to a single engine
how does messing up transfer pumps kill both engines at the same
time. Surely the pilot would have reported the earlier loss of an
engine? In fact I don't think the regulations would have allowed him
to fly over the city at night with only one engine, even along the
river...

--
Cheers
Dave.

Harry Bloomfield wrote:
fred presented the following explanation :
In article , tony sayer writes

Interesting thread/s here from some chopper pilots...

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...-crashes-onto-
glasgow-pub-53.html

A very active and informative discussion there, thanks for the link.

The consensus seems to be, if I'm understanding it(?) that it was maybe
confusion over fuel tanks and fuel transfer pumps and that it ran out of
available fuel (?).

That seems to be the "best guess" so far but hard to understand why an
experienced pilot got confused in the first place.

Tim

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:45:01 +0000, John Williamson wrote:

The preliminary report linked to ^ up there ^ says that it had 400 kg of
fuel at departure from base and they drained 95 kg of fuel out of it at
the investigation hangar.

95 l so not quite 95 kg.

95 kg of fuel is about 20% of a full load.

But close enough. B-)

The fuel is also turbine fuel aka kerosene, parrafin etc. It's not
that easy to light, it needs to be vaporised first, either by heat
(on wick) or by atomisation through a nozzle.

Basically, the report says they have no idea what caused the crash, as
there was plenty of fuel on board, and they haven't yet found any
mechanical faults that couldn't only have been caused by the impact.

Aye, the screwing up of transfer pumps is a possibilty but with 20
mins flying time on a full seperate supply tank to a single engine
how does messing up transfer pumps kill both engines at the same
time. Surely the pilot would have reported the earlier loss of an
engine? In fact I don't think the regulations would have allowed him
to fly over the city at night with only one engine, even along the
river...

but if he was already over the city, he have to go somewhere.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

charles wrote:

Dave Liquorice wrote:

Surely the pilot would have reported the earlier loss of an
engine?

I've heard the phrase "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" so reporting it is
not at at the top of the list, but you'd think one of the police on
board could report it to their control even if the pilot had his hands
too full to report it ATC.

In fact I don't think the regulations would have allowed him
to fly over the city at night with only one engine, even along the
river...

but if he was already over the city, he have to go somewhere.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:41:14 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

The consensus seems to be, if I'm understanding it(?) that it was
maybe
confusion over fuel tanks and fuel transfer pumps and that it ran
out
of available fuel (?).

That seems to be the "best guess" so far but hard to understand why an
experienced pilot got confused in the first place.

And with seperate supply tanks with 20 mins flying time when full per
engine how a fup up with transfer pumps could kill both engines at
the same time I'm not sure. From brief reading of the tank system I'm
not even sure that there is a pumped way of emptying either supply
tank, it seems that the return is via spillways inside the combined
tanks with the levels of said spillways different so one engine will
die due to lack of fuel before the other.

Redundant systems seem to be fairly well thought out on this 'copter.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:19:20 +0000, Andy Burns wrote:

Surely the pilot would have reported the earlier loss of an
engine?

I've heard the phrase "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" so reporting it is
not at at the top of the list,

But he'd asked permission to enter the Glasgow controlled area 4
minutes before the crash, the last communications from the craft.

--
Cheers
Dave.