On 10/12/2013 23:52, Dave Liquorice wrote:
.. 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...


Nothing in the Rules of The Air to prevent it. The relevant part is Rule
5, low flying, and in particular:

5.(3)(a) An aircraft shall not be flown below such height as would
enable it to make an emergency landing without causing danger to persons
or property on the surface in the event of a power unit failure.

Which is covered by flying down the river.

5.(3)(d) An aircraft flying over a congested area of a city, town or
settlement shall not fly below such height as would permit the aircraft
to land clear of the congested area in the event of a power unit failure.

That is a bit more difficult over a large city with a single engine
helicopter, given their glide angle, and is why most operators use twins
over cities.

Most of the rest of Rule 5 does not apply to a helicopter being flown on
a Police Operator's Licence.

Colin Bignell

On 11/12/2013 08:19, Andy Burns wrote:
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,

That is an order of priorities, not a sequence of events. It can be
perfectly possible to do all three at the same time.

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.

The lack of any radio contact suggests everything happened very quickly.

Colin Bignell

Nightjar wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

I've heard the phrase "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate"

That is an order of priorities, not a sequence of events.

Yes I understand that, but could well imagine that falling out of the
sky doesn't let you get much past the first item, perhaps as far as
which patch of ground you'd prefer to hit.

It can be perfectly possible to do all three at the same time.

Nightjar wrote:

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.

Is there any chance that the two engine fuel-tanks did in fact get
drained in use, resulting in the helicopter having no lift, and
some of the remaining 95 litres of fuel drained into them from the
main tank in the two days or so post-crash?

Comments made on pprune suggests there is a complex system of
warning lights, pump switches, and operational requirements (hover,
flight or 80kt)(gravity related fuel transfer?) in place regarding
keeping the two engine supply tanks full.

--
Terry Fields

On 11/12/2013 09:15, Terry Fields wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

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.

Is there any chance that the two engine fuel-tanks did in fact get
drained in use, resulting in the helicopter having no lift, and
some of the remaining 95 litres of fuel drained into them from the
main tank in the two days or so post-crash?

The design of the supply tanks is such that, even if the fuel feed to
both is cut off, one engine will run out of fuel a few minutes before
the other. Whatever happened to this helicopter was sudden and
unexpected, which makes me think that, pending any further information,
compressor stall due to an external disturbance is the highest
probability cause.

Colin Bignell

On 11/12/2013 09:09, Andy Burns wrote:

Yes I understand that, but could well imagine that falling out of the
sky doesn't let you get much past the first item, perhaps as far as
*which patch of ground you'd prefer to hit*.

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:32:58 +0000, GB wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

Surely the illumination of the signs would have been visible?

In article , GB
writes
On 11/12/2013 09:09, Andy Burns wrote:

Yes I understand that, but could well imagine that falling out of the
sky doesn't let you get much past the first item, perhaps as far as
*which patch of ground you'd prefer to hit*.

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

Is this particular kind of speculation really any help at all?

To answer your points:

The location concerned is an exceptionally well known landmark junction
in Glasgow, the bar is equally well known and it is inconceivable that
anyone living and working around the city would not know of its
existence and recognise it immediately from its distinctive
surroundings, even at night.

To suggest that a professional pilot would choose to crash land onto a
building to avoid personal injury at the risk to anyone that might have
been inside, and in particular into a crowded bar (10:30pm) is, I think,
more than a little insulting.

Knowing the area well, it is clear that whatever happened did so in a
very short space of time, there are many wide open spaces, including
parkland, within half a mile of the crash site so to be forced to land
anywhere in that particular location must have been as a result of a
true emergency with little or no warning.

The first thing I thought of when I heard of the location was the
possibility of a pilot attempting an emergency landing on the adjacent
junction as a place of last resort, it is where five, 3 & 4 lane roads
meet and its area is not far of that of the heliport where the
helicopter operated from.

There is also significant waste ground on the riverside bounded only by
railings (not lamp posts) on the river side and the 4 lane Victoria
bridge immediately beside it although that does have quite a few
intrusive lamp standards.

General location he

http://i43.tinypic.com/r9n8u9.png

Heliport here (same scale):

http://i40.tinypic.com/141ihec.png

Can we perhaps leave speculation about the pilot out of this one?
--
fred
it's a ba-na-na . . . .

"GB" wrote in message ...

On 11/12/2013 09:09, Andy Burns wrote:

Yes I understand that, but could well imagine that falling out of the
sky doesn't let you get much past the first item, perhaps as far as
*which patch of ground you'd prefer to hit*.

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?


Hmmm....
http://www.sickipedia.org/joke/view/...rashes-1532705

On 11/12/13 10:12, Nightjar wrote:
On 11/12/2013 09:15, Terry Fields wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

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.

Is there any chance that the two engine fuel-tanks did in fact get
drained in use, resulting in the helicopter having no lift, and
some of the remaining 95 litres of fuel drained into them from the
main tank in the two days or so post-crash?

The design of the supply tanks is such that, even if the fuel feed to
both is cut off, one engine will run out of fuel a few minutes before
the other. Whatever happened to this helicopter was sudden and
unexpected, which makes me think that, pending any further information,
compressor stall due to an external disturbance is the highest
probability cause.

+1

total power loss on both engines followed by a panicky response in which
the pilot had only a couple of seconds to do anything, and chose 'full
collective' and stalled the rotor as well.

That makes more sense than anything else.


Colin Bignell


--
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 11/12/2013 07:41, Tim+ wrote:
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


As an "experienced pilot" and long time instructor I can assure you that
it is quite easy to make a switch pigs whilst distracted, which is
partly why most Commercial Ops have 2 drivers.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:32:58 +0000, GB wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still, and very little chance of taking out anybody
on the ground (river).

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:18:41 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB interim,
but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate, there's
going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete - but a lot
less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

The first thing I thought of when I heard of the location was the
possibility of a pilot attempting an emergency landing on the adjacent
junction as a place of last resort, it is where five, 3 & 4 lane roads
meet and its area is not far of that of the heliport where the
helicopter operated from.

There is also significant waste ground on the riverside bounded only by
railings (not lamp posts) on the river side and the 4 lane Victoria
bridge immediately beside it although that does have quite a few
intrusive lamp standards.

General location he

http://i43.tinypic.com/r9n8u9.png

Heliport here (same scale):

http://i40.tinypic.com/141ihec.png

Can we perhaps leave speculation about the pilot out of this one?

Its the same over on uk.railway where no end of pundits will give their
reasons behind any event before the RAIB have even got to site;!...

Plus the most important the train and/or loco number.....
--
Tony Sayer

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 10:21:09 PM UTC, Peter Parry wrote:
snip
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.

From what I read about witness statements I'd suggest that you could safely remove the first three words of that sentence...

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 12:09:31 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

total power loss on both engines followed by a panicky response in which
the pilot had only a couple of seconds to do anything, and chose 'full
collective' and stalled the rotor as well.

That makes more sense than anything else.

Full collective up in anything remotely like that situation makes no sense to
anyone who knows that while the lever might look a bit like a handbrake it
clearly isn't.

Even after an hour or so of basic training the handling of controls and the
importance of rotor rpm is already deeply embedded in the mindset of a student
pilot. That someone with thousands of hours flight time would purposely act in
the exact opposite manner is, IMHO, not credible.

Not being able to lower the collective fully and regain or retain an appropriate
rotor rpm might be an issue, but then again lots of other things could be too.




--

On 11/12/13 17:31, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:18:41 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB interim,
but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate, there's
going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete - but a lot
less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.



--
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 Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no
idea from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer
than a patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB
interim, but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate,
there's going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete -
but a lot less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

There's three stops involved in any big crash...

Your vehicle stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - design it to crumple
and absorb the energy.
Your body stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - restrict the movement
relative to the vehicle.
Your internal organs stop. That's the really, really difficult one to
mitigate.

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 22:59:25 +0000, Adrian wrote:

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no
idea from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot
softer than a patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB
interim, but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate,
there's going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete
-
but a lot less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

There's three stops involved in any big crash...

Your vehicle stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - design it to
crumple and absorb the energy.
Your body stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - restrict the movement
relative to the vehicle.
Your internal organs stop. That's the really, really difficult one to
mitigate.

Hmmmm.....

- angle grinder - no help
- WD40 - no help
- expanding foam - well....



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:15:27 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no
idea from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot
softer than a patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB
interim, but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that
rate, there's going to be bollock all difference between water and
concrete - but a lot less chance of your body being quickly
recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

There's three stops involved in any big crash...

Your vehicle stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - design it to
crumple and absorb the energy.
Your body stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - restrict the movement
relative to the vehicle.
Your internal organs stop. That's the really, really difficult one to
mitigate.

Hmmmm.....

- angle grinder - no help - WD40 - no help - expanding foam - well....

WE'RE GONNA NEED MORE CANS!

On 11/12/13 22:59, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no
idea from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer
than a patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB
interim, but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate,
there's going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete -
but a lot less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

There's three stops involved in any big crash...

Your vehicle stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - design it to crumple
and absorb the energy.
Your body stops. That's fairly easy to mitigate - restrict the movement
relative to the vehicle.
Your internal organs stop. That's the really, really difficult one to
mitigate.

internally up to 200g is survivable


--
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 22:25:44 +0000, GB
wrote:

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

How did they persuade people to fly them?

Because they sounded cool and were the next best thing to sex on
wings.

On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:15:50 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

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

Most common last phrase is, "Oh, ****."

On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 22:51:24 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

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.

You'll find the rest in Aladdin heaters around the area.

On 12/12/2013 02:07, Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:15:50 +0000, Nightjar
wrote:

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

Most common last phrase is, "Oh, ****."


That, or similar, was what 'I wonder why it did that' replaced as the
most common phrase overall as aircraft became more computerised.

Colin Bignell

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/12/13 17:31, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:18:41 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB interim,
but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate, there's
going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete - but a lot
less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

A circa 20G crash if an EC130 (an update to the Squirrel and about 500kg lighter
than the 135) in the Netherlands was fatal. The seats and crashbox structure
under them are suitable for about 14G.

Appears to be far less disruption to the airframe than that at Glasgow.

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...ort-ph-ecj.pdf


--

On 12/12/2013 11:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/12/13 17:31, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:18:41 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB interim,
but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate, there's
going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete - but a lot
less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

A circa 20G crash if an EC130 (an update to the Squirrel and about 500kg lighter
than the 135) in the Netherlands was fatal. The seats and crashbox structure
under them are suitable for about 14G.

Appears to be far less disruption to the airframe than that at Glasgow.

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...ort-ph-ecj.pdf




I am no expert, but I would expect that what counts is both g's and
duration of the acceleration. Which effectively means the relevant
factor is the speed the passengers are travelling at once the
progressively crushable part of the structure has been completely
compressed.

That is because the severity of the tertiary collision inside the body
depends on the speed at which the soft organs are moving when they hit
the bony structure.

According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

On Monday, December 9, 2013 7:40:17 PM UTC, newshound wrote:
Don't know anything about FADEC but *presumably* the two engines would
have had completely independent "engine management systems". I wonder if
someone missed a common mode failure fault (unlikely though that seems).

Mechanically independent - of course. But both FADECs would have the
same software (*). If the conditions managed to trigger a bug, both
systems would fail in the same way.

*: NASA tried independent development of two lots of software for
critical software. It turns out that quite often both teams misunderstand
the requirements in the same way, and introduce the same bug. Given that
"two teams" doubles the cost of development, you can get lower failure
rates for the same cost by doing the development more carefully and testing
more.

In article , GB
scribeth thus
On 12/12/2013 11:15, The Other Mike wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 20:55:51 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 11/12/13 17:31, Adrian wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013 17:18:41 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

A flat roof seems a reasonable choice. The pilot could have had no idea
from way up high that it was a pub. A roof would be a lot softer than a
patch of concrete. Perhaps the pilot did aim for it?

The river softer still

I dunno about that. Can't remember if it was pprune or the AAIB interim,
but there was an estimated impact of about 30G. At that rate, there's
going to be bollock all difference between water and concrete - but a lot
less chance of your body being quickly recovered.

30G should be survivable in a decent crash structure, strapped in.

A circa 20G crash if an EC130 (an update to the Squirrel and about 500kg
lighter
than the 135) in the Netherlands was fatal. The seats and crashbox structure
under them are suitable for about 14G.

Appears to be far less disruption to the airframe than that at Glasgow.

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/investigation-
docs/1779/86b3d85b9fb1final-report-ph-ecj.pdf




I am no expert, but I would expect that what counts is both g's and
duration of the acceleration. Which effectively means the relevant
factor is the speed the passengers are travelling at once the
progressively crushable part of the structure has been completely
compressed.

That is because the severity of the tertiary collision inside the body
depends on the speed at which the soft organs are moving when they hit
the bony structure.

According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

Weight perhaps?, also the direction of impact in a car more often than
not from the front but in that sort of crash mostly vertical and direct
up thru the spine.. Not nice;(,..
--
Tony Sayer

On 12/12/2013 11:54, GB wrote:

snip

I am no expert, but I would expect that what counts is both g's and
duration of the acceleration. Which effectively means the relevant
factor is the speed the passengers are travelling at once the
progressively crushable part of the structure has been completely
compressed.

That is because the severity of the tertiary collision inside the body
depends on the speed at which the soft organs are moving when they hit
the bony structure.

According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

I suspect the orientation of the body with respect to the axis of
deceleration plays a critical part.

We are aware that a frontal collision in a car is survivable, and have
seem extreme Formula 1 crashes where the occupants have walked away.

I'm aware that a rapid descent in a helicopter always seems fatal,
though I am aware of 2 fitters, improperly seated died whereas the pilot
survived because of the chair he was using was deigned to compress and
meet the floor in a controlled manner.

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:54:28 +0000, GB wrote:

According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfooWONtFPU


--

On 12/12/2013 13:18, The Other Mike wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:54:28 +0000, GB wrote:

According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nfooWONtFPU


You can see that the helicopter's legs just splayed outwards. If they
were made stiffer, that would improve the survivability without the
weight of the extra honeycomb structure they were testing.

On 12/12/2013 13:06, tony sayer wrote:


According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

Weight perhaps?, also the direction of impact in a car more often than
not from the front but in that sort of crash mostly vertical and direct
up thru the spine.. Not nice;(,..


There's probably more room for the body's organs to move in a downward
crash. So, maybe blood vessels like the aorta get stretched to breaking
point?

GB wrote:
On 12/12/2013 13:06, tony sayer wrote:


According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

Weight perhaps?, also the direction of impact in a car more often than
not from the front but in that sort of crash mostly vertical and direct
up thru the spine.. Not nice;(,..


There's probably more room for the body's organs to move in a downward
crash. So, maybe blood vessels like the aorta get stretched to breaking point?

I would imagine that the weight of your head being jack-hammered down on to
your spine wouldn't do either of those structures any good.

Tim

Tim+ wrote:
GB wrote:
On 12/12/2013 13:06, tony sayer wrote:


According to the crash report, the helicopter's vertical descent rate
had slowed to 1700 feet/min immediately before the time of impact.
That's just under 20 MPH. In a modern car, belted in, you'd certainly
expect to walk away from such a low speed impact. Perhaps helicopter
engineers need to look at a means of increasing the amount of absorption
under the seats/in the undercarriage, so as to increase survivability?

Weight perhaps?, also the direction of impact in a car more often than
not from the front but in that sort of crash mostly vertical and direct
up thru the spine.. Not nice;(,..


There's probably more room for the body's organs to move in a downward
crash. So, maybe blood vessels like the aorta get stretched to breaking point?

I would imagine that the weight of your head being jack-hammered down on to
your spine wouldn't do either of those structures any good.

Tim

Incidentally
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u...red.1386855560

Might explain loss of engine power but not the failure to autorotate.

Tim

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:58:27 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Incidentally
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u...y-eurocopters-
grounded-after-fault-is-discovered.1386855560

Might explain loss of engine power but not the failure to autorotate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17661797
"Crack on the main rotor hub"

Didn't the AAIB interim report already say that was fine?

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 14:06:14 +0000, Adrian wrote:

Incidentally
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u...y-eurocopters-
grounded-after-fault-is-discovered.1386855560

Might explain loss of engine power but not the failure to autorotate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17661797 "Crack on the main rotor
hub"

Oops, sorry - that was a previous grounding...

On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:58:27 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Incidentally
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u...y-eurocopters-
grounded-after-fault-is-discovered.1386855560

Might explain loss of engine power but not the failure to autorotate.

How do you draw that conclusion all it says is "During normal
operations yesterday, one of our EC135 fleet has experienced an
indication defect that requires further technical investigation."

Could be anything from an unexplained indicator lamp blowing to a
Kegworth Disaster type fault. May not even be anything to do with the
engines.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2013 13:58:27 +0000, Tim+ wrote:

Incidentally
http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/u...y-eurocopters-
grounded-after-fault-is-discovered.1386855560

Might explain loss of engine power but not the failure to autorotate.

How do you draw that conclusion all it says is "During normal
operations yesterday, one of our EC135 fleet has experienced an
indication defect that requires further technical investigation."

Could be anything from an unexplained indicator lamp blowing to a
Kegworth Disaster type fault. May not even be anything to do with the
engines.

Which is why I said "might". We're all still guessing but all the
indications are of a loss of power followed by a failure to auto-rotate.

I doubt they would ground the fleet for one dodgy bulb so it's possible
that a faulty sender or something interfered with the pilots control of the
fuel pumps. Just a guess I know.

Tim

Panic over, the AAIB can stand down as it'll all be solved by the public enquiry
that Bob '**** for brains' Crow of the RMT is now calling for.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-25353001


--