On 12/12/13 16:16, The Other Mike wrote:
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


I heard on the way from the oppital that they company has grounded the
entire range after summat happened on a flight.

So more to come..

--
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.

In article o.uk,
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.

If you look at the BBC news page an English police spokesman is reported as
saying: " .... we will increase the minimum fuel level at which pilots are
allowed to operate.".

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 12/12/13 16:16, The Other Mike wrote:
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


I heard on the way from the oppital that they company has grounded the
entire range after summat happened on a flight.


Yes, Bond have said they are grounding all their EC135, for some kind of
check or inspection, not clear why yet. (it not even clear if this is in
anyway related to the crash)

National Police Air Service said:

"In light of the technical issue identified by Bond Air Services, as a
precautionary measure, we are increasing fuel levels on all NPAS EC135
aircraft and increasing the minimum level of fuel which pilots are
allowed to operate on."

Which suggests it is something related to the fuel supply.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25353001
--
Chris French

On 12/12/2013 15:40, Tim+ wrote:
"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.

Listening to the interviews on Radio 4 as the story unfolded, it seems
there was a fuel level indicator fault on one of their other helicopters
of the same type, so the operator made a decision to ground their whole
fleet of this type as a precaution until that particular fault could be
checked for. After a couple of hours, most of the fleet were back in
service,having been cleared. Bonds (The operators) are understandably a
touch nervous at the moment, especially after other incidents involving
their machinery in the North Sea area.

Someone has mnentioned that the fault was a low fuel warning light
coming on too early, which is unlikely to cause an engine stoppage due
to lack of fuel. The operators have also increased their minimum allowed
fuel load while flying.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Nightjar writes:

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.

There must be a few where it's 'Oh shsilence

--
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

On 12/12/2013 19:39, chris French wrote:
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 12/12/13 16:16, The Other Mike wrote:
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


I heard on the way from the oppital that they company has grounded
the entire range after summat happened on a flight.


Yes, Bond have said they are grounding all their EC135, for some kind of
check or inspection, not clear why yet. (it not even clear if this is in
anyway related to the crash)

National Police Air Service said:

"In light of the technical issue identified by Bond Air Services, as a
precautionary measure, we are increasing fuel levels on all NPAS EC135
aircraft and increasing the minimum level of fuel which pilots are
allowed to operate on."

Which suggests it is something related to the fuel supply.

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

Low level warning light coming on before it was expected to, according
to a statement read out on the radio earlier. They'll all be back in the
air by tomorrow, probably.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Tim+ writes:

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.

95l. sounds like a lot to a car driver.

Turbines are thirsty beasts. For a twin turbine machine, 95l. is
nothing; might be just the unusable fuel in the bottom of the tank(s).

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.

--
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

Windmill wrote:
Tim+ writes:

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.

95l. sounds like a lot to a car driver.

Turbines are thirsty beasts. For a twin turbine machine, 95l. is
nothing; might be just the unusable fuel in the bottom of the tank(s).

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.


Should have been more than enough to return to base. See
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/528...asgow-pub.html
if you want to know more. The thread is 64 pages long now though!

Tim

On 13/12/2013 08:17, Windmill wrote:
....
95l. sounds like a lot to a car driver.

Turbines are thirsty beasts. For a twin turbine machine, 95l. is
nothing; might be just the unusable fuel in the bottom of the tank(s).

95 litres is slightly more than the combined capacity of the two engine
supply tanks, and they give at least 20 minutes' flying time. (22 mins
for one engine and 25 mins for the other IIRC)

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.

663 litres. This aircraft took off with 400kgs = 500 litres of fuel aboard.

Colin Bignell

On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 08:17:15 GMT, Windmill wrote:

95l. sounds like a lot to a car driver.

Not really my average fill up is 70+ l.

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.

I think the AAIB interim report said it took on 400 kg of fuel before
the flight.

http://www.eurocopterusa.com/product...ifications.asp

"Usable fuel capacity (standard tank): 185 gal."
"Maximum endurance (with no reserves): 3.6 hrs."

USA site so US gallons = 700 l. So 95 l is around about 30 mins
flying time best but even if you say 45 l you still have 15 mins...

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 13/12/2013 09:10, Nightjar wrote:

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.

663 litres. This aircraft took off with 400kgs = 500 litres of fuel aboard.

It was flying for a couple of hours, IIRC, so using about 200 litres an
hour.

95 litres remaining was not an awful lot, was it? Around 30 minutes
flying, albeit they were nearly back at base. Is it usual to run things
so close? I know that 30 mins is plenty, really, but given the
catastrophic consequences of running out of fuel, I'd have thought that
a bit more of a margin would be good.

GB writes:

On 13/12/2013 09:10, Nightjar wrote:

What is full fuel for this machine? It wouldn't surprise me if it was
1000l. or more.

663 litres. This aircraft took off with 400kgs = 500 litres of fuel aboard.

It was flying for a couple of hours, IIRC, so using about 200 litres an
hour.

95 litres remaining was not an awful lot, was it? Around 30 minutes
flying, albeit they were nearly back at base. Is it usual to run things
so close? I know that 30 mins is plenty, really, but given the
catastrophic consequences of running out of fuel, I'd have thought that
a bit more of a margin would be good.

Pilots almost always want a good margin, unless max load/elevation/ambient
temperature places limits on what they can have, but it costs more fuel
to haul that extra fuel up to altitude, so management wants as little
margin as is safe. (And they're not generally the ones who are up there
when the unexpected happens and the margin disappears).

IIRC every landing to refuel means an engine shutdown and therefore
one more engine start nearer to the expensive engine overhaul which for
turbines is dictated in part by the number of those starts.
BICBW.


--
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