docholiday Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) watched the air crash investigation program on the Quantas A380 that blew up an engine over Indonesia the other night,Significant damage to wing and control systems, I hadn't heard of this before, they certainly keep these incidences low key on the news Edited February 21, 2014 by docholiday Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 If this was the A320 Airbus, check out the size of the instruments that show which engine was vibrating too much. They are low down in the centre of the display console and can be covered by a 20p coin. The crew advised that a bang was heard on one side of the craft, which it turns out was the wrong one. The Airbus' were flown when there was over a hundred known faults. I really don't like them! There is a litany of things that have gone wrong with them. It was a Boeing 737 that crashed onto the motorway at Kegworth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alpha Mule Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) It was a Boeing 737 that crashed onto the motorway at Kegworth. Fair enough, but the A320s are still pants INHO. Crash history Did a class at Uni on Software / Human interface. The system displays were designed by software engineers, with very (read not enough) input from actual pilots. Edited February 21, 2014 by Alpha Mule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 You turn the blade angle down so the fall through the air drives the blades ta high speed, but creates no lift, then as you get close to the ground (hopefully the blades are now rotating at a good speed and have a decent amount of momentum) you pull up on the cyclic and produce lift, thus reducing your fall rate. I watched it being done when I was stationed at HMS Daedalus. Scary stuff, but it worked. I've been in the same aircraft type and experience auto rotations so I know what's involved. In a perfect world in open country in daylight I'm sure the pilot would have nailed it but this was at night over a city centre at 700ft with tall buildings beneath and far from ideal. Fair enough, but the A320s are still pants INHO. I wouldn't know about that. The only time I go near stuff like that I'm going on holiday and it's the last thing on my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 21, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Chaps, having seen the heli removed from the Clutha, it did not drop l;ike a stone from 700 feet or it would have largely been in tiny fragments. I'm no exoert but for the bodywork and air frame to be that intact, I dont reckon it hit at mush more than 80 mph. Free - fall speed is somewhere around 120-130 mph. I feel sure it was way much less than that - auto rotation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nikk Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) Chaps, having seen the heli removed from the Clutha, it did not drop l;ike a stone from 700 feet or it would have largely been in tiny fragments. I'm no exoert but for the bodywork and air frame to be that intact, I dont reckon it hit at mush more than 80 mph. Free - fall speed is somewhere around 120-130 mph. I feel sure it was way much less than that - auto rotation? Yep I got the same impression from the photos and thought they probably attempted an emergency landing but hit the roof too hard. I have zero experience of choppers and only had a PPL but I found night flying very deceptive especially on landing. You can think you are about to touch down and start to flare but in reality you're higher than you think. They must carry black box recorders? Edited February 21, 2014 by Nikk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 They must carry black box recorders? No unfortunately not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 No black boxes are required by law so guess what? They don't fit them. This accident cannot in anyway be compared to the Kegworth B737 one. I have re-flown that scenario in flight simulators maybe 100 times for crew training. We are being wise with hindsight and maybe there but for the luck of the gods would have gone many of us aviators but - it was a perfectly survivable INCIDENT at the start. It grew into an ACCIDENT. The jury is still very much out on this police helicopter event. Thanks for posting the AAIB report. Interesting reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 Chaps,having seen the heli removed from the Clutha, it did not drop l;ike a stone from 700 feet or it would have largely been in tiny fragments. I'm no exoert but for the bodywork and air frame to be that intact, I dont reckon it hit at mush more than 80 mph. Free - fall speed is somewhere around 120-130 mph. I feel sure it was way much less than that - auto rotation? It dropped like a stone but I never said from 700 ft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 21, 2014 Report Share Posted February 21, 2014 No black boxes are required by law so guess what? They don't fit them. This accident cannot in anyway be compared to the Kegworth B737 one. I have re-flown that scenario in flight simulators maybe 100 times for crew training. We are being wise with hindsight and maybe there but for the luck of the gods would have gone many of us aviators but - it was a perfectly survivable INCIDENT at the start. It grew into an ACCIDENT. The jury is still very much out on this police helicopter event. Thanks for posting the AAIB report. Interesting reading. Yep, Sometimes given the circumstances (INCIDENTS) things (ACCIDENTS) happen. Often an accident can be defined as an unfortunate sequence of events. Take off 20:45, crash 22:22. Duration of flight 1hr 37min. Fuel load 400kg less FRF 315kg. Calculated possible flight duration 1hr 35min. Fuel measured post crash 76.4kg. Marginally negative FRF. The question has to be, why were the two main tank pumps switched off. Is it possible that the aircraft was nose down and the rear pump was scavenging (doubtful perhaps) and as a result both were turned off. However, the Warning Unit gave no indication that that pump was cavitating but that may just be because the pump warning is not linked to it. At normal fuel consumption the 60kgs remaining in both supply tanks after the warnings illuminated/sounded the flight time would be 18 minutes but FRCs say the aircraft should have landed 8 minutes before it crashed. An unfortunate sequence of events and an explanation for which can only be found if the reason for the two main pumps being switched off is discovered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kes Posted February 22, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 22, 2014 It dropped like a stone but I never said from 700 ft. No criticism of you intended - your posts are very informative. I saw it written somewhere that it fell from 700 ft and that didnt somehow seem right. Nothing personal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 Apart from two posts which provide a high degree of misinformation and one remark which is completely out of order this has been an interesting discussion and one which I'm sure that we all agree we'd have preferred that the incident under debate had not occurred. Out of interest, has anyone had a look at AAIB Special Bulletin S9/2013 and the witness report that is not detailed in the one under discussion. The obvious cause of what was heard would appear to be negated by the Engineering Investigation - Other evidence - in the later bulletin and does not relate to the unaccounted for fuel situation. It is known that witness statements can be somewhat unreliable but it must be said that in this case it is quite straight-forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted February 24, 2014 Report Share Posted February 24, 2014 I've read the special bulletins but not the witness statements but having been a copper for this long I know not to trust witnesses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave-G Posted February 25, 2014 Report Share Posted February 25, 2014 You turn the blade angle down so the fall through the air drives the blades ta high speed, but creates no lift, then as you get close to the ground (hopefully the blades are now rotating at a good speed and have a decent amount of momentum) you pull up on the cyclic and produce lift, thus reducing your fall rate. I watched it being done when I was stationed at HMS Daedalus. Scary stuff, but it worked. Raise the collective pitch to produce lift I think you meant. Cyclic increases the angle of incidence on some blades while reducing it on others - which would be used for the flare out. Not many rooftops will allow a helicopter to remain intact whilst landing on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted February 25, 2015 Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 Quick update. The AAIB report is complete and will be circulated to "interested parties" about now with the final formal report to follow mid year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 Fair enough, but the A320s are still pants INHO. Crash history Did a class at Uni on Software / Human interface. The system displays were designed by software engineers, with very (read not enough) input from actual pilots. You're forgetting though that the ECAM will bring up which engine has high vibration so looking at the vibration dial confirms this, in addition the vibration gauge which has a high reading pulsates making it pretty clear which engine is affected. Still pants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 5, 2015 Report Share Posted August 5, 2015 I see that the Emmerdale episode has upset some of the families affected. The AAIB formal report into the crash was published some months back. Initially distributed to the "interested parties" and to be in the public domain by the middle of the year. Makes you wonder what could be holding it up. More politics I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Harry Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 I suspect the interested parties will have opportunity to respond to the initial report before it's made public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted August 6, 2015 Report Share Posted August 6, 2015 I suspect the interested parties will have opportunity to respond to the initial report before it's made public. Yep, that's why it's done so that they're not unfairly caught out. My point was simply that the indicated timescale was such that this should have been resolved by mid year which at that time it would have been generally published. It could just be that a conclusion has been questioned and further investigation is deemed necessary. My bet remains 'politics' though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 14, 2015 Report Share Posted October 14, 2015 About time. It is not possible to do other than feel the despair of those who lost loved ones. http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/clutha-investigation-finally-ends-families-6612467 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wymberley Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Not looking too good: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/aircraft-accident-report-aar-32015-g-spao-29-november-2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Could it have been deliberate ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozzy518 Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 Rather than being deliberate I feel, for what it's worth, complacency possibly played a part. The helicopter was scrambled, the pilot rushed his preflight checks, forgot to turn on the transfer pumps. The first mission carried out using fuel from the two supply tanks. The low fuel warning alarm activated but fuel gauge would have shown 85kg fuel still in tank. He would also have known how much he had at start of flight and how long he had been flying. He possibly wrongly assumed transfer pumps were on. He dismissed the fuel warning as a fault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandalf Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 This does not make comfortable reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickS Posted October 23, 2015 Report Share Posted October 23, 2015 The anger expressed at the way the investigation was conducted by the AAIB is unfair and shows a lack of understanding of how it works as an impartial, non-judgemental way. I can understand, and have every sympathy with, the frustration of relatives hoping for answers and for closure but the political interference smells too much of cross-border political point scoring. There will be many questions that cannot be answered when those who could have are not alive to provide them. It is to their credit that the AAIB has not tried to speculate where there is no evidence available to support such speculation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.