PilotWolf:
Some turbine types do have hovering time limits placed on them by the specification of the main rotor gearbox but usually the it is going to be engine limits and [oil] temperature issues due to the high power setting needed to hover
Exceeding limits gets very expensive proportionally to the amount of time the limit was exceeded. Often stripping down gearboxes and engines to check tolerances and for damage.
PW.
Thanks for that PW.I think that’s the interesting part.It would be interesting to find out what the potential limitations of the type in question might be against the witness statements of 1 hour or so hovering time.
I wonder how accurate the statements about hovering are? I live next to a small airfield, which seem to be a favourite training area for apache helicopters, they sometimes do these exercises at night, listening to them you’d think they were hovering but they are moving round, but they stay in a small area so the noise doesn’t change to much.
I doubt any of the witnesses would have actually watched it an hour, but just have more been aware that the helicopter was in the area for a fair while.
PilotWolf:
Some turbine types do have hovering time limits placed on them by the specification of the main rotor gearbox but usually the it is going to be engine limits and [oil] temperature issues due to the high power setting needed to hover
Exceeding limits gets very expensive proportionally to the amount of time the limit was exceeded. Often stripping down gearboxes and engines to check tolerances and for damage.
PW.
Thanks for that PW.I think that’s the interesting part.It would be interesting to find out what the potential limitations of the type in question might be against the witness statements of 1 hour or so hovering time.
I wonder how accurate the statements about hovering are? I live next to a small airfield, which seem to be a favourite training area for apache helicopters, they sometimes do these exercises at night, listening to them you’d think they were hovering but they are moving round, but they stay in a small area so the noise doesn’t change to much.
I doubt any of the witnesses would have actually watched it an hour, but just have more been aware that the helicopter was in the area for a fair while.
The point in that case would be the proportion of the time that was hovering under hovering loads as opposed to flying under lighter flight loads.I’m guessing in this case that the total time would effectively have been just hovering with some relatively small negligible amounts of flight distance between hover points.Which probably works ok in the case of a purpose built weapons platform like an Apache but maybe not so good in the case of what seems like a lot less of a piece of kit.
PilotWolf:
Some turbine types do have hovering time limits placed on them by the specification of the main rotor gearbox but usually the it is going to be engine limits and [oil] temperature issues due to the high power setting needed to hover
Exceeding limits gets very expensive proportionally to the amount of time the limit was exceeded. Often stripping down gearboxes and engines to check tolerances and for damage.
PW.
Thanks for that PW.I think that’s the interesting part.It would be interesting to find out what the potential limitations of the type in question might be against the witness statements of 1 hour or so hovering time.
I wonder how accurate the statements about hovering are? I live next to a small airfield, which seem to be a favourite training area for apache helicopters, they sometimes do these exercises at night, listening to them you’d think they were hovering but they are moving round, but they stay in a small area so the noise doesn’t change to much.
I doubt any of the witnesses would have actually watched it an hour, but just have more been aware that the helicopter was in the area for a fair while.
The point in that case would be the proportion of the time that was hovering under hovering loads as opposed to flying under lighter flight loads.I’m guessing in this case that the total time would effectively have been just hovering with some relatively small negligible amounts of flight distance between hover points.Which probably works ok in the case of a purpose built weapons platform like an Apache but maybe not so good in the case of what seems like a lot less of a piece of kit.
True the Apache is an amazing if scary piece of kit, but I believe the helicopter involved is used by many emergency services, and a lot of the work is as an observation platform, so involves being on station for long periods. But I have no idea how long it can hover for or how long this one was hovering.
Which is more my point, witness in these situations are notoriously unreliable, most might have taken note of the police helicopter being in the area, but these days that isn’t so unusual for them to be fixated by it, especially over a major urban centre. The brain does a job of filtering loads of information and also filling in gaps.
PilotWolf:
Some turbine types do have hovering time limits placed on them by the specification of the main rotor gearbox but usually the it is going to be engine limits and [oil] temperature issues due to the high power setting needed to hover
Exceeding limits gets very expensive proportionally to the amount of time the limit was exceeded. Often stripping down gearboxes and engines to check tolerances and for damage.
PW.
Thanks for that PW.I think that’s the interesting part.It would be interesting to find out what the potential limitations of the type in question might be against the witness statements of 1 hour or so hovering time.
I wonder how accurate the statements about hovering are? I live next to a small airfield, which seem to be a favourite training area for apache helicopters, they sometimes do these exercises at night, listening to them you’d think they were hovering but they are moving round, but they stay in a small area so the noise doesn’t change to much.
I doubt any of the witnesses would have actually watched it an hour, but just have more been aware that the helicopter was in the area for a fair while.
The point in that case would be the proportion of the time that was hovering under hovering loads as opposed to flying under lighter flight loads.I’m guessing in this case that the total time would effectively have been just hovering with some relatively small negligible amounts of flight distance between hover points.Which probably works ok in the case of a purpose built weapons platform like an Apache but maybe not so good in the case of what seems like a lot less of a piece of kit.
True the Apache is an amazing if scary piece of kit, but I believe the helicopter involved is used by many emergency services, and a lot of the work is as an observation platform, so involves being on station for long periods. But I have no idea how long it can hover for or how long this one was hovering.
Which is more my point, witness in these situations are notoriously unreliable, most might have taken note of the police helicopter being in the area, but these days that isn’t so unusual for them to be fixated by it, especially over a major urban centre. The brain does a job of filtering loads of information and also filling in gaps.
Only it’s operators who gave the orders as to what they wanted the pilot to do would know the actual times for sure which then just leaves the actual question of those potential mechanical limits.Assuming those limits were less than the time ordered on station then I’d guess that would at least be a credible explanation for catastrophic mechanical failure being the possible cause.Which would then lead to obvious questions related to the orders given against the limitations of the aircraft.Assuming that there’s a discrepancy between the two then I could understand Chas’ comments that such a discrepancy would mean that if it was such a failure caused by such a reason then we’ll only probably hear the cause of the crash being mechanical failure but not the reason for the failure itself.At present it seems like the press should at least be asking for the mechanical capabilities and possible limitations in regards to the hover durability times of the type in question to be provided.Then the next question would obviously be asking for the exact details of the actual flight operation as ordered and wether there was any discrepancy between the two considering the witness statements.
IE the big question is we know that it’s routinely used as an observation platform but have the exact requirements,concerning the levels of times routinely required on station,been fully provided to the manufacturers,in specifying the required mechanical abilities to do that.The fact remains the type is no Apache so it probably won’t have anything like the Apache’s abilities and redundancy/tolerance in it’s mechanical loading abilities as a hovering platform.
Carryfast:
Only it’s operators who gave the orders as to what they wanted the pilot to do would know the actual times for sure which then just leaves the actual question of those potential mechanical limits.Assuming those limits were less than the time ordered on station then I’d guess that would at least be a credible explanation for catastrophic mechanical failure being the possible cause.Which would then lead to obvious questions related to the orders given against the limitations of the aircraft.Assuming that there’s a discrepancy between the two then I could understand Chas’ comments that such a discrepancy would mean that if it was such a failure caused by such a reason then we’ll only probably hear the cause of the crash being mechanical failure but not the reason for the failure itself.At present it seems like the press should at least be asking for the mechanical capabilities and possible limitations in regards to the hover durability times of the type in question to be provided.Then the next question would obviously be asking for the exact details of the actual flight operation as ordered and wether there was any discrepancy between the two considering the witness statements.
IE the big question is we know that it’s routinely used as an observation platform but have the exact requirements,concerning the levels of times routinely required on station,been fully provided to the manufacturers,in specifying the required mechanical abilities to do that.The fact remains the type is no Apache so it probably won’t have anything like the Apache’s abilities and redundancy/tolerance in it’s mechanical loading abilities as a hovering platform.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to get across.
& I’m not sure about what context you’re quoting me?
I have zero interest in the performance envelope of the aircraft & whether or not the pilot adhered to the copious amounts of data provided by the manufacturers test pilots.
The facts are that this aircraft fell from the sky & people died as a result.
All that I want to see, is the truth of how that happened be made available to the general public, which includes me.
nearly there:
Dieseldog you really are a grade a tube.people lost loved ones,many more sufferd life changing injuries but by all means dont let that stop you trying to rip the urine out them.whats your next comedy night,down the burns unit wae a lighter and plastic bag.■■■■■■
different strokes for diff folks?? once you glean over the false sympathy ,and political correct waffling,flags at half mast etc as if they actually care,then either you care,or you dont… theres jokes about every tragedy worldwide,personally i couldnt care,and see the funny side, theres a world of txts circulating about it atm,no doubd you wouldnt like them either… some folk think chubby brown for example has sick humor… so diff strokes is all it is…and the ones that went to the burns unit were the 2 that rammed their jeep into glasgow airport,and were subsequently named by plod as maheeds oanfire,and maheeds burning…
Carryfast:
Only it’s operators who gave the orders as to what they wanted the pilot to do would know the actual times for sure which then just leaves the actual question of those potential mechanical limits.Assuming those limits were less than the time ordered on station then I’d guess that would at least be a credible explanation for catastrophic mechanical failure being the possible cause.Which would then lead to obvious questions related to the orders given against the limitations of the aircraft.Assuming that there’s a discrepancy between the two then I could understand Chas’ comments that such a discrepancy would mean that if it was such a failure caused by such a reason then we’ll only probably hear the cause of the crash being mechanical failure but not the reason for the failure itself.At present it seems like the press should at least be asking for the mechanical capabilities and possible limitations in regards to the hover durability times of the type in question to be provided.Then the next question would obviously be asking for the exact details of the actual flight operation as ordered and wether there was any discrepancy between the two considering the witness statements.
IE the big question is we know that it’s routinely used as an observation platform but have the exact requirements,concerning the levels of times routinely required on station,been fully provided to the manufacturers,in specifying the required mechanical abilities to do that.The fact remains the type is no Apache so it probably won’t have anything like the Apache’s abilities and redundancy/tolerance in it’s mechanical loading abilities as a hovering platform.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to get across.
& I’m not sure about what context you’re quoting me?
All that I want to see, is the truth of how that happened be made available to the general public, which includes me.
I think everything I’ve said,concerning some questions which I’ve raised there,which I would have thought the press should be asking, seems consistent with your last sentence there.
nearly there:
Nope diesel mutt still no finding you funny but keep trying
the 1 that got away was subsequently named as … singed maheed??..though i got a fright several weeks later in the airport longe when 1 came running in shouting allah allah allah allll have a vodka andcccoke please…stuttering git…,and lets not mention last newyears eve when i got arrested for assault on the 1standing next to me in the crowd…to be honest,what would you do if 1 of them was standing next to you shouting,10,9,8,7,■■?.does that merit a grin yet?
The thing’s rotors weren’t rotating at the time of impact but they haven’t said what they were doing before impact which is the relevant issue.Although it’s obvious if they weren’t rotating at the time of impact and it fell out of the sky they probably weren’t rotating before impact either.Depending on how much 95 litres is as a proportion of it’s total fuel capacity,it doesn’t seem to have completely run out of fuel,and there’s no evidence of mechanical failure.So what in that case stopped the rotors bearing in mind the legal requirement for helicopters to be provided with autorotate capability in the even of engine power loss for whatever reason.
As I said assuming it’s possibly an underspecced piece of kit for the job then it’s obvious that they wouldn’t want to admit to that if it can be brushed away.
So, no catastrophic failure, it had fuel & the rotors weren’t turning.
I’m being told that they didn’t immediately ground all aircraft of the type because . . . they already know what happened !
We’ll see if any eye witness’s mysteriously appear in the near future to add fuel to the rumours of a cover up, failing that, it has to be pilot suicide.
I am no aircraft engineer (although would like to have been). However I think that the popping sound indicates fuel starvation. Anybody else?
IF the engines had both stopped and the aircraft was falling out of the sky, why no auto rotation effect?
Here at TNAAICSI we don’t (yet) have technical information available for that aircraft, such as max. fuel load (500 lts?) and average burn rates, (2 hours flying time?) however, I would suggest at 95 litres they would be down to about 15 - 20 minutes flying time remaining? Which surely puts them almost down to or into reserve fuel amount?
However of course providing the engines have a fuel supply, they should operate normally.
Realistically the idea of auto rotation in the middle of a built up area isn’t going to be much different than trying to land a plane just that the resulting crash landing would take place relatively slower.Because it’s still a case of using forward speed and momentum to create lift.Which is why there are strict rules governing the amount of engines allowed on helicopters over flying built up areas to reduce the chances of total engine loss.
The issue in this case seeming to be that it wasn’t a crash landing under auto rotation anyway because the rotors weren’t turning and it doesn’t seem to have been a crash landing involving a forward flying aircraft,bearing in mind that even the flare at the end of an auto rotation probably wouldn’t create a vertical landing on a relatively small space like a pub roof.
If it was fuel starvation,as opposed to running out completely,then it probably would only have affected one engine not both because there’s not much point in providing a two engined helicopter for safety and then not providing both engines with a totally independent fuel supply system at least from the tank/s.
If it ran out of fuel completely then why no auto rotation in evidence in the probably inevitable crash landing involving a helicopter flying forwards at speed and why did the crash seem to take place involving a vertically falling helicopter not one in forward flight.
Which leaves the possibility that the pilot ‘might’ have ‘possibly’ succeed in landing the aircraft safely in auto rotation on the pub roof and the rotors had slowed to a stop/crawl and then the roof collapsed before the crew had time to escape.In which case would that have created sufficient impact to cause the casualties amongst it’s crew and what caused the stoppage of both engines.
Assuming that we can deduct 5,4,3,and 1 that just leaves 2.Effectively a vertically falling helicopter with the rotors not turning owing to an ongoing increasing problem which developed while hovering and/or in flight.It’s difficult to believe that such a problem couldn’t be the result of a mechanical failure that stopped the rotors.
Realistically the idea of auto rotation in the middle of a built up area isn’t going to be much different than trying to land a plane just that the resulting crash landing would take place relatively slower.Because it’s still a case of using forward speed and momentum to create lift.Which is why there are strict rules governing the amount of engines allowed on helicopters over flying built up areas to reduce the chances of total engine loss.
Not going to comment on the other points but there is no reason why an autorotation couldn’t have been accomplished successfully into a small area in a big city.
It is probably the most practiced emergency procedure taught and tested throughout training from the basic ppl to atpl level and during all recurrent training and should be instinctive to any helicopter pilot let alone a highly experienced ex military pilot.
I know several pilots who have successfully performed autos where there was no damage to the aircraft or injuries.
Regarding the use of twins over built up areas - this tends to be a UK/European issue. Many if not most police/ambulance/fire helicopters here in the USA are single engined and not counting the relatively poor ambulance accident record (other non relevant factors) and fly unrestricted over big cities. Single engined aircraft simply do not get used due to the regulations in the UK - I don’t know the details as 99% of my flying has been in the US - what little was outside was under US FAA regulations.
Driveroneuk:
Came across this helicopter photo completely by chance whilst looking at a totally unrelated subject.
Now there’s something you don’t often see: engine running, rotors spinning, nobody at the controls.
For some reason I can’t get it to link directly to the pic, even adding the img tags.
Illegal and stupid pretty much anywhere! The rotor rpm would be at a speed too low for it to fly and the controls locked with the frictions BUT frictions do vibrate loose, blades flap in the wind and on that machine the R44 the main rotors are 10’9" above the ground at the centre of the rotor hub - so potentially lower at the ends. The bigger danger is the tail rotor…
Incidentally the R44 is a popular small police department helicopter out here.
Realistically the idea of auto rotation in the middle of a built up area isn’t going to be much different than trying to land a plane just that the resulting crash landing would take place relatively slower.Because it’s still a case of using forward speed and momentum to create lift.Which is why there are strict rules governing the amount of engines allowed on helicopters over flying built up areas to reduce the chances of total engine loss.
Not going to comment on the other points but there is no reason why an autorotation couldn’t have been accomplished successfully into a small area in a big city.
It is probably the most practiced emergency procedure taught and tested throughout training from the basic ppl to atpl level and during all recurrent training and should be instinctive to any helicopter pilot let alone a highly experienced ex military pilot.
I know several pilots who have successfully performed autos where there was no damage to the aircraft or injuries.
Regarding the use of twins over built up areas - this tends to be a UK/European issue. Many if not most police/ambulance/fire helicopters here in the USA are single engined and not counting the relatively poor ambulance accident record (other non relevant factors) and fly unrestricted over big cities. Single engined aircraft simply do not get used due to the regulations in the UK - I don’t know the details as 99% of my flying has been in the US - what little was outside was under US FAA regulations.
I was just basing that on the example shown of an autorotate landing.If that was a typical example then there’s no way that a pilot would generally have anything like that amount of space to put it down in the way shown considering the glide slope required and the limitations in a densely built up area.IE helicopters generally land and take off vertically whereas an autorotate seems to be more along the lines of a fixed wing type approach and landing probably understandably considering the difference between the two different types of maintaining lift required in being forward movement to create the lift in one case and power in the other.
One other question is that autorotate landings seem to be only possible in the case of engine shut downs in forward flight.Owing to the type of lift generation involved in autorotate it doesn’t seem like it would be possible in the case of total power loss while hovering ?.In which case wouldn’t loss of engine power in that case result in it just falling out of the sky because at that point there’d be no way of getting the forward flight required to rotate the blades to create the lift required.
