Current instructor at FT. Novosel (Rucker) here. Autorotations haven’t been taught to the ground in some time. All the helicopters that the students train on are multi-engine. Army regulation prohibits autorotations to the ground in multi-engine helicopters, so all are terminated with power. So yes, most flight school students aren’t particularly skilled at autorotations. We are transitioning to an Army with pilots that will have never practiced a full touch down autorotation.
SWP, LTE, engine / trans failure. Heck, could’ve shutoff the wrong engine and not have been in SE envelope. That’s happened before. RIP.
Quite possible as in the Duke EC145 accident which had a similar result. Looks like a 72A so very similar to the Duke aircraft. Regardless, its definitely was a high velocity impact given the extensive damage especially on that model. The fact someone survived and it didn't burn is interesting. FYI: this model also has separate engine fuel supply tanks which are filled via elec main pumps.
Human failure adds on to mechanical failure like icing on a cake. At least it looks like there’s enough wreckage left to figure this one out. Another reminder that anything with rotors on it can hurt you quick. Sad loss of life and sincere respects to all onboard and their loved ones.
If the wings are traveling faster than the fuselage, it's probably a helicopter - and therefore, unsafe.
I wish that were true. Helicopters are not as fragile as some people think and can be abused on all levels. Unfortunately, bad, lazy owners are not exclusive to the airplane side of the business.
I hear you sir. My Army flying era started in 67. Not quite the wild west but close. Kept at it twenty years in the guard and reserve. Many simulated hydraulic failures with run-ons, simulated t/r failures with run-ons, and autorotations as a sport. After flight school when I thought no one was looking I would do some solo straight in autos in a Bell OH-13. This was while waiting on RVN orders. None of it was hard or fear inducing. I guess the Army decided the airframes were getting too expensive to risk, or something. I vote to put @Velocity173 and @Warlock in charge of IERW training. I'm too old (but have good stories).
I’ve always been a fan of autos to the ground but that’s based on single engine aircraft. Still think the Army should’ve gone with a cheap single turbine like the Navy’s TH-73. Oh well.
Why not? Do you even know what is going on in the video?
Well if they were commercial rides, heli accident rates are roughly half that of non-commercial fixedwing. Most people on POA engage in non-comm fixedwing on a regular basis.
No, I have no clue... please explain. While you're there, you can also talk to me about phase lag, why it's not 90 degrees, and how delta-3 plays into this.
Maybe I was trying to emphasize the pitch change motion more than the actual blade flap.
They can tolerate some abuse. But all it takes is a metal particle about 0.016" trapped between the outer race of a compound bearing/planet gear and the bearing rollers to cause a spall that leads to a fatigue failure in the planet gear which leads to the whole epicyclic module bursting, releasing the entire rotor assembly in the process. And there are more examples of things that would absolutely cause a bad day in a helicopter, while only causing an emergency diversion in the fixed wing world.
Same thing can happen if said particle gets caught in the critical internals of a Lycoming or Continental engine as well. So whats your point?
And the same can be said for fixed wing as well. You ever check the fatal rates on engine failures between fixed wing and rotor wing? Pretty much more airplane people have a worse day than helicopter people when the engine stops. And that’s just one example. As mentioned above if you compare the commercial helicopter accident rate… where the vast majority of helicopters operate… to the Part 91 non-commercial rate, you have a much better chance of bent metal in a private airplane than in a helicopter. So percentage wise you may want to 2nd guess the next time you sit in your buddy's Cessna.
Ha. Your posts sure seem to be big on questions and short on answers. But I’ll amuse you even on the specific rotorcraft items that you conveniently bring up.
Will that make the wings fall off?
See above - show me an example of the wings or tail falling off because of some internal engine failure. Even in the recent example of Continental engines losing their counterweights that wasn't the case.
You seem to be the one asking all the questions. Notice the was no question mark at the end of what I said.
At least we're in agreement on how poorly and unethically Airbus handled this, blaming everyone else for things they didn't do. The indentations were actually found in the planet gear fragments found in the first crash, I don't think they found enough planet gear remains from the second one. It was a poor design that was pushed to the limit, but a lot of people still agree that contamination trapped between the rollers and the bearing race portion of the planet gear was the straw that broke the camel's back and allow the crack to start forming. Even if you disagree with that conclusion, we go back to the statement above - show me a fixed wing aircraft where an internal powerplant failure caused the wings to instantly part way with the fuselage.
Then go ahead and put an R22 in a zero/negative G condition and come back to tell us about it. Oh wait, you couldn't.
Surprised that you didn't even mention the advancing/retreading blade part of the explanation. That's as general as it gets. If I had to explain delta-3, I'd use the example of the anti-servo tab on a stabilator (that can also react to wind gusts), which is something easier to grasp for someone that comes from the fixed wing world (even if not perfect). Sometimes more is less, and you have to gauge your audience and use appropriate terminology.
Hingleess rotor with a stiff hub. No real pitch-flap coupling because of the stiff hub, all flapping action happens in the blade cuff after the feathering hinge. This rigid rotor configuration also has a phase angle significantly lower than the articulated rotors. Makes for a very responsive machine, which is why you see the Bo-105 doing all sorts of fast maneuvering at airshows.
We'll continue that when you quit being selective about how you read things. I told you I agreed with the things you did, but there were things you did not do which I considered to be required in substantiating your finding. I even told you what those things were and where they were addressed in the installation manual. It's like your driving examiner telling you that everything you did during your test was good, but you didn't stop for the pedestrians when making a right turn on red. You failed not because of the things you did, but because of the thing you didn't do.
So you are now implying when any helicopter gets a “… a metal particle about 0.016" trapped between the outer race… “ in the main transmission the “wings” will fall off?
Exactly. That’s why I used very general terms. Not too many rotorheads on PoA. However, my reply was only based on what you had questioned even though you forgot the question marks.
So still no answer. Speaking of selective reading… what installation manual are you referring to from my marine radio example? You know the example you stated I couldn’t substantiate in Post 55 and expanded on in Post 72 in that thread? So what changed from Posts 54/55 to Posts 74/75?
Aaaaand we're back to our regularly scheduled programming of you putting words in people's mouths. Same as you did in the other thread.
You're contradicting yourself.
Like the ones above? Sure. You first, please.
Interesting. So, asking you a question to clarify what you are trying to say about helicopters, now puts words in your mouth?
What I stated at the beginning of this thread:
It is normal and understood for people that spent a lot of time around them. I have done an "Introduction to Helicopters" presentation to multiple audiences, and this is the one thing that makes most fixed wing and non-aviation people wary of them. It's not something you notice when you just see them flying around, and a vast majority of people with some level of mechanical knowledge are aware of what cyclic loads do to mechanical things, in terms of fatigue failures and stuff working itself loose.
And that is the point you continue to miss. Maybe thats the limits of your experience? I don't know. But helicopters are no less tolerant to substandard mx and poor pilot skills than airplanes are. They are not that fragile. In reality, all aircraft “can be very vulnerable to small mistakes" with each model having their own limits. Its not just a helicopter thing. But don’t take my word for it, ask any longtime rotor person to include the ones on PoA. They’ll tell you the same.
You know what is said about having a little knowledge.
You're assuming I'm presenting them as unsafe machines. It's more of a "here's why their design, maintenance and operation requires people to go the extra mile". I know what their safety numbers are and what it takes to get there.
Do you really believe that an R44 (for example) would have the same safety record if it was maintained and operated the same way most GA fixed wing aircraft are today? Then why are their operational costs around three times that of an equivalent fixed wing?
I don't know, you seem a bit... rigid
Oh, I don't know about that. I've teetered a few times. Had to stop when I was drooping...I don't know, you seem a bit... rigid
Sure. Its been happening for years in certain circles. It was one of the reasons I stopped working on Robbies. I thought cheap owners were exclusive to airplanes. Did I get that wrong.
Simple. Helicopters have life-limited parts and a much smaller market then an equivalent airplane. Remove the time-limit costs and the DOCs between a helicopter and an equal airplane get a lot closer. Surprised you didn’t realize that.