Helicopter Down in East River

bnt83 said:
I wonder if the floats are airbus (eurocopter) design
Click to expand...
No. They're aftermarket STC floats by Apical. The original French made floats back from the Aerospatiale days were full length single bags (not six-pack) with internal chambers and a lot more durable.
 
Love the reader comments in the New York Times about this accident. It must be the go-to media outlet for geniuses.
 
I also wonder if they are doing those flights on a 135 cert or an air tour LOA. But I guess it must be on a 135 as Chuckie wants to pull it.
 
SkyDog58 said:
I also wonder if they are doing those flights on a 135 cert or an air tour LOA. But I guess it must be on a 135 as Chuckie wants to pull it.
Click to expand...

Neither. Part 91 under the air-work rule.
 
I realized today that there's some irony in being dragged to one's death by drowning in a river... by a "safety" harness.
 
I'd have a really hard time getting into a helicopter knowing I'd likely be dead if an emergency landing was necessary. Come to think of it, I have done a helicopter tour over water before, and probably didn't pay enough attention to belts and egress procedures.
 
F01LA said:
I'd have a really hard time getting into a helicopter knowing I'd likely be dead if an emergency landing was necessary
Click to expand...
FYI: Statistically, you have a better chance of walking away from a helicopter after an emergency landing than a GA aircraft. It's also one of several reasons oil companies fly workers offshore in helicopters instead of send them by boat or float plane.
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Statistically, you have a better chance of walking away from a helicopter after an emergency landing than a GA aircraft. It's also one of several reasons oil companies fly workers offshore in helicopters instead of send them by boat or float plane.
Click to expand...
I assure you that workers are not flown to rigs based on any transportation safety motivations. It is all about the dollars and having a functional crew upon arrival. I've ridden on plenty of boats. When the boat ride gets to be 10 or 12 or even 24 hours then it gets to be cheaper to fly the helicopter vs paying dayrate and standby on the crewboat. Twelve roughnecks in a 412 is not a good situation to be contemplating a water landing. Twelve roughnecks with gear...well, even the pilots wouldn't go for that.
 
Clark1961 said:
I assure you that workers are not flown to rigs based on any transportation safety motivations
Click to expand...
Which is why I stated "one of the reasons." However, after every major accident like the 225 that lost its M/R in Norway in 2016, the same discussion comes up on which is the safest way to move personal. While you're correct there are other reasons for the use of helicopters, every report, statistic, and policy by the OGP, Shell, BP, Exxon, and others holds the safety side top of the list.

Plus any water landing is not a good situation regardless of type unless you are doing it on purpose.
 
James331 said:
Except those people look like NYC types and were probably more likely to be killed by getting run over by a cabbie, getting shot/stabbed or raped to death, or contracting some disease, than anything GA related, including [gasp!] flying with the doors off. Not sure how many of you have flown with doors off or open, but it's really not a big deal....at all.
Click to expand...

To me they look like f’in Tourists. We don’t need to see the city like that, we live here...

And you are right, doors open is no big deal!
 
Bell206 said:
FYI: Statistically, you have a better chance of walking away from a helicopter after an emergency landing than a GA aircraft. It's also one of several reasons oil companies fly workers offshore in helicopters instead of send them by boat or float plane.
Click to expand...

Let me rephrase: Being harnessed in way that will require cutting belts to get out, on a low-level flight over water, with doors off, is a little too high on my risk meter.

Do you have stats on the fixed wing vs. helicopter water landings, out of curiosity?
 
F01LA said:
Do you have stats on the fixed wing vs. helicopter water landings, out of curiosity?
Click to expand...
I've never seen any reports strictly to water landings, but have seen data on emergency (un-planned) landings. The number of emergency landings per 100,000 flt hr is higher for helicopters than GA, but the number of subsequent fatalities from these landings is higher in GA than helicopters. Unfortunately, most of the data is behind a paywall/membership that I no longer subscribe too. I know the NTSB publishes reports on this but haven't seen any recent ones.
 
F01LA said:
I'd have a really hard time getting into a helicopter knowing I'd likely be dead if an emergency landing was necessary. Come to think of it, I have done a helicopter tour over water before, and probably didn't pay enough attention to belts and egress procedures.
Click to expand...
I've also done a doors-off helicopter tour, but I'm sure we didn't have a second harness. It was a normal 5-point seat belt. Of course, I may have thought that was "normal" but the other passengers (my relatives) probably didn't.
 
ARFlyer said:
Could they do a five-point with a quick release on the front? Like my aircraft five point but attached to a single point instead of the seat. Or is a quick front release too dangerous?
Click to expand...
Did airborne troops use a push-n-turn mechanism on their harness? That’s what I remember from my one slide-wire ride as a kid when The local army base had an open house. Velcro a cover on that and it aught to be satisfactory.

That said, for fall protection in industry everything is sewn and belted with a D-ring in back. A short lanyard can be used to make it easier to reach a snap-hook for self release.
 
ARFlyer said:
Could they do a five-point with a quick release on the front? Like my aircraft five point but attached to a single point instead of the seat. Or is a quick front release too dangerous?
Click to expand...

I suppose a 5 point would work but leaning out a door??? The “monkey harness” that I’ve used is either released through a D ring on the vest or to the floor cargo attachment point. As long as you don’t panic, you should be able to detach with the D ring.

The problem is the whole panic issue. I’ve used NVG HUD that uses a quick release. It’s designed in because in an accident, they know the pilot is going to most likely panic. Heck, pilots have gotten stuck to the airframe simply by the ICS cord alone. We never really know how we’ll react in a crash.
 
WOW! :eek:
Sad.

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...tID=20180311X13013&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=MA

"As they were flying along the eastern side of Central Park, the front seat passenger turned sideways, slid across the double bench seat toward the pilot, leaned back, and extended his feet to take a photograph of his feet outside the helicopter. As the pilot initiated a right pedal turn to begin to head south, the nose of the helicopter began to turn right faster than he expected, and he heard a low rotor rpm alert in his headset. He then observed engine pressure and fuel pressure warning lights and believed he had experienced an engine failure. He lowered the collective pitch control to maintain rotor rpm and let the nose continue to turn to the right. Central Park came into view and he briefly considered landing there but thought there were "too many people." He continued the turn back toward the East River and made his first distress call to air traffic control. He yelled to the passengers to get back in their seats.

Due to the helicopter's airspeed, he was not sure he could make it to the East River and reduced rotor rpm so he could "glide better." Once he was in an established autorotative glide, he attempted to restart the engine but was unsuccessful. He waited 1 or 2 seconds and tried the starter again, but there were no positive indications of a successful engine restart on the instrumentation. He checked the fuel control lever and found that it was still in its detent for normal operation. When he was sure he could clear the buildings and make it to the river, he activated the floats at an altitude of about 800 ft agl. At this point he was "committed to impact," and, when he reached down for the emergency fuel shutoff lever, he realized that it was in the off position. He also noted that a portion of the front seat passenger's tether was underneath the lever.

As the helicopter continued to descend through 600 ft agl, he positioned the fuel shutoff lever to the "on" position and attempted to restart the engine. He observed positive indications on the engine instruments immediately. As the helicopter descended through 300 ft, he realized that the engine "wasn't spooling up fast enough," and, given the helicopter's proximity to the surface, he had to continue the autorotation. He again reached for the fuel shutoff lever and positioned it back to "off." Passing through between 100 and 50 ft, he began the cyclic flare in an extended glide configuration, but he "did not get a lot of rpm back." He performed a flare reduction at 10 to 15 ft. He pulled the collective pitch control up "as far as it would go." The helicopter then impacted the water at 5° to 10° nose-up attitude."
 
I wasn't following the story but was it the impact that killed everyone or did some/all survive that but then drown?
 
eman1200 said:
I wasn't following the story but was it the impact that killed everyone or did some/all survive that but then drown?
Click to expand...
Well it sounds like the pilot didn't drown.
 
A locking carabiner on both the back of the pax and one to the floor that wasn’t approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Well, that’s your problem right there.
 
What a horrible way to go...drowning would be the worst.
 
Velocity173 said:
A locking carabiner on both the back of the pax and one to the floor that wasn’t approved by the aircraft manufacturer. Well, that’s your problem right there.
Click to expand...

well that..... aaand the tethering and movement/posture of the front pax causing the inadvertent pull of the fuel shutoff switch. IOW, other than the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? type of thing.

Question for ya and the rotor heads: would you consider the re-shutdown of the engine during the auto an optimal course of action when the pilot judged the engine "wasn't spooling up fast enough"? Does an airstart sequence affect your ability to retain whatever ideal rotor RPM you're looking for in the autorotation? I know most helos have governors that synch up throttle setting with collective demands in order to maintain the governed rotor rpm, but aren't these two controls independently controllable otherwise?

An analogous process I suppose would be the fact I have to unfeather a propeller in order to get the turbine started on a TP because otherwise the reduction gearbox would overtorque. As such, the unfeathering costs me hundreds of feet of gliding altitude in added drag before the engine starts driving it,for every airstart attempt that one makes (circa 30 seconds). Does a helo suffer the same penalty for attempting to airstart the turbine? I'm not sure if that dynamic is a valid comparison, just wondering why he would elect to re-shut down the airstart sequence instead of taking whatever he could out of the sequence until water impact.
 
hindsight2020 said:
well that..... aaand the tethering and movement/posture of the front pax causing the inadvertent pull of the fuel shutoff switch. IOW, other than the shooting, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? type of thing.

Question for ya and the rotor heads: would you consider the re-shutdown of the engine during the auto an optimal course of action when the pilot judged the engine "wasn't spooling up fast enough"? Does an airstart sequence affect your ability to retain whatever ideal rotor RPM you're looking for in the autorotation? I know most helos have governors that synch up throttle setting with collective demands in order to maintain the governed rotor rpm, but aren't these two controls independently controllable otherwise?

An analogous process I suppose would be the fact I have to unfeather a propeller in order to get the turbine started on a TP because otherwise the reduction gearbox would overtorque. As such, the unfeathering costs me hundreds of feet of gliding altitude in added drag before the engine starts driving it,for every airstart attempt that one makes (circa 30 seconds). Does a helo suffer the same penalty for attempting to airstart the turbine? I'm not sure if that dynamic is a valid comparison, just wondering why he would elect to re-shut down the airstart sequence instead of taking whatever he could out of the sequence until water impact.
Click to expand...

The air start won’t affect the rotor rpm. If the pilot has kept the the rotor in the green arc during the auto then Nr would be decoupled from the Np shaft through the freewheeling unit. Shutting the fuel valve off is most likely part of the engine failure procedure for the Astar. It is for the B407.

Hard to tell based on the description but if the start sequence was going at 600 AGL, I don’t think he would have enough time to get a start going. 600 AGL is maybe 20 secs til impact. Start is probably around 30-35 secs. I suppose he could’ve started with the throttle in the “fly” detent to rush things along. Not sure if their FADEC would allow that though.

Sad deal. Feel for the pilot. Seems like he reacted fairly well to the emergency. Just had an unfortunate set of circumstances against him.

Edit: Also noted in the report that the right side bags weren’t as inflated as the left.
 
Velocity173 said:
Not sure if their FADEC
Click to expand...
FYI: no FADEC on a B2. It's a manually modulated start like a 206. Considering the altitude, options, etc I think the pilot did a good job especially since an Astar M/R will dump RPMs the second the motor decels. It will be interesting if the harnesses were an insurance requirement for doors off flights since they used the existing seatbelts for takeoff and landings.
 
Heard on the news this morning... Prelim NTSB report came out and states that the floats on one side inflated more than the other. Also, the pilot noticed that a passenger's harness (I think they said harness) accidentally shut off the fuel valve and he re-engaged it and got some engine power back but not enough and they went down.
 
Passenger Error.

I guess we might as well add that as a new statistical category. Pilot error and maintenance error are over used. Let’s blame the pax.
 
Well, that company is toast. And once the families of the victims get done suing them, they’ll go after the FAA for not shutting the operation down earlier.
 
Miami shoe selfies.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top