View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
d9aplus Starting to 'Torque


 Joined: May 11, 2008 Posts: 30

|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another R44 written off on landing at Shobdon,
some more in hangar damaged?! |
|
Back to top |
|
ORC H Addict


 Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 736 Location: North England

|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
d9aplus wrote: | Another R44 written off on landing at Shobdon,
some more in hangar damaged?! |
Do you have some issue's with Shobdon or a particular flight school only you do seem keen to hint at things but decline from offering evidence ????????? _________________ R22 2.6 h/r wanting more, a hell of a lot more |
|
Back to top |
|
ORC H Addict


 Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 736 Location: North England

|
Posted: Sun Nov 15, 2009 10:05 pm Post subject: Re: Helicopter Crash Macclesfield, Cheshire 15 Nov 2009 |
|
|
Thats only a few miles from me, the crash site given in the report is very close to woodford aerodrome (BAE systems) and I think there is a private heli owner in that location. Very sad. _________________ R22 2.6 h/r wanting more, a hell of a lot more |
|
Back to top |
|
d9aplus Starting to 'Torque


 Joined: May 11, 2008 Posts: 30

|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
ORC wrote: | d9aplus wrote: | Another R44 written off on landing at Shobdon,
some more in hangar damaged?! |
Do you have some issue's with Shobdon or a particular flight school only you do seem keen to hint at things but decline from offering evidence ????????? |
No, no at all....
No injuries, what is important, it seems helicopter will be written off.
I am sorry that you may be offended with simple facts.
CAA people are in place to offer evidences, for now, and from the past. |
|
Back to top |
|
ORC H Addict


 Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 736 Location: North England

|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
d9aplus wrote: |
I am sorry that you may be offended with simple facts.
CAA people are in place to offer evidences, for now, and from the past. |
No need to be sorry as I am never offended by facts, just perturbed by the lack of provided evidence  _________________ R22 2.6 h/r wanting more, a hell of a lot more |
|
Back to top |
|
veeany Moderator


 Joined: Apr 07, 2005 Posts: 688 Location: England

|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I split this off from the Macclesfield crash thread just to keep the two subjects seperate. |
|
Back to top |
|
Bomb_Doctor 'Torquing Regularly


 Joined: Sep 28, 2008 Posts: 52 Location: Tiger Country

|
|
Back to top |
|
paddywak H Addict


 Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 537 Location: UK

|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Happened at (around) 16:10 , I wonder if the pilot could see, not sure what last light is there? It was rather windy too! At least there were no injuries. |
|
Back to top |
|
ORC H Addict


 Joined: Sep 16, 2006 Posts: 736 Location: North England

|
Posted: Mon Nov 16, 2009 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Bomb Doctor _________________ R22 2.6 h/r wanting more, a hell of a lot more |
|
Back to top |
|
James T Lowe Moderator


 Joined: Jul 27, 2004 Posts: 2575 Location: Leicester

|
Posted: Thu Apr 08, 2010 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
The AAIB have published their report into this accident, here
Paddy - interesting you should say it was "rather windy", the report (as submitted by the pilot) states "the wind was light and variable". _________________ J. |
|
Back to top |
|
d9aplus Starting to 'Torque


 Joined: May 11, 2008 Posts: 30

|
Posted: Fri Apr 09, 2010 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ORC  |
|
Back to top |
|
paddywak H Addict


 Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 537 Location: UK

|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just looked in my log book and flew on 7.11.09 and 28.11.09 and was going to fly on 15.11.09 but my CFI said do nav planning because it was too windy for my abilities. This is not to say that it was too windy for another pilot. This was before I had my PPL but even today when I flew I'm still not keen on surface winds of 10kts + especially tailwinds. I tend to hover taxi low and slow in these conditions but I know others favour higher and faster.
It would be interesting to find out who prefers which method. |
|
Back to top |
|
veeany Moderator


 Joined: Apr 07, 2005 Posts: 688 Location: England

|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not that it really matters now, but I've just had a quick review of the METARs from that afternoon and it was Gusty earlier on that day at the time of the accident the wind was reported as southerly or southwesterly at around 7kts everywhere within about 100nm of Shobdon.
Interesting it was an Astro, I always hated the control feel in the hover of the Astro, last time I flew one the trim ranaway and it took two hands on the cyclic to fly the bloody thing down to the hover, I wonder if it was considered, I doubt a pilot with low Astro time would notice if it failed as they came into the hover and would end up overcontrolling quite a lot, I wonder if trim failures were covered in his training ?
I am not saying thats what caused it, just thinking out loud.
It is of course always easy to Grip the throttle too hard and wind the RPM down when effectively flying in manual control, used to be my favourite trick, and one I notice myself doing sometimes when operating hyd off in a newer R44 (rare though that is nowadays), just as I am about to land. _________________ Gary
Last edited by veeany on Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:12 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
flip2 High Flying 'Torquer


 Joined: Sep 05, 2009 Posts: 225
|
Posted: Sun Apr 11, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
paddywak wrote: | I'm still not keen on surface winds of 10kts + especially tailwinds. I tend to hover taxi low and slow in these conditions but I know others favour higher and faster.
It would be interesting to find out who prefers which method. |
I think choice of taxi speed is always an interesting one in this regard.
If a pilot is in the hover with say 5kts of wind, and they proceed to taxi downwind, then for every knot of taxi speed they will lose the benefit of a knot of windspeed... so at 5kts groundspeed they are at 0kt airspeed. (obviously past this point the airspeed improves)
Discounting ground effect, helicopters require most power at 0kts airspeed.
So by selecting a taxi speed equal to the windspeed the pilot has potentially placed themselves in a particularly power-hungry flight regime... but how is ground effect influenced by a moving surface? I could hazard a guess but it would be only that.
My concerns over adopting a low hover height in such conditions is that the aircraft can become less stable in yaw, which can increase the risk of catching a skid, particularly if the aircraft sinks further as a result of the high power demand described above. |
|
Back to top |
|
paddywak H Addict


 Joined: Mar 28, 2009 Posts: 537 Location: UK

|
Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2010 6:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes interesting. The machine I flew yesterday was a Beta 2 and in conditions yesterday max take off power was 23.2 " with 22.3 continuous power. In ground effect yesterday I was pulling 19" in the hover so I had 4" in the bag, However I was using 20.5 ish" while taxiing downwind yesterday, so perhaps it does pay to match the wind to keep the cushion right under you.
One of the reasons I opted for lower and slower is I was cleared back to the hanger but giving way to 3 other aircraft on the way so I didn't want to be cause for concern to other pilots, but in general I feel happier with less airspeed closer to the ground. I suppose it is my lack of experience as I can imagine CPL's (time is money) flying very economically. |
|
Back to top |
|
|