Ed Helicopter Crashes into Glasgow Pub

[fitzgibbon]

nvrmnd

 

[newyorkguy]

That site is a great source. Link

Interestingly enough the roof only partially collapsed. The building is pretty much intact. Emergency crews were able to get onto the roof during the initial rescue. Not at all the way I pictured it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

. "Safely decend" being a somewhat relative term in such situations.

In this case, I'd guess it being night time may have added to the degree of difficulty.

Just before landing the pilot kicks over the starter to level the ship. If the pilot does it right they can turn a potential crash into a "hard landing."

No. The starter doesn't have the ability to generate that kind of rotation.
He flares with the cyclic and then gets one pull with the collective to break the rate of descent, if the blades are turning as designed. With low inertia rotor systems, however, you may lose your rpm too fast and lose the autorotation capability, at which point you are truly screwed unless you've got a bit of altitude to get it back.

What do I know? A few thousand hours flying helicopters, and teaching autorotations ...

... a sign of what aviators call "fuel exhaustion."

when in the pub, it means one's beer is empty. When flying, it means one had better know how to make a forced landing, or one is truly screwed.

Today is St. Andrew's Day, too. Scotland's national day.

This helicopter was seen falling vertically, with its rotor blades not turning, before it crashed.

someone saw this at night? (Or was it early evening, and it wasn't dark yet?

I'm sad to learn that the pilot has died.

One of the hazards of the trade, but I too am saddened by losing a brother from my former profession.

How much ability is there to aim the hard landing?

Depends. Daytime, and some altitude, and some airspeed, and not in a built up urban area or over mountainous terrain, odds are pretty good. At night over a built up urban area? Degree of difficulty goes up.

Apparently the music was loud, and nobody heard the helicopter coming down.

No surprise. If the engine had quit, the amount of noise would be reduced ...

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a helicopter is a good guy with a helicopter.

Scrut, gravity gets us all, good and bad, in the end.

All three people in the helicopter - the civilian pilot and two policemen - and five people in the pub.

x 8

If it's held up to years of snow, then no, it's not unusually weak.

Thank you.

What is wrong with it is this.
The helicopter failed.
It did not perform as it should.
Because of this it crashed, a disaster for those on board and those it crashed on.

The rest of your post was not needed, thanks. What you said there is correct.

That may or may not apply to the news editor of that particular journal.

Most news folks are utter idiots when reporting on aircraft accidents.

Since everyone who was on board is now dead, and the helicopter itself is pretty wrecked, it's going to be quite a job to figure it out.

Not if the FDR is found. If this was a commercial helicopter operation (Bond), I think an FDR on board may answer a lot of questions.

Don't start me on the AAIB.

They are quite good at what they do. I've been following their reports on the recent Puma crash up north of you, and find their method and approach commendable.

Well the ability to aim for something soft-ish or at least unoccupied by others is good.

Yes, but it can be tricky, depending upon load, area, and a lot of other factors.

Running out of fuel would not prevent autorotation, but you need time* to get into autorotate mode and that requires height. Ironically, it's safer to have a power loss at height than low down in any aircraft. Height means time to respond. Sounds like they didn't have that. I don't know if they got a radio message off or not. )

Actually, there is an H-V diagram for each helicopter that shows you where you are safer or not with a total loss of power. Real low, or low and fast gives you that time, or short drop, to salvage a power loss. Up and away likewise. It's that in between part that's a real bugger.

. Plummeting masses of metal are not allowed for in any building codes.

Aye.

.
It is very difficult for a copter to go "nose over tail", but..

Correct. The 'eyewitness' ought to be treated with skepticism. That said, if the main rotors did indeed stop, the tumbling would most likely be more of a roll than an arse-over-teakettle sort of thing.

The consensus thus far (speculation based on observable data) seems to be that due to the apparent absense of damage to the rotor blades, the main rotor wasn't rotating (or wasn't rotating enough to provide lift).

At impact or all the way down?

I'll pop over to pprune and have a look. Some sharp folks there who know their stuff.

 

[Rolfe]

That's a very interesting post, Darth Rotor. It was totally dark, by the way - 22.25, with sunset being about 16.00 at this time of year. Doubt has been expressed about whether anyone could have seen anything coming down from above. Never mind that the witness in question is the editor of the Sun.

Don't mind my remark about the AAIB. I have a particular beef with them about a single point made in one of their reports in 1989 which has caused more trouble since Eve and the serpent. I would agree that their general standard is very good.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

That site is a great source. Link

Interestingly enough the roof only partially collapsed. The building is pretty much intact. Emergency crews were able to get onto the roof during the initial rescue. Not at all the way I pictured it.

I think that picture is slightly deceptive. The roof of half the building collapsed completely, however people in the other half of the large room said they were entirely unaffected.

The helicopter has gone right into half the building, without damaging the façade. Some pictures show how close it was - ten yards to one side and it would simply have landed on the road. It's not true of course, but you could be forgiven for imagining it was landing on the roof on purpose and just broke through.

Rolfe.

 

[Agatha]

No FDR on board, according to the BBC.

Gordon Smart (again!) maintains the rotors were not turning as it fell, and the lack of damage to the rotors has been said by commentators on the television to support this.

My friend who works for Bond Air is not answering her phone at the moment, but I'll be seeing her on Monday at a funeral (not connected with this crash).

 

[fitzgibbon]

At impact or all the way down?

I'll pop over to pprune and have a look. Some sharp folks there who know their stuff.

At impact certainly. How much before impact isn't clear though I'm sure you better than most realise how much inertia is in the rotor and what should be happening.

Fitz

 

[newyorkguy]

I think that picture is slightly deceptive. The roof of half the building collapsed completely, however people in the other half of the large room said they were entirely unaffected.
...

The photo shows the outer part of the roof remained relatively intact. It's supporting the firefighters and they are right at the wreckage. It looks like the helicopter did not penetrate the roof. But I know sometimes photos are deceptive. You see it from another angle and it looks totally different.

I do wonder if it was actually the ceiling that collapsed and caused most of the injuries inside the club more than the roof itself?

 

[Rolfe]

More astounding bad taste from people who should know better. This tweeting twerp is a professional journalist.

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/406798225744490496

Warning - banned words in comments on linked tweet.

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

The photo shows the outer part of the roof remained relatively intact. It's supporting the firefighters and they are right at the wreckage. It looks like the helicopter did not penetrate the roof. But I know sometimes photos are deceptive. You see it from another angle and it looks totally different.

I do wonder if it was actually the ceiling that collapsed and caused most of the injuries inside the club more than the roof itself?

As far as I can tell, most of the helicopter is inside the pub.

Some of the comments on that professional site suggested a semi-controlled emergency landing on the roof followed by a collapse, but that doesn't really explain all three people on board being killed. And the two-stage event being described on the forum is not how the eyewitnesses now on TV are describing it.

The current news is that the present situation is highly complex, with the helicopter penetrating the roof and now being inside a old and unstable building. I think they are concerned that there are more bodies still in there that they can't get to yet.

Rolfe.

ETA: The second photo on this page shows it quite well. Two rotor blades can be seen poking up above the roof level. The rest of the body of the helicopter is under that - inside the room.

 

[fitzgibbon]

More astounding bad taste from people who should know better. This tweeting twerp is a professional journalist.

https://twitter.com/euanmccolm/status/406798225744490496

Warning - banned words in comments on linked tweet.

Rolfe.

Page gone. By description, no surprise nor loss

Fitz

 

[Rolfe]

Oh well. It was copied in another tweet.

https://twitter.com/JohnnyDundee/status/406805026355433473

The comments on this version have less bad language.

Rolfe.

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a very interesting post, Darth Rotor. It was totally dark, by the way - 22.25, with sunset being about 16.00 at this time of year.

Thanks. I went to pprune and got some pilot speak. Dark night, an auto at night over a pupluated area is a real bugger.

Doubt has been expressed about whether anyone could have seen anything coming down from above. Never mind that the witness in question is the editor of the Sun.

At this point "say no more" per Eric Idle is spot on.

Don't mind my remark about the AAIB. I have a particular beef with them about a single point made in one of their reports in 1989 which has caused more trouble since Eve and the serpent. I would agree that their general standard is very good.

Roger.

I noted that one of the more thoughtful inputs on PPruNe forums, helicopters, pointed out that there may not be a FDR on board the aircraft, as it is a police unit ... I don't know UK rules on such well enough to comment further, but this does make AAIB's job a bit more difficult.

Last note on that **** of an editor shooting off at the mouth ...

Eyewitness, @2230, who claims he can see what he claimed ... when you've served on an accident board, you learn how interesting some of eyewitness accounts can be.

Interesting being sheer euphemism here ...

 

[Rolfe]

Last note on that **** of an editor shooting off at the mouth ...

Eyewitness, @2230, who claims he can see what he claimed ... when you've served on an accident board, you learn how interesting some of eyewitness accounts can be.

Interesting being sheer euphemism here ...

A legal journalist who should know better is collecting "eyewitness" accounts from the PA103 crash, which happened at 19.08 on the winter solstice, and using them to shore up a fantastical conspiracy theory.

I have remonstrated with him that no matter what someone thought they saw at that time, even if it was published in newspapers which were printed well before sunrise the following morning, if what was revealed by that sunrise was categorically something different, these people must be mistaken. No joy.

I imagine the AAIB will treat the Sun editor's evidence with due caution.

Rolfe.

 

[Soapy Sam]

It was a clear night . Unless there was a total electrical failure, the aircraft would have been carrying running lights. There are also a lot of lights on the buildings and bridges in the area. While I would not put great faith in anyone's ability to accurately judge height or speed in the brief glimpse they would have of an aircraft dropping from maybe 300 feet or less, I think some idea of orientation is credible.


Nb- I refer to yesterday's crash, not PA103.

 

[Rolfe]

On the other hand, when you look up in that situation, you're looking up at sodium street lights. These interfere with night vision, and dazzle. I'm not convinced he was really able to see something coming down from above street-light level.

Rolfe.

 

[newyorkguy]

The journalist was on the top floor of a parking deck, above street lights.

 

[Rolfe]

Ah, that makes a difference. Although describing anyone who writes for the Sun as a journalist is stretching it.

Rolfe.

 

[catsmate]

Strathclyde police have an unfortunate record with helicopters.

I think this is their third accident. I don't know how typical that is for police use of helicopters. They do tend to spend a lot of time hovering over built-up areas- and counter intuitively, hovering is not what helicopters are designed for.

Whatever happened here sounds like major failure. The descriptions of it falling out of the sky sound like autorotation was not even possible. Sounds like the whole rotor linkage just ...stopped. Total gearbox crack-up maybe?

After the multiple north sea Super Puma failures and now this, I wonder if we will see tightened regulation of chopper flight over built up areas?

Ten years since I was last in the Clutha.

Bloody awful business.

Well the EC135 has a good safety record, lots of users and relatively few accidents. Except, as you say, Strathclyde.

In a quick read-through of the thread on pprune.org (pro pilots generally), this model of chopper has a rubber membrane within the tank to lessen the chance of catastrophic puncture + fire. Apparently, it also has two tanks of differing size and the low-fuel warning would have given the pilot a 10-minute window to get down somewhere safe. The consensus thus far (speculation based on observable data) seems to be that due to the apparent absense of damage to the rotor blades, the main rotor wasn't rotating (or wasn't rotating enough to provide lift).

Fitz

Yes most modern aircraft, and IIRC all new production, have self-sealing tanks and carbon fibre/composites are also used.
It does look like drivetrain/gearbox failure of a catastrophic nature, without even time to radio.

 

[casebro]

This site, quotes for 2012, 133 fatal accidents with 420 deaths, almost half of which involved military helicopters:

http://helihub.com/2013/01/03/2012-fatal-helicopter-accident-statistics/

Total number does nothing to back up your statement- "Still much safer than many other forms of transport. "


Look up some comparison, like fatalities/passenger mile. I bet you'll find that putting you foot aboard a helicopter is like stepping into a grave with the other foot on a banana peel.

Fixed wing pilots call helicopters "10,000 parts all flying in close formation" for a reason. They are just waiting to break formation.