Civil Aviation Flight Safety

p_saggu · Post by **p_saggu** » 07 Jul 2009 09:14

Apparently this Airbus composite vertical stabilizer problem is not new. The aircraft maintenance people, pilots and airline management the world over are in on it. There seems to be a conspiracy of silence between these people.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 07 Jul 2009 11:22

Another report.

Ground the Airbus?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 07 Jul 2009 18:28

I am glad to announce that the report posted by vera_k has enabled me to conclusively pinpoint the source of Airbus' problems and how to solve them.

Voila!

{re; Long Island Nov. 2001 crash} The relatively intact 27-foot-tall stabilizer was found floating in the Jamaica Bay. An examination revealed ....

Weighing in on the side of the pilots, Professor James H. Williams, Jr., of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, School of Engineering, stated that the Airbus position regarding the adequacy of visual inspections was "lamentably naive policy. It is analogous to assessing whether a woman has breast cancer by simply looking at her family portrait."

{Fed EX near-disaster - unfortunately whole aircraft was recovered and pilots were alive to inhibit the easy "L'Erreur Pilotique" conclusion...}The mechanics "unearthed a synchronization issue, wherein hydraulic pressure pulses from different sources can get out of phase." The resulting "oscillation was felt as a sustained vibration, and then a loud bang was heard."

The rudder assembly "may represent a telltale of "yaw oscillation." NTSB investigators immediately focused on the implications of the damaged/broken rudder control components found on the FedEx airplane and their possible relevance to the AA587 crash. "It appears that the system damaged the rudder. ´That is not supposed to happen; the system should break out first,´ states an NTSB official."

March 2005 - Aboard Air Transat Flight 961 Over the Caribbean Sea. On March 6, 2005, an Airbus A310-300 with 262 passengers was cruising at 35,000 feet when the "flight crew heard a loud bang followed by vibrations that lasted a few seconds. The aircraft entered a repetitive rolling motion, known as a Dutch roll, which decreased as the aircraft descended to a lower altitude."

The crew was able to turn the plane around and return to Varadero, Cuba, where they carried out an uneventful landing. Upon arrival, it was discovered that the aircraft rudder had been torn off the plane, except for its "bottom closing rib and the length of spar between the rib and the hydraulic actuators."

....
The order also represented a repudiation of Airbus´ maintenance standards that "simple visual inspections, combined with a mechanic´s manually tapping on the surface of the composite rudders, were adequate to detect any potentially hazardous internal flaws or structural weaknesses."

November 18, 2008 - Aboard XL Airways (Air New Zealand) Flight 888T Over Mediterranean Sea Off the French Coast. Two German XL Airways pilots, accompanied by five representatives of Air New Zealand and a member of the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, were operating an A320 in a test flight.
The aircraft disintegrated when it crashed into the water and its tail fin was found floating at the crash site. The flight recorders were recovered, along with several of the bodies.

The cause of the crash is still under investigation by French, German, New Zealand and U.S. regulators; however, the interim findings are that the "crew lost control of the aircraft. While conducting an incompletely-planned test of low-speed flight at low altitude, the aircraft was descending through 3,000 feet on full autopilot for a go-around. Landing gear was just extended when ... the speed dropped from 136 to 99 knots in 35 seconds." [62]

{Chetak, wheyar r u? That's what you wanted .. the Software Automatique et Tres Magnifique (SATM) that sticks the landing gear out it it senses any trees, mountain ridges etc, within reach}

"The stall warning sounded four times during violent maneuvering to regain control.... the warning had silenced as the aircraft regained speed in a rapid descent, but six seconds later, at 263 knots, the aircraft had only 340 feet elevation and was 14 degrees nose down. A second later it was in the water."

{Le Software Magnifique that turns Le Nose DOWN if the ground is very close and speed is very high}

....
Due to the frequency of equatorial storms in the area, it is likely that the flight crew and Air France management were aware of the impending storm before it was encountered, and a decision was made to fly through the storm, rather than to turn back or to navigate around it. {That was what Field Marshall De Gaulle ordered at Dien Bien Phu: Chaaaaaaarge!!!!!}
...
During the long 14 minutes, as the pilots fought to control the aircraft, everything trusted by those who boarded the aircraft failed – catastrophically. In addition to their terror, they must have felt terribly betrayed.

{But that's BS. The pilots would have switched on their MayDay sign. And it wasn't TEN minutes after entering the storm, but TWENTY minutes later that the aircraft broke up - with no warning at all, and no evidence that the crew was even strapped in. So much for this report.}

To date, several large pieces of the aircraft fuselage, and the virtually intact vertical stabilizer, have been recovered from the ocean. All indications are that the plane broke up in midair. There is no evidence of fire.

50 bodies have been recovered, and almost all had multiple fractures, but no burns. Water was not found in the lungs of any victims. They were spread up to 53 miles apart, further confirming that the plane undoubtedly broke apart at high altitude.
{Compare to Chief Investigateur's declaration that he is SURE that the aircraft DID NOT break up.. and wonder why..}

All we know for sure is that the plastic tail fin separated from the fuselage under conditions that should have been expected to occur at some time during the life of the airplane.

See La Pattern? EVERY time, the trouble has been because
Le Fin Vertical est FOUND!

The *&^&* thing even FLOATS!

Solution: Add a few bricks to the feet, make sure it sinks, like the Mafia does to those it "disappears". Voila! Tres simple, n'cest-pas?

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 08 Jul 2009 07:40

narayanan wrote: And, Srikumar, At 580 mph, it takes a gust of 580 mph to give even a 45 degree angle, let alone a 90 degree angle.

Not true. A gust of cross-wind at 580 mph will only make the plane 'float' sideways at 580 mph and not yaw it. Any cross-wind tends to move a plane sideways as a rigid body...for an intact plane with its tail. With no tail, the area of the plane behind its c.g. is majorly reduced. The plane will now yaw because the sideways force (from the wind) aft of the c.g. is a lot smaller now, but un-changed forward of the c.g. This is the point I was trying to make.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Jul 2009 07:52

Not true. A gust of cross-wind at 580 mph will only make the plane 'float' sideways at 580 mph and not yaw it. Any cross-wind tends to move a plane sideways as a rigid body...for an intact plane with its tail.

Oh! A fellow madarssa / LMU Alumnus!

Please Google a strange term called "unsteady aerodynamics" and then you may want to delete your post (and the previous one where you had the 90 degree angle of attack ) so that people will not mistake you for one of those All-Knowing "Pilots" who have been embarassing themselves here.

Cheers

SriKumar · Post by **SriKumar** » 08 Jul 2009 08:00

The point about 90 degree vector was completely lost in interpretation, so I wont bother too much about that (what I meant there was that the wind was blowing sideways....I said nothing about a 90 degree AoA).As for the point about loss of tail area and effect of cross-wind, one does not have to google unsteady aerodynamics for that. And dont worry, I never made any claims about piloting....

Added later: alright....the Kutta condition.....

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 08 Jul 2009 08:16

Oh, Saar! You are obvioulsy so right! Noooooo, you don't have to Google Unsteady Aerodynamics or anything else. How could I have imagined otherwise?

My bad.

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 08 Jul 2009 15:13

Dileep wrote:
A380....... The testing of the landing gear was shown on discovery. The whole thing was supposed to drop down by gravity, but it failed the test. The smart guys applied some grease on the rubbing surface and it finally came down.

The landing gear is expected to fall down and lock itself under gravity. That includes pushing open the doors. The doors are then closed by hydraulics. There is also one actuator that drives the gear down.

The test was to verify the "gravity alone" action, in the absence of hydraulic power. The wheel assembly pushed the door open, but when it opened half way, the friction on the door element became too much, and it stopped. They fixed it by applying grease on the door assembly, so that the wheel assembly encountered less friction at the sliding element that pushed the door open.

The question is, is "grease the door surface" going to be a standard daily maintenance procedure? What will happen if the plane has to land under hydraulic failure? Would it have to land with gear up?

I am questioning l'attitude of using le grease, and even the audacity to say that on international TV.

I think the landing gears for A380 are not made by EADS, but by Goodrich, which also makes the gears for the halaal Boeings. But I get your point of the attitude of using grease.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 08 Jul 2009 15:25

Hey, I have no bias between Boinking, or AirFuss (or for that matter, Embarassair or Bumonboardair). I have flown in 737s of Arrogance Air that are older than me, to brand new 777s of Brutish Airways. So did desi A300s that are a bit younger than me, to brand new A340s of LuftVerachtung, and a few from MajorDisaster too.

But, I ride KSRTC busses, the red city busses, and worse! share the road with them.

The landing gear thingie came on TV, so I know. What doesn't come on TV can't hurt me, right?

I know someone who makes stuff for both companies, and what I hear is a bit scary. But HE DOES fly often now, but maybe he might quit when the planes he help to build hit the skys.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 08 Jul 2009 15:30

Tanaji wrote: quote="Dileep"

A380....... The testing of the landing gear was shown on discovery. The whole thing was supposed to drop down by gravity, but it failed the test. The smart guys applied some grease on the rubbing surface and it finally came down.

The landing gear is expected to fall down and lock itself under gravity. That includes pushing open the doors. The doors are then closed by hydraulics. There is also one actuator that drives the gear down.

The test was to verify the "gravity alone" action, in the absence of hydraulic power. The wheel assembly pushed the door open, but when it opened half way, the friction on the door element became too much, and it stopped. They fixed it by applying grease on the door assembly, so that the wheel assembly encountered less friction at the sliding element that pushed the door open.

The question is, is "grease the door surface" going to be a standard daily maintenance procedure? What will happen if the plane has to land under hydraulic failure? Would it have to land with gear up?

I am questioning l'attitude of using le grease, and even the audacity to say that on international TV.

I think the landing gears for A380 are not made by EADS, but by Goodrich, which also makes the gears for the halaal Boeings. But I get your point of the attitude of using grease.

Grease or no grease, there will be considerable aerodynamic force that will act in the partially dropped wheels to push them open and lock them down for landing.

The design (in the absence of hydraulic pressure) depends on the aerodynamic forces to make it operate.

Purush · Post by **Purush** » 08 Jul 2009 16:20

Dileep wrote: I know someone who makes stuff for both companies, and what I hear is a bit scary. But HE DOES fly often now, but maybe he might quit when the planes he help to build hit the skys.

Hehe, one of my best friends works for a major aero engine manufacturer....while they do their best to over-engineer their products, there is only so much you can do materials/engineering wise. He is always a bit uncomfortable about flying, knowing that all that stands between him and the ground 40k feet below is a few micron thin layers of ceramic coating on the turbine blades (exaggerated with dramatic license)

.

KiranM · Post by **KiranM** » 08 Jul 2009 17:27

Considering that the same problems may reflect across AirBus platforms, should we not look into its implications on choice of A330 MRTT by IAF as mid air refuelers?

Mon 2 centimes.

Regards,
Kiran

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 08 Jul 2009 17:37

relax boys...it will be fixed. question is some few 100 more may need to be shaheeded before the powers-that-be decide to crack down.

taking A300 family out of circulation would cut off half the worlds long haul flights perhaps. it aint gonna happen.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 09 Jul 2009 08:32

They may warrant ultrasonic inspection of the joint "just to allay fears, not because anything is wrong with it"

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 12 Jul 2009 01:00

I read here that Planes don't carry a GPS, and i found that correct. Even though it's not reqd for ground speed and stuff, why is it not used for location? Or are planes not interested/ have a better way than GPS in finding the exact location they ply in? I always thought/ assumed planes used GPS..thanks.

Dileep · Post by **Dileep** » 13 Jul 2009 11:41

Hmm, like asking if there is a doctor on board, the pilot can come on the PA like "Ladies and gentlemen, we are having a bit of difficulty in finding where we are. We are looking for a GPS device, so if you have one handy, please let a cabin attendant know. Thank you".

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 13 Jul 2009 14:12

There is some confusion even amongs pilots on the GPS thing here's a sample of the converstaions. Seem GPS is not used as par of the FMS, but some versions of planes do use GPS inputs. However there's some filter software whose output depends on several positional readings and may be from the GPS unit too. Moreover what i gather is GPS may give an object a position, tracking the object will require a transmiter. In case they are lost at sea, these devices float hydrostatically and start transmitting signals to the satellites on their geographical position, making it easier to coordinate Search and Rescue.

Short bus driver, I am not sure which airbus you are familiar with, but my 320 uses GPS as its primary n, updating the ground based stations to create a bias velocity (drift) for the INRU’s in case of GPS failure.

Additionally, the control column (yoke) that Boeing insists on keeping (around since Orville and Wilbur) is outdated and needs to be replaced by a stick (see the F-16, Airbus is not alone). All the 737 guys who ride in the 320 love the idea.

As for the safety of Airbus, Boeings have their own special brand of problems- 777’s engines both flaming out on short final, 747’s tank 5 fuel tanks blowing up, 737’s rudders mysteriously slamming to one side in flight etc.

As for the computers telling controlling the plane over the pilot, that argument is so old and tired I don’t know where to begin with it. That has never been a problem for me in 6000 hours in the bus. ‘Normal law’ keeps the plane in very liberal limits. Transport aircraft don’t need to go -15/+30 pitch, or more than 66AOB, plus Alpha max, which prevents the bus from stalling is a GREAT feature (the crew of AA965 would probably agree- max power and full back stick would have saved them).

Now if only could get the 787 into the air within 2 years of schedule, that would be a something to brag about

#33..The Airbus philosophy is a very modern idea of how flight should be handled. And Yes Normal Law/Alternate Law/Direct Law are all fine concepts. Espcially in normal flight regime. And The Best part about Flying the A3×0 is no trimming is required by the Pilot to control the aircraft in stable flight….I will endeavour to say, that the GPS input is NOT the Primay consideration to the FMS to calculate Best know Position. It is one of several inputs that are run thru a piece of software that is referred to as a Kolsman Filter and the Best known/calculated position is a summation of these positions. Auto-Tuned DME Known possition ground DME Stations are the Highest priority in the FMS Calculation.Over water and out of range of DME then the INS/GPS are used. Also Rememeber that GPS was NOT used in the A320 FMS until version -208 or higher. And remember, the GPS system can be detuned for accuracy at any time by the US Government. The Honeywell-or Thales Versions of FM2 are the latest FMS renditions to the A320’s currently coming out of germany or (Now China!!) If GPS was so accepted then we woild see more GPS Precsion approaches, at the end of the day the Ground stations are controlled locally and more reliable. I thnk GPS is a wonderful thing, and can ou remember how to navigate without a ND? It seesm those days are long gone, and thankfully, life is easier now than previously relying on Fixed positions and radar. Trangulating Tuned stations etc… A picture is literally worth a 1000 words, but we had those before GPS in the Airplane. As for the B777, the Engine Flameouts have been attributed to Rolls Royce Powered Aircraft only and (approx 30% of all Flying) and an Engineering solution is underway to correct a problem on the Engine. i Too am tired of the Boeing / Airbus debate, its getting Old… I wil ask you however… have you tried to perform a mechanical backup approach in the simulator? Including a turn to final… it can be hair raising!!! Happy Flyng!!

The latest (newer) Aircraft do have a GPS Primary active option that can be de-activated… So in this respect It appears you are correct(ish). As seen in FCOM-4 (Navigation)

As taken from another site: see below
Brand new, state of the art systems use VOR and DME inputs, as well as INS, IRS, GPS, and even LORAN to come up with what some manufacturers call “Best Computed Position”. I’m out on a trip, so I don’t have my manuals handy, but I believe the FMS computer uses a “Kollsman” filter to do this. Bottom line is it usually works very well, with accuracy that can be measured in meters.

So it seems though some Airliners may have GPS inputs they might not be significant to transmiting locational data.

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 15 Jul 2009 02:04

Hole in US plane forces landing

The US carrier Southwest Airlines has inspected about 200 planes after a hole opened up in the passenger cabin during a flight, forcing an emergency landing.

The one-foot-square (30cmx30cm) hole appeared as the Boeing 737 was flying from Nashville to Baltimore on Monday.

Passenger Brian Cunningham told NBC television he had been woken up by "the loudest roar I'd ever heard", and saw the hole above his seat.

People then calmly put on oxygen masks, he said. No-one was injured.

The plane, with 131 passengers and crew on board, made the emergency landed in Charleston, West Virginia.

"After we landed... the pilot came out and looked up through the hole, and everybody applauded, shook his hand, a couple of people gave him hugs," Mr Cunningham said.

The cause of the damage is not known.

On Tuesday Southwest spokeswoman Marilee McInnis told the Associated Press news agency that the airline had inspected 200 Boeing 737-300 jets across the country overnight.

No similar problem was identified and Southwest is operating a normal schedule of flights, she said.

Raman · Post by **Raman** » 15 Jul 2009 04:13

I think they are referring to Kalman Filter, which is a common method of fusing sensor data. I don't know of any mechanism called Kollsman Filter.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 20 Jul 2009 16:07

The Airbus 330 - an accident waiting to happen

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 21 Jul 2009 09:44

Shortcomings in aviation - Capt. Ranganathan

One, the delay of 19 seconds by the captain of IC-866 in rejecting the take-off. The report clearly mentions that just 30-40 metres separated the helicopter on the runway which landed without clearance and IC-866. Another second delay in the reject action, and it would have resulted in a major disaster. The control tower officer had given three calls for IC-866 to abort the take off. This delay is far too long and should have figured in the findings.

And, two, the VVIP helicopters did not have the transponders on board or, if they did, they did not have them ON. This should have been a part of the mandatory recommendation of the findings.

The enquiry into this incident should have been straightforward and quick. Instead, it dithered for four long months for a diplomatic solution; this is one of the shortcomings of our system.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 05 Aug 2009 08:58

26 hurt as turbulence diverts U.S.-bound jet

There is a phenomenon called dead air that results in extreme turbulence in aircraft. Perhaps the Airbus planes are vulnerable to this - how many Airbus have survived this phenomenon?

negi · Post by **negi** » 06 Aug 2009 09:30

Plane engine catches fire in Paris, 8 injured

PARIS: One engine of an Airbus 320 plane preparing to carry 165 passengers from Paris to Spain caught fire before takeoff on Wednesday, and eight passengers were slightly injured on the emergency exit slides, Vueling airline
said.The passengers were injured as they tried to exit the Airbus 320 plane at Paris' Orly airport south of the French capital, Helene Courcoul, chief of staff at the Val de Marne prefecture, said.

The Vueling plane was on its way to Alicante in southeastern Spain when the incident on Flight 9127 occurred at 10:36 a.m., the low-cost carrier said. The aircraft went into reverse to disengage from the boarding ramp when the right engine caught fire for unknown reasons, the Vueling statement said.Courcoul said the fire broke out as the plane was disengaging from the boarding ramp.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 08 Aug 2009 05:00

Failure of airspeed systems found on jets

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 09 Aug 2009 02:22

New York mayor: Aircraft collision over Hudson not 'surviveable'

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 11 Aug 2009 19:39

“Wrong relight drills caused Saras crash”

The Hindu has learnt from officials connected with the board of inquiry that the engine relight (engine restart) drills given by the designers and followed by the pilots were wrong.

The two test pilots were for the first time on the Saras, attempting to switch off and relight in midair one of the two Pratt and Whitney (PT6A-67) engines. The test is a mandatory requirement of the flight development programme. The aircraft had reached its designated height of 9,000 feet and the left engine switched off. After one minute, the crew attempted to relight the engine, and this was communicated to the ground crew. But soon after radio communication was lost, the aircraft started losing height and crashed. “Prior to the flight, the pilots were briefed by the designers about the drills to be followed during relight, and they followed it. But the relight drills were incorrect. With each aero engine having its own unique set of procedures to be adhered to during relight (like at what speed, airflow, where the propellers stop, etc), the pilots just followed the designer’s briefings. Errors occurred; the aircraft went out of control and crashed,” an official explained.

koti · Post by **koti** » 02 Sep 2009 18:42

A Bell430 helicopter carrying Chief Minister of A.P has gone missing today.
The airforce and army helicopters have been rushed to assist the rescue operations.

http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?a=jj ... ng_chopper

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Sep 2009 08:22

When will we ever learn ? - Capt. Ranganathan
Excerpts

Why do politicians think they know the weather better than pilots? Why do pilots, who should have been in command, give in to pressure? Will we ever learn from these mishaps?

We are in the south-west monsoon season, when the lower level winds are from the west or south-west. Any thunderstorm cloud would have been moving east. The helicopter was proceeding from north to south. The worst area to deviate is to the left (east of the flight path) where the downdrafts and turbulence will be at its maximum. The correct way to deviate is to the right (west of the intended flight path) where the conditions would have been more stable.

In all the investigations into helicopter accidents, one common feature reported is the tendency of the pilot to duck down to keep the ground in sight. If the pilot of this helicopter had descended to keep the ground in sight and deviated to the left because of the heavy thunderstorms, he was a sitting duck for the classic “controlled flight into terrain” eventuality.

The regulator has to do some soul-searching and come out with definite regulations to prevent any such occurrences in the future . All helicopter flights have been to uncontrolled destinations. The flight should have been cleared only under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The VFR require a minimum of 5km of visibility and to keep clear of clouds. If these flights had taken place in VFR, all the accidents could have been prevented.

The mix and match of Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules is bound to result in accidents. Even the recent near disaster involving the President’s helicopter could have been avoided had the flight followed VFR protocols. Instead, the flight was conducted under special VFR, which permit operations in visibility of 2,500 metres.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 04 Sep 2009 12:22

From news the Bell caught fire upon crashing burning the victims, similar thing happened in the recent Saras crash, looks like they would need fuel dumping for helis too

any reason why Dhruv's aren't used for VIPs? my only reason for saying this is it demonstrated safe landing from a height of 5000ft without an incident

when is GAGAN coming up which is supposed to help pilots navigate in all weather conditions?

they could have small airfields in most districts across the nation,

1) helps land small aircraft instead of relying mostly on Helis thus saving on fuel
2) if Tejas-2 can do a Gripen, they can be stationed/dispersed at so many places
3) Postal/Courier services could use UAVs (avoiding the need for pilots) from them for light cargo

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Sep 2009 14:57

SSridhar wrote:When will we ever learn ? - Capt. Ranganathan
Excerpts Why do politicians think they know the weather better than pilots? Why do pilots, who should have been in command, give in to pressure? Will we ever learn from these mishaps?
We are in the south-west monsoon season, when the lower level winds are from the west or south-west. Any thunderstorm cloud would have been moving east. The helicopter was proceeding from north to south. The worst area to deviate is to the left (east of the flight path) where the downdrafts and turbulence will be at its maximum. The correct way to deviate is to the right (west of the intended flight path) where the conditions would have been more stable.

In all the investigations into helicopter accidents, one common feature reported is the tendency of the pilot to duck down to keep the ground in sight. If the pilot of this helicopter had descended to keep the ground in sight and deviated to the left because of the heavy thunderstorms, he was a sitting duck for the classic “controlled flight into terrain” eventuality.

The regulator has to do some soul-searching and come out with definite regulations to prevent any such occurrences in the future . All helicopter flights have been to uncontrolled destinations. The flight should have been cleared only under the Visual Flight Rules (VFR) conditions. The VFR require a minimum of 5km of visibility and to keep clear of clouds. If these flights had taken place in VFR, all the accidents could have been prevented.

The mix and match of Instrument Flight Rules and Visual Flight Rules is bound to result in accidents. Even the recent near disaster involving the President’s helicopter could have been avoided had the flight followed VFR protocols. Instead, the flight was conducted under special VFR, which permit operations in visibility of 2,500 metres.

[/quote]

The question one should actually be asking is why was the VIP helo not carrying GPS.

Hand held GPS devices are easily available, many mobile phones have them these days. Heck, even some watches have them.

A helicopter, by design is meant to operate to "uncontrolled destinations" That is exactly why they are used so extensively.

Finally please note. When your time has come, NOTHING can save you.

IFR, VFR is all OK. Pilots are supremely confident beings. They always evaluate risk before they open throttle. No pilot gets airborne knowing that he is going to prang.

Estimating visibility of 5km or 2.5km at some godforsaken mofussil landing ground is at best a subjective exercise and influenced by a disease called "getyouhomeitis"

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Sep 2009 15:12

vasu_ray wrote:From news the Bell caught fire upon crashing burning the victims, similar thing happened in the recent Saras crash, looks like they would need fuel dumping for helis too

any reason why Dhruv's aren't used for VIPs? my only reason for saying this is it demonstrated safe landing from a height of 5000ft without an incident

Many helos have a fuel dump capability.

How do the pilots dump fuel before a CFIT situation??

Not only the Dhruv but inherently ALL helos can autorotate and land subject to some conditions that vary by type of helo.

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 04 Sep 2009 20:58

chetak wrote:Not only the Dhruv but inherently ALL helos can autorotate and land subject to some conditions that vary by type of helo.

Auto rotate without having your undercarriage break on that impact, I don't know how many Choppers demonstrated that

Again from news, the chopper made 6 circles in that area trying to land, it probably made a lower pass in each attempt due to low visibility, before hitting a tree, so they had the option of fuel dumping, they just didn't expect the worst case scenario

Nallamala due to hills will have certain minimum in terms of safe altitude, and expecting a clearing in the hilly terrain wasn't a wise move unless the last resort was crash landing even on trees, fuel dumping should have been initiated or they had Naxals in the back of their mind and wanted to exit from there as soon as the weather cleared, so no fuel dumping.

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 04 Sep 2009 21:53

vasu_ray wrote:
chetak wrote:Not only the Dhruv but inherently ALL helos can autorotate and land subject to some conditions that vary by type of helo.
Auto rotate without having your undercarriage break on that impact, I don't know how many Choppers demonstrated that

Again from news, the chopper made 6 circles in that area trying to land, it probably made a lower pass in each attempt due to low visibility, before hitting a tree, so they had the option of fuel dumping, they just didn't expect the worst case scenario

Nallamala due to hills will have certain minimum in terms of safe altitude, and expecting a clearing in the hilly terrain wasn't a wise move unless the last resort was crash landing even on trees, fuel dumping should have been initiated or they had Naxals in the back of their mind and wanted to exit from there as soon as the weather cleared, so no fuel dumping.

Engine off auto rotation was part of the training in the earlier days.

Even now training for auto rotation is an essential and regular part of basic and continued helicopter training but only these days the engine is left on and the collective is fully dumped, simulating engine failure.

The chopper is then flared out, may be 15-20 odd feet from the ground so that the pilot gets a very real feel of the emergency.
In many cases they actually land because they become proficient and confident.

I personally know an amreeki company pilot who routinely auto rotated and touched down engine off, in the rocky valleys and passes in the high Himalayas where you asked him to and at any time he was asked. The first time it was done, one of his passengers actually peed his trousers.

He was in India demonstrating the performance of his helo.

Maybe in YSR's case, there was some disorientation of the pilot, who knows. All radio contact had been lost.

Sure, they would have detailed charts of the area they were flying over but from what I gathered, it looks like they were well and truly lost. Some morons in the press were bitching about the lack of a satellite phone. For a mobile phone in the rural areas, its generally the BSNL type connection that works better.
A GPS would probably have got them out safely, if they had climbed and stayed clear of obstacles.

No sane pilot will ever dump fuel in a bad weather scenario. It goes against all his training and instinct.

When the time comes for you to go, you go regardless. Karma.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 04 Sep 2009 23:11

Did the eyewitness say the helicopter "went around 6 times" as in 6 circular paths as if seeking a landing site, or did it spin 6 times because the tail rotor was shot off? I think the latter..

A helicopter in trouble is not going to make 6 circular patterns. He's going to go to high collective pitch, autorotation, and minimize turns as he comes down, trying to exchange downward speed for forward speed until the final flare to exchange forward speed for vertical deceleration. Unless he was boxed in by high mountains already.

OTOH, if the Naxals shot down the craft, I think the search party should have seen some signs of their kindness.

So has anyone said anything about how that cellphone call occurred at noon?

chetak · Post by **chetak** » 05 Sep 2009 00:00

narayanan wrote:Did the eyewitness say the helicopter "went around 6 times" as in 6 circular paths as if seeking a landing site, or did it spin 6 times because the tail rotor was shot off? I think the latter..

So has anyone said anything about how that cellphone call occurred at noon?

The eyewitness was a local tribal. The Air Force would have sat him down and milked him of all the relevant details. No word of any missile or explosive related damage so far.

Very iffy for a missile carrying naxal to anticipate that a juicy target would stray many klicks off course and give him the day's jollies.

Unless of course, you think that the woods there are completely vermin infested and is home to an very high density of missile toting, trigger happy bandicoots.

BTW, it was not a cell phone call but an incoming SMS that was delivered (after some delay) to that particular cell phone. Probably happened when the signal strength from a proximal tower picked up when the weather cleared momentarily.

Jagan · Post by **Jagan** » 05 Sep 2009 01:00

Meanwhile....

Air India 747 catches fire on the ground

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 05 Sep 2009 02:10

no need for a missile
ref Black Kawk down
Grenade launcher is good enough

lot of the basics are over ridden in India chalta hai rule number zero

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2009 02:45

The blackbox and vocie recorder were recovered. Lets see.

N^3 did you see the tangle of fibeglass fialment in one of the trees at the crash site. The filament must have unwound after the epoxy melted due to heat. Anyone has Flt Intl type cutaway of the Bell430 helicopter to figure out where the filament came from?

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 05 Sep 2009 03:47

ramana wrote:The blackbox and vocie recorder were recovered. Lets see.

N^3 did you see the tangle of fibeglass fialment in one of the trees at the crash site. The filament must have unwound after the epoxy melted due to heat. Anyone has Flt Intl type cutaway of the Bell430 helicopter to figure out where the filament came from?

Here download and read everything any one wanted to know.
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircra ... 03_web.pdf

vasu_ray · Post by **vasu_ray** » 05 Sep 2009 04:17

N3, not sure about the accuracy of the news that the Chopper was circling,

Here is a sequence,

1) the tribals could have noticed when the Chopper was taking an aerial view of a nearby dam

2) in rough weather they deviated towards the Nallamala hills

3) and the visibility was really low

4) Other news says the Chopper hit a tall tree on the first hill in the direction they were traveling, the Chopper exploded leaving only part of the the tail section intact

Between 3 & 4, nobody knows what exactly happened. Naxals aren't equipped to shoot down a chopper, its unprecedented