 |
RE: [RC] Pilot Error - David LeBlancKat said: That's what they always chalk them up to, unless there's a clear mechanical failure. I rest my case. In the absence of a clear mechanical failure, the NTSB understands that all accidents are caused by pilot error. No, you're mis-reading what I said. The NTSB puts the blame on pilot error when they don't know what caused the accident. Logic goes like this - is there a provable mechanical failure? If not, did the pilot provably screw up? The answer to the last question doesn't matter - it's chalked up to pilot error. There was an airliner a few years back where the _tail_ fell off, and it was chalked up to pilot error, not that the engineers didn't build a plane correctly. If the engine falls off, or explodes, or the pilot does something completely wrong, like takes off on the wrong runway, then they can clearly assign blame - but in the absence of a clear fault, it's 'pilot error'. If the pilot had done something really bad, the report would likely have been more clear about the exact error so other pilots could learn from the mistake. For example, my father used to fly jet trainers in the late 50's. The aircraft was built such that you couldn't see anything when you were coming in for a landing. He saw a number of people die from 'pilot error', when the real error was the idiot who put student pilots in a plane designed to amplify mistakes. I'm somewhat doubtful that another 150# or so tipped theaircraft overthe edge, especially in that manner. It is a brave man indeed who is willing to guess at a woman's weight...and in public! Fools rush in where angels fear to tread 8-) However (despite the joke between my vet and me, which David apparently didn't get) I also doubt that it was the extra "150# or so" that tipped the aircraft over the edge, and that it would have had trouble taking off in those conditions anyway. The conditions for landing safely and the conditions for taking off safely are not necessarily the same conditions. The fact that the helicopter successfully took off from a helipad in St. George where the flight originated (open parking lot, altitude 2,500') doesn't count for determining whether it could safely take off from a small clearing in the trees on the Kaibab Plateau. It's all weight vs. lift. If the aircraft had enough lift to fly higher than where it picked you up, it had enough lift to take off. That aircraft is designed to hover fully loaded at around 5000 feet higher than you were. You're right that it taking off from 2500' lower doesn't tell you anything, but if the pilot could fly even a thousand feet above where it picked you up, there was enough lift. The small clearing may have been a problem, but that doesn't account for why the tail rotor wasn't doing its job. It clearly did its job at a higher altitude. Another factor is that it would be a design failure for the tail rotor to be the first thing to fail at higher altitudes - you'd have helicopters falling out of the sky all over the place - they'd get too high, start spinning, and it would get ugly from there. We're supposed to build most aircraft to return to a stable attitude when left alone. Helicopters are just basically dangerous, even under the best of conditions. Yep, which is why you won't catch ME flying in one again absence a life threatening situation. Give me a fixed wing aircraft any day, THOSE things are actually designed to fly. I would personally tend to avoid them. Funny thing is that I've been more nervous about flying since I learned how to build them than I was before. The one time you're safer in a helicopter is exactly the same type of crash you experienced - that and engine failure above about a few hundred feet - you can trade off potential energy for lift, and I've seen one land with the engine off as softly as it flew in. The thing about helicopters that really amazed me is that the rotors change pitch through their rotation. Fixed wing aircraft have two vibrational modes, helicopters have three. Those blades wobble around in all sorts of ways, and that vibration plays all sorts of tricks on the aerodynamics that results. This doesn't change the fact that the cause of the accident at all was probably because the pilot chose to fly that helicopter in conditions that were too close to the edge of its mechanical capabilities. I don't think they explained why that tail rotor did what it did that day. High altitude was surely a contributing factor, but the ceiling for that aircraft fully loaded is about 5000 ft in effective altitude higher than you were, accounting for temperature. He should have been able to fly that high, according to the manufacturer specs. I'm also doubtful that the air ambulance company would have been certified if the pilot and the two attendants, along with the equipment, had put the aircraft that close to it's rated capability. If it was certified for that use in that configuration, then we have a failure on the part of the FAA. Glad you made it - not many people live through an aircraft crash. Also glad you weren't hurt worse - the time my horse and I wrecked, I lost about 3 hours. Drove everyone around me nuts - every 2 minutes, "What happened?" Then if they wouldn't tell me, I was mad at them for about 2 minutes... =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net. Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp Ride Long and Ride Safe!! =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
|