Helicopter Safety In Thailand

[newtronbom]

Just came on the news that yet another helicopter has crashed with many fatalities. This one was on it's way to a previous crash site. That's 3 in one week! Can't blame it all on the weather. At this point, I think we have to factor in quality of maintenance, or pilot error - possibly both. Helicopters require far more maintenance which is also more technical than normal planes. I have to wonder how efficient and how thorough that is here. With helicopters, "you can't wait till it's broken, to fix it" or it will fail for sure. Anyone else have opinions on this one? There were 3 deaths in today's crash. That's a total of 17 for the week! Far too many......

Edited July 24, 2011 by newtronbom

[gregb]

I would tend to doubt it. Helicopters are constantly flying in Thailand. The concentration of 3 crashes in such a short time is mind bogglingly rare. The only thing that all 3 events have in common is the area they are investigating.

At this point, I am inclined to think there may be some kind of illegal installation in that area that these various helicopter pilots are having the misfortune to see, and are being brought down. The other possibility is that there are dangerous microbursts from some atmospheric anomaly that are impossible for even an experienced pilot to guard against.

Basically, I think it has to be the area. Whether the cause of the crashes is due to a natural cause or a human one, I could not say. Idon't think training or maintenance is likely, because those factors would be highly correlated with other flights as well.

My wife says it is ghosts. She is actually angry and yelling at invisible ghosts for killing all those people.

[angiud]

Are you serious?

[IMA_FARANG]

A U.S. Navy helicopter pilot once told me the real defination of a the word "helicopter" was "a flying accident looking for a place to happen".

But yes the Thai military should temporarily ground ALL it's helicopters until each one was given a through safety check.

That's what the U.S. military would do....they call it a "safety standown" and it is often imposed after a crash.

Edited July 24, 2011 by IMA_FARANG

[BuckarooBanzai]

Flying low to the ground is an extremely dangerous activity for a helicopter as there is no chance for the pilot to recover from any type of problem whether it be mechanical or natural.

Even with total engine failure in a helicopter, auto-rotation, at a sufficient altitude, allows a pilot to land safely provided there is a clearing. Even with no clearing you can hit the treetops at a slow speed.

The area in which they were flying and the activities the pilots were engaged in likely led to low level flight.

Flying at tree top level at normal flight speeds in bad weather is an accident waiting to happen as we have seen over the last week. The accidents were probably the result of several different reasons but the SOP's (standard operating procedures) should definitely be re-evaluated as there is obviously a problem with the current techniques in use. Of course maintenance should be a major focus as well.

It is a very sad story of three groups of people involved in fatal accidents while trying to help others. Condolences to all involved.

[sotsira]

I would tend to doubt it. Helicopters are constantly flying in Thailand. The concentration of 3 crashes in such a short time is mind bogglingly rare. The only thing that all 3 events have in common is the area they are investigating.

At this point, I am inclined to think there may be some kind of illegal installation in that area that these various helicopter pilots are having the misfortune to see, and are being brought down. The other possibility is that there are dangerous microbursts from some atmospheric anomaly that are impossible for even an experienced pilot to guard against.

Basically, I think it has to be the area. Whether the cause of the crashes is due to a natural cause or a human one, I could not say. Idon't think training or maintenance is likely, because those factors would be highly correlated with other flights as well.

My wife says it is ghosts. She is actually angry and yelling at invisible ghosts for killing all those people.

I don't think they all crashed in the same area.

[Trembly]

A very experienced ex (British) Army Air Corps pilot who had the pleasure of riding in a Thai helicopter reported that he was distinctly nervous throughout. When pushed he said "that's not how I would have flown it".

What do you expect? Send them on as many exchanges as you like, with all of the best intentions too, but when the pilots and ground crew come back to face the attitudes (and budgets) back in Thailand it all goes to rat shit.

[gregb]

I would tend to doubt it. Helicopters are constantly flying in Thailand. The concentration of 3 crashes in such a short time is mind bogglingly rare. The only thing that all 3 events have in common is the area they are investigating.

At this point, I am inclined to think there may be some kind of illegal installation in that area that these various helicopter pilots are having the misfortune to see, and are being brought down. The other possibility is that there are dangerous microbursts from some atmospheric anomaly that are impossible for even an experienced pilot to guard against.

Basically, I think it has to be the area. Whether the cause of the crashes is due to a natural cause or a human one, I could not say. Idon't think training or maintenance is likely, because those factors would be highly correlated with other flights as well.

My wife says it is ghosts. She is actually angry and yelling at invisible ghosts for killing all those people.

I don't think they all crashed in the same area.

My apologies, you are correct. I was under a mistaken impression. The 3rd helicopter crash appears to be unrelated to and in a different area than the first two.

That would certainly seem to increase the probability that the accidents have more to do with pilot judgement than with a specific feature of the terrain.

[bangkockney]

Rumours abound that various "watermelons" were on board whom the military wanted out of the way.

[Thongkorn]

Helicopters are safer than planes, Its the landing site that causes the problem , trying to land on a Mountain or steep hill or Un even ground in an Emergency, But in an Emergency you take any thing, usually the Blades hit some thing ,which causes catastrophic damage, You can actually switch the rotors off and the thing will just come down on its own power,(to a point depending on Its load). you will always get conflicting opinions from fast movers and slow movers,Pilots from Planes and helicopters.training and maintenance are paramount,

Edited July 24, 2011 by Thongkorn

[Trembly]

Hhhmmm. . . Since helicopter flight is essentially is based on a few different forces all working against each other, I'm not so sure that helicopters are inherently safer than aeroplanes.

[gregb]

Hhhmmm. . . Since helicopter flight is essentially is based on a few different forces all working against each other, I'm not so sure that helicopters are inherently safer than aeroplanes.

In either a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft, and engine failure means you have to trade altitude to keep air moving across your primary flight surface at an appropriate angle of attack. As long as you do not stall, you continue to have full control of the aircraft all the way to the ground, you just have to continually give up altitude. In this sense, autorotating a helicopter is not substantially different from powered flight as far as the forces are concerned. Just don't screw up. Fixed wing aircraft are generally more forgiving if you do screw up, but either will kill you if you stall out a few hundred feet above the ground.

Autorotating in a helicopter is generally considered safer than dead sticking a fixed wing aircraft because the speed at which you impact the ground is substantially less, and it is less critical to choose the perfect off field landing location. Autorotating a helicopter over mountainous terrain still has a chance of survival. Go engine out in a fixed wing aircraft in the same place, and you're slamming straight into an immovable object at extremely high speed. Few people walk away from that.

Having said that, if you happen to be over terrain where you can make a reasonable approximation of a landing onto a flat piece of ground, then a fixed wing aircraft does offer benefits over autorotation in a helicopter, as you can keep a reasonable approach speed which gives you better control in gusty winds.

It comes down to the speed of impact and the terrain in which you are trying to crash. On the whole, helicopters have less restrictive landing profiles and because of that usually come out better in an emergency.

[Mrjlh]

From the news report I read the third helicopter had already retrieved the body of Gen Tawan. Had to return to Bangkok for maintenance repair, was supposedly repaired and was returning to it's base camp near the crash site when it developed problems and crashed. Helicopters are complex machines. It would be a safe bet that the ground crew were in a rush to fix it and were anxious to get it airborne to finish the mission out of pride. This would happen anywhere, think about it. Your friends need you help urgently but you have to fix something quickly before you can help them. As tragic as it is, sh*t happens. And did in this case. But the removal of victims must go on and there is no other way but the use of a helicopter in this case. It is in a very remote and difficult area of jungle.

[Trembly]

Hhhmmm. . . Since helicopter flight is essentially is based on a few different forces all working against each other, I'm not so sure that helicopters are inherently safer than aeroplanes.

In either a helicopter or a fixed wing aircraft, and engine failure means you have to trade altitude to keep air moving across your primary flight surface at an appropriate angle of attack. As long as you do not stall, you continue to have full control of the aircraft all the way to the ground, you just have to continually give up altitude. In this sense, autorotating a helicopter is not substantially different from powered flight as far as the forces are concerned. Just don't screw up. Fixed wing aircraft are generally more forgiving if you do screw up, but either will kill you if you stall out a few hundred feet above the ground.

Autorotating in a helicopter is generally considered safer than dead sticking a fixed wing aircraft because the speed at which you impact the ground is substantially less, and it is less critical to choose the perfect off field landing location. Autorotating a helicopter over mountainous terrain still has a chance of survival. Go engine out in a fixed wing aircraft in the same place, and you're slamming straight into an immovable object at extremely high speed. Few people walk away from that.

Having said that, if you happen to be over terrain where you can make a reasonable approximation of a landing onto a flat piece of ground, then a fixed wing aircraft does offer benefits over autorotation in a helicopter, as you can keep a reasonable approach speed which gives you better control in gusty winds.

It comes down to the speed of impact and the terrain in which you are trying to crash. On the whole, helicopters have less restrictive landing profiles and because of that usually come out better in an emergency.

Thanks for that.

[thaifkrlim]

did somebody invent some new hi-tech warfare helicopter electronics jammer to jam the controls of the flight

[Tonto21]

This being Thailand we can expect an extensive crash investigation to be finished……in about a week, (which would take the west in all honesty around 12 months to complete)

The overall chief investigating officer for the case will not know one end of an air frame from another, and will be told by higher authorities how the crashes happened and will compile the report as ordered. He will be awarded a medal for clearing up the investigation swiftly under poor conditions. No blame will be laid, save a nod to faulty parts……..Supplied by, non-Thai supplier.

And…..The 'dog and pony' show moves on to the next town!

Edited July 25, 2011 by Tonto21

[toybits]

Some moron mechanic must have bought conterfiet parts at Phuket.

[newtronbom]

Why is it that there are always a few posters on this forum, that try and come up with some "weird theory" for situations like this? There was no "high profile" person on board this 3rd flight that could have been the focus of an attack, nor do I believe are there any "high tech" secret installations in that area. How one can imagine such a thing, let alone post it on a forum, is beyond me. If they are doing it to provoke a reaction, they picked a poor topic to do it in. So far I have not yet heard any further news on the possible cause/causes of this latest crash, but it seems that "mechanical failure" is still high on the list. I just hope this is a sufficient wake up call, that may help prevent future crashes and loss of life.

[Jangot]

Some moron mechanic must have bought conterfiet parts at Phuket.

Well done!! You can just sit there safe behind your keyboard and make cheap libellous statements against some group of people of whom you have no knowledge.

Have you any idea of the impact that such a thoughtless statement could have on the mental wellbeing of the unfortunate mechanics/technicians who serviced that aircraft.

And the glib use of "moron" is despicable. These people are professionals trying to do a job and trying to keep their colleagues alive.

There may be mistakes made, there may be errors of professional judgement.

But you should be ashamed of making direct allegations of criminal action without any knowledge whatsoever.

[Dag]

when are the nuclear subs and power plants coming ?

[Jimi007]

Some moron mechanic must have bought conterfiet parts at Phuket.

Well done!! You can just sit there safe behind your keyboard and make cheap libellous statements against some group of people of whom you have no knowledge.

Have you any idea of the impact that such a thoughtless statement could have on the mental wellbeing of the unfortunate mechanics/technicians who serviced that aircraft.

And the glib use of "moron" is despicable. These people are professionals trying to do a job and trying to keep their colleagues alive.

There may be mistakes made, there may be errors of professional judgement.

But you should be ashamed of making direct allegations of criminal action without any knowledge whatsoever.

What? Are you a helicopter mechanic? Or you just don't have any sense of humor? After all there has been a lot in the news lately about Phuket for pirated goods and helicopters for crashing...

[newtronbom]

Some moron mechanic must have bought conterfiet parts at Phuket.

Well done!! You can just sit there safe behind your keyboard and make cheap libellous statements against some group of people of whom you have no knowledge.

Have you any idea of the impact that such a thoughtless statement could have on the mental wellbeing of the unfortunate mechanics/technicians who serviced that aircraft.

And the glib use of "moron" is despicable. These people are professionals trying to do a job and trying to keep their colleagues alive.

There may be mistakes made, there may be errors of professional judgement.

But you should be ashamed of making direct allegations of criminal action without any knowledge whatsoever.

Fully agree with you. How can anybody make such a "trite and uninformed" post on what is a very sad situation. Bad jokes are not called for in a thread like this. Better not to post at all. There are probably more than one person asking themselves if they could be responsible for this accident and feeling like crap as it is. Saying that "toybits" post is insensitive, doesn't really cover it.

[Dag]

Fully agree with you. How can anybody make such a "trite and uninformed" post on what is a very sad situation. Bad jokes are not called for in a thread like this. Better not to post at all. There are probably more than one person asking themselves if they could be responsible for this accident and feeling like crap as it is. Saying that "toybits" post is insensitive, doesn't really cover it.

Seriously....I doubt it very much.....they are never at fault.

[richardjm65]

gregb's post re trading height for control is the most informative yet. My guess is he has experience as groundcrew or crew. Me too. Whilst in the RAF many years ago we simulated a double engine failure in a Wessex. Unfortunately we were already too low to get the nose down and pick up airspeed enough to enable a successful flare out at ground level, so the autorotation was a failure and we hit the ground very hard. Other than a few cuts and bruises we were OK, but the helicopter was totalled - what was known as category 4 damage. Being in a helicopter thrashing itself to death on the ground is not an experience that requires repeating, I promise you.

The tough part for a helicopter pilot trying an emergency landing in mountainous country is in getting his attitude such that the rotor blades do not come in contact with the mountain, but I suppose, really, that's a given!

Having been involved with both military and civilian helicopter operations, I'd have to say that, given the complexity of the aircraft, maintenance in S.E.A. leaves something to be desired. This is not to detract from those operations that are run by true professionals, but there are some cowboy operations which are not always confined to civilian companies.

[Dag]

Its called the dead mans curve.....height to speed correlation.

At height, you can recover enough inertia in the blades to start autorotation of the blades in an engine failure if you have enough forward speed also. At height and low to zero speed, you cannot usually...generate enough inertia....at greater heights you can hover at zero speed because you can generate enough inertia in the blades by a dramatic 'fall' and recover to allow the inertia to build in the blades and then pull you up at ground level.

At high speed and low height, you cannot usually pull that forward momentum up enough to slow the machine before it hits the ground.

So usually at above tree height, such as what was probably the situation with these machines...they cannot generate enough speed to get lift in the blades to then use this in the flare to stop them before hitting the ground.

Combine this with bad weather and cloud coming in all around you and you lose your orientation and can end up upside down, not knowing which way is up or down. You should never put yourself in this position in the first place. But with the asian mentality and 'face saving' being on board....huge pressures, couples with weather and training inadequacies is a recipe for disaster....3 times in fact.....that is just plane stupidity.

A helicopter went down in Sydney Australia recently...the weather was reported as horrendous in Sydney itself.....there were reported sightings of the machine being seen upside down before crashing.....if this happened its a classic example of loss of orientation in cloud...upside down and not knowing it....then the machine falls apart before plummeting to the ground.

I spent many years flying in what is arguably the most dangerous flying in civil helicopters spending most of the flying hours inside that dead mans curve. A couple of times I had problems, I had no issue with landing and waiting it out, or seeking help, face saving is not an issue in Oz, but embarrassment is and I am lucky that I do not worry about being embarrassed too much.....I did not have generals over looking my shoulder though with expectations.

[newtronbom]

I have well over a hundred hours in several types of helicopter, from the old Hughes 500C up to an air force Iraquoi. Most were spent in New Zealand in the Hughes, as over 25 years ago, deer farming was just starting to take off in NZ and most farmers were trying to get stock. The only way to do that back then, was to capture "wild stock" and one of the most common methods to do this, was called "bulldogging", which was to chase a herd of deer in a helicopter, then when the time was right, jump out of it (usually about 2 or 3 meters above the animal) and onto the back of a deer bringing it down, then pulling a bag over it's head to quiet it, tie it's legs and roll it into a net to lift it back to the farm. This method was a bit dangerous, but the money was good and we were young and bullet proof back then, plus it was a lot of fun. There were a few accidents though and I had my share of "auto-rotations" and such. My friends and I also did a lot of Sky Diving from helicopters. My point in all this being, that most of this (the deer capture anyway) was in very mountainous, heavily wooded country and the weather was not always ideal, so I know what I am talking about when I say that the recent crashes can't be put down to "the terrain" only. There has to be other factors involved in these crashes. From what I have seen, the Thai pilots are very professional and quite able, as pilots. That only leaves sabotage or mechanical failure. So far I go with mechanical failure. Flying in the kind of terrain they were, puts a lot more than the normal strain on a machine. WE will have to wait for the accident report to see if I am correct. Here is a link to an article on deer capture in NZ bulldogging deer for any who don't believe me, or who have not heard of it before. Google it for more info.

Edited July 25, 2011 by newtronbom

[Dag]

'Well over a hundred hours'.....at that stage you still count every 'point' of an hour don't you ?? Like 117.3 hours ??

[xbusman]

My first guess is that they have counterfeit parts introduced into their inventory in some way. This is a major problem in the world and I know quite a few chopper companies that have gone to extraordinary lengths to combat this deadly problem. Having these many problems in such a short time also highly indicates that there is a problem in the inventory. Parts get replaced on a regular schedule and fail in similar manners. That creates "clusters" of problems as is periodically experienced by companies like Michelin, the clusters are just a lot more visible in Helicopters.

[richardjm65]

Though rather getting away from the original topic, on our squadron we were not above doing something similar to newtronbom's "bulldogging". Sometimes, in idle moments during low level exercises, we'd flush out game birds, usually pheasants. The unfortunate creatures became pinned to the ground by the rotor downdraft and it was the job of the crewman to hop out whilst still in the hover and capture the birds which inevitably finished up in the officer's mess. It was a favoured way of capture, since the pheasant, when cooked, contained none of those bits of shot which you found in birds obtained in the normal way.

[toybits]

To my detractors, I rest my case about counterfiet parts.

My first guess is that they have counterfeit parts introduced into their inventory in some way. This is a major problem in the world and I know quite a few chopper companies that have gone to extraordinary lengths to combat this deadly problem. Having these many problems in such a short time also highly indicates that there is a problem in the inventory. Parts get replaced on a regular schedule and fail in similar manners. That creates "clusters" of problems as is periodically experienced by companies like Michelin, the clusters are just a lot more visible in Helicopters.