Army helicopter makes emergency landing in Nakhon Nayok, five crew injured

[BoonToong]

Anyone that could do a half decent auto would not put it into the water.

You have just demonstrated that you know very little about flying an autorotation (maybe you could enlighten us on 'flare effects' too?).

Sometimes a pilot is left with little height, poor wind orientation and heavy. If indeed this was a tail rotor failure, the pilot would have had to shut down the engines too; so I think he may have done a pretty good job after all, who knows? I consider myself to be a 'Subject Matter Expert' and I still wouldn't call it based on a few photo's and a journalists report.

The other fallacy is that landing on deeper water is somehow 'softer' - nope.

For the record, I have flown literally 100's of autorotations, many of them with the engine deliberately turned off.

[itchybum]

Anyone that could do a half decent auto would not put it into the water.

You have just demonstrated that you know very little about flying an autorotation (maybe you could enlighten us on 'flare effects' too?).

Sometimes a pilot is left with little height, poor wind orientation and heavy. If indeed this was a tail rotor failure, the pilot would have had to shut down the engines too; so I think he may have done a pretty good job after all, who knows? I consider myself to be a 'Subject Matter Expert' and I still wouldn't call it based on a few photo's and a journalists report.

The other fallacy is that landing on deeper water is somehow 'softer' - nope.

For the record, I have flown literally 100's of autorotations, many of them with the engine deliberately turned off.

Good for you.

By the way, you are not flying once you need the autorotation phase.

Oh...and by the way again....you never turn the engine off...deliberately.

'Subject Matter Expert'

[BoonToong]

Good for you.

By the way, you are not flying once you need the autorotation phase.

Oh...and by the way again....you never turn the engine off...deliberately.

'Subject Matter Expert'

I think as a former military QHI, pretty much puts me in the bracket for being an SME.

By the way, you are not flying once you need the autorotation phase.

Wrong; Ever been in a glider? helicopters can glide too, it's the fundamental basis of an autorotation. But you knew that already, right?

Oh...and by the way again....you never turn the engine off...deliberately.

Wrong again; there are several occasions when you would deliberately shut an engine down in flight. The relevant one here is that if you have a Tail Rotor Failure and do not shut down the engines, you will not be able to conduct a successful autorotation.

Failed on 2 counts again Itchybum

Class act anorak

Care to give us the flying credentials that allow you to comment so expertly?

[GentlemanJim]

Anyone that could do a half decent auto would not put it into the water.

You have just demonstrated that you know very little about flying an autorotation (maybe you could enlighten us on 'flare effects' too?).

Sometimes a pilot is left with little height, poor wind orientation and heavy. If indeed this was a tail rotor failure, the pilot would have had to shut down the engines too; so I think he may have done a pretty good job after all, who knows? I consider myself to be a 'Subject Matter Expert' and I still wouldn't call it based on a few photo's and a journalists report.

The other fallacy is that landing on deeper water is somehow 'softer' - nope.

For the record, I have flown literally 100's of autorotations, many of them with the engine deliberately turned off.

Good for you.

By the way, you are not flying once you need the autorotation phase.

Oh...and by the way again....you never turn the engine off...deliberately.

'Subject Matter Expert'

Itchybum, you just blew your cover. You have 100% not got a Helicopter Licence, and 100% do not fly them, unless you have been a passenger for 20 mins. If you have a tail rotor failure and do not cut the engines you will die at the bottom when you flare the aircraft for landing as there is torque generated by the engine which will cause the aircraft to start spinning rapidly. There are also a number of other situations that would require you to shut down an engine. Furthermore in autorotation specially from height you would be amazed how much you can do with the aircraft in terms of (as you put it) 'flying'. As BT says it is very similar to flying a glider.

BoonToong calls it correctly 'anorak'.

Edited June 19, 2013 by metisdead
30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording.

[SeaVisionBurma]

Post containing inappropriate language (and a reply quoting it) have been removed.

And lets stop with the bickering rotary lessons thanks

[BoonToong]

For an interesting, accurate and informative read on the factors involved if a helicopter experiences a tail rotor failure, have a read of this study by the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAPAP2003_01.PDF

[metisdead]

Continued bickering session about auto rotation has been removed.

[Garry]

If the bell was in a low static hover, there would be no chance of a decent auto-rotate scenario

[jackr]

By the way, would love to see the belt that drives that tail rotor.

The tailrotor of the UH-1 is driven by a driveshaft going from the main gearbox along the upper side of the tail, through a 60° and a 90° gearbox. No slings or belts. However the pitch of the tail rotor blades is controlled via a set of cables operated by the pedals.

42 and 90 according to this:

[BoonToong]

If the bell was in a low static hover, there would be no chance of a decent auto-rotate scenario

That CAA report listed above also studies tail rotor failures in a low hover and shows that they are survivable. The key factors are wind direction, power being used, hover height, the speed of the pilot's reactions and the inertia contained in the blades, head, gearbox etc.

[jbrain]

I guess I must be the only member on this forum who isn't an experienced chopper pilot

[JAG]

As a one time Infanteer it is fascinating watching all these drivers airframe B3 arguing with each other!

Since all those aboard the helicopter survived, I would suggest it was a successful (if somewhat uncomfortable) landing!

Never did like wocca woccas much myself - rarely turned up when it was raining, and as for the big ones never fancied flying in an aeroplane which was capable of having a collision with itself!

[itchybum]

I guess I must be the only member on this forum who isn't an experienced chopper pilot

No, there seems to be a couple of others about.

[itchybum]

If the bell was in a low static hover, there would be no chance of a decent auto-rotate scenario

Depends how low...but saying no chance is poppycock.

[itchybum]

As a one time Infanteer it is fascinating watching all these drivers airframe B3 arguing with each other!

Since all those aboard the helicopter survived, I would suggest it was a successful (if somewhat uncomfortable) landing!

Never did like wocca woccas much myself - rarely turned up when it was raining, and as for the big ones never fancied flying in an aeroplane which was capable of having a collision with itself!

Not arguing, difference of opinion.

Some flew in the real world, others fly with white gloves on.

Also not arguing it was successful or not, which no doubt it was, just the decision to land where.

[monty]

As a one time Infanteer it is fascinating watching all these drivers airframe B3 arguing with each other!

 

Since all those aboard the helicopter survived, I would suggest it was  a successful (if somewhat uncomfortable) landing! 

 

Never did like wocca woccas much myself - rarely turned up when it was raining, and as for the big ones never fancied flying in an aeroplane which was capable of having a collision with itself!

Haha, nice way of desribing a chinook of being capable of having a collision with itself

Us fixed wing pilots, who pilot their machines by relative graceful aerodynamics, with or without engine power, used to say that whirly birds only manage to fly by rather ungracefully beating the air around it into submission with brute force

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[BoonToong]

As a one time Infanteer it is fascinating watching all these drivers airframe B3 arguing with each other!

Since all those aboard the helicopter survived, I would suggest it was a successful (if somewhat uncomfortable) landing!

Never did like wocca woccas much myself - rarely turned up when it was raining, and as for the big ones never fancied flying in an aeroplane which was capable of having a collision with itself!

Haha, nice way of desribing a chinook of being capable of having a collision with itself

Us fixed wing pilots, who pilot their machines by relative graceful aerodynamics, with or without engine power, used to say that whirly birds only manage to fly by rather ungracefully beating the air around it into submission with brute force

Sent from my GT-I9001 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Good stuff Monty, here are some others........

Helicopters don't really fly. They're so ugly the earth repels them.

Nothing in the world looks more unfinished than a helicopter.

Helicopters don't fly, they beat the air into submission

The infamous Jesus Nut: There is a bolt in the rotor assembly that is quite critical. It holds the rotor onto the shaft. In a fit of wisdom, it was termed the "Jesus bolt." The apparent reasoning was that only the good grace of the Savior kept it from failing. Failure of the Jesus bolt quickly gives a helicopter the same aerodynamic properties enjoyed by the common household brick.

Flying Sea Kings - described as 'keeping 30,000 rivets flying in close formation.', or, 'a million parts rotating rapidly around an oil leak waiting for metal fatigue to set in'

Q: what's the cheapest way to get a helicopter?

A: buy an acre of land and wait! (my apologies to the injured crew of the Huey)

Edited June 20, 2013 by BoonToong

[SeaVisionBurma]

^ Nice ones - forgot about some of those.