Read the forum code of contact
By: 29th November 2013 at 23:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It does indeed. Positive thoughts for all involved......
By: 30th November 2013 at 08:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-"Fatalities are likely.........." Not a welcome comment.
By: 30th November 2013 at 08:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Possibly so but we do not want senior politicians posting comments on Twitter!! I suppose we should be relieved and perhaps surprised that there was apparently no fire.
By: 30th November 2013 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So sad to hear that there are fatalities being reported now. :(
By: 30th November 2013 at 16:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It's being reported that sadly 8 people have died in this tragic accident.
By: 2nd December 2013 at 18:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Sadly now thought to be at least 9.
Something doesn't seem right though? One engine out and it could still fly, two engines out? Unless the fuel was cut or contaminated how could two engines cut out?
If the engines quit it would still autogirate, mega gearbox fail?
By: 2nd December 2013 at 19:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It seems that way. I found the criticism of the time it was taking to recover the bodies uncalled for and highly dismissive of the intensely difficult conditions in which the rescue teams had to work. Once again they have worked carefully and diligently to make the environment safe for the remainder of the work.
By: 2nd December 2013 at 19:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Fair comment Charlie, had they dug quicker and the 'copter landed on the rescuers heads they would have been lambasted for that. A no win situation.
By: 3rd December 2013 at 07:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Look at the Riga Supermarket incident, more were killed and injured when more of the roof collapsed onto rescuers.
Eventually the whole lot came down.
By: 3rd December 2013 at 09:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Police Caution is that all? I would jail the idiot.
http://news.sky.com/story/1176933/man-arrested-for-shining-laser-at-helicopter
By: 3rd December 2013 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Indeed - but there's no connection to the tragedy in Glasgow, is there...?
By: 4th December 2013 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-It was after dark and the Helicopter has thermal imaging. It's vital to confirm a trespasser and find them before a train kills them, hence the helicopter.
By: 6th December 2013 at 02:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Some people really are sick in my opinion...a colleague of mine came up to me the other day and said "Hey, do you know the main thing that has been learnt as a result of the accident in Glasgow?"...I replied with a cautious "No" because judging from the way he said this I already got the sense that what he was going to say next wasn't going to be nice...and he said "Pigs can fly!"...with the pigs reference being towards the Police.
I was shocked!:mad: :apologetic:
By: 6th December 2013 at 08:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-So why repeat it here?
By: 6th December 2013 at 17:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Purely coincidence I am sure, but EASA have just published an EAD on EC135/635 dated today
The fuselage tail boom structure of the EC 135 / EC 635 type design is
connected to the tail rotor “fenestron” housing by means of a ring frame,
attached by two rivet rows each. During a recent post flight check, the pilot
detected a crack which ran along three rivets across the ring frame.
This condition, if not detected and corrected, would gradually reduce the
structural integrity of the tail boom fenestron attachment, potentially resulting, in
the worst case scenario, in detachment of the fenestron and consequent loss of
the helicopter.
To address this potential unsafe condition, Eurocopter Deutschland GmbH
(ECD) issued Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) No. EC135-53A-029 to provide
instructions for inspection.
For the reasons described above, this AD requires repetitive visual inspections
of the ring frame X9227 and, depending on findings, accomplishment of
applicable corrective action(s).
Moggy
By: 9th December 2013 at 16:01 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-And now the AAIB preliminary.
95 litres of fuel remained on board
No disruption of the engines
Transmission from at least one of them was still intact
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S9-2013%20G-SPAO%20v2.pdf
It seems to squash a few theories
Moggy
By: 9th December 2013 at 17:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-No autopsy information yet?
By: 10th December 2013 at 18:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-You would need more extensive tests to be sure it wasn't engine failure I would have thought.
An engine can stop (not break) for any number of reasons. Electrical, icing, fuel starvation (but not necessarily running out of fuel).
As for auto-rotation at 1000feet would you have time?
By: 10th December 2013 at 19:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Very good post Moggie, all except the fact you are missing one major fact...
Preliminary examination showed that all main rotor blades were attached at the time of the impact but that neither the main rotor nor the fenestron tail rotor were rotating
They are I would imagine free turbines, so engine failure wouldn't stop the rotors.
Posts: 1,376
By: Mr Creosote - 29th November 2013 at 23:13
Hope I'm wrong, but this sounds bad.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-25163045