Liability-Lawyer's dream product. (Old Ford ad)

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:48 am

Probably safer than helicopters...but not by much. (I think the guy in the lower picture must be dead!)

jrenwick · Post by **jrenwick** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:03 am

Ah, the good old days!

flat country pilot · Post by **flat country pilot** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:28 pm

Natural Selection

bsdunek · Post by **bsdunek** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:28 pm

Yes, it looks bad by today's standards, but that's the way things were. You were expected to exercise common sense (which was probably only slightly more common then than it is now!) Our 1940 Allis Chalmers combine had all open shafts, belts and pulleys. Dad was a real stickler about not getting off the tractor until everything had stopped moving. I could have gotten hurt worse from him than from the machinery.
As a kid, I had friends that got hurt with farm machinery, and one that was killed. Fortunately, we never had an accident on our farm.
In addition to dangerous, just think of how that blade would be throwing things around. Probably the operator would be ok, but I wouldn't want to be in the same county with that thing!
I'm an old IHC collector as well as 170 enthusiast.

iowa · Post by **iowa** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:51 pm

?common sense?

this sounds vaguely familiar?!

iowa

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:56 pm

Here's one in motion. Similar principle.

http://www.break.com/index/helicopter_w ... keoff.html

Post by **GAHorn** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:19 pm

That video is really humorous when I review it. The camera operator makes so many comments that he doesn't realize are actually premonitions such as all the little "chuckles" as he opens the film...his comments about his "little one" wanting to "take a ride" with "Charlie...our pilot! (chuckle-chuckle) (Bet this event makes a long-lasting memory for the kid... He'll probably hope to grow up to be a night watchman at a library.)
I like Charlie's comment, "I apologize." If he'd been cooler he'd at least offered them to "hang on, folks, and I"ll go get another one."
When one of the embarrased owner/operators glares at the guy videoing the whole thing, the camera-operator quickly offers that his on-going picture taking with "your insurance is going to want this."
Whoo-boy. Lets all be careful out there when we're giving rides.

cessna170bdriver · Post by **cessna170bdriver** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:34 pm

Evidently "Charlie" wasn't aware of the video. He told the NTSB that the accident was caused by a passenger interfering with the flight controls. When the NTSB viewed the video, they came to a different conclusion.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_i ... 1288&key=1

Miles

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:34 pm

cessna170bdriver wrote:Evidently "Charlie" wasn't aware of the video. He told the NTSB that the accident was caused by a passenger interfering with the flight controls. When the NTSB viewed the video, they came to a different conclusion.
Miles

Miles

From my viewing of the video I think it would be hard to tell, but I think plausible, that the passenger interfered with the operation of the helicopter contributing to the accident.

I also think that Charlie had probably operated from that spot before with out incident because the door was closed. I personally would never operate a helicopter that close to an open hanger but have to one with closed doors.

The NTSB ruling probably had more to do with the fact that the pilot can always be held accountable no matter what, after all he did hit the door and should have planned better for all hazards including the passenger taking the controls.

Charlie should have known better and stayed in bed after all.

hilltop170 · Post by **hilltop170** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:48 pm

If the passenger interferred with the controls, it was the smoothest interference I have ever seen, the helicopter didn't even bobble as the tail rotor rotated into the hangar door.

Post by **GAHorn** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:30 am

A buddy of mine feels it's probable the normal practice is to hover-taxi away from the congested hangar and that it's possible that Charlie was wanting to impress his riders with a "chimney climb"...a straight up climb away from the ramp...which contributed to the crash. I don't see any evidence Charlie tried to move the machine away from the hangar as he claimed to the NTSB. I'm a bit disenchanted with his effort to blame the kid in the other seat...but perhaps things happened so fast that Charlie isn't sure what actually happened. (Many times victims lose recall after traumatic experiences.)

I'm amazed that none of the bystanders were hurt by the flinging parts. It's a fortunate outcome in an amazing video. (The FAA inspector at work tells me of another R44 that a rider exited from in happiness, having just completed his first helicopter ride. In his excitement, seeing himself video-ed by his family... he made a "Rocky Balboa raised arm salute"....and lost his hands to the whirling rotor...all on family video.)

dacker · Post by **dacker** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:05 am

George, I have seen that video... although it looks real, I believe that it is just special effects, for some sick commercial. In the video the hands actually hit the camera!
But this I can guarantee... it has happened before, and will happen again.
David

Post by **Bruce Fenstermacher** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:44 am

George you may be right on the normal practice and that this was departure from it.

A VALUABLE LESSON FOR ALL
Be very careful when you depart your normal practice. Somethings are done a certain way for what might not be an apparently good reason.

As for the tail rotor hitting the door I don't think so. It was the main rotor. If the tail rotor had hit the door the helicopter would have started a violent rotation about the mast and not fallen straight down as it did.

Also the tail rotor couldn't hit the door with out the main rotor hitting first unless Charlie had done a pedal turn (turnabout the mast) which he didn't

Just because Charlie went straight up doesn't mean he didn't intend to slide left as he ascended but was prevented from doing so.

Yes I'm amazed that no one got hurt but I'll bet there a couple of bad backs coming out of that helicopter.

Plummit · Post by **Plummit** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:25 am

The cyclic control on the passenger side of an R-44 is easily removed by pulling a pip-pin. The pilot sure wasn't follow a normal take off profile judging by how high he lifted off. Nomally a heli is eased foward into foward flight. This looked more like he as attempting a "high perormance" take-off from a restricted field - something you don't normally do with 3 pax on board.

regards

~Marc

Tue Mar 20, 2007 11:56 am

Plummit wrote:The cyclic control on the passenger side of an R-44 is easily removed by pulling a pip-pin. The pilot sure wasn't follow a normal take off profile judging by how high he lifted off. Nomally a heli is eased foward into foward flight. This looked more like he as attempting a "high perormance" take-off from a restricted field - something you don't normally do with 3 pax on board.

regards

~Marc

Marc

I was surprised by the departure profile only because it was not expected from an R44. These types of departures are normal operating procedures at 2 of the 3 NY City heliports and the airframes are usually loaded to the gills. Most of my departures from emergency landing zones IE roads, parking lots and back yards are also max performance altitude over airspeed departures. So to say it wasn't a normal procedure specially to our fixed wing friends unfamiliar with helicopter operations.

I've already stated I'd have been very leery of operating the helicopter that close to the hanger with an open door in any profile.

I was wondering, as I don't recall the cyclic situation of the R44, if the cyclic rockedt up and out of the way like an R22? Regardless, perhaps as many of us do, perhaps the intent for part of the flight was to allow the passenger to manipulate the controls. And perhaps, as many of us have been surprised, the passenger misunderstood and put a death grip on the cyclic. Perhaps being startled from the ascent the passenger reached out and grabbed the cyclic.

To be honest I think Charlie just didn't realize the door was open and in that configuration he didn't have the clearance. I think having seen this type of thing before, camera angles not telling the whole story, we don't need to be so quick to judge Charlie.

We need to learn from this that once again probably a contributing factor was Charlie was doing something different than he'd done before. Maybe many times. Perhaps this was the second flight from that location that day but the first the door was closed. Perhaps the camera operator opened the door and Charlie didn't realize the ramifications.

Same thing with the open blade on the tractor (nicely bringing this back on subject.) I'll bet many hours of trouble free operation where had with that set up because the operator knew the dangers. But it only would take one time that the operator was taken outside his normal operating element.