Six people dead as helicopter crashes into Hudson River

[jb747]

** A little unrelated side note: Once, a long time ago I taught an F-111 pilot how to do tail rotor failures in a Huey. After we landed he got out and kissed the ground.

A perfectly reasonable response.

 

[Quickstatus]

as it was clearly still spinning and not attached to the main gear box as it fell.

It was attached to something as it departed the helicopter

 

[straitman]

It was attached to something as it departed the helicopter

The main gear box (read transmission) was ripped out of it's mountings however the mast would then snap at that point and the rotor and MGB would separate.

 

[Quickstatus]

rotor and MGB would separate.

There is a part still connected to the rotors

 

[straitman]

View attachment 439259

There is a part still connected to the rotors

Agreed though I personally don't think it's the MGB. A small part possibly.

I emphasise again that the opinions I expressed are those of experienced B206 pilots and my personal knowledge base is regarding helicopters in generally and not the B206 specifically.

Just another thought. The main rotor spinning all the way down to the water that indicates that the MGB was functional when the rotor departed from the rest of the fuselage.

 

[jb747]

I find myself leaning towards some sort of fatigue failure, simply because of the rapidity of the event.

 

[markis10]

Apparently this aircraft had Van Horn rotors, they can be subject to what’s known as a Van Horn Bounce https://documentation.vanhornaviati...JW*MTc0NDU2NTQxNS4xLjAuMTc0NDU2NTQxNS4wLjAuMA..

 

[Flyerwin]

Tragic it was a whole family wiped out - rest in peace.

 

[markis10]

NY times has got a picture of the rotor assembly recovery:

 

[jb747]

That's the transmission, complete. The mounts are intact, and the roof structure that it bolts to is still present, in part at least.

 

[RooFlyer]

That's the transmission, complete. The mounts are intact, and the roof structure that it bolts to is still present, in part at least.

So it might have torn itself off the roof?

Possibly blade struck the ‘tail’ , cutting it off and wrenched the rotor assembly clean off?

 

[RooFlyer]

Juan Browne with discussion that the operating company seems to be a bit of a cough show (including recent bankruptcy), and discussion of images :

 

[Quickstatus]

operating company seems to be a bit of a cough show

Why would an operation not voluntarily shut down pending an investigation when a disaster like this happens?
As it turns out the company's Director of Operations was an FAA mandated position which means the company cannot operate without one
The CEO thinks he can just sack the DOO for telling the FAA the company will voluntarily stand down, but sacking the DOO means the company is effetively shut down. Plus FAA thinks the removal of the DOO by the CEO was retaliatory. Massive own goal there.

The CEO also tried to insert a "fuel issue" into the narrative.

I can see a lawsuit coming form the DOO...
..

Pprune post has an interesting comment...

 

[jb747]

So it might have torn itself off the roof?

Possibly blade struck the ‘tail’ , cutting it off and wrenched the rotor assembly clean off?

I think it's later in the sequence. Not a cause, simply a consequence.

The CEO also tried to insert a "fuel issue" into the narrative.

A fuel issue won't make the tail fall off.

Pprune post has an interesting comment...

Very interesting read.

 

[RooFlyer]

May be a question for @straitman . If the tail section tore off but the rotor assembly stayed intact, could the craft have 'auto rotated' down, and then, with a chance of survivability?