Helicopter crashes into Clutha pub, Glasgow

[ayrmad]

Doh !! Surely you know by now that the mayday call gives an indication of whether it's pilot error or not !?

Quite.

If he were out at sea or in the middle of nowhere then it would have alerted the authorities that an aircraft had gone down somewhere - even better if he'd managed to spurt out his call sign and location as well !

As it is, and as you say, he was heading for a city center - the authorities would, and did, know exactly where he was almost immediately !

IMO the lack of a mayday call is more of an indication of just how frantic and desperate the situation was.

Too right, I would think trying to avoid carnage comes higher up a human beings list than putting out a mayday when you've a few seconds to think, even more salient that he would have known he was more than likely going to die and would most probably be trying to avoid the public getting hurt.

[Skyline Drifter]

10th victim has now died from injuries sustained in the crash.

[jock001]

Right - what the actual f'ck !! You've mentioned this before and it seems you think I'm trying to avoid some sort of massive issue - I quoted your 'question' and answered it way back at the beginning ..

Then and up until now I thought that that was enough, I wasn't trying to explain away or disprove your point I was trying to make sense of what we'd been told (rotors not turning, and aircraft tumbling) - I wasn't trying to avoid your statement I was trying to speculate as to what had happened to make an aircraft tumble without the blades spinning - the very basic statement above ties in with the in-depth statement I later linked to from the site that's been mentioned a few times now - I also stated that the rotors turning would make it harder to tumble, which of course it would !

Just in case you think I'm still trying to avoid the question I'll type the next bit slowly - The rotors would not need to be turning to send it over end !!

I'm still not really sure what your point is - you suggested you'd need rotors turning to flip a helicopter as you'd need to rotors to change the pitch, I stated it was less likely to flip under those circumstances given the gyroscopic effect of the rotors, here is the statement I later linked to that should clear this up ... I hope !

"If the rotor was stopped, then there's no gyroscopic stabilization, and it would be possible for the aircraft to have been "tumbling" as witnesses suggested.

While eyewitnesses are not necessarily able to assess or report the true motion in 3D, the helicopter "tumbling" is not ruled out as it would be by the presence of angular momentum with the rotors turning.

Turning at 20 radians/s the 200kg 10-m-diameter rotor has an angular momentum of order 100,000 kg m^2 s^-1, requiring a huge torque of order a million Newton-metres to make it turn end-over-end at a radian per second.

With the rotor stopped, the whole helicopter has a moment of inertia of only a few 1000 kg m^2, turning quickly in any axis when a torque of only ~10,000 Newton-meters was applied."

For someone with aerodynamic engineering qualifications, you seem to be missing my point.

For an helicopter to go nose over tail it needs a generate lot of angular momentum. Your fixation on the fact a spinning rotor acts as a gyroscope does not change this.

Your aerodynamic engineer explanation is 'it could have happened as it fell from the sky' but you backed away from that claim when I pointed out high school physics said that wouldn't happen.

I did give a possible explanation that fit all your criteria: Change in pitch caused by the control surfaces (the thing they are designed for) and the rotors stop after that. That would result in an aircraft going end over end with the rotors not turning.

For some reason you seem unable to accept this and are instead obsessed by repeatedly cutting and pasting irrelevancies about the gyroscopic effects of rotors but you never once did explain how your version could possibly work or how the gyro effect of rotors counters my explanation in any way.

So for someone who claims he wasn't avoiding the question, just tell me post where you explained ANYTHING which could cause an aircraft to go end over end from low altitude.

[welshbairn]

Tell me how the fact that there was no mayday call is sufficient for you to claim the crash must have been caused by the pilot.

[jock001]

Jock seems like a rather bitter troll.

And a fucking moron.

Is your avatar a guy who named a band after the process of nazis using women from concentration camps as sex slaves?

[jock001]

Tell me how the fact that there was no mayday call is sufficient for you to claim the crash must have been caused by the pilot.

It isn't.

Hence me never saying that but lots of people getting upset because they didn't bother to read and just decided I had anyway.

[welshbairn]

Looks like the funerals have started.

Is it just me who thinks the police honour guard and motorcycle outriders were out of order at the pilot's funeral?

The lack of a mayday call means it was almost certainly pilot error, so why does the public foot the bill?

Tell me how the fact that there was no mayday call is sufficient for you to claim the crash must have been caused by the pilot.

It isn't.

Hence me never saying that but lots of people getting upset because they didn't bother to read and just decided I had anyway.

Just walk away.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Is your avatar a guy who named a band after the process of nazis using women from concentration camps as sex slaves?

Yes, it's Ian Curtis.

I'll organise some sort of gold star for you when I can be arsed.

[AberdeenBud]

 

It isn't.

 

Hence me never saying that but lots of people getting upset because they didn't bother to read and just decided I had anyway.

Oh dear.

"almost certainly" you claimed before your pathetic scramble mode was initiated.

[54_and_counting]

welshbairn just knocked it right out of the ballpark there

[EdgarusQPFC]

It isn't.

Hence me never saying that but lots of people getting upset because they didn't bother to read and just decided I had anyway.

[Derek Patterson]

Was a helicopter hovering above St. Enoch Square about 20 minutes ago. Bit disconcerting tbh.

[Derek Patterson]

Was a helicopter hovering above St. Enoch Square about 20 minutes ago. Bit disconcerting tbh.

[Guest The Phoenix]

One day you'll make a post that contributes something.

The day before you, that's for certain.

[Ned Nederlander]

For someone with aerodynamic engineering qualifications, you seem to be missing my point.

For an helicopter to go nose over tail it needs a generate lot of angular momentum. Your fixation on the fact a spinning rotor acts as a gyroscope does not change this.

Your aerodynamic engineer explanation is 'it could have happened as it fell from the sky' but you backed away from that claim when I pointed out high school physics said that wouldn't happen.

I did give a possible explanation that fit all your criteria: Change in pitch caused by the control surfaces (the thing they are designed for) and the rotors stop after that. That would result in an aircraft going end over end with the rotors not turning.

For some reason you seem unable to accept this and are instead obsessed by repeatedly cutting and pasting irrelevancies about the gyroscopic effects of rotors but you never once did explain how your version could possibly work or how the gyro effect of rotors counters my explanation in any way.

So for someone who claims he wasn't avoiding the question, just tell me post where you explained ANYTHING which could cause an aircraft to go end over end from low altitude.

Heavy gearbox/engines high over the center of gravity of a dead-weight aircraft !?

Like I keep repeating - I've speculated about virtually every aspect of this incident and I've also stated the following:

Nobody knows what happened up there, I find it hard to come up with a combination of events that would have the aircraft tumbling nose over tail with the main rotor stopped as has been witnessed - especially since the aircraft was reported by air crash investigators as being intact

If the aircraft was indeed tumbling then I have suggested the most likely reason, however unlikely it seems

I have already stated that I find it hard to come up with a combination that would have had the aircraft tumbling as reported and today's report is worded in a way that make me think it wasn't tumbling at all :

"The helicopter did, however, remain approximately upright."

So, anyhoo - let's have a reply to this post:

He didn't make a mayday because he'd f'cked up !!?? Is that what you are really suggesting ?

What would have happened if he'd survived the crash - claim that a big boy did it and ran away ??

If it was a mistake then the deed was already done, not making a mayday call wasn't going to change anything !

[Tight minge]

Is your avatar a guy who named a band after the process of nazis using women from concentration camps as sex slaves?

Not really relevant to the conversation, but I know heehaw about helicopters, but the name of the band was taken from a book about sex slaves in concentration camps and not directly from the name/process given to these brothels/clinics. I'm quite sure they had German names Funnily enough. Just a hunch though. Edited December 13, 2013 by Tight minge

[jock001]

You've displayed f**k ALL tact. Time you just shut the f**k up.

You keep saying you're trying not to blame anyone.

However, from the start you've set out on some tactless, ghoulish, and just plain disturbing crusade to discount every theory of any mechanical or technical failures that may have caused the accident. Therefore, inadvertently or not, blaming it on pilot error.

However you post constructively in favour of pilot error, so I don't see how it can be inadvertent blame coming from you.

Whether you are better qualified in flight/aviation than everyone else on here isn't even relevant or significant here.

The accident investigation will hopefully reveal exactly what happened, and it may reveal pilot error WAS the cause.

Regardless, several people have tragically died, leaving behind family and friends who might read this or hear how a tactless, septic c**t like you is speculating and trying to lay blame.

For no other obvious reason other than you seem disturbingly desperate for a 'SEE?! I WAS RIGHT!!' moment on a fuckin irrelevant Internet forum.

As I said before, even if the investigation does rule pilot error, I still won't blame the pilot.

I can understand the concept that anyone can have an accident and by definition all accidents are accidental. Apparently you can't grasp this concept.

[jock001]

Heavy gearbox/engines high over the center of gravity of a dead-weight aircraft !?

Like I keep repeating - I've speculated about virtually every aspect of this incident and I've also stated the following:

So, anyhoo - let's have a reply to this post:

Dead weight aircraft? What does that mean?

Also, we seem to be back to high school physics again. Try dropping something top heavy and seeing what happens.

[EdgarusQPFC]

As I said before, even if the investigation does rule pilot error, I still won't blame the pilot.

That's the first thing you did. Give it a rest already

[jock001]

He didn't make a mayday because he'd f'cked up !!?? Is that what you are really suggesting ?

What would have happened if he'd survived the crash - claim that a big boy did it and ran away ??

If it was a mistake then the deed was already done, not making a mayday call wasn't going to change anything !

Here's what I said:

This suggests the lack of mayday wasn't due to time constraints. More likely there was another reason the pilot was unable or unwilling to make the radio call.

Now, clearly you are just trying to get me to say more about the pilot because your technical claims weren't going very well and you thought you'd try another tack.

So I'll just say this: Pretty much every human being on the planet is less likely to report something to official channels if they think they might be blamed for it.