AAIB-N ask: AS365N not suited for EMS work in NO?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: 59°45'36N 10°27'59E
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AAIB-N ask: AS365N not suited for EMS work in NO?
The report following the inflight seperation of the horizontal stab of SA 365N Dauphin 2 LN-OLT in during a EMS flight in the north of Norway in 1999 (image) is out. The rather comprehensive report have several conclusions, among them this:
f. AIBN’s assessment of the accident is that if the horizontal stabiliser failed as a result of wind vortices/turbulence in an estimated wind of 40-50 kt, without any sign of having been weakened earlier, consideration should be given as to whether this helicopter type is suitable for air ambulance and offshore flying in Norway.
and
g. AIBN considers that an ambulance helicopter flying in Norway must be able to sustain flying in weather conditions prevailing at the time of the accident without damage.
Full report (In English)
Appendix overview
The local media are is kicking up a lot of dust over this, since this type is the only EMS helo covering a rather large area. The weather at the time of the incident was not that bad, given the location, and if we are to have a EMS helo, it must cope with these conditions. (After all, this is 69-70 degrees north!)
Any toughts from 365 drivers?
Interesting! A similar incident happened in Iceland in 2001.
The Norwegian incident is even mentioned in Icelandic AAIB incident report .
However in the Icelandic incident the rotors actually came in contact with the vertical stabilizers and tailboom.
The Norwegian incident is even mentioned in Icelandic AAIB incident report .
However in the Icelandic incident the rotors actually came in contact with the vertical stabilizers and tailboom.
Would this then apply to airliners....like the Airbus brand that can remove its own tail fin by application of rudder alone?
How many Bell products have ever lost masts/heads/tailbooms due to mast bumping, negative "g" encounters.
Where do we draw the line....by outlawing particular aircraft....or by setting weather minimums?
How many Bell products have ever lost masts/heads/tailbooms due to mast bumping, negative "g" encounters.
Where do we draw the line....by outlawing particular aircraft....or by setting weather minimums?
Extreamly intresting reading norvigan AAIB report.
Any testpilots willing to comment on the FAR 29 requirement, or interpretation?
BTW the old SA 360, and I'll guess the SA 365C also, had a maintenace requirement of removing and dye penetrate the stabiliser spar EVERY 50 hrs in the early 80's, until an improved spar was available
CB
Any testpilots willing to comment on the FAR 29 requirement, or interpretation?
BTW the old SA 360, and I'll guess the SA 365C also, had a maintenace requirement of removing and dye penetrate the stabiliser spar EVERY 50 hrs in the early 80's, until an improved spar was available
CB
