Heli crash Fox Creek AB Fatal

[nine sixteenths]

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/edmo ... -1.3749203

One woman is dead and two people are injured after a helicopter crashed near Fox Creek on Monday afternoon.

The crash happened around 4:20 p.m., 25 kilometres south of Fox Creek, RCMP say.

A 44-year-old woman died in the crash, and a man and woman were taken to hospital with injuries.

The cause of the crash is not yet known, but the helicopter may have been associated with the oilfield industry, Cpl. Laurel Scott said.

The incident is now being investigated by the Transportation Safety Board, and RCMP are not releasing the identities of the victims.

TSB investigators have been sent to the scene.

"It's pretty remote," Scott said of the area in which the helicopter crashed.

"The area was accessible only by oil lease roads."

Fox Creek is around 260 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

[rigpiggy]

Ridge helicopters B206 involved in aerial marking? lots of time in deadmans curve

[MrWings]

Low fuel cause of crash

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/ ... -1.4356855

[CpnCrunch]

Report here:

http://tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/a ... 6w0126.asp

It sounds like it might be good to assume 10USG are unusable unless the relight system is on.

[Heliian]

With no fuel in the tanks, the relight system is useless. Once that chunk of air gets into the system, it would take way too long to get the stable fuel it needs to create power at that altitude. The pilot made a terrible decision to continue the flight. Sure, you can blame the company culture but when you can't tell accurately how much is left in the tank, you'd better land. Reading the gauge accurately while in flight is also difficult and even more important without the low fuel light installed. Running out of fuel in helicopters should not happen, you can land almost anywhere.

[CpnCrunch]

With no fuel in the tanks, the relight system is useless. Once that chunk of air gets into the system, it would take way too long to get the stable fuel it needs to create power at that altitude. The pilot made a terrible decision to continue the flight. Sure, you can blame the company culture but when you can't tell accurately how much is left in the tank, you'd better land. Reading the gauge accurately while in flight is also difficult and even more important without the low fuel light installed. Running out of fuel in helicopters should not happen, you can land almost anywhere.

Report says TSB drained 10 USG from the tanks and there was fuel in all the fuel lines, fuel pump, etc, so it looks like it was just a very temporary air bubble in the system, but that was enough to kill the engine. I'm guessing it could have been easily restarted by the relight system, and that's what the report seems to imply.

Perhaps Bell should just say that 10USG is unusable and be done with it? It sounds like at the moment they say "all fuel is legally usable, but < 10 gals you might have some surprises".

[Heliian]

I'm guessing it could have been easily restarted by the relight system, and that's what the report seems to imply.

Sure, if you had 500ft to play with getting it going. By the time fuel pressure returns to the nozzle, and lights off you've lost 200-300 ft. The relight system is for when the airflow gets interrupted and you still have a constant fuel spray.

The report is falsely implying or simply just speculating incorrectly about the relight system. I don't think that they even mention what type of relight system it had.

The fact is that the pilot forgot to reset the warning horn breaker and then proceeded to run it out of fuel. Fuel sloshing is a basic concept taught during training and when you're pushing the limits of your fuel endurance, you'd better be prepared. The Bell Flight Manual talks about this.

Had the warning horn activated to alert the pilot of the engine shutdown, an autorotation could possibly have been made safely.

[J31]

If the relight system was armed she may have got a relight after the rollback on the N1. However as Heliian pointed out there most likely was not enough altitude to recover.

Heliian, I don't think the report was implying that the relight system would have prevented this crash but rather arming the relight system would have reduced the risk. I take that in a more general sense that had the fuel starvation been at a higher altitude the relight system may helped.

From the report:

"C-GHHU was equipped with an after-market engine relight system consisting of the electrical controller box (located in the engine compartment), a circuit breaker, and a switch (located in the instrument panel). An OFF–ARM switch controls the system. In the OFF position, the engine relight system is turned off. In the ARM position, the system will automatically engage the field/igniter relay if the power turbine rpm (N2) tachometer generator drops to 96% or below. Engagement of the field/igniter relay supplies a spark to the spark igniter assembly to attempt an engine relight. The system will automatically disengage when the gas producer rpm (N1) drops below 55%.

The Bell 206B RFM supplement for the engine relight system states that the system must be in the ARM position prior to operating the helicopter in falling or blowing snow conditions. There are no limitations for arming the system for all flight operations.

Ridge Rotors used the engine relight system for operations in falling or blowing snow only. The company did not consider having the system activated for low‑level survey operations. The engine relight system in C-GHHU was in the OFF position at the time of the engine flame‑out."

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Supplemental Type Certificate SR00444DE

[cncpc]

If the relight system was armed she may have got a relight after the rollback on the N1. However as Heliian pointed out there most likely was not enough altitude to recover.

Heliian, I don't think the report was implying that the relight system would have prevented this crash but rather arming the relight system would have reduced the risk. I take that in a more general sense that had the fuel starvation been at a higher altitude the relight system may helped.

From the report:

"C-GHHU was equipped with an after-market engine relight system consisting of the electrical controller box (located in the engine compartment), a circuit breaker, and a switch (located in the instrument panel). An OFF–ARM switch controls the system. In the OFF position, the engine relight system is turned off. In the ARM position, the system will automatically engage the field/igniter relay if the power turbine rpm (N2) tachometer generator drops to 96% or below. Engagement of the field/igniter relay supplies a spark to the spark igniter assembly to attempt an engine relight. The system will automatically disengage when the gas producer rpm (N1) drops below 55%.

The Bell 206B RFM supplement for the engine relight system states that the system must be in the ARM position prior to operating the helicopter in falling or blowing snow conditions. There are no limitations for arming the system for all flight operations.

Ridge Rotors used the engine relight system for operations in falling or blowing snow only. The company did not consider having the system activated for low‑level survey operations. The engine relight system in C-GHHU was in the OFF position at the time of the engine flame‑out."

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Supplemental Type Certificate SR00444DE

I went there once to talk about work and did a sort of mini flight test with that guy that runs the flight school at Whitecourt. Which was a story in itself, but I distinctly remember the practice of funning with the auto relight off. For some reason, that seemed questionable to me. In fact I did question it, and some answer was given that I deferred to. Hans and his wife are excellent people, but in that situation, everything Hans knew and everything he thought was best practice seems to have originated with this other guy, Jim something or other. He was Hans' instructor. I'll never forget the little ride we did. It was like flying with the frictions full on.

Wherever that auto relight practice came from, it arguably cost someone their life in this accident. I'd like to know what the factors are that support auto relight off. Not saying there aren't any.

I was offered a job, but declined. The reason was the involvement of this Jim guy in setting policy there.

[godsrcrazy]

I have asked some very high time pilots why they fly with the auto relight off. Their response was once it quits i don't want it relighting near the end and screwing up the auto that is set up. Just because it relights doesn't mean it won't quit immediately after it restarted.

[cncpc]

I have asked some very high time pilots why they fly with the auto relight off. Their response was once it quits i don't want it relighting near the end and screwing up the auto that is set up. Just because it relights doesn't mean it won't quit immediately after it restarted.

I'm open to contrary views, but I don't that logic is well thought out.

[godsrcrazy]

I have asked some very high time pilots why they fly with the auto relight off. Their response was once it quits i don't want it relighting near the end and screwing up the auto that is set up. Just because it relights doesn't mean it won't quit immediately after it restarted.

I'm open to contrary views, but I don't that logic is well thought out.

I am not saying its right our wrong. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of some extremely high time guys that have both experienced engine failures in the late 70's. They are still here to talk about it along with the passengers that were riding with them. So who am I to contradict them.

[cncpc]

I have asked some very high time pilots why they fly with the auto relight off. Their response was once it quits i don't want it relighting near the end and screwing up the auto that is set up. Just because it relights doesn't mean it won't quit immediately after it restarted.

I'm open to contrary views, but I don't that logic is well thought out.

I am not saying its right our wrong. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of some extremely high time guys that have both experienced engine failures in the late 70's. They are still here to talk about it along with the passengers that were riding with them. So who am I to contradict them.

I'm looking at it this way.

At the top of a real engine out auto, you'd think that you'd be hoping that something might happen where you got a restart.

In this formula/logic process, the idea seems to be that you cast away the benefits of a relight on the way down, based on the worst case scenario, which has to presumptions. The first is that it lights up at the bottom of the auto, and the second is that somehow, the pilot pooches the auto because of the relight. I don't see why the pilot either wouldn't convert it to a practice auto, or stabilize and choose a place to sit down by choice, including the auto spot.

Unless I'm missing something, most of us have done hundreds of autos where there is no power, and the power returns at the bottom, with nothing more than a bit of yaw to catch.

I think that if auto relight off wasn't considered to be a factor in this accident, the company's policy in that regard would not have been mentioned in the TSB report.