Loss of tail rotor

CFI A&P said:
About a decade ago a similar accident took place at my airport during the takeoff sequence when the fuel cap liberated itself and went through the tail rotor. They made a couple of uncontrolled rotations from the torque and had an eventful uncontrolled landing without injuries.

Hard to imagine the fuel cap departed in cruise but something happened that led to loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE).
Click to expand...

Have you seen the fuel caps on the 22 and 44? I’m pretty sure they are sourced from Briggs and Stratton. Not exactly the most secure thing.
 
Hard to tell from the freeze frame picture of the detached tail rotor section, but it looks to me like main rotor strike. IIRC, there aren’t any structural joints in the area of separation and the cut looks pretty clean. The T/R and the gear box are still attached.

Of course, I’m speculating like everyone else here.

Door bell video:
 
Last edited:
DropTank said:
I prefer to avoid any aircraft with SFAR's made especially for them.

(looking at you: R22/44, MU2, Caravans)
Click to expand...

Every one of those is the result of pilots murdering perfectly innocent airplanes.
  • A Robbie is not the same as a Huey
  • This thing is more like a jet than a Seminole
  • Just because you are burning kerosene doesn't mean you can camp out in icing conditions.
I've flown 2/3 of that list and can defiantly state that as long as you respect their limitations (which should be true of any aircraft), you'll be fine.
 
USMCmech said:
Every one of those is the result of pilots murdering perfectly innocent airplanes.
  • A Robbie is not the same as a Huey
  • This thing is more like a jet than a Seminole
  • Just because you are burning kerosene doesn't mean you can camp out in icing conditions.
I've flown 2/3 of that list and can defiantly state that as long as you respect their limitations (which should be true of any aircraft), you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Will you also state it cooperatively?
 
USMCmech said:
Every one of those is the result of pilots murdering perfectly innocent airplanes.
  • A Robbie is not the same as a Huey
  • This thing is more like a jet than a Seminole
  • Just because you are burning kerosene doesn't mean you can camp out in icing conditions.
I've flown 2/3 of that list and can defiantly state that as long as you respect their limitations (which should be true of any aircraft), you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree. 2 out of the 3 here also. And spot on assessment.
 
MikeD said:
Absolutely agree. 2 out of the 3 here also. And spot on assessment.
Click to expand...

The SFAR for the Robbie was specifically requested by Frank Robinson himself to get ex-Army Huey pilots to quit destroying his perfectly good helicopters om the 80s and early 90s. It's low inertia rotor system is perfectly fine but is very different from the Huey. I don't have a lot of experience in helicopters, but I found the R-44 to be perfectly fine even for a student like me.

The MU-2 is an amazing airplane, jet like performance out of a light turboprop. No need for a type rating, which was the problem. High speeds and spoiler based roll control made for unconventional engine out procedures. Sketchy 135 check hauler operations were tossing low multi time kids into these hot rods with nothing more than a few hours of training. Once the SFAR forced everyone to go to approved sim based training, it's had a near perfect safety record.

The 208 AD came out because pilots thought that because it's a turboprop they didn't have to worry about ice anymore. The boots on the Caravan do exactly what they were designed to do, buy you time to get out, same as any other airplane with boots. I'll grant that some birds handle icing better than others, but I flew the C-208 for 4 years and never had a problem.

The common thread here is pilots not getting proper training and then asking the aircraft to do something it was never designed to do.
 
Last edited:
USMCmech said:
The SFAR for the Robbie was specifically requested by Frank Robinson himself to get ex-Army Huey pilots to quit destroying his perfectly good helicopters om the 80s and early 90s. It's low inertia rotor system is perfectly fine but is very different from the Huey. I don't have a lot of experience in helicopters, but I found the R-44 to be perfectly fine even for a student like me.
Click to expand...

Indeed. While they both have semi-rigid rotor systems, they are very opposite of one another in terms of energy preservation, the Robbie being very low inertia, and the Huey being super high inertia. As such, they had to be treated differently, with energy preservation in an engine out situation being so much more critical in a Robbie.

The MU-2 is an amazing airplane, jet like performance out of a light turboprop. No need for a type rating, which was the problem. High speeds and spoiler based roll control made for unconventional engine out procedures. Sketchy 135 check hauler operations were tossing low multi time kids into these hot rods with nothing more than a few hours of training. Once the SFAR forced everyone to go to approved sim based training, it's had a near perfect safety record.
Click to expand...

The one of the three I never got to fly. Great looking airplane though. We had a Marquis that was in the hangar next to us when I was flying 135 single engine cargo way back in the day. Loud SOB…..

The 208 AD came out because pilots thought that because it's a turboprop they didn't have to worry about ice anymore. The boots on the Caravan do exactly what they were designed to do, buy you time to get out, same as any other airplane with boots. I'll grant that some birds handle icing better than others, but I flew the C-208 for 4 years and never had a problem.
Click to expand...

Same. We had 208A models at our cargo operation, the short fuselage ones, as well as a couple of Bs. New guys would marvel at how there were deice boots on nearly every leading edge, including the cargo pod. But the mantra indeed was “these are for getting out of icing, not for hanging around in it”. Some pilots just don’t get this. Even in aircraft where you could probably hang around in icing, why would you want to if you could exit it? See that with some of my fellow Blackhawk pilots “oh, we have blade deice”. So? You’re assuming that 1. It wont fail, all or partial, and 2. It won’t get overwhelmed. Some things just aren’t worth screwing with if you’re not doing some absolutely critical mission.

The common thread here is pilots not getting proper training and then asking the aircraft to do something it was never designed to do.
Click to expand...

Shack.
 
USMCmech said:
Every one of those is the result of pilots murdering perfectly innocent airplanes.
  • A Robbie is not the same as a Huey
  • This thing is more like a jet than a Seminole
  • Just because you are burning kerosene doesn't mean you can camp out in icing conditions.
I've flown 2/3 of that list and can defiantly state that as long as you respect their limitations (which should be true of any aircraft), you'll be fine.
Click to expand...

Oh goodness no.
An oversimplification to prove you are a god pilot
(Well you're just the bestest at everything aren't ya!?)

Ill leave the R22/44 to the rotorwing witch doctors

The Mu2 is most certainly NOT a jet in any comparison.
Almost every engine failure on a multi engine jet is a non event
Almost every engine failure on a MU-2 is a significant and the failure modes are not forgiving to any error or delay.

The van anti icing systems (boots) were insufficient. You can't "MAN" your way out of significant icing.
What is light or moderate in a most planes is moderate to severe in the van.

How did the van get an AD instead of losing the "into known icing conditions" certification?
Fedex and money.

So, yeah, you're not a cool as you think you are, and the listed aircraft are broken.
But don't ask me.... ask the insurance companies.
 
The picture of the tail section shows the tail strike/TR protector bar bend out about 180 degrees from installation. This supports a main rotor strike…IMHO
 
DropTank said:
Oh goodness no.

The Mu2 is most certainly NOT a jet in any comparison.
Almost every engine failure on a multi engine jet is a non event
Almost every engine failure on a MU-2 is a significant and the failure modes are not forgiving to any error or delay.
Click to expand...
It has far more in common with a jet in regards to flight profiles than a Baron, that was the issue with pilots transitioning from piston twins with no real training. And no, outside of an extremely narrow window on takeoff under hot/heavy/sketchy terrain situations an engine failure is most definitely not a significant event. It’s not forgiving to error, but that’s where the training comes back in, no different from any other complex high performance airframe.

The SFAR (now part 91 sub part N) was the best thing the FAA ever did for that plane, including certifying it 3 times lol

Edit to add: something else to keep in mind, when the MU-2 first flew in 1963 it was the only aircraft in its class that had been clean sheet designed as a turboprop. Everything else, the King Air, Commander, Conquest, Cheyenne, etc started life as a piston twin and was converted later. So the notion that you could simply learn some basic turbine engine operating skills, add some extra power to a known airframe and fly it like all the other twins a person had time in simply wouldn’t work in the mits, and thanks to the 12.5K/turbojet limitation for type ratings no special training was required for this very different and unique airframe. Until 2007.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top