Helicopter "imcident" question

[Chuck]

I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found that
a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became "nose
heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.

Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that if it
was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.


IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 7423F Make/Model: H269 Description: HUGHES H269C
Date: 10/10/2004 Time: 1600

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Minor

LOCATION
City: MINERVA State: OH Country: US

DESCRIPTION
A HUGHES 269C ROTORCRAFT, N7423F, ON TAKEOFF HOVER, WENT NOSE HEAVY AND
TAIL ROTOR DUG INTO THE GROUND, MINERVA, OH



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[C J Campbell]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
m...
> I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found
that
> a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became
"nose
> heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.
>
> Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that if
it
> was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.

Maybe it was so nose heavy that the rotor came clear up and over and hit the
ground. :-)

[Bob Moore]

"Chuck" wrote

> Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would
> think that if it was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit
> the ground.

Those "initial" FAA reports are posted as received and are
appearently unedited. Their source can be anyone....local
fire department...etc. They often contain obvious errors.

Bob Moore

[Chuck]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> m...
> > I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found
> that
> > a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became
> "nose
> > heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.
> >
> > Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that if
> it
> > was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.
>
> Maybe it was so nose heavy that the rotor came clear up and over and hit
the
> ground. :-)
>
>


That's the only thing that I can think of! haha


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[Peter Duniho]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
m...
>I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found that
> a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became
> "nose
> heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.
>
> Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that if
> it
> was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.

As Bob says, the report is way too recent to be meaningful. Also the "nose
heavy" quote probably came from the pilot or other occupant, filtered by an
NTSB person writing the report. It may simply mean that the helicopter
initially nosed down, and then in a subsequent overcorrection, the tail
rotor dug in.

Alternatively, it's possible that a rapid nose-down motion induced a left
roll (precession), with then resulting in an uncommanded yaw that caused the
tail rotor to strike the ground.

Whatever the case, from the words in the description it's obvious that some
information is missing and/or the description is at least partially
incorrect. Less than a week after the incident is too early to be trying to
learn anything from the incident.

Pete

[Chuck]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> m...
> >I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found
that
> > a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became
> > "nose
> > heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.
> >
> > Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that if
> > it
> > was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.
>
> As Bob says, the report is way too recent to be meaningful. Also the
"nose
> heavy" quote probably came from the pilot or other occupant, filtered by
an
> NTSB person writing the report. It may simply mean that the helicopter
> initially nosed down, and then in a subsequent overcorrection, the tail
> rotor dug in.
>
> Alternatively, it's possible that a rapid nose-down motion induced a left
> roll (precession), with then resulting in an uncommanded yaw that caused
the
> tail rotor to strike the ground.
>
> Whatever the case, from the words in the description it's obvious that
some
> information is missing and/or the description is at least partially
> incorrect. Less than a week after the incident is too early to be trying
to
> learn anything from the incident.
>
> Pete
>
>

Well, actually, I wasn't questioning the validity of the statement, I was
really just wanting to know if a "nose heavy" rotorcraft would dig the
tailrotor as stated. That didn't seem right, so I was just asking.

You do make some good points though on over correction, etc.

But, in normal circumstances, a nose heavy rotorcraft would "nose down"
instead of, ummm, well, tail down, for a lack of better words?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004

[W P Dixon]

Maybe even pilot induced over compensation... the nose started to drop, over
corrected and thumped the tail. Bad way to fly but I am sure it has happened
before.

Patrick

"Chuck" > wrote in message
m...
>
> "Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Chuck" > wrote in message
> > m...
> > >I was looking through http://www.faa.gov/avr/aai/iirform.htm and found
> that
> > > a helicopter had an "incident" during takeoff. It says that it became
> > > "nose
> > > heavy" and that the tail rotor struck the ground.
> > >
> > > Would this be a typo, or am I just thinking wrong? I would think that
if
> > > it
> > > was "nose heavy", the *nose* would hit the ground.
> >
> > As Bob says, the report is way too recent to be meaningful. Also the
> "nose
> > heavy" quote probably came from the pilot or other occupant, filtered by
> an
> > NTSB person writing the report. It may simply mean that the helicopter
> > initially nosed down, and then in a subsequent overcorrection, the tail
> > rotor dug in.
> >
> > Alternatively, it's possible that a rapid nose-down motion induced a
left
> > roll (precession), with then resulting in an uncommanded yaw that caused
> the
> > tail rotor to strike the ground.
> >
> > Whatever the case, from the words in the description it's obvious that
> some
> > information is missing and/or the description is at least partially
> > incorrect. Less than a week after the incident is too early to be
trying
> to
> > learn anything from the incident.
> >
> > Pete
> >
> >
>
> Well, actually, I wasn't questioning the validity of the statement, I was
> really just wanting to know if a "nose heavy" rotorcraft would dig the
> tailrotor as stated. That didn't seem right, so I was just asking.
>
> You do make some good points though on over correction, etc.
>
> But, in normal circumstances, a nose heavy rotorcraft would "nose down"
> instead of, ummm, well, tail down, for a lack of better words?
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.778 / Virus Database: 525 - Release Date: 10/15/2004
>
>

[Peter Duniho]

"Chuck" > wrote in message
m...
> But, in normal circumstances, a nose heavy rotorcraft would "nose down"
> instead of, ummm, well, tail down, for a lack of better words?

I don't know what the phrase "nose heavy" means in that incident report, but
I can't imagine that it actually means what us fixed-wing pilots would
normally think of. There's simply not really any place in the forward area
of the helicopter to load any significant weight that would literally make
the aircraft heavier in the nose than normal. Furthermore, with the whole
helicopter dangling from the rotor, it wouldn't take much change in aircraft
attitude to bring things back into balance.

Whatever the phrase means, the meaning is something only the person quoted,
or the accident investigator knows. They might as well have written
"qwoiyuz amxowq" for all the good the words do anyone not actually involved
with the accident.

Pete

[OtisWinslow]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> It may simply mean that the helicopter initially nosed down, and then in a
> subsequent overcorrection, the tail rotor dug in.
>
> Pete

I'm not sure you'd have the control movement. If the chopper was way nose
heavy you're going to notice as you bring it slowly to light on the skids
that the stick is farther back than usual. I think I'd be setting it back
down
and figuring out why. Reduced control movement in any direction is
not a good thing.

[Peter Duniho]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
...
> I'm not sure you'd have the control movement. If the chopper was way nose
> heavy [...]

You're missing my point. I'm suggesting that the use of the phrase "nose
heavy" has nothing to do with the actual loading of the helicopter. It's
just some words someone put down on the initial report. They may not be
suitable for taking literally, or even paying any attention to at all.

[Dan Thomas]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message >...
> "Chuck" > wrote in message
> m...
> > But, in normal circumstances, a nose heavy rotorcraft would "nose down"
> > instead of, ummm, well, tail down, for a lack of better words?
>
> I don't know what the phrase "nose heavy" means in that incident report, but
> I can't imagine that it actually means what us fixed-wing pilots would
> normally think of. There's simply not really any place in the forward area
> of the helicopter to load any significant weight that would literally make
> the aircraft heavier in the nose than normal. Furthermore, with the whole
> helicopter dangling from the rotor, it wouldn't take much change in aircraft
> attitude to bring things back into balance.

Helicopters have rather narrow CG ranges. Anything loose that
might shift forward could cause the noseheavy condition. Freight may
have shifted in external carriers, for instance. Perhaps the thing was
already noseheavy at takeoff, when someone didn't do their numbers.

Dan