2 dead, 1 rescued in New York City helicopter crash -- live updates

Why would there be a need for a fuel cut off switch in the first place that is not accessible to the pilot.

Something sounding fishy now.

a reply to: howtonhawky

No. That's just one layout for the seats. It's to show how open the cabin is, not to show how this one was laid out. The AS350 seats 5-6 with one pilot.

They're flying at low level. Even if there was a warning there wouldn't be nearly enough time to restore fuel flow, and attempt to restart the engine before they hit the water.

they were belted in really tight the responders had to cut the belts to free them...

originally posted by: CalibratedZeus
Shame there were deaths, this looks like a pretty well-executed emergency landing.

I can only assume the water temp or inability to open a door was a factor.

a reply to: Zaphod58

makes sense since they were all strapped in.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The fuel cutoff switch wasn't in a position where only the passengers can reach it. It's part of the panel in the cockpit. The cockpit is wide open, so FOD (in this case a bag strap) can get up to the cockpit if it's not secured properly. It's even easier if there was someone sitting up front.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: howtonhawky


They're flying at low level. Even if there was a warning there wouldn't be nearly enough time to restore fuel flow, and attempt to restart the engine before they hit the water.

that is an opinion that can be proved of disproved depending on the size and length of the fuel lines.imo

a fuel pressure switch would give you some time before all fuel ran out.

a reply to: howtonhawky

that is an opinion that can be proved of disproved depending on the size and length of the fuel lines.imo

That isn't opinion that's a fact.

ENG start, even emergency ENG start takes more time than you have. Autorotation is your only option.

a reply to: howtonhawky

The fuel cutoff switch kills power to the fuel pumps, which stops fuel flow and kills the engine. You would have to restart fuel flow, reset the engine stitches, then restart the engine. At 300-400 feet or so.

The point of the fuel cutoff switch is to immediately stop fuel flow to the engine in event of a fire. You don't then add pressure switches to keep fuel flowing to the engine.

a reply to: projectvxn

well that is a bit different than what was stated.

i see your point but it really does not connect to my statement the way you are connecting it .

at least in my mind

All i am saying is that it would be interesting to see exactly how long the craft would run even on the ground after the switch has been turned off and if there is an alarm when the switch has been turned off. Even with no pressure to the pumps an engine will still run for some time depending on economy after the pumps are of if the pumps were working a full capacity.

I would trust someones opinion that has experience like yall do before i would trust mine though. so i do get that point.

pretty sad to have (possibly some did) survived the ditch landing then drown

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: Zaphod58

so there were more passengers than seats.

i see a panel in the lower rear in the middle.

seems like there would be some type of warning system in place to tell the operator of no fuel or that the switch is in the off position. Even then it would be a matter of time to restore fuel even if there was an alarm.

This picture might be a bit old but there's a red button in the lower control panel which controls battery power:

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Helibras_HB-350B-2_Esquilo,_Helimed_AN1135834.jpg

Instructions for rescuers. All those levers are an accident waiting to happen.

moaams.org...

a reply to: stormcell

There have been very few accidents related to cockpit FOD, despite the location of the switches. The AS350 was introduced in 1975, and almost 4,000 have been delivered.

a reply to: howtonhawky



My last job was as a UH60M crew chief, door gunner, and quality assurance inspector in the US Army. I left the army in 2016 and while I am not current per my ATPs, my knowledge certainly is. So I will offer this:

i see your point but it really does not connect to my statement the way you are connecting it. at least in my mind

It's just how helicopters work. You will fall out of the sky and splat into the ground if you attempt ENG start below 30,000 feet. An A350 isn't designed for that, as it has a ceiling of 11 thousand feet or so. Moreover, there is no EMG ENG start procedure as it is considered a waste of time for its impracticality.

It takes about 30 seconds or so to get a UH60 engine started when you're trying to be quick about it. If you can't get the pneudraulic system to spool up to feed those engines(EMG APU Start which takes about 6-11 seconds), then you're just gonna die. I would focus on maintaining aircraft control, finding a suitable landing area, and performing an autorotation per the emergency procedures that are common to rotary wing aircraft.

Even with no pressure to the pumps an engine will still run for some time depending on economy after the pumps are of if the pumps were working a full capacity.

Once the pumps are off, the engines will burn out in about 1 second.

a reply to: projectvxn

Once the pumps are off, the engines will burn out in about 1 second.

That is very much different than a vehicle where if you crank your engine and pull the pump relay then it will run until the lines are drained. Usually about 5 minutes.

What that tells me is that it likely is not a fuel pump cut off switch but likely and actual valve that is activating to block the flow of fuel so that the result is immediate. That is pretty smart so that if it happens to get turned off then turning it back on would not take as long to prime the lines cause the lines are still full of fuel unless it is a dual switch that kills the pumps and blocks the lines. This would allow for faster recovery of power. However it would still take time to recover.

I can see now how that fuel cut off valve would save lives.


Let's be honest though it is living life a bit dangerously to have untrained passengers so close to such switches.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Those engines use 75 percent of their fuel for self sustainment. The rest of that power goes to turning the rotor and power systems.

On an H60(and several other helicopters) there are boost pumps, and the engine itself has a mounted boost pump. So it's being pushed by the pumps in the fuel tanks and pulled by the eng mounted pump. If you cut off the fuel boost pumps in the tanks it will take about a second for the engine mounted pump to suck the line dry and cause eng burnout.

a reply to: projectvxn

that makes sense and adds up to dollars

The preliminary report is out, but I can't link to a PDF on my phone. The pilot reported that he instructed the passengers where the cutting tool was and how to use it, as well as which passengers could undo their belts and which couldn't. All passengers were in a harness that was installed after production, for doors off flights.

As they were over Central Park, doing shots of the city, the front seat passenger removed his belt, but left the restraint on, and turned sideways to take a picture with his feet out the door. The pilot noticed his belt off and told him to put it back on. At that point, he started a turn and started losing power. He attempted twice to restart the engine, without success. After the second attempt, he noticed the fuel cutoff switch in the off position, with the passenger belt under the handle, and restored it to normal. He attempted to restart the engine and got power back, but was passing through 300 feet already. So he cut the fuel again, and performed an auto rotation into the river. He attempted to undo the front passenger harness, all of which locked behind the passenger back. He was able to loosen it, but the helicopter was flooding and he had to egress.

PDF can be found here:

flightaware.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the update.

Sounds like he was very much trying to overcome fate.

Some battles just can't be won.

This is extremely bad for FlyNYON. For months before the crash pilots were raising concerns about the harnesses passengers were wearing, as well as the cutters being used. The CEO sent out an email stating that this was not a safety issue, and if pilots had concerns about non safety issues they could take it up with the chief pilot who would discuss it with the CEO.

The crash has also raised issues about FAA oversight. The harnesses in question are construction harnesses that attach in the middle of the back, and are tougher than the cutter is designed to cut. Aviation harnesses have a quick release at the small of the back. The FAA was also aware of the concerns of the pilots but did nothing.

www.verticalmag.com...