1954C180 asked why I'm interested in this crash, when there are so many crashes.....

Initially I was interested because I was wondering if this crash would possibly jeopardize floatplane access to Lake Isabel once it's a wilderness area (Wild Sky). In reading the NTSB reports, as well as the very limited newspaper coverage, the more questions I have. There are so many things that don't add up, the more I look at it, the curiouser I get. With over 1500 hits on this topic so far, maybe other people are curious too. Other pilots I have talked to are scratching their heads over this pilot's decision to do a 180 at an altitude of only 50-75 feet. Maybe with a Helio it's no big deal (I've never flown one) But I sure wouldn't want to try it.

Retrieval? No problem! Take a row boat out to where it sunk and a Zebco rod and reel with some high test line (maybe 3000 pount test) and a heavy treble hook. Let the hook sink, latch on and real 'er on in!

I'd like to see that on the Bill Dance show!

zero.one.victor wrote:I'd like to see that on the Bill Dance show!

You just have to have the right lure!

The question was posed why didn't the Threashers reactor crush along with the rest of the sub. Any one who has been involved in the nuclear power field or has ever seen the actual reactor would know why it never crushed. At loss of power the rods drop to kill the reaction. The reactor vessel itself is many time thicker than the hull of a sub. It is filled with water so is not a compressible space thus crushing is not an issue. In addition, who says it is not leaking, but the irradiated water coolant is an isotope called H16 and has a half life of some 7 seconds, 5 half lifes and it reverts to a stable condition and no longer poses a threat.

The reactor vessel is a cylinder designed to hold inside it a very high pressure and temperature. The sealed end is a hemisphere and the top may be flat but over a foot thick. the rest of the reactor will be between 8" and 10" thick. It is filled completely with water so no air space is available to crush it. The sub on the other hand is filled with air a compressible medium, Once the hull starts to implode due to over pressure it is very doubtful any of the compartments could survive the cascade effect for very long, maybe long enough for a Hail Mary, not much more.

As far as statements to the media goes:
"anything you say can and will be altered to fit the misguided perceptions of the editor"
"You have the right to remain silent, but anything you do not say will be filled in by the editor"
"Statements made will be converterd to the politically correct format"

NTSB released "probable cause" on the helio crash:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed while maneuvering for a precautionary landing following a partial loss of engine power, which resulted in an inadvertent stall/mush and subsequent hard landing. A contributing factor was the partial loss of engine power for an undetermined reason.

The Monroe Monitor (www.monroemonitor.com) is reporting that the Helio courier was finally pulled out of Lake Isabel and flown to Firstair Field in Monroe. There are a couple of pictures of the plane, including one showing it hanging from the helicopter. Another pic. shows that two of the three prop blades (looks like several inches) sheared off. The third blade is bent. The plane otherwise looks fairly intact. The paper says the floats were stuck in the mud and had to be removed in order to lift the plane out. "According to one source, the plane was retrieved from a depth of more than 200 feet. A recreational diver was hired to attach cables to the sunken aircraft."

I talked recently with two seaplane guys who were involved with ferrying gear up to Isabella, one of whom was also there to help with the helo long-line operation. Sounded like quite an adventure. This recovery operation was discussed on another airplane website. The diving part of this adventure was also discussed on a scuba-diving discussion site. Pretty interesting to a non-diver like me.
www.nwdiveclub.com/viewtopic.php?t=2408

Eric

Eric,
Would it be bad form for me to ask the name of the other site?

www.pacificnorthwestflying.com
Do a search for Helio and the newest posting should be the right thread. Or search for Iabella Lake.

sanjuander wrote:NTSB released "probable cause" on the helio crash:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's failure to maintain airspeed while maneuvering for a precautionary landing following a partial loss of engine power, which resulted in an inadvertent stall/mush and subsequent hard landing. A contributing factor was the partial loss of engine power for an undetermined reason.

I find this analysis hard to swallow because the Helio H-295 with floats is heavier yes, but stall, no.....prominent sink rate yes, one has to think in terms of aircraft performance and weather conditions at the time of the accident, which I understand was plagued with gusty shear, then, were they not "scud-running" at above normal approach speeds for a Helio?? The fact that 4 persons perished in this accident makes me think that above normal speeds were established during the approach segment...

You have to do something really wrong to kill yourself in a Helio

Are we talking about the same accident? Here is the NTSB record for the Lake Isabel crash (says there was 1 serious and 1 minor injury).

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20061031X01586&key=1

Now that you mentioned it, I was referring to Branham Adventures N295BA Helio that went down Oct. 1 2007

I may have not heard of the other

Sorry for the misread on this........
This the Helio you speak of