Helicopter down in Yarra River Melbourne

[mickjoebill]

7pm on Dec 29th
Few details at the moment, one person missing one rescued.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/copter-crashlands-off-port-melbourne/2007/12/29/1198778765256.html


Mickjoebill

[John Eacott]

Early report is Aussie Copters' operating a cross hired R44. Pilot missing, pax escaped after ditching.

Very, very sad: condolences to the pilot's family :sad:

[Irishtjs]

The Pilots body has been found with the Co-Pilot rescued. Our thoughts are with the friends and family of all concerned.

[AussieAndy]

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22986988-661,00.html

[Loose Mast Nut]

Very Sad for all concerned, particularly over this family period of the year.

The name of the co-pilot[??] on the R44 seems to be "with held".

Anyone know where this chap is from?

[prc]

I agree with the condolences of this accident. Our TV News showed the R44 being lifted from the river. Our Safety Boys expect to take 3 days to determine the cause. After take off the machine flew only 50 mts then ditched...why???....low RPM???...Possibly is my opinion.

[Heliringer]

Prc, If you're a qualified accident investigation engineer or whatever they are called then I respect your opinion, if not leave the speculation alone and let the ATSB give us the answers after they have spoken with the survivor and conducted their investigation.
Cheers
Ringer

[206Fan]

4 pics below, just skip that add!

http://www.news.com.au/gallery/0,23607,5028562-5007150,00.html

[gulliBell]

The cabin space appears to be mostly intact, indicating probability of a survivable impact. Seeing this drives home the value of HUET drills.

[Capt SFB]

and helmets............

[jetflite]

Don't know why helmets aren't worn more often for all styles of operations... I've worn a helmet during scenic operations and never had 1 pax complain nor ask why i wear it....

Very sad to hear about this accident. RIP.

[Phot]

Has anybody heard what was the cause?

[Diatryma]

Speculation at this stage of course, but word is possible turbulence/downdraft off large boat shed to the south of crash position might have contributed.

Obviously wait for ATSB report for actual cause.

Few interesting side issues involved in this one which might come out at end of day.

Condolences to all family and friends.

Di :(

[Phot]

What side issues?

[Diatryma]

Actions of pilot after accident. Cant say more so dont ask.

Di

[John Eacott]

The boatshed is too far away to influence anything, what a furfy.

The ATSB would not know anything about investigating a helicopter accident, they probably did not even attend the site, they usually don't, even in a fatal they may not.

Most helicopter accident reports from the ATSB say NFI, not formally investigated or, NOI, no onsite investigation, and they don't understand helicopters at all.


What a strange thing to say, deeper. ATSB were there all day, and the investigation is continuing. You might notice the chap with "ATSB" on his hat in this photo?

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5820806,00.jpg



As for the "boatshed": with a 20+kt southerly as on the day, departing to the north of the shed, there is often noticeable turbulence coming off the building. This picture is taken from just NE of the helipad (looking downriver to the SW), the departure would have been to the bottom right, with a left turn out to the right of the moorings on the centre right of the picture.

http://www.dalboramarinas.com.au/DALBORA_SBEstores/REALESTATE/7/ATTRFILE_File1/banner_pier35.jpg

[Hippolite]

Deeper

The lead accident investigator investigating this accident has been with the ATSB for over 10 years. He was at the accident scene the day after it happened.

Before joining the ATSB he was with Sikorsky as a Field Service Rep (Tech Rep) in Australia and before that he was attached to the Thai Navy as the on site Field Service Rep for their Seahawks. He has years of helicopter experience before that both in Sikorsky (working as an engineer in their production facility) and the US Military. He probably has over 30 years in the industry.

How does your industry experience compare, it would be interesting to see what lies behind your theory as to the cause of this accident.

[Diatryma]

Thanks John,


with a 20+kt southerly as on the day, departing to the north of the shed, there is often noticeable turbulence coming off the building.


I understand it is usual to avoid this route, but may have been chosen on this occasion due to large container ship having just passed by heading up stream.

Di :sad:

[KNIEVEL77]

Hi,

Condolences to the family.

Im just about to start training and the helmet issue interests me, what is the thought on fire proof flight suits and helmets whilst training?

Would I get laughed at or a pat on the back for being sensible?

All thoughts greatly appreciated please.

J.

[Brian Abraham]

Would I get laughed at or a pat on the back for being sensible?

You will get a bit of both. A pat from those who understand the possibilities arising from helicopter accidents and and a laugh from those who don't. Wear a helmet. :ok: Ditto fire proof suit. Shame to survive the clout on the head from the rotor blade coming through the cockpit and then getting burnt because you're wearing that cool looking blue aviator nylon bomber jacket. Know of an aviator who after suffering terrible burns as a result of a crash on take off (engine failure) made a living on the lecture circuit (albeit military) telling aircrew how to dress if they wanted to survive.

[Phot]

K77 - Probably a laugh but who cares it's your life do what you think is best. I heard something somewhere that most deaths result from being knock unconscious and not getting out.

Diatryma - "Actions of pilot after accident" ??? Wasn't he the fatality?

[AusWhirlyBusDriver]

Firstly, my sincere condolences to the family of the pilot.

Im just about to start training and the helmet issue interests me, what is the thought on fire proof flight suits and helmets whilst training?

Would I get laughed at or a pat on the back for being sensible?Mate, let me answer this for you.
If you ever get a chance to watch a video called "Charlie", it will put it into context for you. He is an American guy who used to work for Exxon and almost died in a petro-chemical fire (essentially by taking an operational short cut, but that is not important).
He now runs a huge safety company and gives presentations on the importance of wearing PPE.

The meat of presentation, is about how he thought it did not look cool and was not comfortable to wear this stuff (fire resistant material).
Mate, his story about being dipped for 3 months into a tank to have dead skin scrubbed off daily (yep, daily for 3 months) and the screams of pain associated with that....I'm sure you get the point

Do you really care if someone is going to give you a hard time about this stuff? If you got mate, you wear it!! F:mad:K them all.

[KNIEVEL77]

Interesting because in the thread called 'What is the standard price usually for a PPL........' the general consensus on there is that it is a no no!

[Brian Abraham]

KNIEVEL77, Optional safety equipment and whether we should or shouldn’t wear it is always a subject of much debate and the answer lies in what you can afford and your view of risk management. The military (and remember they operate to budgets and look to save the pennies where ever they can – helmets, nomex suits and gloves are not cheap) recognise that they have a huge monetary investment (aside from any humane aspects) in their aircrew and see safety equipment as cheap insurance. Ask yourself why do motor cycling racers dress up in the leathers, helmets, special foot wear, specially made gloves etc To look cool? I think you know the answer. Would you wear thongs and no helmet riding a motor bike? Many people do. In our off shore operation we had a requirement that we had to wear lifejackets. No one in the operation (some 250,000 hours of operation I guess) ever had to use their life jacket in anger so would that make an argument for getting rid of them? Once again I think you know the answer.

As said earlier, it’s your personal approach to risk management and as Clint Eastwood said “Do you feel lucky today punk?” Accident in point. Two crew were flying a Bell 412 in Alaska (no pax) in the cruise at 10,000 feet when a massive vibration set in. During the auto they were flung about the cockpit so forcibly (straps tight) that their heads were being bashed against the door pillar, their heads went through and smashed the overhead windows, the overhead electrical panels fell open. Approaching the ground both engines failed and they lost the tail rotor drive – why? – both engines had been torn from their mounts and taken out the tail drive shaft. They survived with barely a scratch, thanks to their helmets. And the cause? A pitch link to one of the main blades let go.

Sometimes its just the roll of the dice as to whether the accident happens to you or some one else. Whenever you climb into the cockpit, just ask yourself “How lucky do I feel today?”

[Kulwin Park]

Getting back to the R44 accident.... I don't know how R44's handle at all, but I was in Melbourne city that day, and it was windy. Being out at a wharf would be worse i reckon. If he took off from hovering height, then had big tail wind behind him, then how do those machines handle that - from still to translational speed with a big puff up your butt killing forward lift? ... Anyway, not speculating, just a thought.

Condolences to the pilot lost, it was a shame he isnt hear to tell us what happened, so we learn. :( ... Maybe he was wedged in cockpit, who really knows, but i think we've all had scary moments under water where you've rushed up for air just in time.

[topendtorque]

If he took off from hovering height, then had big tail wind behind

Perhaps John Eacott could clarify this. From his description and photograph I interpreted the wind as coming from the take off path's 10 oclock position.

That is the machine would have been in the lee-side of the large shed, which would have presented the relative wind from 10 oclock high.

The same sort of thing that we get in the severe downdrafts around October / November. Not a nice place to be.

Looking at the bend downwards in the cockpit area above the pilots station, if that occurred during the accident - from a M/R blade say, then he might have been severely compressed in the upper part of the spine. Or indeed he may have suffered a severe whiplash which could have ensued from a sudden stop from forward speed upon impact with the water.

Each scenario could easily render him partially paralysed for at least a short time. Been there done that, in two separate non aviation incidents.

If either scenario were the case then to discuss his actions post accident would be rather silly.

[John Eacott]

TET,

The northerly departure from P35 is approximately 340T, more or less from bottom left to bottom right of the photo that I linked. With a left turn downriver, the flight path would have been directly away from the PoV of the photo.

This photo may give a better idea of the layout: it shows the pad at the far left of the photo, and the left turn out would bring the departure track from left to right, along the river. (It's a very old photo, but shows the general layout.)

http://www.eacott.com.au/gallery/d/1190-1/Pier+35+aerial+03a.jpg

[CYHeli]

There are not many ways out of this spot and you have to pay attention, 'situational awareness' for the students out there...
It gets even harder when there is more than one machine on the pad.

Do any of the MPT pilots here have any stories to tell about what sort of turbulance would be behind a large container ship.
Not to critise Ed, but to learn what to avoid.
I hadn't though too much about ship wake turbulance before this one.

[that chinese fella]

Have been told the aircraft has been returned to Helibiz after no anomolies with the engine or drive train were found

[Squeaks]

ATSB Preliminary report here. (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/pdf/AO2007069_prelim.pdf)

[2leftskids]

More here

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23374095-1243,00.html

[rotorspeed]

I do find all this finger pointing at the helipad operator a bit out of proportion. At the end of the day it is a pilot's responsibility to make his own assessment of a whole range of characteristics about heli landing sites, some prepared, many not. These of course should include looking at area, slope, obstacles, approach/departure routes and any features (like upwind buildings)that may affect the local wind.

In this case it was a daylight operation and enough info about the wind should surely have been known from both the local met and from just assessing it on the ground before departure. Like we all do from private sites, regardless of windsocks. It was obviously very strong but you've just got to fly very cautiously, with enough power reserve - and an escape route.

A more obvious risk, looking at the site, would seem that with a location that requires approach/departure preferably over water but otherwise buildings, either a single with floats (unlike this R44) or a Cat A operated twin would provide much greater safety.

[mickjoebill]

There appears more damage and more deformation of the cabin to the side of the aircraft the chief pilot was sitting.

Compared to the side where the occupant escaped which seems relatively untouched with door still attached and working.

Was the chief pilot wearing a helmet?



Mickjoebill