Gold Coast Accident?

[leading edge]

Media are reporting an accident at Dreamworld on the Gold Coast. Pilot +3 on board. Seem to only be 1 injured after forced landing in the car park.

[Ned-Air2Air]

That place is a bitch to get in and out of if you have ever been there. In and out over carpark full of cars and mind the rides :\

[Jon-MD500]

Some details here:
Helicopter crashes at Dreamworld theme park | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25615801-2702,00.html)

[zhishengji751]

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4144/choppercrash.jpg
Picture: Scott Boucher


FIVE people have escaped from a helicopter which crash landed in the car park of the Dreamworld theme park on Queensland's Gold Coast.

Witnesses said the four passengers and pilot were pulled from the wreckage about 4pm (AEST)by security guards from the theme park and were shaken but not seriously injured, The Gold Coast Bulletin reports.

Two of those on board walked from the crash site while the other three were taken on stretchers with suspected minor back injuries.

All five people on board were being taken to hospital, an emergency services said.

The aircraft did not appear to catch fire, although there was smoke coming from it. The chopper was sprayed with foam as a precaution to stop fire from breaking out.

It is believed the chopper was involved in joy flights and the incident happened near the helicopter landing pad at the western end of the car park.

[Nigel Osborn]

That would have to be one of the worst commercial sites I've had to fly out from with fare paying passengers. Even a light twin would struggle to avoid the cars & buses after an engine failure. I managed to get some huge pot plants moved but cars took their place!
Just hope no one was too badly hurt.

[zhishengji751]

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7476/choppercrash2.jpg
Photographer : Kate Czerny

More here www.goldcoast.com.au (http://www.goldcoast.com.au/article/2009/06/10/87135_gold-coast-lead-story.html) with additional photos.

THE pilot of a helicopter that crashed in the car park of Dreamworld theme park on the Gold Coast is being hailed as a hero.

Sato Mutsumi steered the stricken aircraft to an empty part of the car park after it developed problems while on a joy flight at 4pm.

Mutsumi and the four passengers - two men and two women, all believed to be Asian tourists - escaped serious injury.

Witnesses said the chopper was over the crowded park when it got into trouble but the pilot steered it clear of the rides and the park grounds, heading towards a helipad at the western end of the car park.

The chopper landed heavily but upright, then rolled onto its left side, with the tail section breaking away on impact.
....

[gulliBell]

The main blades still look quite straight. There couldn't have been much rotation left in them when it rolled over. The TV news report said it was taking off when the accident occurred, but it's not a DreamWorld helicopter? Although it had passengers taking a joyride? Maybe DreamWorld was leasing it? Or maybe I'm getting confused with SeaWorld, or is it WigglesWorld, or MovieWorld, so many different Worlds there :ugh:

[oldpinger]

From the pictures on the news he did a good job, like the impact mark on the carpark, clearly showing the entire bottom of the aircraft and both skids. :ooh:

No wonder the tail broke off. I've heard the skids can take a lot of punishment and a lot of the impact, but this takes the cake.

Once more cringe-worthy news coverage- hats off to the pilot but I'm sure the "heroic" avoidance of the cars in the carpark was in fact- OH C&*P the engine has failed, look,there's a flat place to crash..

Don't get me wrong- an excellent job. Having taught EOLs in similar aircraft, an unalerted real one in that situation would have been tough.:D

[Whattha]

If the aircraft was on approach, the pilot probably had to carry out the forced landing with a tail wind, as the wind on the Gold Coast today was from the west at approximately 15kts.

[ReverseFlight]

Another forum is reporting that there is only one flightpath in and out of the place and that's over the carpark, so that will put you on downwind on at least one of those legs (the approach in today's incident). Can anyone confirm this ?

Also, does anyone know whether it was a power-on or -off landing ?

[zhishengji751]

It's owned by a skilled labour company... its in the article.
The name is on the side of the helicopter.

However they do charter work under Dreamworld Helicopters.

[Nigel Osborn]

There is a standard take off & approach path, 180 opposite. Generally there is very little wind as the area is sheltered by trees. On approach you go over the trees, then descend over the car park which should be clear, then over the raised pad. I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car! The fuel load is kept very low to take 5 people, so whatever the wind, I'm surprised the machine ended up in such a sorry state but at least it appears the injuries weren't too bad.

[floatsarmed]

Saw this prang covered on ch7 tonight.

I nearly had to kick the :mad: telly!!

Talk about Ill informed, biased, clueless and totally cringe worthy reporting.

The gutter media they make me want to :yuk:

If you are going to pass comment on something at least have some idea of your subject matter? :=

Whoever was flying the clown reporter around over the crash site in a jet ranger today perhaps you could give him a few pointers?

Rant Over.

Now putting on kevlar in preparation for incoming! :eek:

[Big_Johnno]

I am surprised that HLS was approved of by CASA in the first place. Having an approach path over such a high density traffic area should never have been approved especially for single engine aircraft. My congratulations go out to the pilot for getting it down as well as he did. thank goodness it wasn't the middle of the school holidays.
John

[justawanab]

Up front disclaimer: I am not a pilot. I'm just here to learn.

Please pardon my ignorance but our much beloved media are making a lot of the fact that the hero pilot "steered the stricken aircraft to an empty part of the car park".

Now, without taking anything way from Sato Matsumi's feat in getting the thing on the ground in only two main pieces, my understanding was that, unlike Sully and his Airbus, an unpowered helicopter has the glide characteristics of a tin can with a small parachute and that you only have limited control over your vertical speed as you autorotate downwards.

Particularly given they ware landing and therefore, I assume, had little forward momentum, how much real manouverability would likely have been available to the pilot at that point?

[Freewheel]

justawanab,

Despite the knowledge available on this forum, I'd suggest heading over to a flying school and asking them to show you.

I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. :ok:

[gulliBell]

Let me try and answer your question. Even without drive from the engine, whilst you have rotor rpm you can still steer the helicopter wherever you want to go. Obviously where you end up is limited by the height and speed you were at when drive from the engine was lost. In the helicopter type that crashed at DreamWorld, you can fly for about a mile for every 1000' in height above ground from that point where you lost power. So that radius governs your aiming point for a forced landing. Obviously when you are close to the ground (i.e. landing) your options become very limited in where you end up should the engine stop. If you use up your rotor speed to stretch the glide to get to a suitable landing spot (eg open car park) you are going to arrive with a heavy thud at the bottom.

No doubt the engine wasn't delivering power to the rotor when the helicopter rolled over. Just look at the blades, they are still straight and intact so had very little energy left in them to dissipate when they contacted the ground. No doubt the first thing the investigators will look at is how much fuel is left remaining in the tank. Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there.

Edit: Media reporting of these things always follows the same script. The pilot is always a hero saving the stricken aircraft from certain disaster. No doubt the contribution of the pilot and everything else that happened here will come to light in the subsequent investigation. From what I've heard it will be a very straight forward investigation here.

[justawanab]

gulliBell, thanks you for that explanation. You've totally dispelled the impression I had of the glidability of rotary wing aircraft. I knew you could control the vertical speed to some extent in an autorotate but I didn't realise that there was any ability to control direction without something being driven.

[Heli-phile]

Maybe this will inspire the operators to move the base to suitable location for a SE helicopter or buy an A cat twin!!

Same ****, different day!!!:ugh:

[ReverseFlight]

If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ... :}

Coincidentally, the approach looks very much like the one in the video in post #9 this thread - http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/372223-helicopter-collides-bus-kai-tak.html - fortunately, the local authorities have now banned the landing site for single engined helicopters.

[the coyote]

Whilst I don't disagree with the single engine stuff over a congested area, don't forget about all the single engine fixed wing getting airborne out of busy airports all over Oz straight over built up areas. Do we ban/move those as well in case they lose power? And from my experience in the past, there is plenty of pilots flogging around over congested areas at 1000' or more that probably wouldn't make the tennis court instead of the lounge room in auto anyway.

Well done to the pilot, they are all still eating hamburgers and that's what counts.

[gulliBell]

Hey Reverse, interesting comment:

If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ...

I'm guessing here you don't fly twin engine helicopters :}

If the accident helicopter here was a twin, and he still had fuel on board, chances are it wouldn't be rolled up in a ball of scrap metal in the car park.

[Ned-Air2Air]

Gullibel, wouldnt that depend on the twin, as some of them are so underpowered they couldnt get out of their own way.

Mind you the chances of operating a twin out of Dreamworld and making money arent two things you would use in the same sentence :oh:

Cheers

Ned

[Red Wine]

Oh My.

1: CASA do not “Approve” Landing Areas! CAAP 92.2 may enlighten you.

2: If this chap did land with a Tail Wind, he will answer for that action in the subsequent court of law.

3: ME Helicopters are “Accountable” above Vy {CEO PN029-2005}. Did you know that?, therefore far better than a SE in this area.

4: Great to hear that this Landing Area {Basic HLS} is now closed!

[gulliBell]

Ned: I know of no twin engine helicopter that is so underpowered that it can't continue to fly and maintain height on one engine right up to max AUW, or very close to max (under the conditions here; i.e. sea level-ish, ISA and above Vtoss). But I have only flown medium twins. Maybe some heavy or light twin types would be underpowered OEI, I just don't know.

Don't want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI "will take you to the scene of the crash". In the vast majority of cases it will take you to a place where you can land safely without any damage to the aircraft.

[ReverseFlight]

Hi guys, my comment about the remaining engine taking you to your crash site was meant as a joke (hence smile included) but none of you got it - what's the point of having a 2nd engine then - apologies if I lead the uninformed astray.

Of course gulliBell is right that I am not endorsed on twin engined helicopters - not many of us are as it costs about $4000/hr just to train on a light twin. However, I have been told personally by the guy who pilots the Victoria Police chopper that he'd never fill her tanks up full because they would have to quickly land where an OEI occurred - rather, it's tanks are never more than half-filled so that they can at least limp back to Essendon for repairs in an OEI event. I suppose it's more than just looking at the AUW. Telling, isn't it ?

[PO dust devil]

Bet he wouldn't want his name to get around.......be careful of quotes..


Half tanked probably describes some of his workmates.

DD
:ok:

[topendtorque]

Half tanked probably describes some of his workmates.



do I detect a swinging red wings? or, just a bit of slipper.

[Te_Kahu]

Weren't the B222 A & B models and the AS355E called the Flying Anvil OEI???

[gulliBell]

Those Police jobs referred to requiring reduced fuel loads to meet performance requirements are more likely related to their particular mission specific profile, such as winching or confined area ops. When doing live winching you want to be at a weight where you can safely complete the winch cycle OEI. That takes huge power, to hover OGE, and not many light or medium twins can do that OEI when heavy. The power required is more than the OEI power available, hence the need for weight (fuel) limiting.

If the Police mission profile required long range then they would go on full tanks or at max AUW. I don't know what aircraft type they are flying, maybe one of their pilots could jump in here, but I bet they can at least keep flying at max AUW should OEI occur at anytime they are flying about 55 knots or more.

Getting a bit off topic here :oh: Pleased to hear on the TV news tonight that the pilot is OK and the passengers are all doing well under observation in hospital.

[mickjoebill]

Having flown around the site and visited the venue as a paying customer I had mixed feelings about the operation.
It is an excellent opportunity to promote aviation and helicopters in particular as the pad is close to a public wanting a thrill.
The downside is the approach, which on a busy day, leaves nowhere to go if a problem develops.

The worst accident in theme park history occurred in 1972 in the UK when 5 kids were killed on the "Big Dipper"
Sadly this is not an unusual number of fatalities for a helicopter accident.
The 1972 accident spooked the public and put that theme park out and others of business and began a world wide movement to create addition safety features and build coasters from steel.

The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business.

A simple solution would be to create a clear zone under the approach where no cars or buses are ever parked.
Also given the history, I wonder if sales would increase if the public had a choice of riding in a twin engine craft?

Mickjoebill

[mickjoebill]

Those Police jobs referred to requiring reduced fuel loads to meet performance requirements are more likely related to their particular mission specific profile, such as winching or confined area ops.

I've been a police machine and a media machine where an engine was shut down.
Thankfully both were twin engines so we could get home:D The media machine flew back to base as it was daylight, the police machine landed in a field as it was night.

Today a twin engine craft landed safely on one engine.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/377428-north-sea-incident-today.html


Mickjoebill

[riceburner]

I did a few flights into and out of that pad a few years ago and if my memory serves me correctly, the operator at the time had a restriction in their ops manual on using the pad if the wind was above 15kts. The alternate landing site was between the carpark and freeway on the grass.

[topendtorque]

The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business


sound advice indeed.
the emergency may happen but the wreckage should never result.

It's easy to notice that in many venues such as this that the owners are approached by an operator along the lines of, "we'll give you a commission if you just let us operate here."

the owner usually is not aware or the ramifications of the above quote.

commercial greed can often overule good structure in the setting up of these flights.

If there was an effective CASA and or Industry body available then theme park owners or tourist venue operators would have someone to turn to for some friendly and effective safety advice??

Maybe it's another area that the much flaunted ASFA could turn its hand to.

any fixed flight tourist flights that do not have a 100% flight line emergency landing areas and pilots checked out into all of them, should never even start. That is certainly the way that I set up the several that I was involved with over the years.

why? because the day that it happens will be the day you are flying the son of the worlds best barrister with his fiance, the daughter of the worlds richest man. a simple paradigm.
tet

[spinwing]

Mmmm ....

TET .... so true, so true!

My argument would be that these type of operations are "Public Transport" and as such everyone should have the benefit of a "Performance 1" aircraft for that type of operation.

Having said that ... no doubt I shall be shouted down as a person who does not understand "commercial operations" ..... what I do understand is the fragility of human life ... this incident came so close to being a "disaster" which would have demanded a heavy duty revisiting of the "rule book".

... I wonder whether CASA will do do something ... sooner rather than later?


:hmm:

[Heli-phile]

REVERSEFLIGHT Let me guess,
you have not flown an A cat twin helicopter or even a twin aircraft of any sort.
you have never flown a takeoff or landing profile in a twin (anything)

An A cat helicopter OEI (one engine inoperative) will at any point of its profile remain under control, it will not take you to the scene of the crash:ugh:

How many times do we have to hear this sort of BS.????:mad:

Fact:
If this helicopter was a B426, not a B206 it would have flown its takeoff/landing profile on its remaining engine and flown its crew and passengers away from harm. It also would not have put those on the ground in harms way.

Even a non 'A cat' twin helicopter would have had time to find a clearer area and would most likey still be the right way up and undamaged.

[Friendly Black Dog]

Can anybody tell me if the ATSB actually attended the scene? I assume they would have just because of the public attention that this prang got. this style of accident is not really their bag...read not RPT and no serious injury.
If they didn't attend, the accident report will probably be a bit light on which then leaves CASA with not much in the way of reccomendations to go on.

FBD

[spinwing]

Mmmm ...

Chaps .... it would appear from a post above there is confusion with the distinction between a Performance 1 (or 2 2e or 3 helicopters) and Category A procedures which allow a Helicopter to Depart & or Arrive with a minimum of exposure time to suffering a power unit failure.

Is this the case?


:ooh:

[2 per rev]

Friendly Black Dog,
CASA would do well to set up their own investigation unit. NZ CAA did so, as the TAIC (ATSB equivalent) would leave many private aircraft accidents or Ag accident uninvestigated. Seems to work. I think FAA do their own as well if the NTSB don't.

[Epiphany]

Spinwing - I think you are right as has just been demonstrated in some of the posts.

Simply put, flying a twin-engine helicopter to CAT A (or PC1) provides a guarantee that (if flown correctly) a helicopter can at any stage of the flight (including take off and landing) in the event of an engine failure safely land in the reject area with no damage or continue the flight.

But it is not quite that simple. A helicopter operating CAT A will only guarantee that safety IF it is operated at CAT A weights and IF it is flown to a correct profile and IF the operating area permits a CAT A take off profile. Take away any one of those and you are not CAT A and therefore cannot guarantee CAT A performance.

Heli-Phile - The accident site in question is not one from which a CAT A profile could be performed so the type of helicopter is irrelevant.

As Australia permits EMS helicopters to operate to PVT/AWK and they do not need to conform to CAT A standards there are twin engine helicopters taking off daily from roof top hospital helipads that have no accountability below VY. That basically means that if a donk stops after take off before VY then there will be an accident. This is presumably deemed to be an acceptable risk.

[gulliBell]

Unless of course they operate at reduced take-off weights under the conditions to get the OEI performance they need (which we need to do even in the S76C+ which has quite a bit of 30 sec OEI grunt).

[Epiphany]

That is what I meant by 'CAT A weights'.

I'm sure you do operate at those restricted weights, but that is presumably because you are operating RPT offshore, are required to adhere to CAT A (PC1) and are taking off from a runway and an elevated helipad with no obstructions. I am talking about PVT/AWK twins which are not required to operate to CAT A and therefore do not.

EMS helicopters here are not required to operate to CAT A simply because they cannot comply and do the job. You cannot take off from a helipad at CAT A weights with fuel, flight crew, medical crew and patient - even VFR. Have a look at CAT A helipad weights and see how restrictive they are. They are found in the CAT A supplement of the flight manual but they are not required for EMS operations and are therefore academic. I'll bet that the only pre-flight planning graphs consulted are the en-route OEI graphs for IFR LSALT.

The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.

Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.

[Whattha]

It appears that we are presuming that this accident was due to an engine failure, there just maybe another reason for this accident. Unless of course the ATSB has already handed down their final report.

[Epiphany]

I'm not presuming anything about this accident just trying to correct a few misconceptions about engine failures in twin engine helicopters.

[John Eacott]

EMS helicopters here are not required to operate to CAT A simply because they cannot comply and do the job. You cannot take off from a helipad at CAT A weights with fuel, flight crew, medical crew and patient - even VFR. Have a look at CAT A helipad weights and see how restrictive they are. They are found in the CAT A supplement of the flight manual but they are not required for EMS operations and are therefore academic. I'll bet that the only pre-flight planning graphs consulted are the en-route OEI graphs for IFR LSALT.

The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.

Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.

I see that you said "possibly", but the 412EP's in Victoria are contracted to operate Cat A to the Royal Melbourne Hospital, albeit with reduced weights at higher (summer) temperatures.

For those of you operating the D/DE/DF P&W's, a couple of months ago Bell advised that the 2.5 Minute power available chart is being revised, after it became apparent that N1 and ITT limits didn't seem quite right! I've got a copy of the draft, but I'm not sure if it's found its way to the Flight Manual yet?

Going even further OT: sorry ;)

Re the Gold Coast accident, I often see SE drivers maintain a fairly shallow approach path, leaving them no chance to make the pad in the event of a power loss. I prefer a steepish approach, with the assurance that I'll make it to the pad should it all go terribly quiet: it worked for me when the B206 compressor threw all its stator blades on short finals to the World Trade Centre helipad in Melbourne :ok:

[1a sound asleep]

As a local Gold Coastian all I can say is good job. Lucky nobody is seriously injured - no VERY lucky.

Thankgod for the economic downturn and off season. If this had have happened during peak season there would be no empty car spaces. The possible scenario would be multiple fatalities and a fierball.

Realistically the approach and departure paths are far less than perfect.
The seaworld port is far more forgiving (eben if it is into water).

If I was Dreamworld, whilst the PR may be good for publicty, I would be seriously considering a re think

[Max Dover]

Dreamworld is owned by Macquarie Leisure.
The pad has been a subject of concern for some time - I think it is doubtful if it will be operated again.

It doesn't matter how many engines a helicopter has or what profile the pilot adopts - if the engine(s) stop due to fuel starvation the end result will be the same.

[Nigel Osborn]

The Dreamworld pad is elevated with obstructions to the front, so there is no way in the world I would attempt an engine off onto it unless in or near a hover. The approach departure paths are the same & when I was there, I had the huge pot plants shifted & a no parking area marked plus had the trees at the Big Brother end pruned a bit. The power to go & return was no problem but obviously with no power it would be. I always made sure there was ample space in the car park for an engine off but what worried me far more was if it became silent near the Big Brother set.... not my favourite program!

[John Eacott]

Nigel,

I hear what you say, but sometimes the options aren't there: Yarra River helipads, f'rinstance ;)

[Epiphany]

I stand corrected John - didn't know about the 412 CAT A requirement. That will be severely limiting in summer I'll bet.

[That lights normal!]

Well, I didn’t think I’d ever post on this forum again.
Posts like those I’ve addressed below are usually not worth reading. The particularly low, gutter sniping was pointed out to me by some friends who were as disappointed by so called “Professional Pilots” as I am.:=

The facts as far as I know:

:eek:Unexpected loss of power at a rather in-opportune phase of flight.
:ok:No one onboard or on the ground hurt.
:\Machine badly damaged.
:suspect:Many Pilots have flown from this pad, which is a pad, not a runway.
Have I missed any?

So rather than look at the positives, as even the mainstream press has done, some of you guys, attack a fellow pilot and operation. Perhaps it would be beneficial for some of you to examine the reason you chose this action.:confused:

Specifically:
Nigel Osborne
I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!

So, you know for a fact that it was cars he was avoiding, not a child that had wandered out to watch the chopper land? (maybe, into the area YOU had, “managed to get some huge pot plants moved from….”)

I'm surprised the machine ended up in such a sorry state but at least it appears the injuries weren't too bad.

Obviously you can tell by the photos, at what phase of flight the power loss occurred, what maneuvering was required and what the local wind was. This, combined with your superior flying skills would have ensured that the machine was in a less “sorry state”. Have I got these facts right?:rolleyes:

Heli – Phile
Maybe this will inspire the operators to move the base to suitable location for a SE helicopter or buy an A cat twin!!

Perhaps a Super Puma, from Archerfield aerodrome?:ugh:

Same ****, different day!!!

Yep, some half informed self opinionated ****** passing judgment.:=

Fact:
If this helicopter was a B426, not a B206 it would have flown its takeoff/landing profile on its remaining engine and flown its crew and passengers away from harm. It also would not have put those on the ground in harms way

The B222, for example, doesn’t have Cat A charts for anything but runway ops.
Do the B426 (none in Australia) Cat A charts have performance graphs for helipad landings? If so, what size of pad and clearances are required? Would the machine be required to “back up” on every departure?:8

gulliBell
Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there

Let’s hope for your sake you’re not caught flying drunk or assaulting women. (Just wondering if you enjoy random slurs. Why else would you dish them out? Really, why?)

If the accident helicopter here was a twin, and he still had fuel on board, chances are it wouldn't be rolled up in a ball of scrap metal in the car park.

Chances are it would have, just a more expensive ball of scrap metal.

Don't want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI "will take you to the scene of the crash". In the vast majority of cases it will take you to a place where you can land safely without any damage to the aircraft.

I don’t want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI, during the takeoff or landing phase, will ensure that a crash won’t result. In the vast majority of cases it won’t ensure a safe outcome.

Unless of course they operate at reduced take-off weights under the conditions to get the OEI performance they need (which we need to do even in the S76C+ which has quite a bit of 30 sec OEI grunt).

And the machine has Cat A charts for helipad operations, and the pad is big enough, and the approach and departure paths have the required clearance, and the profile required is suitable (Climbing backwards to 100’ over Dream World, or any scenic for that matter might not be appropriate)

“Buying a twin” is not the instant, easy fix that some of you experts seem to think it would be, without even considering the cost.

topendtorque
…any fixed flight tourist flights that do not have a 100% flight line emergency landing areas and pilots checked out into all of them, should never even start.

That rules out operations from most airports then. 100% is a BIG call, but I suppose it fits in to the “Holier than thou” bandwagon this thread, and many others have become.

As I say, why you guys chose to spout this stuff is your own business, I’m just trying to defend a fellow aviator and balance the views.
Fly safe, because if you have an incident of any kind you might be attacked in public by your peers.:ouch:
So sad!

[topendtorque]

The whole thread seems to have slipped from "tourist and therefore Charter" flights to one of debate about the old dogma of EMS night or day.

this is strange given that tourist flights usually only operate daytime where things can be seen and marketed for the tourists. Also very strange given that the economics of 'tourism' can only be grafted very carefully onto the most efficient of single engine helicopters.

but I wonder about the following quote, can this PVT bit be elaborated on?


As Australia permits EMS helicopters to operate to PVT/AWK and they do not need to conform to CAT A standards there are twin engine helicopters taking off daily from roof top hospital helipads that have no accountability below VY. That basically means that if a donk stops after take off before VY then there will be an accident. This is presumably deemed to be an acceptable risk.


private EMS a I understand it, is usually only if a "mercy" situation has been declared. how can a government instrumentality, being any jurisdictions dept of Health, condone the setting up of regular Private EMS flights?

I do have a genuine reason for asking. I am happy to be enlightened.

Having regard to my opening paragraph, I cannot disagree that a regular tourist operation diverts at all from the definition of RPT. Many tourist flights of which are promulgated in our ERSA under various fly neighbourly agreements.

tet

[2leftskids]

Just a couple of things I remember from my time at Dreamworld

It was never a Dreamworld helicopter. It was operated by a third party that paid some sort of fee to Dreamworld to be able to operate there.

The operation barely scraped by financially with a cross hired 206 so any discussion about twin operations from Dreamworld is just fantasy.

The approach and departure was not over any cars or buses. Yes it was tight and it was in and out the same way but it was over a sectioned off area at the edge of the carpark.

There was a wind limit on the pad stated in the ops manual as obviously with the in and out approach it wasn't always possible to arrive and depart into wind.

The ops manual stipulated that the pad was only available to pilots that had been trained and checked on the pad. No checkride..No permission to land. From memory this was a CASA requirement.

Matsumi was the senior pilot at Dreamworld when I was there 6 or 7 years ago so I guess by now he must have some idea of what he was doing there.

No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.

[Gotagivitago]

Nigel Osbourne said: Quote

I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!

I'm sure the pilot never reffered to himself as a hero Nigel! I believe it was someone from the media!:ouch:

I used to respect your opinions and experience Nigel.

It's a shame to see how quickly the claws come out from some other pilots, whenever one of their colleagues gets a pat on the back from the press. Extremely bitchy if you ask me.:=

And as for Gullibell:Quote

Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there

Not even worth comment!:ugh:

Thanks go out to: "That light's normal" for saying what a lot of us were probably thinking, and reminding us that not everyone is here to bitch and throw mud!

Gotagivitago out!:cool:

[Nigel Osborn]

I'm not suggesting the pilot called himself a hero, I'm having a go at the media for making that silly comment. :ugh:
My claws have not come out for the pilot, I don't know him. I have flown out of Dreamworld about 8 years ago & am very aware of the basic dangers there which is why, surprisingly, I was successful in getting some improvements made to the approach/departure area. I think this is the first accident in many years, one reason being the reliability of the 206. As suggested the business could not afford a twin. If the pad was at ground level, it would be safer.

[Gotagivitago]

Nigel Osborne wrote:

"I'm not suggesting the pilot called himself a hero, I'm having a go at the media for making that silly comment".:ugh:

Well then Nigel, maybe you should have been more clear in what you said!:rolleyes: It sounded very much like a whinge to me as well as others obviously.

Maybe if you had fought harder to make the operation safer, this event would not have occurred eh?:rolleyes:

Just a bit of food for thought. Anyone else for a cup of critisism?

Maybe black with one:ouch:

Gotagivitago:cool:

[spinwing]

Mmmmm ....

as quoted by 2left ....

No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.

I do hope sirs that (as professionals) we don't condone leaving situations as they are just because they have been done that way for so long.

The whole point of discussing this incident is in my view that so many of us KNOW this kind of operation is a "very dodgy risk take" which has (luckily) been able to survive up till now. The operation continued by keeping the paying public in the dark about the consequences of having to carry out a "forced landing" which in this instance allowed the pilot more options than he might have had, had the carpark been full.

Its easy to claim that the only way for this operation to work was to keep it cheap! .... well now there will most likely be NO OPERATION and what good is that to the helicopter industry?

As Nigel has pointed out ... there are ways to make an operation safer ... by requiring forced landing areas to be made available etc etc.

BUT I wonder what the paying passengers would say if they were informed of the possible consequences of a forced landing in a s/e helicopter .... they would no doubt err on the side of safety .... it would be up to their own personal "Risk Assessment". Unfortunately this industry has in the past tainted their "Duty of Care" obligations with vested interest decisions and that hurts the business and forces CASA's hand with some form of (usually punitive) action.

The Insurance industry knows ... which is why Helicopter Pilots have such a hard time getting insurance .... accidents probably have as much to do with poor decision making (including those of management) as with the breaking of vital bits of machinery. The fact that as pilots WE accept the risk does not mean that our passengers must also!

I humbly await crucifixion ....


:E

[Heli-phile]

Swingwing has described the truth of this tale, well said.:ok:

Not knowing the cause of this accident, I can only comment on what can be seen and what other posters who have operated into and out of this site have stated.
There is a wrecked machine in a car park. Thank God no one died or was killed. Well done to the pilot for making the most of the meagre height/speed and landing options. Should this pilot be put in this situation in the 1st place!!

As pilots we are looked to and trusted with the well being of our passengers,
so too are the operators who set up a base and invite the public to come for a ride.
PLEASE If the location requires a twin machine, then a twin machine it must be and (priced accordingly) If this location also requires a suitable length of clear area to clear a 35ft obstacle so be it. However If the site is not suitable then that really is the end of the matter.

Everything in aviation (RPT or Charter) must pass the "WIFE AND KIDS TEST"

[Diatryma]

FBD - Post 37

Can anybody tell me if the ATSB actually attended the scene? I assume they would have just because of the public attention that this prang got. this style of accident is not really their bag...read not RPT and no serious injury.
If they didn't attend, the accident report will probably be a bit light on which then leaves CASA with not much in the way of reccomendations to go on.


I am informed they did attend the scene, but left soon after getting some enlightening photo's the passengers took of their adventure - including the instruments during the critical moments. I think their report will be out quicker than usual!!

Di :O

[Diatryma]

Investigation: AO-2009-026 - Fuel starvation event - Bell Jetranger 206B helicopter, VH-JTI, Coomera, QLD, 10 June 2009 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2009/aair/ao-2009-026.aspx)



I think their report will be out quicker than usual!!


OK so I was wrong about that - over two years!

Di :rolleyes:

On 10 June 2009, at about 1545 Eastern Standard Time, the pilot of a Bell Jetranger 206B helicopter, registered VH-JTI, was conducting a 20-minute scenic flight, with four passengers, from a helipad at an entertainment facility at Coomera, Queensland.

After about 15 minutes flying, the fuel boost pump low pressure (FUEL PUMP) warning light illuminated briefly. The pilot believed he had sufficient fuel on board and continued the flight. While the helicopter was descending to land at the helipad, the FUEL PUMP warning light illuminated again and shortly afterwards the engine lost all power.

During the final stages of the autorotative landing, the pilot was unable to arrest the helicopter's descent rate and the helicopter struck the ground heavily, resulting in substantial damage. Two passengers sustained serious injuries; the other two passengers and the pilot were uninjured.

A subsequent check of the helicopter and its fuel system showed that the fuel gauge may have been over reading. The operator's practice when calculating the quantity of fuel to be added during refuelling relied on the fuel gauge reading, without using an independent method to crosscheck that reading against the actual fuel tank quantity.

The investigation found that the helicopter departed with insufficient fuel to complete the flight. The low fuel quantity and manoeuvring combined to uncover the fuel boost pumps and the engine was starved of fuel. The helicopter's low speed, height and rotor RPM at that time precluded a safe landing from the subsequent autorotation.