Channel 10 Chopper Reported Crash Near Perth. [Archive]

Ex FSO GRIFFO

19th Jan 2013, 03:45

A Channel 10 Bell Jet Ranger has reportedly 'crashed' at Baskerville, a NE suburb of Perth whilst filming the scene of a truck roll-over...
Crew OK, minor injuries.

"CHANNEL 10 news helicopter has crashed in Perth's Swan Valley.

An Australian Transport Safety Bureau spokesman said they had received preliminary reports that the Bell 206 helicopter hit the ground hard while it was filming a traffic incident at Baskerville.

The helicopter was understood to be filming a truck rollover on Weir Road when the crash happened this morning.

The spokesman said initial advice was that the helicopter sustained substantial damage.

A cameraman on board the chopper and the pilot escaped with minor injuries and are being taken to hospital.

Police and firefighters are at the scene."

More up to date reports calling it a 'hard landing' and machine on its side in pieces....
Crew OK - minor injuries reported.

Ex FSO GRIFFO

19th Jan 2013, 04:07

Here's a link to a photo just released...

Channel 10 news helicopter crashes in Perth | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/national/channel-10-news-helicopter-crashes-in-perth/story-fndor8bb-1226557275686)

VH-XXX

19th Jan 2013, 06:19

Looks to have come to a rest right next to a powerline. Wonder if that was a contributing factor...

SimonBl

19th Jan 2013, 09:14

Amazing footage of the last few seconds prior to the crash and the crew getting out on the commercial news tonight. Was it shown 'over east'? If not, I'll edit and upload somewhere.

Mr.Buzzy

19th Jan 2013, 09:22

Looks to be broken in 2 pieces. Wonder if that was a contributing factor?

Bbbzbzbbzbzbzbzbzbzbzzzzzz

quadradar

19th Jan 2013, 10:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB2_cz2VRJs:uhoh:

Username here

19th Jan 2013, 10:09

206, hot day, high, spinning...

I'd be looking toward LTE.

quadradar

19th Jan 2013, 10:14

What is LTE?
LTE is an uncommanded, rapid yaw towards the advancing blade which does not subside of its own accord. It can result in the loss of the aircraft if left unchecked.

Which helicopters are susceptible to LTE?

All helicopters with a single main rotor and tail rotor are susceptible to LTE. Those helicopters equipped with a Fenestron are affected by a similar phenomenon traditionally known as 'Fenestron Stall'. The Bell Jetranger is statistically the most likely to encounter LTE and it is this type which caused the FAA to look more closely at the problem back in the 1980s.

Is LTE caused by a mechanical defect?

No. LTE is caused by an aerodynamic interaction between the main rotor and tail rotor. Some helicopter types (Jetranger) are more likely to encounter LTE due to the insufficient thrust produced by having a tail rotor which meets certification standards, but which is not always able to produce the thrust demanded by the pilot.

aileron_69

19th Jan 2013, 10:29

For the uninitiated, LTE=Loss of Tailrotor Effectiveness.

Fission

19th Jan 2013, 11:42

Welcome to the group of us that have a mismatch between take off and landings !

Ultralights

19th Jan 2013, 11:42

Cameraman mentioned something in his interview about the engine quitting.

Fission

19th Jan 2013, 11:54

There's an effin' loud alert that goes off when the turbine fails - it's frighteningly similar to the sound of a piece of medical equipment ...... shame there's no audio from the on board camera.

LTE can sneak up on you without warning - just as quickly as engine failure.

Either way - good job from a great driver !

Jabawocky

19th Jan 2013, 12:04

Indeed UL,

I know nothing of flying helps, but from the little I do, a loss of power at very low level does not give much time to execute a neat autorotation.

If there is a mechanical failure and the tail rotor is not functional I can only imagine its terrifying to say the least.

Up-into-the-air

19th Jan 2013, 21:37

A quick browse of the atsb web site shows 28 occurrences for a search on "Loss of tail rotor effectiveness"

The following report from 1983 is very similar to the current one in WAust.

Worth a read:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24697/198202438.pdf

Also the 10 year GA summary gives some insight into the GA data that is sobering, but indicates the improvement made in the 90's

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36723/Fatal_accidents_how_happen.pdf ..... being 1999 to 2000

And the up to date [2011] are at:

Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2001 to 2010 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2011/ar2011020.aspx)

Just a Sunday morning read!!

metalman2

19th Jan 2013, 21:56

The comment"it's the first crash in 21 years "is an odd one, how many crashes does one expect from a helo, they seem to tear themselves to pieces when the ground arrives. I guess a hard landing is repairable ,but I've seen a lot of helo salvage photos and they all pretty buggered
Met

aileron_69

20th Jan 2013, 00:23

Its the first crash in 21 years that Heliwest has had, not that particular Jetbox.

Fission

20th Jan 2013, 01:07

Interesting. How bent must a machine be before it's classed as a crash ?

nitpicker330

20th Jan 2013, 01:10

I'm probably being a bit harsh here but I love the way the Camera man runs away without helping the Pilot!!

Good outcome though.

Di_Vosh

20th Jan 2013, 03:22

I'm probably being a bit harsh here but I love the way the Camera man runs away without helping the Pilot!!

Was thinking the same.

DIVOSH!

Flying Binghi

20th Jan 2013, 03:23

I'm probably being a bit harsh here but I love the way the Camera man runs away without helping the Pilot!!

Hmmm... easy to say i guess. Last little bingle i were in, when i smelt fuel, i got out - fast. From what ah seen it dont take much fuel to make a big WHUMP.

.

tecman

20th Jan 2013, 03:31

That was my impression too. Local paper in Perth is full of pretty unilluminating commentary from the camerman and you'd think, from reading reports, that the media regard the pilot as expendable.

Motorola

20th Jan 2013, 04:02

Shameful running from the scene without going back to help the pilot get out.

Shouldn't be allowed within 500 miles of an aircraft again.

Trent 972

20th Jan 2013, 04:06

I was impressed to see the Firemen and Police instinctively run towards the accident site to help.
'Onya' guys and girls. Good job. :ok::ok::ok::ok:

Some of you people are being very hard on the cameraman.
In the video linked earlier he said words to the effect of -I thought the pilot was dead...I didn't know whether to go back and help him out, or didn't know if it was going to go up in flames....

Also note the difference in safety gear, with the pilot fully kitted in fire retardant clothing and Brain Bucket, the cameraman in T-Shirt, shorts and shoes.
IMO, the young fella did the right thing getting clear.
I'd be surprised if the chopper pilot had a different idea from that.

givemewings

20th Jan 2013, 04:43

According to one of the ch7 guys, (online article comment) the cameraman once clear tried to go back but was stopped by police.

Give the guy a break, natural instinct is to get out, he is a cameraman not a flight attendant!

Did make me wonder though, seemed quite difficult for the pilot to get the door open, (quite a heaught I suppose) is there not any kind of quick release mechanisms on the doors to get them off in a hurry if needed? He was swinging it a bit before he got it open.

VH-XXX

20th Jan 2013, 04:53

To put into perspective I can't see a passenger from a crashed 737 or similar rushing back to save the captain!

4by2withears

20th Jan 2013, 04:57

The operator seems to have a non functioning safety management system. The camera man is dressed for a barbaque, not for crewing on a helicopter carrying out aerial work. A helicopter hovering at low level with the main cabin door open is not without risk. Any safety management risk assessment would have overalls and flight helmet as a minimum. It would be interesting to know if that harness he is wearing was actually attached to the airframe during the accident.
Probably a bit harsh criticising him for running. He has probably just had the biggest fright of his young life and he is on pure adrenalin. The pilot on the other hand has some protection on his bonce and still has his wits about him.

tecman

20th Jan 2013, 05:26

I take your point XXX, generalization though it is. The cameraman made his own on the spot decision and, in the end, will no doubt do his own reconciliation with himself. My impression was that the commercial media swung pretty quickly into justification mode, with some embellishment after a pass or two through the local current affairs shows over here. And the pilot expendability inference I noted previously is a bit galling, too. Quite an adventure in the name of letting us have a gawk at the poor sod who rolled his truck!

givemewings

20th Jan 2013, 05:27

Think he says at the end of the footage that his harness was attached... or maybe I heard it wrong.

I thought the camera crews also go out on foot to film if the chopper lands at a scene, would that be a factor in the way he is dressed? Is he classed a crew member or a passenger? I have seen this helicopter land at a scene before and the camera guy got out to film. Not sure if this is standard ops though...

At the end of the day none of us knows how we will react. Training helps, but does not guarantee a given repsonse. I once witnessed an accident close up and while the intention to help is there sometimes the body takes over and will not let us do what we want to do. And yes you do replay it over and over wondering if you could have done differently, unless you have been there you cannot judge the guy...

Cleared Visual

20th Jan 2013, 06:43

Camera man interviewed on Ch 9 news says turbine was screaming after it hit the ground and the blades separated. Didn't say anything about alarms etc prior to impact...

DaisyDuck

20th Jan 2013, 07:55

Possibly the man in charge of the crippled beast told his passenger to "get the **** out!!" He was probably doing as he was told.

nitpicker330

20th Jan 2013, 08:58

Username here

20th Jan 2013, 09:06

Standard helicopter emergency crew brief:

In the event of a crash move 100m upwind of the wreckage. Once there conduct a headcount, the most senior, coherent person will make a decision on returning to the aircraft to conduct rescue.

That looks like what he did or maybe he was off to the tree line to check that "Charlie" wasn't planning an ambush Nitpicker.... :rolleyes:

I wouldn't leave the crew either in nam or WW2 - safety in numbers during evasion. Id hardly compare that to crashing next to a bloody fire truck in peace time. A scared sh!tless survivor would only hinder the emergency workers.

Aerodynamisist

20th Jan 2013, 09:07

I love the double standard in the way this one has been reported - "helicopter made an emergency landing". And "helicopter was forced to make an emergency landing earlier today after encountering some issues mid-flight"

What happened to the usual - aviation disaster - two people escape a fiery death after helicopter tumbles from the sky and crashes?

SgtBundy

20th Jan 2013, 09:43

Its because it involved THEM, Aerodynamisist. The heroic media is showing us just how brave they are, risking life and limb to show a rolled over truck from the air for 2 second of nightly footage. Channel 10 seemed to be almost in joy they were part of the story and Ch9 seemed to begrudgingly show the event in the same light (no mention it was the competition though).

nitpicker330

20th Jan 2013, 10:39

That guy was running like hell......
A front door was seen popping up as the Pilot tried to get out just as the Cameraman was running away saving himself......it should have been obvious to the Cameraman that HIS Pilot wasn't dead and maybe a little help would be nice!!

I understand what you say but I still think he could have stayed 10 more seconds to help the Pilot.....That's what I would hope I'd do in the situation. ( unless the Pilot was senior to me then all bets are off :} )

onetrack

20th Jan 2013, 10:51

It seems fairly obvious the cameraman made the decision to run once he sees the pilot opening the door and climbing out. I don't think I'd like to have been in his position. Do you do the Hero bit and risk both of you being enveloped in a ball of flames? - or do you get away from the smell of split fuel on a hot exhaust, just as a reflex action to save your own skin? Be honest - self-preservation is a very strong instinct.

jas24zzk

20th Jan 2013, 11:49

interesting thoughts onetrack, given humans are the only species with the ability to end the inevitable.

Like all other animals we also posses a very strong survival instinct, so there is nothing to say any one of us would not have acted the same. The cameramans actions under duress were what they were. Anyone of us can sit in front of a screen and say we would have acted different. Until it happens you won't know how you will react, and second time around (if you are that unfortunate) the reaction will be completely different, based on the outcome of incident #1

in breaking news, the cameraman has gone in for surgery to treat a serious case of sphincter strain.
--------------------------------------------------------

Someone else took the time to post about the attire of the cameraman. I happen to agree. He shouldn't be running around in basic civvies like that. Seriously dumb sms by channel 10. these guys often land get out and do some filming............in OZ hell you got no chance against a snake... Put some proper clothes on that give you max survivability in the wok wok, and are suitable to walking around in the scrub not watching what you are stepping on.

Lookleft

20th Jan 2013, 23:05

I hear what you all say, BUT they were supposed to be a CREW and crew look after each other don't they???
I'm sure the B17 and Lanc bomber crews wouldn't have bolted from the scene in WW2 nor would have a Huey Door Gunner in Nam.....

I think the big difference is that probably these two were not crew in the sense of a close working unit but pilot and passenger. Military crews in a war zone live together and know that at any time they can die together. In times of stress their natural instincts to run are overcome by their loyalty to each other.

As others have mentioned the pilot was possibly telling the camera man to run as the camera man was a passenger. If he had been a mate he probably still would have told him to run but the camera man (hopefully) would not have left a mate behind.

Capn Bloggs

20th Jan 2013, 23:17

Exactly. Nitpicker, you've lost the plot. The poor guy thought he was going to die (after getting probably 1 second warning), was probably so pumped up with adrenalin that he was about to pop and you're having a go at him about bolting when hitting the ground? Get real.

aileron_69

21st Jan 2013, 01:03

The operator seems to have a non functioning safety management system. The camera man is dressed for a barbaque, not for crewing on a helicopter carrying out aerial work. A helicopter hovering at low level with the main cabin door open is not without risk. Any safety management risk assessment would have overalls and flight helmet as a minimum

I tend to be more of the opinion that the crew can wear what they like. They know their job and if they are too stupid to wear the appropriate clothing for the task they are performing then more fool them. Its their problem. All this safety management system rubbish is bureaucracy gone mad to account for the lowest common denominator. Let people turn their own brains back on without having to be regulated and take some responsibility for themselves.

Mr.Buzzy

21st Jan 2013, 01:55

All this safety management system rubbish is bureaucracy gone mad to account for the lowest common denominator. Let people turn their own brains back on without having to be regulated and take some responsibility for themselves.

Here here!
Ive had a gutfull of the "hanger onners" in this industry. They add very little and make a days work a ballache!!!!!!!!!!!!!

bbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

autoflight

21st Jan 2013, 02:28

Operator and captain responsibility over-ride crew/passenger clothing choices.

trex 700

21st Jan 2013, 04:37

I agree with the thought of LTE. Over the years there has being 2 media helicopter crashes in Australia that I know of where LTE was the cause.The first is the Channel 7 helicopter that crashed at Lang Lang in Victoria in the early 80's while filming a truck crash and the second was a Channel 10 helicopter in Sydney that crashed while filming the city to surf fun run. In more recent times an R44 had LTE while filming a yacht race in Melbourne,but the big difference is this pilot had the altitude to recover and make a successful emergency landing.

Ascend Charlie

21st Jan 2013, 04:52

Let people turn their own brains back on without having to be regulated and take some responsibility for themselves.

Sadly in this litigious society, some ambulance-chasing lawyer will sue the operator for not forcing the cameraman to wear safety gear and to attend courses such as HUET.

Plenty of responses have belittled the TV stations for the things that appear in the news, for which they dispatch the aerial news-gatherer. I have flown many a media group, and I was amazed by the effort I had to go through to get an approval to land on a suburban sports field, negotiate a flight plan with ATC and dodge various fixed-wing on finals for Mascot, only to find out that the crew was planning to interview some rockape football player. Waste of good resources.

But that is what the news director wants, a 5-second grab with a cauliflower-eared millionaire. Or a shot of a truck that rolled over.

aldee

21st Jan 2013, 06:07

[QUOTE]Sadly in this litigious society, some ambulance-chasing lawyer will sue the operator for not forcing the cameraman to wear safety gear and to attend courses such as HUET./QUOTE]

He actually praised his HUET training undertaken only recently as being a factor in him getting out alive
plenty of footage on you tube etc.
He did what I tell and expect my pax to do and fortunately was able to survive a ride from hell to be ball busted by all and sundry sitting in front of a computer:rolleyes:

Best wishes to both men :ok:

jas24zzk

21st Jan 2013, 10:45

I tend to be more of the opinion that the crew can wear what they like.

In tend to agree to a point...more in closing.

They know their job
does he??

and if they are too stupid to wear the appropriate clothing for the task they are performing then more fool them. Its their problem. All this safety management system rubbish is bureaucracy gone mad to account for the lowest common denominator.

You echo my thoughts precisely

Let people turn their own brains back on without having to be regulated and take some responsibility for themselves.

I agree with this, but with a training viewpoint. I see an operation like this as a tradesman/apprentice relationship. The PIC is the tradesman and the camerman is the apprentice. Sure the camera jockey has had training..in HIS field. Sure he's been shown how to use the safety harness, but nobody has looked out for him in relation to his other safety gear and explained to him how it could potentially benefit him.

No it doesn't need an SMS, i see it as simply as one of my apprentices using an angle grinder without goggles or ear muffs. A simple tap on the shoulder and chat will normally suffice. Like you say some common sense.

TV helo ops are dangerous, and i think all crew members should at least get advise on ways they can best protect themselves in the even of the unthinkable.

Think about it.....PIC is wearing full gear.......................................

would you/should you say something to the cameraman?

VH-XXX

21st Jan 2013, 11:09

The Lang Lang one was interesting. Aside from the fact that it was overloaded, a witness (whom I know of and have recently spoken to) reported hearing a bang followed by LTE but if I'm not mistaken was not mentioned in the report. Seems that you void all warranties if you are over MTOW so to speak.

Lookleft

21st Jan 2013, 23:03

In more recent times an R44 had LTE while filming a yacht race in Melbourne,but the big difference is this pilot had the altitude to recover and
make a successful emergency landing.

Didn't the pilot land on St Kilda beach and walked away from flying for good?

rachbuzz

25th Jan 2013, 03:10

Motorola you shouldnt be allowed within 500 miles of a keyboard and internet connection.

Who they hell are you to judge? Were you there? Have you ever been in those circumstances yourself? Do you have anything other than some out of context media footage and your own opinion to support throwing around slanderous comments about someone and something you know nothing about. I would say you wouldnt know enough to be able to tell your arse was on fire until your ears started burning.

If you were any kind of aviator you would know that protocol demands that the pilots instructions are followed to the letter - ever thought the pilot in this case might have given the comand to get the hell out asap? Did you ever consider had the cameraman questioned protocol and gone against his training and proceedures it could have cost both of them their lives? I could go on, but why bother, if youre not starting to get it by about now, you probably never will. Id hate to be your PIC in an emergency situation, you would be a lose cannon, if the crash didnt prove fatal your actions probably would.

For the record, what you didnt see footage of was the cameraman realising the pilot had not exited the aircraft and going back for him, only to be restrained from doing so by some of the many emergency services staff who were already in attendance for the initial truck rollover.

You owe the cameraman a very ppublic pprune apology, the only question is - do you have the integrity to make it?

I understand the knitting circle here survives mostly on a diet of gossip, speculation and confabulation but your comments go way past that. You are rude, ignorant, out of line and with absolutely no respect for the people involved. You are a coward and an idiot. You hide behind a screen, expousing potentially hurtful crap under a ficticious name. If youre going to bag someone grow some balls and man up, otherwise, shut the hell up Mouth. Fools like you really sh*t me.