NZ: chopper crash Fox glacier

[deanm]

"A helicopter carrying seven people has crashed on Fox Glacier and there are reports of fatalities".

Helicopter crashes at New Zealand tourist spot (http://www.smh.com.au/world/helicopter-crashes-at-new-zealand-tourist-spot-20151121-gl4hhi.html)

Auckland: A helicopter carrying seven people has crashed on Fox Glacier and there are reports of fatalities.
It was understood the company involved was called Alpine Adventures.
The Rescue Co-Ordination Centre is leading a rescue operation and four helicopters have been dispatched to Fox Glacier. Some reports said all on board were dead, but that was not confirmed.
Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand communications manager Mike Richards confirmed seven people were on board.
"We had the accident reported to us so we can confirm seven were on board but we don't know what the state of the passengers are."
Rescue Co-ordination Centre media and communications advisor Vince Cholewa said two helicopters were flying from Christchurch, one from Greymouth and one from Fox Glacier, with a cliff rescue team on board.
Mr Cholewa said further information would be released as they got it.
St John was alerted to reports of a helicopter crash at 11.05am on Saturday.
A spokesperson confirmed two air ambulances and a road ambulance were on their way to the scene at Fox Glacier.
They were unable to confirm any more details, as emergency services were yet to reach the scene.
The Transport Accident Investigation Commission was understood to have opened an inquiry into the incident.
stuff.co.nz

Dean

[Nigel Osborn]

Not good, sounds very bad, so let's hope first reports are wrong.

[deanm]

Tragically, the worst possible outcome:

"Seven dead in Fox Glacier helicopter crash (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11549101)"

"All seven people on board a helicopter which crashed during a scenic flight in Fox Glacier are dead, police have confirmed.

A paramedic and members of an alpine cliff rescue team were winched down to the crash site in a heavily crevassed area halfway up the glacier early this afternoon, but found no survivors. There were six passengers and one pilot on board."

Dean

[LPS500]

Strange to see two of the rotor blades intact, with only the one closest to the ice cliff broken.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/content/dam/images/1/8/7/z/f/u/image.related.StuffLandscapeSixteenByNine.620x349.187x03.png/1448079201385.jpg

I wonder what happened? Its like the rotors weren't turning when it arrived at the scene. Would it / could it be possible that the helicopter landed on the glacier, shut down and toppled off, but its right way up?

[deanm]

Great picture LPS.

Some years ago, I did one of these 'heli-hike' flights where we landed on Fox glacier & spent a few fascinating hours exploring icy crevices before the aircraft returned to collect us.

I don't believe the heli did a shutdown on either landing.

Your picture appears to show only the rotor head: the rest of the airframe seems to be buried under (fallen?) ice.

Dreadful.

Dean

[Hot and Hi]

Its like the rotors weren't turning when it arrived at the scene. Would it / could it be possible that the helicopter landed on the glacier, shut down and toppled off ... ?
You don't need to *land* to stop your rotors. In a botched autorotation, for example, you might use up all your rotor energy (=rotor speed) while still flying. However, in that case you can't cushion the landing that well. Ref. Glasgow pub crash.

[LPS500]

Dean,

The pic I stole off stuff.co.nz.

Hot and Hi, I understand that, but would the rotor be stopped enough to only damage one blade? Thats the bit I can't understand, in an auto, even botched, surely the rotor would be still turning a bit?

Condolences to all those aboard, terrible accident. It must be horrible for the families abroad.

[Delta Torque]

Those aboard don't need condolences, they are deceased, tragically.

Was this one of the machines working out of Franz Josef?

[Hot and Hi]

would the rotor be stopped enough to only damage one blade?

Yes, that is possible. See here pictures from the Glasgow pub crash (http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/Hunt-continues-people-trapped-Glasgow-helicopter/story-20244374-detail/story.html). The final accident report (https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/media/5628ea4ded915d101e000008/3-2015_G-SPAO.pdf) states on page 8 that "Evidence indicated that the helicopter’s main rotor blades and Fenestron tail rotor were not rotating at the moment of impact."

Difficult to say at this stage if this is what happened in NZ though.

[whoknows idont]

I also don't agree that the picture shows the remains of the complete helicopter. It just seems like there is not enough debris. This looks more like everything above the engine deck.
Very sad picture...

[Sallyann1234]

It's going to be an extremely difficult recovery operation from that crevasse.

[Hughes500]

would suggest having been a mountain guide in a former life that the ac touched down and then slid into the crevasse. bear in mid that helicopters aren't fitted with crampons so imagine doing an engine off landing and landing on a steep ice slope !!!

[mark one eyeball]

That terrain there very rugged
No requirement to have twin engine?

[Hot and Hi]

Not in New Zealand, or most countries for that matter.

Twins can also fail, and from experience twin engine pilots are sometimes even less (mentally) prepared for an autorotation than single engine drivers. Reference: the same Glasgow pub crash I linked above.

Twins are as prone (or more) as singles to some of the following problems: gear box failure, rotor system failure, in-flight breakup, fuel starvation, CFIT, pilot error in general.

[chopjock]

Twins are as prone (or more) as singles to some of the following problems: gear box failure, rotor system failure, in-flight breakup, fuel starvation, CFIT, pilot error in general.

Not as efficient either.

[RatherBeFlying]

Agree with H500 that helicopter likely fell into crevasse after impact higher up.

The location looks ferociously unstable with a good chance that ice above, aka serac, could let go anytime on recovery crews.

I hope a careful assessment is made of the hazard before putting live bodies in that location.

[MG23]

I did one of these 'heli-hike' flights where we landed on Fox glacier & spent a few fascinating hours exploring icy crevices before the aircraft returned to collect us.

I don't believe the heli did a shutdown on either landing.

Same here. It was only on the ice for about thirty seconds with the engine running to drop us off or pick us up, then straight back to base.

[No Fly Zone]

These kinds of reports are always difficult, but we DO need to read them. Standing by for additional news and details. As usual, Good Information, not the junk in the popular press, will take a while and we know the drill. Like many, sorry to hear yet need to hear, and do not expect to hear much factual detail for many months or perhaps a year or more. (A horrible reporting cycle, but that IS the way it IS.)
Personally, I calendar the event date for a later inquiry and do not bother with reading the popular press reports. Most are F.A. WRONG and are a waste of time. Anyone disagree? :yuk:

[FD2]

Having flown the 350, I remember I had three passengers behind and one sitting in the front (without the duals!). There was no way I could fit six passengers in the aircraft. Is my memory playing tricks (it was about twenty years ago) or has the helicopter type been wrongly reported as a single squirrel?

[mickjoebill]

There was no way I could fit six passengers in the aircraft.
For joy flights it is common to use single seat for pilot, a twin seat in the front and four in the back.

Mickjoebill

[The late XV105]

Agree with mickjoebill, especially with children.

My family and I took a Franz Josef glacier flight in a 350 earlier this year.

Wife and 8 year old daughter in the front.
Myself, 8 year old son and two other adult pax in the back.
Son and daughter swapped on the way back down.

Yes, it was very cosy.

[AndrewMcN]

What if that happened at altitude, the rotors would not be turning on impact!

Suggestions?

[UV]

They don't land at 2400 feet (800 metres). They land near the top at about 7500 ft....
The weather apparently wasn't too good....

[gulfairs]

I thought it was a bit of bloodshot vfr that ended in cumulo ice(granit)

[chopper2004]

Our local chief of radiographer and hubbie was one of the victims, sadly. Think its safe to say one's folks had come across her in their line of work over the years and spoke highly of them professionally.

Sad news

ATB

[NRDK]

Sad accident, poor weather and large scorched wreckage field over hundreds of metres....

[Hot and Hi]

How sure are we about the scorching? In the dictionary this refers to burn/fire. And if the burning debris is scattered over hundreds of meters, as the one source reported, then this suggest an in-flight fire.

Further, scorching of a wreckage area typically occurs when the burning wreckage sets the surrounding vegetation alight. Now a glacier doesn't burn that well.

We would like to get this confirmed. Maybe it is just paint marks from the chopper scratching across the ice?

[NRDK]

Fly your cab into terrain at speed and the ensuing 'potential impact related fireball and scattered wreckage' will give what the reports suggest. Having witnessed similar first hand tragically on more than one occasion it is a likely scenario. But this is all rumour here until the official report is published.

[katismo]

What might regulations said about an amount of occupants. It's still over the helicopter flight manual limits. How about insurance?

I had a few argue with my customers a years ago, due to I refused to take more than Flight manual said, even they were children. Now, I am feeling that I made a right decissions.

K.

[212man]

What might regulations said about an amount of occupants. It's still over the helicopter flight manual limits. How about insurance?


What are you on about? The Airbus website clearly states it can carry 7 pob:

• Standard configuration:
5 passengers + 1 pilot.
• High density configuration:
6 passengers + 1 pilot

[Hot and Hi]

Two different things, as 212 already pointed out. Depending on local legislation, infants may typically be carried on the lap of another pax but need to be properly secured using a child restraint device. So yes, in that scenario you might have more POB than seats.

All other children (older than infants as defined by the law) need to have their own seat.

MGW and performance restrictions always take precedence.

[LPS500]

NZ CAA have released a new AD for the 350/355. Its related to the dual front Pax seat and weight and balance calcs, and apparently unrelated to the subject of this thread, but posted here for info.

Press release here: http://www.caa.govt.nz/public_and_media_info/caa_releases/med_rel_squirrel.pdf

AD here: Emergency Airworthiness Directives (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Emergency_Airworthiness_Directives.htm)

[[email protected]]

Apparently unrelated???? The coincidence that final clarification was received from Airbus this month (date not specified) seems rather like covering up a problem that was known to exist due to local modifications.

The AD comes out within a week of a high-profile crash with multiple fatalities with exactly the same seat configuration...........someone is worried about having sat on their hands for too long.

[Freewheel]

Crab,

Did you read the document?

[[email protected]]

Yes and it highlights that it is a result of an investigation from a crash last year - that isn't in dispute and they have sought clarification from Airbus regarding weight and balance calculations with the local modifications to the front seats.

But, isn't it slightly too coincidental that the final clarification and the AD appear days after a crash where the exact cause is under investigation but the aircraft has that specific seat fit and was full to the brim with pax.

It may well be that this sad crash was not a result of C of G or AUM limits being exceeded but it seems that someone is getting their excuses in early just in case it had a bearing on events.

[Hot and Hi]

Indeed, what a coincidence! Maybe somebody looked at the 6 pax and couldn't find any combination of 2 that were below 120 kgs (as would be the max allowed combined mass of the 2 front pax).

However, there is nothing a responsible operator would do differently based on the AD than before. And there is no change of procedures, which the AD prescribes, that were not in force already. It basically says, do a W&B based on actual and true pax mass before (each) flight.

You don't need an AD to compute the moment-arm of the front pax ... any spreadsheet or flight planning app allows to do this, and to introduce new stations as required.

Apparently, however, in the tour business there have been too many incidences where this was not done. Quite strangely so, as in the tour business the circumstances (route, density alt, fuel requirements) are always the same, and it should be very easy to manage the only true variable (the number and individual weight of your pax).

[FD2]

Alpine Adventures owner's AOC suspended:

Alpine Adventures choppers grounded | Radio New Zealand News (http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/305206/alpine-adventures-choppers-grounded)

[krypton_john]

Note: for AS350B3 the front passenger "love" seat limit is 154kg for two pax not 120kg. It is 120kg for a single front passenger. Have not seen how this machine was loaded.

Some comments here suggesting a conspiracy in CAA because of the timing coincidence seem a bit ridiculous to me. The suggestion that some issue with local modification is being covered up makes no sense. These machines are all using STC approved seats.

In fact the idea that CAA could do *anything* within one week of *anything* is absolutely laughable.

[Kiwi passenger]

The report by NZ's TAIC (Transport Accident Investigation Commission) was released yesterday NZT. I can't attach the link (being a newbie) but you can search for the NZ web site of TAIC, then search for the report "AO-2015-007".
NZ's CAA (Civil Avation Authority) has been slated for not acting on known deficiencies for some operators.
Here is a summary of their findings (Quote):

"5.1. The helicopter struck the glacier surface with a high forward speed and a high rate of descent, with the engine delivering power.
5.2. Throughout the flight, the all-up weight of the helicopter almost certainly exceeded the maximum permitted weight.
5.3. It is unlikely that mechanical failure with the helicopter was a factor in the accident. Although not all of the wreckage was recovered, an examination of the recovered components (including all the dynamic assemblies) revealed no pre-existing failure.
5.4. The tail rotor servo had exceeded the maximum flight hours permitted before overhaul, although that was unlikely to have been a contributory factor.
5.5. The weather conditions on the day were unstable and unsuitable for conducting a scenic flight. The localised weather conditions in the area were very likely to have been frequently below the minimum criteria required by the Civil Aviation Rules.
5.6. It is very likely that when the helicopter took off from Chancellor Shelf and descended down the valley the pilot’s perception of the helicopter’s height above the terrain was affected by one or more of the following conditions:

cloud, precipitation, flat light conditions, condensation on the helicopter’s front windscreen.

5.7. The pilot had not been properly trained and did not have the appropriate level of experience expected under the operator’s categorisation scheme to fulfil the role and responsibilities expected of a senior (A-category) pilot in this type of operation.
5.8. The operator’s system for training its pilots was ill-defined and did not comply fully with the Civil Aviation Rules.
5.9. The operator’s training system did not have sufficient oversight by the designated senior persons. This was a factor that allowed the pilot to be assigned roles and responsibilities without the proper training and experience.
5.10. The Civil Aviation Authority had identified significant and repetitive non-compliance issues with the operator’s training system and managerial oversight that warranted intervention long before this accident occurred." (unquote)

The Squirrel A350 had 7 POB, including pilot and 2 pax in front left double seat. All died, RIP.