Austrian cable car accident - Update [Archive]

Time Out

6th Sep 2005, 00:00

A few more details....

Nine dead as concrete falls on cable car

AT LEAST nine people, six of them children, died yesterday when a helicopter accidentally dropped a massive concrete block on to a cable car in the Austrian Alps.

One gondola hurtled to the ground and passengers were thrown from nearby cable cars after the load struck.

All of the dead appeared to be members of a German tour group, according to Edelbert Kohler, the head of police in Innsbruck.

The accident occurred in the ski-resort town of Soelden, 25 miles south-west of Innsbruck and some 300 miles west of Vienna.

The helicopter was hauling goods to the top of the cable-car lift for construction work when a huge chunk of concrete came loose and fell, Mr Kohler said.

"It was just terrible," one female eyewitness told Austrian radio. "There were bodies broken like rag dolls and this awful moaning from people whose limbs were broken and twisted from the fall.

"It was a terrible keening echoing through the mountain tops. It seemed there were some very young children lying there."

Four people were injured in the accident, while three others in the cable cars escaped injury, said Jakob Falkner, an executive of the cable car company.

But Red Cross officials claimed seven people were injured - five of them seriously.

Local media reports said the concrete weighed about 1,500 pounds.

Mr Kohler initially said it appeared that the chunk hit the cable, causing the gondolas to swing out of control, throwing the victims out.

But Mr Falkner told Austrian state television that the concrete directly hit one of the cable cars - a version later confirmed by Mr Kohler.

A dozen rescue helicopters hovered over the scene of the accident, while dozens of emergency workers rushed to the site on foot.

The glacier skiing area around Soelden - some of it almost 10,000 feet high - is popular with summer tourists, who flock to its perennially snow-covered peaks.

The accident happened shortly after 1pm local time, near the 11,000ft Schwarze Schneid mountain station - the goal for the helicopter's load.

Police said the helicopter had permission to transport the massive concrete blocks, which were to be used as the foundations for a new mobile phone and radar tower, but that a criminal investigation is now under way to discover what went wrong.

The cable car was taking the skiers between the Rettenbach and Tiefenbach glaciers when the concrete block fell from 900 feet above.

"It must have come down with the force of a high- explosive bomb," said a police spokesman.

Juergen Huffel, a tourist at the scene, said: "Yellow rescue helicopters swarmed in. There were loads of medical personnel on the ground within minutes.

"They realised very quickly just what a disaster it had been. One of the cable cars that had crashed into another one fell from the cable to the ground shortly afterwards, but all the people who had been underneath were no longer in the way."

Gottlieb Huetter, a police spokesman, said: "The people and cars fell about 15 metres. The injuries of some survivors were quite bad. People were flung out of the cars when they collided due to the vibration on the cables."

The cars can hold up to eight passengers at a time and are glassed in.

Mr Huetter added: "The passengers would not know what had hit them. It was like being bombed."

Roy Knaus, the head of the Heli Alpin Knaus helicopter company, said he believed the pilot had had no idea that he had lost part of his load.

Carl Ferrari-Brunnenfeld, a spokesman for the Austrian transport ministry, described the incident as a "tragic accident" and said it showed "how important it is that all safety procedures are strictly adhered to".

He added that cargo helicopters do not need special permission to take to the air and that the company is responsible for securing the materials they are transporting.
source (http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1894812005)

Very sorry for the victims/families and the pilot.

SASless

6th Sep 2005, 00:08

Remember the incident several years ago where the Navy/Marine Corps A-6 cut a set of tram wires and killed some people in Italy?

Much to do about that one...I do not care to think how this one might work out.

Auscan

6th Sep 2005, 02:03

Well said JHR. Its easy to be the arm chair quarterback when we dont know the whole story.

SHortshaft

6th Sep 2005, 02:53

JHR & Auscan I agree.

A tragedy for all concerned. My condolences to the families of the deceased, and the injured and their families; my heartfelt sympathies to the pilot and his/her family.

Skiing is regarded, at least by insurers, as a dangerous sport, but what odds of being on a cable car when the line gets hit with a block of concrete released from a thousand feet; as Recuperator intimated it is hardly believable.

Even with the ballistic coefficient of a block of concrete the aircraft would not have even reached the line when the release occurred.

tecpilot

6th Sep 2005, 06:37

Unbelievable! What a accident. Deep condolences to the families of the deceased. My assistance and feelings to the pilot.

Well said JHR,I do not think it's poor airmanship to fly across powerlines or even a tram line with an external load.

Absolutely arrogant, presumptuous and a sign of ignorance of this kind of operations to speak about poor airmanship or bad company management.

The accident happened in 2800m in snow and ice, only helicopters are able to bring loads in this area. It's a wide wide area and the cable is nearly the sole obstacle. I had personally 2 unexpected load releases in the past and the world of slingloaders is full of this kind of incident. There are many ways to loss a load. The German Border Guard encountered 2 unexpected load releases with human external load (short haul) two weeks ago and the mechanism of opening the hook in this incidents is also nearly unbelievable. Only the redundancy saved the lives of the rescuers.
At the moment it's unclear why the concrete kettle in Austria came off. But to hit a round about 2,5 inches steel cable and a 2,5m wide gondola from 800-1000ft is a feasibility only mathematicians or chair seater could calculate. It's absolutely common in Europe since 30 years to operate with sling loads above the heads (construction work) or in obstacle areas (towns, railway stations,...), there are thousends of cellular radio stations settled by helicopters in such areas as example, but may be this accident could change the minds of authorities, we have to evacuate the whole area before any chopper taking off and the helicopterbusiness will lost one of it's strongest parts.
Anyway blame the company, blame the mechanics or blame the pilot if the release reason is clear. But it stays a nearly unbelievable and very sad accident.

alouette

6th Sep 2005, 07:01

tecpilot

6th Sep 2005, 07:21

alouette,

my dear, let's us cool down, we are shocked by this tragedy.

It's impssible to shut down all ground work in an helicopter flying area. What will you do in case of construction works? Is the feasibility of hitting the cable (seems to be clear that the kettle hit at first the cable, never heard of such a sad bullseye) greater than to chrash with the whole ship in a house or a car or... or.. on the ground in case of a technical malfunction? If we think so we have to evacuate the complete route + safety area of any helicopter or aircraft. It's often impossible not to overfly humans with slingloads. If we stop this operations because of this reasons we have to stop all street traffic, because we all know accidents with cars suddenly hitting houses or humans. Evacuate a complete safety strip around all streets!

May be mechanics or the pilots have failed, there are humans. May be the cargo hook failed. Only metal! How many car drivers failing evering day? How many people have to die therefore every day?

I know this area very good, i would never say it's difficult or risky on a alldays operation, hauling concrete, to operate here. If the kettle missed the cable 5m nobody would talk about. God, i wished the dammned kettle have gone a few seconds before and is resting now for the the next 1000 years in the glacier.

And not to forget, salute to my austrian rescue friends, within 45 minutes 14 helicopters were on scene, supplied 8 heavy injured survivors and evacuated more than 100 persons sitting in the blocked cable gondolas by HEC within a short time. And evacuating a gondola isn't a game!

Ned-Air2Air

6th Sep 2005, 07:52

I have been reading this thread and thought I would make a comment, as some of the responses are constructive and others are plan crap.

Earlier this evening Roy Knaus, the owner of the company, and I had been exchanging text messages. He is a friend and as you can appreciate is trying to consol a very distressed pilot, who for members info here, visits from time to time, so go a little easy, you never know who reads these forums.

At this stage they still have no idea what happened and rather than jumping to conclusions Roy is leaving it in the hands of the investigators to work out exactly how and why this happened.

Just my two cents worth.

Ned

Billywizz

6th Sep 2005, 08:15

Did the concrete block fall directly on top of the cable car or did it roll down the side of the mountain before hitting it?

Gunship

6th Sep 2005, 10:39

Hi All,

I had time to rethink what I said and will remain with my statement. I feel very sad for the pilot - maybe even the company. Yes it was a one in a million chance but if he did not fly over the cables for whatever reason the one - in a - million chance immediately dissapears (sorry I come from a safety background in aviation and can be a pain in the ar$e on the subject) :E

Re loadswings in congested areas (not that this was). A very dear friend was killed a few years ago in Cape Town CBD when he offloaded a aircon unit on a office block.

It was roughly 0500 AM on a Sunday morning - streets was cleared. The Mi-8 crashed on top of the building and burnt out there - imagine it rolled off and Cape Town traffic was below ...

WHen I was last in SA (and in ops) slinging in a busy CBD would never be allowed.

I did radio masts many moons ago in a Puma SA 330 and Alo III ... maybe about 100 hrs total so no tmuch experience but never had a accidental drop - thanks God for that but what was never even a question ... never ever over known populated areas. It was SOP's - so you just do not do it.

Sincere condolences to the families.

To the Pilot : Strength mate.

tecpilot

6th Sep 2005, 11:07

Gunship old mate,

i'm not a special mathematician but i would bet the feasibility of hitting the 2,5 inches cable with a 750kg cup of concrete falling from 1000ft on flight speed, yes it was a direct hit, is lower than the feasibility of an engine failure or other technical problem. If we want to avoid such "one - in a - million chances" we have to stay in bed. Compare it with the AS 350 news chopper accident in the US. Pure luck that on that accident no other people were hurt or killed. Have the news operators now to evacuate the whole city before acting over it?

I come from a safety background in aviation and can be a pain in the ar$e on the subject)
Thats a really good word from a guy in your business. :) how is the Mi-24 going on?

Got a call from Austria, the hook seems to be mechanically in good condition, investigators looking now to an electical failure or as normally to the pilot. The load was lost from the hook, after the flight the hook was found opened.The pilot is 35 years old and with 850 flighthours and only 150h external loads not so much experienced. But that means nothing at the moment! Hauling concrete is a beginner job in the Alps. Because normally is concrete silent. The pilot was before the accident 4h on duty and before beginning single pilot operations 4 weeks ago normally checked out on external loads by an 11.000h pilot. The SA315B was flying round about 50kt.
On a first statement the authority stated that Knaus have all necessary approvements and there is no indication at the moment of a management problem.

barryt

6th Sep 2005, 11:47

I agree with Guns - it's just plain stupid to fly a sling-load over an area where people may be below. Some argue that one shouldn't get out of bed then (basing this on the fact that a helicopter itself should never fly over an area with people below in case of engine failure).

They argue this because the odds of what happened in Austria are so slim.

Except they miss one point I feel. If a chopper's engine fails there is STILL a very good chance of a decent landing through auto-rotation (and a fairly reasonable opportunity to put it down AWAY from people or at least in an open space, circumstances allowing it - the odds are far better than a lost sling load "out of control" and falling straight down).

Had that chopper had an engine failure over that cable and it's gondolas, I will put money on the fact that the pilots would have auto-rotated onto something ELSE (like the snow, mountain, rocks, whatever) and would have avoided that cable and gondolas like the plague...

Get the difference?

To sum up, Guns is correct I feel, with just a small amount of basic discipline and foresight (closing the cableway first etc), this tragedy would never have occurred.

That commander should be hauled over the coals (sorry mate) - there are far too many "gung-ho" "chance takers" out there...

Gunship

6th Sep 2005, 13:50

:p:p:p how is the Mi-24 going on?

Still where I parked it 2 years ago and cancelled it's airworthy "Certificate" ... oh and the other one that had DOUBLE engine failure (apparently that never happens as well) ... well it is still lying where I "parked" it 4 years ago .. RIP 19 Oct 01.

Oh and the Alo III 319 and the President's Sea King Commando ... just where they where parked ... Africa dear Africa .. :E

PAXboy

6th Sep 2005, 15:50

From the BBC website at 16:50 BST:The head of the Soelden cable cars, Jakob Falkner, said the helicopter flight above a moving cable car had been authorised.

Gunship

6th Sep 2005, 16:26

If he authorised it .. why not just authorise it 10 -50 m to the left / right of the cable car / line ?

Why over it ? :confused: :confused: :confused:

GrahamCurry

6th Sep 2005, 17:23

>>why not just authorise it 10 -50 m to the left / right of the cable car / line ?
>>Why over it ?

Presumably the route had to CROSS the cable at some stage.

crew chief

6th Sep 2005, 17:33

Meaning no disrespect to any of the above correspondents. If as has been suggested that there may have been no alternative to flying over the cable car lines. It is shear folly to fly over a "live" line with an under-slung load. The same with roads, railways, buildings, anything whereby a bystander may be injured irregardless of the unlikelyhood of an inadvertant release or failure.

My symathies to the berieved and the pilot(s) involved

Thomas coupling

6th Sep 2005, 17:35

I empathise with the pilot - with such low hours, he probably was just doing as he had been told. Had no involvement in the planning, I suspect.
The route should be devised to bypass the cable car path and if this was impossible - close the lift for +- 15 mins of the task.

Management (helo company and cable car company) have to take this hit:sad:

Spunk

6th Sep 2005, 17:38

Just out of curiousity, since when is a cable car considered to be "populated area"???

From what I have seen on TV there are rocks, rocks and nothing but rocks down that valley and just one little tiny cable.

Why do we always have to look for the guilty one? Can't we just call it a tragic incident?

Recuperator

6th Sep 2005, 17:46

Anyone, while doing external load work, using a cable car route as a line feature, up the mountain and fly over it, along it, while it is in operation, must be stupid and very inexperience.

I am sure this wasn't the case here?

And if he had a dual check as stated by a senior more experienced pilot, I am sure the obstacle would have been mentioned and discussed and crossed safely and not followed up the mountain. But we do not have any information with regards to his routing.

Furthermore it seems like all aspects of the operation was approved and covered.

Crossing the line feature or the cable car route at an angle at a 1000 feet above the cable cars seems safe and considerate to me. If it was me crossing the cable at 90 degrees, I would have seen it as an acceptable risk, even more so flying over at 1000 feet up.

South Africa is strict with it's regulations about external load operations in CBD's, but even after the accident, companies still did it, but first you had to demonstrate to SACAA the operation could be done safely, including safe contingencies were in place and entry and exit routes would be adhered to.

Recent ops in Sandton, Pretoria University and at Johannesburg International Airport comes to mind. So I disagree with your statement Gunns that it isn't allowed.

Best of luck to the pilot and the company.

But one thing I can't believe form Time Out's post:

Roy Knaus, the head of the Heli Alpin Knaus helicopter company, said he believed the pilot had had no idea that he had lost part of his load.

If you fly a SA315B and you lose a load of 750 kilograms and have been flying with these loads for 4 hours earlier, you WILL definitely realise you have lost the load.

Auscan

6th Sep 2005, 18:18

Firstly let me pass on my best wishes to the families of those killed. Secondly to the pilot/s involved I truly feel for you guys. This was a one in a trillion chance happening. ( I did the math ) I have done my share of long lining and I fail to see how someone can sit in front of a computer and critisize when they dont know the situation. Production / Precision line work is some of the most challenging in the world and I can tell you that nothing would ever get done in this part of the world if we were to never fly over roards, rails ,rivers or wires. This wasnt bad airmanship guys, just bad luck. Very bad luck.

[email protected]

6th Sep 2005, 19:51

As with all accidents, this one will prove to be composed of a chain of events which at any stage could have been broken and the accident prevented.
Even if it turns out to be finger trouble on the part of an inexperienced pilot, the chain could have been broken by better supervision, organisation, training, liaison - at any stage, all it would have taken was one person to say 'no that is a crap idea, why don't we do it another way/at a different time/etc'
It is too easy to blame the pilot and ignore all the other people/factors that put him in the position.

tecpilot

6th Sep 2005, 19:52

Gunship my dear, you have cancelled it's airworthy "Certificate" ... oh and the other one that had DOUBLE engine failure (apparently that never happens as well)... i'm assured now, you are coming from safety background in aviation :) :) :)

Sorry back to the thread now

The accident area is a wide glacier with just a few obstacles, the cable, the pylons and the gondolas. To bring the concrete to the construction site the helicopter must cross the cables, there is no other way possible.

The route should be devised to bypass the cable car path and if this was impossible - close the lift for +- 15 mins of the task

TC, your words show me your lack of knowledge of such kind of operations. You could'n stop the cable car a few minutes because the helicopters flying without stops. Each rotation needs 4-5 minutes, depending on the route and distance, the helicopter hovers during the fill and the emptying of the kettle. That means they will cross the cable each 2-3 minutes, on one way with a filled kettle, on the other way the kettle is empty. It needs sometimes a few hundred rotations to fill the construction site with the needed amount of concrete. 7h a day and day for day the same. As said this is a beginner job in the Alps and you can imagine now why some of this guys are so really artistic with sling loads. Thats a very very hard and stressing job to the pilot easy to compare with Ag jobs.

Spunk
From what I have seen on TV there are rocks, rocks and nothing but rocks down that valley and just one little tiny cable. That's exactly the situation in the accident area absolutely not to compare with towns or other "populated areas".

Because the load release happened in cruising flight i believe the experience of the pilot is without concern. A pilot with 850 h should know the right knob in the same way as a 10.000h pilot. If he have really pressed... nobody knows it at the moment!!!

PAXboy

6th Sep 2005, 23:56

I know that I am only reading the news and not involved but ... folks are suggesting here that the helo was ferrying liquid concrete in a kettle. The same BBC web report from which I posted that the cross-route had been approved, says this in the first paragraph:
helicopter accidentally dropped a concrete block on a cable car Another paragraph says,
The block, which was to be used for construction, hit one gondola, sending it plunging down. Two other gondolas swung violently, hurling people out.

Of course, they may have misunderstood that that it was actually a kettle. Perhaps some other reports from closer to the site will be able to confirm. To the people involved, it's immaterial but - in trying to understand the picture of activity - might it be different if they were moving pre-cast blocks, as opposed to liquid concrete?

Cyclic Hotline

7th Sep 2005, 02:25

I beg to differ with some of the opinions that have been posted here by various individuals.

There would be NO circumstances that should allow an external load to be flown over an operational cable car. It is precisely because this kind of activity is not permitted, that you never read about accidents of this kind. Dealing with a construction crew and personnel involved with the operation on the ground, is an entirely different matter than flying an external load over the general public.

The onus is on the Operator to ensure the safety not only of their own crew members, but also the public who are an innocent party to the operation that is going on around them. The initial safety consideration must always be the worst case scenario. If a risk analysis originates from this worst case, even the most unlikely "freak accident" is eliminated at stage one of the operational planning phase.

I have set up and executed hundreds of external load jobs, and cannot tell you of a single one where anything like this has occurred, would be considered, or would be permitted. It is an unacceptable practice to fly an external load over an area where members of the public are located.

The issue is not the cause of the load release. It is in the operational and safety aspects in the set-up of the job. It is a truly tragic occurence.

Just for reference, it might be worth considering the FAA rules pertaining to external loads - pretty practical requirements, pretty practical advice.

Extract from FAR Part 133

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of part 91 of this chapter, the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may conduct (in rotorcraft type certificated under and meeting the requirements of part 27 or 29 of this chapter, including the external-load attaching means) rotorcraft external-load operations over congested areas if those operations are conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface and comply with the following:

(1) The operator must develop a plan for each complete operation, coordinate this plan with the FAA Flight Standards District Office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operation will be conducted, and obtain approval for the operation from that district office. The plan must include an agreement with the appropriate political subdivision that local officials will exclude unauthorized persons from the area in which the operation will be conducted, coordination with air traffic control, if necessary, and a detailed chart depicting the flight routes and altitudes.

(2) Each flight must be conducted at an altitude, and on a route, that will allow a jettisonable external load to be released, and the rotorcraft landed, in an emergency without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of part 91 of this chapter, and except as provided in Sec. 133.45(d), the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may conduct external-load operations, including approaches, departures, and load positioning maneuvers necessary for the operation, below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

3top

7th Sep 2005, 03:36

I am with Recuperator,

if you don't feel that load "leave" you are drugged/dead/dumb - you call it! It wasn't the concrete running out, but the whole kettle, wasn't it?

That Helicopter must have made a jump that would definitely call your attention - if not the new guys, the oldtimers for sure!

Can't really blame the pilot or the company though, as this is the work they choose and as far as it looks they did it within legal limits. You don't do it, someone else will.

Now rocks here or there, obviously at least part of the cable track seems to go over the ski track, which means a fairly wide stretch of area, where you never know when someone is underneath.

Considering all the dumb regulations one has to deal with, mainly brought on by non-flying bureaucrats without ever consulting with operators/pilots/etc. - basically denying the people with the experience to use common sense - it really strikes me that it is allowed to do cargo-ops under these circumstances.

As mentioned before, if there is just a slight chance of personal involvement, the area has to be cleared, and if this means, you have to wait for the end of the skiing season, so be it!
But telecom can't wait I guess!

Condolences to all victims and a heads-up to the pilots, I hope you get through this!

3top

imabell

7th Sep 2005, 04:56

gunship,

i saw the video of the helicopter crashing on the building while doing the aircon job.

the strop was so short that the helicopter was right down near the top of the office block and the tail rotor struck the lift well or out building right next to the machine.

a longer strop and it would not have happened from observing the video.

tecpilot

7th Sep 2005, 08:48

PAXboy

i can confirm firsthand it was a kettle filled with liquid concrete.

3top, Recuperator

at the press conference Roy Knaus personally told in front of the cameras, "the load leaved the helicopter and the pilot feeled the release IMMEDIATELY and lost the load out of the view in the mirror."

This two points and all other versions and rumours are tales by medias or selfnamed "experts" coming out of every holes now.

It's seems absolutely clear that knaus or the pilot have not broken any law in preparation. The whole job was right approved and in line with the austrian, german or switzerland (as Alps countries) laws. Several helicopter operators from this countries and the national authorities have stated now that they would give the approvements and would have done the job in the same way.

There are no questions about this points. The one and only question is why released the hook the load?

I found this as an example from US on the web:
http://classichelicoptercorp.com/index.htm

"Note: The Mobilization Rate may vary if the project site is outside our local area or in a city where special permits are required. If the work is to be performed in a densely populated or congested area, we need two weeks notice so that the proper permits can be obtained. Lifts performed in non-congested areas can be executed on short notice. "

OK, Knaus hold all the permits...

Cyclic Hotline
CHAPTER 102. EVALUATE A PART 133 CONGESTED AREA PLAN

"The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that external-load operations are in the public interest and do not inherently pose an undue risk to the public."

"Densely Populated Area. Title 14 CFR§§ 91.313 and 133.45(d) use the term “densely populated” area. Those areas of a city, town, or settlement that contain a large number of occupied homes, factories, stores, schools, and other structures are considered densely populated."

Demented

7th Sep 2005, 09:20

All these 'holier than thou' attitudes. If we all ensured that we operated in a 100% safe environment no helicopter would ever get airborne. My condolences to the families that have been affected by this tragedy and my thoughts go out to the pilot. Accidents happen and some just seem to go wrong in the worst possible manner.
Don't tell me all the drivers that have slung loads have never flown over an obstacle, that if the load had released for whatever reason, could have caused death or destruction :confused:

Recuperator

7th Sep 2005, 09:54

I agree with the last two posts.

This job was done in the interest of the public. Can you imagine how beneficial it will be to have a fully functioning mobile telephone system in that ruggered part of the world and how many lives that will save in the future.

Gunship

7th Sep 2005, 09:56

recouperatorRecent ops in Sandton, Pretoria University and at Johannesburg International Airport comes to mind. So I disagree with your statement Gunns that it isn't allowed.

Check my post mate ... I refer to many moons ago - specifically mentioned when Conrad Herbst and others died in the Mi-8 / 17 accident on top of the building in the CBD of CT.

You mention recent - so yes I will take your word for it mate - no problems but when Connies went down the CBD was cleared on a very early Sunday morning just after sunrise.

Cheers

Gunzzzzzzzz

imabell Yes that is exactly the sad accident that I am talking about. M ypost just referred to the time / place / safety issue re overflying a CBD etc ...

Yes a LOT of mistakes was made .. short strop .. Russian crew mized with Souf Efrikans ... comms gap - hughe comms gap. Slight tail wind / comms gap and short strop and in the ? Stannic Finance ? board he went.

Tragic as one of the Russians \'s daughter was watching from the top of another building.

I wa snever so drunk on a funeral before ... Nastarovia .. had LOADS of Vodka with the Russian Ambassador :E

tecpilot If you need to know / want to know more about my accident / our ops - feel free to mail me or open another thread and I will answer your needs but it seems like you know enough :E

Cheers

Really going to zzzleep now

Gunzzzzzzzzz

Recuperator

7th Sep 2005, 12:09

I cannot agree with you more Guns that you have to minimise the risks, but was done in CT?

Just as roads were cleared and blocked off in Sandton, and the residential block and airport hall were vacated in PTA and JHB Intl. But was it done properly, could they have done more to make the lifts safer, even though there were no incidents?

I believe where this accident happened in the Alps, they felt that all precautions were taken.

Conrad wasn't just of the most professional pilots I knew, he was also a great person and he was taken away well before his time.

His accident was the second lift of the morning when it happened. Apparently, he was not flying the second lift; the co-pilot was and the co-pilot did not maintain directional control.

Their tail rotor contacted a Stannic billboard, with deadly consequences.

A longer strop and better comm's could have possibly averted the accident, but should they not have removed the bill board as well?

This is the same as saying should they not have stopped the traffic, or should they not have stopped the cable cars.

BUT...

There is always, always, always a risk involved in our business in helicopter aviation. It is a fluid, think on your feet situation we find ourselves in. Absolutely dynamic and the only constant we have in our environment is the constant changes happening. Should that be weather, wind, other traffic or any how ever small emergencies we are faced with. We weren't made to fly or we would have been issued with our own wings.

Nevertheless, even if we take away mechanical failures and mother nature, you will always have the human factor to deal with.

There are many aspects of helicopter flying and there are even more specialities and specialists. But, even the very experienced specialists get it wrong sometimes, or just get very unlucky, as it appear the case was here and unfortunately there were others involved in the accident that just compounded the severity of it.

Anybody dying in any helicopter related accident is always sad. However, as it is usually newsworthy and thus sensationalised and with the media is all over it like a bad rash, their often inaccurate reporting further hypes the situation.

Thus I agree it goes about managing the risks, but also having a large degree of luck on our sides often helps. **** doesn't always happen to someone else, sometimes it happens to us. Shot down, double engine failure, dynamic rollover, accidental jettison's etc, etc, say no more...

The pilot involved has to live with his conscience for the rest of his life, if he was right or wrong in his approach and decision making. Eitherway, I’m glad I don’t have that burden on me. Take care not to have that burdon placed on you...:ooh:

CarryOnCopter

7th Sep 2005, 12:32

Thought this made interesting reading from the 'Times' (UK).

'Austria, one of the world's top destinations for mountain sports, has more than 3,100 ski lifts which carry up to 550 million passengers a year.

The lifts can also be used in summer for hikers seeking to get in to the mountains, earn more than £540 million a year, and employ 12,000 people.'

Lot of people, lot of money and year round so not so easy to just stop operating the lifts I would guess.

A risk assesment must have been done before the job started so after a site down stairs was established, a route must have been thought about and maybe the only way to get the job done was over the lift.

Pilots must have had a heads together, checked the hook a few times and said "watch where you put those fingers, hey whats the odds, we are legal right"?

Of course I'm in to guess work here but then again so is every one else untill the report comes out, not sure I agree about the airmanship side.

In aviation we try and limit the risk but you cannot limit every factor, that goes for life as well.

Cyclic Hotline

7th Sep 2005, 12:37

tecpilot, I am entirely familiar with the FAA requirements for formulating and approving a congested area plan. The congested area plan is required to ensure that when performing external load operations in what might be determined a congested area, that NO hazard is created that would endanger people or property on the ground.

You would NOT get any kind of approval to fly external loads over the public, or over inhabited property (within certain mitigating considerations). As the same basic rule is applicable to ANY external load operation, then the FAA would not permit the operation that caused this accident.

Each flight must be conducted at an altitude, and on a route, that will allow a jettisonable external load to be released, and the rotorcraft landed, in an emergency without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

If this operation were to be carried out in a congested area, the plan would require that the cable car be shut down, and no-one who is not involved with the job, would be allowed within the work area. At NO time, would the FAA permit an external load to be carried over people. If this operation were to be carried out in a non congested area, the same criteria would be in effect, but the Operator would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the rule.

Don't tell me all the drivers that have slung loads have never flown over an obstacle, that if the load had released for whatever reason, could have caused death or destruction

I am quite genuinely shocked at the attitude of some of the posters here to flying loads over people. If we don't have a clear line of flight that does not overfly people or populated buildings, we wouldn't even consider flying it.

Ever wonder why the move to tanks over buckets is occurring in urban interface fires?

Demented

7th Sep 2005, 14:58

Cyclic Hotline

I am quite genuinely shocked at the attitude of some of the posters here to flying loads over people.

I don't condone this at all but don't tell me it hasn't been done and won't be done again.

Gunship

7th Sep 2005, 15:10

Life is full of lessons .. hopefully someone can learn from this tradgic accident. Hopefully next time you do that long line - maybe give a thought where the load might end at the moment you drop it now.

It saved my life by always thinking where to do my power - off if and when it happens ... took 7 000 hours and it happened.

Thanks God for good training and great instructors :ok:

Cyclic Hotline

7th Sep 2005, 15:38

I will categorically state that I have NEVER been involved with any external load operation that has overflown people, or occupied premises, intentionally, at any time, nor would I permit it to happen, or be involved with it.

I say that on the basis of hundreds of construction lift jobs, and running operations that perform hundreds of external load lifts every day!

There is a damn good reason why operators that specialise in external load operations do not encounter accidents such as the one being discussed here. Completely and totally unacceptable operational practice.

And now I read today, that the cable car operator approved this operation to overfly their equipment. What is their experience in analysing this risk?

Sven Sixtoo

7th Sep 2005, 17:11

Well I take a big lesson from this. I do USL work only occasionally. I would of course avoid buildings / people on the ground. But I'm sure I have flown across a road with a load on before now, and I suspect it might not have occurred to me to consider an aerial cable carrying a gondola as "people to be avoided".

Question for guys who do this sort of work (USL liquid concrete) routinely: do you keep the hook live, or switch the cargo master off for the short transit element of the flight?

Never stop learning

Sven

tecpilot

7th Sep 2005, 17:39

Yes, this is a big lesson for all of us.

To the last devolopments in this file.
The austrian air control agency, Austrocontrol, declared that there is no prohibition to overfly the cables, with or without gondolas.

To all the mediasluts there was today a first meeting with the type of accident helicopter SA 315B "Lama". A more than 11.000h aerial work pilot explained in front of a lot of cameras the helicopter, the kind of operation (hauling concrete), the ways to open the cargo hook and his view to the accident pilot. In our times it needs 2 days before the mediasluts are interested in reality and substance.

He stated" I don't believe the pilot have opened the hook" and confirmed the flight route across the cable as absolutely usually in this kind of business. The helicopter wasn't overloaded with 750kg concrete in such altitude. The release happened on a part of the flight circuit without any knob pressing (radio,..). Therefore it's unlikely that the pilot pressed a false knob.

effortless

7th Sep 2005, 18:08

I am not a rotary pilot but I have been involved in H&S of and on over the last thirty years including railway and aviation projects. I am very surprised that the contractor did not have possession of the line for the few minutes of each pass. It would not have been that disruptive. I cannot believe that they passed over an occupied Gondola. I would have sacked any crane driver in the same situation. This said I feel for the pilot as well as the victims. It isn't something which you get over.

PAXboy

7th Sep 2005, 22:14

effortless I cannot believe that they passed over an occupied Gondola. To re-post the quote from Page 2 on 6th September:From the BBC website at 16:50 BST: The head of the Soelden cable cars, Jakob Falkner, said the helicopter flight above a moving cable car had been authorised.

Cyclic Hotline

7th Sep 2005, 22:31

JAR-Ops 4 attempts to address the issue of risk analysis and responsibility.

Code of Practice (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.air-work.com/it/Syllabus/jar_ops4_it.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJAR%2BOps%2B4%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GG LD:2004-34,GGLD:en)

X – CONGESTED HOSTILE OPERATIONS
Operations in congested hostile environment can be conducted utilising helicopters certificated or approved, in accordance with JAR-OPS 4 subparts F and G. In addition the following applies:
a) Initial training and recurrent training
Congested hostile area operation technic, specific precaution to insure third parties protection, normal and emergency procedures for single engine helicopter operation.

Maybe there is some value to more regulation. I have to totally agree with the comments of effortless. You would not be permitted to lift a load over the top of the general public with a forklift, or crane, so why would you do it with a helicopter? Basic safety training on any lifting devices teaches you to never stand under any load. For anyone involved to think that just because it is not specifically prohibited that it must be OK, simply makes me cringe.

This entire accident defies all safe operating practices and common sense. Not just for helicopter operations, but from a basic industrial safety stand-point. I will be even more shocked if there are no Health and Safety regulations in Austria, that also address this issue.

N5528P

8th Sep 2005, 06:52

Yes it is poor management because that freakin cable car should not have been in operation. And apart from that two pilots where in the cockpit - one high timer and one low timer - those are the facts. So in my opinion, the high timer is responsible for what the low timer did or not.

Please, besides that most of us here only have information relaed through the media - media of which we know do not care about facts in such cases - even a good and thorough media report would most likely not be able to find and transport all details necessary to cover this incident.

Honestly, in a forum like this I expect a more professional attitude.

To the accident itself: As already pointed out here by many others, it is impossible to stop the operation of a cable car / tram / etc. etc. just because a chopper is flying somewhere overhead.
This would mean the immediate breakdown of any public transport in an urban area and would make a cable car useless.
There are not only cargo flights conducted throughout the day, but also emergency flights, police flights, military flights, traffic surveillance,....

A helicopter on an emergency flight to Vienna's General Hospital crosses at least 10 tram lines (depending on the direction of approach). Besides that it would take time to stop the traffic (during whcih the helicopter would have to wait) it would not enlarge the safety of the chopper greatly, because the cable would still be there. Furthermore it would take hours during peak traffic to clear a path for the chopper without any obstacles. All this assuming that the patient in the chopper has plenty of time, the chopper plenty of fuel and there is only one flight at a time.

The same is true for flights above the lines of cable cars - especially in the winter you have plenty of ambulance flights, which cannot fly around every cablecar. In some areas there are so many cars, large parts of the Alps would not be reachable at all and the cable car could not work for one hour without interruption.

DEMANDING TO CEASE OPERATIONS IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS!

Regards, Bernhard

N5528P

8th Sep 2005, 08:26

Each flight must be conducted at an altitude, and on a route, that will allow a jettisonable external load to be released, and the rotorcraft landed, in an emergency without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

@ Cyclic Hotline:

I am well aware of the rules and the Austrian regulation means more or less the same as the rule made by the FAA.

We all know that laws are very often made to ensure that the lawmakers cannot be held responsible. I would like to know how you would execute an emergency release without any damage to property? This is impossible, especially so over urban area.

I cannot imagine that in every ski ressort in the US (for example), the cable cars cease their work just because a chopper is in the area . As a matter if fact, you do not have one cable car - in large ski ressorts you have 30 to 40 of such installations. Do you really believe they always stop because of a chopper? I really doubt that...

I am fine with limitations regarding the distance to the cables / above them, but everything else is completely unrealistic if you have ever been in such an area.

Regards, Bernhard

effortless

8th Sep 2005, 08:49

The point I made was that he flew with an underslung load over an occupied cable car. You cannot carry a load by crane over traffic nor over a train. At the very least you have to wait until the traffic has passed. The helicopter could have crossed behind the gondola. This would have presented a smaller target at the very least. This thread has demonstrated that underslung loads do slip more often than we would like. They certainly used to from cranes. We had many fatalities in the sixties on site. The consequence was the Health and Safety At Work Act 1974. Nowadays we rarely have anyone hurt due to a strop failure or similar in cranework.

Austrian H&S is as strong as any in the world.

[email protected]

8th Sep 2005, 08:53

N5528P, I think you have missed the point here Bernhard, a helicopter flying without an external load does not present the same risk as a helicopter flying with an external load.

External loads are notoriously fickle and sometimes they need to be jettisoned for the safety of the aircraft and sometimes bits fall off them and, as in this case, sometimes the load slinging equipment fails/malfunctions. That is why overflight of people, structures etc should be avoided as much as possible when carrying out external load operations.

A heli going into a hospital still might crash on finals over a road but the likelihood of it happening is tiny compared to an external load incident.

munchkins

8th Sep 2005, 11:22

It's a sad time when our industry is involved in such an unfortunate accident where many innocent lives have been lost and families torn apart forever. Could this have prevented? Sure. Shut down the cable cars until the USL operation was completed. Could the loss of revenue have been the main reason the cable car operator agreed to allow helicopter operations to continue overhead whilst placing the public in harms way? I certainly hope not. It would be interesting to see if the cable car operator and the helicopter operator had their "safety experts" carry out one of their risk analysis prior to commencement to the USL operation. If not, shame on them. If so, shame on them. Safety, safety, safety, seems to be the buzz word of the times. Where were the "safety experts" in this debacle?
My condolences to the innocent. To those that could have possibly prevented this loss of precious life, may God have mercy on your souls.

Cyclic Hotline

8th Sep 2005, 12:31

Bernhard,

As crab has already pointed out, my comments are specific to external load operations ONLY. There is no need to shut down anything, so long as the load doesn't overfly it. I have never, and would never, suggest that these limitations be applied to any other helicopter operations.

I have constructed a large number of ski-lifts, along with just about everything else you could build (or take apart) with a helicopter, so I am intimately familiar with the layout of a ski area. There are NO circumstances that we would overfly an active cable car, with anyone on board it.

It is easy to avoid/mitigate exposure to risk when performing external load operations. In a congested area, it is achieved by picking each load immediately adjacent to the site, if it is otherwise impossible to avoid overflight of buildings or individuals.

No load would EVER be flown over any property without the permission of the respective property owner. You can guarantee that any other property owner is going to want a copy of the insurance policy that will be covering them. By ensuring this in advance of the operation, you have already taken responsibility for all damage that might occur under any circumstance. In this process, you have already got written permission from any property owner that might experience damage or loss in the event a load is dropped and notified them all of your intent. Most of the time, the only property owner who is going to get overflown, is the one doing the job.

In order to perform this operation and exclude the public from the area, it is essential to co-ordinate this with whatever local government agencies, police, etc; that have jurisdiction in the area.

Downtown areas may not be considered a congested area at 06:30 on Sunday morning. This is when much of this kind of work is done. With the police keeping outsiders and interested parties at a safe distance, it is easy to achieve every safety goal.

Once you have considered every aspect of the job, and if the customer is still interested (generally they are not using helicopters just for the sake of it), all of this can be contained in a detailed lift plan, which can be submitted to the FAA (or whichever responsible agency) as a congested area plan. No-one from any government agency is going to approve that plan (read responsibility) if you have not done the job properly. Mandatory safety meetings for everyone involved in the project prior to any lift work starting ensure that everyone knows the plan, who is responsible for what, what happens in the event of any problems and how to react in the event of emergency.

Safety is no buzz word. Safety has to be a committed and integral culture as the absolute foundation of any and every helicopter operation. If not, the outcome will make you wish it were!

How else would anyone here perform a job of this nature? Anyone?

This accident is a real tragedy for everyone involved, but nothing will change the ultimate responsibility for planning and executing the job. This should never have happened.

tecpilot

8th Sep 2005, 13:27

Seems to me this could be an really important thread. We, the PPRUNERS are on a very interesting point. We leave the accident level and turning into a principle discussion about helicopter safety. Thats the same situation now in the Alp countries. The public and the helicopter operators are splitted into the same two parties we have here on PPRUNE.
I hope we all understand how important this point is to the whole business. No question we have a risk in the business. On many points we in the helicopters are able the rise the safety factor, but on the other side it is very expensive or impossible to exclude some other risk factors.

It's easy to say close all traffic, all cable cars, all... and saving human lifes.

But, as i wrote before if we want to exclude all risk factors we have to stay in bed. Try to haul the concrete by snowmobile. How many accidents we have with snowmobiles and skier? A lot. OK, close the hole area in front of any construction work.

How many accidents we have with cars? Ok, close the areas around streets.

Don't activate nuclear plants if people could be hurt in case of a technical malfunction. OK, safety area at least 30 miles.

How many people get hurt by helicopters ?
1. direct on turning chopper blades - a lot.
2. direct by downed ships during take off or landing - a lot.

OK, close the area around turning helicopters. Prohibit take off or landing via every people on ground.

I do not dispute that in case of an engine failure or other technical malfunction the pilot will try to bring to ship out of any people on ground. But we have a lot of accidents after all people on ground get hurt. OK, they were standing on the false place.

Why we discuss about the safety of non involved people on ground? Let's talk about our own safety. If the allmighty FAA have safe rules to external loads, why it is possible to fly with singles out of land marks? Why with singles and non IR equipped a/c at night? Why is it possible to make construction work on high voltage pylons sitting on a self constructed board outside a MD 500, rotors turning only a some inches away from the cables?
What if the news chopper chrashed in the US, have killed some people on the ground or fired up the building. No news choppers, sorry, no helicopters above cities?

N5528P

8th Sep 2005, 13:29

The helicopter could have crossed behind the gondola. This would have presented a smaller target at the very least.

@ effortless

A detail perhaps not covered by the media ist that this is not one single gondula traveling the wire up and down. There are 30 to 60 gondolas with a spacing to each other of approx. 20 m.

Crossing between gondulas wpuld not help a bit since this gap of 20 m would prevent nothing. In this case, the payload of concrete hit one gondula, but also two others were ripped from the cable because of the oscillations in the car.

Such a cabe car simply means you have a barrier through a valley which you can only cross during the night. A time where it is nearly impossible to fly in areas where people are on vacation - even worse if this car ends in a village - the barrier through the valley is complete - no passing on either side.

Regards, Bernhard

Cyclic Hotline

8th Sep 2005, 14:04

The issue isn't single engine helicopters, flying at night, or flying offshore. Those have to be safety issues addressed by the individual operator and regulator. Helicopter accidents are not limited to single engine helicopters, helicopter accidents are not caused solely by engine failures or power loss.

The issue here is flying external loads over the general public, who should deserve a degree of protection provided by the Operator.

I have never suggested that helicopters be restricted from performing this type of work - believe me, it forms the majority of my business. All I have ever suggested that a basic safety requirement of ANY external load operation requires that overflying people, or occupied buildings is a totally unacceptable practice.

If you are trying to suggest that there is no way of hauling a load without overflying people on the ground, then respectfully, I totally disagree with you. It is possible to stage and deliver the load without exposing the public to any risk. If it means flying an extra 5 or even 10 minutes with every pick, then so be it. If it requires that the cable car be shut down for the duration of the lift operations, then that sure seems to be a practical option to me. It is up to the Operator to ensure and INSIST that this occurs. The operator understands andf quantifies the risk, a cable car operator may have no understanding of the risk involved. Ask that same question of a cable car manufacturer or constructor and I can GUARANTEE you what the determination would be. That is because they use helicopters to construct them and have a complete understanding of situations involving helicopters that would influence that decision.

External load operations are a safe and extremely efficient means of performing a large variety of projects - otherwise they would never occur. That doesn't mean that the risk cannot be managed. In fact the rarity of accidents of this type demonstrates specifically, that the risk is effectively managed in these kind of operations.

All the other issues you raise are indeed important safety issues, basic safety issues that concern every operator. The issue here is specifically safe operating practices whilst performing external load operations. It is not the FAA (or any other agency), it is not the customer, it is not the owner of the property involved. It is the responsibility of the operator, who is ultimately responsible for planning and executing a safe operation, that protects everyone outside the operation, from exposure to risk from the act of that operation.

tecpilot

8th Sep 2005, 18:48

I confirm there is a risk in flying with sling loads. You mentioned not to fly with sling loads over public areas. OK
But i stated there are allways risks around the helicopter operation. We can try to count now the risk factor of a sling operation. We can count now the risk of any helicopter operation. On which risk factor number you wanna stop the ops?
I'm also on your side, that the laws should build the basics and the operator must try to find the safest way on the special day of ops. In this sadly accident there are no questions about the aerial laws in Austria. It's in law to fly over cable cars with sling loads. This is confirmed by several authorithies. The glacier isn't a dense populated area. It was a "one- in a - million" accident to lost the load and followed by a direct hit of the cable. I hope that this company and other operators find other ways of their ops in dense populated areas. But in this area the ops seems ok to me. If the investigators find out that the pilot have overflown the cars in very low altitude, i would find such flying risky and not to declare. But at the moment investigators doesn't speak from risky flying or low level cruising.
The questions stays "What if the news chopper chrashed in the US, have killed some people on the ground or fired up the building. No news choppers, sorry, no helicopters above cities?"
With overflying this area (over the city) and the people around there was also a specified risk number.

Recuperator

8th Sep 2005, 22:28

I have made some very crude calculations. With my poor math skills this was already a great feat and I ask for forgiveness in advance for errors or complete miscalculations.

Please feel free to correct me! (Especially you Farmer1). I will again stand humble in your mathematical wizardry.

Given parameters:

Height :1000 feet or 300 meters.
Indicated Airspeed : Approximately 50 kts or 92.6 km/h or 25.72 m/s.
Size of gondola (width): 8.25 feet or 2.5 meters.
Weight of bucket
with concrete : 1500 pounds or roughly 750 kilograms.
Time for weight to drop
down from 1000 feet : 7.82 seconds.
Gravity : 9.801m/sec/sec.

Thus:

A helicopter travelling with a underslung load at 50 kts will travel at 25.72 m/s. The gondola is 2.5 meters wide. By my poor calculations the helicopter was still 201 meters away from the cable at 300 meters or 1000 feet when the load accidentally jettisoned. If the load was dropped 1/10 of a second earlier or later it would have most probably missed the gondola.

As stated earlier in the thread:

SHortshaft

Even with the ballistic coefficient of a block of concrete the aircraft would not have even reached the line when the release occurred.

Tecpilot

But to hit a round about 2,5 inches steel cable and a 2,5m wide gondola from 800-1000ft is a feasibility only mathematicians or chair seater could calculate.

Auscan

This was a one in a trillion chance happening. ( I did the math )

Cyclic Hotline

You Cyclic Hotline, is the first one to know how cut throat the industry is. Adding 5 or 10 minutes per leg will probably get you losing the job to someone else who is prepared to take the more direct route. What if there wasn’t a suitable alternate in the mountains where the concrete can be delivered or mixed. Intimately knowing the outlays of ski resorts, you should also know that access is normally a problem and the client wants his cement at 10000 feet to build the new mobile telephone tower.

Nevertheless, I am sorry, but 1/10th of a second risk is hardly any risk at all. A single line feature 2.5 meters wide, less than the width of a dual lane carriage way, is hardly a risk in open terrain where there is masses of available space to do a controlled jettison or an emergency landing or autorotation.

I will bet you that in similar circumstances, you will never hit those cables again, even if you tried everyday for the rest of your remaining flying career.

I have done some of the most dangerous underslung work I think one can do in a Bell 206 Longranger and Bell407’s. That is precision vertical referencing with underslung crews doing live power line maintenance. If anybody knows anything about calculating the risks of underslung work, I think I do.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with you that you have to manage the risks, but, if we have to say “what if” for every single time there is the slightest risk we will never get airborne to do any underslung jobs e.g.:

What if I have tail rotor failure at 100’ over the destination building in a CBD.
What if the cable tangles and snaps and shoots into the blades and coil around the pitch change rods and I loose control over my cyclic inputs.
What if I get the load flying into the helicopter’s tail rotor.
What if we use a new inexperienced engineer or loadmaster and do not use mirrors or vertical referencing and we have a hook up.
What if there is no alternate site to do the pickup.
What if I experience wild oscillations and I have to slow down and my fuel is running low.
What if I get vortex ring state during transition to landing or LTE in the high OGE hover.
And then my personal favourite:
What if we have an accidental release exactly in that 1/10th of a second window period and hit the gondolas.

You Cyclic Hotline stated:
I will categorically state that I have NEVER been involved with any external load operation that has overflown people, or occupied premises, intentionally, at any time, nor would I permit it to happen, or be involved with it.
Also:
Dealing with a construction crew and personnel involved with the operation on the ground, is an entirely different matter than flying an external load over the general public.

I can assure you that intentionally and unintentionally, with your hundreds of lifts a day, you probably have overflown people. Construction crews and people involved in your operations are also people.

I don’t understand what the difference is between construction crew, personnel involved on the operation on the ground and the general public. People are people, you have to manage the risks with the people on your operation or on the ground involved in the operation, as you do, as you have to with the people in gondolas.

I think flying at 1000 feet instead of 500 feet was a step in the right direction.

You know, if he was at 500 feet, as required and stated in the regulations you so carefully studied and so wisely pointed out to us imbeciles or even below the allowed height at say 400 feet, he would have missed the gondolas by roughly 74.9 meters and nobody would have said a word, not even you.

In my opinion you have a greater chance of somebody dying in your operations than flying over a gondola at 1000 feet. It sound to me, deducting from what you say, that you see your people on your jobs as expendable, because “they know the risks”. How does that make you a manager of risks?? Your arguments sounds a bit hypocritical to me.

Furthermore, and I can put money on this. If that ski lift was switched off for the duration of the flights, you would have had a mob of people, who paid a lot of money to be there, bitterly complaining to management about the infringement on their skiing time, as it is their right to be on the slopes. They would have been up in arms and would have said themselves, even if in their own lack of wisdom, that there were little or no risk to themselves or others from a helicopter flying overhead at 1000 feet. Even if you had a vote, some people would still have elected to go up in the gondolas.

Self gratification and greed is some of our human downfalls. The owner / operator would also not have wanted to switch off the lifts as he also would not have wanted to lost any revenue during this time and would have approved the flights to keep the customers happy and the business coming in.

And I say this because, I would have been in front of the queue complaining angrily that there was no risks to us in the gondolas and that I wanted to go up to ski.

I would even have argued that they had to keep on flying, while we skied, so that we could get mobile phone communications up and running, as it was in the public and my interest that I could happily continue running my business while keeping mom and the kids happy on the ski slopes.

I dare you to prove me wrong…;)

3top

8th Sep 2005, 23:29

Hi guys,

first, I am Austrian and come from an area about 100 klicks east of this site. My village basically lives of tourism - mainly winter but summer gets better every year. Cable-cars are an essential part of the business.

N5528P:

---"To the accident itself: As already pointed out here by many others, it is impossible to stop the operation of a cable car / tram / etc. etc. just because a chopper is flying somewhere overhead.
This would mean the immediate breakdown of any public transport in an urban area and would make a cable car useless.
There are not only cargo flights conducted throughout the day, but also emergency flights, police flights, military flights, traffic surveillance,.... "---

a) There is no one living up there! This is a tourist attraction so to speak! There is nothing braking down if the damn thing is not working for a couple of days! Okay the operator will cry a while, so what? The main income season is still 3 month away!
What happened will do way more damage to the economy than stopping cable car ops for a couple of days! The media will take care of that!

b) Don't exagerate, as stated before USL is not everyday flying.
Suppose you loose an engine, the pilot still has control over the aircraft (hopefully!) and can maneuver out of harms way ( ....for bystanders anyway) - Once a slingload goes its own way it is out of your control!

---"I cannot imagine that in every ski ressort in the US (for example), the cable cars cease their work just because a chopper is in the area . As a matter if fact, you do not have one cable car - in large ski ressorts you have 30 to 40 of such installations. Do you really believe they always stop because of a chopper? I really doubt that..."---

a) That's why you try to do these jobs off the main season, so you don't do that much economic damage while you close down the area! Also you don't have to shut down all 40 of them, just those that are in the way.....

In this case, the blame goes to the people who allowed this ops over an active skiing area!
I don't blame the operator (Knaus), if he has all the papers, this is his business! If he gets too concerned the competition will take the job. Nor do I blame the pilot, if he doesn't fly someone else will - especially if everything was kosher with the permits. I don't suppose that the cargo was dropped on purpose or by accidental release, but some mechanical/electrical failure.

It is just the general greed, that doesn't allow to clear the area for some time - even off-season.....

3top

Cyclic Hotline

9th Sep 2005, 03:07

Recuperator, I do indeed know how cut throat the helicopter business, that is why there needs to be regulatory control of safety issues. That way, there is a level playing field for everyone competing in the marketplace. If you are not permitted to overfly people or property, then everyone has the same limitations. If the customer can't accept the cost of doing the job safely, then I guess he won't get to complete his project.

I agree absolutely about the miniscule possibility of a dropped load taking out a cable car, but it still does not absolve the risk manager from eliminating that possibility while it is in service and carrying members of the public. It is the risk managers duty to ensure that members of the public are not exposed to this risk (of which they are totally unaware).

All the examples of risk which you pose are directly related to the aircraft, pilot and operator. If the job is planned correctly, none of those should endanger the public. The operator and his crew either accept that risk, or find another profession. 3top makes some highly pertinent points including an excellent observation that a helicopter taking controlled emergency action is a very different animal than a dead weight external load dropping out of control from the sky.

Again, I categorically state that at no time have we ever intentionally overflown the general public or own crews. How can I make that statement so confidently? Because, in addition to the requirements of the FAA in the carriage of external loads, I have an entire other set of Federal regulation to obey. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. (http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=10761)

Specifically:
1926.551(a)

Helicopter regulations. Helicopter cranes shall be expected to comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.

and

1926.551(i)

Hooking and unhooking loads. When employees are required to perform work under hovering craft, a safe means of access shall be provided for employees to reach the hoist line hook and engage or disengage cargo slings. Employees shall not perform work under hovering craft except when necessary to hook or unhook loads.

Additionally, we have to comply with specific State OSHA or equivalent agency regulations, and any other regulations specific to the type of operation being conducted. Within the above rule, it does not prohibit essential crew from being placed in a certain area of risk in positioning and placing precision loads, eg; tower construction - but that is an assessed, defined and mitigated risk by both the operator and contractor.

The OSHA regulations, like all rules, are an escalating level of regulation, with compliance from the most basic levels of general safety to the specific operation being performed. So;

1926.550(a)(19)

All employees shall be kept clear of loads about to be lifted and of suspended loads.

Do you start to understand why I can so confidently make the statements I make? In addition to basic safety sense, it is the law and I can ensure you it is enforced, observed, obeyed, complied with and is not subject to interpretation by either ourselves, or OSHA.

I assure you and repeat, categorically. I have never been involved in an operation that has intentionally overflown our crewmembers! It is simply not an acceptable practice. I would never consider any of my ground crew as "expendable" (your term), but they accept some degree of risk in the type of operation that we are undertaking. It is our responsibility to ensure the safe working environment for everyone of our crewmembers and we take that responsibility very, very seriously.

Let me explain the difference between anyone directly involved with the operation, and the general public. All crewmembers involved with the helicopter are directly aware of the risks associated with the specific helicopter operation being accomplished.

1926.551(b)

Briefing. Prior to each day's operation a briefing shall be conducted. This briefing shall set forth the plan of operation for the pilot and ground personnel.

The general public has no concept of the risk or understanding of any part of the helicopter operation being accomplished - nor should they. For that reason, it is essential that the operator assume the position of guardian of their safety - by ensuring that every step is taken to protect the public from any risk that helicopter operation places them in.

Furthermore, and I can put money on this. If that ski lift was switched off for the duration of the flights, you would have had a mob of people, who paid a lot of money to be there, bitterly complaining to management about the infringement on their skiing time, as it is their right to be on the slopes. They would have been up in arms and would have said themselves, even if in their own lack of wisdom, that there were little or no risk to themselves or others from a helicopter flying overhead at 1000 feet. Even if you had a vote, some people would still have elected to go up in the gondolas.

Self gratification and greed is some of our human downfalls. The owner / operator would also not have wanted to switch off the lifts as he also would not have wanted to lost any revenue during this time and would have approved the flights to keep the customers happy and the business coming in.

And I say this because, I would have been in front of the queue complaining angrily that there was no risks to us in the gondolas and that I wanted to go up to ski.

Finally. In the prepartory stages of this project the shutting down of the cable-car should have been discussed, and if required, compensated accordingly - it is all in the cost of doing business. The customers would simply have to do without the trip that day. Lots of things get shut down for lots of reasons - its just a part of life. I sincerely doubt that anyone was going up skiing at this time of year.

I would suggest to you that following this terrible accident, the Pilot, Operator, cable car operator, customer and families of those so tragically killed, might be more aligned to the viewpoint that I am presenting, than to the one that transpired. The people killed were an innocent party to what occurred. They paid their money to have a wonderful experience, not get killed in an entirely avoidable accident that was completely beyond their control or comprehension.

I would further suggest to you, that a regulatory framework will result to ensure that something like this never happens again in Austria and quite probably, anwhere in Europe.

I do sympathise with everyone involved. This is a terrrible tragedy.

tecpilot

9th Sep 2005, 06:09

Cyclic Hotline
That's what i call a "DENSE POPULATED AREA"!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/tecpi/heli5.jpg
And "NO" the whole downtown wasn't evacuated.

And believe me hundreds of cellular phone transmitters in dense populated areas were placed in this manner. I confess that's not the way i find safe to do such work. I would insist on a twin, a hook system with redundancy and i would at least try to evacuate the working area. But please think about the costs of such strategy. Evacuating a bigger area in such downtown isn't to pay. The ratio between costs of the transmitter, helicopter ops, personal and evacuating isn't acceptable.
And cranes? We have also overturned cranes in cities.

This is a sample picture of the glacier in soelden not far away the accident site including the type of cable car.
.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/tecpi/tiefenbach-jpg.jpg

You can see in dense populated areas we are trying to find an agreement. But one this godforsaken glacier... such a tragedy

munchkins

9th Sep 2005, 06:18

Cyclic Hotline: I couldn't agree with you more. Well done.

Few Cloudy

9th Sep 2005, 08:24

And the switch to the emergency load release is situated close to which switch?

Similar case to the YAK which had three fuel shutoff switches next to the three landing light switches - leading to a total flame out on final in hamburg or hannover some years back.

This thread belongs on the main page - these errors can occur on any type.

Greetings from Murphy.

TeeS

9th Sep 2005, 08:49

Hi

Speaking as someone who only does very occasional underslung work, I would like to point out that every underslung check ride I have every done (military and civil) has been carried out from an airfield. Pick up barrel of concrete, fly circuit, avoid built up areas, houses, try and cross roads at right angles etc. but without doubt we have potentially overflown members of the public. It is possible that one of these flights might have flown directly over a school bus driving down a country lane!

Is the suggestion, that all future check rides would have to be carried out over some secure part of Salisbury Plain or similar?

TeeS

Thomas coupling

9th Sep 2005, 11:33

No-one has mentioned the general public's view in this:

Who has the God given right to decide whether aerial ops will / will not directly affect the safety of members of the public?

If you, as a prospective passenger read a sign at the entrance to the cable car saying:

The public is advised that during their journey, there is a risk of death or injury from falling debris.

would you and your family climb into that car?

Health and safety was introduced to protect the 'innocent'. In this particular instance, there can be NO excuse for NOT closing the cable car.
IF the project is that important, then the planners should build in a closing period for the cable car company and compensate them for their reduced earnings. If the local community wants this they should pay for it.

Cyclic Hotline

9th Sep 2005, 12:31

tec, I have done plenty of downtown congested area work, just like the picture you have shown. We would indeed shut down the area immediately affected by our operations. That could be as minimal as a single street/parking lot, that allowed us to stage the load and provide a safe emergency diversionary area. There is no necessity to shut down an entire city, simply the limited area affected by our operation.

As we pick the load in the area adjacent to the work site, then the area affected by our operations is minimal at best. That is why we do it that way. As the helicopter enters and exits the area without an external load, there is no restriction on the rest of our operation. We would still have to do it in the early hours of a weekend morning though. This is precisely how we perform these type of missions, and we are typically hauling something much larger than the example posted.

The picture of the glacier is indeed representative of the areas we, again, do lots of work in. Now, the picture obviously presents a limited perspective of the entire area, but from what is visible in that picture, we would stage out of the parking lot, and fly our departures to the right of the lift, and NEVER cross it. Safety is not limited to congested areas. The exact same criteria are considered in every job we undertake.

The point about lifts by cranes is indeed pertinent, as cranes do indeed drop loads and roll over. That is precisely why cranes are not permitted to lift loads over work crews or the public, and why access to work sites specifically excludes the public. Ever seen the general public wandering around a work site next to a crane?

TeeS, the answer to this would be to perform those lifts within the confines of the airfield, or indeed, perform them in some area which limits the possibility of endangering the public.

And TC, we are indeed tasked as the safety advocates for the public, that is our responsibility when performing these missions. It is precisely because we manage the safety aspects of these jobs, that signs such as you suggest are not required. If indeed we do not perform these missions without excluding that risk, then that is precisely the sign that should be required - and the associated liability it implies.

Somehow, I can't see the cable car operator or your insurance company subscribing to that one.

Flingwing207

9th Sep 2005, 14:48

To summarize this argument:

Side 1:
"What are the odds? You can't eliminate all risk anyway, after all, a meteor could hit the gondola too"

Side 2:
"If it can go wrong, it will go wrong. The more risks you eliminate, the less chance something bad will happen when it does go wrong"

I lean toward Side 2 - being "wrong" in this case simply means you spent more time and money. When Side 1 is wrong, you get this accident (or New Orleans).

paying customer

9th Sep 2005, 16:21

During the afternnon of 8 September a helicopter was flying over central London trailing a large Quantas advertising banner. The aircraft made several circuits during the 20 minutes or so it took me to walk between meetings.

I have no idea of the risk of an accidental detachment, and clearly a falling banner would not represent anything like the threat posed by a concrete laden container. Nevertheless, the consequences of such an event could be serious if it fell on a moving vehicle. The odds of landing on a car, lorry, bus or train must be much higher than the odds of hitting a lone cable car.

Given the comments on this thread about the regulation of carrying loads outside a helicopter and what does or does not constitute good practice can anyone comment on the regulatory position in the UK?

Flying Lawyer

9th Sep 2005, 16:50

So that's what it was.
I was too far away to see what was being advertised and it had gone by the time I got back to central London. Splendid idea. I hope we see more.

The regulatory position in the UK?
Too many and too strict in the view of some, but Brits love rules so the position is unlikely to change.

FL

PS: Watch out for bombs on your next visit to the big city. London can be a dangerous place.

tecpilot

10th Sep 2005, 06:56

The head of the society of cable car operators in Austria says yesterday: "In my view is the closing of cable cars during transportation flights absolutely unconceivable".
"It's up to the helicopter operator and the authorities, they have to find safe ways".

"Wash my skin, but doesn't make me wet!" I would say.

Construction and service of cable cars in high mountain area are impossible without helicopters and their transportation flights.

And to the banner, yes in my mind it's also an external load operation. No question, such a banner isn't a bomb like the concrete kettle. But a few hundred pounds coming from the sky are allways dangerous.
But i'm shure the flight is allowed and in law, like the tragedy flight in Austria.

effortless

10th Sep 2005, 08:48

Was the banner tow using the river route? Nonetheless a banner falling is not such a problem as concrete. While driving around Brighton yesterday I took a look at the site that were using cranes. They all had cordoned off public areas which were being carried over.

paying customer

10th Sep 2005, 09:05

The banner may have been over the river part of the time but it was both north and west of Kings Cross as well.

Thomas coupling

10th Sep 2005, 10:36

The estates of those who were injured or died, will now sue whoever stands still long enough, for millions and millions of pounds. It'll probably be spread between the helicopter company, the cable car company and the local authorities.
The wrangling over who pays what amount will take years, but the bottom line is: someone will pay big bucks.

Now for a tiny fraction of this payout, the cable car company could have closed on the days the loadlifting was done and been re-imbursed by the company doing the construction work. And that company could have charged the local authority that same amount to cover their charges.
Some people just don't believe it'll happen to them I guess.

Oh well ... they won't do it again:\

PAXboy

10th Sep 2005, 11:08

Now for a tiny fraction of this payout, the cable car company could have closed on the days the loadlifting was done. [edit] Oh well ... they won't do it again Indeed they won't. This is the only way that human beings learn. The thread currently running in Rumours about the pressure that commercial pilots are under to bend the rules for a better commercial solution ... folks ask how can be stop the insidious drift of the saftey first culture?

The answer is simple: When enough people die and enough money is lost. Providing, that is, that the root cause can be identified but that is another discussion. So the people that dies in this accident will help to save lives in the future. That is what our species does.

Cyclic Hotline

10th Sep 2005, 14:47

"It's up to the helicopter operator and the authorities, they have to find safe ways".

You are quite right tec, everyone is attempting to distance themselves from any culpability in this tragedy - now that was predictable, wasn't it. This comes back to the point I was initially trying to make - the responsibility truly, ultimately, lies with the helicopter operator. And lets emphasise again, it is a limitation on external load operations ONLY, not a limitation on helicopter operations overall.

Of course as one of the helicopter customers, they are the one of the businesses driving the operations, so they should get on board right away to ensure they are represented in the process to resolve this issue. They may not like the outcome otherwise. I would love to read the safety regulations controlling the Austrian cable car operators - anyone got a copy?

TC, you have the irony of this circumstance identified entirely. This will cost someone millions, maybe even their business and career. More ironic, is that it was entirely preventable. It cost 9 innocent victims their lives.

I also want to go back and address another elemental portion of a basic helicopter external load operation. The mechanism to orchestrate and effectively plan a safe operation are actually very simple. It is easy to stage external loads from an area immediately adjacent to the work site. It is (relatively) easy to organise the closing of streets; or controlling traffic; vacating buildings - or affected floors; restricting public access, or shutting down a cable car for a brief period of time. It is simply a part of doing business safely.

The reaction of many posters seems to focus on restricting all helicopter movements, or creating some huge issue of closing entire cities. External loads are flown the shortest distance, minimizing the exposure of the operator and the public from any danger of a dropped load. Helicopter access to the staging area is accomplished without external loads. Incidentally, we treat an empty long line in the exact same manner as a 10,000 pound external load! Safety is easy, practical and essential. There is no alternative way of doing this. The affected area is minimal, and the inconvenience is insignificant and far preferred to the alternatives. Accidents may still occur, but their impact and effect are minimized through an effective and conscious approach and strategy toward safety.

TC, you have summed it up entirely - the cheapest, and more importantly - safest, option was to close the cable car for the duration of the operation. Some agreeable means could be negotiated, to ensure the interests of everyone were addressed. If they couldn't be negotiated, then the job won't happen. The cost in this instance will never be measured in monetary terms, it is measured by the loss of innocent human lives.

I understand that there is a possibility that there may be no breach of any regulations in this specific instance. However, under the regulatory system I work under, if I failed to observe the regulatory structure, I would be subject to FAA sanction including and up to revocation of my operating certificates and personal licenses; massive OSHA fines, sanctions and audits - which could include jail time; charges from local and federal law enforcement - which could include fines and jail time; cancellation of all my insurance policies, plus sky-high renewals if I were even able to get insurance in the future; and law suits lasting years, that could bankrupt my business, myself and everyone and anyone associated with that particular operation.

Strangely enough, that combination has made even the most dubious operator pay serious attention to safety, (well, most all of them) ;)!

arm the floats

10th Sep 2005, 22:57

As already pointed out on this thread this was a really really unlucky and tragic accident. Most load lifting pilots have some sort of incident during the course of their careers it is an inherently dangerous job. In my opinion, certainly in Europe, its more dangerous than flying for the police, ambulance, SAR, off-shore support and corporate. Don’t get me wrong all of the jobs listed above have their moments but you are largely protected by the regulators and you are flying twins with take-off and landing profiles designed to keep you safe.
Not so in loadlifting. You are generally in a single and a great deal of time , during the course of you career , is spent deep in the Height/velocity diagram over the heads of people receiving ,hooking or positioning the load.

Competition is fierce between lifting companies and clients safety expectations can vary dramatically, sadly in my experience most would rather the job is done as quickly, cheaply as possible with safety generally falling on deaf ears. Ski areas are normally better than most, as they generally have involvement with mountain rescue/air ambulance.

I do not agree with cyclic hotline over the point of responsibility falling on the operator. If airline companies did not have the Flight Time Limitations to work to as regulated by the Authorities what would happen?

If Authorities did not require that pilots have medicals what would happen?

Lifting pilots do not have the same regulations and limits governing them as they aren’t CAT (public transport) and we all know that no lifting would be done if they were. But there are areas where regs would help.
Eg Ground crew do not have to have any qualifications ….you can grab someone off the street and hand them the hook attached to a helicopter and leave them to it ….nothing to stop it! (what happens in the States /Canada…nothing there is no requirement for formal qualifications as far as I know.)
The Authorities , in my experience will take responsibility for the aircraft but not the load. The Health and Safety Executive won’t take responsibility for the load as its attached to an aircraft or should be, and therefore feel it is the Aviation Authorities responsibility. The lifting companies are left in the middle.

Have I flown over gondolas? Yes. The first time I did this job I asked the client to stop the Gondolas whilst I was operating. They did……everytime I approached the overhead they stopped the Gondolas but……….to my amazement there was still people in them, they would stop them only for the second it took me to fly over. It was impossible to stop the whole operation “absolutely unheard of” and like I say these were good clients (maybe it’ll change now but I’d be surprised). I must admit though if I wanted to release a concrete skip timed to hit a gondola I’d still be trying now…..these guys were so unlucky.

Why did the load release? Was there a crack in the attachment point of the concrete skip or was there hidden corrosion? When was the last stress test on the skip? (do European Authorities require stress testing or will a visual check suffice?) They lay it all on the operator…..where’s the regs?

I’ve had 2 uncommanded load releases … (see here http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=147001)…. I have never felt so helpless whilst flying just watching the load and lifting gear drop from the belly hook . I filed the incident report…where was the back up,the interviews with engineers ,hook manufacturers ,previous incident reports (either it never happens or no one reports)……..but if I’d killed somebody in the process…….

tecpilot

11th Sep 2005, 05:50

arm the floats

very good, that's exactly the situation. I fully agree to you.

In this case the cable car operator try to leave the shooting range without harms. But as i could confirm, they do in front of the job a lot of pressure to the helicopter operators. The competition between the helicopter companies is very very hard, partly unfair. Cyclic thinks a operator have to cancel the job or to pay extra if the client isn't ready to stop his operation due to safety reasons.
Just kidding? I bet under any circumstances the client will find an other helicopter company ready to do the job under the clients conditions. In Austria as example more than 20 helicopter operators with more than 100 ships are ready to haul the concrete. The country is very small!
May be some of you have heard about the floodings in Austria some weeks ago. There are the other operators and the police and army helicopter flying now up to today concrete and construction material to the former flooded areas to rebuild streets and places. They do the job every day and also after this tragedy with flying over public areas.

I'm sure, nearly every pilot is interested in safety. And your words cyclic sounding good, but i don't know in which paradise you fly. And i don't know on what kind of operator. But i believe as described the business in the most european countries goes.

And the authorities doesn't help the single ex employed pilot trying to find some safety culture and a new job. I know some cases the pilots hoped the authority informed by the pilots would have stopped some dark deeds by client and management. Forget it! If it is in public interest...
And the things going mostly allways good because of the low feasibility of such a tragedy.

Cyclic Hotline

12th Sep 2005, 01:29

Some very interesting points are being raised in this discussion. Individual Operators and Pilots approach to Safety. Regulatory control over this aspect of Operation. Commercial pressure and customer expectations. The implementation of JAR-Ops 4, which addresses many of the specific issues involved with this accident.

Let’s review all the parties involved in this accident, to see if we can identify who might be held responsible.

The Government and regulatory authorities?
The Customer?
The cable car operator?
The cable car passengers?
The Pilot?
The Operator?

If, as is being stated here, there are no regulations prohibiting this operation, then the responsibility will surely fall back on the Operator, as he is performing the flight. If this load had never been flown, the risk would have never existed. Under the regulatory system I am operating under, the ultimate responsibility lies with the aircraft commander. The aircraft commander is operating under the authority of the Operating Certificate and is thus protected by the conditions specified in the Operations Manual. However if there is no regulatory framework controlling this operation, then ultimately the Operator must shoulder the responsibility for the safety of his operation.

I am quite surprised by the lack of effective safety regulations and practices if this information is indeed correct. The development of an effective Safety Regulation system, is exactly the same as the development of an effective Safety Management System for an operator. There are some essential fundamentals to an effective programme;

1. Risk Assessment – the identification and evaluation of risk.
2. Risk Management – the removal or effective mitigation of risk.
3. Risk decision making – the application of 1 & 2 above.

4. Implementation – the creation of an effective written plan, detailing the system for using 1, 2 & 3 above.

5. Management and Supervision – the training, observance, review and auditing of the plan.

A good safety system has to be easy, practical, simple, but most importantly, effective, in dealing with all the issues. These are not complex, nor necessarily restrictive. Most parts of the safety plan might appear to be common-sense (strange, that), but they detail the hazards and the means for managing them safely. A plan must be comprehensive and provide a means for training and familiarizing everyone involved with the operation for the task at hand. My own safety manual is 125 pages and addresses all the hazards we typically meet in all aspects of our operations (not limited to helicopter operations). This is not to consider it is all encompassing, we still meet challenges that require innovative and creative solutions, additions and changes – but the method for making sound decision are detailed within that plan. Additionally, we have an FAA required and approved Part 133 (external load) operating manual that defines our operating practices and procedures and the means by which we comply with all applicable FAA regulations.

arm the floats raises a couple of good points. If we consider the application and execution of any regulation, you will find that conforming to any rule is the responsibility of the individual operator or pilot. While the regulators created the various rules, it is up to the individual operator or pilot to conform to them. In issuing a licence or Operating Certificate, the Authority, has determined that the company or individual understands the regulation and thus delegates the administration of the rule to them. An approved Operator (or Pilot) is responsible for operating in a safe manner. It will be interesting to see where this investigation goes. Regulators may be responsible for creating and enforcing regulations – but in the interim, YOU are responsible for observing them. Regulation is a neccesary evil in all aspects of life.

There is no requirement for any certification of ground crew members. We do train our crew members with OJT training with experienced crew members. All outside personnel on a lift job, must attend a mandatory safety meeting, and sign an attendance sheet. We would not permit someone who does not know what they are doing to be involved.

Everything below the helicopter belly hook is an external load. Long lines, hooks, rigging, etc, do not require FAA approval. However, our own operations and safety manuals, specify the type and condition of items to be used. Load lifting equipment, is however, subject to full OSHA requirements, including working loads for rigging, hooks and lines. The real grey area, and the one that is always a challenge to external loads, is the rigging of loads. Poorly rigged loads may not fly correctly, nor at speed. Most of this is down to experience – there have been a few threads here about that very subject!

Your own experience with uncommanded load releases is specifically why such caution is deserved with an external load. It is not a part of the aircraft and if they separate from the helicopter, there is no control where they go!

JAR-Ops 4 (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.air-work.com/it/Syllabus/jar_ops4_it.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJAR%2BOps%2B4%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GG LD:2004-34,GGLD:en) addresses many of the issues concerning aerial work operations. Indeed as I read it further it addresses precisely the circumstances involved with this accident, and the points being discussed above.

Specifically;

JAR-OPS 4.495 Helicopters

An operator shall

(a) ensure that a helicopter conducting aerial work operations over a congested hostile environment is:

Interpretation: For operations in, or over a built up area, where engine failure accountability is specified. (This text is mainly concerned with operations within a built up area and should not allow gratuitous over-flight with an underslung load.)

ACJ to JAR-OPS 4.495(a)(2)

3. Jettisoning the load is only permitted when prior approval is obtained from the owner(s) of property under the flight path.

Tecpilot, I do sympathise with you if you are having to work in an environment with such a cavalier attitude to safety. Maybe JAR-Ops 4 is timely, necessary and required to inject a realistic and effective approach to safety. Is this attitude consistent throughout the whole industry, or a specific portion of the operating community?

I would thoroughly recommend that any of you operating in this sector, who do not have an existing Operations Manual specifically addressing external load operations, obtain a copy of the HAI Safety Manual. It forms a sound basis for any safety programme and can be modified to meet your specific operational and regulatory requirements. JAR-Ops 4 specifies you will have to create this anyway.

Additionally, with the escalating regulatory requirements, I highly recommend the Safety Courses that are run at the HAI. They provide an absolutely invaluable insight into creating and managing an effective safety programme.

Commercial pressure should never drive safety.

JAR-Ops 4 (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://www.air-work.com/it/Syllabus/jar_ops4_it.php&prev=/search%3Fq%3DJAR%2BOps%2B4%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26rls%3DGGLD,GG LD:2004-34,GGLD:en)

tecpilot

12th Sep 2005, 07:13

If, as is being stated here, there are no regulations prohibiting this operation, then the responsibility will surely fall back on the Operator, as he is performing the flight

I feel the responsibility will fall to our mate. Because he was flying the accident ship and the pilot is allways the dumb ass at least under the media and public pressure. The pilot is also easy to change. :(

This accident is under investigation by the highest authorities including the government and they need in any case a guiltier.

1. Lacking laws and regulations -> government and authorities, including JAA because JAR-OPS 4 isn't more than a paper since many years, of course not guilty!

2. Operator -> holds all permits, was before the job in contact with the authorities therefore connected with the authorities, not guilty!

3. Cable car operator -> a public company owned by the local villages, wasn't committed to stop the cable by law, not guilty!

4. Technical malfuction -> sometimes difficult to found in such cases , i hope they found a bug on the dammned hook, but was the pilot able to detect such problem with a better pre-flight check?

5. Poor ape with headset -> no lobby, unexpensive, easy to change -> must be guilty, if he couldn't found guilty he is allways destroyed.

That's the situation i believe to find and no cyclic hotline i haven't "to work in an environment with such a cavalier attitude to safety." because as some of the guys here know, i get my money today to fly with Eurocopter twins and on the safest possible way. But i have flown often with the mates in the Alps, holding all permits including sling load and high mountain operation and knowing the job, the pressure and the operators mostly very well. The accident pilot, unexperienced, coming the hard civil way, with a credit on the neck to become a helicopter pilot, lucky to find a job, is now the underdog and have my sympathies.

JAR-OPS 4 isn't in law and as pointed in some other threads will may be never come. It isn't more than a paper completely without concern in Europe. As also stated in some other threads every country have at the moment own rules to operate helicopters (only aerial work), sometimes every county. That makes things difficult. The public operators, meaning police, army, ... are completely out of the civil laws, but doing sometimes the same job. External load operation is very different. Single engine, twins, with redundancy, without redundancy, with certified components, with selfmade components, only experienced pilots, 300h pilots, with manuals, without manuals,...

I stay on my believe, the tragedy in soelden was a one-in a-million chance but to pay will have the pilot.

Cyclic Hotline

12th Sep 2005, 13:27

Actually tec, I think you may be absolutely correct. It is pretty sad that the Pilot who is doing what he was tasked by his employer should find himself responsible in this situation. I have never addressed the cause of the load being lost, because it truly is not the issue here - so he could end up responsible for a "random" occurence.

There isn't much point in comparing it to the system I operate under, because, as you have just listed the approvals and permissions were in place, no part of the operation, apparently, is in conflict with any law or regulation.

The only reason I refer to Jar-Ops 4, is because it does represent an attempt at standardisation under the JAA/EASA for this specific arena. The whole JAA/EASA system appears a mess to me. And the conflict between local, national and system wide rules, seems a recipe for disaster to me. I think that the point of arm the floats is indeed pertinent, that there is a regulatory shortfall in a sector that does a lot of work, and if not managed adequately presents a very small, but very high risk circumstance, in the event that a load is lost over people or property.

I do think that regulatory action will be one of the outcomes of this accident - we will just have to watch and see. I guess the inertia and impetus for regulatory change, is, and should be, necessity from the knowledge learned by experience - exactly the same review and audit process that a good safety programme should have.

Out of interest, what do the local media have to say about this accident?

tecpilot

13th Sep 2005, 14:41

"It's the darkest day in my life, i'm completely destroyed!"

One week after the tragedy the accident pilot have spoken yesterday first time in public.

"I haven't opened the cargo hook, there must be a technical malfunction!
"After ten shuttle flights with the concrete, shortly after 13:00 local time, there was a shudder and i knowed, i lost the load. "
"At first i feared the rope could have damaged the tail rotor and i turned the helicopter."
"I have seen the swinging gondolas and the bodies laying around."
"I pressed the radioknob and ordered help."
"And i swear again, i haven't opened the hook, i keeped the stick on the lower end of the grip to prevent a load release!"

Flying Lawyer

13th Sep 2005, 15:17

Poor chap. I feel very sorry for him.

Cyclic Hotline

13th Sep 2005, 19:49

Me too. Unfortunately it can never be undone.

That is the tragedy of this entire event.

md 600 driver

15th Sep 2005, 16:32

just arrived a alert from eurocopter i think its about the same problem steve

ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
T.F.S. No. 00000265 dated September 15, 2005
EUROCOPTER – MARIGNANE – TLX 42506F
Page 1 of 5
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
A L E R T T E L E X
No. 25.12 AIRCRAFT: SA 341/342 Civil Version(s): G, J
Military Version(s): B, C, D, E, F, H,
K, L, L1, M, M1
SUBJECT: EQUIPMENT AND FURNISHINGS
Untimely Firing of Squibs on GOODRICH Electric Hoists
CAUTION
THE INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS ALERT TELEX ARE
INTENDED FOR MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL AND CREWS
1. PLANNING INFORMATION
1.A. EFFECTIVITY
1.A.1. Helicopters/Installed equipment: Helicopters equipped with GOODRICH electric hoists
P/N 76370-XXX, not equipped with the AUXILEC motor.
NOTE
The motor manufacturer is indicated on the
identification plate of the motor.
1.A.2. Non-installed equipment: Not applicable.
1.B. ASSOCIATED REQUIREMENTS
Not applicable.
1.C. REASON
To prevent untimely firing of the squib on GOODRICH electric hoists.
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
T.F.S. No. 00000265 dated September 15, 2005
EUROCOPTER – MARIGNANE – TLX 42506F
Page 2 of 5
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
1.D. DESCRIPTION
EUROCOPTER has been informed of a case concerning a hoist squib which fired on an AS 355 F2
helicopter, during ground operation, without being triggered by the pilot or the hoist operator.
Following examination of the hoist, it was found that the motor brush power supply wiring was
grounded with the casing of the hoist motor.
This ground caused propagation of a leakage current to the squib firing components, which triggered
the untimely firing of the squib and the cutting of the cable.
The type of hoist installed on the AS 355 F2 is also installed on Gazelle helicopters. Contrary to
AS 355 F2 helicopters, the electrical system of Gazelle helicopters is fitted with a resistor capable of
absorbing the leakage current energy. This resistor reduces the risk of untimely hoist squib firing, but it
does not guarantee full effectiveness.
A modification is being studied in order to preclude any risk of untimely squib firing.
Consequently, as a precaution, and pending this modification, EUROCOPTER renders compliance
with this ALERT TELEX mandatory. It states that you must inhibit the squib function and use hand
shears approved by the regulatory authority.
1.E. COMPLIANCE
EUROCOPTER renders compliance with this ALERT TELEX mandatory.
1.E.1. Compliance at the works
1.E.1.a. On helicopters/installed equipment:
Not applicable.
1.E.1.b. Non-installed equipment:
Not applicable.
1.E.2. Compliance in operation: By the operator.
1.E.2.a. On helicopters/installed equipment:
On receipt of this ALERT TELEX, issued on the date indicated in the header, or before the next
hoisting operation, comply with paragraph 2.B.
Meanwhile, and as long as compliance is not ensured with paragraph 2.B., it is forbidden to carry
out hoisting operations with the GOODRICH electric hoists specified in paragraph 1.A.1.
1.E.2.b. Non-installed equipment:
Not applicable.
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
T.F.S. No. 00000265 dated September 15, 2005
EUROCOPTER – MARIGNANE – TLX 42506F
Page 3 of 5
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
1.F. MANPOWER
Qualification: 1 electrician, approximately 1 hour.
1.G. REFERENCES
Standard Practices Manual (MTC): Work Card 20.07.03.406.
2. ACCOMPLISHMENT INSTRUCTIONS
2.A. GENERAL
Not applicable.
2.B. OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE
2.B.1. Installation of suitable cable cutting shears
Procure cable cutting shears and install them on board the helicopter (unless the helicopter is already
fitted with cable cutting shears). The cable cutting shears must be secured on board the helicopter,
and must be readily accessible by the operator (hoist operator), and must be capable of cutting the
hoist cable.
You must get an approval of this equipment and its installation from your local authorities.
2.B.2. Inhibition of the squib function
2.B.2.a. Operations to be carried out on the hoist (Figure 1 Details A and B)
Install the access equipment.
Cut off the electrical power supplies as per MTC Work Card 20.07.03.406.
Remove and save clamp (a) separately.
Disengage cover (b).
Untighten nut (c) and lock-nut (d).
Disconnect lug (e) from squib (f).
Isolate lug (e) with heat-shrink sheath.
Tighten nut (c) and lock-nut (d).
Insert isolated lug (e) in cover (b).
Coil and secure the cover (b) and isolated lug (e) assembly on conductor (g) using a cable tie.
Remove the access equipment.
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
T.F.S. No. 00000265 dated September 15, 2005
EUROCOPTER – MARIGNANE – TLX 42506F
Page 4 of 5
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
2.B.2.b. Operations to be performed in the cockpit and cabin
Produce two labels (red text on white background) with the following wording:
WARNING
ELECTRIC HOIST SQUIB CABLE CUTTER FUNCTION INHIBITED.
IF NECESSARY, CUT THE HOIST CABLE USING THE CABLE
CUTTING SHEARS LOCATED IN THE CABIN.
Position the labels in a visible manner: one on the instrument panel and one near the hoist operator.
2.C. IDENTIFICATION
Record compliance with this ALERT TELEX in the aircraft documents.
2.D. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE INSTRUCTIONS
2.D.1. Operating instructions
Before each hoisting operation, and at least:
- Make sure that the cable cutting shears are on board the helicopter and are accessible.
- Define a suitable operational procedure, considering that the hoist squib cable cutter function is not
available.
- Ensure a suitable method of communication between the crew members.
NOTE
EUROCOPTER recommends not to hoist persons
during hoisting training, as long as the hoist squib cable
cutter function is inhibited.
2.D.2. Maintenance instructions
Not applicable.
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
T.F.S. No. 00000265 dated September 15, 2005
EUROCOPTER – MARIGNANE – TLX 42506F
Page 5 of 5
ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER – ALERT TELEX – EUROCOPTER
Figure 1 Location of the squib

SASless

15th Sep 2005, 16:54

Hopefully, if there is any good to be found in this...European Rules will be amended so that such occurrences can be prevented.

The FAA rule (part 133) follows....and if this rule had been complied with by the operator and the authority....the pilot would not be in the situation he is now.

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 133—ROTORCRAFT EXTERNAL-LOAD OPERATIONS
Subpart C—Operating Rules and Related Requirements

§ 133.33 Operating rules.
(a) No person may conduct a rotorcraft external-load operation without, or contrary to, the Rotorcraft-Load Combination Flight Manual prescribed in §133.47.

(b) No person may conduct a rotorcraft external-load operation unless—

(1) The rotorcraft complies with §133.19; and

(2) The rotorcraft and rotorcraft-load combination is authorized under the Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate.

(c) Before a person may operate a rotorcraft with an external-load configuration that differs substantially from any that person has previously carried with that type of rotorcraft (whether or not the rotorcraft-load combination is of the same class), that person must conduct, in a manner that will not endanger persons or property on the surface, such of the following flight-operational checks as the Administrator determines are appropriate to the rotorcraft-load combination:

(1) A determination that the weight of the rotorcraft-load combination and the location of its center of gravity are within approved limits, that the external load is securely fastened, and that the external load does not interfere with devices provided for its emergency release.

(2) Make an initial liftoff and verify that controllability is satisfactory.

(3) While hovering, verify that directional control is adequate.

(4) Accelerate into forward flight to verify that no attitude (whether of the rotorcraft or of the external load) is encountered in which the rotorcraft is uncontrollable or which is otherwise hazardous.

(5) In forward flight, check for hazardous oscillations of the external load, but if the external load is not visible to the pilot, other crewmembers or ground personnel may make this check and signal the pilot.

(6) Increase the forward airspeed and determine an operational airspeed at which no hazardous oscillation or hazardous aerodynamic turbulence is encountered.

(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of part 91 of this chapter, the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may conduct (in rotorcraft type certificated under and meeting the requirements of part 27 or 29 of this chapter, including the external-load attaching means) rotorcraft external-load operations over congested areas if those operations are conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface and comply with the following:

(1) The operator must develop a plan for each complete operation, coordinate this plan with the FAA Flight Standards District Office having jurisdiction over the area in which the operation will be conducted, and obtain approval for the operation from that district office. The plan must include an agreement with the appropriate political subdivision that local officials will exclude unauthorized persons from the area in which the operation will be conducted, coordination with air traffic control, if necessary, and a detailed chart depicting the flight routes and altitudes.

(2) Each flight must be conducted at an altitude, and on a route, that will allow a jettisonable external load to be released, and the rotorcraft landed, in an emergency without hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(e) Notwithstanding the provisions of part 91 of this chapter, and except as provided in §133.45(d), the holder of a Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate may conduct external-load operations, including approaches, departures, and load positioning maneuvers necessary for the operation, below 500 feet above the surface and closer than 500 feet to persons, vessels, vehicles, and structures, if the operations are conducted without creating a hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(f) No person may conduct rotorcraft external-load operations under IFR unless specifically approved by the Administrator. However, under no circumstances may a person be carried as part of the external-load under IFR.

[Doc. No. 24550, 51 FR 40708, Nov. 7, 1986, as amended by Amdt. 133–11, 54 FR 39294, Sept. 25, 1989]

tecpilot

27th Sep 2005, 14:23

Now the last stand of investigations.

Today it was announced the investigators have found "clues" of a technical problem. The hook unit was found absolutely ok after an examination by a group of engineers including 2 from the manufacurer. But the electric of the ship is now in the spot of investigations. A professor of the Vienna Technical University is now instructed to acknowledge these hints. After his analysis the prosecution will inform the public.

tecpilot

29th Nov 2005, 13:33

Investigations are finished. The tragedy was caused by a failure of the hook opening switch due to abrasion inside the switch. ECF will check now over 1000 helicopters and is prepared to change this switch. The pilot will be come back into the cockpit in the next days. Austrian ministry of traffic: "Operator and pilot aren't guilty and fully released!"

Thomas coupling

29th Nov 2005, 14:47

If I was one of the deceased solicitors - it won't stop here. Who is responsible for maintaining and servicing the switch?

Let the games begin.

tecpilot

29th Nov 2005, 19:27

TC, i'm interested to hear how you and your maintenance "maintaining and servicing" a switch? Please understand right, the problem was inside the switch (the switch is closed and sealed) due to abrasion during normal use. They found metal particles inside. The particles closed the electric circuit to tragedy...

SHortshaft

30th Nov 2005, 06:25

I have read this thread with very mixed emotions. Frequently seething from some of the pompous remarks made; but I make only two points.

Cyclic Hotline says: “Commercial pressure should never drive safety”.

Perhaps unfortunately, in my world, somehow it nearly always does.

SASless says: “Hopefully, if there is any good to be found in this...European Rules will be amended so that such occurrences can be prevented.”

A change of the rules in Europe will not do the job. A change will never take universal effect. There will always be some national authority that will not accept the changes or be 20 years behind everyone else, and even in those places that change the rules it may not even prevent such one-in-a-million occurrences.

It will however reduce the opportunities for helicopter companies to do business, the number of companies able to stay in business, the number of hours flown, the number of helicopters made and sold, as well as the number of pilots and mechanics employed. Off-hand I can’t think of any rule change aimed at preventing some flying activity that has had a positive effect on the economics of our industry.

Thomas coupling

4th Dec 2005, 08:21

Bit late in the day, eh???
What are the chances of anyone believing this geek now?????
NIL.

tecpilot

4th Dec 2005, 09:49

TorqueStripe

I've also heard about this witness. But i couldn't believe in such a scenario. Why?
1. Much more witnesses from the the other gondolas stated the load was lost in a distance to the cable.
2. The cable of the cable car was damaged on the upper sector.
3. The kettle showed no signs of a hauled contact to the cable/condolas.
4. If the slinged load had hit the cable or gondolas direct then the hook, the load steel rope and the helicopter will show signs of overstress. The investigations don't showed signs of overstressed helicopter parts.

After a great and unfair media campaign after the accident day with a lot of pressure to the pilot and the operator without any basics the "end of investigations" message with the technical problem was posted in very small letters or in 5 "on air" seconds. Now the medias have again a lot of time to broadcast the new speculations.

Cyclic Hotline

20th Mar 2006, 17:45

Helicopter pilot charged over deadly cable car accident
20/03/2006 - 17:15:25

An Austrian state prosecutor today indicted a helicopter pilot involved in a cable car accident that killed nine German skiers last year after his chopper dropped heavy equipment on a ski lift.

Three adults and six youths aged between 12 and 14 died in the accident six months ago near the Austrian alpine resort of Soelden after a mechanical hook beneath the helicopter let go of a tub weighing nearly 700 kilograms used to transport concrete.

The pilot was charged with contravening air transport regulations by flying over the area used by the cable cars.

He was not identified by the prosecutor’s office, but has been named previously by Austrian media as Markus Jaeger.

The tub hit the lift, sending one of its gondolas plunging 30 meters onto a rocky mountainside.

Other victims were catapulted out of two other gondolas. Seven people survived their injuries.

Capt Chambo

21st Mar 2006, 02:01

Here is a link from the BBC:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4827304.stm

Greek God

23rd Jun 2006, 10:15

Vienna: A pilot whose helicopter dropped heavy equipment onto a ski lift in Austria last year, killing nine Germans, was yesterday convicted of criminal negligence and sentenced to 15 months in prison.

A court in the alpine city of Innsbruck delivered the verdict against Markus Jaeger, 36, who had pleaded innocent to two counts for causing public endangerment and bodily harm. Six children aged 12 to 14 and three adults were killed on September 5 near the popular resort of Soelden, about 480km west of Vienna.

Jaeger had faced up to five years in prison.

He told the court earlier yesterday he was "very, very sorry about what happened", but denied that he may have pushed a wrong button by mistake, allowing a mechanical hook beneath the helicopter to release a tub weighing nearly 700kg used to transport concrete.

The tub hit the cable car below, sending one of its gondolas plunging 30 metres onto a rocky mountainside. Other victims were catapulted out of two other gondolas. Seven people survived their injuries.

Jaeger, who worked for a helicopter company based in Salzburg, said he had seen no problem with his chosen flying route, which brought him over the ski lift.
"It was, from my point of view, the best possible route," Jaeger testified. All other routes would have been "unthinkable" because there were people everywhere on the slopes and paths, he said.

Some 30 relatives of the victims, some dressed in black mourning clothes, were present for yesterday's trial, which lasted only a few hours.

http://www.gulfnews.com/world/Austria/10048822.html

CYHeli

24th Jun 2006, 05:13

As has already been said, "Hindsight..." And all because of a faulty switch.:ugh:
15 months for choosing the wrong flight path is too much. That the faulty switch and the flight path accidentally killed nine people isn't much. He's almost lucky, I hope the jails over there aren't too bad.

Heliport

24th Jun 2006, 08:25

I'm not sure what punishing the pilot by sending him to jail for 15 months is meant to achieve.
Even if he did make an error of judgement, it was just that - an error of judgement, a mistake.
Tragic for everyone concerned, including the pilot and his family.

Cyclic Hotline

26th Jun 2006, 06:17

I agree with you entirely Heliport. Sending the Pilot to prison neither remedies the outcome, nor resolves the issues that created the circumstance that led to this disaster.

Early on in this discussion, a number of posters stated that there was nothing in the relevant local laws that restricted this type of operation, nor was anything wrong with performing external load missions of this type over areas being used actively by the general public. Do they still hold that view?

There are many reasons why the load could detach itself from the aircraft, none of them requiring the pilot to push the button. Ask anyone in the external load business this, and they will give you all kinds of stories about loads simply detaching themselves for a variety of reasons. This is precisely why flying external loads over active roads, habited buildings and anywhere else the public, or your employee, might be should be a completely unacceptable practice.

The real cause of this was the local helicopter industry that found this to be an entirely acceptable practice, caused by competitive commercial pressures, according to some of them, and an operator that would allow his employees to work in this way.

I hope that the entire regional helicopter industry pays attention to this, and learns a lesson from it, if indeed they do (did) promote this type of activity and the regulatory authorities maybe review the operating limitations required for this type of operation. You may still not eliminate every accident, but you have at least removed one part of a very easily identifiable and remedied risk that exists with external load operations.

Cyclic Hotline

6th May 2009, 14:22

Seems that not much has changed! :eek:

Helicopter drops a ton of timber on a house in Austria - Monsters and Critics (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1475381.php/Helicopter_drops_a_ton_of_timber_on_a_house_in_Austria_)

Runway101

6th May 2009, 14:55

New sling load accident in Austria. Pictures below quoted article.

Vienna - A helicopter belonging to an accident-prone Austrian firm seriously damaged a house Wednesday when timber it was carrying slung to a cable dropped around 80 metres.

The helicopter was transporting nearly a ton of timber in Tyrol province when the cable broke, Austrian media reported.

No one was injured when the timber tore a five-metre hole into the roof in the town of Imst.

'My wife and two daughter were in the house,' said Georg Scheiring, who lives in the building with his family. 'You start to tremble when you think what could have happened,' he told Austrian broadcaster ORF.

In 2005, a helicopter also owned by air transport entrepreneur Roy Knaus was involved in an accident that killed nine Germans, including six children.

On that occasion, the helicopter lost a concrete container which fell on two cable cars.

Two helicopters operated by Knaus's firm crashed in 2004, killing a woman who was being transported to a hospital and a pilot in separate accidents.

Company founder Johann Knaus died in his second helicopter crash in 1997.

From:
Helicopter drops a ton of timber on a house in Austria - Monsters and Critics (http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1475381.php/Helicopter_drops_a_ton_of_timber_on_a_house_in_Austria_)

http://static2.orf.at/vietnam2/images/site/oesterreich/200919/haus_gr_big.jpg

http://static2.orf.at/vietnam2/images/site/oesterreich/200919/haus_gr2_big.jpg

http://static2.orf.at/vietnam2/images/site/oesterreich/200919/dachseil_big.jpg

More pictures (slideshow) here:
tt.com - Tirol &raquo Hubschraubertransport: Last stürzte in Oetz auf Jausenstation (http://tt.com/tt/tirol/story.csp?cid=7631524&sid=56&fid=21)