Merged: Heli - Plane Mid Air, Kapiti.

[Weekend_Warrior]

A plane and helicopter have collided in the mid air above Paraparaumu, north of Wellington this morning.

A police spokesman said the collision happened above the Placemakers store at about 11.15am.

The pilot of the plane came down in a nearby street, alive but seriously injured.

He said police had yet to determine how many people were on the plane but the helicopter had two on board, both are confirmed dead..

Firefighters, ambulance staff and police were at the scene.
===========

Apparently aero is a twin-engine, POB unknown.

NZ Herald reporting was a glider. Anyone know for sure?

[terronnd]

Two dead in mid-air smash

LATEST: A light plane and a helicopter have crashed after colliding in mid-air above Paraparaumu, north of Wellington this morning.



It is understood two people from the helicopter were killed.
The collision appeared to occur above the Placemakers store about 11.15am. It is understood the crippled helicopter crashed into Placemakers and the light aircraft came down over Dennis Taylor Court, narrowly missing a house.
It is believed no customers or staff at the hardware store were injured.
It has been reported that the plane's pilot, the sole occupant, was alive when he was pulled from the wreckage. One eye witness told NZPA the pilot was taken to hospital by ambulance.
Eyewitness Anne Russell said she was watching the aircraft and thought they were getting too close to each other.
"Then the left wing of the plane heading west toward the airport clipped the tail of the helicopter that was heading south - broke the wing off the plane which spun to the ground. The chopper seemed to carry on in a straight line for a brief moment, then plummeted straight down to the ground at high speed.
"The scream of the chopper falling will haunt me for a while."
Emergency services from Wellington to Otaki are responding en masse to the crash, which is understood to have also caused serious injuries.
Inspector Steve Darroch from Wellington Police said police were dealing with two separate crash scenes.
Police were yet to determine how many people were on the plane and helicopter.
Firefighters, ambulance staff and police were at the scene.
NZPA

[Weekend_Warrior]

Helicopter is operated by Helipro

TV3 is showing a picture of a cowling with CESSNA on it - brown and white but doesn't actually state that it is from the aircraft.

[Weekend_Warrior]

About to post that myself. Sad news indeed.
STUFF is showing a similar pic and is cowling is apparently from the aircraft.
At least the pilot of the aeroplane survived the impact, lets hope he recovers.

[distracted cockroach]

Just like deja-vu from the Aussie mid-air last week.
Always a busy piece of airspace around Paraparam, especially in the weekends when the weather is nice.
Tragic for all concerned.
DC

[terronnd]

Helicopter doing flight test, hit by 152 doing overhead rejoin.

Isn't it time this outdated and unsafe joining proceedure was scrapped?

[Cypher]

Unfortantely the solo pilot has died... :(

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Very sorry to hear that, given the circumstances and the state of the aircraft in the aftermath I was quite amazed that he survived the initial accident at all.

[flyitboy]

Damn it, I get a shiver everytime I hear such sad events. Risk, it's all about risk.
Like all accidents I hope that we can gain something from their demise!

To the families/friends involved, I say sorry


F

[NZScion]

Having two opposing (Heli/Glider and Aeroplane, Grass and Seal) at PP was always something you needed to watch out for. Hopefully this will be the catalyst for a change from this risky practice. Perhaps maybe a controller, or at the very least a FIS back into the tower as well? It would have to come if Air NZ want to run a dash to AA, why not get it in there now?

[readbackcorrect]

Dave you will be missed, thoughts with your family.

[prospector]

NZScion,
"It would have to come if Air NZ want to run a dash to AA, why not get it in there now?"

Would it?? it is a privately owned lump of land now, who can tell them that they have to pay the wages of controllers or flight service staff, or train and certify said staff. They may have jurisdiction once airborne, but on privately owned land where would they stand??

[Weekend_Warrior]

ANZ (or it's subsidiaries) fly into much busier places than PP without any ATS, e.g. Taupo, so why would PP get a tower or FS?
It all comes down to cost.
Instead, CAA will do their usual thing and just pass a few more laws.

But, it could be the end of PP as a GA airport due to encroachment of housing into the airport perimeter area. It is no secret that the present owner only bought the airport to redevelop it as an industrial park. So far he has been thwarted due to the council insisting that it remain an airport, but this could just tip the balance.

Similar things are happening at Taieri and Bridge Pa and many other places around the world.

[slackie]

First of all, condolences to all concerned, a very sad day!

It's interesting to note the calls for ATC in PP after there is an accident. As previously mentioned Taupo is much busier than PP and with a more diverse mix of traffic, and yet most of the calls to get ATC or some air traffic service into Taupo pretty much fall on deaf ears. I would have thought this would be a wake up call to those operators in Taupo who feel that the "locals" can look after themselves. It appears that these were "locals" in PP.

Big sky theory doesn't work too well when it's full of aircraft all doing different things!

[tartare]

Poor guys... very sad.
I got my PPL at Associated, across the field from KAC; know the area well.
I always remember a poster Russell had on the wall, showing a bi-plane wrapped around a tree.
The caption said `Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. It is just very unforgiving of mistakes.'
I always used to bear that in mind when flying up the coast to Otaki to practice low flying... and struggling to spot on-coming traffic that you could hear on the radio.
Uncontrolled aerodromes are an economic reality in New Zealand.
I just wonder how long it will be before truly affordable TCAS is developed for aircraft the size of C152's or R22's.

[rottenlungs]

I just wonder how long it will be before truly affordable TCAS is developed for aircraft the size of C152's or R22's.

A good idea, however, in the circuit wouldn`t this be giving alarms all the time, leading to a desensitization to the warning, and deafness for the FI? Even with my very limited flight time I`ve been number four to land when abeam the numbers several times..

[zoompilot]

The 152 was ZK-ETY. Condolence's to the families of both aircraft.

[distracted cockroach]

Quote "I got my PPL at Associated, across the field from KAC; know the area well.
I always remember a poster Russell had on the wall, showing a bi-plane wrapped around a tree.
The caption said `Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. It is just very unforgiving of mistakes.'
I always used to bear that in mind when flying up the coast to Otaki to practice low flying... and struggling to spot on-coming traffic that you could hear on the radio." Quote

Tatare,
Me too...and I remember that poster. I think it may have even been Harry's as I learned from the "old" Associated offices, and it was on the wall there too (going back waaay too many years now)
Paraparam was always reasonably busy (but it's not Ardmore) with a mixture of fixed/rotary wing, gliders/tugs and even RPT and CAL-Flight ops (yes I'm that old!). When I learned to fly there was a Flight Service in the tower, which was a help, but I don't think it was essential.
This will create a similar debate to the Air National stabbing/hijack. What price safety? A midair COULD have happened with FSS in the tower, but it would have been less likely. How much are 3 lives worth? Politicians and beaurocrats will rationalise it by talking about the thousands of flights that take place without problems, but that is zero consolation to those who lost loved ones.
Is it just me or are the number of fatalities in GA in NZ a lot higher than they used to be? What responsibility do CAA have in all this?

[dudduddud]

Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect.

— Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. Circa early 1930's. This famous phrase has been reproduced on posters and plaques many times, with the attribution of 'anonymous'. I was told at a book signing that André Priester (one of the first Pan Am employee's) may have said it, and decided to check this with R. E. G. Davis who is curator of air transport history at the Smithsonian and author of a book on Pan Am. Ron called me back and told me the phrase pre-dates Priester, but that his research shows the originator of the phrase was Captain Lamplugh, who was quite well known in British aviation circles after W.W.I.

:8

[Wingman09]

Condolence's to people and families involved. Never nice to hear of an accident involving organisations and people involved that you knew.

Personally dont believe that Paraparaumu needs an ATC, i think with more interaction between operaters in setting up systems to reduce conjestion at busy times. For example having designated training areas and levels that all operaters are aware of.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Wingman09, with respect, it should not be up to the operators to work out procedures - this is what CAA get paid to do. The main problem with locals working out their own procedures is that no-one else knows about them, and even when they do, leads to different standards and procedure across the country. Not to mention lack of enforcement for the cowboys, of which GA is still full of. It's confusing enough already when procedures are published and supposedly standardised.
Distracted Cockroach, I too remember PP when the calflight was there, and I did my PPL at Wellington with Associated Aviation ( one Ben Stafford was owner/CFI).
Flight Service at PP was great, kept everyone honest because they knew they were being watched - not everyone is as honest these days.
At one stage there were 4 operators on the field and safety wasn't an issue despite an certain amount of agro between them which is another reason why it is not appropriate for operators to do it themselves. The traffic was heavier then than today by a long shot with a greater mix of light and heavy and yet, I yet never had an incident where I thought safety was compromised - but in last 2 years I have had at least 3 incidents, 1 with helo, one glider tug and one microlight believe it or not.
None would have happened if FS was in attendance.
I could go on, but reintroduce FS is the only way to increase safety.

[zkdli]

Hi Weekend Warrior,
As someone who also learnt at PP who now works in the industry on the safety side (but not in NZ), I was wondering whether you reported any of the incidents that you were involved in or if not, why not?:)

[Weekend_Warrior]

I was waiting for someone to ask that - no I didn't. It's not worth the trouble.

Firstly, without a impartial observer (ie Flight Service or ATC), it boils down to my word against theirs. I don't need to get into a slanging match.

Secondly and more importantly, I won't report anything unless I'm absolutely certain that I'm not to blame in any way. Today's CAA is more interested in prosecutions than safety per se.
If you want proof of that, read Wally Wagtendonk's guest editorial in NZWings and then Steve Douglas's 'reply' - I doubt Douglas even read it as it was obviously written by a spin-doctor - no doubt employed as $100,000 + which could have been spent on real flight safety.

Certainly, the old CAD had it's problems but they first and foremost concentrated on safety and not blind law enforcement.

[prospector]

zkdli,
I have had dealings with CAA over safety issues at PP aerodrome.

Weekend Warrior states

"I was waiting for someone to ask that - no I didn't. It's not worth the trouble.
Firstly, without a impartial observer (ie Flight Service or ATC), it boils down to my word against theirs. I don't need to get into a slanging match."

The following was received in answer to a query as to why the rules were still written to cover PP in CAA Part 93 Subpart E Paraparaumu Airport and had not been amended after flight service officers had been gone for some 9 years.

And this is the part of the reply, I kid you not.

" CAA is currently waiting for a legal opinion on the meaning of "Touch and Go", at the moment the only definition in CAR part 1 rules in this area is one for "taxi'.
Until we have a legal opinion on the meaning of whether a touch and go is either a landing or a take-off, or both, (as you know when instructing or being instructed,we were taught the landing is not completed until the aircraft has come to a stop) CAA will be holding off taking any action about enforcing compliance to Rule Part 93 Subpart E on the touch and go issue."

After my dealings I would say a minimum of three impartial observers are required as a minimum.

[slackie]

Weekend Warrior...by not reporting incidents you have already "done something wrong"...pilots (and controllers for that matter) have no discretion as to whether they file an incident report or not - it is mandatory! In fact the rules state that if you even suspect an incident has taken place you are obliged to complete the paperwork. By not filing incidents you are ensuring that the cause (whether your fault or not) may never be known and yet another opportunity to avoid it re-occurring (with you or someone else) has been missed.

Safety is not the sole responsibility of CAA, it is yours AND mine as well.

[Weekend_Warrior]

Slackie, I agree with you in principle and if we had a reliable system in place I would have done as you state.
But we don't have a system I have any confidence in.
I strongly advise you to read Wal Wagtendonks editorial and Steve Douglas's reply.

[slackie]

I have read the article and reply...doesn't change my point of view.

[Te_Kahu]

Trainee pilot James Taylor's casket was yesterday carried home to Nelson by a helicopter to honour his passion for flying.

On a sunny afternoon yesterday, James' family took their son home across Cook Strait.

The weather was similar to the perfect conditions on Sunday when Taylor, 19, his flying instructor Dave Fielding, 30, and Cessna pilot Bevan Hookway, 17, were killed in a midair crash.

Helipro owner Rick Lucas was full of praise for Taylor, who had been training fulltime with the company in Paraparaumu since August. "I just wanted to take him and his family home," Lucas said.

"The family has been going through hell, I just want them to be in their own surroundings."

Lucas described Taylor as an enthusiastic, talented young guy who got on with everyone. He said "he was right in our radar for the future of the company".

While the family was finalising funeral arrangements in Nelson, pilots were coming from overseas to attend Fielding's funeral at Paraparaumu Airport tomorrow.

Kapiti College is hosting Bevan Hookway's funeral the same day. -- Dominion Post

[kiwi chick]

RIP Dave

You will forever be in my heart - and my logbook.

Farewell my friend. :(

[Cypher]

Condolences on your loss Kiwi chick.... :{





Paraparaumu 'Russian roulette' in the skies
5:00AM Sunday February 24, 2008
By Cliff Taylor

A senior aviation figure has described flying into some of the country's busiest uncontrolled airports as being like "Russian roulette".

Peter Vincent, managing director of Vincent Aviation, said last weekend's tragedy at Paraparaumu Airport might not have happened if the airport had a manned flight tower. Pilots were very worried about near-collisions at other airports that had lost their flight services in the past 20 years, particularly Ardmore and Taupo, he said.

Pilots using Paraparaumu have described their own near misses at the airport on an internet forum. One, posting under the pseudonym Weekend Warrior, said he had had three incidents in two years, involving near-misses with a helicopter, a glider tug and a microlight.

"I would suspect you wouldn't talk to many pilots flying out of these airports a lot who haven't had one or sometimes two near misses," said Vincent. "There have been many, many near misses and I am sure there will be more. I am aware of many close calls at Ardmore, Taupo and Paraparaumu."

Vincent said he had spoken to a pilot in the past week who had emerged from clouds over Paraparaumu to find a Cessna "right in front of them".

"They just managed to miss it."

Civil Aviation Authority director Steve Douglas said no safety concerns had been raised with him since the Paraparaumu accident. But the internet forums suggest some pilots don't report close-calls, for fear of being prosecuted themselves.

The Herald on Sunday has uncovered statistics from the CAA's own database showing there were 226 "airspace incidents" in the three months to September 31 last year, compared with 188 incidents in the same period the previous year. Although most were minor, a second safety report reveals there were nine "near collisions" in the six months to December 31, 2005.

The CAA said there were 12 reported near-misses at airports last year, 20 in 2006 and 15 in 2005, although these were at controlled airports.

The decision to withdraw flight services from some airports was made by Airways New Zealand, a separate state-owned enterprise which looks after air traffic control. Ardmore, which has up to 250,000 aircraft movements a year, lost its flight tower presence in 1988, Taupo in 1996 and Paraparaumu in 1997.

An Airways NZ spokesman said airports were run on a user-pays basis and operators had raised concerns about the cost of flight services. He said Airways was told by the CAA there were no safety issues and the services were then axed.


The CAA said it carried out aeronautical safety reviews before each decision. Manned towers were replaced with mandatory radio broadcasts between pilots.

The CAA said the mandatory broadcasts required pilots to report their height, position and intentions at regular intervals "so that all aircraft in the vicinity can visualise where they are in relation to other traffic".

"In addition, there are a number of general flight rules that relate to keeping a proper lookout, and being seen. These include remaining clear of obstructions, and not conflicting with other traffic in the airport circuit, or with aircraft arriving under instrument flight rules."

Vincent said he thought it was a mistake to take the flight services out of Paraparaumu, Ardmore and Taupo. He described the person in the flight tower as an airport's "eyes and ears".

"In the good old days there were flight services in every airport NAC used to operate to. It was a great service.

"In a place like Paraparaumu it's very loose. If there had been flight services there as there used to be, there's a strong possibility that what happened would never have happened. At least they would have had a fighting chance."

Mark Rammell, president of the Air Line Pilots' Association, agreed. He said the association had taken a judicial review against the CAA's decision not to implement Air Traffic Services at Taupo airport.

Last weekend's accident had focused attention on the risks at airports, he said. "Absolutely, a mid-air collision over an uncontrolled, busy airfield highlights the potential problems out there.

"Quantifying at what level there is a problem is difficult. Out of this [investigation] will come questions around whether busy aerodromes should have services or not."

Paraparaumu Airport manager Richard Baldwin, a pilot for 30 years, said he had "limited knowledge" of the weekend's accident and did not want to comment directly on it.

He said it was up to the pilots to use their mandatory broadcasts to maintain awareness of what was happening around them in uncontrolled airspace. "It's under the absolute control of the pilot in command. Decisions are based on best judgement. It's their hide."

Baldwin said the airport's tower had been unmanned for 11 years but radio communications had improved as a result. He was "comfortable" that existing measures kept pilots safe.

But people on the pilots' internet forum have called for tighter controls.

Weekend Warrior said flight services at Paraparaumu had kept everybody honest because they knew they were being watched.

And "Slackie" said: "Big sky theory doesn't work too well when it's full of aircraft all doing different things!"

Vincent said cost was one reason airport operators did not favour the reintroduction of flight services.

"There would be an increase in fees to people using these services, but as far as I am concerned it's a cost worth paying."

He also criticised aviation authorities for what he said was their "horribly lop-sided" focus on security rather than funding safer airports.

The CAA's budget is $27 million a year compared with the Aviation Security Service's $56m.

"To be quite frank, if I am flying into one of these airports I would be far, far, far more concerned I would be killed or injured in a mid-air collision than the possibility of someone trying to slice me up with a knife or whatever," Vincent said.

Douglas said the authority responded to concerns by reviewing safety measures at individual airports. Taupo will be looked at later this year.

He said there was no plan to review measures at Paraparaumu.

NZ Herald on Sunday, 24 Feb 08




Great... the NZ Herald just found PPrune... standby for Peter Clark.... http://www.sportsgamer.com/forums/images/smilies/dsmiles/34.gif

[Wombat35]

Time for me to wade in here a bit....

"To be quite frank, if I am flying into one of these airports I would be far, far, far more concerned I would be killed or injured in a mid-air collision than the possibility of someone trying to slice me up with a knife or whatever," Vincent said.


Hmmmm me too Peter :ugh:

It's a REAL problem at Ardmore as well... and I don't know what the solution is... See I don't want a tower (been to Hamilton lately :rolleyes:) however I get really scared in the CCT sometimes... particularly ..low vis, lots of aircraft with students, aircraft joining rightbase 03 out of the gloop with 5+ already in the CCT.

My solution... maybe have a max number in the circuit or... only overhead rejoins when more than 4 in the cct... what about some way of knowing that there are students in the aircraft so the more experienced guys can look out for them.. something like ABC Student joining....

UNICOM is fine, however, they get to say sorry... I'm still dead :(

[Weekend_Warrior]

Flight Service is the best compromise between a full control tower and a (nearly useless) unicom or a (really useless) MBZ.

I doubt many pilots under 35 will have ever used a FS which is probably why there is little support.

[c100driver]

I recall going to the meetings and the arguments when ATC was removed from Ardmore.

Airways - Providing an ATC service is going to cost $1.2 million NZD per year. The government will not fund it as user pays i.e. at the current number of movements each aircraft will pay 6 dollars per movement for a single shift operation. It will cost more if you want to have a double shift to cover 0730 to 1800. If the number of movements reduces then the cost will have to rise to cover the annual bill. (With inflation I suspect that the fee would be in the order of $12 today for ATC add that to the landing fee at Ardmore of $18.20 for a C182 an you are looking at over $30 per movement, with the same traffic as 1988. Since then Ardmore has lost Flightline/Massey, Waitemata AC, Simuflight/CTC, plus a few smaller operators) Airways can provide a Flight Service and the cost for that will be $800,000 for a single shift or $1.2 for a double shift.

CAA - We can mandate a service requirement but the users will have to pay the full cost of any service we mandate. CAA will not and cannot fund an ATC operation.

Ardmore users - We cannot pay for an ATC service on a full cost plus basis, if safety of the Airfield Operation is a public concern then the public can help with a proportion of the costs. The service we have now is so poor that we will not pay to be limited to only 8 aircraft in the circuit because the tower cannot cope. (In the days of Howard M and Peter LJ in the tower at Ardmore it was common to have 18 in the circuit plus departures on the cross runway, gliders on the "glider grass" and meat bombing to the center field. Even remember once being number 23 to land).

As a continuous user of Ardmore since 1976 and still going; the loss of ATC does not concern me greatly, however a Flight Service at Ardmore would help keep the "A cat" bullies in check or at least exposed to a neutral ref. I do lament the loss of the Flight Service at PP, TU, WU, HK and AP (Can live with out it at KT, WR, WK, OU).

If a Flight Service is for the public good and the public are willing to share the cost then I am willing to pay my share for a service.

[Don Mask]

"common to have 18 in the circuit"!!!!! Are you havin' a laugh? Is he havin' a laugh?

If you ask me, 18 aircraft in one circuit is a failure of the controller to maintain a safe airfield. That is ridiculous. What separation would that provide between machines? 18 aircraft?!? Break it down. 4 legs in the circuit. Climb out/crosswind, downwind, base/final and traffic on the runway. 4 machines on each of those segments is far more unsafe than what you would expect to see on an everyday airfield.

18?

[2b2]

$1.2 million NZD per year
6 dollars per movement

200,000 movements


have 18 in the circuit plus departures on the cross runway, gliders on the "glider grass" and meat bombing to the center field. Even remember once being number 23 to land).


would equate to about 800,000 (conservatively!) movements and a couple of dozen mid-airs!


sorry - doesn't add up! - did you find the 22 in front of you?

[c100driver]

Don, No I am not having a laugh, 18 was quite common, usually in the weekends running with two parallel runways. Week days was a lot slower, usually just 6 or 7 at peak times. At number 23 I just followed the aircraft in front.

I dont recall any major stuff ups, though a lot of go arounds.

Ardmore is now uncontrolled and can have 8 or 9 aircraft in the circuit with no ATC including Jets, DC3 and war birds. Which is safer?

2b2 you must be careful with extrapolation with limited information, the costing numbers were not my calculations they were the projections from Airways at the time of the meetings in the late 1980's.

Back to the issue Controlled or Uncontrolled.
If they want to intall ATC with full cost recovery then the cost increases will drive operators away, as less people fly there the cost must born by the remaining operators. As the old addage says "high prices will correct high prices" unless it is government mandated that you must pay.

Airways first attempt at full cost recovery, particularly with the charges for filing of flight plans was a classic, almost overnight the filing of flight plans stopped. People stilll flew just no one filed plans. Met service charged for weather information no one obtained weather briefings (usually we just rang pilots that we know along the route flown for the weather and called pilot friends to tell them what we were upto and if they didnt here from us by xxxx call the police). Airways finally came up with a reasonable charge, internet weather and filing, some (myself included) went back to flight plans.

The point is if the price is seen a value for money then the people don't mind paying.

I for one avoid any airfield with excessive charges (It has been years since I have flown to AA or Motueka due to pricing). Just look at the numbers that left Ardmore in the last 10 years due to the rising cost of operating there.

[belowMDA]

I read with interest comments stating that pilots don't report incidents because of fear of being prosecuted. When was the last time someone was prosecuted after reporting an incident? Insofar as I am aware, you do have immunity from prosecution if you file a 005 incident report.