AS 350 Missing off Townsville

[shadowplay]

Anyone have any info?

[that chinese fella]

Has been reported elsewhere as an R44, 4 POB, all got out ok. Unconfirmed.

[The Juggler]

Latest is that a B206 ditched approx 2 1/2 nm NE of YBTL off the Breakwater Marina round 8 am with 4 POB. All out safely and transported back to land by boat. Taken to local hospital with minor injuries.

[Westerntribal]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24303432-12377,00.html

For whats its worth ?

[Squeaks]

Bell 206BII VH-BHS, blue & white JetRanger. 4 PoB for a film job: silly move, IMHO, especially at <50 feet overwater :confused:

Plenty of footage on Channel 9 and Channel 7, and "eyewitness" reports of the 206 spinning prior to impact. Interview with the WIN TV cameraman (who was onboard) had him describe the 206 losing TR control/effectiveness, leading to the crash.

Bl**dy lucky for all four to get out relatively unharmed :eek:

[Scissorlink]

Anyone else getting flashbacks from about 2 months ago??

[gulliBell]

4 POB in a B206 filming low level over water, I'm curious to know what were they thinking ? :ugh:

In a 206L I take 2 pax max for that sort of work.

[rotaryman]

Anyone know the company operating the machine ?

[Squeaks]

Dwyer Aviation. (http://www.dwyeraviation.com.au/)

[500]

gullibell.

So you're telling me that you can't fly a 206 with 4 pob and a camera at sea level at slow speed without crashing ? Obviously something has gone wrong on this flight, pilot error or not. But if you're not able to fly a machine at max weight at low altitude I suggest you go back to school. :ugh::mad:

[havick]

No floats on the machine, I wonder if everyone was wearing jackets at the very least?

[350boy]

500
As I have over 6000 hrs on 206s I feel I am qualified to give my 2cents worth.As previously mentioned 4 pob is not by any means to much for those old girls,however depending on fuel load and some wind (espeshally when positioning the a/c for that "gr8 angle") it is very easy to get yourself into a position where your ambitions simply exceed the a/c ability to fly and if not recognised and sorted immediatly (ie fly away and repo again) you WILL lose T/R effect and simply spin in and if the a/c is only 50' above the water as was mentioned you stand no chance of recovery,to finer margins indeed!!.
Sounds like they were lucky people thankfully this time,thought needs to be put in "how many pax do we need"to do this task ? when margines are fine dead weight can kill you.Keep em light !!

[500]

That is what I'm saying. Pilots fly the aircraft, they don't fly themselves. If you cant fly to the conditions or the aircrafts abilities then you may get into trouble. But if you can't fly a ****box, max weight in "some" wind you're an unskilled pilot.

[Gypsy_Air]

So you're telling me that you can't fly a 206 with 4 pob and a camera at sea level at slow speed without crashing ? Obviously something has gone wrong on this flight, pilot error or not. But if you're not able to fly a machine at max weight at low altitude I suggest you go back to school. :ugh:http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/censored.gif


He didn't say he can't; he said he doesn't. Why fly with unnecessary weight and take unnecessary risks? 350boy is right.

[500]

So now..... you can't fly a machine max weight without it being an unnecessary risk. So when can you fly without it being an unnecessary risk ?

[heliduck]

As scissorlink alluded to this sounds like a carbon copy of the R44 in Cairns. Maybe it was or maybe it wasn't, but the shadow of LTE (Lack of Training & Experience) haunts us again.
Robinson Safety Notice SN-34 is worth a read, preferably before low/slow/over water/heavy/filming ops.

[gulliBell]

500...I stand by what I said before, 4 POB in a B206 doing low level photography over water...for what...what was the third pax doing? Was he essential to the operation? I would hazard a guess that he was there for the jolly, and no other reason. That's a lot of performance margin lost in a risky environment for no good reason. Doors off, that's more performance margin lost also. Whether I'm flying a B206, 206L, S76 or B412 on low level photo ops over water no-body goes along just for the ride. What was the 2nd pax doing? Perhaps he was the camera assistant, if so that's OK. If he was there for the jolly that's even more margin gone out the window.

We'll wait and see what the investigation reveals. If I were to hazard another guess, if the jolly rider had been left behind there might not be anything to investigate. But as I said, let's wait and see what the findings are.

Oh, jolly rider or not, 2 pax max in a B206 for low level photo is the way to go to keep your margins intact.

[Screwed™]

100% correct gulliBell.

500 (which I'm assuming is the amount of hours he sounds like he has) is either winding us up or going to be next.

[rotaryman]

Screwed™and gulliBell :ok:

Well said Lads,,,,,500 sounds like a right tosser...:ugh::ugh:

[Gas Producer]

gulliBell has it precisely.

It's about dealing with risk. None of us will ever win an argument with gravity. As soon as you pull pitch you immediately accept a level of risk not present previously.

Those of us who have been around the block once or twice know for certain that it's never just one thing that creates one bad outcome. Invariably, there will be several risks, or circumstances, that 'conspire', if you will, to come together at one point to create someone's very bad day.

Our responsibility as pilots, private or professional, is to accept NOT MORE THAN a reasonable level of risk, and NOT MORE THAN a reasonable number of risks, for that matter, for a given operation.

To introduce unnecessary risk, where the only real outcome is on par with a pissing contest, is foolhardy, unprofessional and, in the worst circumstances, dangerous or even lethal.

If the risk required for a given operational return starts creating doubt . . . chicken out.

GP:O

[topendtorque]

a very disappointing and unnecessary accident especially as one recalls the Cairns R44, another 206 many years ago in the Sydney, city to surf run and yet another 206 which somehow managed to collide with the ground whilst tracking backwards, downhill, downwind, full of pax, taking that gr8 photo of an old train somewhere in Northern Queensland.

and no, I don't think that last one is too embellished.

The one thing common to all was that dreaded simple but deadly component, the CAMERA.

I ain't about to get in line to give 500 a kicking, he has simply said more firmly what every one has said on the thread so far. But I will answer his question as below,

So when can you fly without it being an unnecessary risk ?

with another quote from the Act, which will become a question probably for the pilot and the operating company to answer.

20A Reckless operation of aircraft
(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.

tet

[Diatryma]

There is a big difference between taking an unnecessary risk and acting recklessly.

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.

Di:ok:

[topendtorque]

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.

i agree, with the appropriate training of course.

for the integrity of the feelings of any pilots security I hope that your thesis is borne out.

There was a time when the section 20 (A) of the Act was attempted to be written in such a manner that it might be assumed that the mere act of driving an aircraft off the ground might constitute a "potential" infringement of that section.
cheers tet

[Brian Abraham]

There is a big difference between taking an unnecessary risk and acting recklessly.

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.
And there in lies the rub. A young fellow/lass who through lack of training/experience doesn't know what they don't know. To be taking a risk you have to have fore knowledge of the risk. It's typical to get an endorsement flying at light weights and you then get to explore the limits with customers on board. Some days you get to go home dry, and on an unfortunate day you get to go home wet. If you're really unfortunate it ends in tears.

Have to disagree with topendtorque :p, the camera is not the problem, it's the CAMERAMAN/WOMAN. The most difficult people that a helo pilot can ever get work for, purely because of what they ask you to do to "get that shot". Doing the the job at max gross for the prevailing conditions is not of itself taking unnecessary risk, but it does limit you in what you can reasonably do, and you have to have the fortitude to be able to tell the camera person NO when asked to do something you think untoward. Find out what the camera person is after, there will be times when taking a joyrider along is no problem, other times you will want to off load every kilo you can. Establish the ground rules before you get to the aircraft, and you can bet the camera person will try to change the rules once airborne.

[rotorque]

'Joyriders' are not allowed on board during aerial work operations...

CASA will probably ask the same questions and others like, 'was the cameraman aware of the dangers or the type of operation he was working under?', 'was the camera normally used for commercial gain or was it really just a handy cam'. Going by the report, it looks like it was legitimate 'Aerial work' so should be......but.

There is a world of hurt coming if the answers to these questions are not appropriate. Insurance may not cover the passenger liability if it is an aerial work operation, the operation may be classed as charter due to the equipment being used or the fact that the cameraman was not aware of the type of operation he was attempting. It is amazing the number of rules that kick in when we operate under the 'Charter' category that inevitably get broken if we think we are doing an 'aerial work' operation.....

Be very clear of your intentions and the rules you will be operating under. If, for example, one of these passengers 'along for a jolly' was to be killed or permanently injured, he may not even have been aware that he was not covered under the 'passenger liability' insurance whilst the operation was taking place...... his family would be heart broken is so many ways.

The worst thing is, when they ask him straight out, 'what were you doing in the aircraft', I bet my left nut that he says, "I just came along to watch".

:) :bored: :( ...... :=

[Brian Abraham]

'Joyriders' are not allowed on board during aerial work operations
Point taken and perhaps I used the term some what loosely. Most of the work I did was for a private operation and occasionally the photo task was merely to have the photographer sitting in a window seat so a snap could be obtained while on downwind for landing on a crew change flight. You can get yourself in a mess with blinking rules. Taking along another company pilot so as to give him exposure would come under the heading of "joyrider" if you don't have instructing/training responsibilities and he's not essential to operations.
Be very clear of your intentions and the rules you will be operating under
Too true. The discussion about the Yak 52 accident in Brisbane may have a lesson in this regard.

[rotorque]

Thanks Brian.... rest assured, I wasn't posting in response to you specifically. :)

More an example of what we are up against as drivers.

Cheers

[helipan]

Does any one know if the camera man was in his seat belt or was he wearing a harness?

[topendtorque]

Does any one know if the camera man was in his seat belt or was he wearing a harness?

which brings out another set of rules.

at least any long term North Queenslanders would or should be aware of just when it was that the questions relating to harness suitability were established and why. 1996 or thereabouts if i remember correctly, Cairns, and yes another camera. although to agree with BH that certainly was the camera "man" who managed to set himself up for a bad day.