View Full Version : R44 Down on NSW South Coast Feb 2012
Just read on news.com.au that there was a R44 fatality yesterday, very sad news. Does anyone know any more?
blakmax
4th Feb 2012, 22:38
Two men die in fiery NSW helicopter crash (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8413964/two-men-die-in-helicopter-crash)
Supposedly took off got to ten feet and crashed with subsequent fire. Two dead including US film maker. They were evidently making a documentary. Pilot reported as 50 yrs old from Melbourne. RIP.
22clipper
4th Feb 2012, 23:00
I'm hoping it's not Wighty, Great Wight 3D - Specialists in 3D Technology & Film Production (http://www.gw-3d.com/)
Matari
4th Feb 2012, 23:12
One of the victims listed here, pilot still unnamed. RIP.
James Cameron believed to be working with chopper crash victim - Local News - News - General - Illawarra Mercury (http://www.illawarramercury.com.au/news/local/news/general/james-cameron-believed-to-be-working-with-chopper-crash-victim/2443968.aspx)
MikeNYC
4th Feb 2012, 23:15
Here is more information about the passenger: The Santa Barbara Independent S.B. Filmmaker Mike DeGruy Killed in Helicopter Crash (http://www.independent.com/news/2012/feb/04/sb-filmmaker-mike-degruy-killed-helicopter-crash/)
ReverseFlight
5th Feb 2012, 01:44
Does anyone know what happened ? There's nothing in the DG&P forums.
RobboRider
5th Feb 2012, 07:39
Lots of discussion about it on the recreational aviation site Aircraft Pilots (http://www.aircraftpilots.com) as it happened in front of clubhouse of some regulars on that site and they were involved in the attempted rescue.
Basically they are saying took off, somewhere in the take off the tail hit the ground and it flipped over and burned.
Apparently there were lots of people at the clubhouse at the time (sadly including children) and video was being taken at the time. Apparently ATSB have the video.
Ready2Fly
6th Feb 2012, 15:09
A german magazine does name Michael deGruy and Andrew Wight on the description to a video showing the site Australien: Filmemacher sterben bei Hubschrauberabsturz (http://www.spiegel.de/video/video-1176526.html) :sad:
mickjoebill
7th Feb 2012, 08:07
More discussion on another Pprune forum
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/476246-god-speed-crew-vh-cok.html
topendtorque
7th Feb 2012, 11:25
Investigation: AO-2012-021 - Collision with terrain - Robinson R44, VH-COK, Jaspers Brush, NSW, 4 February 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-021.aspx)
Link with report number and initial report, bit quicker here than the UK!
Link with report number and initial report
Hardly an Accident Report, more a news bulletin so far.
...bit quicker here than the UK!
It also says that its expected release date is Feb 2013.
topendtorque
7th Feb 2012, 23:03
Not having a go at you TRC, but it was recently reported in these August chronicles that it would take eighteen months to two years to hear anything form your crash enquiry crowd.
Our crowd promised a twelve month only outcome and we have a useful 'beginning' visibly reported. That is not to say that I have never had a beef with them.
cheers tet
...take eighteen months to two years to hear anything form your crash enquiry crowd.
Not strictly true is it.
If there is a serious airworthiness issue they are pretty quick. "Our Crowd" had the first Initial Report into the 332 accident in the N. Sea out in a matter of weeks.
Anyway, I'm not getting into yet another pi$$ing contest on here - I'm heartily sick of reading them.
Well done to "your crowd" for being on the ball.
TunaBum
9th Feb 2012, 02:09
Rumour has it that the video footage shows the pilot was trying to close the door whilst in hover.........when control was lost.
Not saying this is factual, but if so it makes this incident even more tragic.
TB :(
TunaBum
8th Mar 2012, 23:56
ATSB Preliminary Report out:
Investigation: AO-2012-021 - Collision with terrain - Robinson R44, VH-COK, Jaspers Brush, NSW, 4 February 2012 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-021.aspx)
TB
MartinCh
9th Mar 2012, 14:51
Sad to read about all this.
'Interesting' how RHC changed the tanks SB to 12 months earlier, two weeks after this accident. At this rate of avoidable post-crash fires, FAA may force RHC to get AD in place instead of SB.
The ratio of airworthy machines with all stainless steel tanks versus bladder retrofitted shows the machines out there aren't reaching overhaul/major maintenance that fast.
mickjoebill
12th Mar 2012, 20:31
Odd that this article is published in the travel section of this Australian newspaper group and not the news section?
Do they make a valid point about supply of parts?
Fire-risk helicopters can keep on flying (http://www.theage.com.au/travel/firerisk-helicopters-can-keep-on-flying-20120312-1uwgx.html)
Mickjoebill
TunaBum
13th Mar 2012, 03:31
Is this an issue with the R22 also?
TB
Flyting
13th Mar 2012, 05:21
Soon after lifting off, the pilot's door opened. The helicopter abruptly pitched nose-up and the tailskid struck the ground. The helicopter then abruptly pitched forward and rolled to the right before the main rotor blades struck the ground.
What I find quite remarkable, is that no has yet made mention of the door opening issue... Trying to close the door while in the hover is a basic initial training issue which should never be done :ugh: as one can see from this fatal accident.
Forget about the fuel tank/lines that burnt the machine out right now. Deal with the cause of the accident so that others can learn from it.
I was taught and have taught that if the door opened, either land or get some height and speed (depending on where you are in the take-off profile) before trying to close it.
mickjoebill
13th Mar 2012, 20:20
What I find quite remarkable, is that no has yet made mention of the door opening issue... Trying to close the door while in the hover is a basic initial training issue which should never be done as one can see from this fatal accident.
Whilst it may seem an obvious cause, the report doesn't say why/how the door opened nor does it actually report that the pilot was trying to close it.
Mickjoebill
JimBall
14th Mar 2012, 06:56
Flyting: "I was taught and have taught that if the door opened, either land or get some height and speed (depending on where you are in the take-off profile) before trying to close it."
The last thing you need is speed. On a 44 that sucks the door open. You need less than 20kts to be able to easily shut the door in flight. Bubble doors particularly.
mickjoebill
14th Mar 2012, 07:07
The last thing you need is speed. On a 44 that sucks the door open.
Raises a good question in regard to aerial filming in R44s in general.
Are there recommendations or restrictions in regard to removing doors on R44? ie can one door be removed or should all be removed?
Effects of removing one door on air pressure in the cockpit?
Please note, no word yet if any of the doors on this flight were removed to assist in aerial filming.
Mickjoebill
Flyting
14th Mar 2012, 07:11
Whilst it may seem an obvious cause, the report doesn't say why/how the door opened nor does it actually report that the pilot was trying to close it.
Noted, but comments on it are intended to bring it to the attention of other pilots in order so that they don't make the same mistake.
Jimball - By speed I meant forward motion to help keep the door closed and for the heli to become a bit more stable.... not 100 kts. Although, I have never had the experience of the 44 door being sucked open while at speed while demoing this with students... & by height, I meant get away from the ground.
JimBall
14th Mar 2012, 11:17
"Although, I have never had the experience of the 44 door being sucked open while at speed"
Well, some of us have. It's not uncommon (particularly on early models for some reason) for a door to not latch correctly. It's a human error not to check before lift.
Sometimes just the middle latch engages in the frame, whilst the top misses.
This becomes apparent after lift, during transition or even on climb-out as the door gets sucked out by the low pressure area created at "speed".
Trying to pull against this and latching with one hand can prove impossible until the machine is virtually in a hover.
TunaBum
14th Mar 2012, 11:48
Flyting: Forget about the fuel tank/lines that burnt the machine out right now. Deal with the cause of the accident so that others can learn from it.
The fire also killed the occupant/s. I think it is just as vital to look at ways of reducing injuries/fatalities by focussing on survivability as it is to look at/discuss the cause of the accident!
mickjoebill: Please note, no word yet if any of the doors on this flight were removed to assist in aerial filming.
The report actually states: The right rear door and some non-essential equipment were removed from the helicopter in preparation for the filming task.
Any thoughts please as to whether the fuel tank is an issue with the R22 also?
TB :suspect:
TunaBum
3rd May 2013, 01:28
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4122237/ao-2012-021_final.pdf
TB
chopjock
3rd May 2013, 09:06
At the commencement of the takeoff the pilot's door opened and, in response, the pilot
probably released his right hand from the cyclic control to close the door
I disagree. I think it most unlikely any pilot would let go the cyclic on a robbo.
More likely he let go the lever then changed hands on the cyclic, then over controlled because his brain is not used to his left hand on the cyclic.
212man
3rd May 2013, 09:42
I agree with CJ, with probably some inadvertent control inputs resulting from the action of trying to close the door. What is so sad about this is how unnecessary it was - he should have just stopped the transition and landed! This isn't the first, and won't be the last, accident caused by over concern about a door opening.
Peter3127
3rd May 2013, 14:10
I know nothing, but if I swapped hands so my left was on cyclic I can imagine the following:
Lift, door pops. Swap hands. Grab door. Inadvertent movement or gust/lull and I am sinking. My reflex? Pull with left hand. Unfortunately it is now on the cyclic so I pitch aft while sinking .....
Yes I have seen the threads on similar "hands-crossed" training. And I have seen ATSB report that says PIC maybe let go of cyclic.
Like I said, I know nothing but a guy with significant experience would not simply let go of the cyclic in a Robbie in a hover. I am surprised the report did not specifically contemplate the "swapping hands" scenario if at least for a precautionary tale.
Ascend Charlie
3rd May 2013, 22:22
Well, back in the 80s a well-known toy shop owner was picking up his B47 from the Sydney city heliport (we had one in those days) and in the hover, his door swung open. He tried to grab and close it, but hit the ground with 1 skid and rolled it up.
He freely admitted what went wrong and what a dill he was.:8
topendtorque
4th May 2013, 00:44
There does not seem to be any reference to the occupants ability to egress the wreckage in either this case or the more recent one in NSW.
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
At least in the '47 you quote AC, the pilot and many others in '47 prangs could just undo their seat belt and walk out through the foot window!
tet
mickjoebill
4th May 2013, 06:27
There does not seem to be any reference to the occupants ability to egress the wreckage in either this case or the more recent one in NSW.
In NSW one front seat occupant is quoted as "having his foot stuck".
How survivable is the structure?
The report mentions that the wearing of nomax would probably not have improved their survivability, so they seem to be saying that the effects of the fuel fire inside the cabin sealed their fate.
In respect to crash worthiness of the R44 and the R66 unless customers accept higher price and/or less payload Robinson will carry on.
Is the R66 out of the same mould as the r44 in respect to the crash worthiness of the frame?
Mickjoebill
homonculus
4th May 2013, 09:08
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative as we do not know if hey were conscious or injured.
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
homonculus
4th May 2013, 09:09
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative
I would rather look a bit of a **** and wear nomex bladder tanks or not. The other question is helmets and belt cutters.
as350nut
4th May 2013, 21:31
With reference to the R66 and tanks, I don't know if they have bladder tanks or not, but they wouldn't have the R44 drive system where a short shaft from the gearbox ( when broken in an accident) flogs around with a flex plate like a knife blade against the tanks.
mickjoebill
6th May 2013, 01:08
Was it a "private flight" if a member of the crew is being paid?
Was it a "private flight" if the pilot is part of the (presumably) paid management team benefiting from the footage?
No mention if video cables or pilots monitor were excluded as being the cause of fouling the door or pilots hand. Would be good to know one way or the other...
No mention if they were wearing life vests.
They were shooting 3d, where in general the best 3d effect occurs the closer the subject is to camera. Flying with a hand held camera, open door, over water without floats.. they had a few more slices of swiss cheese to avoid that day.
Unless I have missed something, the pathology report merely records the cause of death. It does not comment on the presence or lack of other injuries so I do not see how any conclusions could be made as to whether in the absence of fire the occupants could have removed themselves. The comment about nomex Therefore seems speculative
Here here.
The opinion that nomex flight suites would probably have been of no benefit does nothing to encourage their use! but does mitigate CASA of any blame for not mandating or pushing of Robinson's advice that nomex should be worn.
From the perspective of the man in the street.., a commercial flight, put together at the last minute, experienced aerial camera specialist apparently refused to fly, less than best camera equipment, no floats, with less than best PPE, restricted to clockwise orbits, over water, piloted by the owner-operator who is part of the management team.
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
The crews' willingness and keenness to get the job done to the best of their ability, under adverse conditions, although expected was admirable, yet tragically lethal.
From a film industry H&S perspective, the coroner will hopefully address the management of this flight.
Mickjoebill
chopjock
6th May 2013, 08:54
And the cause of their demise was aluminium fuel tanks?
If this was an R44 eng, with all doors on, and the pilot lost control, rolled over and burst it's fuel tanks and caught fire, do you think the outcome would have been different?
The cause of their demise was pilot error and an unforgiving machine.
mickjoebill
6th May 2013, 14:14
The cause of their demise was pilot error and an unforgiving machine.
Yes, thats what the accident report will show.
Mickjoebill
There seems to be some ignorance regarding the use of Nomex suits - they MUST be combined with cotton undergarments to give the proper protection against fire.
When tests are done on the UK Mil flying kit - a series of burn tests are conducted on dummies with various levels of protection - the tests clearly show how the cotton underwear provides the insulating layer preventing the heat being transmitted directly from the Nomex to the skin.