Ultralight Crash Banks Strait Tasmania [Archive]

Rotor Work

28th Oct 2013, 09:26

I know that its an Ultralight, but these two guys were rescued from Banks Strait (Almost Bass Strait) very lucky.
Also of Note was the two were transferred from the Police Rescue Boat onto VH-VAB, Victoria's Air Ambulance ( Lessons learnt from the failed Bass Strait Rescue)
http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/526187-circa-1990-light-aircraft-ditching-wilsons-promontory.html

Rescued men 'lucky to survive' ultralight crash in seas off Tasmania's north-east - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rescued-men-lucky-to-survive-crash-off-tasmanias-north-east/5050482)

Tasmanian police say two men who crashed their ultralight plane into Bass Strait this afternoon were lucky to survive with only minor injuries. The pair crashed into the water in the Waterhouse Island area north of Bridport about 3.00pm and were rescued by police boat and helicopter.
Detective Sergeant Mike Gillies said the men did well to crash into the sea and get away relatively unscathed.
"I believe they made some phone calls to search-and-rescue authorities who gave them some advice," he said.
"They were also in possession of a personal locator beacon that was used to pinpoint their location once they had actually crashed."
Air and marine rescue crews from Tasmania and Victoria were sent to Waterhouse Island after receiving a distress call.
The plane's two occupants were spotted in the water wearing life jackets and were rescued by a police boat just before 5:00pm.
They were then transferred to helicopter and flown to hospital, suffering from hypothermia.
The thruster ultralight took off from Bridport this afternoon and was on its way to Newcastle.
It is understood engine failure caused the plane to ditch into Banks Strait.

VH-XXX

28th Oct 2013, 09:50

That is a well written article for a change and very accurate !

The pilot fitted two lilos into the wings prior in case they ditched. Good thinking that man! Unless they stabbed them it might still be floating. Doubt they towed it in from 40 miles out.

Sharp Airlines were also involved with passengers looking out the windows to help locate the aircraft.

falconx

28th Oct 2013, 10:49

Dornier was on scene as well

PLovett

28th Oct 2013, 10:53

Gawd......if it came down near Waterhouse Island and its still afloat then with the tides in that area it'll be half way to New Zealand by now.

Wally Mk2

28th Oct 2013, 11:10

.....................ya gotta love the journos.....'engine failure caused the plane to ditch', yep that will do it every time!!!:ugh:

Good to see some fwd planing by the drivers:-)

Wmk2

ChrisJ800

28th Oct 2013, 21:13

Good thinking including the lilos but were they tracking direct from Bridport to Flinders? A quick look at Google maps shows you can fly mostly coastal and have just a 10nm crossing via Cape Barren I. At 3000 feet you can be in glide range of a coastline. I'm not an ultralight pilot, just one Thruster flight as a pax, but just wondering on route selection.

Mail-man

29th Oct 2013, 04:47

I not sure what type they were in but gliding distance would not be a (legal) concern if they fall under CAO 95.55

In spite of the limit of 25 nautical miles mentioned in subparagraph 7.1 (c), an aeroplane to which that limit would otherwise apply may be flown between Tasmania and mainland Australia, in either direction, by a longer route if taking advantage of safer weather conditions.

VH-XXX

29th Oct 2013, 05:13

Good spot Mail-Man.... the RA-Aus changed the operations manual in the last revision to specifically mention Bass (Banks) Strait crossings so as to make them legal.

From memory until the ops manual change, King Island was off limits completely to all RA-Aus aircraft with the exception of those that braved to defy the law makers.

The news reported that this aircraft was 40nm off shore from Tassie, so quite a detour :)

Good video here interviewing the pilot and passenger:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rescued-men-lucky-to-survive-crash-off-tasmanias-north-east/5050482 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-28/rescued-men-lucky-to-survive-crash-off-tasmanias-north-east/5050482)

solowflyer

29th Oct 2013, 06:13

A Thruster would glide as far as a brick would.

VH-XXX

29th Oct 2013, 09:05

I wonder if they would have made it otherwise.... he said he was heading "north east" to Melbourne. I'll put that one down to the hypothermia ;)

Aussie Bob

29th Oct 2013, 09:31

he said he was heading "north east" to Melbourne

Well, going from Bridport to Melbourne via Flinders Island does start out with a north east track. Perhaps he was correct :)

VH-XXX

29th Oct 2013, 23:04

They had a life raft, however the lilos were in the wings. They must have torn out the lilos fromt the wings, which certainly leads to the question of what happened to the life raft. From memory a life raft won't float when it's not inflated, whereas the lilos were already inflated so it would appear that it sank or was inaccesible. In terms of RA-Aus tehre is no requirement for them to have a life raft on board. The purpose of the lilos was actually to keep the aircraft floating in the event of a ditching, not to survive on.

How apt that we were all discussing that nobody a couple of weeks back that nobody had ever survived a ditching in Bass Strait.

nitpicker330

30th Oct 2013, 03:43

According to the paper--

1/ lilos were not in the wings ( as was suggested to the Pilot before they left Tassie ) they were in the cabin.

2/ lift raft was in the bottom of the cabin, unable to be reached after impact and it sank with the Aircraft.

Lucky fellas.

VH-XXX

30th Oct 2013, 04:15

The newspaper article did paint a different picture to that of what was relayed from Tasmania early on.

Imagine having an outlanding, pulling the lilos out of the storage compartment and inflating them whilst trying to swim in your clothes, good job :D

He had an innovative approach to the ditching - it says that the engine had partially lost power, so he went down to 1 metre above the water to use the ground effect in order to require less power to remain airborne. This gave him 8 minutes of additional flight time.

500N

30th Oct 2013, 05:43

"Imagine having an outlanding, pulling the lilos out of the storage compartment and inflating them whilst trying to swim in your clothes, good job"

You can say that again. It is hard to do anything except stay afloat,
let alone blow up a Lilo.

ChrisJ800

30th Oct 2013, 09:29

I believe they were both wearing lifejackets when found. I read in one of the local rags that they bought the lilos for sleeping on near the plane, not necessarily as life preservers!

Dog One

30th Oct 2013, 09:42

Back a few years ago, the single engine route via Flinders to Melbourne was Cape Portland, Flinders, Deal Is, Hogan Is, Seal Is. The Cape Portland Flinders leg is close to land and doesn't have the 50 nm sector over water as WTH - FLI.

VH-XXX

30th Oct 2013, 09:43

Eugene Reid former RAA President taught the pilot to fly. Eugene used to fly a Thruster across the strait moderately regularly and he advised them on the use of lilos in the wings. They bought the lilos but didn't get to fitting them. One might wonder if they had fitted the lilos then the aircraft may have floated and allowed them to get to the life raft. Lots of what-ifs.

The flying in ground effect was an innovative idea that kindof bought them some time.

Capt Claret

30th Oct 2013, 09:56

If I've understood media reports properly, they unfastened seat belts before impact so that they didn't get trapped in the wreck. That seemed to be a strange decision, especially had they been rendered unconscious by unrestrained impact forces.

Sort of negates the purpose of seat belts.

nitpicker330

30th Oct 2013, 10:49

Yes, my thoughts exactly......

Like I said, very lucky fellas

khaki83

18th Nov 2013, 02:30

Interesting artcile in the RAAF newspaper about the subsequent search and rescue after the aircraft ditched.

Defence Newspapers | Air Force (http://airforcenews.realviewdigital.com/#folio=6)

RAAF Newspaper, 21 October 2013, Page 6.

Rotor Work

12th Apr 2016, 06:53

Update from ABC

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-12/pilot-who-ditched-in-bass-strait-denies-flying-recklessly/7319480

Pilot who ditched ultra light plane in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly
By Laura Beavis
Updated about an hour ago

Newcastle pilot Shayd Hector stands in front an ultralight plane owned by instructor Eugene Reid.
PHOTO: Shayd Hector and his passenger were rescued after ditching in Bass Strait. (Facebook)
MAP: Launceston 7250
The pilot of an ultra-light plane that ditched in Bass Strait in 2013 has denied flying recklessly and endangering his passenger.

Shayd Hector, of Tingira Heights in New South Wales, pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure.

Launceston magistrates court heard the offences allegedly took place near Bridport on October 28, 2013, endangering the life of Hector's passenger, Joel Nelson.

The pair were rescued from the ocean near Waterhouse Island off the coast of north-east Tasmania in the hours after their plane crashed into the sea.

They had been en route to Newcastle and told the media at the time that engine trouble forced them to ditch the plane.

They said they felt lucky to be alive after surviving in the water for two hours by clinging to an inflatable mattress.

The men also feared they would be attacked by sharks.

They were uninjured apart from cuts and were treated for hypothermia.

Hector was not in court and entered the pleas through his lawyer.

He was ordered to return to court on June 17.

Rotor Work

27th Jan 2017, 09:55

Update from ABC
http://http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/warrant-issued-for-arrest-of-pilot-on-reckless-flying-charge/8219054 (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/warrant-issued-for-arrest-of-pilot-on-reckless-flying-charge/8219054)

An arrest warrant has been issued for the pilot of an ultra-light aeroplane that ditched in Bass Strait off Tasmania's north-east in 2013.

Sunfish

27th Jan 2017, 20:03

So CASA is reduced to prosecuting the unfortunate owners of crashed ultralights and Gyrocopters?

How the mighty have fallen, read the AAT BS and see how far CASA is prepared to go to criminalise the conduct of a perhaps unwise Gyro enthusiast.

Despite Mr Bellamy having had a very unfortunate experience in his attempt at restoration and testing his J2 gyroplane, I have found that was no evidence upon which CASA can soundly base a suspension of his PPL. All of the difficulties which Mr Bellamy encountered, including his conviction in the Magistrates’ Court, stemmed from his gyroplane involvement. I had no evidence before me that similar circumstances would arise in the future as far as his fixed-wing operations are concerned. Mr Bellamy did not blatantly ignore the advice given to him by CASA and he appeared to have made significant attempts to comply with all legislative requirements as they existed at the time, which were not as clear as perhaps they could have been. I have found that he is a fit and proper person to hold the PPL – aeroplane.

I find that the decision made by CASA on 16 March 2016 cancelling Mr Bellamy’s
PPL– aeroplane was not the preferable decision. I set aside that decision. Therefore, Mr Bellamy’s PPL – aeroplane remains valid and should be treated as never having been cancelled. CASA’s records regarding Mr Bellamy should be amended accordingly.

Bellamy and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2016] AATA 956 (29 November 2016) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/AATA/2016/956.html)

Cue "The Bold Gendarmes"...

[G]We're public guardians, bold but wary,
And of ourselves, we [C] take [Am] good [G]care,
To risk our precious lives, we're chary,
When danger looms, we're [C] ne- [Am]-ver [G] there
But when we [C] meet some helpless [G] woman,
Or little [C] boys that do no [G] harm

Chorus
[G]We run them [D] in, We run them in,
We run them [G] in, We run them in,
We show them, we're [D] the bold [C] gen- [G] -darmes,
We run them [D] in, We run them in,
We run them [G] in, We run them [C] in,
We show them,[G] we're the bold [D] gen- [G] -darmes,

onetrack

27th Jan 2017, 22:14

Update on this episode - Shayd Hector initially pleaded not guilty to the charge of "reckless operation of an aircraft", but later changed his plea to guilty.
He was due to front court on the afternoon of Friday the 27th January 2017, to be sentenced - but he failed to show up and a warrant for his arrest has now been issued.

Seems like Mr Hector has the same cavalier attitude to the law, as he has to his flying operations. He's probably going to find out that you can't adopt a cavalier approach to either area.

Arrest warrant issued for pilot on reckless flying charge (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-27/warrant-issued-for-arrest-of-pilot-on-reckless-flying-charge/8219054)

Ultralights

28th Jan 2017, 00:14

the way he is going, CASA might issue him a AOC! :}

aroa

29th Jan 2017, 01:13

Yet another classic example of how CAsA uses their sledgehammer powers to flatten a flea.

On the serious scale of safety issues that really need addressing , this hardly moves the needle.

Come major issues, CAsA files into the Too Hard basket or goes missing in action...see the recent Mt Isa debacle.

You do have to wonder at their priorities in pissing away the taxpayer dollar.

Rotor Work

14th Mar 2017, 03:26

Another update
http://http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/shayd-hector-ultralight-pilot-bass-strait-crash-legal-saga/8351552

Dangly Bits

14th Mar 2017, 03:57

mickjoebill

14th Mar 2017, 05:01

Sunny surely you don't think that these actions do not warrant a court visit?

Hector was charged with reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure.

The DPP wouldn't have taken it to court if they didn't think there was a case to answer surely. Because the DPP take people to court not CASA. They make the decision to prosecute, based on a brief of evidence.

Or am I completely wrong?

Mind you using an air mattress as a life raft to cross Bass Straight and telling your passenger to undo your seatbelt prior to the crash, could easily qualify for a Darwin Award.

Although they weren't trapped and the air mattresses prevented them subcoming to hypothermia!:)

A question specifically to do with ultralights, in a relatively low speed impact into water and if wearing a helmet, is it a reasonable gamble to undo seatbelts? One less thing to fumble with if inverted underwater?
You head will impact something anyway even with seatbelts.
Yes, I've done a HUET and also suffered a burst eardrum underwater.

Mickjoebill

gerry111

14th Mar 2017, 08:15

I can't get your today's link to work, Rotor Work.

Lead Balloon

14th Mar 2017, 08:29

As this wends its way to the almost inevitable slap on the wrist for the offence to which the accused has pled guilty, we should ask: What will have been achieved?

Will we all decide to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under our belts in the previous 8 hours? Nope.

Will the people with a propensity to fly an ultralight, unlicensed, across the Bass Strait with an inflatable 'lilo' as emergency floatation equipment and a few drinks under their belts in the previous 8 hours, decide not to do so? Nope.

Other than the occasional amusing headline, what will have been achieved?

Squawk7700

14th Mar 2017, 08:29

Corrected link here:

Ultralight crash survivor cries poor after four-year legal 'saga' since 2013 ordeal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-14/shayd-hector-ultralight-pilot-bass-strait-crash-legal-saga/8351552)

onetrack

14th Mar 2017, 11:42

Other than the occasional amusing headline, what will have been achieved?Well, at least one offender will have been rendered moneyless, and unable to carry out such a stupid act again!
As has been outlined many times, laws are only there for the law-abiding to take notice of. Fools and idiots ignore every law made, that tries to stop their foolishness and idiocy.

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2017, 00:44

Well, at least one offender will have been rendered moneyless, and unable to carry out such a stupid act again!Good theory. You evidently underestimate the genius of idiots.

Flying Binghi

15th Mar 2017, 03:34

Hmmm... ah suppose being "moneyless" is the reason ol mate set off to fly an ultralight across Bass Strait... rather then the twin turbine whatever that 'sensible' people fly across the strait..:hmm:

Not that long ago that it were against the law for women to drink in a public bar in Oz pubs. So, i'm thinkin using non compliance to 'law' to define stupidity is probably the wrong way to look at this incident.

When yer consider that the books of 'law' that governs aviation in the USA is a far smaller document then the documents that defines aviation 'law' in Australia, i suspects many would say that stupid is found at the be-gets of the 'law' rather then the be-done by the 'laws'.

.

LeadSled

15th Mar 2017, 07:36

Folks,
Flying Binghi has it right, in the end this poor sod was broke, could not afford legal representation, couldn't even raise the cash to get to and appear in court in Tasmania, resulting in an arrest warrant due to his non-appearance at one stage.

Those of you who are quick to condemn should note that, of the usual CASA laundry list of charges, all but one were were dropped, including the allegation that he consumed alcohol contrary to law --- in that one the only witness was a QF cabin crew member who served the traveling pair, there was no evidence that the alcohol served in flight was consumed by the accused, as opposed to his traveling companion.

Note that the allegation of flying unlicensed was also dropped, does that suggest to any of you that he might have, in fact, been "licensed", as he believed, having completed all the necessary training and having the paperwork signed off by the former President of RAAus to delete the nav. restriction on his perfectly valid RAAus pilot certificate ----- which is not of course, a "licence", but a "certificate".

He was finally confronted with a single charge. I believe he was financially in no position but to plead guilty to bring the ordeal to a close. Knowing what I know in detail about the case, he is demonstrably not an idiot, I do not believe he committed any offence.

This poor sod, of very modest means, is now so far behind the 8-Ball financially that he will, as a wage slave, take years (if ever) to recover.

And what has this CASA action/persecution contributed to air safety in the future -- NIL!!

Tootle pip!!

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2017, 08:11

What emergency gear did he intend to carry, what emergency gear was he convinced to carry, and what emergency gear would someone with a grip on reality have carried?

I agree that the outcome of the prosecution action will have almost nil safety benefit and is therefore very difficult to understand on a cost/benefit basis. But I'm still not convinced that it would have been a loss to the gene pool if the noahs had nibbled on this guy.

Aussie Bob

15th Mar 2017, 08:51

Thanks Lead Sled for putting this into perspective.

Lead Balloon, in case you can't read, the guy carried an inflatable mattress. One could argue that:

A. This is more effective than an "approved" life jacket in Bass Strait
B. The effectiveness of said air mattress was proven.

Question for you L.B.: Do you think the noahs would be more likely to find a human 3/4 submerged in an "approved" orange life jacket an easy target, or would you think humans on an air mattress would be more tempting and an easier prey?

Lead Balloon

15th Mar 2017, 09:52

One could argue that but one would, I would argue, be wrong.

However, I could be wrong. Perhaps you should be pressing for compulsory life jacket carriage to have an alternate means of compliance: Lilos. :ok:

onetrack

15th Mar 2017, 11:55

One must note that the bloke was essentially saved by an EPIRB, and he was only encouraged to carry the EPIRB at the last minute, when a concerned friend gave him his.
I think "thoughtlessness" describes well, this blokes "mishap" - and thoughtlessness is to blame for many a life lost.
If he was 18, one could say it was teenage thoughtlessness and impulsiveness to blame - but the bloke was in his mid-20's when he set out on the trip, and one is expected to have a modicum of maturity and ability to think things through properly, by then.

Squawk7700

15th Mar 2017, 19:09

In the video link posted above he claimed to be in contact with ATC right to the point of impact after issuing a mayday call...

Sunfish

16th Mar 2017, 00:27

bass strait is usually so cold you won't last very long in the water.

onetrack

16th Mar 2017, 01:37

The water temperature was reported as being 13 deg C at the time. The fairly constant wind chill factor in Bass Strait would add a very serious detrimental element to the cool water temperature.
I must admit, I now have a greater level of respect for Lilo's level of construction if they survived a landing impact on water and still kept their airtightness. Every air mattress I've ever owned always leaked, even from new.

Aussie Bob

16th Mar 2017, 02:30

I used to think a lilo would make a poor man's life raft. Now it appears it has passed the test.

One could argue that but one would, I would argue, be wrong.

However, I could be wrong. Perhaps you should be pressing for compulsory life jacket carriage to have an alternate means of compliance: Lilos. http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gifPoint taken LB .... I prefer a certified life raft myself. Sadly old mate couldn't afford one so he chose the lilo alternative and surprise surprise, it worked.

The reason we even heard about this clown is that his two stroke quit. We never hear about those whose engines remain functional over Bass Strait, and more than a few ultralights complete this crossing every year, flown by a variety of personalities and no doubt carrying a variety of oddities the pilot may think would be of assistance in an emergency.

Flying Binghi

16th Mar 2017, 07:09

This is the jacket I've been wearing for a few years now. Epirb, flares, etc. Theory is, after ditching, yer get clear of the aircraft and pull the string... Constant Wear Lifejacket SAVER SYSTEM | www.safetymarineaust.com.au (http://www.safetymarineaust.com.au/home/content/constant-wear-lifejacket-saver-system)

The designers even had Bass Strait in mind..:cool:

.

kaz3g

16th Mar 2017, 09:25

Perhaps the intrepid duo read about Ben Buckley's flight to NZ and thought the Strait would be easy compared to the dootch?

Kaz

The Baron

16th Mar 2017, 20:22

Just to add a bit of fact to the story, The flight Attendant concerned was a Virgin lady. She was concerned they were both drinking and bragging about what they were about to do. Hardly the sharpest knives in the drawer. How do I know? I was the Captain on their flight.

Rotor Work

2nd May 2017, 08:00

The final chapter I hope !

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-05-02/shayd-hector-avoids-jail-over-2013-bass-strait-ultralight-crash/8488358

The court yesterday heard, at the time of the crash, Hector held a pilot's certificate - and not a pilot's licence - which only permitted him to fly less than 25 nautical miles from his departure point.

At today's sentencing, Magistrate Sharon Cure described Hector's approach as "cavalier".

"Taking the risk was unjustified," she said.

"An extremely high level of responsibility is attached to the right to fly.

"It's important a clear message is sent that reckless conduct leads to punishment."
Magistrate Cure took into account Hector's guilty plea, his prospect for rehabilitation, the financial burden of the incident, the subsequent court action and his young family in sentencing him to six months' imprisonment, wholly suspended.

"[You] only just avoided an actual term of imprisonment," she said.