EC-135 crashes into ocean near Port Hedland off Western Australias Pilbara coast

[zhishengji751]

Helicopter crashes into ocean near Port Hedland off WA's Pilbara coast - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-15/helicopter-crashes-into-ocean-near-port-hedland/9550318)

A helicopter carrying two people has crashed into the ocean off Western Australia's north coast.

The accident happened 30 kilometres north of Port Hedland about midnight.

An Australian Maritime Safety Authority spokesman said the helicopter — reported to be an EC-135 model — was heading out to a ship to pick up a marine pilot when it crashed.

The passenger has been recovered but a search continues for the pilot.

Seven aircraft and seven vessels are taking part in the search.

More to come.

[Tibbsy]

Not good at all. Crashed last night around midnight according to some reports.

Is night MPT in Port Hedland a 2-pilot gig?

[KiwiNedNZ]

Apparently it was two pilots on a training flight not a MPT flight. Thoughts are with everyone at Aviator Group.

[Lude-og]

https://www.northwesttelegraph.com.au/?news/pilbara/helicopter-ditches-into-water-near-port-hedland-1300km-north-of-perth-ng-b88774914z

If anyone knows the name of the pilot that is missing, please PM me.

[Kulwin Park]

KiwiNed the article says that they were on the way to pick up a marine pilot onboard a ship. It was that person who saw the helicopter ditch and alerted AMSAR.
I have heard that it was a normal flight but with a check captain onboard.

[KiwiNedNZ]

KP - You are probably correct. I just heard it was as training flight with a check & training guy plus pilot onboard and no one else so wrongly assumed it was not MPT.

[duncan_g]

maybe VH-ZGA? VH-ZGZ seems to be participating in the search.

https://www.flightradar24.com/ZGZ/10b7b454

[Capt SFB]

Yep, ZGA.

Lude-og, if you are concerned about your countryman, he's not involved.

Normally done single pilot day and night, in this case Training Captain doing night line training

Sad.

Capt.

[Nigel Osborn]

Some years ago we used to do that MPT flight in a basic 206 on fixed floats with no special equipment except for an adjustable large landing light off a Cessna. Single pilot day & night, biggest problem was when sea fog would roll in quickly & unexpectedly. The alternate inland was 200 nm plus! Fun days!:ok:

[Heliringer]

Some years ago we used to do that MPT flight in a basic 206 on fixed floats with no special equipment except for an adjustable large landing light off a Cessna. Single pilot day & night, biggest problem was when sea fog would roll in quickly & unexpectedly. The alternate inland was 200 nm plus! Fun days!:ok:

What's your point? You do know that there is a Pilot missing.

[Flying Bull]

:-(
Trainingflights can be dangerous.
2016 a BK117 went down over the sea while conducting winch training.
Pilots didn´t recognize until to late :-(
https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/2014/Bericht_14_3X006_HeliBK117_Prerow-Ostsee.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

[[email protected]]

Who provides helicopter SAR in that area?

[Nescafe]

Crab,

Australia is massive. We have cattle stations bigger than European countries. This might be difficult to believe, but in most of Australia, no one provides SAR.

[whoknows idont]

Last recorded data point on fr24: 100FT, 22KTS
:(

[belly tank]

All the companies played a role today Babcock,HNZ,CHC,Bristow and not to mention a sister ship of the one that went down along with a Chalenger 604.

[[email protected]]

Nescafe - so Australia is exempt from ICAO/IMO provision of SAR???

https://www.amsa.gov.au/safety-navigation/search-and-rescue/australias-search-and-rescue-region

[PhilJ]

Try this page.

https://www.amsa.gov.au/safety-navigation/search-and-rescue/contracted-search-and-rescue-aircraft-and-equipment

Mainly tier 3 and 4 helicopters contracted to oil companies. Stand to be corrected but nearest tier 2 may be Perth. 700plus nm away.

[Scattercat]

Nescafe - so Australia is exempt from ICAO/IMO provision of SAR???

https://www.amsa.gov.au/safety-navigation/search-and-rescue/australias-search-and-rescue-region

No Crab, Australia is not exempt. However, in practical terms, due to having vast regions that are very sparsely populated, we don't have the same level of response capability in those areas as you might expect in most European countries. It will often take several hours to get assets on scene. This is not unique to Australia mind you.

[heliduck]

:-(
Trainingflights can be dangerous.
2016 a BK117 went down over the sea while conducting winch training.
Pilots didn´t recognize until to late :-(
https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/2014/Bericht_14_3X006_HeliBK117_Prerow-Ostsee.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

For those of us who are linguistically challenged -https://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publications/Investigation%20Report/2014/Report_14_3X006_HeliBK117_Prerow-BalticSea.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

[Nigel Osborn]

Heliringer
The point I tried to make, obviously not very well, is that the Port Hedland job was a mickey mouse operation with not the best equipment available being used due to the cost. Now it has a modern twin & I expect a lot more training. It's a tragedy that for whatever reason a modern helicopter has gone down & a pilot is missing. During my 45 years of helicopter flying I've had to make numerous searches, so I'm fully aware of the possible tragic outcome of this accident.

[Thomas coupling]

Bolkow 117 crash from above link:

Conclusion:

During the turn from the base leg into the final, airspeed reduced to zero and
altitude decreased continuously until the collision with the surface of the water.
•
Power was not increased and the approach terminated once the warning of the
radio altimeter sounded

[[email protected]]

Scattercat - it was meant as a rhetorical question since I know the provision has to be there and fully understand that with the low population density, it is unlikely to be anything like in many European countries.

However, if there is a an operation requiring regular ship to shore transfers at night, it would seem prudent to have some local SAR capability for exactly the sad scenario we are seeing now.

I thought there was a military/contracted SAR unit a little way towards Perth that would be the closest>

[whoknows idont]

So what are the odds of this poor guy still being alive out there right now? :(

What's the water temperature down there currently?

[Fareastdriver]

SAR cover? In 2012 Port Hedland didn't even have an airfield fire service.

[SASless]

The USA has 20% more land area but 1200% more population....telling me there a long way between Pubs in Oz.....and other modern conveniences like SAR!




Crab,

Australia is massive. We have cattle stations bigger than European countries. This might be difficult to believe, but in most of Australia, no one provides SAR.

[John Eacott]

So what are the odds of this poor guy still being alive out there right now? :(

What's the water temperature down there currently?

Today?

30C.

[Nigel Osborn]

Basically CASA gets a list of charter companies around the country to advise of their helicopter types & DOC rates. Then when there is an accident, CASA knows which company to contact & basically that company is obliged to go & do their best. I don;t think they would launch a R 22 to search 100 miles out to sea! Not that many aircraft are winch or float fitted or IFR, so the response isn't always great. The SAR provided for the RAAF is near Perth, a civilian company as the RAAF have no helicopters, some 2000 nm from Port Hedland, so not a quick solution. The MPT in Port Hedland must be 50 years old & I think this is the first ditching, ironically with a modern helicopter. There have bee
n some close shaves but this must be the worst accident. The water is quite warm, the pilot would have worn a life jacket but it doesn't look good. No mention if the 135 sank quickly?

[Car RAMROD]

Just a slight correction Nigel, it's AMSA who have the list and contact you for searching, not CASA.

There is (or was) at least 1 fixed-wing company down the road at Karratha who was Tier 4 and have been out on many searches in years gone by, along with CHC/Bristow/HeliNZ (been a while since I was around that region so things may have changed). Police Air Wing PC12 based in KA may be available too. Bond over at Barrow Island as well. There's a fixed wing charter company in Hedland and also the RFDS but I'm not sure if they've done any form of SAR work at all. Also some helos up in Broome, and some fixed wing too (Coastwatch Dash aircraft are based there).

The helos which are contracted to the offshore work up in that region typically have the ability to do winch ops, however it can take them over an hour to get the winch installed and airborne.

Someone told me many years ago even a Qantas 737, before they started their approach, went to check on a bunch of smoke that was reported offshore from KA. Someone called up thinking a boat was on fire. Was just a rig flaring!

[Mark Six]

CHC operates a number of winch equipped AW139 and AW189 aircraft an hour away from PH in Karratha. They also have a winch operator and rescue crewman permanently on site, with a SAR aircraft and crew nominated each day. One of the CHC 189's with SAR crew is involved in the current search.

[Nigel Osborn]

CarRAMROD.
You're right! That's what happens to one's memory with age & being retired for 10 years! The main problem years ago was not having a winch when on an offshore contract. I'm sure John E will remember flying a 76 to try to save some people in a fishing trawler in NW Tassie one stormy evening. A rope was used to lower a pump onto the boat but the petrol can broke away. The boat ran on diesel, so the pump without fuel was useless!

[industry insider]

HNZ (now PHI) has a SAR S-92 on 15 minute readiness just over 300nm away in Broome contracted by 2 oil companies.

[Car RAMROD]

Mark, insider, thanks for the info.
Like I said been a while since I was out that way and back then I don't recall anything being winch-ready in much shorter than an hour.
Further question just out of interest, are these recall times applicable to AMSA taskings or just for their contracted oil/gas clients?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

6 p.m. WST....1000Z,

Ch 7 News announcing that, as of this evening, the search has been 'called off'.

Despite 'good' conditions, nothing has been found.
Several Helos, Fixed wing, and boats involved.

The pilot who got out, is OK.

More advice tomorrow, I would expect.

Not good news.

[Nigel Osborn]

Guess the pilot hasn't made a public statement why they ditched..............

[belly tank]

Rescuers call off search for missing helicopter pilot after crash off WA coast - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/rescuers-end-search-for-missing-helicopter-pilot-after-wa-crash/9557960?pfmredir=sm)

[Old Farang]

THE body of a man believed to be the pilot of the helicopter that ditched in the water off Port Hedland has been located and recovered from the water.

Police advised that the wreckage of the helicopter was located with sonar equipment at about 12.30pm on Saturday.
Police divers were moved to the scene and located the body believed to be that of the missing pilot, 44-year-old Brett Gallard.

The pilot’s family have been kept informed and a formal identification process is underway.

https://thewest.com.au/news/pilbara/port-hedland-helicopter-crash-wa-police-take-over-search-for-pilot-ng-b88777478z

[belly tank]

Police divers locate body and helicopter wreckage off Port Hedland - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-16/rescuers-end-search-for-missing-helicopter-pilot-after-wa-crash/9557960)

[SuperF]

Have they released the names yet?

[John Eacott]

Have they released the names yet?

Two posts before your post.

[ersa]

Who was the check pilot , that escaped in a life raft ?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Perth Radio 6PR reporting this morning (Tues 20th) that the wreckage was recovered yesterday, and that the ATSB will be investigating.

That is all.

[Old Farang]

It is now posted here:

https://thewest.com.au/news/pilbara/helicopter-wreck-recovered-from-ocean-off-port-hedland-ng-b88779917z

Helicopter wreck recovered from ocean off Port Hedland

Why does the press keep referring to the unfortunate pilot as being a "trainee"?

I am damn sure that he was well qualified before being let anywhere near such an operation. Just as I am sure that he was HUET trained as well.

RIP mate.

[heliduck]

Why does the press keep referring to the unfortunate pilot as being a "trainee"?

...because they don't know any better & couldn't be bothered to educate themselves before going to print. Those of us that do know better afford him the respect he deserves, & the respect of your peers is what counts.

[Twist & Shout]

Both pilots on board obviously highly experienced.

Night ships - one of the most demanding flying tasks I’ve done.

Can anyone confirm which pilot was carrying out the check ride, and by default which one was being checked?

Rumors, fueled by aforementioned ignorant and lazy press are conflicting.

[Thomas coupling]

We'll soon find out as I believe there was one survivor - no?
Until then, my ten cents is that they were transitioning to the hover or doing a dummy approach and failed to arrest the residual descent at the end. That's probably why there is a survivor.

[Fareastdriver]

Bristows had a Puma splash in on a night pilot positioning trip some years ago. One of the pilots described it me as a straightforward approach and then, Bang, they were in the water.

For what it's worth, when I did them I would approach from 45 degrees from the stern. This gave me a good angular view of the whole ship, aim at the bow and the stern will be there when you arrive, plus an easy overshoot into clear air up to the last moment before the hover.

[Heliringer]

Bristows had a Puma splash in on a night pilot positioning trip some years ago. One of the pilots described it me as a straightforward approach and then, Bang, they were in the water.

For what it's worth, when I did them I would approach from 45 degrees from the stern. This gave me a good angular view of the whole ship, aim at the bow and the stern will be there when you arrive, plus an easy overshoot into clear air up to the last moment before the hover.

So did a Jet Ranger at Karratha if I remember correctly.

Is anyone using NVG on MPT operations?

[gulliBell]

..Why does the press keep referring to the unfortunate pilot as being a "trainee"?


A person undergoing training is a trainee, by definition.

I have 17,000+ hour ATP pilots in the simulator for recurrent training. They are referred to as trainees, or students.

[gulliBell]

..Until then, my ten cents is that they were transitioning to the hover or doing a dummy approach and failed to arrest the residual descent at the end. That's probably why there is a survivor.

And my five cents is that it was a complete surprise to them when they splashed down.

[megan]

Bristows had a Puma splash in on a night pilot positioning trip some years agoReport here.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24791/199100126.pdf

Talking to a Bristow pilot who was involved in test flying with the ATSB team they came to the conclusion that it was not a result of vortex ring, as the report states, but concluded that they had zeroed out the airspeed and were in fact going backwards, which precipitated the high rate of descent. Bristow pilot involved was surprised when the finding of vortex ring was published, as the test flying was unable to replicate given the prevailing conditions (AUW etc).

Any Puma driver care to comment on the possibility re vortex ring?

[Old Farang]

A person undergoing training is a trainee, by definition.
I have 17,000+ hour ATP pilots in the simulator for recurrent training. They are referred to as trainees, or students.

Yes, even though I am not a Kiwi, just a lowly Aussie, I understand the definition!

But it is not about what happens in any sim, it is about being reported to the general public that the poor sod was a "trainee", which in that context, is easily taken as being an ab initio student pilot that could very well be on his first flight!

[Nescafe]

If I had my head of training in the sim, I’d only get to call him a ‘trainee’ once.

A ‘trainee’ is new to type, from then it’s ‘candidate.’

[Scattercat]

As a technicality, I would suggest that a "trainee" is a person to whom a new skill or qualification is being imparted by a "trainer". As distinct from a "check flight" where one qualified pilot, is checking the competence of another qualified pilot. Additionally, in Australia, we have a definition of ICUS (In Command, Under Supervision) ... whereby one pilot is qualified to conduct the flight, but for regulatory, contractual or company requirements, must be supervised by a second (usually more experienced) pilot. Does anyone here know what the nature of this flight was?

[gulliBell]

..Bristow pilot involved was surprised when the finding of vortex ring was published, as the test flying was unable to replicate given the prevailing conditions (AUW etc).


I knew one of the Bristow accident pilots, he was my flight instructor. A long time ago now, but I thought he said vortex ring. Both accident pilots were terminated for cause, I think both were eventually re-instated after a long AFAP intervention, with salary arrears paid, but I don't think either ever flew a Bristow helicopter again. Bristow made them a redundancy offer to retire quietly.

[Vertical Freedom]

Rest in Peace

[Nigel Osborn]

gullibell.
One of them started his own flying school at Jandakot but I've no idea where he is now. The other went back to flying with Bristow, I last saw him in Darwin about 2001. I knew them both well & both said they were in vortex ring. It wasn't a check ride, just 2 captains rostered together but the flying pilot thought he had better follow the Bristow procedure, which was considered bad & not followed by the pilots, but as he had a check pilot with him decided to do their procedure. This procedure was changed!

[Brother]

The other went back to flying with Bristow

he flew the 225 for brs until the grounding

[Twist & Shout]

Both pilots on board obviously highly experienced.

Night ships - one of the most demanding flying tasks I’ve done.

Can anyone confirm which pilot was carrying out the check ride, and by default which one was being checked?

Rumors, fueled by aforementioned ignorant and lazy press are conflicting.

So no one on here knows, or wants to say which pilot was conducting the check, and which was being checked?

[Nigel Osborn]

No check was being carried out, just 2 check captains rostered for the flight. The right hand pilot did the flying. I won't mention names obviously.

[Heliringer]

No check was being carried out, just 2 check captains rostered for the flight. The right hand pilot did the flying. I won't mention names obviously.

I think he's asking about the Port Hedland accident not the Old Bristow one from 1991.

[Twist & Shout]

I think he's asking about the Port Hedland accident not the Old Bristow one from 1991.

Correct.
Thank you.
Rumours from the scene indicate more than one approach was conducted before the tragic incident.
It was also a very dark night.

[Nigel Osborn]

Sorry about that!

[Same again]

Are NVG's used on these MPT flights?

[Tibbsy]

I'm not aware of any MPT operations using NVG in Australia

[Same again]

I'm not aware of any MPT operations using NVG in Australia

A departure from a lit deck into pitch darkness is not a pleasant sensation. I assume these MPT flights are also SPIFR? Not much room for error.

[ersa]

Port Hedland is a single pilot VFR contract , however the Training and Checking captain is an IR FE

[megan]

but I thought he said vortex ringI'd assume the pilots were just saying what the report said. Worked with, and shared a cockpit, with one of the pilots for many, many years.

[Same again]

Port Hedland is a single pilot VFR contract

Single pilot MPT VFR offshore at night??? Are you serious?

[gulliBell]

It's been like that at least since 1986 when I first passed through town...and they were using a JetBanger then, so not even 2 engines.

[Same again]

I could understand that in 1986 but there is little excuse for it today. I imagine that they are also using relatively inexperienced pilots. That's an awful lot of holes lining up.

[[email protected]]

Same again - I think we have covered this discrepancy before - IIRC both the US and the Australian rules permit VFR flight over water at night - ignoring the fact you are unlikely to have a horizon to assess your attitude from or any surface lighting to assist.

We think it is barking but it is the way it is.

[Same again]

Barking indeed Crab. So, either operator or client (and when investment is concerned it points towards the latter) is happy to spend money on replacing a single with a twin but completely ignores the obvious - and far greater risk - of disorientation when flying VFR in what is clearly an IFR environment.

[Fareastdriver]

of disorientation when flying VFR in what is clearly an IFR environment.

Let's get this back in perspective. A twin engine helicopter will have blind flying panel. Should the pilot be competent to fly that panel and has a rating their is nothing to stop him flying VFR in VMC at night. Training schools do it all the time.

Irrespective of whether one regards flying offshore at night without a discernible horizon as VFR or IFR they will still be VFR on the approach and landing.

There would be severe disadvantages of filing n IFR flight plan which would involve diversion fuel etc. so a VFR flight plan is quite safe as long as the weather is OK.

It would have made no difference to this flight, as far as I can gather, whether he flew IFR or VFR.

[John Eacott]

I could understand that in 1986 but there is little excuse for it today. I imagine that they are also using relatively inexperienced pilots. That's an awful lot of holes lining up.

You imagine wrong.

There is a propensity for many posting here from the northern hemisphere to look down at operational standards used in Oz without knowing what actually goes on, and with a misguided expectation that we operate in cozy little areas where every helipad/airport has a fire service and help is but five minutes away.

Australia is a fairly large continent with some well developed (& some not!) operations which have stood the test of time. NVMC by competent pilots in well equipped twins is one such, obviating the overly restrictive and oft unachievable alternate fuel requirements of an IMC flight plan with acceptable alternates hundreds of miles away.

[Same again]

We all know that it is possible to fly IFR in most helicopter types so long as there is an AI, ASI, VSI and Altimeter. I used to do it in single engine, unstabilised helicopters in the military but I had a master green instrument rating, lots of instrument time and it was all over land. What concerns me is that inexperienced and non-instrument rated pilots are expected to depart from a lit ships helideck into a pitch black night without any of the aids currently available.

Filing an IFR flight plan and flying IFR is something that is routine when flying offshore in most parts of the world because it leads to a safer operation. If a particular Civil Aviation Authority deems it not necessary then so be it but it is still madness in this day and age to fly VFR in what are obviously non-VMC conditions. Filing an IFR flight plan and flying IFR has little to do with it in practical terms. What is needed is a current instrument rating when flying VFR offshore at night.

[John Eacott]

We all know that it is possible to fly IFR in most helicopter types so long as there is an AI, ASI, VSI and Altimeter. I used to do it in single engine, unstabilised helicopters in the military but I had a master green instrument rating, lots of instrument time and it was all over land. What concerns me is that inexperienced and non-instrument rated pilots are expected to depart from a lit ships helideck into a pitch black night without any of the aids currently available.

Filing an IFR flight plan and flying IFR is something that is routine when flying offshore in most parts of the world because it leads to a safer operation. If a particular Civil Aviation Authority deems it not necessary then so be it but it is still madness in this day and age to fly VFR in what are obviously non-VMC conditions .

Now you are becoming insulting; do you really think that an MPT pilot is inexperienced and thrown into such an operation without any training whatsoever? And that the helicopter used is not equipped such as to give all the necessary aids to carry out the task?

I refer to my last post which tried to politely point out that there are some posting here with little or no idea about what aviation is about outside their own area of experience, and you may do well to actually research our geography and operations.

[Same again]

John, I have many years flying in Australia as well as other parts of the globe so am well aware of the high standards set by CASA and maintained by most Australian operators. I also flew NVMC SAR/EMS in Australia in my younger years.

It is not my intention to be insulting to anyone but it is well known that MPT is normally a stepping some to other, better paid and conditioned employment where a CIR is required.

I have not flown MPT but I know what it is like to operate offshore at night and it is an unforgiving environment. I am therefore astonished to find that it is still flown by VFR pilots and considered a 'normal' VFR operation - when clearly it is not.

[ersa]

John, I have many years flying in Australia as well as other parts of the globe so am well aware of the high standards set by CASA and maintained by most Australian operators. I also flew NVMC SAR/EMS in Australia in my younger years.

It is not my intention to be insulting to anyone but it is well known that MPT is normally a stepping some to other, better paid and conditioned employment where a CIR is required.

I have not flown MPT but I know what it is like to operate offshore at night and it is an unforgiving environment. I am therefore astonished to find that it is still flown by VFR pilots and considered a 'normal' VFR operation - when clearly it is not.

It would simply shut the MPT operations down. Re-skilling and having a approach procedure to the pilot boarding at some ports would be to expensive , they would simply revert back to pilot launches

[megan]

Port Hedland is a single pilot VFR contractWas a mates first job on leaving the Navy in the late 70's early 80's, had the IMC experience of Wessex to fall back on. Did the engineering as well. John will know, the NVFR a class 4 instrument rating at the time?

[Nescafe]

It would simply shut the MPT operations down. Re-skilling and having a approach procedure to the pilot boarding at some ports would be to expensive , they would simply revert back to pilot launches


Not necessarily the case. The MPT op in Karratha has evolved from NVFR single pilot B206 ops to multi crew, multi engine IFR procedures, timing the descent to the vessel as it arrives at the missed approach point of a purpose designed RNAV.

The old adage is true that if you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

[Unregistered_]

I'm not aware of any MPT operations using NVG in Australia

This seems to be a perfect application for an IFR capable machine and pilot flown under the NVFR on ANVIS.
I've done MPT unaided with little IFR training before, it is very scary on occasion and dangerous always. I still have flash backs. :hmm:
Coming of a brightly lit deck unadided, facing away from shore on a moonless night...give it a go.

[Scattercat]

This seems to be a perfect application for an IFR capable machine and pilot flown under the NVFR on ANVIS.
I've done MPT unaided with little IFR training before, it is very scary on occasion and dangerous always. I still have flash backs. :hmm:
Coming of a brightly lit deck unadided, facing away from shore on a moonless night...give it a go.

Hear, hear :D .... likewise, having done plenty of both M/E IFR & S/E NVFR MPT ... I can attest to the view that these operations have been some of the most demanding flying in my 30 plus years. As we tragically saw 12 months ago off the Irish coast, it doesn't matter how many engines / instruments / navigation aids / crew members / etc, etc, .... if you can't SEE, things can go badly wrong. The ANVIS technology is there ... it's not rocket science. Get them, use them .... it's safer!

[[email protected]]

And if the cause of this accident turns out to be disorientation due to trying to fly VFR in what, by some (including me), is considered either an IFR or NVG environment..........what then?

Can this job be performed VFR? Clearly it can but the demands on the pilot are very high.

Should it be performed VFR? In the last century there wasn't much option but we are in 2018 not 1978 and all the technology to make this a much safer operation is there - it will just cost more - but not as much as the loss of an aircraft and crew!

[Brother]

Nescafe wrote

.... timing the descent to the vessel as it arrives at the missed approach point of a purpose designed RNAV.

with a half decent autopilot (no idea about the equipment in this 135) that's a good practical idea. It would at least establish some good basic principals.

never found night take offs a big drama though even in my old 206 days with tiny AH, set power and attitude and climb away.

[heli1980]

Faulty RADALT maybe

[Fareastdriver]

It would at least establish some good basic principals.

So an inexperienced pilot is going to set up a GPS approach on a random moving target. From my experience of Bridge Navigation Officers if you set up a predicted position 30 minutes before arrival you are lucky if you can see it!

[gulliBell]

Faulty RADALT maybe

As far as I know, approaches are flown on barometric altitude. Presumably there will be a cross check between barometric altitude and radar altitude at some point during the over-water approach phase and any discrepancy noted. The two instruments are usually within close agreement, say 50'.

[Nescafe]

So an inexperienced pilot is going to set up a GPS approach on a random moving target.

I don’t think any one said that.

What actually happens is HNZ’s very experienced two crew ops will select the published RNAV approach to Seabouy, and hold until the timing is accurate for them to commence the approach and meet the vessel at the missed approach point.

No one mentioned inexperienced pilots or random moving targets but you, and nothing could be further from the truth.

[Fareastdriver]

I thought we were discussing single pilot VFR at night. The MPT operations I have flown involve positioning the pilot before it arrives at the port shipping lanes and it is underway.

Usually around 04.00 hrs. local.

[heli1980]

As far as I know, approaches are flown on barometric altitude. Presumably there will be a cross check between barometric altitude and radar altitude at some point during the over-water approach phase and any discrepancy noted. The two instruments are usually within close agreement, say 50'.

It was a VFR approach and not an approach with a plate.

I thought the RADALT would be the final instrument as it’s accurate and the altimeter is based on QNH based on a station on land or an area.

So could an error in the RADALT cause this crash if it was over or under reading?

[gulliBell]

..So could an error in the RADALT cause this crash if it was over or under reading?

I wouldn't think so, not on a visual approach. The RADALT is normally "bugged" to trigger an aural and visual warning on attaining the selected reference height, which is the main purpose of its existence. If the crew were following the barometric altitude, and through diversion of attention or whatever missed passing through their intended altitude, and the RADALT had failed or wasn't configured properly, then the holes in the Swiss cheese are starting to line up.

My guess is they were flying a visual approach and just didn't see the water before flying into it. I might have done that once before, but the clue that plugged the holes in the Swiss cheese was the salt spray appearing on the windshield in the pitch dark blackness of night which rapidly focussed my attention. Point being, if I wasn't looking outside, which you're supposed to be doing most of the time during a visual approach, then I wouldn't have noticed the salt spray.

[skadi]

with a half decent autopilot (no idea about the equipment in this 135) that's a good practical idea.

This EC 135 was equipped with autopilot ( see pic )


https://goo.gl/images/7GUGkf


skadi

[gulliBell]

Jeez, not much width to spare either side of the skids to fit the 135 on that trolley! I wouldn't be comfortable landing on that.

[[email protected]]

Anyone who doesn't set the bar alt to match the radalt over the water and check it regularly is setting themselves up for a problem at night.

What use is the bar alt when you are making an approach to the deck of a vessel that could be 50 - 200' above the water?

I'm pretty sure the 135 has a baralt hold and possibly a rad alt hold in the AFCS so flying into the water shouldn't be possible in the cruise.

Did this one have 3 axis or 4 axis AP?

[skadi]

I'm pretty sure the 135 has a baralt hold and possibly a rad alt hold in the AFCS so flying into the water shouldn't be possible in the cruise.

Did this one have 3 axis or 4 axis AP?

3-axis AP and no rad alt hold

4 axis AP only for the new H135 Helionix

skadi

[ersa]

Lets put this whole thing in to perspective, Port Hedland has been conducting marine pilot transfer for nearly 50 years. All single engine helicopters , without loss of life or machine.

A new operator took over April 1st with new modern EC135 helicopters and less than a year managed to reverse this safety record.

[megan]

without loss of life or machineThe only accident on the west coast I seem to recall, memory may err, was a 206 that slid off the side of a ship into the oggin. Don't recall the port, Karratha?

[John Eacott]

Was a mates first job on leaving the Navy in the late 70's early 80's, had the IMC experience of Wessex to fall back on. Did the engineering as well. John will know, the NVFR a class 4 instrument rating at the time?

Sure was: Class 4, that takes me back to the old IRE days and testing some applicants for that and Class 2 ;)

Regardless of the differing opinions on MPT standards, most jobs can be considered stepping stones to move on somewhere else so to imply that pilots doing MPT aren't up to scratch with what they do remains, to me, somewhat demeaning. I won't even go into what used to be acceptable norms in both the NS and early NW Shelf operations, but times have been known to change and lessons learned as well as forgotten. The earlier observation about 50 years fatality free in single pilot single engine against one year twin engine and in this case twin pilot is a very moot point.

[georgetw]

The first shipload of ore left Hedland in the last week of April 1966.

[Arcal76]

The debate about what is a night VFR has been going on forever.
Many do not even understand what is real night flying because nobody teach you what it is to fly in pitch black area and deal with all black hole illusion you will face.
Until you are in those situations, it is difficult to understand how hard and dangerous it is.

Any night flight done outside lit area is an instrument flight. We don't have to call it an IFR flight, but procedures are required to make sure you do not get caught and unfortunately, it is very easy to get caught.
It will be interesting to see what kind of procedure they were following in this case.

[AnFI]

ersa interesting so this is another example of 2 engines not saving the day then

[Fareastdriver]

It doesn't matter how many engines you've got, it's the way you fly it.

[212man]

ersa interesting so this is another example of 2 engines not saving the day then

ersa interesting so this is another example of 2 engines not saving the day then
What’s interesting about it? Do dead people interest you? You can fly into the water at night due to disorientation with one engine or 4 engines and the number will be irrelevant.

[ersa]

It doesn't matter how many engines you've got, it's the way you fly it.

Hit the nail on the head......

[gulliBell]

The concept of 2 pilots - just like having 2 engines - is if one fails you have a spare. If it is a case of CFIT I'm struggling to understand how you can have a double-pilot failure.

[megan]

If it is a case of CFIT I'm struggling to understand how you can have a double-pilot failureRead a few accident reports, the ways are numerous, and there are plenty of reports available of such failures. It wasn't a two pilot operation, single pilot with a check pilot on board, in fact that may very well be a significant contributor to the accident for all we know.

AnFI, go boil your head.

[gulliBell]

..It wasn't a two pilot operation, single pilot with a check pilot on board, in fact that may very well be a significant contributor to the accident for all we know.


If the check pilot is doing the flying, which we understand was the case in this instance, surely the other pilot doesn't switch off? Or maybe the other pilot was alert to everything, except for the important fact they were about to fly into the sea.

[megan]

As I said, the ways are numerous. Here is a servicable helo, well it was a few seconds prior, bobbin in the oggin. You work out why and get back to us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLplm2nYyis

[gulliBell]

As I said, the ways are numerous. Here is a servicable helo, well it was a few seconds prior, bobbin in the oggin. You work out why and get back to us.


If anybody could work out anything about Nigeria would come as a surprise.

[Evil Twin]

ersa interesting so this is another example of 2 engines not saving the day then

AnFI, get a grip mate you really are showing yourself up now as a complete fool.

[Fareastdriver]

You put two check captains together and you are really asking for trouble.

[chopjock]

I understand what AnFI is saying. Using a twin because it is perceived to be safer but it crashes anyway, through pilot error. If it doesn't matter how many engines then may as well only have one! So what AnFI says is correct in my opinion...

[Fareastdriver]

Over thirty five years of flying single and twins I only had one engine failure in a single and none in a twin. However I have had several 'land immediately or as soon as possible' in singles. The same situations in twins have only been a pain in the backside.

[Thomas coupling]

My military life consisted of shooting approaches to the hover over the sea for various reasons.
After a while it becomes second nature but because of our mil mentality monitoring eachothers actions in the descent was almost a religious act. Repeating instructions chanting lists, and sometimes praying for the engines to stay lit!
BUT it has been known occasionally for the driver to miss a cue and the co pilot not to follow up because they thought the HP was all over it with the end result that the anti coll on the underside got wet!
Maybe both pilots were overly relaxed about the others capabilities?

On the perennial twin engine issue.
I lost three engines in my 30 years of flying twins. None flying singles.
The first caused the computers to overtorque in the hover but even then we glanced off the sea transitioning away.
The 2nd in a twin squirrel lost some compressor blades over a city and forced me to land clear of the built up area.
The third was compressor stall every time i applied power forcing me to commit to land whilst over a football stadium.
All of the above would have ended very differently if i only flew singles!

[AnFI]

Fareast, quite right, I think the old fashioned unreliability of engines is one of the reasons that oldtimers often think twins sound like a good idea.
Did ersa say that in 50 years of doing this in singles no problem, first year in a twin splash?
Maybe they couldn't see out of the window?

Maybe they had a system failure?
Has the survivor spoken yet?

[megan]

Over thirty five years of flying single and twins I only had one engine failure in a single and none in a twinI lost three engines in my 30 years of flying twins. None flying singlesFunny the diverse range of experiences. Personally never had a failure in a single, for which I'm thankful having spent many an hour over water with a single T-53 in all sorts of weather, including IMC at 500', at times looking down through the chin bubble at the wind driven spume and praying to Mr. Lycoming, because failure on his part would have meant death on our part. Twin? Two blow em up failures, same aircraft, first #2, then #1 a couple of years later. Hate Turbomeca as a result. Early Allison days provided a lot of opportunity to practise single engine due chip lights.

[Mark Six]

Since when did this thread become about twin vs single? This subject has been done to death and had no bearing on this accident. Very dark night (I was flying in the same area the following night), lack of visual cues, final stages of the approach, low speed, high ROD, splash. Nothing new here.

[gulliBell]

Since when did this thread become about twin vs single?...

It does have its place. Because in this operation they flew single for 50 years without a prang, and within a year of changing to twin they had a fatal. Perhaps a point being, flying a modern well equipped twin engine helicopter might lead to a degree of less heightened vigilance that is not present when flying a very basic single in a challenging night environment which crystallises all your senses to the nth degree.

[Mark Six]

It does have its place. Because in this operation they flew single for 50 years without a prang, and within a year of changing to twin they had a fatal. Perhaps a point being, flying a modern well equipped twin engine helicopter might lead to a degree of less heightened vigilance that is not present when flying a very basic single in a challenging night environment which crystallises all your senses to the nth degree.

Deck approach on a pitch black night with one pilot checking the other, and already gone around once - tends to heighten the vigilance and chrystalise the senses no matter what you're flying. There might be a lot of factors involved in this accident but IMHO the number of engines will be found to be irrelevant.

[Heliringer]

Deck approach on a pitch black night with one pilot checking the other, and already gone around once - tends to heighten the vigilance and chrystalise the senses no matter what you're flying. There might be a lot of factors involved in this accident but IMHO the number of engines will be found to be irrelevant.

Did the check pilot start loading the handling pilot up with emergencies leading up to the accident?

I look forward to reading the reports when they come out.

[Heliringer]

Why is this a conspiracy theory?


That scenario could easily lead to missing a high ROD and the crash.

[ersa]

Did the check pilot start loading the handling pilot up with emergencies leading up to the accident?

I look forward to reading the reports when they come out.

Talking about conspiracy theories....did the check pilot leave his life raft and go and check on his crew member ?

I too will look forward in reading the final report

[Heliringer]

Talking about conspiracy theories....did the check pilot leave his life raft and go and check on his crew member ?

I too will look forward in reading the final report

Why did you delete the post I responded to?

[ersa]

Why did you delete the post I responded to?

I reworded the post

[Heliringer]

Hmmm, where is it then?


You deleted it and re-posted another one. That's why it appears below mine now.

Anyway, I guess we are all looking forward to the ATSB initial report to find out how this happened.

[gulliBell]

Did the check pilot start loading the handling pilot up with emergencies leading up to the accident?


If the reports are correct that it was a route check for a new pilot then there should have been no loading up with emergencies.

Did this helicopter have a CVR?

[megan]

Did the check pilot start loading the handling pilot up with emergencies leading up to the accidentHave only once heard of a check pilot pulling emergencies at night, and he died doing it, though it was fixed wing - Beech Baron. Good friend, well experienced, had a small aviation business and doing a check ride on a new employee. Pulled an engine after T/O and flew into the side of a hill where you could see the prop slash marks as they were in the process of restarting the shut down engine. Didn't have his shoulder sash on, hit head and bled to death. Crashed about 0100 and discovered by a passing motorist at 0600 when investigating why the flashing red light up the hill. Body still warm, showed some falling between the cracks on SAR watch by authorities. Pilot under check survived but gave up flying for school teaching, recently returned to flying privately after a hiatus of some 40 years.

[Capt SFB]

As far as I know, the pilot was carrying out night approaches to the vessel after being away from MPT for a number of years. When I was involved in MPT line training we would do multiple circuits and approaches as the vessel transitted the shipping channel, then land when it was time for picking up the pilot.

Over water on a very dark night with a newish pilot is no time to practise emergencies. I don't believe it was being done in this case either.

Cheers,
Capt.

[Evil Twin]

AnFI

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/606426-helicopter-down-east-river-nyc.html

[Tibbsy]

It does have its place. Because in this operation they flew single for 50 years without a prang, and within a year of changing to twin they had a fatal. Perhaps a point being, flying a modern well equipped twin engine helicopter might lead to a degree of less heightened vigilance that is not present when flying a very basic single in a challenging night environment which crystallises all your senses to the nth degree.

You understand the difference between co-incidence, causation, and correlation right?

[[email protected]]

I understand what AnFI is saying. Using a twin because it is perceived to be safer but it crashes anyway, through pilot error. If it doesn't matter how many engines then may as well only have one! So what AnFI says is correct in my opinion...no, he is restarting his favourite argument with a suggestion that those of us who favour twins in hostile environments must have a weak case because a twin crashed where a single had operated for many years.

A wholly irrelevant argument but designed to promote his cherished agenda.

I think Mk Six has it right Deck approach on a pitch black night with one pilot checking the other, and already gone around once - tends to heighten the vigilance and crystalise the senses no matter what you're flying. There might be a lot of factors involved in this accident but IMHO the number of engines will be found to be irrelevant.

[helmet fire]

You understand the difference between co-incidence, causation, and correlation right?

Absolutely spot on Tibbsy.
Understanding this affects many of the posts above. Please look it up guys and gals, it will change the way you view such posts.

And it will show you why the AnFi "facts" are anecdotal at best.

Let's get over how many engines...this is a serious event. I have no doubt it could have happened to me and that it will teach us much.
If we let it.

[gulliBell]

..Let's get over how many engines...this is a serious event.

When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.

[Twist & Shout]

With the potential passenger, an eye witness who is not without some credibility and experience. (With the limitations that come with a dark night.)
And
Another expert witness with a set of controls within reach, and a set of instruments in front of him.
Both available for comment.
It shouldn’t be hard to get a pretty accurate set of events leading up to the impact.

Any CVR/FDR/HUMS data will be a bonus.

[Tibbsy]

When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.

I bet you think if you flip a coin 5 times in a row and get tails each time, then chances are increasing that the next flip will be heads. :ugh:

My mother had a serious accident last year. She'd been driving older technology cars for over fifty years, never had an accident. Then she bought a brand new Japanese car, full of airbag technology, ABS, stability control, traction control, auto braking, lane departure assistance, blindspot warnings. It was a really flash car. One day she was driving along, got distracted by something and was belted by a large van travelling through an intersection.

Using your logic, the introduction of that new type of car into the role is likely to have been behind her crash. She'd have avoided the accident had she been driving the clapped out old Toyota she'd had for years without incident.

Two engine helicopters are still flown using collective, cyclic and pedals - the number of engines has bugger all to do with most things until one fails. What is far more likely to be behind accidents such as this one are human errors like spatial disorientation, visual illusions, task fixation, fatigue, distraction etc.

[gulliBell]

...What is far more likely to be behind accidents such as this one are human errors like spatial disorientation, visual illusions, task fixation, fatigue, distraction etc.

..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.

[Tibbsy]

..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.

In my experience as an investigator, I assure you that my mind is very open.

Your argument is simply illogical. We would never fly anything new if it increased the risk each time newer technology was introduced. And just because an accident involving human factors did not occur, does not mean that those factors were absent at any point in the past, or in this incident. Additionally, sometimes accidents are avoided through plain dumb luck.

The correlation between two factors does not mean that the change in one factor (eg the type of helicopter, twin vs single engine) is the cause in the change in the value of the other factor (accident rate, incident rate). There is no evidence to suggest that there is a causal relationship between accident rates and the introduction of multi-engine helicopter operations; in fact, the opposite exists. It's why clients around the world increasingly demand multi-engine helicopters instead of singles - because the real-world evidence (as opposed to a feeling you have) is that they are much safer.

When an operator introduces new types, there is significant oversight of the process. It includes operations manual changes, training and checking, evaluation, training approvals, licensing, contract oversight, and a change process. It's not like going down to the local dealership and driving away an hour later with a new Toyota to replace your clapped out VH Commodore, to use your simile.

To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.

[chopjock]

Tibbsy
To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.

What about having a "false sense of security" when flying a twin, given that twins "don't crash" because they are safer...

[Tibbsy]

Tibbsy


What about having a "false sense of security" when flying a twin, given that twins "don't crash" because they are safer...

Flown and instructed in twins for a long time now. Haven't met anyone who thinks they don't crash.

I think there is a false sense of security in relying on an accident-free record as an indicator of actual risk.

[[email protected]]

And what you don't know is how many near misses, close calls or simply 'F**k Me's' that they had operating in a hostile environment over those years.

Over the water at night is a hostile environment, no matter what you are flying.

I think they were short-sighted not going for a 4-axis AP - a 3 Axis one can be counter-intuitive, especially if you have limited experience of using it in anger.

[helmet fire]

gulliBell, you are completely right that the factors surrounding the new type should be considered and I am absolutely sure they will.

A simple recap of the differences between co-incidence, causation and correlation will give a different view of the singles v twins and AnFI's crusade, but none of this is important yet. Lets find out what we can learn from the sad passing of a respected fellow aviator.

[Fareastdriver]

I think they were short-sighted not going for a 4-axis AP - a 3 Axis one can be counter-intuitive

How can you use a 4-axis or even a 3-axis autopilot approaching and landing on a moving ship with no instrument approach aid? The 'autopilot' s only use then is act as a stabilising device that makes the aircraft do what you want to do, not what the aircraft wants to do.

It comes down to basics. Eyes, ears, cyclic, collective, yaw pedals and instruments. It's the correct use of those senses and equipment that creates a successful operation; not some magical electronic gizmos.

So many accidents are happening, not in this case, where aircraft are destroyed because the person flying them has assumed that the autopilot, and it's associated SOPs, have been followed to the letter.

[gulliBell]

..To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.

How many brand new AW139's (and others) have been pranged? There have been several. All in operations where they were being introduced for the first time, replacing a much simpler helicopter.

When I buy a brand new car, I'm far more likely to prang it on the way home, or shortly thereafter, than pranging the old VH Commodore on the way to the dealer to pick up the new car. All the distracting buttons and bells and whistles on the new car, and the way it drives compared to what I'm used to, is why.

I wouldn't be surprised that the new helicopter had something to do in a human factors context of them ending up where they did.

[rotorspeed]

In order to help visualise what might have been going on here, could anyone more familiar with the details of this mission and accident provide a bit of context - known or guesstimated? Was the 135 likely to have been visual with the target vessel? Had it tried an approach already? What would normally happen at the end of the approach? Why might a previous approach not have been successful? How well lit would the target vessel be?

All I can glean from previous posts is from #14 which suggests a height of 100ft and just 22kts just before the crash, and some localised circling before. One would have thought an approach technique would not involve losing translational lift until virtually over the vessel, especially given the likelihood of flight being in effectively instrument conditions, but I know nothing of these ops.

[Capt SFB]

A few facts:

Previous operator flew singles, B206/EC120 for many years with no accidents.

New operator introduces EC135 to existing client. They have been using EC135 for a number of years on MPT in other locations.

New pilot undergoing line training with Head of Checking and Training in left seat (no passengers).

No unintentional go-arounds, as I previously stated, this is pretty standard to do circuits on the moving ship as it transits the shipping channel to allow new pilot to practice approaches to a moving target. The last approach will be an actual landing to pick up the marine pilot.

Clear night, new moon, so very very dark, nothing else out there apart from channel markers flashing away (too far apart to be of any use apart from a distraction). Light wind and very calm seastate.

Capt.

[xny556]

Why no NVIS ?

[[email protected]]

How can you use a 4-axis or even a 3-axis autopilot approaching and landing on a moving ship with no instrument approach aid? FED - it depends on what their SOP is for the circuit - it could well be to engage ALT hold (which will be in the cyclic channel on 3 axis) so, if you are not used to managing the AP and you lower the lever to start your descent without disengaging the ALT, the AP will bring the nose up to try and maintain height and reduce your airspeed.

The Sumburgh crash was an exercise in poor use of AP as well as poor CRM so it's not too far fetched to suggest it could have been a factor here.

I have been teaching on an aircraft with 3 axis AP for the last few years and the number of students who get 'lost' in the AP (which is only doing what they asked it to do) is quite high, especially in a high-workload scenario).

[gulliBell]

..if you are not used to managing the AP and you lower the lever to start your descent without disengaging the ALT, the AP will bring the nose up to try and maintain height and reduce your airspeed.


Exactly. Or if you're in a descent at reduced power with ALT PRE armed, when ALT is captured and power left unchanged, pitch is going to ever so slowly pitch up to maintain altitude, and then all of a sudden when you're on the backside of the power curve you will get a sudden pitch up and things will get very exciting very quickly. As Hevilift found out in Indonesia in their S76 they pancaked into the swamp.

[Fareastdriver]

Come ON!!!!!!!!

It was an MPT flight. You don't fly far enough to have to engage the ALT hold. All the ones I have done you're looking to see which is the right ship; hope that it has the main deck lit up as well as the helideck; and busk it from there.

I presume that it was a VLOC he was going for. They are not too bad and when you are going to a VLGC then you have the structure effects.

For those that don't know what a Very Large Gas Carrier is.

The helideck is at the stern at main deck level. Any sort of ships headwind will generate armfuls of turbulence when you arrive over the helipad plus all the associated turbulence from around the tanks. The last thing you want to do is ponce about with an autopilot.

[Capt SFB]

Port Hedland 22nm out to sea.
Blossom Bank, off Mackay, 120nm.

Autopilot or 2 pilots required for all night transfers (by CASA).

Past and present operations at Hedland use autopilots, B206/EC120/EC135.

Just the facts.
Capt.

[Fareastdriver]

Fair enough. You would use the autopilot for transit but not after descending to the ship's area.

As I was told when I did my multi-engined fixed wing training aeons ago. Autopilots are not for flying the aeroplane; they are for looking after it whilst you put your feet on the pedals and have a cigarette.

[Tibbsy]

How many brand new AW139's (and others) have been pranged? There have been several. All in operations where they were being introduced for the first time, replacing a much simpler helicopter.


Any specific examples?

[gulliBell]

Any specific examples?

Kenya Police. Switzerland EMS. Think they did one in Nigeria as well. Plenty more.

[[email protected]]

FED - night deck circuits to HM's Grey Funnel liners - 200' asl with a height hold selected in - release the height hold in turn on to finals and fly the aircraft manually from there in. Transition away from the deck, get to height, engage height hold.

If you have the capability, why wouldn't you use it over the water at night?

Or is it more hairy-chested to ignore the aircraft's capability and scare yourself?

[Fareastdriver]

It's not night circuits to Grey Funnel liners and you don't have somebody leaning out of the cabin door telling you what is going on.

I have done both, thank you.

[skadi]

FED - night deck circuits to HM's Grey Funnel liners - 200' asl with a height hold selected in -

Yes, but RADALT.
With the 135 you have only barometric height hold...

skadi

[[email protected]]

FED - there is no-one hanging out the door - you follow the FDO and the rearcrew are strapped in their seats.

Skadi - we have a rad alt and bar alt hold but on the Mk3 it took a long time to desaturate so the bar alt hold tended to be used in the circuit.

If you have set your bar alt to match your radalt then what is wrong with using it? Modern ADCs are pretty accurate.

The indications are that they were flying circuits to this deck for training - anyone happen to know their SOP for that?

[skadi]

Skadi - we have a rad alt and bar alt hold but on the Mk3 it took a long time to desaturate so the bar alt hold tended to be used in the circuit.

If I remember correctly, bar ALT hold was restricted to 500ft or above with our Mk41...

skadi

[[email protected]]

There was a not below 50kts limit on the bar alt on the Mk31 AFCS (Mk3) but you used bar alt to 200', checked for desaturation and then engaged rad on a normal let down.

On the 3A with the SN500 had no limit and you could use rad alt on manoeuvre all the way down from 1000' and bar alt to the hover.

Not really relevant since we don't know what the SOP was for the accident crew.

I merely raised the possibility of an AP faff causing disorientation.

[Fareastdriver]

Years ago I was rattling around northern Norway with a load of squaddies in the back. It was an insertion exercise and the RNAF were looking for us with their 104s. Dodging between the trees and the sparse farmland I was keeping it at about 30-50ft. Come a small fiord with a sheer cliff on my side.

The other side was reasonably flat with similar landscape to that I had been flying over so I tracked over the head of the fiord to the other side. I kept the radalt at 50ft or so as I started over the water. Half way over the radalt jumped and started indicating 1,000 ft. or so. It had unlocked from the water surface and was now registering the bottom of the fiord.

Fly with the autopilot on 200 ft. radalt over a calm sea: looking for trouble.

[SASless]

As I was told when I did my multi-engined fixed wing training aeons ago. Autopilots are not for flying the aeroplane.....

Punching George's Buttons are not as much fun as punching the Coey's Buttons I reckon....but if you got them...use them!

Even the now ancient Sperry Helipilot system would fly an ILS down to 60 Knots and 50 feet AGL holding Localizer and Glide Slope pegged in the middle of the donut....why not just pat George on the back and say "Thank you very much old friend!"?

[gulliBell]

..Even the now ancient Sperry Helipilot system would fly an ILS down to 60 Knots and 50 feet AGL holding Localizer and Glide Slope pegged in the middle of the donut...

That's true. And you just had to be alert enough to ensure the RADALT captured the 50' otherwise you'd be alerted from your slumber when the wheels touched down.

[megan]

Banging on about 50 years of safe single operation and an accident in a year of twin operation is presumtious. Highly experienced pilots, total time and in type, and qualifications, have come to grief in exactly the same manner as is assumed here, CFIT on a night approach to a ship. I refer to the Bristow Puma in Oz. The story will without in time.

[Fareastdriver]

In the sixties I knew of fully automatic ILS and landings in a 4 jets followed by;--

"I thought you were flying it".

[[email protected]]

Fly with the autopilot on 200 ft. radalt over a calm sea: looking for trouble.we seemed to manage for very many years in RAF and RN doing it - the only problems encountered were usually when the rad hold was left engaged as you coasted in - that resulted in a large upward movement of the collective on the Mk3 and lots of shouting:)

The radalt might lock onto the seabed in very shallow waters in very calm conditions (on old installations) but that probably accounts for a minute percentage of the user spectrum.

I believe it was the RAF Tristar fleet that had autoland fitted but not enabled due to issues with the manufacturer but some crews pressed the buttons anyway since the box was there and then complained about the accuracy of the system.

APs are great but you have to use them properly.

[John Eacott]

we seemed to manage for very many years in RAF and RN doing it - the only problems encountered were usually when the rad hold was left engaged as you coasted in - that resulted in a large upward movement of the collective on the Mk3 and lots of shouting:)

The radalt might lock onto the seabed in very shallow waters in very calm conditions (on old installations) but that probably accounts for a minute percentage of the user spectrum.


Never, ever heard of this phenomena before despite hundreds of hours overwater in flat calm (non doppler) conditions with radalt hold.

[[email protected]]

We often had it in Cyprus on the Wessex John - it was only in crystal clear and shallow waters when it was properly glassy. Fortunately we didn't have a rad hold facility so it just manifested itself as a very obvious overreading on the gauge.

[Nigel Osborn]

Rad alts can give inaccurate readings when operating over fresh water, the purer the worse it could be. In the Antarctic we had to be careful that the rad alt was not giving a reading above ground level as the pure snow sometimes did not read. I imagine in the fresh Norwegan fiords much the same could happen.-

[SASless]

you just had to be alert enough to ensure the RADALT captured the 50' otherwise you'd be alerted from your slumber when the wheels touched down.


If I was down to 50 feet and George was still driving....trust me I was not sleeping! I was sweating bullets more like!

Besides....skids make for a terrific alarm clock in your scenario!:E

[SAR driver]

Preliminary report from the ATSB. Makes for interesting but sad reading:

Investigation: AO-2018-022 - Collision with water involving twin-engine EC135 helicopter, VH-ZGA, 35 km north-west of Port Hedland, Western Australia, on 14 March 2018 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2018/aair/ao-2018-022/)

[Nigel Osborn]

I think there is quite a bit more to come out.

[Fareastdriver]

Especially about his HUET currency.

[NRDK]

I'm sorry, but reading that report...does anyone else think 'he' was single pilot after the ditching? Sad reading.

[Thomas coupling]

Fascinating reading - bringing lots of memories back to my deck landings and also my EC135 flying.
Looking back at my time then, I clearly recall having to readjust my instrument scan from the centre of the 'hub' of instruments being the Main AI - to the centre being the RCDI. Anything greater than 300'/min caused alarm bells to ring, but I was so fixated on it - it rarely if ever happened as I became more experienced.

Also looking back over my career - I realise now, why I was so tired - mentally after night low level sorties, especially to decks - simply because of the sheer amount of concentration exerted.
Maybe (easy after the event) just maybe, the PiC dropped his guard and assumed the other pilot was experienced enough NOT to take his eye off the ball.
One of my most frequent mantras to all my students/co-pilots was always: NEVER EVER assume the pilot next to you knows what they are doing - especially the experienced ones!

Two seasoned vets unable to monitor and maintain a simple gentle RoD - how tragic is that eh?
Add HUET lack of currency and you have all the holes lined up.
I sincerely hope that someone out there will learn from this (and other accident reports) and live to see retirement.
RiP.

[gulliBell]

Yep. HUET lack of currency is a big one. Pilot found inside the aircraft with seatbelt undone and door not jettisoned. So he survived the initial impact but didn't follow escape procedure.

[John Eacott]

Should we also be concerned that both pilots had to remove their helmets, presumably because the standard helmet connection to the aircraft was difficult/impossible to disconnect under the pressure of the situation? Any sensible aircraft/avionics designer should know (in the 21st Century) that a straight pull plug is essential for rapid egress in an emergency.

That sort of error was expected to be sorted in the 1930s, and could well have heavily contributed to the death of the pilot who had tried to escape unsuccessfully.

Furthermore, why on earth did such an operation not provide UEBS as a mandatory standard for the crew?

[gulliBell]

...Furthermore, why on earth did such an operation not provide UEBS as a mandatory standard for the crew?

With his seat belt undone and no emergency exit formed, probably no amount of UEBS would have been of any assistance. Regrettably.

[John Eacott]

With his seat belt undone and no emergency exit formed, probably no amount of UEBS would have been of any assistance. Regrettably.

Maybe, but maybe not.

Was he going for the other exit to follow the surviving pilot? Could the air have given him the ability to slow down and act in a more survivable manner? We'll never know, but both UEBS and a straight pull helmet plug could have made a big difference to both pilots escape chances; notwithstanding the HUET currency issue.

Remember, both pilots had removed their helmets: what extra time did that take both in the decision making and in the execution?

[megan]

What is the take up of UEBS in the offshore industry in Oz John, both crew and pax. Can remember in my day the operator, offshore oil, was loathe to the idea of wearing immersion suits and/or helmets.

[Twist & Shout]

Some O&G pax are wearing UEBS currently. With more moving to the technology this year.

Doesn’t seem to be any urgency in introducing it for pilots.
(Although, it is “on its way” for some companies. 3 years - normal time/ scheduled currency for HUET, to “up skil”l all crews, then some more time to roll out the hardware. This time frame might reduce if a few more pilots drown while trying to escape.)

I’ve moved from flying machines with mechanical emergency door releases, (seemed a great option) to a more modern design with a “fiddly” “filler strip” to be removed, followed by pulling the window IN with a tiny, sun faded/weakened tab. Seems unlikely to be successful in anything but ideal conditions. Worse still there is no provision to experience or practice the technique. (The push out widows in the HUET trainer are child’s play by comparison, and they never punch you in the face and break one arm before you escape from them.)

[gulliBell]

Emergency immersion automatic cabin lighting would also be useful...is it standard equipment in EC135, or customer option?

[Brother]

Some O&G pax are wearing UEBS currently. With more moving to the technology this year.

our customer passengers wear jackets with EBS. they are a bit heavy and uncomfortable but in the event of a ditching, air would be better than no air.

[chute packer]

Remember, both pilots had removed their helmets: what extra time did that take both in the decision making and in the execution?

As a life support guy it makes me wonder if their helmets were properly fitted and tight, or did they rotate under impact hindering escape/vision? I worked for one civilian heli company and until I go there it was grab one that sort of fits and go fly deal, not individually fitted and padded out correctly. Same deal with a large 'professional' police force as well.

[Fareastdriver]

Was he going for the other exit to follow the surviving pilot?

When I did my first HUET at HMS Vernon in 1967 in the dark and deep submarine escape tower I was told that if your exit doesn't open immediately go for one that has.

Fast forward 37 years to the HUET at Perth. Final rollover, hand on handle, pull and the door didn't release. I immediately went out through the other cockpit door and when I surfaced I got a bollocking from the safety people floating around because I had come out of the wrong door.

They didn't believe me when I said the door wouldn't jettison.............until they tried it.

[KRviator]

And after just 4 years and 3 months, the final report is out. Click HERE (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5781734/ao-2018-022-collision-with-water-involving-ec135-p2plus-helicopter-vh-zga-37-km-nnw-of-port-hedland-western-australia-14-march-2018.pdf) for a *.PDF copy.

On the night of 14 March 2018, Heli-Aust Whitsundays Pty Ltd was operating a twin-engine EC135 P2+ helicopter, registered VH-ZGA, on a flight from its base at Port Hedland, Western Australia. This flight, conducted under the night visual flight rules, was to position the helicopter for a marine pilot transfer (MPT) from an outbound bulk carrier.

The pilot in command was a company instructor who was supervising line training with a recently recruited pilot. Earlier in their rostered shift, the pilot under supervision had passed a line check for day MPT and, having a total of 10 MPT flights, was approved for day operations. The instructor then introduced the pilot under supervision to night MPT operations and they completed 2 night MPT flights.

At 2330 local time, the helicopter was lifted off and climbed on track to the outer markers of the shipping channel (C1/C2), about 39 km from the port. Although the weather was suitable for the flight, there was no moonlight, and artificial lighting in the vicinity of C1/C2 was limited. Consequently, the approach to the ship was conducted in a degraded visual cueing environment that increased the risk of disorientation.

From a cruise altitude of 1,600 ft, the pilot under supervision descended the helicopter to join a right circuit around the carrier at the specified circuit height of 700 ft. During the base segment the helicopter’s altitude started to increase, reaching 850 ft soon after completing the turn onto final at an airspeed of about 70 kt. Although the helicopter was higher than the target height of 500 ft, a consistent descent was not established, and the helicopter remained above the nominal descent profile.

When the helicopter was about 300 m from the landing hatch, it was descending through 500 ft at a rate of about 900 ft/min. At about this point, a go-around was initiated, but the helicopter descended to about 300 ft before a positive climb rate was achieved. The helicopter was turned downwind for another approach and subsequently reached 1,100 ft. A
descent was then initiated without coupling a vertical navigation mode of the autopilot. This was not consistent with standard operational practices and significantly increased the attentional demands on both pilots and associated risk of deviation from circuit procedure. During the downwind and base segment of the circuit, the pilots did not effectively monitor their
flight instruments and the helicopter descended below the standard circuit profile at excessive rate with decaying airspeed. Neither pilot responded to the abnormal flight path or parameters until a radio altimeter alert at 300 ft.

The instructor responded to the radio altimeter alert, reducing the rate of descent from about 1,800 ft/min to 1,300 ft/min. This response was not consistent with an emergency go-around and did not optimise recovery before collision with water.

After the unexpected and significant water impact in dark conditions, the helicopter immediately rolled over, and the cabin submerged then flooded. The instructor escaped through an adjacent hole in the windscreen and used flotation devices until rescued; however, the pilot under supervision was unable to escape the cockpit and did not survive.

[Nescafe]

Descending at 1800’ per min at night over water would raise my pulse.

[industry insider]

Hey Greyrain

Just a side note, Fareastdriver won't see or reply to your post as he is no longer with us and now flies way above Class A airspace.

[RVDT]

Interesting reading - one point that was I think missed is it is quoted that "upper modes" were engaged after the go-around on the first approach. Doesn't say which modes though.

ALT.A would have taken them up to whatever was set and the AP would change to ALT. It quotes that "upper modes" were de-coupled on the second approach but if it was missed or actually wasn't de-coupled and only ALT engaged and power management not closely monitored it will fly pretty much that same profile. Earlier software had an aural and Master Caution any time the AP decoupled but it was removed in later software versions which personally I think was a backward step. Now the only way you can tell is if the green bits are no longer visible which may not be so prevalent of your attention. The 4th axis (collective) is manually controlled and the aircraft only uses pitch to try and maintain altitude so the net result is the speed decays and it can be rapid. There is a note on only being coupled to ALT below 80 knots to monitor airspeed closely. Coupling needs IAS above 60 knots but pretty sure it wont decouple and will try and fly until way below that. Even though they say you need 60 knots to couple it will fly away from a hover if you push the GA button.

Ground protection and level off are only available in V/S or G/S with enough power to maintain level flight.

AS332 Sumburgh anyone? Similar?

Not saying this is what happened but should have been addressed in the report.

It does mention in the report that they have moved to Helionix models. The one that will fly you perfectly into VRS if you let it.

[rotorspeed]

RVDT - I think you’re right, fundamentally similar cause to Sumburgh. Losing awareness of maintenance of particularly a satisfactory airspeed and descent rate on an approach in IMC (or pretty much) conditions. In both cases the situation deteriorated far too far, leaving late recovery too big a challenge for the crew. Comes back to basic IMC flight techniques - continual monitoring with the instrument scan is vital, to nip deviations in the bud. Whether hand flying or using any AFCS modes.

[ApolloHeli]

...they have moved to Helionix models. The one that will fly you perfectly into VRS if you let it.

How so? Not familiar with the H135 AP so asking out of curiosity...