Bell ditching off Newcastle

[wheels_down]

Reports of a Bell down off Newcastle.

Was on Base for 30 at Williamstown but appeared to have positioned for a ditching just off the sand dunes.

The weather is quite poor gusting 30 to 40.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1125x1119/88434faf_2fa0_4c68_b27e_2ff5d89ad8c3_b3a0e4661e9cc7caa66568a eb8357a476d5c9d52.jpeg

[Captain Garmin]

Thunderbirds are go!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RSCU660

CG

[TBM-Legend]

The AMSA thing is a joke when it has to fly the jet from Melbourne to Williamtown area to effect a search. Four aircraft to cover Australia. Think about it...

[mcoates]

I have flown across this beach a number of times and it is a white pointer shark breeding spot.

I was flying once in an Allegro LSA and the shadow of my fuselage passed over the top of one of the very large sharks sitting just outside of the breakers. The shark was longer than the shadow of a 6.5 m long fuselage !! And because of Newcastle being so close you are only at 500 feet AGL passing through the area as a VFR aircraft...... makes you think. After this I went had a look on Google to find out more about the location and the sharks being there and I also found out that there are multiple gamefishing, land based, world records in this area and several boat based world records. There are some really big sharks in this area.

Not the very best place to be ditching, you not only have the problems of landing in the ocean but then you have problems of getting picked off swimming to shore. Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

Looking at the lifelike tracking for the rescue aircraft doesn't really make much sense either. This aircraft went missing at around 6:30 PM last night and the rescue aircraft didn't leave Melbourne until 730 this morning ? What am I missing

[BigPapi]

TV news reporting this morning that search ongoing, no wreckage or occupants located yet.

[wardie]

The Bombardier jet was searching last night at least up to midnight and returned to Melb to refuel and swap crew.

Currently Westpac 2 is hovering in an area about 5km SSE of Fishermans bay and has been there for a while with CL60 orbiting that location.

[hawk_eye]

Don’t the RAAF have a Search and Rescue helicopter at NTL for when the fighters are doing training over water?

It appears as though the jet was sent to NTL last night...https://flightaware.com/live/flight/RSCU660/history/20190906/1018Z/YMEN/YWLM

[Squawk7700]

The AMSA thing is a joke when it has to fly the jet from Melbourne to Williamtown area to effect a search. Four aircraft to cover Australia. Think about it...

Yes and no... being a jet it’s very fast. If it’s sitting there idle with crew at the ready, they are up there in no time.

[logansi]

Reported to be five onboard, aircraft was flying from Brisbane to Bankstown, stopped for fuel at Coffs Harbour

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/search-resumes-for-five-people-as-chopper-fades-from-radar/news-story/7754370f21269e814540972a23a67121

[Duck Pilot]

The article is behind a paywall.

5 POB flying from Brisbane to Sydney in a Bell 205 is a bit unusual, not that I’m saying there is anything wrong with it. Quicker in a jet and a lot cheaper. Maybe they were doing a scenic.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Hi Duck
It's a Huey (UH-1H) not a Jetranger...

...and god only knows what it was doing but as a single engine experimental ex-mil helo, it's not on a charter.

[logansi]

The article is behind a paywall.

5 POB flying from Brisbane to Sydney in a Bell 205 is a bit unusual, not that I’m saying there is anything wrong with it. Quicker in a jet and a lot cheaper. Maybe they were doing a scenic.

Five people are missing and a major search operation is underway after a helicopter faded off the radar off the coast of Port Stephens overnight.

The privately owned Bell UH1 helicopter, known as a “Huey”, went missing in destructive winds and storms about 6:30pm last night.

According to police, the helicopter, which had five people on board, went missing in the vicinity of Anna Bay.

There has been sightings of debris and oil in the water as the search for the aircraft resumed on Saturday, an Australian Maritime Safety Authority spokesman said.

But due to poor conditions nothing else had been spotted.

It is believed the private helicopter had taken off from Brisbane, stopped in Coffs Harbour to refuel and was flying to Bankstown Airport when it disappeared.

A search involving the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, police and marine rescue was conducted last night and was due to resume at 7am today.

https://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/search-resumes-for-five-people-as-chopper-fades-from-radar/news-story/7754370f21269e814540972a23a67121

[gulliBell]

The data points in that ALT/GS plot are odd. Going from 60 kts to 160 kts, and then zero kts, in the space of a few minutes...there must be 60+ kts worth of tail wind as the UH-1H typically only does 100 kts IAS. With a turn into wind followed by a turn downwind again. And all those altitude changes. Makes you wonder what they might have been doing, must have been a wild ride.

[megan]

as a single engine experimental ex-mil helo, it's not on a charterBrisbane Helicopters used the aircraft for joyrides Bell UH1H Huey Warbird flights. Get to da Choppa Book your seats now for our upcoming Huey flights Co Pilot seat Observer seats Troop seats Gunner seats

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HHXVxoMK55Y

[aroa]

'Up there in no time'... Anyone alive in the water under those temps and conditions are not going to last for long.
VERY quick time is of the essence.*
RIP the 5

* Remember Bass Strait.

[Ascend Charlie]

A rate of descent of 9000ft/min before disappearing off radar suggests a lack of control and would be unlikely to be survivable. Perhaps a mast bump from the turbulent ride or chop off the tail boom.

[flying-spike]

I have flown across this beach a number of times and it is a white pointer shark breeding spot.

I was flying once in an Allegro LSA and the shadow of my fuselage passed over the top of one of the very large sharks sitting just outside of the breakers. The shark was longer than the shadow of a 6.5 m long fuselage !! And because of Newcastle being so close you are only at 500 feet AGL passing through the area as a VFR aircraft...... makes you think. After this I went had a look on Google to find out more about the location and the sharks being there and I also found out that there are multiple gamefishing, land based, world records in this area and several boat based world records. There are some really big sharks in this area.

Not the very best place to be ditching, you not only have the problems of landing in the ocean but then you have problems of getting picked off swimming to shore. Fingers crossed for a good outcome.

Looking at the lifelike tracking for the rescue aircraft doesn't really make much sense either. This aircraft went missing at around 6:30 PM last night and the rescue aircraft didn't leave Melbourne until 730 this morning ? What am I missing
It will plainly be the fault of the airspace.

[roundsounds]

The data points in that ALT/GS plot are odd. Going from 60 kts to 160 kts, and then zero kts, in the space of a few minutes...there must be 60+ kts worth of tail wind as the UH-1H typically only does 100 kts IAS. With a turn into wind followed by a turn downwind again. And all those altitude changes. Makes you wonder what they might have been doing, must have been a wild ride.
Perhaps a Pitot / Static system fault?

[Capt Fathom]

Perhaps Flightradar is not that accurate over short time frames!

[Lead Balloon]

Or perhaps the 60kt winds that were blowing and the associated mechanical turbulence at around 500’?

[markis10]

Hi Duck
It's a Huey (UH-1H) not a Jetranger...

...and god only knows what it was doing but as a single engine experimental ex-mil helo, it's not on a charter.

Pretty sure Duck was across it mentioning the Bell 205, the civil ver of the UH1

[megan]

It's not a 205, but a UH-1H, as said by Horatio. (Just to be pedantic ;))

UH-1H TCDS http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/225aa7a7a7cb574e862579040052d769/$FILE/R00010SE%20Rev%202.pdf

205 TCDS https://web.archive.org/web/20110608074714/http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/1f2c7b0cfe3afe288625733a006b57df/%24FILE/H1SW.pdf

[gulliBell]

Compliance with Note 17 of the UH-1H TCDS might be difficult to explain in this instance.

[Ascend Charlie]

And while we are hanging off the edge of our chairs, waiting for Gullibell to tell us what Note 17 says, here is a short commercial break....

[Duck Pilot]

Sadly the person who can probably explain why pax were on board was the pilot, if any of what has been mentioned above is true.

Wonder how the insurance company will react once the dust settles and the final report has been published?

[gulliBell]

..waiting for Gullibell to tell us what Note 17 says....

It says:
"No person may be carried in this helicopter during fight unless that person is essential to the purpose of the flight".

[megan]

CASR Part 1324.3 Carrying passengers

4.3.1 Limited category aircraft may carry passengers in a private flight, a cost-sharing flight or an adventure flight. Adventure flights are a popular tourist attraction and can offset the, sometimes considerable, costs of operating and maintaining a warbird or historic aircraft.

4.3.2 No more than six persons (including crew) may be carried on a WHR aircraft, regardless of the seating capacity of the aircraft.

4.3.3 If a WHR aircraft has a seating capacity in excess of six, an application may be made in writing, or as otherwise directed, to an administering authority for approval to carry a greater number than six. The outcome will depend on the type of aircraft involved and a comprehensive risk assessment that would be required as part of the consideration of such an application. Any approval granted will not exceed the aircraft’s designed seating capacity.All legal on the face of it.

[havick]

Going by the avionics fit out as posted on the rotorheads thread, it doesn’t look like this Aircraft was appropriately equipped for NVFR let alone two pilot IFR. Which ponders the question what was the aircraft doing out in the dark over water?

[megan]

Certainly not the standard UH-1H instrument panel, missing the nice big attitude indicator and HSI, replaced by an iPad, wonder what that displayed? Centre console is missing all the lovely radio gear as well.

Photo courtesy of zhishengji751 and John Eacott on Rotorheads.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1080/x7fa0uu_9a56b18a7d487eeccd9e3e9218b28f4ef67084bc.png

The original
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-OfmHbU-Xg

[Squawk7700]

There are devices such as the iLevil and Aeolus Talos, but it would be be highly not recommend to rely on them. I’d hate to think the that they did or for anyone to consider fitting one as a primary instrument, despite an aircraft being experimental, limited or otherwise.

I also note that in the pic that their iPad is not plugged in. The better attitude products with external sensors used a wired USB data cable connection.

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x750/d38fe72a_9ddc_438a_b995_851ac130644e_da1168ce2d08f09d0db0ba8 c133521b96e064309.png

This is the Talos device that I use. It does NOT use the gyros in the iPad.

[Professional Amateur]

There is likely an AI under the Ipad. A photo from however many week or months ago of the panel isnt really proof let alone indicative of what they had when flying.

.....they may have been on goggles and therefore legal vfr with differing weather and alt restrictions.

[Squawk7700]

There is likely an AI under the Ipad. A photo from however many week or months ago of the panel isnt really proof let alone indicative of what they had when flying.

.....they may have been on goggles and therefore legal vfr with differing weather and alt restrictions.

Look closely at the picture. The previously fitted instruments have been blanked out behind the iPad.

[Nipper]

.....they may have been on goggles and therefore legal vfr with differing weather and alt restrictions.
Aircraft fit doesn't meet the requirements for "goggles".

[Ascend Charlie]

If you are putting in a flight plan, the Huey acft type goes in as a B05 or BH05 - can't remember which.

[Fris B. Fairing]

The manufacturer regards the UH-1D & UH-1H as the Bell Model 205. The data plate would probably say:
Manufacturer's Model 205
Customer's Model UH-1H

[megan]

AC, the flight plan designator for all Iroquois models is UH1, thats 204/205/210/all UH-1 variants, etc

212 - B212
412 - B412
206 - B06 (probably the one you're thinking of)

You're correct Fris.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x547/uh1_06_474d72ae9da14ee5a27f9e5e86a081214e8eca2e.jpg

[Professional Amateur]

Squak7700...I see what you mean. Yeah thats a bit nasty if flown at night without an AI.

Nipper...ok. Not sure what civ gog requirements are regarding instruments. Nvfr instrument requirements I guess....which it doesn't meet then.

[Squawk7700]

Nipper...ok. Not sure what civ gog requirements are regarding instruments. Nvfr instrument requirements I guess....which it doesn't meet then.

There’s an AH over on the left. Massive parralax error though, assuming it was working. Not much else needed for NVFR it there’s a VOR or proper GPS fitted.

[Dick Smith]

What was the ATC clearance the pilot was following?

Interesting that the aircraft started to turn left at the same place pilots are often asked to hold.

Why the silence about the clearance details?

[Dick Smith]

Wheels down, on your first post you say:

“Was on Base for 30 at Williamtown but appeared to have positioned for a ditching just off the sand dunes.”

Wheels down, have you had some information on this from air traffic control or are you just surmising it? I notice that the aircraft started to turn left at the normal holding point at Anna Bay.

Can anyone verify the clearance details that were provided by Willy ATC?

[wheels_down]

Dick I’m still a tad confused if they were going to NTL or not. The flight info I saw at the time of posting which was not long after the event, was it was stopping in NTL, this info appears to be gone from online sites. Others are saying it wasn’t stopping. Some are saying it was. Then came reports that they were speaking to the Tower about ditching. This information is somewhat vague and unconfirmed. I understand the media are not getting answers to these basic communication questions out of the Air Force.

The tracking somewhat navigating away from the dunes for a planned ditching lined up with that ditching statement but it appears more likely a loss of control in gusty, wet and miserable IFR conditions I think. Pilot inexperience in such conditions? Well it certainly has not flown much this year.

[gulliBell]

I don't believe for a second there would have been any intention to turn away from land and ditch the helicopter at sea at night in bad weather, especially a helicopter not fitted with emergency flotation, nor probably equipped with life rafts or life jackets. The survivability of that scenario is zero.

[Squawk7700]

How far off-shore was it found?

Seems amazing that a SAR aircraft spotted the tail-rotor sinking!

[gulliBell]

Actually, if the tail rotor had separated from the drive train, they tend to float for quite some time.

[cowl flaps]

How far off-shore was it found?
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x309/huey_location_f26511d6dc125c9d870e0f40b5d56d8e463672c1.jpg

[junior.VH-LFA]

Surprise surprise that a certain someone is here with a torch and pitchfork to blame the RAAF.

[MagnumPI]

BOM data from Nobbys Head showed 91kmh (49kt) gusts at 2022 EST - just 2 hours after the aircraft disappeared.

What was the wind at 1815?

[Cedrik]

Surprise surprise that a certain someone is here with a torch and pitchfork to blame the RAAF.
He's not the only one, have you been through willy much in a GA aircraft Junior?

[Dick Smith]

Junior. No surprise. Just commonsense.

It is is well known that the RAAF Willy ATCs are often forced to keep VFR aircraft holding at Anna Bay.

This is primarily caused by 1950s procedures that have never been updated!

I wonder why the secrecy about the radio calls?

[gulliBell]

I'm sure Willy ATC wouldn't hold any civil aircraft that had declared an emergency, especially if reports of discussing ditching are true.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Junior. No surprise. Just commonsense.

It is is well known that the RAAF Willy ATCs are often forced to keep VFR aircraft holding at Anna Bay.

This is primarily caused by 1950s procedures that have never been updated!

I wonder why the secrecy about the radio calls?


Hypothetically, lets assume that the aircraft was required to hold due ATC, please Dick enlighten me, how that could cause an aircraft to crash or how that would even relate to the aircraft's loss. You know as well as anyone that had an emergency been declared, there would have been ZERO requirement to hold. Is it not a reasonable expectation that if you're flying and haven't declared that you're anything other than operations normal that you should be able to comply with ATC restrictions/requirements? If you'd been asked to hold and had an abnormal situation, what would you have done? Comply with the clearance, or do the A part of ANCA?

For interests sake, at 1815L at Willy there would have been zero fast jet movements. If there was a delay it would likely have been caused by RPT traffic.

Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Thoughts are with the pilot and pax, whatever it was it sounds like it wasn't a lot of fun.

[Lead Balloon]

The delay is not ‘caused’ by aircraft inbound to or outbound from Willy, military or otherwise.

The delay is caused by 1950s procedures that still treat an aircraft miles away from the extended centreline of the Willy runway, at 500’ AGL, as being a material risk to aircraft inbound to or outbound from Willy (military or otherwise).

Someone give me the probabilities of an aircraft inbound or outbound from Willy colliding with an aircraft at 500’ over Stockton Beach.

Hopefully someone will pipe up and say: “Even if it’s a vanishingly remote risk, it can be mitigated by making people hold over 10 nautical miles away”, thus proving the point.

[Cedrik]

I think some people might be reluctant to declare an emergency for fear of the wrath of CASA and the inevitable following non compliance and enforcement action.
Sad but just look at the Glen Buckley thread to see what people fear.

[Dick Smith]

If the clearance limit was Anna Bay the pilot would have most likely had the lights of Newcastle ahead when flying south.
A left turn out over the ocean to hold would result in no visible horizon while in the turn!

[junior.VH-LFA]

If the clearance limit was Anna Bay the pilot would have most likely had the lights of Newcastle ahead when flying south.
A left turn out over the ocean to hold would result in no visible horizon while in the turn!







Then declare a pan or declare those intentions due to WX. Don't inadvertently fly into IMC for the sake of not breaching a clearance. ATC, even the RAAF ones, exist to facilitate you and keep you safe. If that was a concern the pilot had, why not say that? ATC is not responsible for knowing when you've reached your limit to operate the aircraft in the category you're flying under. That's your job as the pilot. All they can do is apply the rules they have with the category you've agreed to fly under.

None of this is to say the way the airspace is managed is perfect, I don't think anyone thinks it is, I note the current AIC SUP reference WLM's airspace (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/a19-h40.pdf). But what you're doing right now is drawing a massive bow, and pre emptively laying blame at people who likely had nothing to do with the tragedy that took place here.

And I have flown through WLM in a GA single, it was a total pain in the ass. I agree it’s not done well, I just don’t think it’s relevant to what’s occurred here.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s not about the people implementing 1950s procedures.

It’s about the people in this Galapagos who insist that the 1950s procedures are justified.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I heard and saw this aircraft fly over my house early Friday, heading south. It was so noisy I went outside for a look. I remember thinking "Who still flies an olive drab Huey?" Sadly, now I know.

[gulliBell]

No mistaking that beautiful sound, on a good day you'll hear him coming 10 miles out. But once he's past overhead the beautiful sound won't last long.

[MickG0105]

Junior. No surprise. Just commonsense.

It is is well known that the RAAF Willy ATCs are often forced to keep VFR aircraft holding at Anna Bay.

If Willy ATC had required UVC to hold at Anna Bay why was he turning left? I was taught that right turns were standard for holding patterns unless directed otherwise. Common sense would dictate that if he was required to hold he would have been turning right, wouldn't it?

[Sunfish]

At low level he wouldn’t have necessarily had time to broadcast anything. My guess anyway is that no tapes will be forthcoming, given the craven behaviour of ATSB.

[Aussie Bob]

Hypothetically, lets assume that the aircraft was required to hold due ATC, please Dick enlighten me, how that could cause an aircraft to crash or how that would even relate to the aircraft's loss. You know as well as anyone that had an emergency been declared, there would have been ZERO requirement to hold.

Junior, while you and I may have the confidence to either ignore a controller or declare an emergency I can assure you that the vast majority of pilots do not. I have been instructing for 30 odd years and it still amazes me how intimidated the average pilot can be of ATC. It would be interesting indeed to know what was said and if this bloke was asked to hold while VFR, at or beyond last light in marginal weather.

[Maggie Island]

If Willy ATC had required UVC to hold at Anna Bay why was he turning left? I was taught that right turns were standard for holding patterns unless directed otherwise. Common sense would dictate that if he was required to hold he would have been turning right, wouldn't it?

Most aircraft holding at Anna Bay would be instructed to hold over water at 500’, it would appear that most pilots travelling southbound on the route would interpret that as a left pattern in the hold.

The altitude of the aircraft may suggest that UVC was not operating as part of Willy ATCs coastal clearance (at least at the time of the incident) and instead was offered tracking direct with a higher altitude (possibly at pilot request) before the crew decided to ditch.

[Lead Balloon]

If Willy ATC had required UVC to hold at Anna Bay why was he turning left? I was taught that right turns were standard for holding patterns unless directed otherwise. Common sense would dictate that if he was required to hold he would have been turning right, wouldn't it?
Errrm, I don’t think you get put in a ‘holding pattern’. You are just told that you are cleared to a specified point, and what you do to ensure you don’t go past that point without further clearance is up to you.

The Willy Coastal Route procedures clearly require aircraft to remain “over water”. If you’re south bound and you’re instructed not to go past Anna Bay, you have no choice but to turn left to remain over water if you approach Anna Bay without receiving clearance to go further, unless you’re already a long distance off the coast.

[aroa]

Reminds me of a similar out of Cairns, many moons ago.
Aircraft , low in the dark and dzl, asked to stay clear of the airport, where the lights were, for RPT. The turn away /orbit into the black hole finished that off. RIP those 2
Others may have more intimate details and knowledge of...so correct me if I;m wrong.

[MickG0105]

Errrm, I don’t think you get put in a ‘holding pattern’. You are just told that you are cleared to a specified point, and what you do to ensure you don’t go past that point without further clearance is up to you.

I've never flown into Williamtown so I don't know what the procedure is. Dick's original comment was
​​​​​​

It is is well known that the RAAF Willy ATCs are often forced to keep VFR aircraft holding at Anna Bay.


If you're required to hold at a position I'd expect that you would adopt a standard right turn pattern. If you're night VFR and you've got coastal lights ahead, to the right and behind you and nothing to the left, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to adopt a non-standard left turn away from all your visual references. At 100 knots your turn diameter is going to be only about 1.1 miles so unless you are hugging the coastline you should be able to adopt a standard right turn, maintain visual references and stay over water.

The flight path just doesn't strike me as syncing up with the Anna Bay hold hypothesis.

[DeRated]

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to adopt a non-standard left turn away from all your visual references.

...and when you've turned right - finished your outbound leg and now turn right (again) - what visual reference do you have? Haven't thought that one out, have you!

[Piston_Broke]

The aircraft was a helicopter .... why would it have flown a holding pattern at all, instead of just hovering at the clearance limit point?

Just sayin' :hmm:

[gulliBell]

Helicopters don't hover at clearance limits. They fly holding patterns exactly as published, in exactly the same way that aeroplanes do.

[Pat mphat]

Post 1 indicates the helicopter was approx. 3000ft (VFR lane coastal 500ft) as such all this discussion re aircraft held / made to orbit at low level being the cause of the accident is rather spurious..

[KRviator]

Still outside controlled airspace at 3000 at that point. Being denied clearance into the Willy CTR would necessitate holding at Anna Bay at 500 or 3,000 either way.

[MickG0105]

it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to adopt a non-standard left turn away from all your visual references.

...and when you've turned right - finished your outbound leg and now turn right (again) - what visual reference do you have? Haven't thought that one out, have you!

Well, gee, sorry to disappoint you but I had thought of that.

At some point you would have to turn away from your visual references but on the basis that they are predominantly to the south (Newcastle and Williamtown) and to the west (Nelson Bay Road, Nelson Bay itself and Shoal Bay) you are almost certainly better served making a standard right turn because that places you (in the right hand seat) on the inside of the turn. That's not so important on the outbound leg as you run back up the coast, the lights are on the left and ahead of you but it's important when you turn inbound at the outbound end, because you're on the inside you'll reacquire Newcastle/Williamtown that much sooner.

In any event, even if there was no benefit one way or another, why would you make a non-standard left turn?

[Maggie Island]

Still outside controlled airspace at 3000 at that point. Being denied clearance into the Willy CTR would necessitate holding at Anna Bay at 500 or 3,000 either way.

Willy airspace is SFC - 120 in the northern half (see the AIC link in juniors post)

[Lead Balloon]

Not at Anna Bay it isn’t (unless R587 is active, in which case it’s a Romeo).

And some people seem to be labouring under the misconception that a requirement to remain outside some airspace results in a requirement to enter a ‘holding pattern’.

[Maggie Island]

Not at Anna Bay it isn’t (unless R587 is active, in which case it’s a Romeo).

And some people seem to be labouring under the misconception that a requirement to remain outside some airspace results in a requirement to enter a ‘holding pattern’.

R578A-G form the controlled airspace portions around the CTR that are active from 0600-2200L (sometimes later) daily. Its all controlled airspace out to 25nm.

[Cedrik]

What is the minimum NFR chopper height?

[ersa]

What is the minimum NFR chopper height?

Same as the fixed wing , over water minimum 1500ft overland generally add 1360 to the highest point within 10nm

[Lead Balloon]

R578A-G form the controlled airspace portions around the CTR that are active from 0600-2200L (sometimes later) daily. Its all controlled airspace out to 25nm.
​​​​​And were they all active at the time? Wasn’t it POETS day for Ronnie? ​​

[Maggie Island]

​​​​​And were they all active at the time? Wasn’t it POETS day for Ronnie? ​​

Yes to both!

[Lead Balloon]

So if UVC was at 3,000’ anywhere near Anna Bay while the Romeos were active, it follows that.....

[belly tank]

To take a step back to reflect on current conditions, it was not long after last light (10 mins or so) in blowing dust and gusting 48kts on the TAF that the aircraft crashed. It was flying the coastal route south. The conditions were horrendous and would be close to IMC conditions. The aircraft apparently refueled at Coffs so would mean it would be very close to being into reserves (if no aux tank fitted near the hell hole) by Williamtown to add to the weather.

If one was “planning” to do a NVFR flight you would be at least at lowest safe if not 4500’ from the Taree (Ugpot) to Willy leg if following the airway. I think there is more to the story which no doubt ATSB will uncover.

lets hope they can find and recover the hull

RIP

[Sunfish]

......So basically light aircraft are required to fly over water to satisfy the RAAF?

[KRviator]

......So basically light aircraft are required to fly over water to satisfy the RAAF?In the same way light aircraft are required to fly over water down Victor 1 to satisfy ASA, yes. The big difference though, is ASA makes things easy. Wear a life jacket, fly this route, not above 500' and you don't need to talk to anyone as you fly within a few miles of one of the 'busiest' airports in the country...

Good luck with that at Williamtown...

[Fantome]

Realistically, what are the chances that UVC will be found?

[The sod]

Was the helicopter registered in the "Limited" C of A category.? Are Limited aircraft approved for NGT VFR ?

[Maggie Island]

Good luck with that at Williamtown...

It’s nearly 5nm from the thresholds of 34LR to V1 on rwy track for an aircraft departing 16.

Less than 3nm from the (new) threshold of 30 to the drink for an aircraft departing 12.

So yeah, good luck with that!

[junior.VH-LFA]

There’s also a heap of low level fast jet traffic that arrive via the coast.

It isn’t the same as the V1 so it’s not really a fair comparison.

[belly tank]

Was the helicopter registered in the "Limited" C of A category.? Are Limited aircraft approved for NGT VFR ?

From photos online it is in the Limited category so no more than 6 pax. As far as NVFR instrument requirements under 20.18 im not sure. Depending on its Limited category index number it may or may not have been approved to fly over populous areas as well? No doubt all will come out in the report.

Limited Category (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/132c01.pdf)

[Lead Balloon]

It’s nearly 5nm from the thresholds of 34LR to V1 on rwy track for an aircraft departing 16.

Less than 3nm from the (new) threshold of 30 to the drink for an aircraft departing 12.

So yeah, good luck with that!

Please put a probability number at the end of this sentence:

The probabilities of an aircraft inbound to or outbound from Williamtown colliding with an aircraft that is identified by and in contact with ATC and tracking at 500’ over water adjacent to Stockton Beach off the extended centreline of runway 12 are [please insert a probability number].

Your use of the word “luck” is appropriate. That’s the basis on which so many decisions seem to be made in this Galapagos. You have to be lucky enough to get into the head of someone who understands objective risk rather than perception and intuition.

BTW: How confident are you that Romeo 578B - i.e. outside the 12nm arc from Willytown - was active at the time UVC arrived in the vicinity of Anna Bay?

[Maggie Island]

Please put a probability number at the end of this sentence:

The probabilities of an aircraft inbound to or outbound from Williamtown colliding with an aircraft that is identified by and in contact with ATC and tracking at 500’ over water adjacent to Stockton Beach off the extended centreline of runway 12 are [enough to make airlines baulk at the idea of a V1 style arrangement apparently?].

BTW: How confident are you that Romeo 578B - i.e. outside the 12nm arc from Willytown - was active at the time UVC arrived in the vicinity of Anna Bay?

You know you could just check the NOTAMs to see its active everyday right? - 100%

[LeadSled]

From photos online it is in the Limited category so no more than 6 pax. As far as NVFR instrument requirements under 20.18 im not sure. Depending on its Limited category index number it may or may not have been approved to fly over populous areas as well? No doubt all will come out in the report.

Limited Category (https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/132c01.pdf)
belly tank,
Contrary to popular lore (as opposed to law) Limiter Cat aircraft are NOT limited to 6 persons or pax.
Read the AC a little more carefully.
Tootle pip!!

[Lead Balloon]

You know you could just check the NOTAMs to see its active everyday right? - 100%

You mean the NOTAMS that say:TIMES MAY VARY AT SHORT NOTICE. PILOTS RESPONSIBILITY TO CK AND MNT STS. ACCESS TO A PRD AREA MAY AVLBL IF THE ACTIVITY FOR WHICH THE ACTIVITY HAS CEASED (EARLY DEACTIVATION)

Those NOTAMS?

Your “100%” confidence that R578B was still active late on Ronnie’s POETS day is noted.

[Maggie Island]

You mean the NOTAMS that say:

Those NOTAMS?

Your “100%” confidence that R578B was still active late on Ronnie’s POETS day is noted.

Call em up if you want (the number is there in juniors AIC link funnily enough), the 578 series is active every day til 10pm - the only time manual deactivation happens is if the airspace happened to be active past 10, in which case the airspace won’t deactivate any earlier than 10 anyway or if there was some sort of apocalyptic style event that scared all the controllers away - in which case there would be 0 mil airspace (including CTR).

[Lead Balloon]

It follows, therefore, that UVC was under air traffic control before it arrived in the vicinity of Anna Bay, as UVC was in an active Romeo. Correct?

[Maggie Island]

Yeah UVC wouldve had a clearance

[KRviator]

Am I the only one thinking UVC may have violated the Willy CTR without clearance and that might go some ways to explaining his fairly rapid turn out to sea?

ADS-B Exchange (https://flight-data.adsbexchange.com/map?icao=7C6836&date=2019-09-06) has the last ADS-B plot at -32.804943, 152.043326, which appears to be the second-last one FR24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-uvc#21fd9fac) recorded, based on altitude, but it's closer to Williamtown. When you plug those coordinates, and those of the WLM TACAN into a few different Lat/Long distance calculators, you come up with 11nm, according to the US NOAA, or 19.66km / 10.6nm according to a couple of others. The CTR extends 12nm from the TACAN, so is it possible he feared a pineapple for busting their airspace?

[Maggie Island]

Am I the only one thinking UVC may have violated the Willy CTR without clearance and that might go some ways to explaining his fairly rapid turn out to sea?

ADS-B Exchange (https://flight-data.adsbexchange.com/map?icao=7C6836&date=2019-09-06) has the last ADS-B plot at -32.804943, 152.043326, which appears to be the second-last one FR24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-uvc#21fd9fac) recorded, based on altitude, but it's closer to Williamtown. When you plug those coordinates, and those of the WLM TACAN into a few different Lat/Long distance calculators, you come up with 11nm, according to the US NOAA, or 19.66km / 10.6nm according to a couple of others. The CTR extends 12nm from the TACAN, so is it possible he feared a pineapple for busting their airspace?

UVC wouldve been inside controlled airspace from Broughton Island which is ~ 12nm up the coast from Anna Bay. Some of the news reports say that he was in communication with ATC (though it doesnt specify WLM...) but I think its pretty likely that UVC had requested and was subsequently granted a clearance to WLM at about 3000’.

[Lead Balloon]

You keep saying “would have been”. Do you have first hand knowledge of whether UVC was under air traffic control before arrival in the vicinity of Anna Bay?

Not “would have”, but was in fact.

[Maggie Island]

You keep saying “would have been”. Do you have first hand knowledge of whether UVC was under air traffic control before arrival in the vicinity of Anna Bay?

Not “would have”, but was in fact.

No idea - but any other aircraft in that position at that altitude would generally have one.

[Lead Balloon]

Righto. Good to get an acknowledgement that you’re merely speculating. Like the rest of us.

[belly tank]

belly tank,
Contrary to popular lore (as opposed to law) Limiter Cat aircraft are NOT limited to 6 persons or pax.
Read the AC a little more carefully.
Tootle pip!!

Actually CAR 262AM states WHR ( warbirds and historical aircraft ) are limited to 6 persons on board, an application to carry more can be obtained. What would you call the UH1H ? I’d call it a warbird under CAO 104 and it was in the Limited category to which those regs refer to.

[Super Cecil]

It not just Williamtown, I have been sent out well over the water in a NVFR piston single for a departure from Maroochydore on a very dark black night.

[Runaway Gun]

Super Cecil, was it to avoid that big tall Mountain just to the North of you?

[Super Cecil]

Runaway, was a fair while ago but I'm sure it was taking off to the south

[Squawk7700]

About 10 years ago at the Gold Coast, I was made to hold over water for a decent amount of time for multiple Airbuses, in a piston single with no night rating and last light upon me. When I advised I had no night rating I was advised I needed to declare a PAN PAN if I needed to land and they would divert the jet traffic. As my pax was current on NVFR is was a no-brainer to hold.

[Lead Balloon]

Am I the only one thinking UVC may have violated the Willy CTR without clearance and that might go some ways to explaining his fairly rapid turn out to sea?

ADS-B Exchange (https://flight-data.adsbexchange.com/map?icao=7C6836&date=2019-09-06) has the last ADS-B plot at -32.804943, 152.043326, which appears to be the second-last one FR24 (https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-uvc#21fd9fac) recorded, based on altitude, but it's closer to Williamtown. When you plug those coordinates, and those of the WLM TACAN into a few different Lat/Long distance calculators, you come up with 11nm, according to the US NOAA, or 19.66km / 10.6nm according to a couple of others. The CTR extends 12nm from the TACAN, so is it possible he feared a pineapple for busting their airspace?
Or....

Maybe R578B wasn’t active at the time and the aircraft flew at 3,000’ to the boundary of the Willytown C and orbited in the Anna Bay Area while requesting a clearance.

Just speculation.

[LeadSled]

Actually CAR 262AM states WHR ( warbirds and historical aircraft ) are limited to 6 persons on board, an application to carry more can be obtained. What would you call the UH1H ? I’d call it a warbird under CAO 104 and it was in the Limited category to which those regs refer to.
belly tank,
Exactly, the 6 limit is not a limit, and has a very interesting history, that derives from the other "lore" non-limit that a PPL can only carry six. Strange as it may seem to you, I actually am quite familiar with the "law" in this area, having had some quite detailed involvement, since the days of the H&EM Permit to fly "system".
Tootle pip!!

[Maggie Island]

Or....

Maybe R578B wasn’t active at the time and the aircraft flew at 3,000’ to the boundary of the Willytown C and orbited in the Anna Bay Area while requesting a clearance.

Just speculation.

This is probably a good time to mention that R578A-G are only ever activated in conjunction with the Willy CTR and vice versa (ie no R578 = no CTR)

[Lead Balloon]

So those markings on the VTC of C from the surface to 5,000’ out to the 12nm arc and the E LL of 4,500 beyond that are meaningless? It’s all or nothing determined by the Romeo NOTAMS?

Or are you just speculating?

How many times have you transitted Willy airspace in an aircraft other than a military aircraft or commercial aircraft? In round numbers.

[Maggie Island]

So those markings on the VTC of C from the surface to 5,000’ out to the 12nm arc and the E LL of 4,500 beyond that are meaningless? It’s all or nothing determined by the Romeo NOTAMS?



Pretty much, the E LL applies outside Willy hours, and everything else is NOTAM dependent (including CTR)

[Lead Balloon]

Righto. So if there are no active NOTAMS, the Willly C marked on the charts is not active? I can fly over the top of Malfunction Junction at 500’?

I might give that a go, next weekend.

[Maggie Island]

Righto. So if there are no active NOTAMS, the Willly C marked on the charts is not active? I can fly over the top of Malfunction Junction at 500’?

I might give that a go, next weekend.

You sure can! Tip for young players the CTR appears in the YWLM series NOTAMS, R578 will appear as WMX.

[Lead Balloon]

Great! I’ll be taking some happy snaps of those Willytown flight lines from 500’ shortly. Thanks for the advice, Maggie!

[Dick Smith]

All very strange!

The coastal lane operates at 500’. So not suitable for night VMC.

Why wouldn’t the clearance be overhead Willy?

Why would the aircraft be at Anna Bay?

How long before the facts come out?

[belly tank]

All very strange!

The coastal lane operates at 500’. So not suitable for night VMC.

Why wouldn’t the clearance be overhead Willy?

Why would the aircraft be at Anna Bay?

How long before the facts come out?

Well said Dick.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Great! I’ll be taking some happy snaps of those Willytown flight lines from 500’ shortly. Thanks for the advice, Maggie!

Sure...apart from the fact it’s open from 2000/1200 every single day...

Can you fly over it at 500ft AGL at night?

The fixation on airspace is astounding to be honest, compared to what seems just as likely to be a VFR Day helicopter operating in IMC at night with an iPad for an AI. But sure, you do you. Airspace stops being a factor when you run into trouble and use the magic words, LB of all people you know that.

[rcoight]

The fixation on airspace is astounding to be honest, compared to what seems just as likely to be a VFR Day helicopter operating in IMC at night with an iPad for an AI.



^^^ This, surely.

[Lead Balloon]

It’s not a “fixation”. There was speculation earlier that the aircraft had busted controlled airspace. There was also speculation about whether a Romeo was or was not active at the time in a place where the aircraft was at 3,000’. And whilst it might be that the aircraft was gobbled up by extreme weather and disorientation, it might be that confusion with procedures and airspace was a factor. (My pure speculation.) Certainly I’m now confused by what Maggie is saying. If some people consider that there’s no point in discussing the airspace and procedures in this case, I (genuinely respectfully) take a different view.

I’m looking at a VTC and ERSA entry that says Willytown is C to 5,000’ out to the 12nm arc “ATS HR 2000 - 1200 DLY (1 HR earlier HDS). May be extended to support CLA MIL (Check CTR NOTAM).”

The Class C to 5,000’ is NOT a ROMEO.

My question was about ROMEOS being active or inactive.

If I fly coastal up to Merewether now at 500’ coastal - that is BELOW the lower level of Romeos 578C and 578D - then track overhead Willytown at 500’, I’m not busting any Romeo. I’m busting Class C airspace. Or have I got that wrong?

If I’m not wrong, it follows that the ROMEOS being active or inactive does NOT determine whether Willy Class C is active or inactive.

It may well be that the CTR NOTAMS and the ROMEO NOTAMS are issued concurrently for concurrent times, but that does have to be the case and, more importantly, it is not always the case. It might be the recent experience of a few people, but that does not make it universally true.

[MickG0105]

All very strange!

The coastal lane operates at 500’. So not suitable for night VMC.


And it would appear that UVC wasn't properly kitted for night VFR either - apparently no ADF, VOR or GNSS.


Why wouldn’t the clearance be overhead Willy?

Why would the aircraft be at Anna Bay?


As someone else has pointed out UVC's fuel situation probably wasn't all that flash. Coffs to Bankstown with the required reserve would have been a stretch (if not impossible) in decent weather. One might entertain the possibility that the plan (or a change of plans) was to refuel at Williamtown. 30 would have been active. You've flown rotary, Dick, how would you have set up for 30 coming down from the north (probably from overhead Taree)?

​
How long before the facts come out?


23 days, when the preliminary is published.

​​​​​​

[Maggie Island]

It may well be that the CTR NOTAMS and the ROMEO NOTAMS are issued concurrently for concurrent times, but that does have to be the case and, more importantly, it is not always the case.

Just so we can move on from this issue I’ll deliver this to you in no uncertain terms. Between 0600-2200 local, 7 days a week, 365 days a year (even if theres 0 military acft planned) the CTR and R578 series are always active concurrently. Most of the other military airspaces where Class C services are provided thru the use of Romeo airspace such as Richmond, Amberley, Pearce etc function in a similar way but can vary airspace hours fairly easily as they don’t have to be there for RPT.

Willy approaches phone number is in ERSA, they’re probably bored on the weekend and will happily take any queries should you choose to verify :)

[Lead Balloon]

Then it’s OK for me to deliver this to you in no uncertain terms: The current practice was not always the practice and will not be the practice forever. Someone might wake up one morning and decide that it’s not really necessary to activate R578? at the same time as the others or the Class C. A potentially mind-blowing concept, I know, but something that has happened before and could happen again. Enjoy your coffee and the view! I’ll be too busy flying to ring.

[Pat mphat]

it"s also the current "practice" not to fly under the influence of mind altering medication Old chap, which after reading your last post you seem to be over using

[megan]

As someone else has pointed out UVC's fuel situation probably wasn't all that flashFuel load in a UH-1H is 1,400 lbs, fuel burn 550 lbs/hr, 100 knot cruise, if you wish to play with numbers.

[MickG0105]

Fuel load in a UH-1H is 1,400 lbs, fuel burn 550 lbs/hr, 100 knot cruise, if you wish to play with numbers.
Coffs to Bankstown direct is 242 nm. Nil wind point to point at say 4,000 ft would be around 2:45 hrs so you're not pulling that off on a tank. They had to have been heading into Williamtown for fuel.

[belly tank]

Coffs to Bankstown direct is 242 nm. Nil wind point to point at say 4,000 ft would be around 2:45 hrs so you're not pulling that off on a tank. They had to have been heading into Williamtown for fuel.

Or the Newcastle Regional Heliport

[Dick Smith]

It seems strange that this thread has gone rather quiet. Here is an image of the track down the coast. As you can see, it basically follows the VFR lane, then suddenly turns left, out to sea, at Anna Bay – the typical holding point. Surely someone on this site must know if it was being held. ? How about posting it?

[currawong]

Whats it like downwind of the ranges there? Was a pretty wild day.

[Dick Smith]

Not logical

The pilot clearly negotiated the high headlands and resultant turbulence of Port Stephens without a problem. Anna bay is the start of the beach with lower terrain along The Stockton Bight

Holding at that location normally has to be over water making a left hand turn to start,

Good horizon ahead when going south because the Newcastle City lights.

Zero lights and horizon when turning out to sea!

Is this what killed them? 1930s ATC procedures and a refusal to follow the CASA instructions to put in Class D airspace?

[currawong]

"Not logical"

Why?

"The pilot clearly negotiated the high headlands and resultant turbulence of Port Stephens without a problem."

Yes. Not talking about localised turbulence. Talking about mountain waves with rotors.(nb not helicopter rotors)

Great Dividing Range, not high headlands.

If you ever encounter one you will know what I am driving at.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/mountain_wave_turbulence/

[Dick Smith]

The VFR coastal lane is clearly for daylight use at 500’

Why wasn’t the pilot be given a clearance overhead Willy?

How do you visually track down the coast twisting and turning in total darkness?

Why would ATC give such a clearance?

[currawong]

The VFR coastal lane is clearly for daylight use at 500’

Why wasn’t the pilot be given a clearance overhead Willy?

How do you visually track down the coast twisting and turning in total darkness?

Why would ATC give such a clearance?


Refer post #1

"Reports of a Bell down off Newcastle.

Was on Base for 30 at Williamstown but appeared to have positioned for a ditching just off the sand dunes.

The weather is quite poor gusting 30 to 40."

[Dick Smith]

Others on this thread have queried where the helicopter was actually going, considering the fuel range. For those who think it could have been heading for Williamtown, here is a direct quote from the Newcastle Airport web page under “Itinerant Aircraft” “Requests for private flights and General Aviation flights will not be considered in accordance with our operating agreement with RAAF Williamtown.” So it is unlikely he was heading for Williamtown.

[Darwinism]

The VFR coastal lane is clearly for daylight use at 500’

Why wasn’t the pilot be given a clearance overhead Willy?

How do you visually track down the coast twisting and turning in total darkness?

Why would ATC give such a clearance?
Dick, why would you accuse ATC of giving such a clearance without an iota of evidence to support your claim? Oh yes, to further your agenda.

You were one of my heroes when I was a kid - how time changes one's perception of people...

[Maggie Island]

Others on this thread have queried where the helicopter was actually going, considering the fuel range. For those who think it could have been heading for Williamtown, here is a direct quote from the Newcastle Airport web page under “Itinerant Aircraft” So it is unlikely he was heading for Williamtown.

If UVC had indicated it was under any form of distress (not saying they did), or simply unable to proceed VFR etc - NAPL and ATC wouldve had no problem with the aircraft landing there.

[currawong]

"Good horizon ahead when going south because the Newcastle City lights.

Zero lights and horizon when turning out to sea!"

:ugh:

More than one window to look out of too.

[Dick Smith]

Darwin. I am glad I am no longer your hero!

I am just a normal person.

I am am not blaming an individual ATC.

My numerous comments about the 1950s procedures they use at Willy are directed to those in charge.

[Dick Smith]

Currawong. Why would a helicopter be flying a fixed wing circuit way out over a dark ocean at night?

[Maggie Island]

Currawong. Why would a helicopter be flying a fixed wing circuit way out over a dark ocean at night?

Why would any aircraft be flying in the coastal route (a route thats only available by day as you said) after LL?

The level, tracking and reported intentions of the aircraft all suggest that UVC was not operating under a coastal clearance and its various requirements.

[currawong]

Currawong. Why would a helicopter be flying a fixed wing circuit way out over a dark ocean at night?

Not sure it is that.

But a turn away from terrain in less than ideal wx might mean something. Did you read the link I provided?

Full credit to you, Mr Smith, for trying to do something positive for the industry. Not sure this is the thread for it.

But there is plenty of room for improvement.

While you are about it maybe look into these ridiculous A4 paper licenses and why WAC charts don't have airspace marked.:ok:

[Dick Smith]

Maggie. I agree with you. It is all very strange.

Lets hope there here will be lessons learnt to help prevent similar accidents.

[MickG0105]

Well it seems that the national media has lost interest in Australia's worst civilian helicopter crash in nearly three decades. Turns out that after being deployed to assist with the search Navy mine hunter HMAS Huon found submerged wreckage four days ago, very soon after arriving on site. Coverage by the local TV station NBN here (https://www.nbnnews.com.au/2019/09/21/port-stephens-chopper-recovery-mission-hmas-huon-finds-debris/).

[Sunfish]

The aircraft was stuck out there for a reason, and that reason is ATC. My guess is that the tapes will be unintelligible or disappear.

[Squawk7700]

The aircraft was stuck out there for a reason, and that reason is ATC. My guess is that the tapes will be unintelligible or disappear.

I’m glad you aren’t a cop or Magistrate Sunfish. You don’t even need evidence to close a case and convict!

[junior.VH-LFA]

The aircraft was stuck out there for a reason, and that reason is ATC. My guess is that the tapes will be unintelligible or disappear.

Day VFR helicopter in potential IMC after last light and it’s all ATC’s fault because you THINK they were asked to enter a hold?

Yep, can’t argue with that.

[Sunfish]

......Then let’s ask the question: what was the helicopter doing offshore? Fishing? Why would anyone put an aircraft over water without a compelling reason? The aircraft ditched into water, unless I am totally mistaken, solid land would be more attractive.

If that is true then unless the pilot was stupid then he was over water because he had been directed to fly over water by ATC or I grant you, if he was following the official VFR Corridor on the VTC which shouldn’t be over water anyway. In either case AsA bears responsibility for both this and the Mooney crash.

I am sick to death of this practice of forcing light aircraft to accept unnecessary risk for the convenience of AsA and RAAF and perhaps coastal nimby scum. U.S. experience has been that much closer separation standards are allowable with minimal risk increase.

[Squawk7700]

I am sick to death of this practice of forcing light aircraft to accept unnecessary risk for the convenience of AsA and RAAF and perhaps coastal nimby scum. U.S. experience has been that much closer separation standards are allowable with minimal risk increase.

Sunfish, please name us two, or possibly just start with one instance where you have been personally forced to accept necessary risk for the convenience of ASA and or the RAAF. Then name all the other instances of the other occurrences that you are “sick to death of.” Include anything other than MDX.

[Car RAMROD]

......Then let’s ask the question: what was the helicopter doing offshore? Fishing? Why would anyone put an aircraft over water without a compelling reason? The aircraft ditched into water, unless I am totally mistaken, solid land would be more attractive.

The reason for the crash and the result (loss of all on board) might not in any way shape or form be related to whether it was over water or land, and whether or not it was pilot choice or ATC instruction to be over one or the other.

There’s nothing inherently dangerous about “being over water”. Different outcome if things go wrong maybe, but not always.
Serious question, as I don’t know the answer- how many people have been killed in aircraft/heli crashes into the water compared to into land?

[Aussie Bob]

Sunny, ultimately it is the pilot that must take responsibility for unnecessary risk. This guy could well have refused the direction if indeed such a direction was issued. The more poignant question is: Was what the hell was he thinking of; piloting an ancient piece of dung only suited to day VFR on good days, after last light, in ****ty weather, with 5 innocent passengers on board? I mean WTF. I know they did all this stuff in Hueys "back in Nam" but that was 50 odd years ago. The machine was a relic from a bygone era.
There is no blame whatsoever on Willy Tower that I can see no matter what they said.

The issue of an over regulated piece of airspace is a seperate issue from this prang. I am so sad it happened.

[Sunfish]

Sunfish, please name us two, or possibly just start with one instance where you have been personally forced to accept necessary risk for the convenience of ASA and or the RAAF. Then name all the other instances of the other occurrences that you are “sick to death of.” Include anything other than MDX.

Try using the northern VFR corridor out of Melbourne with a cloud cap at 2000ft or less and traffic of necessity head on at the same altitude. You can’t go further “right” if you are traveling north because of terrain. ....and thanks to GPS and waypoints, the traffic is right on your nose. As for the rest, ask Dick Smith.

[MickG0105]

Serious question, as I don’t know the answer- how many people have been killed in aircraft/heli crashes into the water compared to into land?

A quick and dirty scan of helicopter accidents in Australia over the past 20 years shows a total 58 fatal flying accidents (I excluded an on the ground rotor strike accident) for a total of 100 fatalities. 52 of those accidents (87 fatalities) were over land, six (13 fatalities) were over water. That's just the base data, no analysis, no conclusions.

[MickG0105]

Latest NSW Police report (https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/news/news?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHBzJTNBJTJGJTJGZWJpenByZC5wb 2xpY2UubnN3Lmdvdi5hdSUyRm1lZGlhJTJGODAyMzkuaHRtbCZhbGw9MQ%3D %3D) - underwater wreckage positively identified, some human remains and debris recovered yesterday aftenoon. Very sad for all concerned.

[Squawk7700]

From news.com.au today:

The 1966 Bell UH1 left Archerfield and stopped at Coffs Harbour Airport about 4pm to refuel before heading for Bankstown Airport.

But strong westerly winds were reported to have swept it across the east coast with a cold front, and aviation experts said the lack of a mayday call in the extreme conditions might have made Mr Kerr become disorientated.

The pilot’s last communication was a request to travel higher because of a strong tailwind.

In a heartbreaking text to his daughter, Mr Ogden sent her a photo saying, “halfway there, look at the beautiful red sun” while they were refuelling.

[currawong]

Aviation reporting...

Usual standard.

[belly tank]

Sunny, ultimately it is the pilot that must take responsibility for unnecessary risk. This guy could well have refused the direction if indeed such a direction was issued. The more poignant question is: Was what the hell was he thinking of; piloting an ancient piece of dung only suited to day VFR on good days, after last light, in ****ty weather, with 5 innocent passengers on board? I mean WTF. I know they did all this stuff in Hueys "back in Nam" but that was 50 odd years ago. The machine was a relic from a bygone era.
There is no blame whatsoever on Willy Tower that I can see no matter what they said.

The issue of an over regulated piece of airspace is a seperate issue from this prang. I am so sad it happened.

Aussie Bob, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Some are blaming Willy for holding him at Anna Bay, maybe one of the issues here?. As I keep alluding to the weather was atrocious, blowing dust,gusting 48kts at night with a front approaching, in a old aircraft with seemingly basic instruments.

If he was “planning “ a NVFR flight do you think he would be flying coastal or tracking via Taree on the airway at lowest safe ?

Re fuel at Coffs, punching into a headwind could also be a factor.

Ive transited Willy day and night for 20 years and never had any issues.

[Car RAMROD]

..... That's just the base data, no analysis, no conclusions.

Thanks Mick. I know the numbers don’t mean much, but I just didn’t like the inference that just because they were over water (“because ATC put them there”, an agenda) is inherently dangerous.

[Lead Balloon]

I’ve transited Willy day and night for 20 years and never had any issues.Commercial ops or private?

[belly tank]

Commercial ops or private?

All commercial.
Its been 6 years since however as I’m flying offshore these days.

I used to be based in the Willy region and had a good working relationship with them so that may have helped.

[Sunfish]

All commercial.
Its been 6 years since however as I’m flying offshore these days.

I used to be based in the Willy region and had a good working relationship with them so that may have helped.

Thank you.

[currawong]

Aussie Bob, I couldn’t agree with you more.

Some are blaming Willy for holding him at Anna Bay, maybe one of the issues here?. As I keep alluding to the weather was atrocious, blowing dust,gusting 48kts at night with a front approaching, in a old aircraft with seemingly basic instruments.

If he was “planning “ a NVFR flight do you think he would be flying coastal or tracking via Taree on the airway at lowest safe ?

Re fuel at Coffs, punching into a headwind could also be a factor.

Ive transited Willy day and night for 20 years and never had any issues.

The wind hammering from the SW would seem to indicate the front had already passed. Don't think IMC was an issue either. Windy and rough? Extremely.

[Ascend Charlie]

IMC? The smoke coming from SW dropped vis , plenty of sea spray as well. Bad time to be airborne after sunset in those conditions.

[currawong]

IMC? The smoke coming from SW dropped vis , plenty of sea spray as well. Bad time to be airborne after sunset in those conditions.

With all due respect.

1/ There was a sunset, so not really IMC - “halfway there, look at the beautiful red sun”

2/ Strong SW. Sea spray heading? Out to sea, obscuring what? The sea after dark.

3/ Smoke and dust? Yes. However temper that with the fact that piece of coast is also one of the most lit up areas in the country.

Maybe the investigation will shed more light. The information available at this time does not quite stack up for me.

[megan]

Teetering rotor heads can be bad news when faced with turbulence, if it were extremely rough as posited by currawong a mast strike has to be well in the frame. Time will tell. Have landed and idled before to let a front blow through when flying a light weight Huey. Graeme Strachan of Skyhooks fame was undone by flying a teetering head in turbulence. RIP

[currawong]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2001/aair/aair200104092/

Refers.

Sure some of the rotary types will be able to shed more light.

[MickG0105]

Update on the story here (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/625301-uh-1h-missing-coffs-harbour-6th-sept-2019-a-6.html#post10592622).

In short, pilot not qualified and aircraft not certified for night VFR. Was given prompt clearance to transit Willy airspace via coastal route, so not holding at Anna Bay. Was pressing on to Bankstown despite conditions.

[Capt Fathom]

A newspaper article?

[Squawk7700]

A newspaper article?

Yes, here:

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/625301-uh-1h-missing-coffs-harbour-6th-sept-2019-a-6.html#post10592622

[junior.VH-LFA]

This thread is surprisingly quiet after that reply.

[Squawk7700]

This thread is surprisingly quiet after that reply.

Probably because morbidly it’s a case of same-old, same-old. It’s not the first time and it won’t be the last. Assuming it was caused by what they are eluding to.

[Capt Fathom]

Which is why I questioned the update based on a newspaper article! A Courier-Mail investigation!!

[Chronic Snoozer]

It’s quicker than waiting for an ATSB report and probably just as accurate.

I’ve got a tenner that says 3 years.

[currawong]

It’s quicker than waiting for an ATSB report and probably just as accurate.

I’ve got a tenner that says 3 years.

Raise you another that it says "inconclusive".

How does one get a "tailwind" in a westerly when tracking Newcastle - Bankstown anyway?

[Pinky the pilot]

eluding to.

Point of Order Squawk 7700. Methinks you mean alluding. Eluding means 'to escape from..'

Oh Hang on......we are talking about ATSB now, aren't we?:hmm:

[Ascend Charlie]

More info on the Rotorheads thread.

[j3pipercub]

BuT wHaT aBoUt RaAf HoLdInG aIrCrAfT...

[Maggie Island]

This thread is surprisingly quiet after that reply.

I’d prefer that to the alternative!

[Cedrik]

Has there been a release of all communications from the transit down the coast including what led up to the clearance through Willy?

[Lead Balloon]

No. And, as with the ‘investigation’ into the ditching of NGA, it is unlikely the recordings will be made publicly available. There may be a selective (and probably error-ridden) transcript of comms, but I wouldn’t expect more.

National security is at stake in this case. Imagine if all the Willy Tower and Willy Approach comms on a late Friday afternoon were revealed: All the comms from those F35s and FA18/A/F/Gs and Wedgetails and the dozens of other ADF assets exercising in the active Romeos would reveal important tactical information to the bad guys. And on top of that there’d be all the civvy traffic comms. Too confusing for laypeople to understand.

[MickG0105]

No. And, as with the ‘investigation’ into the ditching of NGA, it is unlikely the recordings will be made publicly available. There may be a selective (and probably error-ridden) transcript of comms, but I wouldn’t expect more.

There's a recording of UVC's exchange with Willy Approach embedded in the Courier-Mail article referenced above. Expectations exceeded already?

[Super Cecil]

That a complete recording or an extract?

[Cloudee]

That a complete recording or an extract?
The recording is only of the initial contact and the controller then asks him to contact delivery for onwards clearance. That exchange is not given.

[MickG0105]

That a complete recording or an extract?
It's the exchange with Willy Approach not Willy Delivery.

[Lead Balloon]

And what of all the comms with other aircraft, Mick, which would help to justify the activation of the Romeos at the time?

[MickG0105]

The recording is only of the initial contact and the controller then asks him to contact delivery for onwards clearance. That exchange is not given.
Yes, that's correct. It was just a newspaper article after all. There's a summary (not transcript) of the exchange with Willy Delivery in the timeline graphic in the article.

As an aside, it's interesting that UVC reports being at 1,500 feet on contact with Willy Approach. According to the ADS-B data he was between 2,000 ft and 4,000 ft around that time.

[MickG0105]

And what of all the comms with other aircraft, Mick, which would help to justify the activation of the Romeos at the time?
I don't have a dog in the restricted airspace race. There was a bunch of you doing just fine arguing that one to death the other day. Not my table, sorry.

[Lead Balloon]

Not to worry. Maggie Island will front up shortly to justify the activation of the Romeos.

[Maggie Island]

Don’t you worry, the Romeo’s are activated with or without justification! (Mine or otherwise)

[jumby164]

No. And, as with the ‘investigation’ into the ditching of NGA, it is unlikely the recordings will be made publicly available. There may be a selective (and probably error-ridden) transcript of comms, but I wouldn’t expect more.

National security is at stake in this case. Imagine if all the Willy Tower and Willy Approach comms on a late Friday afternoon were revealed: All the comms from those F35s and FA18/A/F/Gs and Wedgetails and the dozens of other ADF assets exercising in the active Romeos would reveal important tactical information to the bad guys. And on top of that there’d be all the civvy traffic comms. Too confusing for laypeople to understand.

I can assure you that any of these transmissions would definitely not be, in any form, a risk to national security.

PS I can sell you a really cool tin foil hat :)

[Super Cecil]

I can assure you that any of these transmissions would definitely not be, in any form, a risk to national security.

PS I can sell you a really cool tin foil hat :)
your irony meter broken Jumbo?

[Ascend Charlie]

I'll help you out here Jumbo - Willy after lunch on Fridays is a little quiet, with the only aircraft flying being the SAR chopper doing the rounds of the crab pots on the Saltash Range, in preparation for the 3pm stand-down and crab cook-up.

[Dick Smith]

The ATSB Interim report is now out.

Very strange. ATC cleared the pilot coastal southbound at night!

Also the pilot requested to remain on the eastern side of R578A. That would put the aircraft way out over the ocean!

Looks as if he was terrified of military restricted airspace and that the military don’t have a ADSB Receiver at Willy.

[Vag277]

Report debunks the abuse levelled at RAAF controllers. Absence or otherwise of ADS-B receiver at Willy is irrelevant

[currawong]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-050/

[currawong]

The ATSB Interim report is now out.

Very strange. ATC cleared the pilot coastal southbound at night!

Also the pilot requested to remain on the eastern side of R578A. That would put the aircraft way out over the ocean!

Looks as if he was terrified of military restricted airspace and that the military don’t have a ADSB Receiver at Willy.

Strange? Why?

Given the call made re turbulence it would seem logical to want to avoid terrain.

[MickG0105]

The ATSB Interim report is now out.

Very strange. ATC cleared the pilot coastal southbound at night!

Also the pilot requested to remain on the eastern side of R578A. That would put the aircraft way out over the ocean!

Looks as if he was terrified of military restricted airspace and that the military don’t have a ADSB Receiver at Willy.
Funny how different people focus on different things. The part of the preliminary that caught my eye was,

Pilot detailsThe pilot held Private and Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) Licences and was qualified to fly by day under the Visual Flight Rules.

[Squawk7700]

Funny how different people focus on different things. The part of the preliminary that caught my eye was,



The issue with reading this is that are we've read this, we immediately believe that the pilot has zero NVFR or IFR experience. That may or may not be the case...

Plenty of pilots with current NVFR ratings have met similar fates.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But more likely more without them have.

[Ascend Charlie]

It wouldn't matter whether he had past experience or not, the aircraft wasn't equipped for NVFR and the instruments that were fitted (refer the cockpit photo some pages back) were telling lies. A look at the AI on LHS would make him go into a descending left turn. Which is what happened.

[Dick Smith]

Currawong.

Your comment doesn’t meet the commonsense test.

Why would he make a request to keep out of the RAAF restricted airspace ?

And why was it active when it looks as if there was no military traffic. Why not just Class C

[junior.VH-LFA]

Currawong.

Your comment doesn’t meet the commonsense test.

Why would he make a request to keep out of the RAAF restricted airspace ?

And why was it active when it looks as if there was no military traffic. Why not just Class C

In the transcript he got “cleared to track AS REQUIRED to Bankstown.”

Just stop it.

[currawong]

Currawong.

Your comment doesn’t meet the commonsense test.

Why would he make a request to keep out of the RAAF restricted airspace ?

And why was it active when it looks as if there was no military traffic. Why not just Class C

Because, the best route, given the conditions, was the route the crew requested and received.

You still have not answered my question. Why was it strange for ATC to issue a clearance coastal southbound at night?

[Squawk7700]

It wouldn't matter whether he had past experience or not, the aircraft wasn't equipped for NVFR and the instruments that were fitted (refer the cockpit photo some pages back) were telling lies. A look at the AI on LHS would make him go into a descending left turn. Which is what happened.

I really don’t think a photo from some time ago taken of a panel of an unpowered electric or vacuum artificial horizon is evidence enough to say that it wasn’t working ! Let alone even hint that it was the cause!

It might shock some out there to know that some aircraft in this country that are rated for NVFR don’t even have an AH fitted !!!

[MickG0105]

It might shock some out there to know that some aircraft in this country that are rated for NVFR don’t even have an AH fitted !!!

For ag ops?

[Dick Smith]

Currawong

Because it’s clearly a visual lane. How do you follow the coast visually in total darkness?
And I ask again. Why did the pilot request to remain to the east of the restricted area?

And why was the restricted area active?

[currawong]

Currawong

Because it’s clearly a visual lane. How do you follow the coast visually in total darkness?
And I ask again. Why did the pilot request to remain to the east of the restricted area?

And why was the restricted area active?

With respect, Mr Smith, have you ever flown at night?

[Squawk7700]

And I ask again. Why did the pilot request to remain to the east of the restricted area?


Because he knew that based on previous experiences it was most likely active and he knew there was a limited chance of getting a clearance... thus he set himself up to avoid it completely. I would probably do the exact same thing (during normal daylight ops)

[currawong]

I really don’t think a photo from some time ago taken of a panel of an unpowered electric or vacuum artificial horizon is evidence enough to say that it wasn’t working ! Let alone even hint that it was the cause!

It might shock some out there to know that some aircraft in this country that are rated for NVFR don’t even have an AH fitted !!!


Why would you even need one with Newcastle filling the windscreen?

[Ascend Charlie]

The RAAF ATC offered him clearances. He chose to stay off the coast. There was a large amount of dust and seaspray in the air, making an early last light, so Newcastle (15nm away?) perhaps wasn't all that visible, and a curving line of Stockton beach can confuse one's concept of a horizon.

[megan]

Preliminary report

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-050/

[The name is Porter]

Based on that report the ATC did an exemplary job. I don't think he/she could have done any more?

[aroa]

The wx was atrocious, and very high winds. Did severe turbulence cause him to seek smoother air over water, away from the coast?
What might explain the very high rate of descent..? lost it? Blade strike?

[josephfeatherweight]

Based on that report the ATC did an exemplary job. I don't think he/she could have done any more?
Absolutely concur with that, Mr Porter.

[Dick Smith]

Willy ATC often hold VFR coastal traffic orbiting at Anna Bay for up to 20 minutes.

He was clearly fortunate!

Willy is the worst airspace design in the world.

They havn’t t even correctly updated to ICAO classifications. Zero leadership.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Willy ATC often hold VFR coastal traffic orbiting at Anna Bay for up to 20 minutes.

He was clearly fortunate!

Willy is the worst airspace design in the world.

They havn’t t even correctly updated to ICAO classifications. Zero leadership.


And zero relevance to this thread.

Given the fact he's dead, I'd say he was fairly unfortunate, as were his pax. Amazing how when proven airspace wasn't a factor, that's your response.

[megan]

Going from the data in the report the aircraft lost 2,875 feet in 22 seconds, skydiving reckon on ten seconds for the first 1,000 and five seconds for each following 1,000 ie 19.375 seconds for 2,875. We might then theorise then that the aircraft was in freefall, and mast bumping being responsible for loss of the rotor. Examination of the main fuselage/main gear box/mast would reveal all. The physical state of the tail boom might suggest an inflight separation, which generally points to a mast bump episode, time will tell.

[MickG0105]

The physical state of the tail boom might suggest an inflight separation, which generally points to a mast bump episode, time will tell.
It is unfortunate that there's just the one photograph of the recovered section of the tail boom. Can I please ask what, if anything, can you see in that photo that suggests an in-flight separation to you?

[megan]

what, if anything, can you see in that photo that suggests an in-flight separation to youI want to emphasise the word "might", personal experience of an accident in our unit. Pity the photo was not taken from the other end of the boom to see damage incurred which may have been more telling.

[Dick Smith]

Currawong. The coastal route is clearly day VFR

Have a look at the required altitudes- they are too low for NVMC.

I ask again- why did he request to remain east of the 12 nm restricted airspace? That would put the aircraft way out over the ocean.

[currawong]

Mr Smith. Flight in question was on a block clearance 2,400 ft - 3,500 ft. Therefore not in the published coastal route.

I ask again - Have you ever flown at night?

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Lots

If the pilot was cleared coastal southbound why ever would he request to remain east of R578?

Its not logical.

[currawong]

1/ Good

2/ Tracking over water not uncommon to use airspace boundary as route. Similar to the old DME Arc.

Cannot say for sure that was the crew intention here.

Or, could be as simple as tracking Anna Bay - Bankstown direct.

The reason I queried your night experience was your statement -

"How do you follow the coast visually in total darkness?"

Mr Smith, I hold you in high regard, and respect what you are trying to achieve. Our views regards airspace organisation are somewhat similar.

However, I think you are barking up the wrong tree on this one. Two or three options as to what went wrong here. Airspace was not one of them.

[Dick Smith]

Currawong. Have a look at the chart and come up with a rational explanation in why the pilot would want to remain east and outside the restricted area.

To remain east the pilot would have to turn left at Anna Bay!

[megan]

I strongly suspect currawong has lost his crystal ball, as have I Dick.

[currawong]

Dick, have a look at the chart and draw a line Anna Bay - Bankstowm direct.

"The pilot was then cleared to track as required for Bankstown Airport. " - From report.

[junior.VH-LFA]

No matter how hard you desperately flog this dead horse it will not make this an Airspace issue.

[The Banjo]

The big picture is the captain was allegedly operating an aircraft at night in an aircraft that was not certified or equipped to do so (in crap weather) allegedly without current qualification to do so.
To cast aspersions on individuals or agencies external to the aircraft is drawing a long bow IMHO.

[Squawk7700]

The big picture is the captain was allegedly operating an aircraft at night in an aircraft that was not certified or equipped to do so (in crap weather) allegedly without current qualification to do so.

Not being qualified or equipped doesn’t necessarily make the aircraft unsafe. Night hours are not yet mentioned in the report.

[MickG0105]

I want to emphasise the word "might", personal experience of an accident in our unit. Pity the photo was not taken from the other end of the boom to see damage incurred which may have been more telling.
Thank you for that.

And, yes, I understand the emphasis on 'might' given the single photograph (with the 'of interest' end of the boom not visible). I was really just wondering if there was anything in particular in the photo that had caught your eye.

[MickG0105]

Not being qualified or equipped doesn’t necessarily make the aircraft unsafe.
Perhaps but not being qualified AND not being equipped is probably a pretty good place to start conjuring up a decidedly unsafe environment.

Isn't the notion that a pilot who was not licenced for night VFR planned to fly a helicopter that was not equipped for night VFR at night with pax on board somewhat troubling?

[The name is Porter]

or equipped doesn’t necessarily make the aircraft unsafe.

It probably does I reckon.

[currawong]

Of course the night rated/ equipped aspect is a big issue. And in all probability ...

But to immediately draw the conclusion this was the cause would be remiss, given other factors could have been at play

[havick]

Of course the night rated/ equipped aspect is a big issue. And in all probability ...

But to immediately draw the conclusion this was the cause would be remiss, given other factors could have been at play

Even if the licensing/equipment issue isn’t the specific cause (we all know probability of that), it still puts the aircraft in a specific place/time of accident where it shouldn’t have been legally.

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5779863/ao-2019-050-final.pdf

Not NVFR rated, aircraft not NVFR capable and in poor weather past last light.

Very sad.

[eagle 86]

Ive flown "Iroquois" helicopters in the Mil for many hours in those conditions. I can assure you the helo is difficult to keep upright particularly over long periods and was always crewed by two pilots.
E86

[Ascend Charlie]

Eagle, our Hueys were kitted for IFR and we were trained for IFR. You trained me.

This goose was not trained, the aircraft was not fitted with the right stuff, and he was full of drugs which would have an unknown effect on somebody who had so little sleep before the flight.

[Mhayli]

But no doubt Mr. Smith will continue flogging his Willy airspace agenda. :}

[Darwinism]

But no doubt Mr. Smith will continue flogging his Willy airspace agenda. :}
I do wish PPRuNe had a 'like' button.

[Cedrik]

I do wish PPRuNe had a 'like' button.
An ignore button would be handy for you Dick bashers

[Lookleft]

The only Dick bashers are those who continue to blame airspace when unqualified, unprepared and unsuitable pilots push their luck and try and fly in conditions that regularly kill private pilots and their passengers. You don't have to be a professional pilot to have a professional attitude to your flying. Those with a "I don't need to know that crap, I know planes." attitude will be found wanting given the right set of conditions.

[industry insider]

This goose was not trained, the aircraft was not fitted with the right stuff, and he was full of drugs which would have an unknown effect on somebody who had so little sleep before the flight.

Succinct and correct. Sadly 4 innocent unknowing passengers who trusted the pilot lost their lives as a result.

[machtuk]

The real tragedy here is that it will happen again and there's no way of stopping these avoidable accidents!
RIP to the inocent who had no say in their demise! -(

[Super Cecil]

The only Dick bashers are those who continue to blame airspace when unqualified, unprepared and unsuitable pilots push their luck and try and fly in conditions that regularly kill private pilots and their passengers. You don't have to be a professional pilot to have a professional attitude to your flying. Those with a "I don't need to know that crap, I know planes." attitude will be found wanting given the right set of conditions.
Lookleft, professional pilots also comment on the badly designed controlled airspace. I have been flying for a living for over forty years and throughout that time have been frustrated with both military and civil controlled airspace. Safety is often quoted as the reason for overly complicated airspace that excludes many. The way CASA is going GA is on track to having no accidents, with nobody flying there will be no accidents. You Dick bashers are muddying the waters. We need airspace reform.

[Lookleft]

Lookleft, professional pilots also comment on the badly designed controlled airspace. I have been flying for a living for over forty years and throughout that time have been frustrated with both military and civil controlled airspace.
The point is SC is that Airspace is not killing pilots, the lack of airmanship is. The only people muddying the waters are those, such as yourself, who like to tag airspace reform onto fatal accidents. I agree that the airspace can be improved, after all WTF in their right mind would design a 9000' step at 25 dme! Professional pilots have to deal with that in the same way private pilots have to deal with CTA clearances and all the rest. If airspace was killing private pilots who had done all they could to be prepared for CTA contingencies then I would agree that airspace is a factor in pilot fatalities. The stark unpleasant truth however is that there are private pilots who think they have all the answers without having to put in all the effort. Aviation is fairly forgiving but not of idiots with a PPL and a poor attitude.

[havick]

The point is SC is that Airspace is not killing pilots, the lack of airmanship is. The only people muddying the waters are those, such as yourself, who like to tag airspace reform onto fatal accidents. I agree that the airspace can be improved, after all WTF in their right mind would design a 9000' step at 25 dme! Professional pilots have to deal with that in the same way private pilots have to deal with CTA clearances and all the rest. If airspace was killing private pilots who had done all they could to be prepared for CTA contingencies then I would agree that airspace is a factor in pilot fatalities. The stark unpleasant truth however is that there are private pilots who think they have all the answers without having to put in all the effort. Aviation is fairly forgiving but not of idiots with a PPL and a poor attitude.

Just as many idiots with a CPL and ATPL too

[Lookleft]

Just as many idiots with a CPL and ATPL too

Absolutely agree, I am aware of ATPL holders who have been managed out of the system because of their attitudes and good riddance. In this accident however and the CFIT south of Coffs Harbour, the pilots were PPL holders.