MRH-90 crash Australia
Been told by a few people its completely unreliable
The aircraft are being stripped with the parts being sold back to other users. Yes the airframes are being destroyed but only after ever useble part is removed. Most of the parts are being returned to the manufacturer / airbus. Moving an airframe back to europe costs more than the airframe is worth
The aircraft are being stripped with the parts being sold back to other users. Yes the airframes are being destroyed but only after ever useble part is removed. Most of the parts are being returned to the manufacturer / airbus. Moving an airframe back to europe costs more than the airframe is worth
Seems to me that if ADF doesn't like them, we could have loaded them all on an LHD and taken them intact to NZ. They could then have decided which ones to part out and which to retain for attrition? Not sure how much variation there is between theirs and ours.
212. My apologies for tardy reply. I completely missed your post.
Regarding the CVR recording, a transcript was made by the NTSB in Washington, and agreed by the 'CVR Committee'. Air New Zealand's investigator and chief pilot then took it upon themselves to make 55 changes; mostly adding words and phrases, and on one occasion completely deleting an entire phrase. No investigation protocol permits such a thing. At the very least the Committee is reconvened and a formal decision made on any proposed 'error'.
ANZ said the pilots knew they were heading for Erebus. But their briefing notes indicated otherwise. They had been given the wrong route. This error was known by the chief pilot, but not the lead investigator. The folder containing the briefing was recovered intact, but by the time it was returned to NZ for analysis the relevant pages had been removed. ANZ also visited the homes of deceased aircrew and removed other copies of the notes.
ANZ always denied this, but the chief pilot, Capt Gemmell, confessed to it on his deathbed. The CE of ANZ had ordered the shredding of all relevant material.
Regarding the CVR recording, a transcript was made by the NTSB in Washington, and agreed by the 'CVR Committee'. Air New Zealand's investigator and chief pilot then took it upon themselves to make 55 changes; mostly adding words and phrases, and on one occasion completely deleting an entire phrase. No investigation protocol permits such a thing. At the very least the Committee is reconvened and a formal decision made on any proposed 'error'.
ANZ said the pilots knew they were heading for Erebus. But their briefing notes indicated otherwise. They had been given the wrong route. This error was known by the chief pilot, but not the lead investigator. The folder containing the briefing was recovered intact, but by the time it was returned to NZ for analysis the relevant pages had been removed. ANZ also visited the homes of deceased aircrew and removed other copies of the notes.
ANZ always denied this, but the chief pilot, Capt Gemmell, confessed to it on his deathbed. The CE of ANZ had ordered the shredding of all relevant material.
Thanks. Looks like it starts Top of Page 47 numbered (or 49 physical) PDF: 25 Oct 2023 (PDF 1.1Mb) https://www.aph.gov.au/-/media/Estim...47A0940E00EB7F
Spaz, in respect to Hansard, Senator Dave Shoebridge showed determination to get the point across which is a breath of fresh air. It isn't often that the members of parliament act in such a competent manner. Kudos to the guy:
Federal Members: David Shoebridge
[email protected]
For TE901, I was involved in the SAR for the aircraft, not a good day. A year later, was involved in some of the submissions to the Mahon enquiry. Mahon did an outstanding effort to expose causation accurately. That he was so badly treated after his report was released is a blight on the record of flight safety.
The back story of the aftermath was nothing to be proud of at all, for all of those concerned.
The following users liked this post:
Been told by a few people its completely unreliable
The aircraft are being stripped with the parts being sold back to other users. Yes the airframes are being destroyed but only after ever useble part is removed. Most of the parts are being returned to the manufacturer / airbus. Moving an airframe back to europe costs more than the airframe is worth
The aircraft are being stripped with the parts being sold back to other users. Yes the airframes are being destroyed but only after ever useble part is removed. Most of the parts are being returned to the manufacturer / airbus. Moving an airframe back to europe costs more than the airframe is worth
These two are closer
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...ck-inventories
NHIndustries, the joint venture (JV) that produces NH90 helicopters, has begun the process of buying back Australia’s fleet and harvesting the aircraft for spare parts.
Norwegian NH90s lined up for part-out and also references Australia
https://www.flightglobal.com/norwegi...155253.article
Well I am sure the article will prompt questions in Senate Estimates or similar in the new year.
Seems to me that if ADF doesn't like them, we could have loaded them all on an LHD and taken them intact to NZ. They could then have decided which ones to part out and which to retain for attrition? Not sure how much variation there is between theirs and ours.
Seems to me that if ADF doesn't like them, we could have loaded them all on an LHD and taken them intact to NZ. They could then have decided which ones to part out and which to retain for attrition? Not sure how much variation there is between theirs and ours.
That publication gets so much wrong.
These two are closer
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...ck-inventories
NHIndustries, the joint venture (JV) that produces NH90 helicopters, has begun the process of buying back Australia’s fleet and harvesting the aircraft for spare parts.
Norwegian NH90s lined up for part-out and also references Australia
https://www.flightglobal.com/norwegi...155253.article
These two are closer
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...ck-inventories
NHIndustries, the joint venture (JV) that produces NH90 helicopters, has begun the process of buying back Australia’s fleet and harvesting the aircraft for spare parts.
Norwegian NH90s lined up for part-out and also references Australia
https://www.flightglobal.com/norwegi...155253.article
From my own experience in another field, I am aware APDR gets information scrambled sometimes, but Kym makes numerous claims in the article and I don't imagine he has plucked them all out of thin air. With the Department of Defence being so silent on this whole saga, no surprise others try to fill the void based on whispers.
Incidentally, Wikipedia entry for Super Seasprite reports: "On April 24, 2023, the New Zealand MOD announced that they are seeking replacements for the Seasprite" with links to two sources.
From ABC News:
Independent inquiry launched into fatal Taipan army helicopter crash
An independent inquiry has been launched into last year's crash of a Taipan army helicopter off the coast of Queensland which killed four Defence personnel. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has appointed former judge Margaret McMurdo to lead the examination into the deadly training accident.
Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class Two Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs died when their MRH-90 helicopter crashed near Lindeman island.
The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter was being used for nocturnal training as a part of Exercise Talisman Sabre before it crashed on July 28. Hundreds of Australian Defence Force (ADF) and emergency service personnel scoured the waters around the Whitsunday Coast for more than three months.bThe three-month recovery mission for the helicopter concluded in November last year.
In a statement released on November 9 the ADF said "all practical wreckage and remnants" from the helicopter had been recovered and would inform ongoing aviation and coronial investigations. Shortly after the crash the Albanese government permanently grounded the Taipan fleet and Defence has already launched several investigations into the incident.
The new Inquiry's first public hearing is scheduled to be held on February 27 in Brisbane.
Independent inquiry launched into fatal Taipan army helicopter crash
An independent inquiry has been launched into last year's crash of a Taipan army helicopter off the coast of Queensland which killed four Defence personnel. The Inspector-General of the Australian Defence Force has appointed former judge Margaret McMurdo to lead the examination into the deadly training accident.
Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class Two Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs died when their MRH-90 helicopter crashed near Lindeman island.
The MRH-90 Taipan helicopter was being used for nocturnal training as a part of Exercise Talisman Sabre before it crashed on July 28. Hundreds of Australian Defence Force (ADF) and emergency service personnel scoured the waters around the Whitsunday Coast for more than three months.bThe three-month recovery mission for the helicopter concluded in November last year.
In a statement released on November 9 the ADF said "all practical wreckage and remnants" from the helicopter had been recovered and would inform ongoing aviation and coronial investigations. Shortly after the crash the Albanese government permanently grounded the Taipan fleet and Defence has already launched several investigations into the incident.
The new Inquiry's first public hearing is scheduled to be held on February 27 in Brisbane.
It was among a group of four choppers set to fly to Lindeman Island to collect Australian Defence Force personnel who were conducting an exercise at the location.
About 10pm they took off from Proserpine airport, entering a holding pattern while waiting for confirmation the ADF personnel on the island were ready to be picked up.
"I anticipate the evidence will show that shortly after entering the holding pattern, Bushman 83 was observed to develop an increasing rate of climb, taking it to a height above the other aircraft," Col Streit said.
It was then observed suddenly pitching nose down and descending rapidly towards the water, he said.
About 10pm they took off from Proserpine airport, entering a holding pattern while waiting for confirmation the ADF personnel on the island were ready to be picked up.
"I anticipate the evidence will show that shortly after entering the holding pattern, Bushman 83 was observed to develop an increasing rate of climb, taking it to a height above the other aircraft," Col Streit said.
It was then observed suddenly pitching nose down and descending rapidly towards the water, he said.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,579
Likes: 0
Received 52 Likes
on
45 Posts
‘Pull up’: Desperate call before choper crash 27 Feb 2024
https://au.news.yahoo.com/inquiry-de...234800969.html
"...The inquiry will resume in Brisbane at a later date yet to be determined."
https://au.news.yahoo.com/inquiry-de...234800969.html
"...The inquiry will resume in Brisbane at a later date yet to be determined."
David Naggs has been told it all happened in a shockingly quick time – as few as three to four seconds.
He was told that when Bushman 83 pitched into the sky, it reached an altitude of 356 feet – information he presumes came from the black box which was retrieved 10 days after the crash.
Defence has also revealed something else from the black box.
“It’s a statement of record and fact from the data that was gathered from the voice and flight data recorder that at the point of the accident, the engines were functioning normally – that’s a fact,” Chief of Army Lieutenant-General Simon Stuart told a parliamentary committee in February.
So if the engines were operating normally, what could cause a Taipan to suddenly pitch up and then plummet nose-down in defiance of the mission commander’s demands to correct course?
Suspicion has fallen on a hi-tech helmet that the Taipan pilots were using that night.
The TopOwl has been used by militaries around the world for the best part of two decades. It comprises a helmet-mounted sight display that provides critical information about the aircraft, including altitude, height above ground, pitch and roll (attitude), ground speed, vertical speed and whether the aircraft is climbing or descending.
He was told that when Bushman 83 pitched into the sky, it reached an altitude of 356 feet – information he presumes came from the black box which was retrieved 10 days after the crash.
Defence has also revealed something else from the black box.
“It’s a statement of record and fact from the data that was gathered from the voice and flight data recorder that at the point of the accident, the engines were functioning normally – that’s a fact,” Chief of Army Lieutenant-General Simon Stuart told a parliamentary committee in February.
So if the engines were operating normally, what could cause a Taipan to suddenly pitch up and then plummet nose-down in defiance of the mission commander’s demands to correct course?
Suspicion has fallen on a hi-tech helmet that the Taipan pilots were using that night.
The TopOwl has been used by militaries around the world for the best part of two decades. It comprises a helmet-mounted sight display that provides critical information about the aircraft, including altitude, height above ground, pitch and roll (attitude), ground speed, vertical speed and whether the aircraft is climbing or descending.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...18-p5fl0g.html
Thread Starter
They suggest the aircraft was OK but the helmet was a problem.
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...18-p5fl0g.html
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/f...18-p5fl0g.html
Within hours of happening a 2 pilots I know both said they would put money on it being spatial disorientation due to topowl. They are general pilots had a hardeck for night operations due to know issues with top owl. These 2 crews due to being special operations certified flight crews didn't have this restriction.
So, if it was a helmet problem, rather than an aircraft problem, will there be any consequences for the drongos who rapidly cut the aircraft up, sold some parts, and buried the rest?
Thread Starter
There was plenty of helicopter problems, they were already starting to wind down flight operations. They were officially going to be retired in Nov this year, so they were only 18 months early. As to the 'cut up and buried' the airframes are valueless they are carbon fibre so cant even be melted down. They are not currently cut up or buried, the 6 or so stripped airframes are sitting in a carpark, (seen photos didn't specifiy where but)
Not sure what config TopOwl they were flying on, but that is the only thing I miss from Army flying days. Best bit of kit I ever flew with. I certainly missed it when I went back to ANVIS 9 Civi flying.
