ABC Helicopter crash near Lake Eyre
With the size of the strip at Lord Howe, no wonder they kept going around in their 737, 
.
Sorry XXX, couldn't help it,
.
morno
.Sorry XXX, couldn't help it,
.morno
True, havick, he may have not been that current. Don't know.
I was just suggesting that he would have trained at some point in night ops to and from areas with very basic lighting.
As you know, while it's not a doddle, departing from and approaching to a light in an open flat area on a black night isn't exactly rocket science as long as the aircraft's appropriately equipped (AI, DG, radalt and some reasonable search or landing lights) and you sort out some LSALTs for enroute and circuit area.
That's the actual doing of it, of course, not whether he was supposed to be or not under his ops manual and the regs - I haven't done night bush stuff in the civvy world so haven't looked into it closely.
Of course there could be disorientation, incapacitation, equipment failure and all the rest of it.
XXX, I'm not saying military experience made him any better than anyone else, just that he should have had a background that included the kind of night ops planned for the accident flight.
I was just suggesting that he would have trained at some point in night ops to and from areas with very basic lighting.
As you know, while it's not a doddle, departing from and approaching to a light in an open flat area on a black night isn't exactly rocket science as long as the aircraft's appropriately equipped (AI, DG, radalt and some reasonable search or landing lights) and you sort out some LSALTs for enroute and circuit area.
That's the actual doing of it, of course, not whether he was supposed to be or not under his ops manual and the regs - I haven't done night bush stuff in the civvy world so haven't looked into it closely.
Of course there could be disorientation, incapacitation, equipment failure and all the rest of it.
XXX, I'm not saying military experience made him any better than anyone else, just that he should have had a background that included the kind of night ops planned for the accident flight.
Arm out the window... I'm not saying what I think caused the crash, because really without all the facts it could have been anything.
What really gets me thinking is that would have the accident even have occurred or would there have been a different outcome (if there was some other emergency on take/off) if they didn't depart in the first place?
I'm thinking the coroner would be asking those same questions?
What really gets me thinking is that would have the accident even have occurred or would there have been a different outcome (if there was some other emergency on take/off) if they didn't depart in the first place?
I'm thinking the coroner would be asking those same questions?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAAP 92-2 is an Advisory guide for landing sites: Gary's accident was not during a landing or take off phase of flight. Apart from that, the suggested lighting requirements for a Standard HLS are:
How do you know that there was no floodlighting? A car headlight can supply perfectly adequate floodlighting, I've had no problems along those lines in the past.
A needless red herring has been introduced here: I'd suggest that a deeper knowledge of helicopter operations on what is generally a fixed wing Forum would introduce a more balanced outlook on this accident.
And FWIW, the ABC operation would have been aerial work or private. The speculation about it being Charter again shows a general lack of understanding of helicopter operations, and media related work. (Apart from the requirement that the pilot be Instrument Rated for night charter work in a rated twin helicopter
)
or by a combination of markings and floodlighting
A needless red herring has been introduced here: I'd suggest that a deeper knowledge of helicopter operations on what is generally a fixed wing Forum would introduce a more balanced outlook on this accident.
And FWIW, the ABC operation would have been aerial work or private. The speculation about it being Charter again shows a general lack of understanding of helicopter operations, and media related work. (Apart from the requirement that the pilot be Instrument Rated for night charter work in a rated twin helicopter
)
squeaks. it all comes down to 'it depends' on a lot of fronts. Without writing an essay, it depends on what's in their ops manual (which I'm not privvy to) to determine the category type, night operations, dispensations etc.
The category type is irrelevant in this accident, as the aircraft was a twin (which I mentioned in a subsequent post anyway). It originally slipped my mind the the aircraft was an AS355, if it were an AS350 then there would've been a few factors that come into play WRT category type.
How do you know there was floodlighting? I don't know if there was floodlighting or omnidirectional lighting present, that's what I asked in the first place. The news reports suggested that the met a boat tour group (read; no car headlights). The ATSB hasn't mentioned anything about ground lighting as yet.
I still take the viewpoint, unless there was adequate ground lighting I personally don't think they should've departed in the first place with the aircraft equipped the way it was. May I stress that I have not alluded to or speculated on the cause of the accident, anything could have occurred.
The category type is irrelevant in this accident, as the aircraft was a twin (which I mentioned in a subsequent post anyway). It originally slipped my mind the the aircraft was an AS355, if it were an AS350 then there would've been a few factors that come into play WRT category type.
How do you know that there was no floodlighting? A car headlight can supply perfectly adequate floodlighting, I've had no problems along those lines in the past.
I still take the viewpoint, unless there was adequate ground lighting I personally don't think they should've departed in the first place with the aircraft equipped the way it was. May I stress that I have not alluded to or speculated on the cause of the accident, anything could have occurred.
Last edited by havick; 18th Sep 2011 at 12:08.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do you know that there was no floodlighting? A car headlight can supply perfectly adequate floodlighting, I've had no problems along those lines in the past.
There are dispensations given to operators operate outside the bounds of the caap
601. good point, thanks for picking up on that. I was thinking more along the lines of operations below lsalt at night. at one point some of the information suggested that he was getting some shots of the camp before he left for his destination. I should've clarified.
Exactly what I was thinking when I started piecing together the information. The aircraft didn't have a gyro cam, so I couldn't see them getting the shots from LSALT if that is in fact what they were doing before they left. I suppose that question would be difficult to answer given the extent of the damage/wrecakge, ie was the cameraman on harness or in his seatbelt, side door open/closed, was the camera recording or not?
I can't see how it would've been PVT. True PVT media operations are the likes of the media bases where the network owns the aircraft themselves and employs the pilot as an employee of the network. Wasn't ABC having the aircraft operated by Gary under his company film helicopters or whatever it is called, and pilots supplied through that company? When casuals flew for ABC were they paid by ABC directly or by Gary's company? I don't know the answer to these questions. As previously mentioned, being a twin, the category type has no relevance.
** For those that read my posts thinking that I have the intent of burning the deceased, I'm not. Answers to my questions may change the way that some companies operate network supplied aircraft under a labour supply arrangement.
Can't see that there would have been a car headlight on the *island* that they took off from!
And FWIW, the ABC operation would have been aerial work or private. The speculation about it being Charter again shows a general lack of understanding of helicopter operations, and media related work.
** For those that read my posts thinking that I have the intent of burning the deceased, I'm not. Answers to my questions may change the way that some companies operate network supplied aircraft under a labour supply arrangement.
Last edited by havick; 18th Sep 2011 at 20:32.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I forgot how precise one must be when posting to appease the experts here: my comment on car headlights was to indicate a suitable amount of light for a night helicopter departure, not that there was a car present.
Originally Posted by havick
The category type is irrelevant in this accident, as the aircraft was a twin (which I mentioned in a subsequent post anyway). It originally slipped my mind the the aircraft was an AS355, if it were an AS350 then there would've been a few factors that come into play WRT category type.
Yes, Gary's company paid the contract pilots on ABC TV ops. The likelihood is that it was an Aerial Work operation, but (another red herring) as a privately owned helicopter flying for the owner it could have legally been a private flight if it was a positioning flight from one area to another. We have only supposition and speculation here (and elsewhere) that aerial filming may or may not have been planned after departure. Equally likely is the possibility of a bird strike, especially as the preliminary report indicates a ground impact attitude on the pilot's side of the aircraft with extreme angle of bank.
It is not at all unusual for a heavy bird to penetrate the screen on a helicopter and incapacitate the pilot. Plenty of examples over on Rotorheads.
squeaks. depending on which operation you are working for and which what is in the ops manual will depend on which part of the sortie comes under which category.
There is no blanket approval that all media ops are considered AWK. Generally speaking the leg home (after landing for a stand-up/interview etc) is considered CHTR (unless of course you're filming on the way home, once again all ops manuals are different). The AWK component are the legs that involve aerial filming without landing. All ops manuals (non networked owned machines and network employed pilots) that I have flown media ops specifically state this so there's no confusion as to what role equipment is required (eg floats for overwater etc) that's why I'm asking what was in Gary's ops manual (I haven't read it).
Yes I know about the twin rules at night. I may have made the assumption that gary was instrumented rated as well as the machine.
That still doesn't answer my original question re; ground lighting from the departure point.
Summing up;
- Was the aircraft operated under Gary's AOC or was it a PVT operation ie, network owned machine and network paid pilot (helps to ascertain the category type)?
- What (if any) ground lighting was there on departure?
- Were they filming on the leg home?
- Did Gary own the machine or did ABC?
- If operating under Gary's AOC, then what does their ops manual say with regard to differentiating between CHTR and AWK specifically media/filming ops (for all I know CASA may have approved their ops manual that stipulates that all media operations are considered AWK however I doubt it)? Again helps to ascertain the category type.
Squeaks. Not all media operations are the same, a lot depends on who's AOC you're operating under and what their ops manual says. I think you're misinterpreting that I'm speculating on the cause of the accident, as you have suggested it may well have been a birdstrike or not. I'm pointing out that I don't think they should have been there in the first place.
Squeaks you keep saying that I have a lack of understanding of helicopter regs I have never professed to being the ruling authority here, I have merely been asking questions. Maybe it is you that have a lack of exposure to more than one media operation/AOC holder perhaps? I have flown for CH7 under three different operators/regimes, CH9 under two operators/regimes all of which were a mix of commercial companies and for the network directly. Each had very different requirements and considerations for planning/operating.
**
What were commercial pax doing on board then? Was the journo/cammo paid/employed by Gary or by ABC?
There's been more than a few occasions where media operations under this type of arrangement (read; not network owned helicopters and network employed pilots) that have left the journo/cammo at the scene and flown home empty at night and picked them up the next day or have just stayed overnight at the location.
There is no blanket approval that all media ops are considered AWK. Generally speaking the leg home (after landing for a stand-up/interview etc) is considered CHTR (unless of course you're filming on the way home, once again all ops manuals are different). The AWK component are the legs that involve aerial filming without landing. All ops manuals (non networked owned machines and network employed pilots) that I have flown media ops specifically state this so there's no confusion as to what role equipment is required (eg floats for overwater etc) that's why I'm asking what was in Gary's ops manual (I haven't read it).
Yes I know about the twin rules at night. I may have made the assumption that gary was instrumented rated as well as the machine.
That still doesn't answer my original question re; ground lighting from the departure point.
Summing up;
- Was the aircraft operated under Gary's AOC or was it a PVT operation ie, network owned machine and network paid pilot (helps to ascertain the category type)?
- What (if any) ground lighting was there on departure?
- Were they filming on the leg home?
- Did Gary own the machine or did ABC?
- If operating under Gary's AOC, then what does their ops manual say with regard to differentiating between CHTR and AWK specifically media/filming ops (for all I know CASA may have approved their ops manual that stipulates that all media operations are considered AWK however I doubt it)? Again helps to ascertain the category type.
Squeaks. Not all media operations are the same, a lot depends on who's AOC you're operating under and what their ops manual says. I think you're misinterpreting that I'm speculating on the cause of the accident, as you have suggested it may well have been a birdstrike or not. I'm pointing out that I don't think they should have been there in the first place.
Squeaks you keep saying that I have a lack of understanding of helicopter regs I have never professed to being the ruling authority here, I have merely been asking questions. Maybe it is you that have a lack of exposure to more than one media operation/AOC holder perhaps? I have flown for CH7 under three different operators/regimes, CH9 under two operators/regimes all of which were a mix of commercial companies and for the network directly. Each had very different requirements and considerations for planning/operating.
**
but (another red herring) as a privately owned helicopter flying for the owner it could have legally been a private flight if it was a positioning flight from one area to another.
There's been more than a few occasions where media operations under this type of arrangement (read; not network owned helicopters and network employed pilots) that have left the journo/cammo at the scene and flown home empty at night and picked them up the next day or have just stayed overnight at the location.
Last edited by havick; 18th Sep 2011 at 23:42.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Source says that the pilot was an accident waiting to happen. There are no visual cues out there - black hole situation. This is lawsuit stuff.
I've flown for 2, 7 and 10 for many years, but not in Qld where I suspect you are exposed? My Qld exposure was traffic rather than media (plus I also flew SAR further north), but they do things 'differently' up there!
Gary didn't own the AS355, that is well known. The operation was aerial work within all terms and definitions, with a cameraman and a journo as crew members. To infer some charter operation where the cameraman and journo would have been paying passengers is, to me, bizarre.
It's many years since I flew ABC, but whether the operation was under Gary's AOC or another I'm not sure.
Maybe you should post your theories over in Rotorheads where there is likely to be a more experienced set of contributors, with media/helicopter background? I'll join you there, away from the likes of Sunfish
Last edited by Squeaks; 19th Sep 2011 at 00:08.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question and related to fixed wing too, not to take away any significance of this discussion - do bird strikes happen often at night? Are there many birds flying around other than petroleum fueled? I guess with the number of day flights versus night flights, the occurrences would be greatly reduced.
I once saw a bird strike on a chopper at Moorabbin. An EC120 was taxiing out to the northern heli-pad when he flew over some Seagulls next to Shell. The startled seagulls flew upwards straight into the blades. Around 8-10 Seagull carcasses hit the ground and the EC120 returned to the hangar. Probably a very expensive 4 minute flight.
I once saw a bird strike on a chopper at Moorabbin. An EC120 was taxiing out to the northern heli-pad when he flew over some Seagulls next to Shell. The startled seagulls flew upwards straight into the blades. Around 8-10 Seagull carcasses hit the ground and the EC120 returned to the hangar. Probably a very expensive 4 minute flight.
squeaks, a mix of SA and QLD.
each operation had different requirements that could legally allow you to achieve the same outcome depending on what was in your ops manual.
The inference of CHTR is that if it was in fact a commercial operation (ie AWK as you suggest), then if they weren't filming for the leg home then I would consider that particular sector as CHTR. The crew journo/cammo are really only essential crew when that sector is an AWK sector (ie engaged in aerial filming).
I'll give you an example of a CH7 operation I have flown at where the the pilot and aircraft are on a long term contract to help explain where I'm coming from.
Lets use S.A. as an example and paint three scenarios;
Scenario 1; (boat on fire beyond Auto distance from the beach).
Scenario 2; Interview at Kangaroo island with a local.
Scenario 3; Car smash on KI (requiring aerial shots and then a stand up at the scene)
Scenario 1; no floats required (although I would put them on if they were serviceable and not being maintained)
Scenario 2; Floats definately required (as there was no aerial filming then the whole flight was considered CHTR as per that particular ops manual)
Scenario 3; no floats required for the leg there + aerial filming, but once you have landed and shutdown for the standup then floats would be required for the return leg overwater (with pax) or you could re-position the aircraft back to base so long as you were the only one on board. realistically you would throw the floats on to save the hassle.
In QLD, there's no floats fitted to the aircraft at all.
I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. I don't know what's in Gary's ops manual, that's why I was asking. However all 'contracted' aircraft by the networks all had a similar reference to what is AWK and what is CHTR
**I'd like to re-iterate that I'm not speculating on the actual cause of the accident (I have my own opinion which I'm keeping to myself). I still think that there wouldn't have been enough lighting for a legal departure. I also wonder if if were legal for the two pax to be on board at night in that scenario (ie not filming as you suggest, and if they were filming how could they do it below LSALT at night without a gyro cam anyway).
each operation had different requirements that could legally allow you to achieve the same outcome depending on what was in your ops manual.
The inference of CHTR is that if it was in fact a commercial operation (ie AWK as you suggest), then if they weren't filming for the leg home then I would consider that particular sector as CHTR. The crew journo/cammo are really only essential crew when that sector is an AWK sector (ie engaged in aerial filming).
I'll give you an example of a CH7 operation I have flown at where the the pilot and aircraft are on a long term contract to help explain where I'm coming from.
Lets use S.A. as an example and paint three scenarios;
Scenario 1; (boat on fire beyond Auto distance from the beach).
Scenario 2; Interview at Kangaroo island with a local.
Scenario 3; Car smash on KI (requiring aerial shots and then a stand up at the scene)
Scenario 1; no floats required (although I would put them on if they were serviceable and not being maintained)
Scenario 2; Floats definately required (as there was no aerial filming then the whole flight was considered CHTR as per that particular ops manual)
Scenario 3; no floats required for the leg there + aerial filming, but once you have landed and shutdown for the standup then floats would be required for the return leg overwater (with pax) or you could re-position the aircraft back to base so long as you were the only one on board. realistically you would throw the floats on to save the hassle.
In QLD, there's no floats fitted to the aircraft at all.
I hope that helps you understand where I'm coming from. I don't know what's in Gary's ops manual, that's why I was asking. However all 'contracted' aircraft by the networks all had a similar reference to what is AWK and what is CHTR
**I'd like to re-iterate that I'm not speculating on the actual cause of the accident (I have my own opinion which I'm keeping to myself). I still think that there wouldn't have been enough lighting for a legal departure. I also wonder if if were legal for the two pax to be on board at night in that scenario (ie not filming as you suggest, and if they were filming how could they do it below LSALT at night without a gyro cam anyway).
Last edited by havick; 19th Sep 2011 at 00:36.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question and related to fixed wing too, not to take away any significance of this discussion - do bird strikes happen often at night? Are there many birds flying around other than petroleum fueled? I guess with the number of day flights versus night flights, the occurrences would be greatly reduced.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Paradise
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Serious question and related to fixed wing too, not to take away any significance of this discussion - do bird strikes happen often at night? Are there many birds flying around other than petroleum fueled?
I also once had the opportunity to fly down the Burdekin R low level at night in an Army Blackhawk. I was wearing night vision gear - and was surprised to see the number of ducks that were flying down the river in what were "pitch black" conditions.
So yes - birds DO fly at night.
BC
and if they were filming how could they do it below LSALT at night without a gyro cam anyway
It was probably too dark to register the glow of the set sun to the East, it would have been a great shot had they taken off at sunset as the lamps from the camp would have been a good balance to the glow on the horizon.
Something must have been keeping them there not to take advantage of shooting in the golden hour?
They were probably too far away to land and set up a ground shot looking back at the camp. Flying very low at night using a landing light to illuminate the ground is a great shot.
It is of course possible to shoot a piece to camera inside the cockpit, in which case a camera light can cause potentially disorienting reflections.
Mickjoebill
Last edited by mickjoebill; 19th Sep 2011 at 05:15.