Bell ditching off Newcastle

[MickG0105]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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

[Squawk7700]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

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]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

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...r/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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by megan

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 you

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.

[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!