Bell ditching off Newcastle

[markis10]

Originally Posted by 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.

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_Gu...%20Rev%202.pdf

205 TCDS https://web.archive.org/web/20110608...4FILE/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]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

..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 132

4.3 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.




The original

You Tube

[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.



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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Professional Amateur

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?