The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Bell ditching off Newcastle

Old 7th Sep 2019, 21:26
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Brisbane
Age: 56
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Horatio Leafblower View Post
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
markis10 is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 00:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,946
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 25 Posts
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
megan is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 00:59
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Compliance with Note 17 of the UH-1H TCDS might be difficult to explain in this instance.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 01:42
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
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....
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 01:44
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cairns
Posts: 1,308
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
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?

Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 02:18
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,570
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie View Post
..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".

gulliBell is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 03:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,946
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 25 Posts
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.
megan is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 03:52
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
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?
havick is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 06:12
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,946
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 25 Posts
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

Last edited by megan; 8th Sep 2019 at 06:32.
megan is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 08:50
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,470
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts

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.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 10:01
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Professional Amateur is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 10:44
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,470
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Professional Amateur View Post
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.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 11:29
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Above the 23.5 parallel Australia
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
.....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".
Nipper is offline  
Old 8th Sep 2019, 23:55
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,047
Likes: 0
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
If you are putting in a flight plan, the Huey acft type goes in as a B05 or BH05 - can't remember which.
Ascend Charlie is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 01:10
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
Fris B. Fairing is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 01:46
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,946
Likes: 0
Received 57 Likes on 25 Posts
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.
megan is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 04:20
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 41
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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.
Professional Amateur is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 04:51
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,470
Received 15 Likes on 11 Posts
Originally Posted by Professional Amateur View Post
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.

Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 05:11
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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 is online now  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 05:18
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,460
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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?
Dick Smith is online now  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.