Chopper reported missing, NSW

[Dick Smith]

Euro. Even when they had full reporting for VFR they normally did not start a search until the reported fuel had been exhausted.

This was because reports were sometimes missed because of human factors and faulty radios.

And you could still operate full position after the changes- simply file an IFR plan!

[Pseudonymn]

ABC now reporting wreckage found off Yacaaba but no bodies located.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-...gion/103035584

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

...they normally did not start a search until the reported fuel had been exhausted.

But they at least had an idea where to start that search, plus the SAR actions had been steadily ramping up ever since the missed report. People were trying to find out where you might be, even if a formal search hadn't been initiated yet.

[Dick Smith]

As I have said. -let's wait and see if this fatality could have been avoided if we still had mandatory full position reporting for VFR.

[Cloudee]

Originally Posted by Eurofox2133

Dick, the decision to remove Full SAR position reporting nearly cost me my life after a serious crash in an unpopulated area during a flight on SARTIME. Had it not been for some fortuitous intervention by an observer I would have bled to death before the SARTIME expired.

So despite the savings, from a personal perspective I cannot thank you for removing the option of FULL SAR.

Eurofox, there’s nothing stopping you using VFR flight following, I’ve never been refused it. These days a family member can follow you’re flight on OzRunways or similar also. I for one don’t miss the previous rigmarole at all.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Cloudee

Eurofox, there’s nothing stopping you using VFR flight following, I’ve never been refused it.

Spot on with FF. I religiously use it if I'm going somewhere and can't recall being refused on initial contact, though I have had it terminated due surveillance coverage multiple times, though even in most of these cases, the controller has usually said something like "You can expect to be back in coverage at 65 miles to run <waypoint>".

I'll defer to Le Pengion as to whether most controllers actually prefer you to be under FF if you're up high and their workload permits it, but I'd like to think they would, as they know straight away they can talk to you if there's an upcoming conflict or question rather than the oft-heard "Aircraft 50 miles east of Upper Bumphuck at 8,500, do you read?" with silence being the only reply...

[Mr Mossberg]

Full VFR position reporting is ridiculous in the extreme, although it does meet the Australian Nanny State mentality.

There are about 3000 other things you can do that would meet the same level of safety at a fraction of the cost, but that would mean taking some responsibility and that definitely goes against the present Australian MO.

[BEACH KING]

Originally Posted by Mr Mossberg

Full VFR position reporting is ridiculous in the extreme, although it does meet the Australian Nanny State mentality.

There are about 3000 other things you can do that would meet the same level of safety at a fraction of the cost, but that would mean taking some responsibility and that definitely goes against the present Australian MO.

Exactly right.
Technology has changed a great deal since the flight service days. Naips/Oz runways etc apps, Spot tracker, mobile phone coverage, portable elt etc.
If you practice a professional approach to your aviation activities and have people who care about you and are intertwined in your lifestyle, they will raise an alert far faster than mandated reporting ever would.
Anyhow, I feel very sorry for the family and friends associated with this latest unfortunate incident as well as those of several lately.
Unfortunately transport of any type is dangerous.

[601]

Exactly right.
Technology has changed a great deal since the flight service days. Naips/Oz runways etc apps, Spot tracker, mobile phone coverage, portable elt etc.

You don't need technology all the time. If you are flying somewhere, there is generally someone expecting you.
A simple text message to whoever is at you destination is all it needs, even when you are travelling by vehicle.

[Cedrik]

Was the aircraft avoiding Williamtown airspace?

[MagnumPI]

Originally Posted by Cedrik

Was the aircraft avoiding Williamtown airspace?

Based on the track from FR24 it seems the aircraft was tracking the coastal VFR route. It runs from Nobbys to Seal Rocks as can be seen on the Newcastle VTC, and requires a clearance from Williamtown to enter the CTR.

It's been a while since I flew this route so can't remember if it's commonplace for Williamtown to cut you loose before the end of the route at Sugarloaf. I do remember them requiring reporting Anna Bay etc. Is this still the case?

If, as has been reported on ABC, the aircraft went down near Port Stephens - would a controller have been expecting another report from them further N?

[JamieMaree]

The aircraft has to be flown according to the condition at the time.
Full reporting or the alternatives are about where/ when they will find the wreckage and/or if the prang is survivable, can they find the accident site before the survivors perish.

[Cedrik]

Are you blokes seriously suggesting to go back to full reporting for private aircraft? RAA aviation activity too? Hang gliding? Gliding?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

No one is suggesting, just refuting the contention that it was a bad thing. Certainly technology has moved on. Thirty years ago, entirely different story. Plus SAR alerting was not its only purpose...back then.

[Squawk7700]

It was suggested to me by a local pilot that this area is extremely turbulent. Low level down the beach but nearby there are 1,000ft cliffs that cause the equivalent of mountain waves. Same turbulence exists in the area of where the Huey went in.

Once the rotors are found, a lot more will be discovered.

[Capt Fathom]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

there are 1,000ft cliffs that cause the equivalent of mountain waves.

Where are these 1000ft cliffs?

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Where are these 1000ft cliffs?

With wreckage found near Yacaaba headland based on earlier link at #22, that still rises to 210 to 218 m depending on where you look for data. Not a 1000 ft cliff but quite lumpy all the same.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

It was suggested to me by a local pilot that this area is extremely turbulent.... [terrain] that cause the equivalent of mountain waves...

If so, reminds me of the helicopter accident that killed Shirley Strachan accident highlights mountain wave dangers | ATSB
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/2001/release/2001_21

[Squawk7700]

Second hand story. 200+ metres is still high when you’re flying at 500ft.

If we knew the QNH you could convert the ADSB graph to show actual altitude, not what looks like scud-running.

[Capt Fathom]

The 9am QNH was 1021mb. That puts the chopper at around 900ft.