Bell 407 SAR accident Queensland
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Eacott,
I'd have to agree that CAO 20:18 4.2(d) is a "hangover" from the old "Class 4", but still at the end of the day "Visual ref'" has got to be just that. I've had much discussion with CASA FOI's on this VFR overwater (or overland without sufficient ground lighting )at night and have been advised that it can't be done legally. I'd also agree that it should read "attitude".
Safe flying
Scattercat
I'd have to agree that CAO 20:18 4.2(d) is a "hangover" from the old "Class 4", but still at the end of the day "Visual ref'" has got to be just that. I've had much discussion with CASA FOI's on this VFR overwater (or overland without sufficient ground lighting )at night and have been advised that it can't be done legally. I'd also agree that it should read "attitude".
Safe flying
Scattercat
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Outback Queensland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case it escaped your attention gents, while you were discussing the finer points of Air Legislation and NVFR, the Capricorn crew (including the experienced Vietnam Vet pilot "Mick") narrowly escaped being drowned while attempting - rightly or wrongly to save human life.
OTOH as it turns out, it'd have been far better for all concerned if they'd just let the b@st@rds drown.
You see these two "distressed Malaysian yachties" were actually BIG TIME drug smugglers bringing in bulk "stuff" and were arrested today in Australia's biggest ever drug bust. See -
www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2374551%255E3102,00.html
"TWO Malaysian nationals have been charged with importing illicit drugs after an overnight seizure of about 300kg of amphetamine-based designer drugs from a yacht and a Queensland house.
The men, aged 45 and 30, will appear in Maroochydore Magistrates Court today, charged with importing prohibited substances.
If convicted, they could face a maximum 25 years in jail.
The drugs came from a house on the Gold Coast and from the yacht Zen, which was moored off Mooloolaba and was believed to include the designer drugs ecstasy, ice and a relatively new import known as eden.
Federal Customs Minister Chris Ellison said forensic experts were analysing the drugs to identify their strength and character and to determine their street value.
Senator Ellison said he was unable to release further details of the arrest because the operation, which began last year, was ongoing.
But he said the "significant" seizure had come after a tip off to a Customs Watch hotline. "It would be one of the most significant seizures of this drug in Australia, we have had other seizures - only one or two - that rival this in size," Senator Ellison said.
He said the variety of drugs showed traffickers were catering to an established market. "
What a pity it didn't happen in their own country where the scum would have been executed.
OTOH as it turns out, it'd have been far better for all concerned if they'd just let the b@st@rds drown.
You see these two "distressed Malaysian yachties" were actually BIG TIME drug smugglers bringing in bulk "stuff" and were arrested today in Australia's biggest ever drug bust. See -
www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2374551%255E3102,00.html
"TWO Malaysian nationals have been charged with importing illicit drugs after an overnight seizure of about 300kg of amphetamine-based designer drugs from a yacht and a Queensland house.
The men, aged 45 and 30, will appear in Maroochydore Magistrates Court today, charged with importing prohibited substances.
If convicted, they could face a maximum 25 years in jail.
The drugs came from a house on the Gold Coast and from the yacht Zen, which was moored off Mooloolaba and was believed to include the designer drugs ecstasy, ice and a relatively new import known as eden.
Federal Customs Minister Chris Ellison said forensic experts were analysing the drugs to identify their strength and character and to determine their street value.
Senator Ellison said he was unable to release further details of the arrest because the operation, which began last year, was ongoing.
But he said the "significant" seizure had come after a tip off to a Customs Watch hotline. "It would be one of the most significant seizures of this drug in Australia, we have had other seizures - only one or two - that rival this in size," Senator Ellison said.
He said the variety of drugs showed traffickers were catering to an established market. "
What a pity it didn't happen in their own country where the scum would have been executed.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Outback Queensland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From News Ltd. Web site -
"State spent $2m rescuing suspected drug runners
TWO sailors allegedly caught on board a yacht packed with a record drug cargo had been saved three months earlier from a sinking boat in a multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded rescue off Queensland's central coast.
The April rescue cost the State Government at least $2million after one of its helicopters crashed into the sea trying to pluck the two Malaysian nationals from a stricken yacht on Swain Reefs, 200km off Rockhampton."
More may be found at www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2377714%255E3102,00.html
"State spent $2m rescuing suspected drug runners
TWO sailors allegedly caught on board a yacht packed with a record drug cargo had been saved three months earlier from a sinking boat in a multimillion-dollar taxpayer-funded rescue off Queensland's central coast.
The April rescue cost the State Government at least $2million after one of its helicopters crashed into the sea trying to pluck the two Malaysian nationals from a stricken yacht on Swain Reefs, 200km off Rockhampton."
More may be found at www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,2377714%255E3102,00.html
In the interest's of "accurate reporting" ... it WAS NOT a Queensland Government helicopter at all that crashed and I'm quite sure those guy's don't want to be "credited" with that sort of publicity. It was in fact a "community service provider" aircraft.
Scattercat
Scattercat
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Canada/around
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel Fitter: isn't it interesting how we preach safety then ignore everything we just said and defend these guys now. This wasn't a last minute, holy sh!t something happened, let's get on it. From what I've read here they were working a job where they expected to go out and try to do this in woefully inadequate equipment.
I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not then it isn't laudible, it's criminal. Either do it right or get out of the business. Night over water winching operations are not meant for light singles.
The properly equipped helo wound up going to do the job in the end anyway.
I hope I'm wrong, but if I'm not then it isn't laudible, it's criminal. Either do it right or get out of the business. Night over water winching operations are not meant for light singles.
The properly equipped helo wound up going to do the job in the end anyway.
I have not previously heard that the Capricorn (B407) crew were attempting a winch, instead, I believe they were attempting a life raft drop to the survivors.
Additionally, the B412 that also went out, dropped a raft than waited until first light to perform the winch.
On the above comment about insurance....we will all pay a bit more now because the insurance companies rarely (if ever) take account of the safety health of an organisation. As the Australian regulators appear (from the posts above) to be allowing such operations, and insurers are risking everybody's money insuring them, what is the solution? Or do we continue to criticize? What kind of pressure did the crew percieve, and why were they unable to resist? How can we learn from it?
At least this was a "free" lesson in terms of human life.
Should we wait for the facts?
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: helmet fire ]
Additionally, the B412 that also went out, dropped a raft than waited until first light to perform the winch.
On the above comment about insurance....we will all pay a bit more now because the insurance companies rarely (if ever) take account of the safety health of an organisation. As the Australian regulators appear (from the posts above) to be allowing such operations, and insurers are risking everybody's money insuring them, what is the solution? Or do we continue to criticize? What kind of pressure did the crew percieve, and why were they unable to resist? How can we learn from it?
At least this was a "free" lesson in terms of human life.
Should we wait for the facts?
[ 22 July 2001: Message edited by: helmet fire ]
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: at the edge
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rumour has it that the Capricorn Service is soon to be taken over by Jayrow Helicopters using as AS 350 and eventually upgraded to a BK 117 B1.
Does anybody konw whether or not this company have any experience of EMS and SAR winching operations?
Does anybody konw whether or not this company have any experience of EMS and SAR winching operations?
In response to leading edge:
Does experience matter?
Two examples:
1. Rumour has it that CASA (and the client!) approved the appointment of a Chief Pilot to an Austalian multi engine IFR EMS helicopter whom had just achieved his first Command Instrument Rating and whom had been a multi engine captain for less than 3 months!!
2. Rumour has it that CASA (and the client)recently granted approval to an operator of B206, to operate Kamov heavy helicopters on precision TV tower construction work. Allegedly they damaged the tower, the antenna, and narrowly missed the rigging crews after several attempts. (I am told there is a video if anyone can get a copy??)
So why does experience matter anyway?!!?
Does experience matter?
Two examples:
1. Rumour has it that CASA (and the client!) approved the appointment of a Chief Pilot to an Austalian multi engine IFR EMS helicopter whom had just achieved his first Command Instrument Rating and whom had been a multi engine captain for less than 3 months!!
2. Rumour has it that CASA (and the client)recently granted approval to an operator of B206, to operate Kamov heavy helicopters on precision TV tower construction work. Allegedly they damaged the tower, the antenna, and narrowly missed the rigging crews after several attempts. (I am told there is a video if anyone can get a copy??)
So why does experience matter anyway?!!?
I looked up Jayrow Helicopters in the 2000 Shepherds Heli handbook and it appears that they have some experience in the EMS and firefighting fields - and offshore supply.
No sign of winching [except where it relates to the above?].
As a matter of interest they appear to have a fairly large fleet including the mentioned AS350 and BK117s... Bell 206s and even a Cessna 208.
No sign of winching [except where it relates to the above?].
As a matter of interest they appear to have a fairly large fleet including the mentioned AS350 and BK117s... Bell 206s and even a Cessna 208.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 78
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
late in the day prior to the accident the emergency services helicopter in brisbane was tasked for the job. i wouldn't call it a rescue as the boat was in pretty calm seas and not in imminent danger.
they have an operation procedure in the government rescue service that precludes winching over water at night and they stick to it.
when they will attend under adverse or night over water conditions it is always with two flight crew and a crewman and they will drop a liferaft and return at first light or the earliest the can to conduct any winching.
the government helicopetr fleet only has one auto hover capable machine and that is based in cairns, even so they are not all trained to use this device so they don't.
the three point four million dollar 407 took off with one pilot and one crewman from rocky at about midnight to fly approximately 130 nautical over water. they had six or seven jerries of fuel on board with the expectation of finding a supposedly known sandy cay to land on and refuel, all this on a mild but very very black night.
it seems that an attempt to drop a liferaft was made and an abseiling rope was attached so the raft could be pulled toward the yacht and then dropped for the two drug runners to pull it in.
part of the rope was apparently found wrapped around the tail rotor drive shaft. whether this happened before or after the accident (it's hard to call this an accident you could not be blamed for thinking otherwise)is not known.
the machine went in upside down tail over nose and the main rotor head and blades parted company with the machine, they were located but not salvaged quite a distance from the hull.
keeping station over the water on a good day is difficult enough without turning off the lights. you have to shake your head and wonder at the ego or stupidity of someone who thinks they can handle a nvfr machine in those conditions. it wouldn't have mattered if he had six engines and three crewmen he was always going to go in.
one of the problems with private rescue operations is that there is no proper command at the top other than the pilot and only his decision making ability or lack of it to give the go or no go call.
1. private rescue machine crashes into mud flats, severe weather, heavy rain and cloud on the deck, pilot survives, crewman and pregnant passenger dead. sydney.
2. private rescue machine crashes into sea at night in heavy rain at night in victoria.
3. private rescue machine descends into terrain at night in heavy rain at night in queensland.
4. private rescue machine crashes in dense fog attempting to pick up dead body in central nsw coast.
5. private rescue machine crashes out of fuel in fog at night killing all five on board. queensland.
6. private rescue machine explodes on the ground and is destroyed in central qld.
7. private rescue machine crashes on reef at night in pitch black overwater.
8. non private twin rescue machine goes into the water in harbour.
9. non private rescue machine swamped by quite a few freak waves and is destroyed.
10. private twin crashes into bay in atrocious weather, queensland.
that's off the top of my head
what has to happen for someone supposedly in control to sit up and see what is going on.
why should industry have to wear the results of these avoidable mishaps in the form of public distrust and massive insurance premium hikes.
it's bad enough that accidents have to happen at all but to have gung ho obviously brain dead cowboys launching off into the black and unforgiving void has to be beyond comprehension.
there are those that will say "but they are trying to save lives and help people" and "they only have the best interests of the comunity at heart". rubbish, they believe the hero publicity that they receive for just doing a job of flying. "pilot hero hovers helicopter", "pilot hailed a hero for flying helicopter".
when you stand back and look at the cost in life and machinery it is hard to see that it is acceptable to any community. most of these accidents happened when the pilot decided to forget the first rule of rescue, don't become a rescuee yourself.
and just to cover my bum i do think that most ems/rescue pilots are very professional and use proper operational procedures hence the near zero incident rate amongst the larger corporate type operations. it is up to industry to set the standard and maintain it,
casa don't seem to want to do it.
all of the people killed in helicopter rescue accidents could have been carried in an ambulance and been alive today.
they have an operation procedure in the government rescue service that precludes winching over water at night and they stick to it.
when they will attend under adverse or night over water conditions it is always with two flight crew and a crewman and they will drop a liferaft and return at first light or the earliest the can to conduct any winching.
the government helicopetr fleet only has one auto hover capable machine and that is based in cairns, even so they are not all trained to use this device so they don't.
the three point four million dollar 407 took off with one pilot and one crewman from rocky at about midnight to fly approximately 130 nautical over water. they had six or seven jerries of fuel on board with the expectation of finding a supposedly known sandy cay to land on and refuel, all this on a mild but very very black night.
it seems that an attempt to drop a liferaft was made and an abseiling rope was attached so the raft could be pulled toward the yacht and then dropped for the two drug runners to pull it in.
part of the rope was apparently found wrapped around the tail rotor drive shaft. whether this happened before or after the accident (it's hard to call this an accident you could not be blamed for thinking otherwise)is not known.
the machine went in upside down tail over nose and the main rotor head and blades parted company with the machine, they were located but not salvaged quite a distance from the hull.
keeping station over the water on a good day is difficult enough without turning off the lights. you have to shake your head and wonder at the ego or stupidity of someone who thinks they can handle a nvfr machine in those conditions. it wouldn't have mattered if he had six engines and three crewmen he was always going to go in.
one of the problems with private rescue operations is that there is no proper command at the top other than the pilot and only his decision making ability or lack of it to give the go or no go call.
1. private rescue machine crashes into mud flats, severe weather, heavy rain and cloud on the deck, pilot survives, crewman and pregnant passenger dead. sydney.
2. private rescue machine crashes into sea at night in heavy rain at night in victoria.
3. private rescue machine descends into terrain at night in heavy rain at night in queensland.
4. private rescue machine crashes in dense fog attempting to pick up dead body in central nsw coast.
5. private rescue machine crashes out of fuel in fog at night killing all five on board. queensland.
6. private rescue machine explodes on the ground and is destroyed in central qld.
7. private rescue machine crashes on reef at night in pitch black overwater.
8. non private twin rescue machine goes into the water in harbour.
9. non private rescue machine swamped by quite a few freak waves and is destroyed.
10. private twin crashes into bay in atrocious weather, queensland.
that's off the top of my head
what has to happen for someone supposedly in control to sit up and see what is going on.
why should industry have to wear the results of these avoidable mishaps in the form of public distrust and massive insurance premium hikes.
it's bad enough that accidents have to happen at all but to have gung ho obviously brain dead cowboys launching off into the black and unforgiving void has to be beyond comprehension.
there are those that will say "but they are trying to save lives and help people" and "they only have the best interests of the comunity at heart". rubbish, they believe the hero publicity that they receive for just doing a job of flying. "pilot hero hovers helicopter", "pilot hailed a hero for flying helicopter".
when you stand back and look at the cost in life and machinery it is hard to see that it is acceptable to any community. most of these accidents happened when the pilot decided to forget the first rule of rescue, don't become a rescuee yourself.
and just to cover my bum i do think that most ems/rescue pilots are very professional and use proper operational procedures hence the near zero incident rate amongst the larger corporate type operations. it is up to industry to set the standard and maintain it,
casa don't seem to want to do it.
all of the people killed in helicopter rescue accidents could have been carried in an ambulance and been alive today.
Imabell :
I scan the BASI web pages on a reasonably regular basis, and haven't seen accident reports for those incidents you mention.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe you - in fact the opposite - but if you know of a web source for accident reports, could you post it ?
As an aside, I find the attitude of BASI a little incomprehensible sometimes. Last year ( if I remember rightly ) a H300 crashed with two fatalities in the Vic mountains but NO accident report followed ( apparently they were too busy ). But a Brantly which ran out of fuel merited a full accident report. Odd.
I scan the BASI web pages on a reasonably regular basis, and haven't seen accident reports for those incidents you mention.
This doesn't mean that I don't believe you - in fact the opposite - but if you know of a web source for accident reports, could you post it ?
As an aside, I find the attitude of BASI a little incomprehensible sometimes. Last year ( if I remember rightly ) a H300 crashed with two fatalities in the Vic mountains but NO accident report followed ( apparently they were too busy ). But a Brantly which ran out of fuel merited a full accident report. Odd.
Nr,
I suspect that the H300 accident is awaiting a coroner's report before BASI's, a normal procedure. I will certainly be interested in it, having turned away from the accident area <2 hours before the crash, due to severe turbulence, and I was in a BK117!
Re Capricorn, it may not be general knowledge that the organisation Capricorn Rescue is not an operator, but is the local fund raiser, which creates and then distributes funds for a rescue organisation. They have now committed to contracting Jayrow Helicopters to provide a service to the local community, initially (as reported) with a Squirrel helicopter, and hopefully later to upgrade to a larger twin.
Jayrow's experience level is more than sufficient to provide a professional service, regardless of comments made here. But like everything, how can you get experience if the criteria must preclude operators not previously experienced in a particular field? Catch 22 springs to mind !!!
I suspect that the H300 accident is awaiting a coroner's report before BASI's, a normal procedure. I will certainly be interested in it, having turned away from the accident area <2 hours before the crash, due to severe turbulence, and I was in a BK117!
Re Capricorn, it may not be general knowledge that the organisation Capricorn Rescue is not an operator, but is the local fund raiser, which creates and then distributes funds for a rescue organisation. They have now committed to contracting Jayrow Helicopters to provide a service to the local community, initially (as reported) with a Squirrel helicopter, and hopefully later to upgrade to a larger twin.
Jayrow's experience level is more than sufficient to provide a professional service, regardless of comments made here. But like everything, how can you get experience if the criteria must preclude operators not previously experienced in a particular field? Catch 22 springs to mind !!!
Imabell, there are a number of points in your emotive post which deserve to be challenged, however I'll only address 2 of your assertions. Firstly, where do you get the idea that EMS/rescue pilots are motivated to fly in less than ideal conditions, because of the hero factor? That conclusion is both ignorant and insulting. As a former EMS/rescue pilot with a community based operator I can say that all the crew members at my company found the job very satisfying, and were proud to do it, but nobody ever made operational decisions based on whether they would get publicity or be called a hero. In fact I'm sure they all wished every job was straightforward and risk free. The novelty of launching at 2am into s#%t weather soon wears off. Most EMS pilots are older, more experienced guys whose priority is to get the job done with a minimum of risk. A pilot who goes out to be a hero will soon find out that none of the crewmen or ambos will want to fly with him. You also state that all the jobs you mentioned could have been done by ambulance. Rubbish. Most EMS operators are under contract to the respective state government health departments. The helicopter is despatched by the district ambulance controller, not at the whim of the pilot. Of course the pilot has the final say on whether he launches. Before the ambulance controller calls the helicopter the job has to fit certain criteria, such as the availability or otherwise of a road ambulance, the nature and seriousness of the injuries, etc. I can't comment on the specific accidents you mention-I've never heard of half of them, but over the same period that these accidents have occurred there have been literally thousands of successful rescues and hospital transfers carried out. Frankly I'm surprised there haven't been more accidents given the number of missions flown and the conditions they are flown under. I agree that improvements can be made and I don't have personal knowledge of every EMS outfit, but your generalisations regarding accidents and assumptions on what motivates the pilots are ill informed.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Out and About
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Imabell
Bit surprised at your comments. From a journos standpoint, one who has visited and profiled many EMS/SAR operators worldwide I would have to disagree with your comments whole heartedly. Nearly every operator I have flown with has acted in the utmost professionalism. In fact many of them have acted on the side of safety and not gone where they could easily have just headed off and ploughed into the unknown.
Yes there are one or two that I would never fly with again but these are more the exception rather than the rule. These guys deserve the credit as some of the conditions they fly in, albeit after much deliberation with other crew members and in some cases management, leave a lot to be desired. In a lot of the EMS programs in the US the Program managers are actually part of the flight crew so do you honestly think they are going to let the pilots get away on an ego trip and jeopardise their crews, I think not.
You also have to remember that the Downunder operations also work as not just EMS but SAR operations as well so the skill levels are actually quite a lot more than the average US crewman (no offence intended). They cover a larger area in most cases and the weather patterns generally more extreme.
I think some rethinking is needed re your post as it will obviously offend many in that industry. I for one commend them for the job they do.
Pac Rotors
Bit surprised at your comments. From a journos standpoint, one who has visited and profiled many EMS/SAR operators worldwide I would have to disagree with your comments whole heartedly. Nearly every operator I have flown with has acted in the utmost professionalism. In fact many of them have acted on the side of safety and not gone where they could easily have just headed off and ploughed into the unknown.
Yes there are one or two that I would never fly with again but these are more the exception rather than the rule. These guys deserve the credit as some of the conditions they fly in, albeit after much deliberation with other crew members and in some cases management, leave a lot to be desired. In a lot of the EMS programs in the US the Program managers are actually part of the flight crew so do you honestly think they are going to let the pilots get away on an ego trip and jeopardise their crews, I think not.
You also have to remember that the Downunder operations also work as not just EMS but SAR operations as well so the skill levels are actually quite a lot more than the average US crewman (no offence intended). They cover a larger area in most cases and the weather patterns generally more extreme.
I think some rethinking is needed re your post as it will obviously offend many in that industry. I for one commend them for the job they do.
Pac Rotors
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Some corner of a foreign field.
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments. I am fortunate enough to fly for one of the larger SAR/EMS organisations but I do have experience of the smaller community based services.
I feel that the problem generally, and more specifically with Capricorn is that they are run by a board of local business identities who are well intentioned, but woefully misinformed individuals. These people are very active in raising the funds and profile of the service and are therefore very keen to see it perform well in providing a EMS/SAR service to the local community.
These people know zip about helicopter operations and often place undue pressure on their pilots to provide the fast, 24 hour service that they are promoting in order to raise funds ('when seconds count'....'there when you need us'...'golden hour' etc, etc.) Try telling them that you turned down a job because it was too dark or there was a bit of cloud around and they won't understand.
All they are concerned about is that Mrs Browns little boy had to wait for 6 hours until he could get to hospital and Mr Brown contributes to a wage deduction scheme for the helicopter.
This ignorance of operational rules, regulations and plain common sense often extends from the Chairman of the board right down to the Manager/CEO of the operation.
If the board then appoints a Chief Pilot who only tells them what they want to hear or who has any connection with that board things can only get worse.
We operate an IFR Bell 412 with 4 full time crews of three people (pilot, crewman, rescue crewman) and we are sometimes pushed to operate an all weather 24 hour service. Capricorn type operations are virtually advertising the same service with a VFR Bell 407, two pilots and a part time crewman.
The crewmen/paramedics with these new community services are often very new to helicopter operations and possibly attend a one day winch operators course (they can be signed off by a Chief Pilot who has probably never operated a winch). They view pilots - particularly the older ex - something guys as demi-gods and would never question decisions made by the pilot. They simply do not have the experience to know when to say 'no'.
The crewmen that I fly with make their feelings well known to me and are encouraged to speak up by our organisation. It's called CRM.
There are changes needed and CASA are the only people who can make them - or will we still be saying that after the next acident?
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Out of Balance ]
I feel that the problem generally, and more specifically with Capricorn is that they are run by a board of local business identities who are well intentioned, but woefully misinformed individuals. These people are very active in raising the funds and profile of the service and are therefore very keen to see it perform well in providing a EMS/SAR service to the local community.
These people know zip about helicopter operations and often place undue pressure on their pilots to provide the fast, 24 hour service that they are promoting in order to raise funds ('when seconds count'....'there when you need us'...'golden hour' etc, etc.) Try telling them that you turned down a job because it was too dark or there was a bit of cloud around and they won't understand.
All they are concerned about is that Mrs Browns little boy had to wait for 6 hours until he could get to hospital and Mr Brown contributes to a wage deduction scheme for the helicopter.
This ignorance of operational rules, regulations and plain common sense often extends from the Chairman of the board right down to the Manager/CEO of the operation.
If the board then appoints a Chief Pilot who only tells them what they want to hear or who has any connection with that board things can only get worse.
We operate an IFR Bell 412 with 4 full time crews of three people (pilot, crewman, rescue crewman) and we are sometimes pushed to operate an all weather 24 hour service. Capricorn type operations are virtually advertising the same service with a VFR Bell 407, two pilots and a part time crewman.
The crewmen/paramedics with these new community services are often very new to helicopter operations and possibly attend a one day winch operators course (they can be signed off by a Chief Pilot who has probably never operated a winch). They view pilots - particularly the older ex - something guys as demi-gods and would never question decisions made by the pilot. They simply do not have the experience to know when to say 'no'.
The crewmen that I fly with make their feelings well known to me and are encouraged to speak up by our organisation. It's called CRM.
There are changes needed and CASA are the only people who can make them - or will we still be saying that after the next acident?
[ 25 July 2001: Message edited by: Out of Balance ]
Join Date: May 2001
Location: queensland australia
Age: 78
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
the capricorn helicopter rescue service is an aoc holder not a distributor of funds and at no time have they ever put any pressure on their pilots to go. i doubt that a high time pilot would be influenced in this way. if he or she is so influenced then they are the wrong people for the job.
the previous operator of the capricorn service hired on behalf of the board was an aoc holder and was the operator when the first longranger exploded when the oxygen bottle ignited and the second longrager crashed in fog.
since then they obtained their own aoc and kept the same crew members operating the 407.
neither of the accidents were tasked by the aoc holding board members.
the pilot is the final arbitrator at all times and sometimes the decision making becomes emotive rather than practical and i am sure that the person who thinks that i am insulting to ems pilots would be very insulted if he was told he was not to make the hard decisions about a flight at midnight on a black night 130 nautical over water.
i am not being insulting in any way nor did i mean to be. if you take offence at the avoidable loss of life and machinery i'm sorry.
i am sure all or most of you ems pilots on hearing of the accidents and the conditions that they took place would have raised your eyebrows just a bit.
at no time did i say that all ems pilots work on the hero factor, what i am trying to point out is that there does not seem to be any conditions that preclude a lets go factor, in one type of operation, by some pilots, specifically private ems operators.
on pilot told me that he decides when it's too black or too wet once he is on route.
if this is considered good policy by the majority of ems/rescue pilots i'll be amazed.
most ems/rescue services have dispensations against cao 48 because of the nature of the job and this is quite understandable as you have to be on call or duty for long periods.
what of the private rescue pilot that is tasked for a photo job or sling job or another type of aerial work during this dispensation.
they swing from one set of flight and duty times to another even though once you revert to the higher category that is where you are supposed to stay. on many occassions pilots are put under pressure to do this extracurricular activity and then conduct the rescue role later in the night.
you can look them up in the yellow pages.
if the rules and regs that we are supposed to abide by are flaunted so easily, sometimes on a daily basis, why isn't it fair to assume that these pilots will do any job that comes along.
as for basi they were once held in high esteem by the worlds aviation community for the famous crash comic the aviation safety digest but as time has passed and severe cuts take place they are down to a few good men and women.
if you look at the helicopter statistics over the last ten years you will note at the bottom of the page that most were not formally investigated or no onsite investigation took place. i have most of the australian helicopter accidents on file and some are severly lacking.
even if they had been investigated the people involved have little knowledge of helicopters and how they operate, the information is usually passed to them by fax from the pilot and that is the end of it.
you can obtain accident reports if you ask for them from basi now the atsb. i am certain they are available on the net.
the previous operator of the capricorn service hired on behalf of the board was an aoc holder and was the operator when the first longranger exploded when the oxygen bottle ignited and the second longrager crashed in fog.
since then they obtained their own aoc and kept the same crew members operating the 407.
neither of the accidents were tasked by the aoc holding board members.
the pilot is the final arbitrator at all times and sometimes the decision making becomes emotive rather than practical and i am sure that the person who thinks that i am insulting to ems pilots would be very insulted if he was told he was not to make the hard decisions about a flight at midnight on a black night 130 nautical over water.
i am not being insulting in any way nor did i mean to be. if you take offence at the avoidable loss of life and machinery i'm sorry.
i am sure all or most of you ems pilots on hearing of the accidents and the conditions that they took place would have raised your eyebrows just a bit.
at no time did i say that all ems pilots work on the hero factor, what i am trying to point out is that there does not seem to be any conditions that preclude a lets go factor, in one type of operation, by some pilots, specifically private ems operators.
on pilot told me that he decides when it's too black or too wet once he is on route.
if this is considered good policy by the majority of ems/rescue pilots i'll be amazed.
most ems/rescue services have dispensations against cao 48 because of the nature of the job and this is quite understandable as you have to be on call or duty for long periods.
what of the private rescue pilot that is tasked for a photo job or sling job or another type of aerial work during this dispensation.
they swing from one set of flight and duty times to another even though once you revert to the higher category that is where you are supposed to stay. on many occassions pilots are put under pressure to do this extracurricular activity and then conduct the rescue role later in the night.
you can look them up in the yellow pages.
if the rules and regs that we are supposed to abide by are flaunted so easily, sometimes on a daily basis, why isn't it fair to assume that these pilots will do any job that comes along.
as for basi they were once held in high esteem by the worlds aviation community for the famous crash comic the aviation safety digest but as time has passed and severe cuts take place they are down to a few good men and women.
if you look at the helicopter statistics over the last ten years you will note at the bottom of the page that most were not formally investigated or no onsite investigation took place. i have most of the australian helicopter accidents on file and some are severly lacking.
even if they had been investigated the people involved have little knowledge of helicopters and how they operate, the information is usually passed to them by fax from the pilot and that is the end of it.
you can obtain accident reports if you ask for them from basi now the atsb. i am certain they are available on the net.
PPRuNe Time
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 316
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Report: Bell 407 Qld Night SAR accident Apr01
It was well publicised in Aus at the time (eg http://www.amsa.gov.au/amsa/media/ar...2001/Apr12.htm and http://www.emergency.qld.gov.au/publ...1_may/pg02.htm) and it may be of interest.
The ATSB Report is at http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...il.cfm?ID=473.
From the report:
"CONCLUSION
The helicopter was inadvertently flown into the water. The circumstances indicate that the accident was a result of human performance limitations and an absence of robust organisational defences.
FINDINGS
The pilot was appropriately licensed and medically fit to conduct the flight.
The crew was not adequately trained to conduct the flight.
The operator did not have regulatory approval to drop articles from the helicopter by day or night.
The operator's operations manual did not contain the required information or procedures for the pilot to conduct dropping of equipment from the helicopter.
The operator's procedures, training and supervision were not adequate for the pilot to accept a night search and rescue operation over water.
The crew was not adequately prepared for an emergency egress when the helicopter entered the water.
The helicopter was considered capable of normal flight prior to impact with the water.
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
The operator's procedures were not appropriate to accept, plan and conduct an over-water, night, search-and-rescue flight.
The helicopter was not adequately equipped to conduct a night, over-water, search and rescue flight.
The conditions at a very low height above the water surface were conducive to visual illusions.
The helicopter entered a high rate of descent on approach to the stranded yacht."
The ATSB Report is at http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...il.cfm?ID=473.
From the report:
"CONCLUSION
The helicopter was inadvertently flown into the water. The circumstances indicate that the accident was a result of human performance limitations and an absence of robust organisational defences.
FINDINGS
The pilot was appropriately licensed and medically fit to conduct the flight.
The crew was not adequately trained to conduct the flight.
The operator did not have regulatory approval to drop articles from the helicopter by day or night.
The operator's operations manual did not contain the required information or procedures for the pilot to conduct dropping of equipment from the helicopter.
The operator's procedures, training and supervision were not adequate for the pilot to accept a night search and rescue operation over water.
The crew was not adequately prepared for an emergency egress when the helicopter entered the water.
The helicopter was considered capable of normal flight prior to impact with the water.
SIGNIFICANT FACTORS
The operator's procedures were not appropriate to accept, plan and conduct an over-water, night, search-and-rescue flight.
The helicopter was not adequately equipped to conduct a night, over-water, search and rescue flight.
The conditions at a very low height above the water surface were conducive to visual illusions.
The helicopter entered a high rate of descent on approach to the stranded yacht."
Last edited by Heliport; 10th Aug 2003 at 17:39.