Bell 407 SAR accident Queensland
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capricorn Rescue Loses Yet Another Helo
Rescue Helicopter Crew Rescued
Two crewmen of a Bell 407 rescue helicopter ended up being rescued themselves by a Brisbane-based Queensland Emergency Service helicopter the morning after their helicopter crashed into the sea.
The Rockhampton-based Capricorn Rescue Helicopter Bell 407 crashed at night and in bad weather while attempting to assist two men from a Malaysian yacht, which got into difficulty near the Swain Reefs, about 120 nautical miles off the central Queensland coast. The crew and yacht’s survivors spent several hours in life rafts before being winched to safety by the QES helicopter and flown to Gladstone. They suffered only minor injuries.
The Bell 407 helicopter had entered service about two months prior to the accident; a replacement for the Rescue Service’s Bell Longranger that was lost in an accident in which three crew members and two passengers were killed when it crashed near Marlborough last year.
Two crewmen of a Bell 407 rescue helicopter ended up being rescued themselves by a Brisbane-based Queensland Emergency Service helicopter the morning after their helicopter crashed into the sea.
The Rockhampton-based Capricorn Rescue Helicopter Bell 407 crashed at night and in bad weather while attempting to assist two men from a Malaysian yacht, which got into difficulty near the Swain Reefs, about 120 nautical miles off the central Queensland coast. The crew and yacht’s survivors spent several hours in life rafts before being winched to safety by the QES helicopter and flown to Gladstone. They suffered only minor injuries.
The Bell 407 helicopter had entered service about two months prior to the accident; a replacement for the Rescue Service’s Bell Longranger that was lost in an accident in which three crew members and two passengers were killed when it crashed near Marlborough last year.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Heloteacher - no.
The downside of having a fast growing SAR/EMS industry here is that it is not as well regulated as in other parts of the world. For example operators do not have to satisfy Public Transport or Charter regulations. They can operate under the Airwork category. This allows a lot more flexibilty but also means that we have some light, VFR, non-float equipped, single engine machines flying rescue missions at night 100nm offshore.
However, I think (and hope)that there will some changes after this latest incident.
The helicopter that rescued the crew was a Queensland Government Bell 412EP, eqipped with IFR, 4 axis auto pilot, FLIR, two pilots and a highly trained rescue crew.
The downside of having a fast growing SAR/EMS industry here is that it is not as well regulated as in other parts of the world. For example operators do not have to satisfy Public Transport or Charter regulations. They can operate under the Airwork category. This allows a lot more flexibilty but also means that we have some light, VFR, non-float equipped, single engine machines flying rescue missions at night 100nm offshore.
However, I think (and hope)that there will some changes after this latest incident.
The helicopter that rescued the crew was a Queensland Government Bell 412EP, eqipped with IFR, 4 axis auto pilot, FLIR, two pilots and a highly trained rescue crew.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The intitial report of "bad weather" may not be quite accurate. QEMS pilot reckons it was reasonably calm, so much so that the following morning's TV shots of the wreck on the sea bed are crystal clear through a flat calm sea.
In which case, no visual reference, not a good time to try to hover in a non auto hover machine, whether single or multi engine.
In which case, no visual reference, not a good time to try to hover in a non auto hover machine, whether single or multi engine.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Are the smaller community based rescue helicopter organisations feeling the pressure to perform tasks beyond their capabilities, so as to justify their existance. After all there is only so much money in the pot. Good publicity is their lifeline. Many questions should now be asked. State governments must forget all the politics involved in the helicopter industry, especially SAR/EMS, and make decisions on contracts, operators and equipment which provides the best service for the general public.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Helo teacher,
Further to "out of balance's" post, we have quite clear (At least I think they are?) regulations on the requirments for VFR at night overwater. Must have a stability system or two pilots. (Ref' CAO 20:18) As soon as we step outside the law we are asking for trouble! The investigation will determine if it was mechanical prob's, but either way he should not have been there in that aircraft at night.
Scattercat
Further to "out of balance's" post, we have quite clear (At least I think they are?) regulations on the requirments for VFR at night overwater. Must have a stability system or two pilots. (Ref' CAO 20:18) As soon as we step outside the law we are asking for trouble! The investigation will determine if it was mechanical prob's, but either way he should not have been there in that aircraft at night.
Scattercat
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scattercat,
CAO 20.18 Appendix VIII refers. The only additional requirement for helicopters operating at night overwater is an IVSI. You may be confusing the helicopter IFR requirements in 4.2(d), which refers to flights "other than night VFR flights".
CAO 20.18 Appendix VIII refers. The only additional requirement for helicopters operating at night overwater is an IVSI. You may be confusing the helicopter IFR requirements in 4.2(d), which refers to flights "other than night VFR flights".
Guest
Posts: n/a
My question is, How can you fly night VFR 100nm offshore at night and navigate by visual reference to the horizon and comply with the nav tolerances?
Having acheived this remarkable feat, how do you attempt a night winch over water with no visual reference for hovering or without an auto hover?
I beleive the results speak for themselves. When you strap in to a ems/sar machine, the superman cape and hero stories stay behind, they don't go with you.
Glad everyones ok
Having acheived this remarkable feat, how do you attempt a night winch over water with no visual reference for hovering or without an auto hover?
I beleive the results speak for themselves. When you strap in to a ems/sar machine, the superman cape and hero stories stay behind, they don't go with you.
Glad everyones ok
Guest
Posts: n/a
From the mouth of the pilot who refuelled the 412 enroute to the yacht and when they returned for more.
-Apparently nobody acutally knew that the 407 had was there or had crashed. It wasn't until the crewman noted a helo bellyup that the 412 crew became aware of the previous aircrafts 'attempt'.
Perhaps they needed the media exposure?
-Apparently nobody acutally knew that the 407 had was there or had crashed. It wasn't until the crewman noted a helo bellyup that the 412 crew became aware of the previous aircrafts 'attempt'.
Perhaps they needed the media exposure?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The Daylight Saving Free Zone
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
collective bias: they are definately getting exposure.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/regionals...1may2001-1.htm
The wreckage of the helicopter which crashed into the sea off the Central Queensland coast last week has been successfully salvaged.
The Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service's Bell 407 was pulled from the water near Swain Reefs on Sunday afternoon by salvage vessel "Booby Bird".
It arrived in Gladstone late last night.
"Booby Bird" crew member John Realfsays it took 13 hours to get to the crash site and he is surprised anyone survived the impact.
"I'm surprised those two guys are alive to tell you the truth, they can kiss their lucky stars I think," Mr Realf said.
"All the roof of the helicopter is missing, the rotor blades are gone, the front of the cockpit was completely gone, all the doors from the chopper were missing and the tail section of the helicopter, the rotor blades just smashed up in bits and pieces everywhere."
------------------
sprocket: .. No standards? Nooo problems!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/regionals...1may2001-1.htm
The wreckage of the helicopter which crashed into the sea off the Central Queensland coast last week has been successfully salvaged.
The Capricorn Helicopter Rescue Service's Bell 407 was pulled from the water near Swain Reefs on Sunday afternoon by salvage vessel "Booby Bird".
It arrived in Gladstone late last night.
"Booby Bird" crew member John Realfsays it took 13 hours to get to the crash site and he is surprised anyone survived the impact.
"I'm surprised those two guys are alive to tell you the truth, they can kiss their lucky stars I think," Mr Realf said.
"All the roof of the helicopter is missing, the rotor blades are gone, the front of the cockpit was completely gone, all the doors from the chopper were missing and the tail section of the helicopter, the rotor blades just smashed up in bits and pieces everywhere."
------------------
sprocket: .. No standards? Nooo problems!
Guest
Posts: n/a
John Eacott,
You need to read on a bit further (Ref: CAO 20:18 4.2(d)) .... "except that in the case of such a flight that will involve more than 30 min' over water" ..... etc, etc. And "Slingload" you're quite right ... you can't call 100 (plus) miles out to sea at night "VFR". Leave those job's for those that are correctly equipped / trained.
Scattercat.
[This message has been edited by Scattercat (edited 03 May 2001).]
You need to read on a bit further (Ref: CAO 20:18 4.2(d)) .... "except that in the case of such a flight that will involve more than 30 min' over water" ..... etc, etc. And "Slingload" you're quite right ... you can't call 100 (plus) miles out to sea at night "VFR". Leave those job's for those that are correctly equipped / trained.
Scattercat.
[This message has been edited by Scattercat (edited 03 May 2001).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Scattercat,
Here we go into interpreting CAO's! As always, there'll be a host of possibilities, but the heading sentence for CAO 20.18.4.2 is "A helicopter shall not be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is equipped with:"
The sub para (d) is still referring to the main sentence, ie IFR flights, where it then devolves into auto pilot requirement, where an auto pilot is required "for other than NVFR flights except that in the case of such flight which will involve more than 30 minutes over water or land areas where aircraft altitude (sic) cannot be maintained by reference to ground lighting, an approved autostab or 2 pilot crew shall be carried".
The trap here is that it is only referring to IFR as the criteria for auto pilot carriage (or 2 pilots). Remember, you can have an IFR flight which is either NVFR or not. Many is the pilot who has assumed that his instrument rating covers him for NVFR, and suffered the wrath of CASA when his NVFR rating is not current, and a night IFR flight has been carried out illegally.
Apart from the reference to "altitude", which my FOI firmly believes should be "attitude", the import of the sub para is confused (as are we all...) probably because of the old days when NVFR was regarded as Instrument Flight. Remember when a night rating was actually a Class 4 Instrument Rating?
At a guess, I would say that we are both right, wherein the import of the text is meant to stop NVFR flights punching off overwater into a black hole, but the legal interpretation of the import is stymied by the Sub Section heading, which is clearly "Equipment for Flight under Instrument Flight Rules". NVFR requires visual reference, so the IFR bit doesn't apply.
Or does it
Here we go into interpreting CAO's! As always, there'll be a host of possibilities, but the heading sentence for CAO 20.18.4.2 is "A helicopter shall not be operated under the Instrument Flight Rules unless it is equipped with:"
The sub para (d) is still referring to the main sentence, ie IFR flights, where it then devolves into auto pilot requirement, where an auto pilot is required "for other than NVFR flights except that in the case of such flight which will involve more than 30 minutes over water or land areas where aircraft altitude (sic) cannot be maintained by reference to ground lighting, an approved autostab or 2 pilot crew shall be carried".
The trap here is that it is only referring to IFR as the criteria for auto pilot carriage (or 2 pilots). Remember, you can have an IFR flight which is either NVFR or not. Many is the pilot who has assumed that his instrument rating covers him for NVFR, and suffered the wrath of CASA when his NVFR rating is not current, and a night IFR flight has been carried out illegally.
Apart from the reference to "altitude", which my FOI firmly believes should be "attitude", the import of the sub para is confused (as are we all...) probably because of the old days when NVFR was regarded as Instrument Flight. Remember when a night rating was actually a Class 4 Instrument Rating?
At a guess, I would say that we are both right, wherein the import of the text is meant to stop NVFR flights punching off overwater into a black hole, but the legal interpretation of the import is stymied by the Sub Section heading, which is clearly "Equipment for Flight under Instrument Flight Rules". NVFR requires visual reference, so the IFR bit doesn't apply.
Or does it
Guest
Posts: n/a
I may not have all the facts regarding the Capricorn Rescue but isn't it pretty uusafe/marginal winching without a `down the wire' man? The media reported two (2) crew aboard the helo. Moreover, beats me how they get away with that `night VFR'stuff, aint no such thing!(except around some big city on a clear night)
Guest
Posts: n/a
Folks,
Perhaps he thought he was conducting a marine pilot transfer under CAO 95.7.3 - there is an amazing amount of history behind NVFR operations over water. Amuse yourselves with an FOI (errr, that is the real thing "Freedom of Information") request for all documents held by CASA relating to the classification of operations and flight category determinations for overwater operations in helicopters...
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]
Perhaps he thought he was conducting a marine pilot transfer under CAO 95.7.3 - there is an amazing amount of history behind NVFR operations over water. Amuse yourselves with an FOI (errr, that is the real thing "Freedom of Information") request for all documents held by CASA relating to the classification of operations and flight category determinations for overwater operations in helicopters...
------------------
Stay Alive,
[email protected]