Helicopter down in Yarra River Melbourne
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
K77 - Probably a laugh but who cares it's your life do what you think is best. I heard something somewhere that most deaths result from being knock unconscious and not getting out.
Diatryma - "Actions of pilot after accident" ??? Wasn't he the fatality?
Diatryma - "Actions of pilot after accident" ??? Wasn't he the fatality?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, my sincere condolences to the family of the pilot.
Mate, let me answer this for you.
If you ever get a chance to watch a video called "Charlie", it will put it into context for you. He is an American guy who used to work for Exxon and almost died in a petro-chemical fire (essentially by taking an operational short cut, but that is not important).
He now runs a huge safety company and gives presentations on the importance of wearing PPE.
The meat of presentation, is about how he thought it did not look cool and was not comfortable to wear this stuff (fire resistant material).
Mate, his story about being dipped for 3 months into a tank to have dead skin scrubbed off daily (yep, daily for 3 months) and the screams of pain associated with that....I'm sure you get the point
Do you really care if someone is going to give you a hard time about this stuff? If you got mate, you wear it!! F
K them all.
Im just about to start training and the helmet issue interests me, what is the thought on fire proof flight suits and helmets whilst training?
Would I get laughed at or a pat on the back for being sensible?
Would I get laughed at or a pat on the back for being sensible?
If you ever get a chance to watch a video called "Charlie", it will put it into context for you. He is an American guy who used to work for Exxon and almost died in a petro-chemical fire (essentially by taking an operational short cut, but that is not important).
He now runs a huge safety company and gives presentations on the importance of wearing PPE.
The meat of presentation, is about how he thought it did not look cool and was not comfortable to wear this stuff (fire resistant material).
Mate, his story about being dipped for 3 months into a tank to have dead skin scrubbed off daily (yep, daily for 3 months) and the screams of pain associated with that....I'm sure you get the point
Do you really care if someone is going to give you a hard time about this stuff? If you got mate, you wear it!! F
K them all.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KNIEVEL77, Optional safety equipment and whether we should or shouldn’t wear it is always a subject of much debate and the answer lies in what you can afford and your view of risk management. The military (and remember they operate to budgets and look to save the pennies where ever they can – helmets, nomex suits and gloves are not cheap) recognise that they have a huge monetary investment (aside from any humane aspects) in their aircrew and see safety equipment as cheap insurance. Ask yourself why do motor cycling racers dress up in the leathers, helmets, special foot wear, specially made gloves etc To look cool? I think you know the answer. Would you wear thongs and no helmet riding a motor bike? Many people do. In our off shore operation we had a requirement that we had to wear lifejackets. No one in the operation (some 250,000 hours of operation I guess) ever had to use their life jacket in anger so would that make an argument for getting rid of them? Once again I think you know the answer.
As said earlier, it’s your personal approach to risk management and as Clint Eastwood said “Do you feel lucky today punk?” Accident in point. Two crew were flying a Bell 412 in Alaska (no pax) in the cruise at 10,000 feet when a massive vibration set in. During the auto they were flung about the cockpit so forcibly (straps tight) that their heads were being bashed against the door pillar, their heads went through and smashed the overhead windows, the overhead electrical panels fell open. Approaching the ground both engines failed and they lost the tail rotor drive – why? – both engines had been torn from their mounts and taken out the tail drive shaft. They survived with barely a scratch, thanks to their helmets. And the cause? A pitch link to one of the main blades let go.
Sometimes its just the roll of the dice as to whether the accident happens to you or some one else. Whenever you climb into the cockpit, just ask yourself “How lucky do I feel today?”
As said earlier, it’s your personal approach to risk management and as Clint Eastwood said “Do you feel lucky today punk?” Accident in point. Two crew were flying a Bell 412 in Alaska (no pax) in the cruise at 10,000 feet when a massive vibration set in. During the auto they were flung about the cockpit so forcibly (straps tight) that their heads were being bashed against the door pillar, their heads went through and smashed the overhead windows, the overhead electrical panels fell open. Approaching the ground both engines failed and they lost the tail rotor drive – why? – both engines had been torn from their mounts and taken out the tail drive shaft. They survived with barely a scratch, thanks to their helmets. And the cause? A pitch link to one of the main blades let go.
Sometimes its just the roll of the dice as to whether the accident happens to you or some one else. Whenever you climb into the cockpit, just ask yourself “How lucky do I feel today?”
Getting back to the R44 accident.... I don't know how R44's handle at all, but I was in Melbourne city that day, and it was windy. Being out at a wharf would be worse i reckon. If he took off from hovering height, then had big tail wind behind him, then how do those machines handle that - from still to translational speed with a big puff up your butt killing forward lift? ... Anyway, not speculating, just a thought.
Condolences to the pilot lost, it was a shame he isnt hear to tell us what happened, so we learn.
... Maybe he was wedged in cockpit, who really knows, but i think we've all had scary moments under water where you've rushed up for air just in time.
Condolences to the pilot lost, it was a shame he isnt hear to tell us what happened, so we learn.
... Maybe he was wedged in cockpit, who really knows, but i think we've all had scary moments under water where you've rushed up for air just in time.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he took off from hovering height, then had big tail wind behind
That is the machine would have been in the lee-side of the large shed, which would have presented the relative wind from 10 oclock high.
The same sort of thing that we get in the severe downdrafts around October / November. Not a nice place to be.
Looking at the bend downwards in the cockpit area above the pilots station, if that occurred during the accident - from a M/R blade say, then he might have been severely compressed in the upper part of the spine. Or indeed he may have suffered a severe whiplash which could have ensued from a sudden stop from forward speed upon impact with the water.
Each scenario could easily render him partially paralysed for at least a short time. Been there done that, in two separate non aviation incidents.
If either scenario were the case then to discuss his actions post accident would be rather silly.
TET,
The northerly departure from P35 is approximately 340T, more or less from bottom left to bottom right of the photo that I linked. With a left turn downriver, the flight path would have been directly away from the PoV of the photo.
This photo may give a better idea of the layout: it shows the pad at the far left of the photo, and the left turn out would bring the departure track from left to right, along the river. (It's a very old photo, but shows the general layout.)
The northerly departure from P35 is approximately 340T, more or less from bottom left to bottom right of the photo that I linked. With a left turn downriver, the flight path would have been directly away from the PoV of the photo.
This photo may give a better idea of the layout: it shows the pad at the far left of the photo, and the left turn out would bring the departure track from left to right, along the river. (It's a very old photo, but shows the general layout.)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: On the move...
Age: 58
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not many choices
There are not many ways out of this spot and you have to pay attention, 'situational awareness' for the students out there...
It gets even harder when there is more than one machine on the pad.
Do any of the MPT pilots here have any stories to tell about what sort of turbulance would be behind a large container ship.
Not to critise Ed, but to learn what to avoid.
I hadn't though too much about ship wake turbulance before this one.
It gets even harder when there is more than one machine on the pad.
Do any of the MPT pilots here have any stories to tell about what sort of turbulance would be behind a large container ship.
Not to critise Ed, but to learn what to avoid.
I hadn't though too much about ship wake turbulance before this one.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out and About
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do find all this finger pointing at the helipad operator a bit out of proportion. At the end of the day it is a pilot's responsibility to make his own assessment of a whole range of characteristics about heli landing sites, some prepared, many not. These of course should include looking at area, slope, obstacles, approach/departure routes and any features (like upwind buildings)that may affect the local wind.
In this case it was a daylight operation and enough info about the wind should surely have been known from both the local met and from just assessing it on the ground before departure. Like we all do from private sites, regardless of windsocks. It was obviously very strong but you've just got to fly very cautiously, with enough power reserve - and an escape route.
A more obvious risk, looking at the site, would seem that with a location that requires approach/departure preferably over water but otherwise buildings, either a single with floats (unlike this R44) or a Cat A operated twin would provide much greater safety.
In this case it was a daylight operation and enough info about the wind should surely have been known from both the local met and from just assessing it on the ground before departure. Like we all do from private sites, regardless of windsocks. It was obviously very strong but you've just got to fly very cautiously, with enough power reserve - and an escape route.
A more obvious risk, looking at the site, would seem that with a location that requires approach/departure preferably over water but otherwise buildings, either a single with floats (unlike this R44) or a Cat A operated twin would provide much greater safety.
Thread Starter
There appears more damage and more deformation of the cabin to the side of the aircraft the chief pilot was sitting.
Compared to the side where the occupant escaped which seems relatively untouched with door still attached and working.
Was the chief pilot wearing a helmet?
Mickjoebill
Compared to the side where the occupant escaped which seems relatively untouched with door still attached and working.
Was the chief pilot wearing a helmet?
Mickjoebill
