Rescue 26 down?
Was that a Bristow or CHC 412?
"Write off" can be a subjective term. For example, there has never been a Bell 47 "write off", as long as the dataplate survived. Probably what is significant to the operator is how long will he be without a helicopter that he is still paying a lease cost on and is required on a contract. So, a "hard landing" meaning what, bent gear tubes? Kinked tailboom, blade strike, rolled over on its side?
Pilot training on a 412 - of course they were both experienced pilots. But were they experienced at training on a 412, or receiving training on a 412? Or were they experienced at mustering with an R22 and were just trying out a 412?
Don't keep it so close to your chest "noncombatant", or do you want the rumor network to generate its own version.
"Write off" can be a subjective term. For example, there has never been a Bell 47 "write off", as long as the dataplate survived. Probably what is significant to the operator is how long will he be without a helicopter that he is still paying a lease cost on and is required on a contract. So, a "hard landing" meaning what, bent gear tubes? Kinked tailboom, blade strike, rolled over on its side?
Pilot training on a 412 - of course they were both experienced pilots. But were they experienced at training on a 412, or receiving training on a 412? Or were they experienced at mustering with an R22 and were just trying out a 412?
Don't keep it so close to your chest "noncombatant", or do you want the rumor network to generate its own version.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From todays The Daily Telegraph on line
Another crash for NSW Ambulance rescue chopper
THE state's problem-prone ambulance helicopter service has hit another snag, with one of its choppers involved in an accident yesterday.
The crash comes after another malfunction just last month, which took two helicopters out of action in order to fix the problem, and the fleet is now down one chopper until a replacement is found after the latest incident.
Two pilots who were conducting ground training exercises about 9.30am yesterday encountered engine problems and landed badly, causing serious damage.
"The helicopter landed too hard and that was what damaged it. It was a complete write-off," a source said.
A spokeswoman for NSW Ambulance confirmed the incident.
"Whilst hovering one to 2m off the ground the aircraft began to vibrate and the pilot in command immediately set the aircraft down," she said.
"Whilst setting the aircraft down, the tail rotor and skids were damaged. No injuries were sustained and the extent of the damage to the aircraft is being assessed by engineers."
The $270 million fleet of helicopters has been plagued by problems since the State Government snubbed the long-serving Westpac Lifesaver and NRMA CareFlight services for Canadian company CHC.
Just last month one of the CHC helicopters made an emergency landing at St Albans when a warning light came on and another helicopter was forced out to pick up the patient.
In August last year The Daily Telegraph revealed staff cuts had left the service unable to properly respond to emergencies.
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner called for a full investigation to determine the extent of the issues within the fleet.
"This foreign helicopter service has been plagued with problems ever since the Iemma Government dumped the Careflight and surf lifesaver community helicopters," she said.
beleive it or not
Another crash for NSW Ambulance rescue chopper
THE state's problem-prone ambulance helicopter service has hit another snag, with one of its choppers involved in an accident yesterday.
The crash comes after another malfunction just last month, which took two helicopters out of action in order to fix the problem, and the fleet is now down one chopper until a replacement is found after the latest incident.
Two pilots who were conducting ground training exercises about 9.30am yesterday encountered engine problems and landed badly, causing serious damage.
"The helicopter landed too hard and that was what damaged it. It was a complete write-off," a source said.
A spokeswoman for NSW Ambulance confirmed the incident.
"Whilst hovering one to 2m off the ground the aircraft began to vibrate and the pilot in command immediately set the aircraft down," she said.
"Whilst setting the aircraft down, the tail rotor and skids were damaged. No injuries were sustained and the extent of the damage to the aircraft is being assessed by engineers."
The $270 million fleet of helicopters has been plagued by problems since the State Government snubbed the long-serving Westpac Lifesaver and NRMA CareFlight services for Canadian company CHC.
Just last month one of the CHC helicopters made an emergency landing at St Albans when a warning light came on and another helicopter was forced out to pick up the patient.
In August last year The Daily Telegraph revealed staff cuts had left the service unable to properly respond to emergencies.
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner called for a full investigation to determine the extent of the issues within the fleet.
"This foreign helicopter service has been plagued with problems ever since the Iemma Government dumped the Careflight and surf lifesaver community helicopters," she said.
beleive it or not
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't believe everything in the media.
It doesn't help to speculate from a distance.
Vested interests will always try to over-state the extent of an aircraft incident.
Finally, it is not always the pic that causes an aircraft incident. So don't rabbit on about experience, or lack thereof, unless you have evidence.
The current operators of the ambulance helicopter service are among the most professional I have ever met, and no, I don't work with or for them.
It doesn't help to speculate from a distance.
Vested interests will always try to over-state the extent of an aircraft incident.
Finally, it is not always the pic that causes an aircraft incident. So don't rabbit on about experience, or lack thereof, unless you have evidence.
The current operators of the ambulance helicopter service are among the most professional I have ever met, and no, I don't work with or for them.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do work for the Ambulance Service of NSW, and yes they have had problems. But the maintenance crews are impeccable. The crews of the choppers at Bankstown and myself are impressed by their professionalism and attention to detail and safety. This is of course from myself who knows little in the way of helicopter maintenance.
There have been no issues raised by SCAT Paramedics/Doctors and crewies in regards to safety to the HSU sub-branch.
I can say that it was a political exercise to bad mouth CHC. They won the tender from a panel made up of aeromedical experts from all over the country (not just NSW). People tend to conveniently forget that.
They are in use 24 hrs/7 days a week all over the state, and Rescue 26 is one of the most busiest.
There have been no issues raised by SCAT Paramedics/Doctors and crewies in regards to safety to the HSU sub-branch.
I can say that it was a political exercise to bad mouth CHC. They won the tender from a panel made up of aeromedical experts from all over the country (not just NSW). People tend to conveniently forget that.
They are in use 24 hrs/7 days a week all over the state, and Rescue 26 is one of the most busiest.
Opposition health spokeswoman Jillian Skinner called for a full investigation to determine the extent of the issues within the fleet.
"This foreign helicopter service has been plagued with problems ever since the Iemma Government dumped the Careflight and surf lifesaver community helicopters," she said.
"This foreign helicopter service has been plagued with problems ever since the Iemma Government dumped the Careflight and surf lifesaver community helicopters," she said.
P1
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sick and tired of CHC being referred to as a foreign helicopter service all the time.
Most of the crews I have met are Aust, in fact most are ex-ADF.
Last time I looked, there wasn't a domestic helicopter manufacturer in Australia.
CHC bought Lloyds some years ago. They operate in Aust under an Aust AOC, issued by CASA.
I'm sure that I'm preaching to the choir here....
Who cares a toss where the company HQ is?
Most of the crews I have met are Aust, in fact most are ex-ADF.
Last time I looked, there wasn't a domestic helicopter manufacturer in Australia.
CHC bought Lloyds some years ago. They operate in Aust under an Aust AOC, issued by CASA.
I'm sure that I'm preaching to the choir here....
Who cares a toss where the company HQ is?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All you d--kheads need to think that this could of happened to Careflight or Westpac.
Like i said once before all the people who put s--t on CHC must of been knocked back when they went for a job with them one time or another
Like i said once before all the people who put s--t on CHC must of been knocked back when they went for a job with them one time or another
. I didn't read one d*ckhead comment above knocking CHC... mainly the opposite.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: South of North Pole
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow!,
Seems the accident has hit a bit of a raw nerve amongst the chc brigade.
It's amazing how the chc people were more than happy to put sh1t on the "vinnies" yet they don't seem to be able to accept that same sort of criticism?
Lets face it, if everything was really going as well as the chc people say it is, there would be nothing but praise about the operation and there would be people within chc falling over each other to get on the contract, especially with the knowledge that the pilots and crew would get to fly AW139's and Ec145's? (even if the EC 145 is a new generation Bk117 (so hated by the chc people). But the fact is that internally no one wanted to take up the offer??????????
Seems the accident has hit a bit of a raw nerve amongst the chc brigade.
It's amazing how the chc people were more than happy to put sh1t on the "vinnies" yet they don't seem to be able to accept that same sort of criticism?
Lets face it, if everything was really going as well as the chc people say it is, there would be nothing but praise about the operation and there would be people within chc falling over each other to get on the contract, especially with the knowledge that the pilots and crew would get to fly AW139's and Ec145's? (even if the EC 145 is a new generation Bk117 (so hated by the chc people). But the fact is that internally no one wanted to take up the offer??????????
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles,
since about July of 2006 crap has been flying from those on both sides of the fence. Since December 2006 when the tender was announced CHC have copped a fair flogging. Once the contract started generaly speaking the majority of the crap has actually been from those who sit in the back of the machine, and not those who lost the contract, the first positive posting from an ambo was today when the love boat captain spoke out in defence of CHC, what a pleasant surprise!
It does appear that R26 has had an incident, the first for CHC in NSW, but let us not forget that BOTH the previous contractors have had their own incidents in the past, with a Doc being dropped off a hoist and a SA365C having a "hard landing" at the NP&WS depot at Blackheath (or there abouts) I guess that as there was no internet back then the issues were not disected by armchair experts and put under the microscope, as they are now.
It is a natural reaction to become defensive when sh1t happens, and I would suggest that those from within CHC are feeling the pressure, and it is made worse when outside sources (not just pruners) stir the pot (read politicians).
If you have problems with who was awarded the contract, I would suggest the people you need to criticise are those in Government not those who gained it.
Now I do not look at life through rose coloured glasses and realise that what I have posted will end up being a futile effort at two fingered typing, as some will continue to carry on in the same manner as all the previous CHC bashing posts, get over it all folks, life goes on and the contract will not change back unless the previous contractors win it back in X years time.
SLB
since about July of 2006 crap has been flying from those on both sides of the fence. Since December 2006 when the tender was announced CHC have copped a fair flogging. Once the contract started generaly speaking the majority of the crap has actually been from those who sit in the back of the machine, and not those who lost the contract, the first positive posting from an ambo was today when the love boat captain spoke out in defence of CHC, what a pleasant surprise!
It does appear that R26 has had an incident, the first for CHC in NSW, but let us not forget that BOTH the previous contractors have had their own incidents in the past, with a Doc being dropped off a hoist and a SA365C having a "hard landing" at the NP&WS depot at Blackheath (or there abouts) I guess that as there was no internet back then the issues were not disected by armchair experts and put under the microscope, as they are now.
It is a natural reaction to become defensive when sh1t happens, and I would suggest that those from within CHC are feeling the pressure, and it is made worse when outside sources (not just pruners) stir the pot (read politicians).
If you have problems with who was awarded the contract, I would suggest the people you need to criticise are those in Government not those who gained it.
Now I do not look at life through rose coloured glasses and realise that what I have posted will end up being a futile effort at two fingered typing, as some will continue to carry on in the same manner as all the previous CHC bashing posts, get over it all folks, life goes on and the contract will not change back unless the previous contractors win it back in X years time.
SLB
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Brothers
Unlikevice,
I agree that the issue is from the back, but let us remember that they are NOT the client, they are only employee's of the client, and from what I have heard there is just a handful of them that are causing problems, and they are easy to identify, as they walk around like they have a broomstick up their ar$e, and a storm cloud over their heads, and nothing is ever right, shame the bosses are unable to dump them, but their hands are tied by the unions. Love the brothers!
I agree that the issue is from the back, but let us remember that they are NOT the client, they are only employee's of the client, and from what I have heard there is just a handful of them that are causing problems, and they are easy to identify, as they walk around like they have a broomstick up their ar$e, and a storm cloud over their heads, and nothing is ever right, shame the bosses are unable to dump them, but their hands are tied by the unions. Love the brothers!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Can
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autos to the ground are not for me.
In my limited experience, I have first hand knowledge of four autos to the ground that have resulted in serious damage to an aircraft. Three were in training, one was for real.
Maybe we should rethink doing autos to the ground in training??
Now I know my four crashes are hardly a statistically reliable sample but it would seem pretty obvious to me that you are more likely to stuff up an auto in training than you are likely to have a failure of a magnitude that would cause you to need to attempt an auto to the ground for real.
In my limited experience, I have first hand knowledge of four autos to the ground that have resulted in serious damage to an aircraft. Three were in training, one was for real.
Maybe we should rethink doing autos to the ground in training??
Now I know my four crashes are hardly a statistically reliable sample but it would seem pretty obvious to me that you are more likely to stuff up an auto in training than you are likely to have a failure of a magnitude that would cause you to need to attempt an auto to the ground for real.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oz
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think, from reading the media release posted above that they were doing auto's. But as we all know, the media are not going to let the truth get in the way of a good story.
"Big mussels" (sic). Do they scavenge beaches looking for grub? Or is the spelling prowness related to the "tiny brains"?
Anybody got anything more solid on the accident itself? Combing through everything above, we've got a training flight in a 412 resulting in a hard landing. Normally this jumps to a pilot error conclusion because of the risks induced during training with an aircraft. Doesn't look right though, with the tailrotor damage. A 412 tailrotor is a mile in the air and unlikely to be damaged in a landing accident during training. Then there is the "engine failure" hint and an resulting hovering auto - again not normally a big deal, except for the landing gear damage.
So to all you guys with sealed lips out there, was there a mechanical failure leading to a loss of tail-rotor and a subsequent roll-off the throttles by the pilots for the hover auto? I don't like trial of the pilots by innuendo, simply from non-disclosure of facts that would vindicate them.
Anybody got anything more solid on the accident itself? Combing through everything above, we've got a training flight in a 412 resulting in a hard landing. Normally this jumps to a pilot error conclusion because of the risks induced during training with an aircraft. Doesn't look right though, with the tailrotor damage. A 412 tailrotor is a mile in the air and unlikely to be damaged in a landing accident during training. Then there is the "engine failure" hint and an resulting hovering auto - again not normally a big deal, except for the landing gear damage.
So to all you guys with sealed lips out there, was there a mechanical failure leading to a loss of tail-rotor and a subsequent roll-off the throttles by the pilots for the hover auto? I don't like trial of the pilots by innuendo, simply from non-disclosure of facts that would vindicate them.
Last edited by malabo; 13th Jun 2008 at 05:54.