AS 350 Missing off Townsville

[topendtorque]

a very disappointing and unnecessary accident especially as one recalls the Cairns R44, another 206 many years ago in the Sydney, city to surf run and yet another 206 which somehow managed to collide with the ground whilst tracking backwards, downhill, downwind, full of pax, taking that gr8 photo of an old train somewhere in Northern Queensland.

and no, I don't think that last one is too embellished.

The one thing common to all was that dreaded simple but deadly component, the CAMERA.

I ain't about to get in line to give 500 a kicking, he has simply said more firmly what every one has said on the thread so far. But I will answer his question as below,

So when can you fly without it being an unnecessary risk ?

with another quote from the Act, which will become a question probably for the pilot and the operating company to answer.

20A Reckless operation of aircraft
(1) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the life of another person.
(2) A person must not operate an aircraft being reckless as to whether the manner of operation could endanger the person or property of another person.

tet

[Diatryma]

There is a big difference between taking an unnecessary risk and acting recklessly.

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.

Di

[topendtorque]

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.

i agree, with the appropriate training of course.

for the integrity of the feelings of any pilots security I hope that your thesis is borne out.

There was a time when the section 20 (A) of the Act was attempted to be written in such a manner that it might be assumed that the mere act of driving an aircraft off the ground might constitute a "potential" infringement of that section.
cheers tet

[Brian Abraham]

There is a big difference between taking an unnecessary risk and acting recklessly.

Operating in marginal conditions close to max weight is not reckless.

And there in lies the rub. A young fellow/lass who through lack of training/experience doesn't know what they don't know. To be taking a risk you have to have fore knowledge of the risk. It's typical to get an endorsement flying at light weights and you then get to explore the limits with customers on board. Some days you get to go home dry, and on an unfortunate day you get to go home wet. If you're really unfortunate it ends in tears.

Have to disagree with topendtorque , the camera is not the problem, it's the CAMERAMAN/WOMAN. The most difficult people that a helo pilot can ever get work for, purely because of what they ask you to do to "get that shot". Doing the the job at max gross for the prevailing conditions is not of itself taking unnecessary risk, but it does limit you in what you can reasonably do, and you have to have the fortitude to be able to tell the camera person NO when asked to do something you think untoward. Find out what the camera person is after, there will be times when taking a joyrider along is no problem, other times you will want to off load every kilo you can. Establish the ground rules before you get to the aircraft, and you can bet the camera person will try to change the rules once airborne.

[rotorque]

'Joyriders' are not allowed on board during aerial work operations...

CASA will probably ask the same questions and others like, 'was the cameraman aware of the dangers or the type of operation he was working under?', 'was the camera normally used for commercial gain or was it really just a handy cam'. Going by the report, it looks like it was legitimate 'Aerial work' so should be......but.

There is a world of hurt coming if the answers to these questions are not appropriate. Insurance may not cover the passenger liability if it is an aerial work operation, the operation may be classed as charter due to the equipment being used or the fact that the cameraman was not aware of the type of operation he was attempting. It is amazing the number of rules that kick in when we operate under the 'Charter' category that inevitably get broken if we think we are doing an 'aerial work' operation.....

Be very clear of your intentions and the rules you will be operating under. If, for example, one of these passengers 'along for a jolly' was to be killed or permanently injured, he may not even have been aware that he was not covered under the 'passenger liability' insurance whilst the operation was taking place...... his family would be heart broken is so many ways.

The worst thing is, when they ask him straight out, 'what were you doing in the aircraft', I bet my left nut that he says, "I just came along to watch".

......

[Brian Abraham]

'Joyriders' are not allowed on board during aerial work operations

Point taken and perhaps I used the term some what loosely. Most of the work I did was for a private operation and occasionally the photo task was merely to have the photographer sitting in a window seat so a snap could be obtained while on downwind for landing on a crew change flight. You can get yourself in a mess with blinking rules. Taking along another company pilot so as to give him exposure would come under the heading of "joyrider" if you don't have instructing/training responsibilities and he's not essential to operations.

Be very clear of your intentions and the rules you will be operating under

Too true. The discussion about the Yak 52 accident in Brisbane may have a lesson in this regard.

[rotorque]

Thanks Brian.... rest assured, I wasn't posting in response to you specifically.

More an example of what we are up against as drivers.

Cheers

[helipan]

Does any one know if the camera man was in his seat belt or was he wearing a harness?

[topendtorque]

Does any one know if the camera man was in his seat belt or was he wearing a harness?

which brings out another set of rules.

at least any long term North Queenslanders would or should be aware of just when it was that the questions relating to harness suitability were established and why. 1996 or thereabouts if i remember correctly, Cairns, and yes another camera. although to agree with BH that certainly was the camera "man" who managed to set himself up for a bad day.