Gold Coast Accident?
Whilst I don't disagree with the single engine stuff over a congested area, don't forget about all the single engine fixed wing getting airborne out of busy airports all over Oz straight over built up areas. Do we ban/move those as well in case they lose power? And from my experience in the past, there is plenty of pilots flogging around over congested areas at 1000' or more that probably wouldn't make the tennis court instead of the lounge room in auto anyway.
Well done to the pilot, they are all still eating hamburgers and that's what counts.
Well done to the pilot, they are all still eating hamburgers and that's what counts.
Hey Reverse, interesting comment:
If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ...
I'm guessing here you don't fly twin engine helicopters
If the accident helicopter here was a twin, and he still had fuel on board, chances are it wouldn't be rolled up in a ball of scrap metal in the car park.
If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ...
I'm guessing here you don't fly twin engine helicopters
If the accident helicopter here was a twin, and he still had fuel on board, chances are it wouldn't be rolled up in a ball of scrap metal in the car park.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gullibel, wouldnt that depend on the twin, as some of them are so underpowered they couldnt get out of their own way.
Mind you the chances of operating a twin out of Dreamworld and making money arent two things you would use in the same sentence
Cheers
Ned
Mind you the chances of operating a twin out of Dreamworld and making money arent two things you would use in the same sentence
Cheers
Ned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh My.
1: CASA do not “Approve” Landing Areas! CAAP 92.2 may enlighten you.
2: If this chap did land with a Tail Wind, he will answer for that action in the subsequent court of law.
3: ME Helicopters are “Accountable” above Vy {CEO PN029-2005}. Did you know that?, therefore far better than a SE in this area.
4: Great to hear that this Landing Area {Basic HLS} is now closed!
1: CASA do not “Approve” Landing Areas! CAAP 92.2 may enlighten you.
2: If this chap did land with a Tail Wind, he will answer for that action in the subsequent court of law.
3: ME Helicopters are “Accountable” above Vy {CEO PN029-2005}. Did you know that?, therefore far better than a SE in this area.
4: Great to hear that this Landing Area {Basic HLS} is now closed!
Ned: I know of no twin engine helicopter that is so underpowered that it can't continue to fly and maintain height on one engine right up to max AUW, or very close to max (under the conditions here; i.e. sea level-ish, ISA and above Vtoss). But I have only flown medium twins. Maybe some heavy or light twin types would be underpowered OEI, I just don't know.
Don't want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI "will take you to the scene of the crash". In the vast majority of cases it will take you to a place where you can land safely without any damage to the aircraft.
Don't want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI "will take you to the scene of the crash". In the vast majority of cases it will take you to a place where you can land safely without any damage to the aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys, my comment about the remaining engine taking you to your crash site was meant as a joke (hence smile included) but none of you got it - what's the point of having a 2nd engine then - apologies if I lead the uninformed astray.
Of course gulliBell is right that I am not endorsed on twin engined helicopters - not many of us are as it costs about $4000/hr just to train on a light twin. However, I have been told personally by the guy who pilots the Victoria Police chopper that he'd never fill her tanks up full because they would have to quickly land where an OEI occurred - rather, it's tanks are never more than half-filled so that they can at least limp back to Essendon for repairs in an OEI event. I suppose it's more than just looking at the AUW. Telling, isn't it ?
Of course gulliBell is right that I am not endorsed on twin engined helicopters - not many of us are as it costs about $4000/hr just to train on a light twin. However, I have been told personally by the guy who pilots the Victoria Police chopper that he'd never fill her tanks up full because they would have to quickly land where an OEI occurred - rather, it's tanks are never more than half-filled so that they can at least limp back to Essendon for repairs in an OEI event. I suppose it's more than just looking at the AUW. Telling, isn't it ?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: sans frontieres
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bet he wouldn't want his name to get around.......be careful of quotes..
Half tanked probably describes some of his workmates.
DD
Half tanked probably describes some of his workmates.
DD
Last edited by PO dust devil; 11th Jun 2009 at 11:25.
Those Police jobs referred to requiring reduced fuel loads to meet performance requirements are more likely related to their particular mission specific profile, such as winching or confined area ops. When doing live winching you want to be at a weight where you can safely complete the winch cycle OEI. That takes huge power, to hover OGE, and not many light or medium twins can do that OEI when heavy. The power required is more than the OEI power available, hence the need for weight (fuel) limiting.
If the Police mission profile required long range then they would go on full tanks or at max AUW. I don't know what aircraft type they are flying, maybe one of their pilots could jump in here, but I bet they can at least keep flying at max AUW should OEI occur at anytime they are flying about 55 knots or more.
Getting a bit off topic here Pleased to hear on the TV news tonight that the pilot is OK and the passengers are all doing well under observation in hospital.
If the Police mission profile required long range then they would go on full tanks or at max AUW. I don't know what aircraft type they are flying, maybe one of their pilots could jump in here, but I bet they can at least keep flying at max AUW should OEI occur at anytime they are flying about 55 knots or more.
Getting a bit off topic here
Pleased to hear on the TV news tonight that the pilot is OK and the passengers are all doing well under observation in hospital.
The worlds most dangerous thrill ride
Having flown around the site and visited the venue as a paying customer I had mixed feelings about the operation.
It is an excellent opportunity to promote aviation and helicopters in particular as the pad is close to a public wanting a thrill.
The downside is the approach, which on a busy day, leaves nowhere to go if a problem develops.
The worst accident in theme park history occurred in 1972 in the UK when 5 kids were killed on the "Big Dipper"
Sadly this is not an unusual number of fatalities for a helicopter accident.
The 1972 accident spooked the public and put that theme park out and others of business and began a world wide movement to create addition safety features and build coasters from steel.
The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business.
A simple solution would be to create a clear zone under the approach where no cars or buses are ever parked.
Also given the history, I wonder if sales would increase if the public had a choice of riding in a twin engine craft?
Mickjoebill
It is an excellent opportunity to promote aviation and helicopters in particular as the pad is close to a public wanting a thrill.
The downside is the approach, which on a busy day, leaves nowhere to go if a problem develops.
The worst accident in theme park history occurred in 1972 in the UK when 5 kids were killed on the "Big Dipper"
Sadly this is not an unusual number of fatalities for a helicopter accident.
The 1972 accident spooked the public and put that theme park out and others of business and began a world wide movement to create addition safety features and build coasters from steel.
The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business.
A simple solution would be to create a clear zone under the approach where no cars or buses are ever parked.
Also given the history, I wonder if sales would increase if the public had a choice of riding in a twin engine craft?
Mickjoebill
Those Police jobs referred to requiring reduced fuel loads to meet performance requirements are more likely related to their particular mission specific profile, such as winching or confined area ops.
Thankfully both were twin engines so we could get home
The media machine flew back to base as it was daylight, the police machine landed in a field as it was night.Today a twin engine craft landed safely on one engine.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/377...ent-today.html
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oz
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did a few flights into and out of that pad a few years ago and if my memory serves me correctly, the operator at the time had a restriction in their ops manual on using the pad if the wind was above 15kts. The alternate landing site was between the carpark and freeway on the grass.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business
the emergency may happen but the wreckage should never result.
It's easy to notice that in many venues such as this that the owners are approached by an operator along the lines of, "we'll give you a commission if you just let us operate here."
the owner usually is not aware or the ramifications of the above quote.
commercial greed can often overule good structure in the setting up of these flights.
If there was an effective CASA and or Industry body available then theme park owners or tourist venue operators would have someone to turn to for some friendly and effective safety advice??
Maybe it's another area that the much flaunted ASFA could turn its hand to.
any fixed flight tourist flights that do not have a 100% flight line emergency landing areas and pilots checked out into all of them, should never even start. That is certainly the way that I set up the several that I was involved with over the years.
why? because the day that it happens will be the day you are flying the son of the worlds best barrister with his fiance, the daughter of the worlds richest man. a simple paradigm.
tet
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ....
TET .... so true, so true!
My argument would be that these type of operations are "Public Transport" and as such everyone should have the benefit of a "Performance 1" aircraft for that type of operation.
Having said that ... no doubt I shall be shouted down as a person who does not understand "commercial operations" ..... what I do understand is the fragility of human life ... this incident came so close to being a "disaster" which would have demanded a heavy duty revisiting of the "rule book".
... I wonder whether CASA will do do something ... sooner rather than later?
TET .... so true, so true!
My argument would be that these type of operations are "Public Transport" and as such everyone should have the benefit of a "Performance 1" aircraft for that type of operation.
Having said that ... no doubt I shall be shouted down as a person who does not understand "commercial operations" ..... what I do understand is the fragility of human life ... this incident came so close to being a "disaster" which would have demanded a heavy duty revisiting of the "rule book".
... I wonder whether CASA will do do something ... sooner rather than later?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OEI to scene of crash!!!
REVERSEFLIGHT Let me guess,
you have not flown an A cat twin helicopter or even a twin aircraft of any sort.
you have never flown a takeoff or landing profile in a twin (anything)
An A cat helicopter OEI (one engine inoperative) will at any point of its profile remain under control, it will not take you to the scene of the crash
How many times do we have to hear this sort of BS.????
Fact:
If this helicopter was a B426, not a B206 it would have flown its takeoff/landing profile on its remaining engine and flown its crew and passengers away from harm. It also would not have put those on the ground in harms way.
Even a non 'A cat' twin helicopter would have had time to find a clearer area and would most likey still be the right way up and undamaged.
you have not flown an A cat twin helicopter or even a twin aircraft of any sort.
you have never flown a takeoff or landing profile in a twin (anything)
An A cat helicopter OEI (one engine inoperative) will at any point of its profile remain under control, it will not take you to the scene of the crash
How many times do we have to hear this sort of BS.????
Fact:
If this helicopter was a B426, not a B206 it would have flown its takeoff/landing profile on its remaining engine and flown its crew and passengers away from harm. It also would not have put those on the ground in harms way.
Even a non 'A cat' twin helicopter would have had time to find a clearer area and would most likey still be the right way up and undamaged.
Last edited by Heli-phile; 13th Jun 2009 at 03:08.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The South Coast
Age: 55
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anybody tell me if the ATSB actually attended the scene? I assume they would have just because of the public attention that this prang got. this style of accident is not really their bag...read not RPT and no serious injury.
If they didn't attend, the accident report will probably be a bit light on which then leaves CASA with not much in the way of reccomendations to go on.
FBD
If they didn't attend, the accident report will probably be a bit light on which then leaves CASA with not much in the way of reccomendations to go on.
FBD
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmm ...
Chaps .... it would appear from a post above there is confusion with the distinction between a Performance 1 (or 2 2e or 3 helicopters) and Category A procedures which allow a Helicopter to Depart & or Arrive with a minimum of exposure time to suffering a power unit failure.
Is this the case?
Chaps .... it would appear from a post above there is confusion with the distinction between a Performance 1 (or 2 2e or 3 helicopters) and Category A procedures which allow a Helicopter to Depart & or Arrive with a minimum of exposure time to suffering a power unit failure.
Is this the case?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NZ
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friendly Black Dog,
CASA would do well to set up their own investigation unit. NZ CAA did so, as the TAIC (ATSB equivalent) would leave many private aircraft accidents or Ag accident uninvestigated. Seems to work. I think FAA do their own as well if the NTSB don't.
CASA would do well to set up their own investigation unit. NZ CAA did so, as the TAIC (ATSB equivalent) would leave many private aircraft accidents or Ag accident uninvestigated. Seems to work. I think FAA do their own as well if the NTSB don't.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinwing - I think you are right as has just been demonstrated in some of the posts.
Simply put, flying a twin-engine helicopter to CAT A (or PC1) provides a guarantee that (if flown correctly) a helicopter can at any stage of the flight (including take off and landing) in the event of an engine failure safely land in the reject area with no damage or continue the flight.
But it is not quite that simple. A helicopter operating CAT A will only guarantee that safety IF it is operated at CAT A weights and IF it is flown to a correct profile and IF the operating area permits a CAT A take off profile. Take away any one of those and you are not CAT A and therefore cannot guarantee CAT A performance.
Heli-Phile - The accident site in question is not one from which a CAT A profile could be performed so the type of helicopter is irrelevant.
As Australia permits EMS helicopters to operate to PVT/AWK and they do not need to conform to CAT A standards there are twin engine helicopters taking off daily from roof top hospital helipads that have no accountability below VY. That basically means that if a donk stops after take off before VY then there will be an accident. This is presumably deemed to be an acceptable risk.
Simply put, flying a twin-engine helicopter to CAT A (or PC1) provides a guarantee that (if flown correctly) a helicopter can at any stage of the flight (including take off and landing) in the event of an engine failure safely land in the reject area with no damage or continue the flight.
But it is not quite that simple. A helicopter operating CAT A will only guarantee that safety IF it is operated at CAT A weights and IF it is flown to a correct profile and IF the operating area permits a CAT A take off profile. Take away any one of those and you are not CAT A and therefore cannot guarantee CAT A performance.
Heli-Phile - The accident site in question is not one from which a CAT A profile could be performed so the type of helicopter is irrelevant.
As Australia permits EMS helicopters to operate to PVT/AWK and they do not need to conform to CAT A standards there are twin engine helicopters taking off daily from roof top hospital helipads that have no accountability below VY. That basically means that if a donk stops after take off before VY then there will be an accident. This is presumably deemed to be an acceptable risk.
Last edited by Epiphany; 13th Jun 2009 at 13:27. Reason: Add content