Gold Coast Accident?
Unless of course they operate at reduced take-off weights under the conditions to get the OEI performance they need (which we need to do even in the S76C+ which has quite a bit of 30 sec OEI grunt).
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Beside the seaside
Posts: 670
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what I meant by 'CAT A weights'.
I'm sure you do operate at those restricted weights, but that is presumably because you are operating RPT offshore, are required to adhere to CAT A (PC1) and are taking off from a runway and an elevated helipad with no obstructions. I am talking about PVT/AWK twins which are not required to operate to CAT A and therefore do not.
EMS helicopters here are not required to operate to CAT A simply because they cannot comply and do the job. You cannot take off from a helipad at CAT A weights with fuel, flight crew, medical crew and patient - even VFR. Have a look at CAT A helipad weights and see how restrictive they are. They are found in the CAT A supplement of the flight manual but they are not required for EMS operations and are therefore academic. I'll bet that the only pre-flight planning graphs consulted are the en-route OEI graphs for IFR LSALT.
The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.
Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.
I'm sure you do operate at those restricted weights, but that is presumably because you are operating RPT offshore, are required to adhere to CAT A (PC1) and are taking off from a runway and an elevated helipad with no obstructions. I am talking about PVT/AWK twins which are not required to operate to CAT A and therefore do not.
EMS helicopters here are not required to operate to CAT A simply because they cannot comply and do the job. You cannot take off from a helipad at CAT A weights with fuel, flight crew, medical crew and patient - even VFR. Have a look at CAT A helipad weights and see how restrictive they are. They are found in the CAT A supplement of the flight manual but they are not required for EMS operations and are therefore academic. I'll bet that the only pre-flight planning graphs consulted are the en-route OEI graphs for IFR LSALT.
The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.
Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.
Last edited by Epiphany; 13th Jun 2009 at 13:32. Reason: Smelling mistakes
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that we are presuming that this accident was due to an engine failure, there just maybe another reason for this accident. Unless of course the ATSB has already handed down their final report.
Originally Posted by Epiphany
EMS helicopters here are not required to operate to CAT A simply because they cannot comply and do the job. You cannot take off from a helipad at CAT A weights with fuel, flight crew, medical crew and patient - even VFR. Have a look at CAT A helipad weights and see how restrictive they are. They are found in the CAT A supplement of the flight manual but they are not required for EMS operations and are therefore academic. I'll bet that the only pre-flight planning graphs consulted are the en-route OEI graphs for IFR LSALT.
The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.
Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.
The limiting factor for EMS helicopters operating from hospital helipads is normally the torque gauge and taking off with a full load at MTOW means that you need to pull 95% to take off. Have an engine failure shortly after rotation from a rooftop helipad in the city in those conditions and you will crash.
Possibly the only EMS machine flying here that could operate to CAT A is the AW139. The rest - forget it.
For those of you operating the D/DE/DF P&W's, a couple of months ago Bell advised that the 2.5 Minute power available chart is being revised, after it became apparent that N1 and ITT limits didn't seem quite right! I've got a copy of the draft, but I'm not sure if it's found its way to the Flight Manual yet?
Going even further OT: sorry
Re the Gold Coast accident, I often see SE drivers maintain a fairly shallow approach path, leaving them no chance to make the pad in the event of a power loss. I prefer a steepish approach, with the assurance that I'll make it to the pad should it all go terribly quiet: it worked for me when the B206 compressor threw all its stator blades on short finals to the World Trade Centre helipad in Melbourne
As a local Gold Coastian all I can say is good job. Lucky nobody is seriously injured - no VERY lucky.
Thankgod for the economic downturn and off season. If this had have happened during peak season there would be no empty car spaces. The possible scenario would be multiple fatalities and a fierball.
Realistically the approach and departure paths are far less than perfect.
The seaworld port is far more forgiving (eben if it is into water).
If I was Dreamworld, whilst the PR may be good for publicty, I would be seriously considering a re think
Thankgod for the economic downturn and off season. If this had have happened during peak season there would be no empty car spaces. The possible scenario would be multiple fatalities and a fierball.
Realistically the approach and departure paths are far less than perfect.
The seaworld port is far more forgiving (eben if it is into water).
If I was Dreamworld, whilst the PR may be good for publicty, I would be seriously considering a re think
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: 45 South
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dreamworld is owned by Macquarie Leisure.
The pad has been a subject of concern for some time - I think it is doubtful if it will be operated again.
It doesn't matter how many engines a helicopter has or what profile the pilot adopts - if the engine(s) stop due to fuel starvation the end result will be the same.
The pad has been a subject of concern for some time - I think it is doubtful if it will be operated again.
It doesn't matter how many engines a helicopter has or what profile the pilot adopts - if the engine(s) stop due to fuel starvation the end result will be the same.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Dreamworld pad is elevated with obstructions to the front, so there is no way in the world I would attempt an engine off onto it unless in or near a hover. The approach departure paths are the same & when I was there, I had the huge pot plants shifted & a no parking area marked plus had the trees at the Big Brother end pruned a bit. The power to go & return was no problem but obviously with no power it would be. I always made sure there was ample space in the car park for an engine off but what worried me far more was if it became silent near the Big Brother set.... not my favourite program!
Well, I didn’t think I’d ever post on this forum again.
Posts like those I’ve addressed below are usually not worth reading. The particularly low, gutter sniping was pointed out to me by some friends who were as disappointed by so called “Professional Pilots” as I am.
The facts as far as I know:
Unexpected loss of power at a rather in-opportune phase of flight.
No one onboard or on the ground hurt.
Machine badly damaged.
Many Pilots have flown from this pad, which is a pad, not a runway.
Have I missed any?
So rather than look at the positives, as even the mainstream press has done, some of you guys, attack a fellow pilot and operation. Perhaps it would be beneficial for some of you to examine the reason you chose this action.
Specifically:
Nigel Osborne
I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!
So, you know for a fact that it was cars he was avoiding, not a child that had wandered out to watch the chopper land? (maybe, into the area YOU had, “managed to get some huge pot plants moved from….”)
I'm surprised the machine ended up in such a sorry state but at least it appears the injuries weren't too bad.
Obviously you can tell by the photos, at what phase of flight the power loss occurred, what maneuvering was required and what the local wind was. This, combined with your superior flying skills would have ensured that the machine was in a less “sorry state”. Have I got these facts right?
Heli – Phile
Maybe this will inspire the operators to move the base to suitable location for a SE helicopter or buy an A cat twin!!
Perhaps a Super Puma, from Archerfield aerodrome?
Same ****, different day!!!
Yep, some half informed self opinionated ****** passing judgment.
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
The B222, for example, doesn’t have Cat A charts for anything but runway ops.
Do the B426 (none in Australia) Cat A charts have performance graphs for helipad landings? If so, what size of pad and clearances are required? Would the machine be required to “back up” on every departure?
gulliBell
Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there
Let’s hope for your sake you’re not caught flying drunk or assaulting women. (Just wondering if you enjoy random slurs. Why else would you dish them out? Really, why?)
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.
Chances are it would have, just a more expensive ball of scrap metal.
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.
I 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, during the takeoff or landing phase, will ensure that a crash won’t result. In the vast majority of cases it won’t ensure a safe outcome.
Unless of course they operate at reduced take-off weights under the conditions to get the OEI performance they need (which we need to do even in the S76C+ which has quite a bit of 30 sec OEI grunt).
And the machine has Cat A charts for helipad operations, and the pad is big enough, and the approach and departure paths have the required clearance, and the profile required is suitable (Climbing backwards to 100’ over Dream World, or any scenic for that matter might not be appropriate)
“Buying a twin” is not the instant, easy fix that some of you experts seem to think it would be, without even considering the cost.
topendtorque
…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 rules out operations from most airports then. 100% is a BIG call, but I suppose it fits in to the “Holier than thou” bandwagon this thread, and many others have become.
As I say, why you guys chose to spout this stuff is your own business, I’m just trying to defend a fellow aviator and balance the views.
Fly safe, because if you have an incident of any kind you might be attacked in public by your peers.
So sad!
Posts like those I’ve addressed below are usually not worth reading. The particularly low, gutter sniping was pointed out to me by some friends who were as disappointed by so called “Professional Pilots” as I am.
The facts as far as I know:
Unexpected loss of power at a rather in-opportune phase of flight.No one onboard or on the ground hurt.Machine badly damaged.Many Pilots have flown from this pad, which is a pad, not a runway.Have I missed any?
So rather than look at the positives, as even the mainstream press has done, some of you guys, attack a fellow pilot and operation. Perhaps it would be beneficial for some of you to examine the reason you chose this action.
Specifically:
Nigel Osborne
I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!
So, you know for a fact that it was cars he was avoiding, not a child that had wandered out to watch the chopper land? (maybe, into the area YOU had, “managed to get some huge pot plants moved from….”)
I'm surprised the machine ended up in such a sorry state but at least it appears the injuries weren't too bad.
Obviously you can tell by the photos, at what phase of flight the power loss occurred, what maneuvering was required and what the local wind was. This, combined with your superior flying skills would have ensured that the machine was in a less “sorry state”. Have I got these facts right?
Heli – Phile
Maybe this will inspire the operators to move the base to suitable location for a SE helicopter or buy an A cat twin!!
Perhaps a Super Puma, from Archerfield aerodrome?
Same ****, different day!!!
Yep, some half informed self opinionated ****** passing judgment.
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
The B222, for example, doesn’t have Cat A charts for anything but runway ops.
Do the B426 (none in Australia) Cat A charts have performance graphs for helipad landings? If so, what size of pad and clearances are required? Would the machine be required to “back up” on every departure?
gulliBell
Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there
Let’s hope for your sake you’re not caught flying drunk or assaulting women. (Just wondering if you enjoy random slurs. Why else would you dish them out? Really, why?)
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.
Chances are it would have, just a more expensive ball of scrap metal.
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.
I 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, during the takeoff or landing phase, will ensure that a crash won’t result. In the vast majority of cases it won’t ensure a safe outcome.
Unless of course they operate at reduced take-off weights under the conditions to get the OEI performance they need (which we need to do even in the S76C+ which has quite a bit of 30 sec OEI grunt).
And the machine has Cat A charts for helipad operations, and the pad is big enough, and the approach and departure paths have the required clearance, and the profile required is suitable (Climbing backwards to 100’ over Dream World, or any scenic for that matter might not be appropriate)
“Buying a twin” is not the instant, easy fix that some of you experts seem to think it would be, without even considering the cost.
topendtorque
…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 rules out operations from most airports then. 100% is a BIG call, but I suppose it fits in to the “Holier than thou” bandwagon this thread, and many others have become.
As I say, why you guys chose to spout this stuff is your own business, I’m just trying to defend a fellow aviator and balance the views.
Fly safe, because if you have an incident of any kind you might be attacked in public by your peers.
So sad!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole thread seems to have slipped from "tourist and therefore Charter" flights to one of debate about the old dogma of EMS night or day.
this is strange given that tourist flights usually only operate daytime where things can be seen and marketed for the tourists. Also very strange given that the economics of 'tourism' can only be grafted very carefully onto the most efficient of single engine helicopters.
but I wonder about the following quote, can this PVT bit be elaborated on?
private EMS a I understand it, is usually only if a "mercy" situation has been declared. how can a government instrumentality, being any jurisdictions dept of Health, condone the setting up of regular Private EMS flights?
I do have a genuine reason for asking. I am happy to be enlightened.
Having regard to my opening paragraph, I cannot disagree that a regular tourist operation diverts at all from the definition of RPT. Many tourist flights of which are promulgated in our ERSA under various fly neighbourly agreements.
tet
this is strange given that tourist flights usually only operate daytime where things can be seen and marketed for the tourists. Also very strange given that the economics of 'tourism' can only be grafted very carefully onto the most efficient of single engine helicopters.
but I wonder about the following quote, can this PVT bit be elaborated on?
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.
I do have a genuine reason for asking. I am happy to be enlightened.
Having regard to my opening paragraph, I cannot disagree that a regular tourist operation diverts at all from the definition of RPT. Many tourist flights of which are promulgated in our ERSA under various fly neighbourly agreements.
tet
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out and About
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of things I remember from my time at Dreamworld
It was never a Dreamworld helicopter. It was operated by a third party that paid some sort of fee to Dreamworld to be able to operate there.
The operation barely scraped by financially with a cross hired 206 so any discussion about twin operations from Dreamworld is just fantasy.
The approach and departure was not over any cars or buses. Yes it was tight and it was in and out the same way but it was over a sectioned off area at the edge of the carpark.
There was a wind limit on the pad stated in the ops manual as obviously with the in and out approach it wasn't always possible to arrive and depart into wind.
The ops manual stipulated that the pad was only available to pilots that had been trained and checked on the pad. No checkride..No permission to land. From memory this was a CASA requirement.
Matsumi was the senior pilot at Dreamworld when I was there 6 or 7 years ago so I guess by now he must have some idea of what he was doing there.
No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.
It was never a Dreamworld helicopter. It was operated by a third party that paid some sort of fee to Dreamworld to be able to operate there.
The operation barely scraped by financially with a cross hired 206 so any discussion about twin operations from Dreamworld is just fantasy.
The approach and departure was not over any cars or buses. Yes it was tight and it was in and out the same way but it was over a sectioned off area at the edge of the carpark.
There was a wind limit on the pad stated in the ops manual as obviously with the in and out approach it wasn't always possible to arrive and depart into wind.
The ops manual stipulated that the pad was only available to pilots that had been trained and checked on the pad. No checkride..No permission to land. From memory this was a CASA requirement.
Matsumi was the senior pilot at Dreamworld when I was there 6 or 7 years ago so I guess by now he must have some idea of what he was doing there.
No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel Osbourne said: Quote
I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!
I'm sure the pilot never reffered to himself as a hero Nigel! I believe it was someone from the media!
I used to respect your opinions and experience Nigel.
It's a shame to see how quickly the claws come out from some other pilots, whenever one of their colleagues gets a pat on the back from the press. Extremely bitchy if you ask me.
And as for Gullibell:Quote
Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there
Not even worth comment!
Thanks go out to: "That light's normal" for saying what a lot of us were probably thinking, and reminding us that not everyone is here to bitch and throw mud!
Gotagivitago out!
I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car!
I'm sure the pilot never reffered to himself as a hero Nigel! I believe it was someone from the media!
I used to respect your opinions and experience Nigel.
It's a shame to see how quickly the claws come out from some other pilots, whenever one of their colleagues gets a pat on the back from the press. Extremely bitchy if you ask me.
And as for Gullibell:Quote
Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there
Not even worth comment!
Thanks go out to: "That light's normal" for saying what a lot of us were probably thinking, and reminding us that not everyone is here to bitch and throw mud!
Gotagivitago out!
Last edited by Gotagivitago; 15th Jun 2009 at 22:49.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not suggesting the pilot called himself a hero, I'm having a go at the media for making that silly comment.
My claws have not come out for the pilot, I don't know him. I have flown out of Dreamworld about 8 years ago & am very aware of the basic dangers there which is why, surprisingly, I was successful in getting some improvements made to the approach/departure area. I think this is the first accident in many years, one reason being the reliability of the 206. As suggested the business could not afford a twin. If the pad was at ground level, it would be safer.
My claws have not come out for the pilot, I don't know him. I have flown out of Dreamworld about 8 years ago & am very aware of the basic dangers there which is why, surprisingly, I was successful in getting some improvements made to the approach/departure area. I think this is the first accident in many years, one reason being the reliability of the 206. As suggested the business could not afford a twin. If the pad was at ground level, it would be safer.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Queensland, Australia.
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel Osborne wrote:
"I'm not suggesting the pilot called himself a hero, I'm having a go at the media for making that silly comment".
Well then Nigel, maybe you should have been more clear in what you said! It sounded very much like a whinge to me as well as others obviously.
Maybe if you had fought harder to make the operation safer, this event would not have occurred eh?
Just a bit of food for thought. Anyone else for a cup of critisism?
Maybe black with one
Gotagivitago
"I'm not suggesting the pilot called himself a hero, I'm having a go at the media for making that silly comment".
Well then Nigel, maybe you should have been more clear in what you said!
It sounded very much like a whinge to me as well as others obviously.Maybe if you had fought harder to make the operation safer, this event would not have occurred eh?
Just a bit of food for thought. Anyone else for a cup of critisism?
Maybe black with one
Gotagivitago
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: ...in view of the 'Southern Cross' ...
Posts: 1,383
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mmmmm ....
as quoted by 2left ....
No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.
I do hope sirs that (as professionals) we don't condone leaving situations as they are just because they have been done that way for so long.
The whole point of discussing this incident is in my view that so many of us KNOW this kind of operation is a "very dodgy risk take" which has (luckily) been able to survive up till now. The operation continued by keeping the paying public in the dark about the consequences of having to carry out a "forced landing" which in this instance allowed the pilot more options than he might have had, had the carpark been full.
Its easy to claim that the only way for this operation to work was to keep it cheap! .... well now there will most likely be NO OPERATION and what good is that to the helicopter industry?
As Nigel has pointed out ... there are ways to make an operation safer ... by requiring forced landing areas to be made available etc etc.
BUT I wonder what the paying passengers would say if they were informed of the possible consequences of a forced landing in a s/e helicopter .... they would no doubt err on the side of safety .... it would be up to their own personal "Risk Assessment". Unfortunately this industry has in the past tainted their "Duty of Care" obligations with vested interest decisions and that hurts the business and forces CASA's hand with some form of (usually punitive) action.
The Insurance industry knows ... which is why Helicopter Pilots have such a hard time getting insurance .... accidents probably have as much to do with poor decision making (including those of management) as with the breaking of vital bits of machinery. The fact that as pilots WE accept the risk does not mean that our passengers must also!
I humbly await crucifixion ....
as quoted by 2left ....
No doubt it is less than the ideal spot to operate from and the margin for error was on the skinny side but it was legal and approved and occasionally when you fly helicopters for a living thats just the way it is.
I do hope sirs that (as professionals) we don't condone leaving situations as they are just because they have been done that way for so long.
The whole point of discussing this incident is in my view that so many of us KNOW this kind of operation is a "very dodgy risk take" which has (luckily) been able to survive up till now. The operation continued by keeping the paying public in the dark about the consequences of having to carry out a "forced landing" which in this instance allowed the pilot more options than he might have had, had the carpark been full.
Its easy to claim that the only way for this operation to work was to keep it cheap! .... well now there will most likely be NO OPERATION and what good is that to the helicopter industry?
As Nigel has pointed out ... there are ways to make an operation safer ... by requiring forced landing areas to be made available etc etc.
BUT I wonder what the paying passengers would say if they were informed of the possible consequences of a forced landing in a s/e helicopter .... they would no doubt err on the side of safety .... it would be up to their own personal "Risk Assessment". Unfortunately this industry has in the past tainted their "Duty of Care" obligations with vested interest decisions and that hurts the business and forces CASA's hand with some form of (usually punitive) action.
The Insurance industry knows ... which is why Helicopter Pilots have such a hard time getting insurance .... accidents probably have as much to do with poor decision making (including those of management) as with the breaking of vital bits of machinery. The fact that as pilots WE accept the risk does not mean that our passengers must also!
I humbly await crucifixion ....
Last edited by spinwing; 16th Jun 2009 at 01:41.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: North of Antartica
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinwing - well said
Swingwing has described the truth of this tale, well said.
Not knowing the cause of this accident, I can only comment on what can be seen and what other posters who have operated into and out of this site have stated.
There is a wrecked machine in a car park. Thank God no one died or was killed. Well done to the pilot for making the most of the meagre height/speed and landing options. Should this pilot be put in this situation in the 1st place!!
As pilots we are looked to and trusted with the well being of our passengers,
so too are the operators who set up a base and invite the public to come for a ride.
PLEASE If the location requires a twin machine, then a twin machine it must be and (priced accordingly) If this location also requires a suitable length of clear area to clear a 35ft obstacle so be it. However If the site is not suitable then that really is the end of the matter.
Everything in aviation (RPT or Charter) must pass the "WIFE AND KIDS TEST"
Not knowing the cause of this accident, I can only comment on what can be seen and what other posters who have operated into and out of this site have stated.
There is a wrecked machine in a car park. Thank God no one died or was killed. Well done to the pilot for making the most of the meagre height/speed and landing options. Should this pilot be put in this situation in the 1st place!!
As pilots we are looked to and trusted with the well being of our passengers,
so too are the operators who set up a base and invite the public to come for a ride.
PLEASE If the location requires a twin machine, then a twin machine it must be and (priced accordingly) If this location also requires a suitable length of clear area to clear a 35ft obstacle so be it. However If the site is not suitable then that really is the end of the matter.
Everything in aviation (RPT or Charter) must pass the "WIFE AND KIDS TEST"
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FBD - Post 37
I am informed they did attend the scene, but left soon after getting some enlightening photo's the passengers took of their adventure - including the instruments during the critical moments. I think their report will be out quicker than usual!!
Di
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.
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.
Di
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Investigation: AO-2009-026 - Fuel starvation event - Bell Jetranger 206B helicopter, VH-JTI, Coomera, QLD, 10 June 2009
OK so I was wrong about that - over two years!
Di
I think their report will be out quicker than usual!!
Di
On 10 June 2009, at about 1545 Eastern Standard Time, the pilot of a Bell Jetranger 206B helicopter, registered VH-JTI, was conducting a 20-minute scenic flight, with four passengers, from a helipad at an entertainment facility at Coomera, Queensland.
After about 15 minutes flying, the fuel boost pump low pressure (FUEL PUMP) warning light illuminated briefly. The pilot believed he had sufficient fuel on board and continued the flight. While the helicopter was descending to land at the helipad, the FUEL PUMP warning light illuminated again and shortly afterwards the engine lost all power.
During the final stages of the autorotative landing, the pilot was unable to arrest the helicopter's descent rate and the helicopter struck the ground heavily, resulting in substantial damage. Two passengers sustained serious injuries; the other two passengers and the pilot were uninjured.
A subsequent check of the helicopter and its fuel system showed that the fuel gauge may have been over reading. The operator's practice when calculating the quantity of fuel to be added during refuelling relied on the fuel gauge reading, without using an independent method to crosscheck that reading against the actual fuel tank quantity.
The investigation found that the helicopter departed with insufficient fuel to complete the flight. The low fuel quantity and manoeuvring combined to uncover the fuel boost pumps and the engine was starved of fuel. The helicopter's low speed, height and rotor RPM at that time precluded a safe landing from the subsequent autorotation.
After about 15 minutes flying, the fuel boost pump low pressure (FUEL PUMP) warning light illuminated briefly. The pilot believed he had sufficient fuel on board and continued the flight. While the helicopter was descending to land at the helipad, the FUEL PUMP warning light illuminated again and shortly afterwards the engine lost all power.
During the final stages of the autorotative landing, the pilot was unable to arrest the helicopter's descent rate and the helicopter struck the ground heavily, resulting in substantial damage. Two passengers sustained serious injuries; the other two passengers and the pilot were uninjured.
A subsequent check of the helicopter and its fuel system showed that the fuel gauge may have been over reading. The operator's practice when calculating the quantity of fuel to be added during refuelling relied on the fuel gauge reading, without using an independent method to crosscheck that reading against the actual fuel tank quantity.
The investigation found that the helicopter departed with insufficient fuel to complete the flight. The low fuel quantity and manoeuvring combined to uncover the fuel boost pumps and the engine was starved of fuel. The helicopter's low speed, height and rotor RPM at that time precluded a safe landing from the subsequent autorotation.
