Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Esso load drop Longford, Victoria

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Esso load drop Longford, Victoria

Old 10th Jan 2018, 02:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
Esso load drop Longford, Victoria

Originally Posted by rrekn View Post
Esso do now...
Speaking of whom, I hear the Longford aerial bombing range has been active again
gulliBell is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2018, 09:43
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by gulliBell View Post
Speaking of whom, I hear the Longford aerial bombing range has been active again

Facebook link won’t show, but a ladder on a short line vs the tail rotor looked ripe for an early release!
John Eacott is offline  
Old 10th Jan 2018, 23:22
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
I hear the Longford aerial bombing range has been active again
A result of management dictating how sling loads are to be done, as in the previous example? Pilots were not permitted to exercise "command", you had to do what you were told. Spelled out in plain language to a number of pilots.
megan is offline  
Old 11th Jan 2018, 03:30
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
It would have been an easy job for a 206L swinging a 50' line. Step-back 5x5, 3 crew and an AW139 just complicates it too much.
Just saying.

Last edited by gulliBell; 11th Jan 2018 at 03:55.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 03:16
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
I know we are drifting OT, but seriously

WIN NEWS reporter "1/2 tonne of steel with a mind of its own...46 km/h winds forcing the pilot to make an emergency drop..will review exactly what caused the instability."

Well, that will be an easy investigation. What on earth were they thinking belly hooking that load with a 10' line. Guys, if you wish to stay off the 6pm nightly news can I suggest using a 50' next time. That load was always going to go aerodynamic the way it was rigged.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 03:49
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Your 206 wouldn't be picking up a half tonne of steel and carrying it any distance gulliBell. 139 would be a good carriage for the task.

Got a link, or story on what occurred?

The previous incident was because the budget couldn't afford a bigger net for the company dictated method of packaging. Perhaps this time not a long enough strop.
megan is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 05:33
  #7 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
The news report was half a tonne, but I'm told it was really only 400 kg. I've slung enough 400kg loads up mountains in a 206L to know that a 206L can do it easy. And it didn't have to go far, only down to the monopods.
And as for the budget couldn't afford a bigger net on the previous aerial bombing practice, that is just dead wrong. Sure, the net was too small for the load, but there was a bigger net available. The guys that rigged the load didn't think to use it. That incident was an eye opener for all concerned because the empty net whipped up when the drums fell out and the pallet put a dent in the tail boom.

http://www.gippslandtimes.com.au/sto...ddock/?cs=1198

Look how it was rigged, I'm just stunned nobody thought it would go aerodynamic rigged like that.

Last edited by gulliBell; 12th Jan 2018 at 05:44.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 07:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Ok the guys that rigged it got it wrong but didn’t at least one of the pilots have a look at before the job or at the very least eyeball it when hooking it up.
Wouldn’t take to much of a look to see it wasn’t right surely.
fadecdegraded is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 08:19
  #9 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by fadecdegraded View Post
Ok the guys that rigged it got it wrong but didn’t at least one of the pilots have a look at before the job or at the very least eyeball it when hooking it up.
Wouldn’t take to much of a look to see it wasn’t right surely.
Yes. The pilot would have had to sign the load manifest and completed the step-back 5x5 paperwork. I can just hear the chain saws warming up to cut down the forest to feed the paper mills to supply the paper for the paperwork that's going to be generated from this one. And I hear the Chief Pilot has been re-assigned to Siberia, or somewhere in Russia. Obviously he'd be appreciative leaving town before the avalanche of paperwork hits.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 09:21
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,248
Not very good quality, a screen grab of a FB image, but the load seemed to have a nasty swing prior to release!





John Eacott is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 09:52
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 223
Looks like its a flatpack ladder now ...
finalchecksplease is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 09:56
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: On top of the Longline
Posts: 305
On a positive note, it was a good decision to punch the load!!
heliduck is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 10:25
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by finalchecksplease View Post
Looks like its a flatpack ladder now ...
Rigging 101: or how not to?

John Eacott is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 12:42
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by heliduck View Post
On a positive note, it was a good decision to punch the load!!
...and a questionable decision to pick it up in the first place. They had a crewman, there should have been no issue at all putting it on Dolphin on a 50' line. I bet they went short-line to make it easier at the delivery end...just my wild guess. Send it out on a work boat next time.

For those of us with a bit of experience in O&G know how this investigation will go...the standard 3 step process.
1. Blame it on an act of God; failing that
2. Blame it on a contractor; and failing that
3. Blame it on the blue-collar worker at the lowest point of the food chain who should have known better.

They're already tried 1 with the attributed 46 km/h wind theory. That 'aint gonna pass the aero club sniff test. etc etc.

Last edited by gulliBell; 12th Jan 2018 at 13:16.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 13:39
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Sure, the net was too small for the load, but there was a bigger net available
No there wasn't.

Following the previous incident the rigging of loads was put into the hands of .......... riggers, who else do you expect. Of course, what they know about helos you could write on the point of a pin. Management decision, and written into their "how to do manual". The only person who could approve a sling load was delegated to non aviation management. What could go wrong?

Post the FB link please John?
megan is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2018, 15:04
  #16 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by megan View Post
No there wasn't.
Oh yes there was...the crew that day was BA, BR and DD. I was one of those 3. I don't think you were. Just saying.
gulliBell is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2018, 00:37
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 56
Posts: 258
Been down the road before of load prep with oil companies "only a rigger can do it" , despite going to AMTDU had to do a riggers course to tick the box, then promptly ignored all I did on the riggers course and prepared the sling loads properly.
Blackhawk9 is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2018, 01:35
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 72
Posts: 4,248
Originally Posted by megan View Post

Post the FB link please John?
I've tried before but it seems to be blocked here.

Add letters oo instead of numbers 00 in the appropriate places: https://www.faceb00k.com/concernedma...7277648832407/

Re the net size discussion, I would have looked at a 30-50ft line with a choker to the top of the ladder rather than a net?
John Eacott is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2018, 01:37
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,397
Oh yes there was
Oh no there wasn't. I have far, far more information than you, in fact there had been a concerted effort to get the organisation to get a bigger net, had been costed, but no authorisation was forthcoming. Was involved in the investigation.

Have a copy of the old 76 procedures they used, one of which states "slings are to be kept as short as possible".

Thanks for the steer John.
megan is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2018, 03:50
  #20 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Wanaka, NZ
Posts: 2,231
Welll....all I can say is 4 people inspected that load - and I was present - before it was carried and not one person expressed any concern the net was too small. If the pilot had any concern about the size of the net he didn't say so, and in any event if he thought the net was too small that load wouldn't have flown. The load flew well at 90 kts and the three of us on-board were all surprised when the drums fell out of the net. It wasn't until later we learned the pallet in the empty net had actually hit the aircraft. The net wasn't jettisoned, it stayed attached to the hook. There may not have been a bigger net at the heliport that day, but there were bigger nets available offshore, BBMT and elsewhere within the organization that might have been used. And plan B might have been to break it up into 2 loads of 2 drums but, as I say, nobody expressed any concern about the size of the net so a larger net wasn't requested and it was done as a single load. Anyway, moving on....
gulliBell is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.