EC-135 crashes into ocean near Port Hedland off Western Australias Pilbara coast
I too will look forward in reading the final report
Hmmm, where is it then?
You deleted it and re-posted another one. That's why it appears below mine now.
Anyway, I guess we are all looking forward to the ATSB initial report to find out how this happened.
You deleted it and re-posted another one. That's why it appears below mine now.
Anyway, I guess we are all looking forward to the ATSB initial report to find out how this happened.
Did the check pilot start loading the handling pilot up with emergencies leading up to the accident
As far as I know, the pilot was carrying out night approaches to the vessel after being away from MPT for a number of years. When I was involved in MPT line training we would do multiple circuits and approaches as the vessel transitted the shipping channel, then land when it was time for picking up the pilot.
Over water on a very dark night with a newish pilot is no time to practise emergencies. I don't believe it was being done in this case either.
Cheers,
Capt.
Over water on a very dark night with a newish pilot is no time to practise emergencies. I don't believe it was being done in this case either.
Cheers,
Capt.
It does have its place. Because in this operation they flew single for 50 years without a prang, and within a year of changing to twin they had a fatal. Perhaps a point being, flying a modern well equipped twin engine helicopter might lead to a degree of less heightened vigilance that is not present when flying a very basic single in a challenging night environment which crystallises all your senses to the nth degree.
I understand what AnFI is saying. Using a twin because it is perceived to be safer but it crashes anyway, through pilot error. If it doesn't matter how many engines then may as well only have one! So what AnFI says is correct in my opinion...
A wholly irrelevant argument but designed to promote his cherished agenda.
I think Mk Six has it right
Deck approach on a pitch black night with one pilot checking the other, and already gone around once - tends to heighten the vigilance and crystalise the senses no matter what you're flying. There might be a lot of factors involved in this accident but IMHO the number of engines will be found to be irrelevant.
Understanding this affects many of the posts above. Please look it up guys and gals, it will change the way you view such posts.
And it will show you why the AnFi "facts" are anecdotal at best.
Let's get over how many engines...this is a serious event. I have no doubt it could have happened to me and that it will teach us much.
If we let it.
When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.
With the potential passenger, an eye witness who is not without some credibility and experience. (With the limitations that come with a dark night.)
And
Another expert witness with a set of controls within reach, and a set of instruments in front of him.
Both available for comment.
It shouldn’t be hard to get a pretty accurate set of events leading up to the impact.
Any CVR/FDR/HUMS data will be a bonus.
And
Another expert witness with a set of controls within reach, and a set of instruments in front of him.
Both available for comment.
It shouldn’t be hard to get a pretty accurate set of events leading up to the impact.
Any CVR/FDR/HUMS data will be a bonus.
When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.
My mother had a serious accident last year. She'd been driving older technology cars for over fifty years, never had an accident. Then she bought a brand new Japanese car, full of airbag technology, ABS, stability control, traction control, auto braking, lane departure assistance, blindspot warnings. It was a really flash car. One day she was driving along, got distracted by something and was belted by a large van travelling through an intersection.
Using your logic, the introduction of that new type of car into the role is likely to have been behind her crash. She'd have avoided the accident had she been driving the clapped out old Toyota she'd had for years without incident.
Two engine helicopters are still flown using collective, cyclic and pedals - the number of engines has bugger all to do with most things until one fails. What is far more likely to be behind accidents such as this one are human errors like spatial disorientation, visual illusions, task fixation, fatigue, distraction etc.
..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.
..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.
Your argument is simply illogical. We would never fly anything new if it increased the risk each time newer technology was introduced. And just because an accident involving human factors did not occur, does not mean that those factors were absent at any point in the past, or in this incident. Additionally, sometimes accidents are avoided through plain dumb luck.
The correlation between two factors does not mean that the change in one factor (eg the type of helicopter, twin vs single engine) is the cause in the change in the value of the other factor (accident rate, incident rate). There is no evidence to suggest that there is a causal relationship between accident rates and the introduction of multi-engine helicopter operations; in fact, the opposite exists. It's why clients around the world increasingly demand multi-engine helicopters instead of singles - because the real-world evidence (as opposed to a feeling you have) is that they are much safer.
When an operator introduces new types, there is significant oversight of the process. It includes operations manual changes, training and checking, evaluation, training approvals, licensing, contract oversight, and a change process. It's not like going down to the local dealership and driving away an hour later with a new Toyota to replace your clapped out VH Commodore, to use your simile.
To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tibbsy
What about having a "false sense of security" when flying a twin, given that twins "don't crash" because they are safer...
To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.
I think there is a false sense of security in relying on an accident-free record as an indicator of actual risk.
And what you don't know is how many near misses, close calls or simply 'F**k Me's' that they had operating in a hostile environment over those years.
Over the water at night is a hostile environment, no matter what you are flying.
I think they were short-sighted not going for a 4-axis AP - a 3 Axis one can be counter-intuitive, especially if you have limited experience of using it in anger.
Over the water at night is a hostile environment, no matter what you are flying.
I think they were short-sighted not going for a 4-axis AP - a 3 Axis one can be counter-intuitive, especially if you have limited experience of using it in anger.