Two helicopters collide - Gold Coast, Queensland - Sea World 2/1/2023
Is that an additional add on screen on top of the dash in the onboard video. It appears to be displaying a camera feed. Creating both a blind spot and a distraction for the pilot.
Deconflicting dep/arr tracks and a pattern/s with reporting points should not only be possible, but safe ops in an environment with multiple aircraft on short turn-around. It doesn’t have to be a racetrack, it can even be designed largely to reflect customer interests. Just ensure separation with calls and protocols. Perhaps these were in place but something got overlooked.
The following users liked this post:
In my experience, having flown with a TAS display and without one in similarly congested airspace and worse, I will take the screen every time. No, it isn't distracting, not if it doesn't have audio alerts. It just gives you the option to check the screen prior to lifting for example, so you already know where you need to look when you do look outside, allowing you to find other aircraft much faster than without it.
Obviously you wouldn't stare at it while on final instead of looking out the window, who even would suggest that. If that was the reasoning then maybe we should get rid of the other instruments as well. We have to give ourselves a little more credit than that.
Obviously you wouldn't stare at it while on final instead of looking out the window, who even would suggest that. If that was the reasoning then maybe we should get rid of the other instruments as well. We have to give ourselves a little more credit than that.
The following 3 users liked this post by lelebebbel:
How on earth do two aircraft operatng from the same site manage to collide when one is climbing and the other is descending? At 1500ft they should by necessity be a couple of miles apart.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kelowna Wine Country
Posts: 509
Likes: 0
Received 24 Likes
on
10 Posts
I saw the video from inside the cockpit and my impression is rather different.
The pilot appears to be having a conversation with his front seat passenger (woman) when he is tapped on the shoulder. He doesn't appear to respond immediately. While I agree that a tap on that shoulder would probably generate a head turn to the right I would have expected it to be right over the shoulder and it does not appear to be so.
You probably could not expect the average passenger to understand the closing speed or to shout "Break right, NOW" and maybe even then he would not have responded with a break. (Context and place!)
If you were a back seat passenger and saw a take off 1,000 feet away and 500' below would you not expect the pilot to know and have sight?
We did the Las Vegas strip tour, hot swaps, 3 mins down to up, six helicopters operating from the same terminal, in the dark. I had my eyes darting everywhere the whole trip!
The pilot appears to be having a conversation with his front seat passenger (woman) when he is tapped on the shoulder. He doesn't appear to respond immediately. While I agree that a tap on that shoulder would probably generate a head turn to the right I would have expected it to be right over the shoulder and it does not appear to be so.
You probably could not expect the average passenger to understand the closing speed or to shout "Break right, NOW" and maybe even then he would not have responded with a break. (Context and place!)
If you were a back seat passenger and saw a take off 1,000 feet away and 500' below would you not expect the pilot to know and have sight?
We did the Las Vegas strip tour, hot swaps, 3 mins down to up, six helicopters operating from the same terminal, in the dark. I had my eyes darting everywhere the whole trip!
Guest
As both helicopters are operating for the same company and the pilots no doubt new each other, were familiar with this operation, wouldn't they have had a protocol for talking to each other and keeping each other in the loop as to their respective whereabouts?
I tend to disagree with the last statement. Yes, the accident could also have been prevented on a procedural level by flight path separation. However, I don't see that as an argument against traffic displays.
As crab wrote:
I know that feeling all too well. If I get it I move my head around A LOT trying to eliminate the blind spots.
The pilot did not seem like he was even remotely expecting the second helicopter from the left.
I think adsb, flarm or another traffic display system might have very well given the necessary situational awareness to both pilots. I've had enough situations where I was very grateful for the ipad telling me in which direction to expect traffic.
"numpties flying around with their transponders switched off" will always be a problem at least until the regulators force them to. But arguably are not a factor here as the two helicopters were from the same operator.
As crab wrote:
I know that feeling all too well. If I get it I move my head around A LOT trying to eliminate the blind spots.
The pilot did not seem like he was even remotely expecting the second helicopter from the left.
I think adsb, flarm or another traffic display system might have very well given the necessary situational awareness to both pilots. I've had enough situations where I was very grateful for the ipad telling me in which direction to expect traffic.
"numpties flying around with their transponders switched off" will always be a problem at least until the regulators force them to. But arguably are not a factor here as the two helicopters were from the same operator.
As I said in my earlier comment these systems are very useful for traffic you do not know is there. If this is the case it may have been of benefit, however I suspect both aircraft knew the other was in the vicinity but we will have to wait for the report to find that one out.
In that environment TCAS alerts would be very common and would often be unhelpful. This COULD lead to alerts been ignored especially if crew thought the aircraft was close but not a threat, ie had not taken off or had not started approach.
In my aircraft threats are often displayed on the opposite side of the aircraft to what they are on. If given a traffic advisory that does tend to be more accurate but the clock code can be out by 2-3 hours.
TCAS is not a silver bullet or particularly accurate but is a useful tool. For helicopter operations it is not that accurate and is best used as an alert to get all eyes outside.
Don’t get me started on aircraft not using transponders. This should be mandated.
As for using data on an iPad through a third party app it is great to get extra information but should be treated very carefully. There is no guarantee on the accuracy of the data and it would be very easy to get focus on an iPad while other threats could be much closer, such as aircraft with no transponders, birds etc
A standard brief I have with pax is that they should let me know if the see anything of concern, they are part of the crew now. They love the idea of been part of the crew and you have made it easy for them to speak up.
The following 3 users liked this post by SLFMS:
How on earth do two aircraft operatng from the same site manage to collide when one is climbing and the other is descending? At 1500ft they should by necessity be a couple of miles apart.
The local radio news is saying "The passenger frantically tapped the pilot on the shoulder as he saw the other aircraft minutes before."
What horsefeathers. It was a tentative tap and he only saw the traffic around 5 seconds before deciding to do the tap.
As mentioned above, in the video at 24 secs you can see the other helicopter extremely briefly and then between 32-34 secs you can see the rotors coming into view at the front left section of the windscreen (look just above the edge of the front passenger's seat ) - they appear white in the video, presumably as the light reflects off them.
I haven't seen mention here yet, but I also just realised front right passenger MAY also have spotted the other helicopter at 0:23 in video (using link shared by Bell_Ringer at post #130) and makes a hand signal (circled in green below). That is about 13 second before impact (0:36) if the YouTube time stamp is reliable:
Having been a passenger in a helicopter a few times in my life, I can well imagine the passengers initially not wanting to disturb the pilot but, with increasing tension, they then try to raise the alarm. But it all happens so quickly, even 13 seconds. It is really, really sad.
PS: Thanks to Senior_Pilot for adding the "officer hides motorcycle behind pen" video link to my post #156.
The following users liked this post:
It was arguably too late by the time he was shoulder-tapped. I’m assuming the pax intercom was isolated as otherwise you’d think he would be yelling out!
We discussed the visual clues regarding the appearance of an aircraft which is on a potential collision course with you in an earlier thread - namely that the aircraft remains stationary within in your frame of view, but steadily (and rapidly) increases in size. This effect can almost be hypnotic when it happens, and the puzzlement at what one sees can delay any reaction which potentially would initiate sufficient and effective evasive action in time. Even so, a shout of "Traffic! Left Hand Side!" - even when first spotted - may not have changed the outcome. There simply wasn't enough time. The poor passenger, in the midst of all of the other emotional trauma he/she will be going through, should not bear any burden regarding a delay in trying to warn the pilot. The outcome would probably have been the same - possibly even worse for the descending aircraft. Given the circumstances of the event, it is hard to envisage a more favourable outcome for the second aircraft. It could have very easily been much much worse, and the achieved result is little short of miraculous - a tribute to the pilot and his training and experience.
Wouldn't local company procedures have them well apart?
A call prior to lifting and on approach, or any time you didn't know where the other/s were, was key to keeping it all running smoothly. Company UHF if available, or the relevant VHF freq. More importantly, maintaining the mindset to not lift or approach until you had the other/s visual.
Another factor is that, no matter what, it's hard not to be distracted by pax either in the back or beside you - part of the job is to give them good customer service by pointing out sights and discussing local points of interest. We all know our primary job as aircraft captain is to safely operate the aircraft, but as with so many other aspects of GA operations, you have to juggle.
Not assuming anything, of course. We have all no doubt had close calls where the causal chain was fortunately broken before things got out of hand.
Full opposite rudder
Your thoughts echo mine. I empathise with that passenger. I suspect for a long time they will ask themselves if they could have done more. They have no responsibility however survivors guilt is a nasty thing. While it might have been possible their reaction was natural and what most people would have done. Hindsight is 20/20
Your thoughts echo mine. I empathise with that passenger. I suspect for a long time they will ask themselves if they could have done more. They have no responsibility however survivors guilt is a nasty thing. While it might have been possible their reaction was natural and what most people would have done. Hindsight is 20/20
The following users liked this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(...)
There is nothing worse than knowing another aircraft is somewhere near you and not being able to see it.
I know that feeling all too well. If I get it I move my head around A LOT trying to eliminate the blind spots.
The pilot did not seem like he was even remotely expecting the second helicopter from the left.
To add to the above from post #166…
Having done some time in a completely different but remarkably similar (busy) environment I just can’t help but wonder if the lifting and landing calls from these two aircraft were made simultaneously, thus neither heard the others call. “Two at once” does happen occasionally and would explain the apparent lack of directional scanning.. The other option that neither pilot made a lifting or landing call just doesn’t fly in this environment, especially given the experience level required to be driving that sort of gear… it would have long ago become completely automatic.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(...)
There is nothing worse than knowing another aircraft is somewhere near you and not being able to see it.
I know that feeling all too well. If I get it I move my head around A LOT trying to eliminate the blind spots.
The pilot did not seem like he was even remotely expecting the second helicopter from the left.
To add to the above from post #166…
Having done some time in a completely different but remarkably similar (busy) environment I just can’t help but wonder if the lifting and landing calls from these two aircraft were made simultaneously, thus neither heard the others call. “Two at once” does happen occasionally and would explain the apparent lack of directional scanning.. The other option that neither pilot made a lifting or landing call just doesn’t fly in this environment, especially given the experience level required to be driving that sort of gear… it would have long ago become completely automatic.
Just a thought and thanks SLFMS for putting it into words.
Chris.
The following users liked this post:
There is about a five second delay between the passenger spotting and pointing at the other aircraft, and the the moment at which he touches the pilot on the shoulder. You can sense the.understandable hesitation in his/her thought process - "Do I say / do something or not?". That's quite understandable for a passenger who has invested full confidence in the skill of the pilot.
We discussed the visual clues regarding the appearance of an aircraft which is on a potential collision course with you in an earlier thread - namely that the aircraft remains stationary within in your frame of view, but steadily (and rapidly) increases in size. This effect can almost be hypnotic when it happens, and the puzzlement at what one sees can delay any reaction which potentially would initiate sufficient and effective evasive action in time. Even so, a shout of "Traffic! Left Hand Side!" - even when first spotted - may not have changed the outcome. There simply wasn't enough time. The poor passenger, in the midst of all of the other emotional trauma he/she will be going through, should not bear any burden regarding a delay in trying to warn the pilot. The outcome would probably have been the same - possibly even worse for the descending aircraft. Given the circumstances of the event, it is hard to envisage a more favourable outcome for the second aircraft. It could have very easily been much much worse, and the achieved result is little short of miraculous - a tribute to the pilot and his training and experience.
We discussed the visual clues regarding the appearance of an aircraft which is on a potential collision course with you in an earlier thread - namely that the aircraft remains stationary within in your frame of view, but steadily (and rapidly) increases in size. This effect can almost be hypnotic when it happens, and the puzzlement at what one sees can delay any reaction which potentially would initiate sufficient and effective evasive action in time. Even so, a shout of "Traffic! Left Hand Side!" - even when first spotted - may not have changed the outcome. There simply wasn't enough time. The poor passenger, in the midst of all of the other emotional trauma he/she will be going through, should not bear any burden regarding a delay in trying to warn the pilot. The outcome would probably have been the same - possibly even worse for the descending aircraft. Given the circumstances of the event, it is hard to envisage a more favourable outcome for the second aircraft. It could have very easily been much much worse, and the achieved result is little short of miraculous - a tribute to the pilot and his training and experience.
I can see a recommendation from CASA that will limit the number of passengers a single pilot can take on a joy ride. This appears to be pilot overload.
Say, a max of four passengers for each pilot. If there had been two pilots or a pilot and cabin crew this may not have happened.
Are these EC130B4s required to have flotation devices fitted to the skids for these ops? I didn't notice any but happy to be corrected.
That would be an interesting outcome and have far reaching implications for most tour operators. You’ve got a single pilot doing the flying, managing the passengers and running a commentary, along with interactive questions. Many bus drivers do it, but many of them have a guide that does the commentary and handles the questions.
The following users liked this post: