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

Two helicopters collide - Gold Coast, Queensland - Sea World 2/1/2023

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

Two helicopters collide - Gold Coast, Queensland - Sea World 2/1/2023

Old 4th Jan 2023, 23:20
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
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.
I'd hate to see a knee jerk reaction like that. Similar operations have been successfully carried out for many years. The chances of such a crash would be pretty much the same in an R44 or Bell 206 with 3 or 4 pax as for the 6 pax machines. As with most of these situations, an air accident is all over the media with calls for 'we must ensure this never happens again', whereas with a road accident, it's 'ho-hum, another smash, but what can you do?'.

Further restrictions to helicopter operations like this are not the answer.
Arm out the window is online now  
The following 5 users liked this post by Arm out the window:
Old 4th Jan 2023, 23:53
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 216 Likes on 103 Posts
On a tangential issue, does the case against cockpit video cameras still have much validity? The availability of the video in the cabin is going to assist the ATSB in their analysis of the event. Not having the video footage would create a lot more gaps in the evidence. The surviving pilot's narrative can be referenced to the video to give a more accurate timeline and support HF theories about cockpit distraction and the limitations of see and avoid.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 00:15
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 834
Received 234 Likes on 76 Posts
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.
What ?????

Maybe people who have no clue about the realities of the helicopter industry should just refrain from posting.
KiwiNedNZ is offline  
The following 10 users liked this post by KiwiNedNZ:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 00:43
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: North Queensland, Australia
Posts: 2,980
Received 14 Likes on 7 Posts
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 thing with that is, you have to close the loop. So if I make a call and don't hear a reply, I would call again. Also, most times the pilot would be aware of a 'two in together' situation by the sidetone, and again, make another call. It seems that wasn't the case here, for some reason which will hopefully emerge in the investigation.
Arm out the window is online now  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 00:43
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 1,913
Received 295 Likes on 124 Posts
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
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.
If people followed procedures this may not have happened either. Hold the knee jerk reaction until the final report.
PoppaJo is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by PoppaJo:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 01:00
  #206 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,958
Received 862 Likes on 258 Posts
and what does having 2 or 3 times more traffic do to the threat of see and avoid?
fdr is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 01:03
  #207 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,958
Received 862 Likes on 258 Posts
ACAS I/II in this case is no better and IMHO not as good as an iPad with sentinel/Stratus or REDSPOT ADSB-IN, feeding to Foreflight particularly with a synthetic vision display.
fdr is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 01:05
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,989
Received 508 Likes on 234 Posts
As a Part 133 air transport operation, they should have emergency floats if operating further from land than could be reached in autorotative flight, so in this case, maybe not (?)
Wonder why the occupants wear life jackets if the machine is not fitted with floats based on the premise that any emergency will result in landing on the ground. Always considered the life jacket in a pouch worn around the waist as useful as a hip pocket in a singlet for this type of operation, OK for an airliner, but that's about all.In this type of joyriding anything requiring a ditching will all be over before the pax have any idea what's going on.
megan is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 01:17
  #209 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 281
Received 19 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
this will be the best document air disaster ever.

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.
Destroying the industry, to not fix a problem, that doesn’t exist.

If there where 4 less pax in the machine that made it down, EG no one in the back row, it’s difficult to imagine a different outcome.

While machines are designed, manufactured, maintained or flown by humans, mistakes will occur. Aviation has a long history of improving safety in response to tragic events.
Hopefully a procedure or other change, can be implemented that makes these types of operations even safer* than they are now.

* We had 11 people drown in the 4 days after Xmas day alone.
Twist & Shout is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 02:31
  #210 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,958
Received 862 Likes on 258 Posts
Our ICAO 9859 SMS based regulatory structure, incorporating §100, §119 and other regulatory requirements have a cognitive dissonance with the real world. We end up managing by exception, which hardly helps and in this type of event, it is apparent that the term "system" "safety" and "management" are misplaced. IIRC, this is not the first event in recorded time that the number of aircraft involved in a bad day exceeded 1... so how is that going for us so far?

The world is messy, stochastic... yet SMS is a linear process, and is based on linear models of causation, that a number of us with interest in safety have discomfort with. It is not only aviation, it is reflected in all of our close coupled activities, the NPPs, transport, IT security, medical, defence etc... bandaids are not a best line of defence. Technology has potential to alter the risks in good and bad ways, but generally, the outcome tends towards goodness, our controls however act to deny ready access to better systems etc.

It is indeed fortunate that Wilbur and Orville did not have the regulatory bodies that exist today which seem to have an intent to be happier with a dismantlement of the infrastructure of aviation to ends that seem to be contrary to the employment needs for the regulator itself.

An iPad with a stratus 3 and Foreflight would have given a chance to avoid this event, at a grand total of about $2500, achieving a better outcome than the TCAS II ch 7.1 which of course was a 110 K USD update of faulty software that was certified to do a job, cost 150K to install and then we get billed for the "upgrade" to fix the defect that was inherent in the system. I have greater faith in my iPad than the TCAS II system, it also has a vastly better MTBF.

Assessment of the real world condition vs expectation is necessary to conduct THA, it is dynamic, but our setups tend to go unnoticed unless it is done. Normal operations do give insights into slips and potential threats but needs a mind set change, and a review of exactly how and why we have arrived with the system that we have, for frankly, I think the pony poop in the stable is not the desired outcome to avoid some of the bad days that occur.



fdr is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 02:52
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 318
Received 11 Likes on 7 Posts
Originally Posted by PoppaJo
If people followed procedures this may not have happened either. Hold the knee jerk reaction until the final report.
Often "not following procedures" means "overloaded". It would only take one difficult passenger to cause problems.
RickNRoll is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 03:15
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Posts: 1,224
Received 123 Likes on 62 Posts
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
Often "not following procedures" means "overloaded". It would only take one difficult passenger to cause problems.
Granted the "See and avoid" "procedure" is a central philosophy to traffic management in G - but "not following procedures" is only a reasonable explanation for an accident if the procedures themselves are easily understood and applied in an operational context. The Australian regulatory environment these days is anything but...

Yes, "Procedures" would have - and should have - prevented this, but they didn't. We don't need more procedures to fix a problem existing procedures should have averted, we need to understand why the existing procedures didn't work. "Procedures" also say "Stop at a stop sign / give way to the right / wear a seatbelt / etc" but we still killed 1,100 people on the roads last year, and nobody blinks an eye.

Humans are humans so Occam's razor still applies. Sometimes, it's nothing more than "**** happens". In a perfect world, it wouldn't, but it ain't a perfect world.

What pisses me off more than the accident itself, is the ATSB refused to investigate the Gympie mid-air barely 6 weeks ago, yet they're out in force for this one. What is so different? Because "passengers" were involved?
Originally Posted by The ATSB
"The ATSB would only investigate accidents such the Kybong mid-air collision on an exception basis, as its resources permit, where conducting such an investigation has the potential to highlight wider safety issues."
What's the "wider safety issue" to investigate here? Bind freddy can tell you what happened...Two more aircraft have collided in Class G because one didn't give way to the other.
KRviator is offline  
The following 2 users liked this post by KRviator:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 03:21
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 13 Likes on 4 Posts
Condolences to all involved.

Just as a general question to those who've done these kind of ops (and I know we're all responsible to see and avoid) who is supposed to give way with several heli's all operating in close proximity - Landing? taking off? separated by radio calls? Im a fixed wing pilot and whenever I see these kind of ops I cant really make sense of the how the traffic flows.

heretolearn is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 03:34
  #214 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,282
Received 216 Likes on 103 Posts
What pisses me off more than the accident itself, is the ATSB refused to investigate the Gympie mid-air barely 6 weeks ago, yet they're out in force for this one. What is so different? Because "passengers" were involved?
Because fare paying passengers were involved is exactly why the ATSB is out in force. A fatal commercial operation is always going to get the priority over a fatal private operation involving a glider and an LSA. Which accident will the travelling public be more concerned about?
Lookleft is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 04:15
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Asia
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
When I was doing sightseeing tours it was always a loop pattern based on the winds at the time. If your departing to the North you should be arriving from the South and landing North. And ALWAYS announcing departing and on final so we knew where each of us where.

Very sad all around.
Sikpilot is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 04:31
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: I am not sure where we are, but at least it is getting dark
Posts: 356
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
Originally Posted by RickNRoll
Often "not following procedures" means "overloaded". It would only take one difficult passenger to cause problems.
That issue doesn't change with the number of passengers, in fact it may be worse if there are fewer of them, because the pilot becomes the only person they can talk to. The bigger the group, the more they tend to talk amongst themselves.

There's already an "isolate" switch on the intercom panel, and it works no matter if you have 4 or 12 in the back. Who knows, the pilot in the video may have even been using this feature, the passenger did tap him on the shoulder to get his attention after all. The investigation will show what happened, and we can wait at least wait until then before calling for regulation that would force all scenic flights to be limited to 4 pax (by the way, this would surely result in all surviving operations switching to R44s, which makes the net safety benefit even more questionable).

Again, we are professional pilots here, we need to assume that we are, in general, able to handle at least the absolute basics of what's in our job description. Managing attention and distraction in routine situations is pretty near the top of that list.
lelebebbel is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 04:46
  #217 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 37
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Well there you have it, every angle of this cluster in glorious HD video, yet many here continue to look for excuses.
It all boils down to what i said initially. What amounts to a busy airline, working on a nod and a wink for ATC.
If a Pilot needs to be tapped on the shoulder by a passenger, the Pilot shouldt be flying.
I wonder, would a Pilot Observer have been of value? Is it worth the loss of $150 a flight to be safer?
I wonder what the dead think.
flopzone is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 06:18
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 74
Posts: 581
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
Semi or full duplex radio?
Reading in an earlier post that there is a procedure in place of calling departure and arrival and that they probably stepped on each other negating the procedure; 20 years ago I was greatly impressed that ZA paraglider pilots were using some sort of duplex system which allowed them to either hear whilst tx full speech or the interference tone.
Maybe it’s about time the aviation industry rethought the standards; Tenerife was a long time ago and technology has changed.
blind pew is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 5th Jan 2023, 07:01
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,893
Received 196 Likes on 103 Posts
The answer for that (above) here in Australia, is the term “two in together” but that takes another aircraft to speak up, IF they noticed and IF they can be bothered to say something.
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 5th Jan 2023, 07:36
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 281
Received 19 Likes on 5 Posts
I fly a modern two pilot ME IFR helicopter mainly.
Not infrequently, I’ll receive traffic information from ATC. They will inform me of the type (Often a red/white AW139, with it’s landing lights on), altitude, outbound track and it’s relative bearing and distance to me. EG “Company AW139 traffic, outbound on the 353 radial, just past 1500 on climb initially 3000. Should be in your 2 o’clock low at 8 miles. Report sighting”. This information is backed up on the TCAS display. With two of us looking, it can be difficult to impossible to spot the traffic. And trust me, this is with lots of head movement and diligent “scanning”.

If a Pilot needs to be tapped on the shoulder by a passenger, the Pilot shouldt be flying.”
Is a phrase that can only be trotted out by someone without sin. (Or perhaps without experience, especially on how much traffic that person might have unknowingly missed.)
Twist & Shout is offline  
The following 11 users liked this post by Twist & Shout:

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.