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

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by SIUYA

…Why does it take the ATSB so long to finalise investigations? I remember the old BASI/early ATSB finished investigations in much shorter timeframes than presently happens…

Lookleft already gave an example of an older brief final report, which goes some way to explaining timeframes. But also note that ATSB already has initial summary of an accident on its website within days of an accident, and for complex accidents they will often release a preliminary report or findings which share a lot of what they have found. in the case of this accident I heard a news report in last few days that indicated such a preliminary report may already be released by ATSB in a period of weeks, not months or years.

[EESDL]

Ref #362
"All this talk of blindspots seems to avoid the issue the pilot never turns his head apart from to the right. The guy that spotted it was not even on that side of the cockpit.
slf here so what would I know..."

It's a good observation and I'm also struggling to understand why the Pilot wasn't craning his neck to confirm traffic. Don't misunderstand me - I'm sitting in a nice comfy armchair assuming there are common RTF calls made/position reports etc. Not convinced that there'll be a huge amount to learn from this tragedy that 'we', the industry, isn't already aware of.
Not sure ATC would have made such an impact in this case. From experience of flying in/out of Silverstone GP weekend in its 'heyday' I recalled what my first instructor told me to never forget.......Never believe ATC, Engineers or Medics - rather counter-intuitive you may think and has almost cost me my marriage after I come home from such events with a red neck from constant 'craning/swiveling' being mistaken for lipstick! There was ATC at Silverstone but tactical position 'misreporting', speeding, and undertaking was still the norm!

[WanganuiLad]

Thanks. Head on a swivel and the fighter pilots silk scarf to avoid chaffing came to mind as I watched him

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by EESDL

Ref #362
"All this talk of blindspots seems to avoid the issue the pilot never turns his head apart from to the right. The guy that spotted it was not even on that side of the cockpit.
slf here so what would I know..."

It's a good observation and I'm also struggling to understand why the Pilot wasn't craning his neck to confirm traffic. Don't misunderstand me - I'm sitting in a nice comfy armchair assuming there are common RTF calls made/position reports etc. Not convinced that there'll be a huge amount to learn from this tragedy that 'we', the industry, isn't already aware of.
Not sure ATC would have made such an impact in this case. From experience of flying in/out of Silverstone GP weekend in its 'heyday' I recalled what my first instructor told me to never forget.......Never believe ATC, Engineers or Medics - rather counter-intuitive you may think and has almost cost me my marriage after I come home from such events with a red neck from constant 'craning/swiveling' being mistaken for lipstick! There was ATC at Silverstone but tactical position 'misreporting', speeding, and undertaking was still the norm!

The video’s I’ve seen only show the last few seconds of the approach. There may have been a bit of ‘swivel head’ going on before the video starts. Normally a pilot would get a bit ‘target fixated’ on the landing site as it nears.

[Flying Binghi]

Originally Posted by John Eacott

The ABC News report here comments:

…

One serial complainer Don Espey said he tracked up to 4,000 helicopter movements per week over Broadwater in 2018, ie 2,000 takeoffs/2,000 landings. Approximately 36 movements an hour based on a 10 hour day/7 day week for all Broadwater operators, not just Sea World.

But he does have an agenda, and the 4 year old figures wouldn't have a hope of being verified: especially by the ABC.

That won’t matter to the Australian taxpayer funded ABC. Thousands of quiet near beach places to live on the Oz east coast and the old jerk buys a unit next to one of Australia’s main tourist facility’s and bleats about the noise, and ‘our’ ABC uses him to attack a thriving business..

[KiwiNedNZ]

I did say the Reef Pontoon accident in 1985 was a tangent, but hardly a “COMPLETE tangent”.

it is a complete tangent - only similarity is it was an accident. Not even close to what happened here. Two machines on a confined area pontoon on the GBR and a midair - hardly the same but hey continue to post irrelevant stuff. Surprised you havent thrown in there about the Sea World Long ranger accident as well.

I would be stunned if Helitours isn’t as interested in learning from this accident as Sea World are.

- well considering Scotts dad used to run Sea World in the old days and Scott started all his flying there before moving to start Happy Wave and GCHT I am pretty sure he is up to speed with ops down the other end.

not sure why you are so grumpy sounding over several of us other posters? Lookleft has already copped some of your wrath

- If you are that thin skinned then this is really not the place for you and interpret tone of the posts however you want - doesn't really bother me. Dont like it - tough luck.

[Avv]

Originally Posted by EESDL

Ref #362
"All this talk of blindspots seems to avoid the issue the pilot never turns his head apart from to the right. The guy that spotted it was not even on that side of the cockpit.
slf here so what would I know..."

You can actually see that he is in a left hand turn at the start of the video and does look down and left of track roughly towards where the old hangar pad is just before the rear passenger points to the incoming helo and then looks back straight ahead and straightens ups then seems to make a radio call.
I wonder if he did sight the departing aircraft, assumes he's been sighted and that they will give way to the approaching aircraft and continue his approach making a call to confirm?

[JulieAndrews]

Miracle that there are survivors.

[jimiemick]

Originally Posted by Flying Binghi

Old man buys Gold Coast high rise unit next to heliport. Old man is too old to do that surf and bikini thing. Old man yells at helicopters……

Best part is.... Some one is inflating the numbers. Either the ABC or Don Espey
Even in Dons OWN WRITTEN WORDS there is only 1,000-2,000 a week
As he mentions in this bullshit rant from 17th of Feb 2021 On the "Main Beach Association" facebook page
(i can not post URLs as apparently i have not posted more than 8 times)
He is a legit serial pest as you can tell.

"Whilst even one take off/landing at such a location is one too many, it is nowhere near the 1,000 - 2,000 pre-Covid activities per week, however numbers are growing again."

This is my favorite line

"(i) Harm to human health or safety or personal injury; (ii) property damage; (iii) An unacceptable loss of amenity; and (iv)An adverse impact on the surrounding community
Raucous helicopters spewing toxic filth continue taking off and landing out of the Marina Mirage base, a Main Beach Marina, subjecting residents and visitors to unacceptable environmental noise and toxic fuel residue pollution"


I would love to know when he moved to the area, and how high up his place of residence is.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

4000 flights per week?
I spent 2 weeks near the Broadwater in the lead up to Christmas. I saw a helo go past every 5 mins or so. That doesn’t add up to 4000 a week.
The noise was barely noticeable. Just blended in with all the aircraft going past, trucks and cars. Police, Ambulances and the Fire Brigade. Boats, jet skis and the occasional F18!
Loved it.

Point of order, sir. The (begrudgingly smart-ish) NIMBY is not quoting flights but movements in an attempt to make things look [twice] as worse as they are. As we all know, 4000 "movements" is just 2000 "flights", or 'roughly' 300 a day. WTF does he expect in a tourist hotspot?!?

[Chock Puller]

Enough has been said about Mr. Espey and NIMBY's and detracts from the discussion of the topic of this Thread.

Nothing Espey has to say is relevant and adds nothing of value to this Thread.

Let's move on shall we and get back to useful relevant discussion.

[Timmy Tomkins]

Frgive me if this has already beed addressed but with high intensity VFR movements and the Heli climb abilities (I'm fixed wing) would there not be a procedural arrival and departure. IE ALL departures lift and climb to the , say, North and all arrivals approach from the opposite?

[SASless]

There has been some discussion earlier in this Thread about the various Landing Pads, Routes, and some general conjecture about RT procedures and the like.

I am unsure of whether someone in the know about the SOP' or agreed upon procedures in place that day have provided us with a good explanation of all of that.

The questions you ask have been discussed along the way by several posters.....but a well placed source has not done so to my knowledge although I may have missed it.

Logic tells us there are such procedures and have worked well in the past as this is reputed to be a very professional operation with high standards of safety.

All of which makes this tragedy such a shock to so many.

[Lookleft]

Logic tells us there are such procedures and have worked well in the past as this is reputed to be a very professional operation with high standards of safety.

An interesting statement and the bolding is mine. Another statement made earlier was that this was just an unfortunate lining up of the holes in the Swiss cheese. James Reason's "Managing the Risk of an Organisational Accident" was first published in 1997 and is is just as relevant today 25 years later. An understanding of what he wrote suggest that it is not unfortunate that the holes lined up but that it is inevitable if the safety systems of an organisation are not managed. The holes that are referred to are the defenses that should be in place to prevent an accident occurring. It is not a one time set an forget exercise. So statements such as "have worked well in the past" is a clear pointer that the safety systems have worked before but something changed that meant they were not going to work anymore. That change may not have even occurred on the day of the accident but a decision made by the operator, the fun park or the CP has meant that the risk of collision was increased to the point that an accident was inevitable. There are very few accidents in aviation that are simply a one off that could never occur again. There are also very few accidents that could not have been avoided if the warning signs were picked up earlier. That doesn't mean that one individual is at fault but it is also not just a random series of events that just happened on this day and won't occur in the future.

Hopefully the report when finally released will give other operators of helicopter scenic flights pause for thought about how their operations are conducted. They may disregard it and think it won't happen to them but the smart operator's will look at how their procedures can be adjusted to ensure that it doesn't happen to them.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

.... a decision made by the operator, the fun park or the CP has meant that the risk of collision was reduced to the point that an accident was inevitable.

That's a big call without knowing any of the facts.

[Lookleft]

That's a big call without knowing any of the facts.

The facts are there were two helicopters that collided conducting scenics on a clear day. Read the whole post. What had worked before clearly and factually did not work on the day. Go and get a copy of James Reason's book and you might understand that there are very few genuine accidents. Someone has changed what was done successfully before to change the dynamics of an operation where a collision occurred. This collision didn't happen because the pilots were no good at their job or the helicopters were not fit for purpose.

[601]

What had worked before clearly and factually did not work on the day

What then is the point of SOPs?

[SASless]

Lookleft,

How did the leaned fellow rule out pure happenstance akin to the Laws of Probability and achieve absolute certainty of outcome?

The Swiss Cheese Model does not start with the beginning....which Reason's method seems to do.

To believe Reason's thinking then it would seem any change being made would lead to a tragedy or does he find a way to analyze change to identify the "fatal" changes?

In my Opinion the Swiss Cheese method looks backwards from the Tragedy to identify the "holes" among which should be listed the "changes" that Mr. Reason discusses.

I am not disagreeing with you or Mr. Reason.....but am suggesting both methods are valid but it would appear Reason's method requires an active response to any change and identifying what change qualifies for analysis must be made.

The Swiss Cheese method looks back and identifies changes that should be made.

The Swiss Cheese method serves as a Quality Control Measure for those embracing the Reason method if previously employed by an Operator to enhance its safety program.

Of course hind sight is 20/20 and comes after a tragedy where Lives are lost.

Historically accident investigations always start with the accident and then start looking for causes with the hope of sorting out ways to prevent future occurrences.

How does an Aviation Safety Advisor sell the "Reason" method to Senior Management?

[Ivor_Bigunn]

Lookleft,

I think there must be typos in your post:


Me No Understand !

IB

[Lookleft]

Good points SASless. James Reason was initially looking at the oil and nuclear industries and why such regulated and SOP dependent industries still had catastrophic accidents. Aviation is very similar. The Swiss cheese model does indeed work the other way and the ATSB were early adopters of investigating from the accident back up through the layers. Equally, if you can start at the accident and work back then the organisation can put in place structures that look at how it goes about its business and look for the "holes". The jargon is risk analysis, safety management systems and safety audits. In theory that should be good enough to trap and close the holes in the cheese but it depends on how serious an organisation is in paying attention to the information that it provides. Regulators will look at the manuals and tick the box that they are in place. CEOs will sign their name to a safety statement but then allow commercial consideration to override any safety consideration.

As an example, a former Jetstar CEO stated that operations into Ballina kept him awake at night. Jetstar had a near miss where one of its jets came within 300' of hitting a light aircraft yet they still operate into Ballina with the airspace not that much different to when the near miss occurred. Why didn't the CEO simply stop all flights into Ballina until a control tower was put in and Jetstar cover some or all the cost? If (or when) there is a collision it won't be bad luck, it will have been inevitable.

It requires commitment from all levels of an organisation big or small, that safety is the prime consideration when changes are made to the way business as usual is done. The statement "Safety is no accident" is both cliche but true. When things are going well then the system is apparently working. By well I also mean that accidents are not happening. In this accident there must have been something different in the way things were usually done.

This was a clear day with two experienced pilots in modern machines. If this can happen to an organisation ,on the surface well run and well managed and considered as just plain bad luck, then the only way to avoid such things in the future is to stop all scenic flights out of Sea World. If Reason's model has any credibility, which after 25 years has not proved to be flawed, then there are issues that only a thorough investigation of the whole organisation can uncover.

As far as your statement: "How does an Aviation Safety Advisor sell the "Reason" method to Senior Management?" is concerned, that is the million dollar question. It would only be after a fatal accident such as this that it becomes a bit easier.