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

[Chock Puller]

The quoting of that particular post by a News Paper very much proves the dangers of posts here at PPRuNe being cherry picked by the Media and others for use.

You should take note of that and carefully choose your wording and avoid using baseless speculation re this particular accident.

As we now know the media is going to quote you it shall prove mandatory that baseless speculation be weeded from this Thread.

[212man]

Originally Posted by Planetary

I just want to know who was responsible for the recovery of this machine. Whilst appearing heavily damaged there is no structure in this area, and it is highly likely that it is economically repairable. That is until you lift it with three strops around the blade sleeves, probably rendering most of the MRH U/S. Why on earth is the lifting point on top of the AVA not being used for an approved lift? The company maintenance facility is right there!

I can't imagine there will be much appetite to return the airframe to service!

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Originally Posted by John Eacott

As mentioned, this article quotes post 63 Two helicopters collide - Gold Coast, Queensland - Sea World 2/1/2023 where the contributor clearly lacked the basic knowledge, already discussed, that the pilots flew from the left on these helicopters. Now those who read the newspaper article will be guided to an incorrect view of a possible contribution to the accident, plus unfortunate speculation as to the professional conduct of the operation based on nothing other than observation from the ground by the PPRuNer.

The real takeaway here is that The Australian is clearly staffed with lazy journalists and should, like most media outlets, not be trusted.

[Ewan Whosearmy]

Originally Posted by Chock Puller

As we now know the media is going to quote you it shall prove mandatory that baseless speculation be weeded from this Thread.

Whilst no one is ever going to endorse speculation that is known to be inaccurate before the poster's fingers ever touch the keyboard, this site serves a very useful function of allowing people to hypothesise in an an environment where very experienced professionals will often be able to provide a view and the benefit of their experience.

In this case, the hypothesis was not baseless, but it was wrong. It was therefore a valid thing to post and was quickly corrected by others - RHS vs LHS.

As I posted above, the real lesson is here is to stop reading The Australian.

[Squawk7700]

The poster didn’t say that the pilot sits on either side. Below and off to the left would be obscured to some extent, regardless of the seating position of the pilot. I’m certain that the ATSB report will cover off peripheral vision angles, the use of sunglasses etc.

[tartare]

Originally Posted by Ewan Whosearmy

Whilst no one is ever going to endorse speculation that is known to be inaccurate before the poster's fingers ever touch the keyboard, this site serves a very useful function of allowing people to hypothesise in an an environment where very experienced professionals will often be able to provide a view and the benefit of their experience.

In this case, the hypothesis was not baseless, but it was wrong. It was therefore a valid thing to post and was quickly corrected by others - RHS vs LHS.

As I posted above, the real lesson is here is to stop reading The Australian.

Absolutely- and personally I regard the Oz as beneath contempt. And that’s speaking as a former journalist.

[John Eacott]

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

The poster didn’t say that the pilot sits on either side. Below and off to the left would be obscured to some extent, regardless of the seating position of the pilot. I’m certain that the ATSB report will cover off peripheral vision angles, the use of sunglasses etc.

Yet he replies in two further posts that was his understanding, even quoting videos of different aircraft types.

[Cloudee]

Originally Posted by bob_bowne

Road rules are the aircraft landing has right of way.
There is no published CTAF frequency for these helipads...

Better have a look at your VNC again. The Sea World helicopter landing area is marked along with “Sea World CTAF 119.0”

[John Eacott]

Originally Posted by Ewan Whosearmy

The real takeaway here is that The Australian is clearly staffed with lazy journalists and should, like most media outlets, not be trusted.

All the Queensland papers are quoting social media excerpts, including tributes posted on Ash’s FB page. This is the scourge of modern times but telling us not to read newspaper articles is not the point; ensuring that what we contribute has a degree of basis in fact, is. Posting comments implying that the operation was allowing fatigue, complacency, distraction, commercial pressure and lack of radio calls by (what I believe from his post history) a retired airline pilot living locally does us no favours when they are quoted by the Press.

[B772]

Looking at the canopy damage and possible damage to the controls is hard to believe Michael James was able to retain control of the copter. I wonder if Michael is related to the 'lucky' Dominic James.

[cooperplace]

I regularly speak to the media in my job, which is not in aviation. If people are experts in a field then there is nothing wrong with them building relationships with journalists who they trust. Many journalists are responsible hard-working people who want to report the facts accurately. Obviously journalists don't have expertise in specialized areas such as aviation and it's desirable that they get information from experts rather than the uninformed. When speaking to journalists it's important to keep the message simple and factual, and to think carefully before speaking. There are however some journalists I won't speak to because I've seen them go out of their way to over-interpret and sensationalize a message.

[SASless]

Cooperplace,

Mark Twain, an old newspaperman, stated "If a Man does not read a Newspaper he is. not informed.....and if he does he is mis-informed."

He knew what he was talking about as that statement remains true today!

I don't trust a one of the sorry rascals.

The Australian has my express permission to quote this post.

[helispotter]

Originally Posted by B772

Looking at the canopy damage and possible damage to the controls is hard to believe Michael James was able to retain control of the copter...

Those are my sentiments as well. Looking at the fairly high resolution photo posted by logansi (post #69) at first I thought those grey tubes hanging out the front were related to the tail rotor controls. But then I realised that just wouldn't be possible to still have had a safe landing. The pedal linkages would be somewhat back from the front edge of the forward end of the cabin floor, per attached photo from www of an EC130B4 cabin, and in any case concentrated to the left side. So are those tubes simply support braces for the forward end of the cabin? Something grey just visible on RHS forward in image below.

Also, in the audio of footage of VH-XH9 landing, there also seems to be an unusual rotor noise, perhaps of the order of once per revolution of the main rotor. I thought that may be due to damage to the main rotor but that isn't obvious in photos I have seen. So it it perhaps just airflow noise over the shattered cockpit which wouldn't exist on an intact EC130? Or am I reading too much into what I hear?

[Foxxster]

Originally Posted by B772

Looking at the canopy damage and possible damage to the controls is hard to believe Michael James was able to retain control of the copter. I wonder if Michael is related to the 'lucky' Dominic James.

regardless of any possible control damage, that rotor strike must have been like a bomb going off in the cabin. To be able to maintain composure under those circumstances and be able to safely land as he did is astonishing.

[SASless]

Ran across this a few minutes ago.

From that article.....

Narrative:
Two Eurocopter EC 130B4 helicopters of Sea World Helicopters suffered a mid-air collision near Sea World Heliport (YSWD), Main Beach, Queensland.
VH-XKQ was departing Sea World Heliport when the tail section was cut off by the approaching VH-XH9 and it crashed nose down onto a sand bank and VH-XH9 made an emergency landing on the same sand bank with severe damage to the cockpit section.
Four of the seven occupants died and three received critical injuries. Five of the six occupants of the VH-XH9 received minor injuries by cockpit glass debris.

​​​​​​​

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/305478

[Jabberwocky82]

There are three types of people in aviation, those that know it, those that don't, and then there are those that think they know it. Natural curiosity makes us all want to understand what happened and that is OK (as mentioned earlier in this thread). It is also natural that over time, those that do not know aviation are usually found wanting when they have drawn their own conclusions.

Modern media is what it is, we all get to choose to engage in, and with it, as we please. Personally, there are far better avenues to invest your energy. It does help when reading forums like this to ensure you have read everything before inviting yourself in (I have made that mistake numerous times myself).

It is a tragic accident and my thoughts are with all involved. Well done to the pilot for the safe landing and I can not imagine the circumstances that scenario threw at him during those times.

Will miss you Ash, RIP to the other deceased and best of luck to all others involved in this horrific accident.

[wondrousbitofrough]

Can I just say that the language coming from the ATSB essentially describing the incident as 'not a bad result' is questionable. At least four families and the wider aviation community would say otherwise.

[Ascend Charlie]

the tail section was cut off by the approaching VH-XH9

Really? If the departing aircraft's main rotor hit the front of XH9, causing all that damage, it would be likely that the torque forces of the sudden stoppage would shake the tail off, as has happened before (old video of a Squirrel blade contacting a cable, tail falls off, Jolly Greens in formation clash blades, tails fall off) and the tail-less rotor-less fuselage drops to the ground. The rotor of XH9 would be above and forward of the tail boom, and such a contact would have been catastrophic for the second aircraft too.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by wondrousbitofrough

Can I just say that the language coming from the ATSB essentially describing the incident as 'not a bad result' is questionable. At least four families and the wider aviation community would say otherwise.

There could easily have been no survivors. That the second aircraft landed safely and there were survivors in the first is incredible. Maybe not the best choice of words but the sentiment is appropriate.

[KiwiNedNZ]

I added my edit to the post about the accident - not sure if it will get approved or not

My comments at the end in the Narrative box LOL