Gold Coast Accident?
 

Media are reporting an accident at Dreamworld on the Gold Coast. Pilot +3 on board. Seem to only be 1 injured after forced landing in the car park.

That place is a bitch to get in and out of if you have ever been there. In and out over carpark full of cars and mind the rides :\

Some details here:
Helicopter crashes at Dreamworld theme park | The Australian

http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/4...oppercrash.jpg
Picture: Scott Boucher

That would have to be one of the worst commercial sites I've had to fly out from with fare paying passengers. Even a light twin would struggle to avoid the cars & buses after an engine failure. I managed to get some huge pot plants moved but cars took their place!
Just hope no one was too badly hurt.

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7476/choppercrash2.jpg
Photographer : Kate Czerny

More here www.goldcoast.com.au with additional photos.

The main blades still look quite straight. There couldn't have been much rotation left in them when it rolled over. The TV news report said it was taking off when the accident occurred, but it's not a DreamWorld helicopter? Although it had passengers taking a joyride? Maybe DreamWorld was leasing it? Or maybe I'm getting confused with SeaWorld, or is it WigglesWorld, or MovieWorld, so many different Worlds there :ugh:

From the pictures on the news he did a good job, like the impact mark on the carpark, clearly showing the entire bottom of the aircraft and both skids. :ooh:

No wonder the tail broke off. I've heard the skids can take a lot of punishment and a lot of the impact, but this takes the cake.

Once more cringe-worthy news coverage- hats off to the pilot but I'm sure the "heroic" avoidance of the cars in the carpark was in fact- OH C&*P the engine has failed, look,there's a flat place to crash..

Don't get me wrong- an excellent job. Having taught EOLs in similar aircraft, an unalerted real one in that situation would have been tough.:D

If the aircraft was on approach, the pilot probably had to carry out the forced landing with a tail wind, as the wind on the Gold Coast today was from the west at approximately 15kts.

Another forum is reporting that there is only one flightpath in and out of the place and that's over the carpark, so that will put you on downwind on at least one of those legs (the approach in today's incident). Can anyone confirm this ?

Also, does anyone know whether it was a power-on or -off landing ?

It's owned by a skilled labour company... its in the article.
The name is on the side of the helicopter.

However they do charter work under Dreamworld Helicopters.

There is a standard take off & approach path, 180 opposite. Generally there is very little wind as the area is sheltered by trees. On approach you go over the trees, then descend over the car park which should be clear, then over the raised pad. I don't see why he is a "hero" for landing in a clear area as that is where he is supposed to be. I'm quite sure he had no desire to land on a car! The fuel load is kept very low to take 5 people, so whatever the wind, I'm surprised the machine ended up in such a sorry state but at least it appears the injuries weren't too bad.

Media Coverage
 

Saw this prang covered on ch7 tonight.

I nearly had to kick the :mad: telly!!

Talk about Ill informed, biased, clueless and totally cringe worthy reporting.

The gutter media they make me want to :yuk:

If you are going to pass comment on something at least have some idea of your subject matter? :=

Whoever was flying the clown reporter around over the crash site in a jet ranger today perhaps you could give him a few pointers?

Rant Over.

Now putting on kevlar in preparation for incoming! :eek:

I am surprised that HLS was approved of by CASA in the first place. Having an approach path over such a high density traffic area should never have been approved especially for single engine aircraft. My congratulations go out to the pilot for getting it down as well as he did. thank goodness it wasn't the middle of the school holidays.
John

Controlability
 

Up front disclaimer: I am not a pilot. I'm just here to learn.

Please pardon my ignorance but our much beloved media are making a lot of the fact that the hero pilot "steered the stricken aircraft to an empty part of the car park".

Now, without taking anything way from Sato Matsumi's feat in getting the thing on the ground in only two main pieces, my understanding was that, unlike Sully and his Airbus, an unpowered helicopter has the glide characteristics of a tin can with a small parachute and that you only have limited control over your vertical speed as you autorotate downwards.

Particularly given they ware landing and therefore, I assume, had little forward momentum, how much real manouverability would likely have been available to the pilot at that point?

justawanab,

Despite the knowledge available on this forum, I'd suggest heading over to a flying school and asking them to show you.

I'm sure they'll be happy to oblige. :ok:

Let me try and answer your question. Even without drive from the engine, whilst you have rotor rpm you can still steer the helicopter wherever you want to go. Obviously where you end up is limited by the height and speed you were at when drive from the engine was lost. In the helicopter type that crashed at DreamWorld, you can fly for about a mile for every 1000' in height above ground from that point where you lost power. So that radius governs your aiming point for a forced landing. Obviously when you are close to the ground (i.e. landing) your options become very limited in where you end up should the engine stop. If you use up your rotor speed to stretch the glide to get to a suitable landing spot (eg open car park) you are going to arrive with a heavy thud at the bottom.

No doubt the engine wasn't delivering power to the rotor when the helicopter rolled over. Just look at the blades, they are still straight and intact so had very little energy left in them to dissipate when they contacted the ground. No doubt the first thing the investigators will look at is how much fuel is left remaining in the tank. Let's hope for the pilot's sake they find more than 20 minutes worth of fuel in there.

Edit: Media reporting of these things always follows the same script. The pilot is always a hero saving the stricken aircraft from certain disaster. No doubt the contribution of the pilot and everything else that happened here will come to light in the subsequent investigation. From what I've heard it will be a very straight forward investigation here.

gulliBell, thanks you for that explanation. You've totally dispelled the impression I had of the glidability of rotary wing aircraft. I knew you could control the vertical speed to some extent in an autorotate but I didn't realise that there was any ability to control direction without something being driven.

SE helicopter over congested area
 

Maybe this will inspire the operators to move the base to suitable location for a SE helicopter or buy an A cat twin!!

Same ****, different day!!!:ugh:

If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ... :}

Coincidentally, the approach looks very much like the one in the video in post #9 this thread - http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/372...s-kai-tak.html - fortunately, the local authorities have now banned the landing site for single engined helicopters.

Whilst I don't disagree with the single engine stuff over a congested area, don't forget about all the single engine fixed wing getting airborne out of busy airports all over Oz straight over built up areas. Do we ban/move those as well in case they lose power? And from my experience in the past, there is plenty of pilots flogging around over congested areas at 1000' or more that probably wouldn't make the tennis court instead of the lounge room in auto anyway.

Well done to the pilot, they are all still eating hamburgers and that's what counts.

Hey Reverse, interesting comment:

If you have an OEI in a twin, the remaining operative engine will take you to the scene of the crash ...

I'm guessing here you don't fly twin engine helicopters :}

If the accident helicopter here was a twin, and he still had fuel on board, chances are it wouldn't be rolled up in a ball of scrap metal in the car park.

Gullibel, wouldnt that depend on the twin, as some of them are so underpowered they couldnt get out of their own way.

Mind you the chances of operating a twin out of Dreamworld and making money arent two things you would use in the same sentence :oh:

Cheers

Ned

Oh My.

1: CASA do not “Approve” Landing Areas! CAAP 92.2 may enlighten you.

2: If this chap did land with a Tail Wind, he will answer for that action in the subsequent court of law.

3: ME Helicopters are “Accountable” above Vy {CEO PN029-2005}. Did you know that?, therefore far better than a SE in this area.

4: Great to hear that this Landing Area {Basic HLS} is now closed!

Ned: I know of no twin engine helicopter that is so underpowered that it can't continue to fly and maintain height on one engine right up to max AUW, or very close to max (under the conditions here; i.e. sea level-ish, ISA and above Vtoss). But I have only flown medium twins. Maybe some heavy or light twin types would be underpowered OEI, I just don't know.

Don't want people who don't know otherwise to take what was said earlier here as gospel i.e. a twin engine helicopter when required to fly OEI "will take you to the scene of the crash". In the vast majority of cases it will take you to a place where you can land safely without any damage to the aircraft.

Hi guys, my comment about the remaining engine taking you to your crash site was meant as a joke (hence smile included) but none of you got it - what's the point of having a 2nd engine then - apologies if I lead the uninformed astray.

Of course gulliBell is right that I am not endorsed on twin engined helicopters - not many of us are as it costs about $4000/hr just to train on a light twin. However, I have been told personally by the guy who pilots the Victoria Police chopper that he'd never fill her tanks up full because they would have to quickly land where an OEI occurred - rather, it's tanks are never more than half-filled so that they can at least limp back to Essendon for repairs in an OEI event. I suppose it's more than just looking at the AUW. Telling, isn't it ?

Bet he wouldn't want his name to get around.......be careful of quotes..


Half tanked probably describes some of his workmates.

DD
:ok:

do I detect a swinging red wings? or, just a bit of slipper.

Flying Anvil
 

Weren't the B222 A & B models and the AS355E called the Flying Anvil OEI???

Those Police jobs referred to requiring reduced fuel loads to meet performance requirements are more likely related to their particular mission specific profile, such as winching or confined area ops. When doing live winching you want to be at a weight where you can safely complete the winch cycle OEI. That takes huge power, to hover OGE, and not many light or medium twins can do that OEI when heavy. The power required is more than the OEI power available, hence the need for weight (fuel) limiting.

If the Police mission profile required long range then they would go on full tanks or at max AUW. I don't know what aircraft type they are flying, maybe one of their pilots could jump in here, but I bet they can at least keep flying at max AUW should OEI occur at anytime they are flying about 55 knots or more.

Getting a bit off topic here :oh: Pleased to hear on the TV news tonight that the pilot is OK and the passengers are all doing well under observation in hospital.

The worlds most dangerous thrill ride
 

Having flown around the site and visited the venue as a paying customer I had mixed feelings about the operation.
It is an excellent opportunity to promote aviation and helicopters in particular as the pad is close to a public wanting a thrill.
The downside is the approach, which on a busy day, leaves nowhere to go if a problem develops.

The worst accident in theme park history occurred in 1972 in the UK when 5 kids were killed on the "Big Dipper"
Sadly this is not an unusual number of fatalities for a helicopter accident.
The 1972 accident spooked the public and put that theme park out and others of business and began a world wide movement to create addition safety features and build coasters from steel.

The owner of the Dreamworld park would be a wise businessman to do more to reduce the likely hood of another accident which could have a catastrophic effect to his business.

A simple solution would be to create a clear zone under the approach where no cars or buses are ever parked.
Also given the history, I wonder if sales would increase if the public had a choice of riding in a twin engine craft?

Mickjoebill

I've been a police machine and a media machine where an engine was shut down.
Thankfully both were twin engines so we could get home:D The media machine flew back to base as it was daylight, the police machine landed in a field as it was night.

Today a twin engine craft landed safely on one engine.
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/377...ent-today.html


Mickjoebill

I did a few flights into and out of that pad a few years ago and if my memory serves me correctly, the operator at the time had a restriction in their ops manual on using the pad if the wind was above 15kts. The alternate landing site was between the carpark and freeway on the grass.

sound advice indeed.
the emergency may happen but the wreckage should never result.

It's easy to notice that in many venues such as this that the owners are approached by an operator along the lines of, "we'll give you a commission if you just let us operate here."

the owner usually is not aware or the ramifications of the above quote.

commercial greed can often overule good structure in the setting up of these flights.

If there was an effective CASA and or Industry body available then theme park owners or tourist venue operators would have someone to turn to for some friendly and effective safety advice??

Maybe it's another area that the much flaunted ASFA could turn its hand to.

any fixed flight tourist flights that do not have a 100% flight line emergency landing areas and pilots checked out into all of them, should never even start. That is certainly the way that I set up the several that I was involved with over the years.

why? because the day that it happens will be the day you are flying the son of the worlds best barrister with his fiance, the daughter of the worlds richest man. a simple paradigm.
tet

Mmmm ....

TET .... so true, so true!

My argument would be that these type of operations are "Public Transport" and as such everyone should have the benefit of a "Performance 1" aircraft for that type of operation.

Having said that ... no doubt I shall be shouted down as a person who does not understand "commercial operations" ..... what I do understand is the fragility of human life ... this incident came so close to being a "disaster" which would have demanded a heavy duty revisiting of the "rule book".

... I wonder whether CASA will do do something ... sooner rather than later?


:hmm:

OEI to scene of crash!!!
 

REVERSEFLIGHT Let me guess,
you have not flown an A cat twin helicopter or even a twin aircraft of any sort.
you have never flown a takeoff or landing profile in a twin (anything)

An A cat helicopter OEI (one engine inoperative) will at any point of its profile remain under control, it will not take you to the scene of the crash:ugh:

How many times do we have to hear this sort of BS.????:mad:

Fact:
If this helicopter was a B426, not a B206 it would have flown its takeoff/landing profile on its remaining engine and flown its crew and passengers away from harm. It also would not have put those on the ground in harms way.

Even a non 'A cat' twin helicopter would have had time to find a clearer area and would most likey still be the right way up and undamaged.

Can anybody tell me if the ATSB actually attended the scene? I assume they would have just because of the public attention that this prang got. this style of accident is not really their bag...read not RPT and no serious injury.
If they didn't attend, the accident report will probably be a bit light on which then leaves CASA with not much in the way of reccomendations to go on.

FBD

Mmmm ...

Chaps .... it would appear from a post above there is confusion with the distinction between a Performance 1 (or 2 2e or 3 helicopters) and Category A procedures which allow a Helicopter to Depart & or Arrive with a minimum of exposure time to suffering a power unit failure.

Is this the case?


:ooh:

Friendly Black Dog,
CASA would do well to set up their own investigation unit. NZ CAA did so, as the TAIC (ATSB equivalent) would leave many private aircraft accidents or Ag accident uninvestigated. Seems to work. I think FAA do their own as well if the NTSB don't.

Spinwing - I think you are right as has just been demonstrated in some of the posts.

Simply put, flying a twin-engine helicopter to CAT A (or PC1) provides a guarantee that (if flown correctly) a helicopter can at any stage of the flight (including take off and landing) in the event of an engine failure safely land in the reject area with no damage or continue the flight.

But it is not quite that simple. A helicopter operating CAT A will only guarantee that safety IF it is operated at CAT A weights and IF it is flown to a correct profile and IF the operating area permits a CAT A take off profile. Take away any one of those and you are not CAT A and therefore cannot guarantee CAT A performance.

Heli-Phile - The accident site in question is not one from which a CAT A profile could be performed so the type of helicopter is irrelevant.

As Australia permits EMS helicopters to operate to PVT/AWK and they do not need to conform to CAT A standards there are twin engine helicopters taking off daily from roof top hospital helipads that have no accountability below VY. That basically means that if a donk stops after take off before VY then there will be an accident. This is presumably deemed to be an acceptable risk.