|
Other experienced pilots after decades of flying dangerous missions only come unstuck when a film crew are in the back seat. It wasn't a "film crew" in the back, it was a well known documentary maker hitching a ride home. A mere curious question: Is it legal in Austraila to matintan/repair your own a/c? The short answer is yes, if your are suitably qualified, or a pilot carrying out the limited maintenance allowed under Schedule 8 of the Civil Aviation Regulations. In both legal and practical terms, Richard Green was suitably qualified. He had successfully completed a raft of courses at the factory, both theory and hands-on was required, he was passed out by the factory (in Germany) to their standards. Based on the above, and on assessment of the record, the CASA AME licensing in Canberra issued him with all the necessary MAs (maintenance approvals) to maintain his helicopter. It has been said that Greg Vaughan issued the MRs, this is not true, the MRs Richard carried were as the result of normal CASA processes, even if opposed by the below. Needless to say, this got up the noses of certain persons in a particular CASA office, who are apparently of the devout belief that a long and often meaningless apprenticeship, including cleaning lots of sparkplugs, and replacing lots of rivets in a C172, and torquing valve caps on your tyres to manufacturer's specifications, using a torque nutdriver with a current calibration certificate, is a prerequisite being allowed the privilege of putting your hands on an aeroplane. Indeed, it might be said that the general position of the ALAEA is that pilots should not be allowed near aeroplanes, as every one that has ever crashed had at least one pilot on board (members of the Caterpillar Club excepted). When Greg Vaughan resigned, said “certain persons” were instrumental in having Richard’s MRs summarily cancelled, he appealed this arbitrary bureaucratic decision to the AAT, represented himself, and won. The AAT found he was qualified to hold the MAs. That’s when his troubles with CASA really started, and they have been on his case ever since. If you beat CASA in court, you are a “marked man”. It is true that, many years ago, he had a very minor rotor strike in a very remote area of northern Australia, and carried out temporary repairs. Based on his knowledge of manufacturer’s instructions for continuing airworthiness, he carried out the repairs to those requirements. What he didn’t do is comply with the CASA requirements of (in this case) having the damage assessed by a CAR 35 engineer, having the temporary repair carried out by a LAME, and getting a ferry permit. He ferried the aircraft back to Sydney, where he changed to blades, and dispatched them to the factory for repair and overhaul. Without doing any further work on the temporary repairs, the factory assessed the repair as meeting their requirements and the temporary repair performed by Richard was signed off by the factory as a permanent repair. His maintenance facility is most impressive, with no required tooling or test equipment lacking. It always reminded me more like a hospital operating theatre, clinically clean and fastidiously well organised --- and, of course, CASA approved. One of the things that impressed me was that he had the full deal equipment for maintenance of Ni-CAD batteries. When he bought the gear, something like 15 years ago, it was a bit over AUD $28,000, the reason few maintenance orgs. at Bankstown have one. Richard Green was as far from being a reckless and negligent pilot, flying an incompetently, let alone illegally maintained aircraft, as it was possible to get. He did regularly fly into difficult areas, which was the whole point of the machine, without it, his expertise in landscape photography would not have been possible. His long standing relationships with various Land Councils in northern Australia enabled him to get permits to enter areas most of us will never get. You don’t get to have an exhibition in the Art Gallery of NSW without good reason. Richard, originally a nuclear physicist, and an extraordinarily successful businessman was, in part, the victim of the “tall poppy” syndrome. Like many who have achieved as he had, he didn’t suffer fools gladly, or in the case of certain CASA persons, at all. As so many of you know, this only illuminates you as a CASA target. I am absolutely disgusted at the scurrilous half truths and outright fabrications that are appearing in various media outlets, they didn't make them up, they have been briefed. Tootle pip!! |
LedSled,
Excellent post. Hear hear. I've had my say on a local forum. No need to repeat it here. Very sad. Arrrj |
more
Ledsled,
I do not profess to know much about this, the thing that caught my attention apart from the appalling fact that there were deaths, was the fact that I had heard the name and the main rotor blade story somewhere before. This was before I returned to Australia so the context as in who, what, where, was not known to me at that time. When those blades from the tree contact reached Eurocopter, I am TOLD they were put in the bin. I was in Europe doing a flight test programme (fixed wing) at the time and the 'story' of the 'ozzie blades' was related to me by a colleague who was a test pilot at Eurocopter. The consensus seemed to me to be that an araldite epoxy repair was a fairly risky temporary repair to address incipient blade de-lamination. Then again, it was a great dinner so my recollections may be a bit off. If you have a look at the AAT, you will find that they said that Mr Green could carry out some maintenance but that he could not expect to have the same approvals returned. Mention about his existing levels of approval only being available to a LAME. I have not copied and pasted and the link seems to be disgracing itself but you should find what I refer to without difficulty. RIP |
Actus,
You are both correct and incorrect at the same time. The incident mentioned with the 135 was the second time Richard had conducted a field repair to MR blades. The first was on his first aircraft, a Gazelle. I recall that the Gazelle repair was found to be outside the tolerances for further service. There was some official response, which was documented in an industry publication at some point - I think I might have chucked it, can't find it for now. Richard's response was to educate himself and secure appropriate training and approvals as documented elsewhere. |
So, who signed for the duplicate inspections?
|
CASA: It seems you had a maverick in your midst and quite frankly the aviation world is now a safer place, since he departed. Probably vying for the Darwin Award but obviously failed many times before.
The terrible tragedy is that his poor wife and friend who were probably completely ignorant of this mans failings, were cruelly taken from this life as well. Australia should do what the Yanks do in instances like this - (promote the dead pilot) except the opposite should apply and he should be postumously charged with manslaughter.:ugh::ugh::ugh: He seems allegedly (and obviously) to have been an outrageous slur on a proud Australian aviation industry.:( |
CASA: It seems you had a maverick in your midst and quite frankly the aviation world is now a safer place, since he departed. Probably vying for the Darwin Award but obviously failed many times before. DF. |
LeadSled Reely340, The short answer is yes, if your are suitably qualified, or a pilot carrying out the limited maintenance allowed under Schedule 8 of the Civil Aviation Regulations. In both legal and practical terms, Richard Green was suitably qualified. He had successfully completed a raft of courses at the factory, both theory and hands-on was required, he was passed out by the factory (in Germany) to their standards. Based on the above, and on assessment of the record, the CASA AME licensing in Canberra issued him with all the necessary MAs (maintenance approvals) to maintain his helicopter. It has been said that Greg Vaughan issued the MRs, this is not true, the MRs Richard carried were as the result of normal CASA processes, even if opposed by the below. <snip> Needless to say, this got up the noses of certain persons in a particular CASA office, who are apparently of the devout belief that a long and often meaningless apprenticeship, <snip> Based on his knowledge of manufacturer’s instructions for continuing airworthiness, he carried out the repairs to those requirements. What he didn’t do is comply with the CASA requirements of (in this case) having the damage assessed by a CAR 35 engineer, having the temporary repair carried out by a LAME, and getting a ferry permit. He should have gotten a CAR 35 engineer to the incident location to have the temporary repair done, right? Or was he required to drag/cart/haul the untouched ship to a LAME to get the blades fixed, no field repairs allowed? |
Desert Flower I am totally disgusted at some of the comments I am seeing here, & particularly from people I thought would have had more decency. |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 9177255)
Mick,
It wasn't a "film crew" in the back, it was a well known documentary maker hitching a ride home http://www.begadistrictnews.com.au/story/3484351/killed-environmentalists-had-worked-to-save-southern-nsw-forests/ "A friend of killed veteran filmmaker John Davis, Dr Brian Spies, said the purpose of the helicopter flight was to film coal mines in the area for a documentary they were working on. "Mr Spies said Mr Davis and fellow environmentalists Mr and Mrs Green were planning to use the footage to expose the environmental damage wrought by the coal mines." John filmed a "one on one" interview with MP Tony Windsor at the festival. So John had the means and motivation to shoot whilst airborn, as they had apparently planned. Mickjoebill |
That's all well and informative, LeadSled.
But had you have been simply a happy pax sitting in the back of Richard Green's EC135 the other day? (Just before you also died?) Surely your immense flying experience would have led you to tap your pilot on the shoulder? (That's before you all took off again.) I've done so and have been known to simply walk away from these sorts of situations. But your typical pax is so much more trusting. And they rather sadly die in these sorts of accidents. |
TC being a Prick!
TC...why the crappy comment about Americans while talking about a fatal crash of a civilian helicopter in Australia?
Nothing remotely involving Americans in this at all. I would imagine most Aussie's would see you being a Prick by your comments and I would concur!
Originally Posted by Thomas coupling
(Post 9177392)
CASA: It seems you had a maverick in your midst and quite frankly the aviation world is now a safer place, since he departed. Probably vying for the Darwin Award but obviously failed many times before.
The terrible tragedy is that his poor wife and friend who were probably completely ignorant of this mans failings, were cruelly taken from this life as well. Australia should do what the Yanks do in instances like this - (promote the dead pilot) except the opposite should apply and he should be postumously charged with manslaughter.:ugh::ugh::ugh: He seems allegedly (and obviously) to have been an outrageous slur on a proud Australian aviation industry.:( |
Fair crack Crime Act?
actus reus if you are going to quote from the AAAT Green v CASA transcript at least give both sides of the case..:=
Maybe this will give your post a shade more balance..;) Dear Mr McCormick I refer to our earlier correspondence and our telephone conversation of nearly a year ago. If you recall you made it quite clear that in your opinion I had operated my helicopter dangerously, and that I most certainly should not have the authority to conduct maintenance work on it. The Senate Estimates Committee has taken some interest in these matters, and for your information I have attached a copy of a recent press article that summarises the outcome of the AAT’s detailed investigation. After careful consideration Mike Hart had recommended an apology from CASA in relation to the former matter which, I am sure you will remember, you refused to issue. As you will be able to see from the article, perhaps an additional second apology from CASA is now in order. What is far more important than apologies is the way in which CASA directs its efforts and public resources. CASA’s mandate is essentially to ensure safety for the travelling public. Is it really good allocation of these resources to expend perhaps a half a million dollars of taxpayers’ funds chasing after one private pilot, who flies only about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas? I look forward to hearing your views. Sincerely Richard Green The experienced pilot had his license suspended for six months in 2013 over four incidents in one year where he almost collided with other aircraft and one incident in which he struck powerlines and tore off part of his helicopter. In a submission to an air safety inquiry in 2013, Mr Green had demanded the sacking of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) board and other officials. The submission reveals that Mr Green had been the first to import the high-performance Eurocopter into Australia and had immediately struggled to find qualified technicians to keep the machine flying. As a result he maintained it himself. He complained bitterly about being investigated by CASA as far back in 2006 after he hit a tree branch while flying in Cape York in far north Queensland and how the incident had severely affected his authority to maintain the machine. "I had a minor blade strike on a tree branch in a wilderness area in Cape York. In order to get the helicopter out of that location, I made a repair to the rotor blades," he wrote in the submission to the federal government's Aviation Safety Regulation Review. "CASA's concern was not the fact I had a blade strike but what happened afterwards. "My wife and I were stranded in the Cape York wilderness. Drawing on my training and an experienced-based evaluation, I made the sensible decision to effect a temporary repair that would permit a safe two hour flight to Cairns." Mr Green said his alternative was to leave it "stuck in the wilderness" where it would have been difficult to repair and recover. He said when he reported his actions to CASA an airworthiness inspector tried to revoke his pilot's licence, deeming the flight "dangerous and illegal". He said CASA had "dramatically embellished the incident by listing a whole slew of alleged technical breaches of the regulations that flowed on from this primary incident". Mr Green said he was required to show cause why his licence should not be revoked. He then appealed to CASA's then head of aviation Greg Vaughan who instead increased Mr Green's authorities to conduct and certify maintenance on his helicopter. However when the authority required renewal two years later, CASA refused to renew it. Mr Green then successfully appealed through the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He also said he faced further allegations of safety breaches as a result of his dispute with CASA. He lashed out at CASA, saying "in my case alone well over 1000 man hours have been expended in trying to clip the wings of one private pilot who flies his own private helicopter about 100 hours a year and almost exclusively in wilderness areas of Australia". He finished his submission by calling for "all the senior management in CASA ... to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded". Dear Sirs I write in relation to paras.(f) and (g) of this inquiry. (f) the capacity of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to appropriately oversee and update safety regulations given the ongoing and rapid development of new technologies and skills shortages in the aviation sector; Various communications of mine with the Director of Aviation Safety were copied to members of the Committee some months ago. These no doubt formed the basis of a question to Mr McCormick at the sitting on 21 October about a proposed apology to me. This in turn led into questions to McCormick about his dealings with the ex Industry Complaints Commissioner for CASA. Mr McCormick’s misdirection of the Authority since he took charge has been scandalous and his untruthful answers to Senate questions are par for the course. I had an AAT appeal running the same day as the referenced sitting. At this the McCormick supported personal attack on me by CASA was thoroughly discredited and my position fully vindicated. My own experiences with CASA provide an indication of the rot within, and can be multiplied many, many times over by the organisation's interaction with the wider aviation community. CASA will not be capable of effectively overseeing any safety regulation until its current senior management is removed and replaced by balanced, informed and experienced individuals. (g) the need to provide legislative immunity to pilots and other flight crew who report on safety matters and whether the United States and European approaches would be appropriate in the Australian aviation environment; Unless there is legislative immunity safety matters will remain un-reported. CASA has already frittered an estimated $250,000,000 on its attempt to rewrite archaic aviation regulations – all with no result. Its current management policy is for more complex unworkable legislation which maximises the number of personnel that the agency can employ. A sweep with a completely new brush is required. The USA has a very effective and working set of regulations in place - there is absolutely no reason why we should not copy these. Sincerely Richard Green 21 Mr Richard Green - PDF: 141 KB ..As mentioned at the beginning of this submission, there have been many reports similar to mine of CASA’s misuse of its power. Most of the victims, unlike me, are dependent upon their aviation activities for their livelihoods. They therefore are intimidated into not speaking up. I have personal experience of this through my attempts to get expert witness statements to support me in my own defence. The individuals support my position, however, are not prepared to go into writing for fear of subsequent CASA retribution. It is my firm opinion that major changes need to be made to CASA. It must be made accountable for its actions. Its focus must be changed to promoting a safety ethos within the industry, rather than merely being a short-sighted policeman only interested in chasing after regulatory infringements. It is not until these changes are apparent that the body will gain the respect that it should have within the industry. In order for this to come about, I believe all the senior management in CASA need to be replaced and the CASA board disbanded. I believe it is critical and urgent that the chief executive needs to be replaced by an individual who can command the respect of the industry. And the Board should be reconstituted with a group of individuals who have real in-depth experience of all the major areas of the aviation industry. A new ethos within the body driven by a strong but fair minded CEO should weed out those inspectors who have been misusing their power in order to satisfy their own personal whims. These changes need to go hand in hand with the scrapping of Australia’s ridiculously convoluted aviation legislation. It should be replaced by legislation modelled upon a system that already works perfectly well – either from New Zealand or from the United States. Further the basic role of CASA needs to be changed to promote the aviation industry in Australia as well as ensuring its safety. CASA’s current charter, just to ensure aviation safety, is being achieved by grounding aircraft and closing down aviation businesses... Update - Absolutely disgraceful from Creepy... :hmm: - Courtesy the Oz with no fanfare, no pics, just barebones filthy journalism: Pilot Richard Green’s final, fatal outing had no flight plan The 74-year-old helicopter pilot involved in a fatal crash near the NSW Hunter Valley once flew his damaged aircraft from the Northern Territory to Sydney after fixing the main rotor blades with Araldite and was viewed by authorities as a maverick who flouted the rules. Millionaire businessman and photographer Richard Green was regarded as an eccentric who *believed that he was being persecuted by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Mr Green and his wife, Carolyn, 71, were also remembered yesterday as a “dynamic duo” who were “Green by name and green by nature”. “They flew to the remotest of remote places like the Kimberly or in Tasmania to document these pristine wilderness places in the hope that people would recognise that these things are worth protecting,” National Library of Australia curator Nat Williams said. The Greens and their friend and documentary-maker John Davis, 72, died on Saturday when Mr Green’s Eurocopter crashed in rugged NSW bushland south of the Hunter Valley. The trio were on their way back to Terrey Hills, in Sydney’s north, after attending an anti-mining rally south of Tamworth. They were flying in bad weather and Mr Green did not have an instrument flight rules rating *allowing him to fly in low visibility using cockpit instruments. He also failed to send a notification to authorities outlining his intentions for the flight. The millionaire was known to dislike bureaucracy and had his private pilot’s licence suspended for six months in 2013 after CASA accused him flying dangerously near several aircraft and flying his helicopter in an unsafe condition after he clipped powerlines. He had been on the regulator’s radar for several years before its attempts to rein in his behaviour were successful. He came under the spotlight in 2007 based on an incident in the Northern Territory where he damaged his main rotor blades when he clipped some trees while landing. He failed to report the damage and allegedly used Araldite glue to make an on-the-spot repair before flying to Cairns and then on to Sydney. In 2010, the regulator refused to give him an authority to perform wide-ranging maintenance on the Eurocopter but was later forced to partly back down by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. CASA had more success in 2013 after Mr Green had struck power lines the previous year and ripped off the top part of a component on the tail. Helicopter veteran Dick Smith knew all three victims and said yesterday he was appalled that Mr Green had not sent a flight notification and did not appear to have a real-time aircraft tracker installed in the helicopter. “I don’t have one friend with a helicopter who does not have one,” Mr Smith said. Keen flyer Joe Lorincz told his wife that the pilot of the missing helicopter must have been “bloody insane” to fly in such bad weather before he even knew his friend of 43 years Mr Davis was also aboard the chopper. “I feel very angry about it because if that helicopter was flying under the instrument flight rules, he would have lodged a flight plan and been given a responder code to track him the whole way,” he said. “Anyone who thinks they can meddle with bad weather is completely insane.” Mr Williams, however, said Mr Green was “utterly fastidious” about safety aboard his chopper. “I remember him telling me about fixing the blade with Aral*dite and it was a hairline crack; the guy was a physicist, not a risk-taker,” he said. If you needed any further proof that the toxic culture of persecution & embuggerance by CASA continues unabated, go no further than the above - UFB! :* In one foul, disgusting, swoop, CASA have effectively made any 'real', unbiased, independent investigation of this tragic accident by the ATSB, NSW Police & Coroner's office - nugatory, null, void, zip, zero.. := It should be remembered that under the ICAO SARPs (Annex 13&19) the Minister of the State & Crown (& his moribund Department), has certain obligations to protect the integrity and credibility of any active AAI. The following is a quote from 'John Goglia' off this - 7K-9268 - thread post: ..The highly unusual comments Monday from senior officials of Metrojet that the crash of one of its jets Saturday morning in the Sinai Peninsula was definitely caused by “external factors” does not bode well for the proper and thorough investigation of what brought down the airliner. By already ruling out “technical fault of the plane or pilot error,” the airline violated one of the cardinal rules of accident investigation, which is to keep an open mind as all the facts are gathered and analyzed. By concluding mere days after the accident, that the fault was outside the airliner’s control, it is making a mockery of the investigative process, which should be based on factual data and appropriate conclusions from that data... ...In the United States, the NTSB has on more than one occasion excluded technical representatives from an accident investigation for making public comments that could be construed as interfering with the proper and impartial conduct of the investigation... ..This would be a small but significant step in reassuring the families of the victims of the impartiality of the investigative process. Remember this??- The current CASA smear/embuggerance campaign is occurring under DAS Skidmore's tenure. This means that he is either endorsing this pre-emptive character assassination before the facts ('A priori'), or he is not in control and being blindly guided by Dr A & the Iron Ring...:rolleyes: |
Importing the first of type helicopter into Australia always has problems, especially if the helicopter is a brand new type in the world. In 1978 Okanagan Helicopters in Exmouth became the second world operator of the Sikorsky 76 by 1 week, Air Logistics being the first.
6 of us were recruited to fly the 76, 3 as captains & 3 as co-pilots. The senior pilot went to the states for ground school along with the chief engineer. A Sikorsky instructor came to Perth to run a 2 week ground school; may have been longer. When the 2 S76s arrived in Exmouth, a Sikorsky factory pilot was sent to endorse 7 of us. Also 4 factory engineers came to help our engineers & to do the various mods that seemed to turn up every week! Sikorsky left 1 engineer on site to assist for at least 2 years. Being serial number 3, numerous mods were done for the next few years. The command endorsement was 5 hours then I think plus we all did our class 1 instrument rating, so by the time we flew off to the oil rig, some 175 miles away, we had about 20 hours each on type! With careful monitoring there were no pilot error incidents & DCA were helpful throughout. I can imagine how hard it must have been for Richard Green as he had nowhere to look for help plus we flew 80 hours a month & so gained experience quickly compared to his 100 hours a year. It's a tragic end for 3 enthusiastic people but as Ned Kelly is supposed to have said "such is life". |
SASless ...I thought I was in your "peanut gallery" - no?
Or have you forgotten due to your age? On the subject of dementia - the yanks recently promoted the two yank mil pilots who flew on with no gearbox oil pressure if you recall after purposely ignoring the reading which sat at ZERO for 10 minutes narrowly missing some houses as they eventually ploughed in. And the yank army Postumously promoted them - no kidding. Only in yankee doodle dandy land (The same one where that guy with the fake hair who is slagging off hispanics left right and centre is standing for president apparently). So the connection is - the Aussie and Yank crashes were caused by mavericks. People who believe normal rules don't apply to them. They are immune from disaster. You obviously don't remember that either? C'mon sonny - stick with it. |
Leadsled & Sarcs - despite my respect towards your positions and skills, your posts look too much like outstanding character references for Richard Green, from close friends.
The entire narrative of Richard Greens aviation record is not quite as glowing as you would like to make it appear. As one who has had direct experience with the upper echelon of the corporate world and circulating within wealthy circles, it's a fairly well-known phenomenon that extremely wealthy people often suffer from a degree of arrogance, are very often gung-ho - and in a very large number of cases, totally intolerant of "petty rules and regulations", that infringe upon the wealthy persons aims and wishes to do precisely as they wish - directly against those rules and regulations. CASA's narrative - if Richard Greens crash is proven to be simply a severe case of "get-home-itis", directly into extreme weather that a prudent operator would simply avoid - will be a simple one. They will simply say, "We tried for many years to stop this arrogant, gung-ho, and rule-busting aviation operator from killing himself, and his pax - but we eventually failed to do so. Therefore our perception that this person needed constant and intense scrutiny of his gung-ho approach towards aviation, was correct." Richard Green is on record as raging constantly against a rule-making authority that he obviously viewed as merely a sizeable impediment against his personal wishes, to do as he personally sought fit in the circumstances. However, in the aviation world, one is obliged to accept that ones decisions and personal desires have to be tempered by rules and regulations set by an authority that is charged with total control of aviation safety, and which authority has direct reference to manufacturers and specialists whose skills and experience in aviation specialties are comprehensive. |
10 lives lost
From what we know it is my view the EC135 was on a aerial filming and transit mission.
10 lives have been lost in oz in aerial filming accidents in recent years. 3 x rotary and 1x fixed wing crashes. At least two other rotary close calls, Channel 10 and the Jetranger into water. Worksafe and Workcover defer to ATSB and say they dont have resources to investigate the background of aviation accidents. Police report to the coroner largely relies on ATSB Coroner largely relies on police. CASA, the records shows are INEFFECTUAL. If ten lives had been lost in a very niche area of any other industry there would be at least AN ATTEMPT to educate the workforce. Mickjoebill |
IFR conditions
I imagine this accident has more to do with airmanship rather than mechanical / maintenence issues.
It appears IMC conditions existed at the time of the flight which raises the question of whether the pilot was IFR qualified, and was the IFR rating:
|
Folks,
See today's Australian for a column by Steve Creedy, reporting Greg Vaughan on the record about the details of the rotor repair --- it is as I stated in my original post. And yet, in the matter of the most recent action against Richard by CASA it was claimed in the AAT (see previous posts) that there was extensive blade damage --- which was simply not true. This could be described as standard CASA tactics in the AAT, dredge up a list of allegations, but not the outcomes of those allegations. Commonly, lists of RCAs are trotted out, but never the resolution of the RCAs. As for the rest of the complaints dealt with in the AAT appeal, most were subjective, "flew too close" etc., it now seems that you can have your license suspended on subjective third party opinions on "airmanship". The only "fact" was that he had a line strike, to suggest that continuing flight for a few hundred meters amounted to "continuing flight" is highly subjective, it looks to me more like an immediate landing, followed by moving the aircraft several hundred more meters to a safer patch of ground. Mick, There had been filming at Breeza and around the general area in the days before, but there was no film crew on this flight. As to the cause of the loss, I have not made any comment, I do not have an opinion, because I have no facts, on which to base an opinion. |
So it can be reasonable assumed that the EC was kept in very good mechanical order. It doesn't matter how knowledgeable you are in other fields, in aviation you are only as good as your last decision.
BTW Sarcs good to see you back on Pprune, did you get tired of your own voice on the other site? Don't tell Kharryon, he might have you demoted from being a Moderator.:} |
Originally Posted by LeadSled
(Post 9178176)
Mick,
There had been filming at Breeza and around the general area in the days before, but there was no film crew on this flight. "Film crew" equals solo operator with dslr or video camera, as per how the MP says his interview was recorded. If there were memory cards on board they have probably survived, given there has been no reports of post crash fire. Mickjoebill |
Just out of curiosity, if Richard has been using his helicopter for the purposes of aerial filming (whether it was this particular flight or previous ones), does he have an AOC or was he operating under someone else's AOC?
This is a genuine question, as there have been quite a few accidents I've noticed in the past that could have been prevented purely by way of the flight should not have legally been able to occur in the first place. Eg CFIT at night when the pilot wasn't night current or not enough fuel to have legally carried out the flight in the first place etc. ** I didn't know Richard at all, sad to see more fatalities in this game. |
Condolences to all those lost, and with all due respect but repairing rotor blades with epoxy, such a critical part of the aircraft, I mean, that is just absolute madness!
I'm trying to read through these posts and all I can envision is this machine sitting on the ground while someone is mixing up a little resin and hardener and smearing it on the rotor blades. Must have used a decent quality epoxy if he got it all the way down the coast to his house. Anyway, Hopefully a thorough investigation proves fruitful in providing some answers. As much as the guy is getting slammed for his record of incidents, nobody knows what happened yet. CFIT, windshear, mechanical failure, engine failure, bird strike etc. |
Mmmmmm ....
......In the USA you can do your IFR in an R22 or Jetranger and it is everlasting. Not even a requirement for a specific helicopter bi annual review- do it in a VFR Cessna 150 if you want to...... Dick ... that is just not quite correct ... yes you can get a Helicopter Instrument Rating that stays on your pilot certificate BUT you still HAVE TO MEET THE RECENCY REQUIREMENTS in order to exercise the privileges of that rating ... if you do not maintain the currency then you have to do a flight with a CFII to renew those privileges ... having said that it does seem easier to us here BUT they do have a very much more workable system and it has proved its worth over time. Cheers |
Rest in Peace
|
reasons
Freewheel,
Thank you for correcting me; I was unaware of the fact that there were two seperate MR strikes in two seperate helicopters. As I said, it was a great dinner! Sarcs, Ledsled; Just hold on a minute fellas. I have no interest in entering into your war with CASA. It should come as no surprise that Richard Green's epistles should be in support of his own position. It would have been ludicrous if his missives were presented in some other way. That; however, makes neither Richard nor CASA (nor anyone else for that matter) either erroneous or correct. Similarly, I am not trying to relate the entire proceedings of the AAT. I just found the information of interest. As I have also said, we will have to wait for the report of this tragic accident to commence to understand the trail of events. As for 'a priori'; theoretical deduction is commonly used in the construction of test flying programmes, for instance. You get the test points and then you go out, fly them and seek evidence (the 'scientific method') that the theoretical is demonstrable in the practical. It does not mean that 'a priori' predictions are always of less value. Somethings you either cannot or do not want to test in the air, or are items that cannot be faithfully replicated in a simulator. 'Evidence', 'demonstration' are the things that you achieve; never 'proof' unless it is 'proof' of the catastrophic; something that inevitably leads to disaster and must be avoided by all means. |
thomas coupling
Thomas coupling you are a ********
What are you telepathic? How do you or anyone else know what occurred as yet Stop flogging the dead before we know what went on Get a frigging hobby or something Do you get off on hearing (seeing) yourself in print or something? |
Moderators, time to put a leash on Thomas, too many warm beers I think. Show some respect.
|
Condolences to all those lost, and with all due respect but repairing rotor blades with epoxy, such a critical part of the aircraft, I mean, that is just absolute madness! Could you please re-read previous posts, and today's Australian. The temp. field repair was made to manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness, using materials as specified by the manufacturer. When the blades were returned to the factory for overhaul, no further work was required on the temp. repair, and it was certified and released for return to service, as was. Does that really sound like "absolute madness" by the manufacturer/type certificate holder or by Richard Green. Tootle pip!! PS: The F-27 was the first aircraft to use extensive epoxy bonding (trade name, Araldite for one chemical company, tradename Redux for Fokker.) in primary structures. It was the primary reason for the for the tremendous fatigue resistance and long life of the F-27 structure. I doubt there is any modern aircraft flying that doesn't use "Araldite" metal to metal bonding --- by whatever proprietary name. |
Onetrack ...you sound like a slightly more "chippy" version of our TC .....
It is amazing what a mean spirited bunch helicopter pilots are ...i would have thought there would be some sort of bond that stopped people from making accusations about a fellow ( dead ) pilot regarding his final flight . The theory that there is no smoke without fire is one that only the really low grade people use . I very much doubt the discussion would have been the same if he had not have been rich and owned his own machine . Some of you need to get over your own inadequacy and stop being jealous and judgmental . IF he flew when he should not have and it was pilot error im sure the AAIB will find out but give the bloke a chance !!! |
Well said nigelh - no shortage of commentators here who'd qualify for a job with the regulator !~
Rest in peace Richard and Carol. |
Thanks for that, chaps.
I also found TC's pontifications, in particular, objectionable at this stage. |
Sad to see a thread on this respectable forum descend into the depths of ignorant regulator bashing. You don't want rules and regulations? Piss off, and don't fly in my airspace, then.
Forget the salacious gossip and intrigue, the media hype, the half truths. Have some respect for the families left griefstricken by this accident, let the investigators do their work, and be done with it. Forget the personalities and empty speculation. It's just a tragic, fatal accident. |
Nigel well said.
|
Call me sceptical, but . . . .
Quote - "The temp. field repair was made to manufacturer's instructions for continuing airworthiness, using materials as specified by the manufacturer.
When the blades were returned to the factory for overhaul, no further work was required on the temp. repair, and it was certified and released for return to service, as was." - End quote And the source of this information is/was? |
It is amazing what a mean spirited bunch helicopter pilots are ...i would have thought there would be some sort of bond that stopped people from making accusations about a fellow ( dead ) pilot regarding his final flight . DF. |
And the source of this information is/was? CASA!! That good enough for you? You will also probably find it in the AAT transcripts of evidence in the case that Richard won, requiring CASA to reinstate his MAs. Tootle pip!! |
Poor Richard, he was very smart, he was a nuclear physicist. Poor Richard, he was very outspoken on issues he believed in. Poor Richard, he was very critical of bureaucracy and red tape and probably felt he was above all those menial rules for stooped people. Poor Richard, it looks like his demise was caused by simple CFIT, something CASA has been trying very hard to reduce the frequency of.
Seen it before with a friend's super smart mate who done himself in during a take-off in a very benign Cessna 172. It was the primary reason for the for the tremendous fatigue resistance and long life of the F-27 structure. |
Look guys, I know there are some close mates of Green on here. But can we remove emotion from the equation for a moment and look at hard facts. Pilots are supposed to bias more towards facts and less towards emotion when dispensing their profession, so let's keep it like that when we look at what is presented to us.
A friend of mine died in the Police Strathclyde crash, an associate died clipping a crane in Vauxhall, London. I looked at the facts and even though they were my colleagues - the facts painted a very ugly picture. In this instance, I have been reading a lot about this persons track record between him and CASA and his earlier "incidents". I can't speak for the mentality of aussie pilots and their industry but I would definitely align it to ours because of the synergies we have between our relative societies. Now in the UK, ANYONE who clacks a blade, not once but twice - and then attempts a field repair as an UNqualified helicopter engineer - and then continues in flight; is most definitely guilty of gross negligence as a pilot. Someone who nearly collides with / blows over other a/c is guilty of negligence . Someone who flies his a/c in IFR conditions without the correct qualifications is guilty of negligence and poor airmanship. All of the above paints a picture. In this country, any/all of these attributes (or lack of them) would describe a very very unprofessional approach to one's trade, I would suggest. Now - either all the sources (newspapers/colleague interpretations/reports/casa statements are untrue or unsubstantiated - in that case I profusely apologise for second guessing and retract any distasteful comments. OR They are true and this man was a liability to all around him and the industry is safer now that he has 'moved on'. Out of curiosity who witnessed himlanding for a while before he took off again back into the bad weather? How is it known that he did this, so far out in the boondocks? |
Pilots are supposed to bias more towards facts and less towards emotion A) Thomas coupling Now in the UK, ANYONE who clacks a blade, not once but twice - and then attempts a field repair as an UNqualified helicopter engineer - and then continues in flight; is most definitely guilty of gross negligence as a pilot. B) C) Thomas coupling Someone who flies his a/c in IFR conditions without the correct qualifications is guilty of negligence and poor airmanship. Case A) is on the border of calumny, especially coming from CASA. Looking at the facts everyone who - despite the facts - publicly claims, that back then he were flying a badly reapaired, unworthy a/c owes him an apology, CASA, you(?), all the rich-guy bashers led by emotion instead of fact. Case B) is plain and simple true, he did behave like an asshole sometimes. Case C) is totally open to investigation, facts are currently unknown, and, as you stated correctly, we ought grant him benefit of doubt until proven otherwise. Which currently(!) leaves us with an definitely sometimes ignorant, selfish, but nervertheless in many cases very cacpable pilot/mechanic. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.