Helicopter Crash in Austria
 

The news are very skimpy, but apparently there was helicopter involved in an accident around the Grossglockner area in Carinthia.

Hubschrauber in Kärnten abgestürzt - ein Toter - Beim Großglockner - Österreich - krone.at

According to an update in one of the Austrian newspapers, Red Bull's Hannes Arch died in the accident... Sad news.

From a friend in Austria he said he crashed into mountain at night in his R66 :(

Hannes Arch died in R66 crash
 

Apparently he was supplying alpine Chalets with his R66 when he crashed yesterday around 22:15 (NVFR :ooh:).
http://kaernten.orf.at/news/stories/2795622/ (german)
https://translate.google.com/transla...s%2F2795622%2F (google english)
He got his license from the same school as I. School uses only S300Cs for training, although there is/was an R22 among his fleet.

Will be very interesting to read the accident report to find out why a renowed plank air racer, someone managing high risk tasks as part of his life, failed to survive his R66.:(

P.

So i assume he was holding a CPL, and his aircraft was registered on a AOC?

Not stating anything, just trying to understand what your message is when you say "he was supplying alpine chalets in HIS R66".....

Well, I got my info mainy from ORF.at. There they state:
- he operated an airtransport company specialized in supply/support of alpine huts
- he flew himself (I'd guess he was PIC)
- he left around 21:15 lct for LOWS where his ac was stationed (my guess "his R66 was stationed". I doubt they were talking about his Edge540 acro plane)

Registration OE-XHA https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=189924

He was the operator of the OE-XHA according to https://www.austrocontrol.at/jart/pr...2015_06_DE.pdf

Accoring to Rotorsky Helicopter Service Christian GruberHubschrauber Flugschule (FTO website) he was holding a CPL.

Flight was NVFR weather was fine.

...and very dark up there with a half moon low over the horizon and very, if any, visual light references to fly by!
I definately wouldn't want to fly away from there at that time of the night in a single.

Hmm....NVFR in the mountains, without Night Vision Goggles?

Sounds weird...i would not want to do this...

And I don't see what the helicopter type has to do with flying into a mountain....

Hannes Arch: Suche nach Absturzursache - kaernten.ORF.at
Picture and video of the wreckage and the sorounding terrain. Not an nice place to try and make an emergency landing in the night...

Departure was appr. 1h past ECET.
How dark is that, up in the mountains?

HillerBee
And I don't see what the helicopter type has to do with flying into a mountain....


The Report says that the police helicopter which located the wreckage couldn't land due to "at night and in strong winds"

Appeal to Mods

any chance of removing the pro twin nonsense from the above post? SP

"I definately wouldn't want to fly away from there at that time of the night in a single. "

bumping into moutains hurts just as much in a twin, lots of twin pilots know that

Not sure why a transport flight to a mountain cabin needed to be done at night. The guy crashes 1 minute after takeoff in a pitch black night .. smells like CFIT if you ask me.

Rotor head is still attached so not another mast bump accident.
CFIT would have to be up there as a probable cause.
And yes 1 engine or 8, it's not going to make and ounce of difference if you get it wrong.

You really are funny like. It's his / her opinion and as long as it isn't insulting anyone (except you it seems) why on earth would the post have to be removed??

Bumping into mountain hurts equally. True. But remember that the cause of this very sad accident has not been established. It might also be a failure of that one engine... In which case I'm sure you, being in that situation, would not have wanted another one on the side to save your ass.:E

And yes, I fly singles. I still find your comment stupid and totally out of context.

"It might also be a failure of that one engine... "

are you serious?

the chance of that is almost zero


"why on earth would the post have to be removed??" because this forum Mods removed my symetrical post when i suggested that belief it two engines was equivalent to superstition. They said it was "nonsense", if you think that this accident had anything to do with it being a single then your grip on reality is weak. That is nonsense, obviously, and it should be removed as nonsense also.

This is NOT a single engine accident, and the suggestion that it might be is OBVIOUSLY nonsense, if the mods don't remove that NONSENSE suggestion then they are obviously not neutral wrt THAT arguement.

ok?

Was it an IFR equipped aircraft?
Did it have a stabilisation system?
Does the R66 have those options?

Totally. Happens not very often but still many times/ year all over the globe. I've seen one happening and I'm only on my 40's (gladly for myself from the ground).

Those turbines are not fail proof. And will never be.

If you KNOW this accident has nothing to do with engine you better contact Austrian accident investigators because I do think you know more than they do at this early stage.:ugh:

AnFI,

You have chosen to challenge my moderating on this and the AW139 thread, failing yet again to recognise that the vast majority of Rotorheads are failing to support your constant preaching of your single engine mantra. I am not inclined to moderate the offhand comment of another about twin/single, but I will remove your comments when they are both off-topic and designed to contribute nothing more than your desire to assert your beliefs.

Your students all talk well of you, your flying exploits are exemplary, yet you persist in upsetting many of the contributors to Rotorheads by refusing to acknowledge that there is more than one side to a discussion. I have as many single engine hours as you, and the same number again on twins, and recognise that they both have their place in aviation. It may do your cause more good were you to do the same.

SP
Thanks

But if you don't remove the pro twin nonsense and you do remove the anti twin 'nonsense' then it looks like you are biased.

I would be pleasantly impressed if you actually had the same number of hours twin and single as I have. It is just possible but extremely unlikely.

Yes: rechecking your hours I was referencing an older article, and you will obviously have a few thousand up in the intervening years!
Splot


Anyhow it is unsurprising that (as you say) the majority of posters are against my posts since this forum is dominated by pro-twin (superstitious) types.

The logic and maths used to justify the twin has been discredited, will you justify it? (1x10^-5)^2 ? It is not evidentially nor theoretically supported.

It is evident that the twin does not have the safety yeild it is supposed to have.

If this accident, at night in the mountains, has ANYTHING to do with engine failure then i'll eat your hat ! (pretty safe bet)
If it is'nt engine failure what humble pie will you eat?

Please read what I said: the odd comment by a Rotorhead as opposed to your dogmatic mantra.

No-one (apart from you) has raised this as an engine failure issue. Flyting merely opined that Neither have I cast any thoughts upon the cause of the accident, so don't expect any 'humble pie' nor will je vans manger mon chapeau :p

Back to the thread subject, please: any more on this will be moderated out as OT.

R66 is certified VFR day & night only. For night VFR flight it is obviously equipped with the required AH & turn indicator.
Mountain cabins don't usually come with ILS, so not sure what (other, if any) IFR equipment you could ask about?
R66 has option for stabilization system and radar alt. I don't know if the mishap a/c was equipped with either.

We all don´t know what he was doing....but lets face it:

Flying in the mountains at night (without night aid) is a big no-no......unless you´re flying a well known (and documented) route, or a known GPS-track...

It is pretty dark up there (depending upon the weather and the moon), and i can´t see why it was necessary to resupply a chalet at night anyway...

So this accident leaves a lot of ????......and people in general, but pilots especially like to come up with ideas based upon their own experience..

I doubt there are many pilots here who have high altitude/mountain experience in a helicopter.....

The accident investigation will show more....

Maybe he hit a cable?
Maybe he just had a CFIT?
Maybe another technical problem?
Maybe he had a vertigo?

Who knows.....
None of those will answer the question about risk assessment for this flight....

Censoring
 

SP, in my opinion there should be as little censoring as possible. I can hardly see any good reason for deleting somebody's posts, other than hate speech. I think the Mods should limit themselves to merging or splitting threads as required.

Now even if this was true, this I feel should be the last reason to censor a contribution. I am certainly not accessing an internet forum to read the majority view. I am actually more interested in the outsider view of somebody who challenges our mainstream thinking.

Beside the tragic end of this flight, there are many questions which are in general not very good for aviators.

- Was this a commercial flight? I cant find any information that htis helicopter was registed in an AOC ?
- Was there a valid outside landing permission? The landing area ist within a restricted area.
- Night VFR in the dark - human factors the eyes need at least half an hour to get used to the darkness.
- Flight planing does the aircraft have enough reserves for this altitude?

What are the regs in that part of the world wrt night ops?
Do the take off and landing sites need to be approved for night ops else it would need to be operated under IFR?

On the human factors affecting this incident, you have to wonder if being a redbull sky god alters ones perception of risk and affects how you view your own abilities.

According to the surviver it looks like Hannes tried to fly away from the hut - down the valley and impacted into terrain... all happening very quickly.
CFIT

Reminds me of this accident/discussion...
http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/446...iscussion.html

Good question Bell_ringer, I don't want to speculate on the how and why but an important question needs to be asked. What the heck is an enthusiastic but when it comes to commercial helicopter ops fairly mediocre pilot doing up there at night.
Replenishment and support flights to cabins and huts in the alps are the bread and butter of commercial operators in this part of the world. However, conducted by highly experienced pilots with thousands of hours and more importantly years of flying experience and local knowledge.

Besides the legality of all this, these folks would laugh you off when asked to conduct such an operation in a Robinson helicopter at night. What made Mr. Arch think he can pull it off?......we'll never know.

This is a tragedy, but hopefully it can serve as a warning to other retired Red Bull sponsored adrenaline junkies that think they are god's gift to helicopter aviation. This is a very unforgiving line of work, if you contiguously keep stretching the boundaries it will bite you!

I don't think he was supplying the hut at night... He just lifted off / left the hut at night. No one in his/her right mind would fly into there at night without NVGs!

Night ops in South Africa
 

Not sure about Austria, but I would argue that in your country (South Africa) non-CAT (commercial air transport) helicopter ops can be done from unlicensed helipads, provided they are equipped with suitable night flying facilities (CAR 91.07.3.2). Further, ambient light must be suitable (CAR 91.07.4.2a).

If the landing site (whether approved or not) is not equipped with adequate night flying facilities and/or where objects and terrain in the vicinity could endanger the operator, then no night flying to or taking off from such landing site is allowed (CAR 139.01.5), even if the flight itself was operated under IFR.

As flyting has pointed out already, the actual commercial cargo operations was likely to be concluded during daylight conditions. Only the return leg was done after dark. However, one can argue that this empty return leg was done under Part 91 (i.e., General Aviation).

With regards to the night flight, the passenger and the pilot could have agreed that the lift that the pax got on the way down (no pun intended) was a non-revenue flight. So again the operations and flight rules for night ops under Part 91 would be applicable.

If the night VFR flight however is a commercial operation, then in your country further conditions and restrictions with regards to Second-in-Charge, pilot experience, recurrent training, approved and documented operating procedures, and additional instrumentation apply (CAR 127.07.11 and 127.07.20).

Hot&Hi, I would argue that when someone starts to argue how something "could" be interpreted instead of how it "should" be interpreted they are are already on the wrong side of the line.
Clever use of semantics is unlikely to affect the outcome of a poor decision.

https://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreic...rz/220.844.874

Rough translation:

- the surviving passenger Reinhard B. (who runs the chalet) "couldn't provide much insight into the cause of the accident"

- Hannes told him he had "night flying equipment" and he accepted that explanation

- when he was in the helicopter and only the beam of the landing lights was illuminating the ground, he couldn't see any contours [of the landscape]

- "he then felt his way through the landscape, using only the landing light", [Reinhard] told the German "Bild" paper.

- a rock wall appeared in the beam of the landing light. He attempted to pull up, but was unsuccessful. "Hannes made a death-cry that I will never forget"

- So far, no clues have been found that would indicate there was a technical problem.

imuney

Slight correction - Hannes was still very much a current Red Bull 'athlete' - certainly not retired.

Not sure where it has been said or by whom (apart from you) that he thought he was god's gift to helicopter flying either....

Bell Ringer, I tend to agree with your remark concerning the outcome of poor decisions.

I was responding to your notion that one may still operate at night from an unsuitable (or unapproved) landing site, provided one files for IFR. I would think this is incorrect. A flight under IFR cannot land at an aerodrome which is in IMC at the time, unless - as a minimum - that aerodrome is equipped with instrument landing facilities.

I may have miscommunicated what I intended.
For night ops there are minimas required for facilities, currency and visibility. From the various translations of reports it would appear that this flight did not meet the all the requirements and should not have been conducted.
Naturally ops under IFR have different requirements.

In this neck of the woods it's easy to try find a way to make regulations work for your benefit especially if you find a need to justify your actions to a man with a clipboard in a high viz jacket.

I doubt that would work in Austria though. At least I hope not.

Another article from the Kurier
 

https://kurier.at/chronik/oesterreic...ch/220.807.911

Google translation:

The preliminary report has been published:

https://www.bmvit.gv.at/verkehr/sub/..._r66_85240.pdf

I can help but wonder why Archs Plan (relayed by the surviving passenger) to "climb 1000m and fly directly to Salzburg, as there would be no obstacles in that altitude" didn't work out.
Even if the Garmin had issues (passenger claimed to have seen "no signal" on the portable navigation device) the compass outght to show north quite reliably. Acceleration should not affect the compass when flying north or south, right?

and even fewer with unaided night mountains experience.........

Night mountains is not for the unprepared - even with NVG - for unaided flying it is a place for twin-engine, twin pilot, IFR capable aircraft with a lot of careful planning and currency/recency on type and in the location.

Another example of self-belief in ones abilities not matching the reality of a hostile environment??? Very sad waste of life.