All's well that ends well
 

Well done to the pilot!...textbook outcome...this is what we all desire at the end of the day:D:D

Love the vision of the little boy giving a high 5 to the rescue crewy in the BK!....gold!

That's a bloody awful place to have to do an EOL - very well done to the pilot:ok:

10 out of 10
 

Looks like he put it into the smallest confined area imaginable, and no run-on!!!:D:D

A few images for those who haven't international access to the ABC page. A zero speed auto with panache :ok:

http://www.smh.com.au/content/dam/im...1981167918.jpg

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/c...11f?width=1024

https://s.yimg.com/dh/ap/default/161217/chop_1.jpg

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/2...45b5?width=650

Good jobbie by the PIC :ok: welcome to the 'I survived an Auto following at engine failure' club :uhoh:

Buy this man a beer or 2 :p

This is Australia: if you don't fly over the GAFA then you wouldn't get airborne.

Yes. Because engine failures are very rare events, and if it happens can be dealt with in said way.

My answer would be different if he hadn't made it back to shore (for those who haven't read the full article, the engine failure happened while flying over water).

Islandlad, are you for real? If it was a requirement to have a forced landing area available 100% of the time, there would be very few choppers flying to very few places.

Yer pays yer money and yer takes yer chances. Engine failures are rare as rocking horse droppings. Apply the correct auto techniques, and use a bit of sense when planning the trip (not over the top of active volcanoes) and the result will be good. Stay a pussycat, and you stay at home. But most people die in bed, so don't go to bed.

...and it wasn't a mid-flight problem, it was an end-of-flight problem. he didn't continue after this. Get your facts straight, journalists!!

Having asked and been answered three times, why do you persist. Is it because the answers you're getting don't match your desired outcome?

It was obviously within auto distance of land (if it was indeed overwater), so overwater/lifejackets is something that you have latched on to with little justification.

Give it a break.

According to the news reports, the 'offshore' over water part was a whole 50m - so not exactly a Pacific crossing.

If flying along the coast, which it seems he was, then with water on one side and bush on the other, the coastline would perhaps offer better options (perhaps a beach) for a forced landing. With no beach available then a well executed zero speed EOL into the bush was pretty much his only option and he performed it extremely well judging by the relative lack of damage to the aircraft (including the blades) and the minimal injuries sustained.

If every R44 pilot could pull that landing off, I would be very surprised.

Having walked through there quite a bit (family in the nearby town) the coastline can be pretty steep with plenty of big cliffs along there.
Pilot did well to get rid of all the forward speed but I noticed he said loss of power as opposed to engine failure... Will be interested to read the report.
Either way good result.

crab....If every Military pilot could pull that landing off, I would be very surprised..:E

I suspect A.Mallard gets the point - and that the had some power available after the auto to 'land' with zero forward speed. That's my uninformed wild-arsed guess anyway.

Brutal - valid point:ok:

KJ - he did say he had to put the aircraft into autorotation so power loss vs engine failure is a bit nitpicky - if you still have some drive left at the end then its just a bonus.

Yeah I know Crab... naturally a big difference between an EOL and an autorotation to a powered landing - I think a lot of people assumed it was the former. If it was then it was god-like. If the latter then it was merely an outstanding bit of handling and airmanship! :-)

Hmmm, I'm in Australia at the moment and watched an operator flying at a popular tourist site in an R44 at least half a mile offshore in a 25kt wind-no chance of making it back to land, it did have floats fitted though and the pax were given a 'floatation device' might be useful if they could get out in the event of ditching.

Serf .... and your point is? This is in complete compliance with CASA reg's. :ugh:

I'm sure it is. Some airlines also have legal rosters that mean pilots become exhausted....doesn't mean it's right though, does it.