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.

Brutal:

Not sure how it is now, but when I was serving in Blue, our pilots were hugely proficient at touchdown autos, (every auto was a touchdown, unless at night or it was obviously going bad) and all were capable of a zero-speed. It's the poor civvies who rarely get training after the licence phase.

Was picked up today.
https://www.facebook.com/7newssydney...6945498996245/

Well, from what I understand, this bloke was a civvy (but may not be that poor).

KJ - I would have thought that if he had full power at the end, he might have hovertaxied to a better area - if he had some power left as he pulled pitch to cushion what he expected to be an EOL, I still reckon it's bloody good flying since the judgement of the flare and cushion height would be tricky over that bushy foliage.

Now I'm confused. Saw the pilot interviewed this afternoon and he said something like "You never know how you're going to react when you have a loss of power...or in this case a loss of transmission"! In an earlier interview he definitely said something about loss of power and autorotation.

I suspect he'd switched the donk off in the descent looking at the condition of the blades. Might be wrong.
Either way (EOL / auto) a fantastic bit of poling by a PPL. Congrats to the driver and if he gets to read this - the beer's on me as I'm over there for Chrimbo/NYE!!!
Your kids must think your a bloody hero!:ok:

R44 Recovery
 

On the news tonight...
Maybe the nerves of being on tv :uhoh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmOL...ature=youtu.be

Crap, none of the AUS youtube videos are viewable in the USA :(

Proxtube can't run them, either :ugh:

Not in UK either:(

I did a 4 month attachment with the Australian Army Aviation back in 1987. During my conversion onto the Jetranger, I was taught to always aim for a zero speed touchdown for that very reason.

See above.

It could be 7 News that is blocked: try this?



Why is it the likes of serf and islandlad feel a need to jump in from the other side of the world and criticise? The pilot pulled off a pretty good result, and was flying legally in the region where the accident happened and under Australian air regs.

If you have another set of rules under which you operate, bully for you. But leave out the snide 'holier than thou' stuff, eh?

It looks a touch windy! job well done given the circumstances.
The guys in the Bell were having trouble holding it steady in the gusts and I guess they had to pick up the Robbie again to put it fully on the trailer.

There are operators flying Robbies who do scenic flights from pontoons on the Great Barrier Reef, miles and miles and miles from any land. Any emergency landing is going to be a water one, unless close to the pontoon of course, though I wouldn't be trying for an EOL to a pontoon. :p Aircraft properly fitted and all legal. Want a flight? You accept any associated risk, as with any endeavour.

As an interesting aside ... several years ago, a friend of mine recovered (under-slung) an R44 from said pontoon following an EOL onto the water close to the reef. The previous scenic flight had been around the reef with a certain Judge (Judy) on-board. It's nice when the public get to see helicopters that aren't just "falling from the sky or exploding in mid-air".

in the days when many mil pilots were flying singles then yes, probably many would crack it. Nowadays with most flying twins, that skill level doesn't exist except perhaps amongst QHIs with plenty of previous single experience.

And a zero speed EOL in a jetranger is a much easier task to perform than in a Robbie:ok:

IF this was a genuine EOL, in a Robbo and with a PPL(H) at the controls then it is an exceptional act of airmanship, he should be very proud of pulling that off, especially in front a the most precious audience in his life!

Doing a zero/zero EOL into a confined space must be the hardest act of flying a helicopter on anyone's agenda. There is absolutely ZERO room for error and you get only one pop at it.

What intrigues me is the state of the blades, for even with an EOL landing there is residual energy in the head and those blades would have made contact with something, possibly. For them to appear to be intact suggests he came to a stop fractionally above the treetops/bush and then it fell into the opening for the last several feet.
Either that or he had it craned in and his family then did a photo shoot!! For the album you understand????:confused:

As usual TC, I believe that consistent with info that is being aired elsewhere that you have retained over the years, your critical analysis powers of observation to a high degree. merry Xmas tet

Thanks, Squeaks, that did the trick! :-)

TC - or is it just that the height of the bushes is just below the height of the MR head? Those bushy bushes wouldn't do any damage until you got down to the harder woody bits so it is quite feasible that the EOL was real and the rotors just brushed the tops of the bushes as the Nr decayed.

Islandlad, don't be afraid to ask questions here - just ask them but phrase them nicely:)

If the pilot was well trained and well practised, what difference does the level of licence make?