Why is this a conspiracy theory?


That scenario could easily lead to missing a high ROD and the crash.

Talking about conspiracy theories....did the check pilot leave his life raft and go and check on his crew member ?

I too will look forward in reading the final report

Why did you delete the post I responded to?

I reworded the post

Hmmm, where is it then?


You deleted it and re-posted another one. That's why it appears below mine now.

Anyway, I guess we are all looking forward to the ATSB initial report to find out how this happened.

If the reports are correct that it was a route check for a new pilot then there should have been no loading up with emergencies.

Did this helicopter have a CVR?

Have only once heard of a check pilot pulling emergencies at night, and he died doing it, though it was fixed wing - Beech Baron. Good friend, well experienced, had a small aviation business and doing a check ride on a new employee. Pulled an engine after T/O and flew into the side of a hill where you could see the prop slash marks as they were in the process of restarting the shut down engine. Didn't have his shoulder sash on, hit head and bled to death. Crashed about 0100 and discovered by a passing motorist at 0600 when investigating why the flashing red light up the hill. Body still warm, showed some falling between the cracks on SAR watch by authorities. Pilot under check survived but gave up flying for school teaching, recently returned to flying privately after a hiatus of some 40 years.

As far as I know, the pilot was carrying out night approaches to the vessel after being away from MPT for a number of years. When I was involved in MPT line training we would do multiple circuits and approaches as the vessel transitted the shipping channel, then land when it was time for picking up the pilot.

Over water on a very dark night with a newish pilot is no time to practise emergencies. I don't believe it was being done in this case either.

Cheers,
Capt.

AnFI

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/60...river-nyc.html

You understand the difference between co-incidence, causation, and correlation right?

no, he is restarting his favourite argument with a suggestion that those of us who favour twins in hostile environments must have a weak case because a twin crashed where a single had operated for many years.

A wholly irrelevant argument but designed to promote his cherished agenda.

I think Mk Six has it right

Absolutely spot on Tibbsy.
Understanding this affects many of the posts above. Please look it up guys and gals, it will change the way you view such posts.

And it will show you why the AnFi "facts" are anecdotal at best.

Let's get over how many engines...this is a serious event. I have no doubt it could have happened to me and that it will teach us much.
If we let it.

When employing a new aircraft type in a role, and you prang it within the first year, particularly when in the previous 50 years you didn't pang any, then all circumstances of the introduction of that new type into the role might be relevant. It just so happens that new aircraft type in this instance had 2 engines. So to me, the twin thing should be on the agenda for scrutiny.

With the potential passenger, an eye witness who is not without some credibility and experience. (With the limitations that come with a dark night.)
And
Another expert witness with a set of controls within reach, and a set of instruments in front of him.
Both available for comment.
It shouldn’t be hard to get a pretty accurate set of events leading up to the impact.

Any CVR/FDR/HUMS data will be a bonus.

I bet you think if you flip a coin 5 times in a row and get tails each time, then chances are increasing that the next flip will be heads. :ugh:

My mother had a serious accident last year. She'd been driving older technology cars for over fifty years, never had an accident. Then she bought a brand new Japanese car, full of airbag technology, ABS, stability control, traction control, auto braking, lane departure assistance, blindspot warnings. It was a really flash car. One day she was driving along, got distracted by something and was belted by a large van travelling through an intersection.

Using your logic, the introduction of that new type of car into the role is likely to have been behind her crash. She'd have avoided the accident had she been driving the clapped out old Toyota she'd had for years without incident.

Two engine helicopters are still flown using collective, cyclic and pedals - the number of engines has bugger all to do with most things until one fails. What is far more likely to be behind accidents such as this one are human errors like spatial disorientation, visual illusions, task fixation, fatigue, distraction etc.

..or training on a new type of helicopter being employed for the first time in this operation. And those things you mentioned, they didn't come into play in causing any accident in the past 50 years, so you might need to open your mind up to something new which might have. Well, they have a new type of helicopter, perhaps that has something to do with it. Something new exposes them to the risks of having something new. Just like taking delivery of a brand new car with all the latest safety gadgets takes time to adjust to all those new things, whereas continuing to drive the same old VH Commodore without all those whiz bang gadgets has nothing to distract you with. On paper the new car is the safer ride, but if you have to contend with the newness of it will likely take you outside your VH Commodore comfort zone.

In my experience as an investigator, I assure you that my mind is very open.

Your argument is simply illogical. We would never fly anything new if it increased the risk each time newer technology was introduced. And just because an accident involving human factors did not occur, does not mean that those factors were absent at any point in the past, or in this incident. Additionally, sometimes accidents are avoided through plain dumb luck.

The correlation between two factors does not mean that the change in one factor (eg the type of helicopter, twin vs single engine) is the cause in the change in the value of the other factor (accident rate, incident rate). There is no evidence to suggest that there is a causal relationship between accident rates and the introduction of multi-engine helicopter operations; in fact, the opposite exists. It's why clients around the world increasingly demand multi-engine helicopters instead of singles - because the real-world evidence (as opposed to a feeling you have) is that they are much safer.

When an operator introduces new types, there is significant oversight of the process. It includes operations manual changes, training and checking, evaluation, training approvals, licensing, contract oversight, and a change process. It's not like going down to the local dealership and driving away an hour later with a new Toyota to replace your clapped out VH Commodore, to use your simile.

To be crystal clear, your assertion that no accidents occurred when they were operating singles, but when they operated twins (over a year later) they had an accident does indicate a causal relationship, and frankly, is ludicrous.

Tibbsy
What about having a "false sense of security" when flying a twin, given that twins "don't crash" because they are safer...

Flown and instructed in twins for a long time now. Haven't met anyone who thinks they don't crash.

I think there is a false sense of security in relying on an accident-free record as an indicator of actual risk.

And what you don't know is how many near misses, close calls or simply 'F**k Me's' that they had operating in a hostile environment over those years.

Over the water at night is a hostile environment, no matter what you are flying.

I think they were short-sighted not going for a 4-axis AP - a 3 Axis one can be counter-intuitive, especially if you have limited experience of using it in anger.