Jervis Bay helicopter crash
Very little information at this point other than a radio report.
https://www.2gb.com/podcast/helicopt...vis-bay-coast/ |
Originally Posted by Cyclic Hotline
(Post 11406508)
Very little information at this point other than a radio report.
https://www.2gb.com/podcast/helicopt...vis-bay-coast/ Update: CHC AW139 VH-NVE SAR heli has just made a flight from at or near HMAS Creswell to HMAS Albatross, presumably related. |
It was an MRH90, the floats deployed and it remained upright.
|
3 Army MRH-90s were operating in the area:
A40-040 BSMN A40-043 BSMN83 A40-008 BSMN84 A40-040 and A40-043 were scrambled just after 0900 UTC, so could be A40-008? |
ABC News has produced a brief report overnight:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-...-bay/102132762 |
https://content.api.news/v3/images/b...1ade3a535c2f4b
Australian media sources have reported the Australian Defence Force to investigate cause of helicopter ditching near Jervis Bay, NSW, during routine counterterrorism training. The MRH-90 Taipan fleet will be grounded while the cause of the incident is investigated. Two defence force personnel have sustained minor injuries after an army helicopter ditched into the water during routine counterterrorism training near Jervis Bay on the NSW south coast. All 10 personnel on board the Australian Army MRH-90 Taipan multi-role helicopter were recovered from the water on Wednesday night 22 Mar ’23 and assessed at the HMAS Cresswell Naval Academy. The Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart said the incident had the potential to end in "tragedy". "Quick responses from ADF personnel and emergency services and well drilled teams prevented a potential tragedy," Chief Stuart said. "We will conduct a thorough investigation into this incident to determine the cause and ensure the platform remains safe to operate." The training activity has been temporarily paused as a precaution and the MRH-90 Taipan fleet will be grounded while the cause of the incident is investigated, defence said in a statement. "At this time defence’s priority is supporting the ADF members involved in the incident and their families," the department said. An ACT police spokeswoman said they were assisting the defence-led response to the incident in a support role after receiving a call at 2110 AEDT (UTC + 11). |
|
|
One less to trade in against the UH60M.
|
Originally Posted by Nescafe
(Post 11406874)
One less to trade in against the UH60M.
|
TV footage shows the machine as A40-025
|
As the UH-60 series were designed for the US Army and are ostensibly a land theatre platform, therefore not much of a need for floats, why add weight, cost and maintenance for a rarely needed option.
As for the over water H-60 variants, the crews HUET training is far, far more rigorous than say for commercial SLP, as such, the operators consider the risk/benefit analysis is for a ‘no floats’ requirement. |
Are you an airline accountant in real life Hilife?
Not many people have a lot of nice things to say about the Taipan, but those floats may have saved 10 lives. Priceless and worth every cent. |
Are you an airline accountant in real life Hilife? |
Originally Posted by minigundiplomat
(Post 11407117)
The Chinook has no floats either, but is regularly embarked. Risk is managed every day within the military.
Tipping the families of those killed in the 2006 Blackhawk crash, wish that the Australian Military managed the risk with floats back then. |
Originally Posted by Doors Off
(Post 11407133)
Risk Managed? Perhaps accepted is a more pertinent term? Let us not forget that the Chinook actually floats when upright.
Tipping the families of those killed in the 2006 Blackhawk crash, wish that the Australian Military managed the risk with floats back then. |
If you want to operate over the water, heavy and below MinSELF - having floats is a no-brainer. MCT Ops certainly fit that profile.
Hoping it won't happen is not risk-mitigation. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11407227)
If you want to operate over the water, heavy and below MinSELF - having floats is a no-brainer. MCT Ops certainly fit that profile.
Hoping it won't happen is not risk-mitigation. |
Hoping it won't happen is not risk-mitigation. And don't forget to tell somebody to grab the life raft on the way out. |
At sim training once:
The dreaded dark night IMC over unknown terrain dual engine failure. Debrief : Instructor” You guys armed the floats. Why did you do that?” Us: “Because in Canada, where we operate, the chances of ending up in a lake, pond, river or swamp vs on solid ground are about 50/50.” Instructor: “Good idea!” Some folks think “ditching” only when over the ocean. Heck you may end up in the local sewage settling pond…doesn’t hurt to have the floats armed. Gaining VMC at 100 feet over a lake it is probably going to be too late to arm the floats. |
Originally Posted by Bug
(Post 11406868)
Somewhat more useful than the ABC's video at least, that was a waste of bandwidth from which I learnt nothing... |
An accountant!!!
You are such a Dag ozbiggles. If you are looking for a gun fight, then I’m afraid you are pointing your pistol at the wrong fella, as I merely highlighted the managed risk the USN has for its Sea Hawk crews egress in the event of a survivable entry into water. The USN is by a mile, the world’s largest operator of the Sea Hawk and has been for well over 30 years now, and from their own experience, they considered that rather than giving the crews a little extra time, the EFS set-up on the SH-60B Sea Hawk was more likely to impede egress, rather than assist, as such the EFS system was subsequently removed, so the USN looked at other methods to preserve life, regular HUET training being one of them. If you don’t agree with their risk management assessment after close to 40 years of operating the Sea Hawk, that’s your prerogative, but don’t shoot the bookkeeper. |
Originally Posted by [email protected]
(Post 11407227)
If you want to operate over the water, heavy and below MinSELF - having floats is a no-brainer. MCT Ops certainly fit that profile.
Hoping it won't happen is not risk-mitigation. |
Originally Posted by Nescafe
(Post 11406874)
One less to trade in against the UH60M.
Originally Posted by golder
(Post 11406892)
At least this one does float. It has been a different story with the UH60M and MH-60R, that has no flotation
The nh90 and Australia https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/du...l-but-why-now/ The MRH-90 has been costing $35,000 per hour to operate. Last financial year that ballooned to $50,000 and it was probably the final straw. |
Maybe they should have another crack at the Seasprite?
|
Heck you may end up in the local sewage settling pond Wessex had a unofficial procedure re popping the floats, last man out stuck his knife in. |
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com...licopter-crash
This is what happens when accountants do risk management. |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 11407727)
We had a chap who had a hydraulics failure in a fixed float B205 and he put it in the most convenient body of water, the local sewage farm. No harm done.
Wessex had a unofficial procedure re popping the floats, last man out stuck his knife in. |
It's not that simple. The H-60 family are very "dense" aircraft, and sink faster than a rock with a stone tied to it. |
So not fit for purpose for over water ops then? With AAR kit the USAF conducts very long range SAR Ops using the 60. |
So not fit for purpose for over water ops then? |
Originally Posted by Robbo Jock
(Post 11408142)
I still remember the HUET course I did in HMS Dolphin in the early eighties. The exciting wet bits were preceded by a seemingly endless briefing going into great detail about exactly how we would die in every helicopter in NATO's inventory. One highlight was how fast the Lynx would sink. ISTR the lecturer talking about 'sinking trials' of a Lynx in a Scottish loch with divers aboard. Under certain conditions it sank so fast the divers could not physically extract themselves from their seats.
Not a Scottish Loch per se. A tank at Glen Fruin near Faslane. Now derelict. And indeed your lecturers spoke the truth. Once that forward compartment filled up with water the thing sank like a rock, floats or no. STAS was ( and is) a great bit of kit…draconian briefs aside. |
Why didn’t he put it on the ground? |
Originally Posted by megan
(Post 11408370)
You'd have to ask him, having many hours in the identical configured aircraft I'm not sure how a running landing on roughish ground would turn out. Anyone?
|
Originally Posted by MENELAUS
(Post 11408288)
Not a Scottish Loch per se. A tank at Glen Fruin near Faslane. Now derelict. And indeed your lecturers spoke the truth. Once that forward compartment filled up with water the thing sank like a rock, floats or no. STAS was ( and is) a great bit of kit…draconian briefs aside.
|
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11408116)
The US Navy, US Coast Guard, and the USAF along with several other Militaries might challenge that view.
With AAR kit the USAF conducts very long range SAR Ops using the 60. I suspect 60 on the long range SAR jobs gets to the casualty with a low enough fuel state to hover OEI, AAR on the way home and mitigates the risks that way - not so much of an option on MCT Ops. |
Not much in the news that I can find. Has it been removed from the water yet?
|
Crab.....you have any accident stats to support your opinion or is it. just 60 envy that prompts your comment?
How many instances of Emergency Float systems not working as advertised and to what sea state are they rated? Modern day engines are pretty reliable and most modern helicopters do pretty well. on one engine at sea level. Perhaps hovering over an Alpine Lake in the heat of Summer might offer a problem for an OGE hover. If I had a four engined. helicopter that would hover on one....I might still want a fifth just for insurance. Sometimes you do have to trust the Engineeers and Safety Mafia when they offer decisions made upon the Laws of Probability as there is. no perfect helicopter yet to be invented. Look back the the USAF H-3 Jolly Greens and what they did using AAR while doing Combat SAR missions....and later with the CH-53's. As always in aviation....there is a certain amount of risk in everything we do.....and never is there zero risk even if the aircraft never leaves the ground. |
It is bizarre to see these hawk lovers all up in arms when clearly EFS was undoubtedly valuable in this incident. Is this whatever on NH90 is bad mentality healthy, if at all?
|
Originally Posted by Capt Fathom
(Post 11408587)
Not much in the news that I can find. Has it been removed from the water yet?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-...ence/102143148 https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn...862&height=485 |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.