Helicopter Crash Wollongong

[motzartmerv]

Yea Geoff, I grew up in Wollongong and have seen many many choppas land and takeoff from there. I even proposed to a girl in that restaurant (years ago). My high school classes formal was held there aswel.

 

It is a fantastic site and could imagine the ride when departing to the east would be quite spectacular. In todays litagative society Im afraid this may be a thing of the past now.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I've got nearly a1000 hrs in command in robinsons.

 

Legally You can basically land anywhere that you have permission from the owner of the land and if the pilot in command feels (reasonably) it is safe to land. Some town by-laws might have rules against it but they are not CaSA so wouldn't /couldn't prosecute you under aviation laws only town planning laws which are long and complex civil law suit stuff. So chances are you won't get issues for a one off landing if it is aviationally safe.

 

The fact an accident happened doesn't mean it was not safe.

 

With regard the comments about survivability etc.

 

Robinsons have a high survivability if they impact vertically. Skid and seat impact attenuation is very good. But not if the airframe impacts on its side or worse inverted. They are unsurvivable from only a few feet if inverted ( but this applies all helicopters and all helicopters can invert or more commonly partial roll in the space of only a few feet especially with a blade strike because the transmission rips out of the airframe and rapidly changes the centre of balance.

 

I'm afraid the blades don't depart outward either. A common scenario is the advancing blade swings inward and downward and impacts the airframe.(all helicopters not just robinsons) If the blade hits just about anything they crumple and bend because they are actually quite thin structurally especially robinsons.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx for the info Jaba. I wasnt saying anything about the safety of the flight, was just a question regarding where they can land legally.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I'm not pointing fingers, but can any choppa just land where the pilot likes? What are the rules? I know that there is a lot of transfers done up to this restraunt, can any choppa just land there?

It is a HLS (helicopter landing site), similar to our ALA's, but a lot less room required. CAAP 92.2 applies.

I can see the approach/landing site from my front window, from what I have seen most of the aircraft that make the trip are regulars, whether they be charter, or privately owned. Pretty obvious I know, but sitting right on the edge of the escarpement would make for some fairly hairy wind conditions at times, its bad enough where we are at the bottom!

 

Many nights we get ferocious katabatic winds, I'm assuming the anabatic winds are just as ferocious!

 

 

[cooperplace]

I even proposed to a girl in that restaurant (years ago). My high school classes formal was held there aswel..

well, don't keep us in suspense: did she accept?

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Hahaha... She did, but we are still yet to set a date. This was 10 years ago;)

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Hahaha... She did, but we are still yet to set a date. This was 10 years ago;)

Now that's procrastination...

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't wait too long . She might find out all about you. Anyhow every second person is of the opposite sex. They are not an endangered species. ( Though with some of you blokes I'm not sure. We don't get a lot on this site They might get scared off). Sorry for being off topic..

 

OK, I'd like to be pro-crastination....Nev

 

 

[Mriya]

A statement from the ATSB website regarding this accident:

 

The ATSB can confirm that the R44 helicopter involved in the accident had all-aluminium fuel tanks. Through its SafetyWatch initiative, the ATSB has highlighted how all-aluminium fuel tanks have proven susceptible to post-accident fuel leaks, increasing the risk of a potentially fatal post-impact fire when colliding with the ground. In line with the manufacturer’s service bulletin, the ATSB has been encouraging all operators and owners of R44 helicopters to retrofit their aircraft with bladder-type tanks as soon as practical.

 

 

[rankamateur]

I'd like to be pro-crastination....Nev

Hey Nev , I have three daughter So I am Pro-castration!... Steve...

 

 

[motzartmerv]

The helicopter did NOT have the tank bladders fitted. CASA, the civil aviation SAFETY authority in my view have aloud through inaction the deaths of 4 people. If there was ever a more clear cut, undeniable, inherant SAFETY issue, then I dont know what it is. There is more to aviation SAFETY then ramp checks and mass groundings due to paperwork 'irregularities'. Dont complain to me that there wasn't enough parts for everyone to do the mod, if thats the case, ground the bloody things. Its not rocket science.

 

Having been a part of the post accident 'litigation efforts in an R44 crash, I can see where the families of the deceased will be throwing the effort. Its a national day of SHAME for our regulator. Heads should roll.!!!!!!

 

 

[turboplanner]

This one will come down to whether CASA followed procedure Motz, but I agree with you Motz, and this one may also bite those in the CASA chain of responsibility because of their meddling in our lives when they feel like it. However it will probably be at least five years before the Court action starts, and they may not even exist by then.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Yes and I think the victims relatives would have an Incredibly strong case against casa AND Robinson.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes and I think the victims relatives would have an Incredibly strong case against casa AND Robinson.

All those who had a duty of care, including the aircraft owner, the aircraft operator and the Pilot In Command's estate.

 

This one looks like it will also be a criminal case as well since the aircraft wasn't grounded.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

CASA drops the ball once again...and continues to hide behind the word Safety...Hypocrasy at it's finest !.......Ground the R44 now, unless they are modified. They have demonstrated three times now in this country, (and no doubt many times in others) that they are a death trap in even a minor accident. Toll now stands at 8 in this country at least ...C'mon CASA time to get off your arsxs..............................Maj...

 

 

[storchy neil]

for crist sake get facts 30 april 2013 all r 44 have to have retro fuel tank mods neil

 

 

[Captain]

Motza,

 

It's a tad off subject but ......................... in addition to being slack & possibly culpable in not grounding Robbos until the bladder mods were done, it looks to me like CASA is getting back into its bad old habits.

 

As examples, I site the papershuffling exercise at RAA (although they did give 3 or 4 warnings to a dysfunctional RAA management, so it was probably appropriate ..... but is the Ibis immediate grounding even worse than the Robbo issue?) and the way that they are treating several commercial operators at the moment, including Barrier Aviation in Cairns who, I understand, were grounded on Dec 23rd without warning and without having the opportunity to do anything about whatever burr CASA had under its saddle (and with action on 23 Dec BA had bugger all time to react quickly with the public holidays on the way).

 

And I'll add to that my experience at Avalon on the opening Trade-Day, when I was deep in discussion with an aircraft salesman, with both of our heads inside the cockpit, and Mick Poole + a few other CASA whizz-kids walked up and immediately took over the discussion like their's didn't stink, while ignoring me and without any acknowledgement that I was even there. Mick and his mates were so far up themselves in jumping in between me and the sales guy, and then riding around in their golf cart throughout the day, that it was a shock to me, but then again I guess a leopard never really does change, does it?

 

A CASA badge makes a little dog the biggest dog on the block (airside anyway) and it surely goes to the heads of some of 'em, so I can't wait to see their attitude (and strut?) at Natfly.

 

Regards Geoff

 

G'day Neil ........ The 30th April date is the problem as that was a Service Bulletin (only) and SB-78B was issued in December 2010 (for goodness sake) with a Rev B in Sept 2012 & therefore gave heaps of months to have it done, while it has been demonstrated that innocent passengers, and pilots, continued to die from what should or might have been survivable accidents. 20/20 hindsight is great, I know, but in my opinion they should have been grounded if not enough bladders were available to comply immediately with the SB. It's 5 1/2 weeks to 30 April so a reasonable chance that other innocents might also perish by then. Regards Geoff

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Thanx Neil, we are aware that the mod was due by the 30th of April. That's the bloody problem. It wasn't some minor issue, its as blatant and obvious as any ground able design flaw in the history of aviation. That is a fact my friend, an now 4 more people have met their end after another soft accident.

 

 

[Mriya]

Thanx Neil, we are aware that the mod was due by the 30th of April. That's the bloody problem. It wasn't some minor issue, its as blatant and obvious as any ground able design flaw in the history of aviation. That is a fact my friend, an now 4 more people have met their end after another soft accident.

I went searching and am happy for anyone to correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find an AD which related to the Robinson SB mentioned above. This means that the 30th April date set by Robinson is meaningless as owner/operators are under not complusion to carry out SB's unless mandated by an AD.

 

How the regulator (either the FAA or CASA) could ignore this safety issue is beyond me, based on lives lost even prior to last week at Bulli. I totally agree with calls to ground this aircraft until the mods are done. The general public are relying on the regulator to address real safety issues and I agree with Motz that this one is about clear cut as any safety issue in aircraft design. The ATSB has already provided an alert to this deisgn flaw after the last R44 crash. Why did CASA not act to potentially save these 4 lives?

 

 

[turboplanner]

I went searching and am happy for anyone to correct me if I'm wrong, but I couldn't find an AD which related to the Robinson SB mentioned above. This means that the 30th April date set by Robinson is meaningless as owner/operators are under not complusion to carry out SB's unless mandated by an AD.How the regulator (either the FAA or CASA) could ignore this safety issue is beyond me, based on lives lost even prior to last week at Bulli. I totally agree with calls to ground this aircraft until the mods are done. The general public are relying on the regulator to address real safety issues and I agree with Motz that this one is about clear cut as any safety issue in aircraft design. The ATSB has already provided an alert to this deisgn flaw after the last R44 crash. Why did CASA not act to potentially save these 4 lives?

Because the Minister and the Shadow Minister have the skills and interests of a pair of clowns.

 

 

[Mriya]

for crist sake get facts 30 april 2013 all r 44 have to have retro fuel tank mods neil

In response check my other post just now, however in short SB's are not legally required to be done unless an AD tells you to do it. On that basis R44's could be still flying around with this design flaw in 10 years time unless the regulator requires that the mod be done.

 

As I stated in my other post, I didn't find an AD when I searched. If one exists I'm happy to be corrected, but without an AD it is hard to blame the operator as they have complied with the minimum standard required by the regulator.

 

 

[facthunter]

I think it is in CASA's basket. They seem to over-react with some non urgent things and miss some that are more important. It's a question of judgement but what methodology they use to prioritise would be nice to know. Wonder if they have trouble getting (or using) people with hands on and practical experience? Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

And this is exactly why CASA uses the word 'SAFETY' in their name, in jest...... How dare they try and tell us that we cannot fit more advanced, more efficient, and SAFER props to our aircraft, when they are at least ten years behind modern technological trends in our sport. CASA = Conspiracy Against Successfull Aviation....................Maj...

 

 

[facthunter]

Usually more planes on the ground equals less in the air, Maj.( Static exhibits don't kill people)...Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Yes Nev, unfortunatly I do believe that's the way they think. Might be different if some of them got out of their cubicals, and actually had the balls to do some flying. As they say "talks' cheap, but it takes money to buy whisky !"........................................................Maj...