The fatal chopper crash that changed Australian aviation history

[Cosmick]

 

The fatal chopper crash that changed Australian aviation history

 

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

 

The accident was witnessed by many and widely reported, creating intense pressure for something to be done to improve safety in the skies.

 

"After the crash, aviation safety authorities changed the laws so that single-engine aircraft and helicopters were no longer allowed to fly over built-up areas, but had to follow waterways and coastlines.

 

That rule still applies today."

 

Interesting Statement - 

 

 

[Jaba-who]

 

The fatal chopper crash that changed Australian aviation history

 

WWW.ABC.NET.AU

 

The accident was witnessed by many and widely reported, creating intense pressure for something to be done to improve safety in the skies.

 

"After the crash, aviation safety authorities changed the laws so that single-engine aircraft and helicopters were no longer allowed to fly over built-up areas, but had to follow waterways and coastlines.

 

That rule still applies today."

 

Interesting Statement - 

About as accurate as most media stories about aviation. Completely wrong. 

 

 

[turboplanner]

About as accurate as most media stories about aviation. Completely wrong. 

I remember seeing video of the crash; what was the correct story?

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

Try this link:

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774750/asd_53_nov_67.pdf

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I remember seeing video of the crash; what was the correct story?

My apologies I was referring to the paragraph  in the worked text - the statement that single engine aircraft are not allowed to this day to fly over built up areas. And that we are required to follow creeks and shorelines. Somehow I managed to delete a sentence that specified the subject. 

 

Its completely untrue and probably as a result we are going to have nosey busybodies ringing CASA every time an aircraft flies over a built up area.  

 

 

[Jaba-who]

I remember seeing video of the crash; what was the correct story?

And st the time he was operating completely within the legal altitude framework that was present at the time and still exists today. 

 

He was in the vfr route where the altitude limits sound the same as they are today and was according to the report at about a 1000 ft which is the same as the current lower limit over built up areas. 

 

 

[M61A1]

'Ops normal' for our ABC....

 

 

[Jim McDowall]

From

 

 

Helicopter Crashes in City | Dictionary of Sydney

 

HOME.DICTIONARYOFSYDNEY.ORG

 

This week on 2SER Breakfast, Dictionary special guest Dr Peter Hobbins talked to Tess about a terrible accident in the centre of the city in 1966 when a helicopter crashed onto Gold Fields House at…

 

Maybe this is the source of the regulation idea?

 

"While the investigation into the accident had consequences for the helicopter’s American manufacturers Bell, who faced litigation that went on into the 1970s, another long term outcome was that single-engined aircraft, like small planes and helicopters, could no longer fly over built up areas like the city, which is why today you see them flying along Sydney’s waterways like the harbour or rivers. "

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Who knows. 

 

I just had a look at the Sydney VTC and some of the notes for Bankstown and Victor 1 and around Sydney. 

 

Not a single mention of any routes or requirements for singles compared to twins or any other type of or numbers of engines. Sure there's vfr routes in and out but they are for everyone regardless of engine numbers and for conflict prevention not to stop specifically singles. Same for  the dedicated Choppers North and West - no freedom to go anywhere else  just cos you got more than one donk. 

 

Oh and the other thing was he was over water at the time of the tail rotor failure.  In the subsequent loss of control he travelled forward over land then made a left turn and travelled about the same distance again further over land. 

 

So the concept that this accident showed or was the instigator of travelling over creeks and waterfronts as somehow a safety thing doesn't make sense. 

 

 

[Downunder]

In situations like this, are twins actually safer than singles.....?

 

With a single and an engine failure,  you KNOW you're going down and prepare and plan for it with a controlled glide to impact.

 

In a twin at low level, with single engine failure, there are a lot of unknowns and it seems when they do go down (most cases?), it's a larger aircraft under a lot less control with a more devastating impact,  fire and crash, putting more people on the ground at risk........ often with more people onboard the aircraft as well.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

With a twin, you can be sure that when an engine fails, the other one will always get you to the scene of the crash...

 

 

[onetrack]

I was under the incorrect impression (from an aging memory) that the reason for this crash was a washer was left out from a tail rotor mechanism fastener, leading to movement that fractured the fastener - leading to tail rotor breakup.

 

I also recall the investigators went through the rubbish bins in the workshop and found the missing washer, thus proving their suspicions correct.

 

However, the report simply says in this crash, the tail rotor fastener fractured completely, due to early-onset metal fatigue  - and checking of several other similar machines also showed fractures starting under the fastener heads of two more fasteners.

 

As a result of the investigation, the manufacturer reduced the programmed lifespan of that particular fastener, from 2500 hrs to 300 hrs.

 

So I'm confused now (easily done today). Does anyone remember which helicopter crash it was, then, that was caused by the missing washer under the tail rotor mechanism fastener? It was a major crash, with serious loss of life.