Two helicopters collide on the Gold Coast 02/01/23

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, facthunter said:

If 40% had to go around that is hardly satisfactory either because they still clutter up the circuit because they still have to land..  Nev

So what? You're going to have a cry on the radio and tell some of them to go away?

[facthunter]

I'll ignore that. It contributes nothing.  Nev

[turboplanner]

In the Seaworld helicopter collision there were two slow moving helicopters.

When I was there and sent my daughter up in one the  helicopters were operating from two pontoons, and flying a circuit. So one would take off and head directly south and the other would be out some distance and flying directly north then coming in to land behind the departing helicopter. Two aircraft, simple radio.

When you look at the track of the colliding helicopters, it wasn't in that circuit pattern.

 

In one of the helicopters a passenger saw the oncoming helicopter and spent some time getting to pilot to look out, but too late, so see and be seen is involved, but a head on situation for two company pilots at a company facility where at other times they were operating a circuit is also an issue.

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'll ignore that. It contributes nothing.  Nev

Don't fly into a busy airport then, because you won't be ready for the traffic density.

[flying dog]

(And to digress to the part of "busy circuits" and go arounds)

 

When I was low on my hours I got back to my "home base" (Hoxton Park) and the circuit was BUSY.

(Relative term I know)

I overflew and was trying to get in to the circuit.

 

I asked how many planes were in the circuit to try and improve my awareness.

When I got down I had a new hole ripped in me by the person renting the plane because I asked.

Yes, maybe not a "PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO", but why was it SO wrong?

I get it was busy.  I was trying to work out how many people were in the circuit - and I was low on hours.

To me it was the person's ego not wanting to be "shown up renting the plane to a stupid person who can't handle a bit of traffic".

 

Anyway, sorry.

[facthunter]

You are right to show concern because it's a high pressure situation you can't expect Ab Initios to just cope with. You have to know where every plane is.  At a fully controlled aerodrome, you should be able to trust the tower, but some Pilot may still do the wrong thing and not comply with an Instruction/Clearance.  Nev.

[kgwilson]

7 minutes ago, flying dog said:

(And to digress to the part of "busy circuits" and go arounds)

 

When I was low on my hours I got back to my "home base" (Hoxton Park) and the circuit was BUSY.

(Relative term I know)

I overflew and was trying to get in to the circuit.

 

I asked how many planes were in the circuit to try and improve my awareness.

When I got down I had a new hole ripped in me by the person renting the plane because I asked.

Yes, maybe not a "PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO", but why was it SO wrong?

I get it was busy.  I was trying to work out how many people were in the circuit - and I was low on hours.

To me it was the person's ego not wanting to be "shown up renting the plane to a stupid person who can't handle a bit of traffic".

 

Anyway, sorry.

Absolutely the right thing to do. You need to know where everyone is in the circuit & if you can't see them Ask. They should be reporting every leg if there are a number. I will also add No 3 behind the 172 if that's where I find myself. I don't care what anyone thinks, it's my life.

[Blueadventures]

Even when only one in the circuit and you receive a call you need to know and hopefully see visually where any other aircraft is.  I was established on downwind at an airfield to the west of Townsville about half way along downwind and an aircraft called downwind.  (I had called my inbound and joining downwind.) I could not see this aircraft so asked height and asked my wife to look for it also.  They responded same height, so I did then not want to move any direction or height other than my current track.  They could not see me.  Then a short time later saw them ahead at same level, crossing ahead from stb to port.  They were actually in the base area then turned port down the dead side and later actually joined their downwind.  Flying school aircraft.  Didn't waste any time discussing matter as history of not being receptive to discussions.  Poor attitude of white shirt and epaulets etc.  Just poor circuit join and wrong call on their part.  Certainly, had us looking for them considering their call was that they were where we were.  My mind picture was of a collision one on top of other.

[turboplanner]

57 minutes ago, flying dog said:

(And to digress to the part of "busy circuits" and go arounds)

 

When I was low on my hours I got back to my "home base" (Hoxton Park) and the circuit was BUSY.

(Relative term I know)

I overflew and was trying to get in to the circuit.

 

I asked how many planes were in the circuit to try and improve my awareness.

When I got down I had a new hole ripped in me by the person renting the plane because I asked.

Yes, maybe not a "PROFESSIONAL THING TO DO", but why was it SO wrong?

I get it was busy.  I was trying to work out how many people were in the circuit - and I was low on hours.

To me it was the person's ego not wanting to be "shown up renting the plane to a stupid person who can't handle a bit of traffic".

 

Anyway, sorry.

He shouldn't have said that because he wasn't giving you the tools to handle it. While there are several places to join the circuit, by far the best is joining mid downwind because  as you come towards upwind at 1500 feet you can see the whole circuit 500 feet below you. It's not enough difference to hide the aircraft and as you get closer to can take in what the aircraft are. If the circuit is jam-packed you can keep going at 1500' and come back later; if there's a Baron just turning downwind you can join further down the downwind leg allowing enough room to stay ahead of him all the way down. If he's already turned and coming down downwind, you can aim to join right behind him because he'll be going away from you. If you sum up the situation in that spot just before you cross the upwind leg, you'll soon be able to make a leisurely judgement and come down onto downwind every time without crowding the ones in front of you or upsetting the ones behind. As you get down towards 1000' and downwind, you still have the option to turn early or late to tweak your position, and as you approach the Base turn you have another early/late tweaking option and as you turn final you have another one.   I mentioned a peak of 12 planes in the circuit a while back. Of these around half will not be in your decision-making area, but offsetting that are the mistakes others make running up behind the aircraft in front of them, only to find no one's allowed to touch down until the first one departs the runway and that's usually the most difficult part because you could be bumped into a go round, so final is another spot to be watching when you're on base.

Edited April 4, 2023 by turboplanner

[Garfly]

Yes, it can be a really tricky situation needing a lot of judgement and experience to manage safely.

 

And if your ab initio training happens to have been at either a controlled airport - where you are told exactly what to do - or at a very quiet strip - where you might never have needed to negotiate sequencing with anyone, you'd be very unprepared when arriving at a busy uncontrolled regional port. Especially one where RPT traffic's involved.  Throw in multiple runways and the game of checkers turns to chess.

 

So maybe complex uncontrolled circuit work should be a specific subject on the syllabus. Although good places to train are not always easily available.

 

Failing that, I've sometimes thought that a cricket pitch might make a fine classroom for some cheap basic training ; a bunch of fellow students walking the 'circuit' (at various speeds) yelling out their locations and intentions.  Maybe an arm in the air indicating 500' above and knuckle dragging, 500' below.

 

(Of course, all done at the risk of being bundled off by the constabulary to a safe place somewhere   ;- )

 

 

[Carbon Canary]

1 hour ago, Garfly said:

Yes, it can be a really tricky situation needing a lot of judgement and experience to manage safely.

 

And if your ab initio training happens to have been at either a controlled airport - where you are told exactly what to do - or at a very quiet strip - where you might never have needed to negotiate sequencing with anyone, you'd be very unprepared when arriving at a busy uncontrolled regional port. Especially one where RPT traffic's involved.  Throw in multiple runways and the game of checkers turns to chess.

 

So maybe complex uncontrolled circuit work should be a specific subject on the syllabus. Although good places to train are not always easily available.

 

Failing that, I've sometimes thought that a cricket pitch might make a fine classroom for some cheap basic training ; a bunch of fellow students walking the 'circuit' (at various speeds) yelling out their locations and intentions.  Maybe an arm in the air indicating 500' above and knuckle dragging, 500' below.

 

(Of course, all done at the risk of being bundled off by the constabulary to a safe place somewhere   ;- )

 

 

Your cricket pitch idea is right on the money. Scouts are taught circuit procedures using a fence paling as the runway and a garden hose laid out in a rectangle representing the circuit. They then ‘fly the circuit’ by walking along the hose, and know what they need to do on each leg of the circuit.  Much more effective than a blackboard.

Sometimes you have to buzz the squatters though !

 

[kgwilson]

RAF pilots used the walking method for combat ready training in WW2 and a lot of aerobatic pilots go through their routines on the ground as well.

[Garfly]

 

 

 

 

Midair collision involving Eurocopter EC130 B4, VH-XH9, and Eurocopter EC130 B4, VH-XKQ, Main Beach, Gold Coast, Queensland, on 2 January 2023 | ATSB

WWW.ATSB.GOV.AU

 

Edited Wednesday at 01:26 AM by Garfly

[skippydiesel]

With reference to the above video;

 

I have long held the opinion that the "mark one eyeballs" is seriously limited (in airborne humans) thus making the "see and avoid" mantra, promoted by so many pilots/instructors, at best misleading, at worst a danger in itself. 

 

My opinion, in this matter, is often hotly refuted.

 

I contend, that good radio communication, procedural adherence/discipline, are likly the greater safety skills, that "clue" the pilot into the location of the other airborne aircraft(s) and thus visual acquisition (not the other way around).

 

In the above video - dodgy radio (lack of communication), structural visual blocking, questionable procedures and the limitations of the human eye, combined to create a disaster.

 

The helicopter tragedy supports my argument all too well.😈

 

 

 

 

[onetrack]

It was a Swiss cheese event, but I'd have to opine the greatest single problem was the poor flight paths planning, that led to a constant conflict point. No different really to the Blackhawk helicopter/RJ-700 crash in Washington DC.

[Flightrite]

Two years! unbelievable! But I guess it is Australia! 

[aro]

8 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I have long held the opinion that the "mark one eyeballs" is seriously limited (in airborne humans) thus making the "see and avoid" mantra, promoted by so many pilots/instructors, at best misleading, at worst a danger in itself. 

They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had.

 

I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

[cscotthendry]

9 hours ago, aro said:

 

 

I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

On Monday, I did a lap of Moreton and Straddy. There were these same helis flying out of Tangalooma resort. 
On at least three occasions, I heard one of the helis step on other radio transmissions. That all occurred within a ten minute period. It was quite clear that the pilot of the heli couldn't hear the other aircraft's transmission, before he keyed up to make his own broadcast.

I can tell you that I was keeping a very keen eye and ear on these cowboys as I flew overhead of them.

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, aro said:

They had radio, they had TCAS, they had ADSB-in that announced traffic in their headsets (although some functions were inhibited as they were too close to the ground). They basically had everything available - the next step is controlled airspace. What more do you suggest? The comment was that they received too many traffic notifications with the equipment that they had.

 

I am very skeptical about the radio not working. They go to a lot of trouble to show that the faults in the antenna were pre-existing, and not a result of the crash. But that means it must have been a problem a long time before the crash. How long can you operate in that environment without someone noticing that your radio isn't transmitting? More likely the radio call was over-transmitted, or just so routine that people couldn't specifically remember it.

As with almost all incidents there are likly to have been many factors (Swiss Cheese) - these were covered in the video. It matters not that the radio was/not working - no call was heard, therefore could not have added to the pilots situational awareness.

 

I think you can take it as "fact" the neither pilot saw the other aircraft. Any other explanation would have to involve deliberate contact.

 

The question then is why did both pilots not "see & avoid"? The only reasonable answers are:

• They did not communicate with each other - faulty radio, faulty radio procedure - the result is the same, 
• Procedural failure - pilot failure, badly designed or lack of formal procedure
• Over reliance on the ability of the airborne human eye to detect another airborne object/aircraft😈

[Blueadventures]

11 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

As with almost all incidents there are likly to have been many factors (Swiss Cheese) - these were covered in the video. It matters not that the radio was/not working - no call was heard, therefore could not have added to the pilots situational awareness.

 

I think you can take it as "fact" the neither pilot saw the other aircraft. Any other explanation would have to involve deliberate contact.

 

The question then is why did both pilots not "see & avoid"? The only reasonable answers are:

• They did not communicate with each other - faulty radio, faulty radio procedure - the result is the same, 
• Procedural failure - pilot failure, badly designed or lack of formal procedure
• Over reliance on the ability of the airborne human eye to detect another airborne object/aircraft😈

Seems flight routes and LZ's were high on the contributing factors list considering their low and regular sorties.

Edited Wednesday at 10:51 PM by Blueadventures

[aro]

15 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

The question then is why did both pilots not "see & avoid"?

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace.

 

To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.

[Thruster88]

Perhaps to much reliance on the radio. This is from the report.

 

Visibility was limited for the pilot of VH‑XKQ (departing helicopter) by restrictions on manoeuvring at the park pad and the angles of closure of the helicopters. The pilot of VH‑XH9 had sighted VH‑XKQ on the park pad and discarded that traffic as a threat, expecting to be alerted by the taxi call if that condition changed. Neither pilot had further information to target their search for the other helicopter. 

[skippydiesel]

19 minutes ago, aro said:

I'm just trying to figure out what else you want to add. The only thing they didn't have was controlled airspace.

 

To me, it seems like the root cause was the take off and landing flight paths from the different pads crossed. That's an accident waiting to happen. That was figured out way back when the standard circuit pattern was developed.

It seems to me that there is almost never a "root cause" only multiple contributing factors.

 

Certainly some form of controlled airspace. Given the aircraft movement frequency in a confined airspace, perhaps a company specific, air traffic coordinator, may have reduced the chances of a conflict.

 

Even a "standard circuit pattern" is not without risk - reference the recent collision of two aircraft, death of three,  at The Oaks,  almost certainly due to failure of communication, along with procedural errors, etc.😈

[johnm]

no disrespect BUT they would have had ground crew operating those pads ............... it would not take much ? for a ground radio to advise of movements  (perhaps there was - don't know)

[facthunter]

You MUST be sure where ALL aircraft in a close proximity are at all times. IF you can't see it, be worried till you do. . GOOD radio and procedures is the best AID to  such situations. What happened to radio checks? Frequent operations at low level in a salt environment more so, Corrosion.   I've flown with 5 No radio U/Ls in the SAME circuit and that's about saturation for me and quite tiring. Overlapping intersecting Circuits Are Russian Roulette requiring extreme caution. Nev