Ops-Normal.org

Tragically, another crash, this time at Wanaka, South Island. I say tragically because the family lost another son a few months ago in a helicopter crash. This time it's a Hughes 500.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107935 ... ka-airport

FD2 wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:17 am

Tragically, another crash, this time at Wanaka, South Island. I say tragically because the family lost another son a few months ago in a helicopter crash. This time it's a Hughes 500.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/107935 ... ka-airport

Son of Sir Tim Wallis of the Alpine Fighter Collection and Warbirds over Wannaka Fighter airshow fame.

Sir Tim being an interesting aviation entrepreneur, warbird restorer and collector as well as having had a number of significant crashes in his own flying career!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Wallis

Caco

FD2, I know that the helicopter is a big part of the New Zealand's tourist, agrarian and wildlife economies but I don't know how the number of hours flown commercially and privately stacks up against other similar sized economies or against a statistic adjusted for the number of helicopter movements adjusted by population size (for example) or whether or not the number of helicopter related accidents is disproportionate to the number of hours flown annually. I appreciate that the rugged, not to say beautiful, geography and the changeable weather are also factors to be considered, but New Zealand does seem to have an awful number of these accidents? What is going there? Culture, ubiquity, weather, training, operational practices, maintenance practices...? What is the driver for this apparent trend?

Caco

I'll have a think about that one Caco and get back. It's bed time here!

How dreadful. To lose one son in a helicopter crash is sad in itself - as happened to Dennis Kenyon with his son - but to lose two sons in helicopter crashes within a few months of each other is truly awful.

Caco -

I can't explain the apparent high accident rate though there are a lot of helicopters on the New Zealand register for a country with a population about the same as Scotland and the majority of them live in the North Island. Because of the cost, the helicopters are mostly single engine machines but then that's true in many parts of the World, and a high proportion of them are Robinsons (not a wind up my friend). Remote living farmers tend to use helicopters to get around their 'stations' and would, in some instances, lack regular flying experience as would people who just fly at weekends, but again that's not unique. The NZ CAA has been criticised at times as being too easy with some of the tourist operators but they have a difficult path to tread between being overly awkward and too slack. A lot of money is generated by tourism!

One thing that may be different here is that there is a lot of rugged terrain, covered in bush, which can be very difficult to get through on the ground and with tall, densely packed trees which are very difficult to see down into. If no one hears your distress call, assuming you're able to get one out in time, then you may not be found for quite some time. Just after we visited New Zealand for the first time about 15 years ago, a Hughes 369 was lost between Queenstown and Milford Sound and the wreckage was not discovered until 10 years later, and that was in plain sight on a high tussocky hillside. About 4 years ago a machine was lost in the North Island and it wasn't found for days, despite an intensive search of the area it was lost in. Finally, there are many very wealthy private owners here who would probably not get frequent flying time but again that's not unusual. All these circumstances are not so different to other places, so I may have talked my way around in a circle - so perhaps it's more of an apparently higher rate.

UK registered helicopters: http://www.rotorspot.nl/current/g-c.php

NZ registered helicopters: https://www.caa.govt.nz/script/aircraft ... cationForm

NZ Helicopter Safety Review: https://www.aia.org.nz/site/aianz/NZHSOct2017.pdf

FD2, thanks for those links to some of the NZ statistical sources about heli safety stats and your own insights into the situation. The situation, as you say, is a complex one and the answers to the questions posed not clear cut.

Caco

Long term, the overall New Zealand helicopter accident rate has been reducing. The overall fatal accident rate, which reached a 3-yearly rate of 2.5 per 100,000 hours after 2014, has also been reducing however is still a way off the low 2009-2010 rate.

In the air transport sector the accident rate has been decreasing after a sharp spike after 2014. The agricultural Rate has also been steadily decreasing, In the training and other commercial sectors the data paints a different picture with increasing accident rates. Note that the recent significant reduction of flight hours in these sectors means that the rates have spiked sharply:

As usual, as ever with stats, the truth is never straightforward.

Caco

"The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is warning "loose items" on helicopters can be deadly as investigators probe whether a pair of overalls contributed to the helicopter triple fatality in Wanaka last month..."

https://www.odt.co.nz/regions/wanaka/lo ... deadly-caa

It wouldn't be the first time that loose kit has downed a helicopter.



Caco

One of my Cranwell students died in a heli crash where, I think, a barrel struck the tail rotor.

I guess there is a temptation to think that the passengers, because they have flown often, can be relied on to stow gear and themselves securely, without any further checking by the pilot. If a pair of overalls being sucked out and hitting the tail rotor is the cause then at least the reason for the accident will be known sooner - assuming there is some evidence left after the fire. The evidence from the pilot of the other aircraft should be enough though and the lesson learned - the hard way sadly. We're all human and make mistakes, though usually not with fatal consequences. It also applies to things being blown up from below by the downwash as well - a Squirrel being downed by an unsecured tarpaulin from a ship's deck in Norway a few years ago, for instance.

FD2 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:56 am

..... a Squirrel being downed by an unsecured tarpaulin from a ship's deck in Norway a few years ago, for instance.

That was flown by the famous - or infamous - 'Q'. He's a shy, retiring kind of bloke as can be seen from this extract from his own Facebook page:

Captain Q is a helicopter pilot of extreme excellence.

He's had his fair share of incidents over the years - one being the R44 ditching on a 440nm leg in the Antartic in 2003.

AAIB Report - G-NUDE Antartic Ditching

AAIB Extract (1):

The pilots would not provide details of the amount of fuel carried on board but reported that it was
sufficient for the crossing. Their flight plan specified an endurance of 7 hours 30 minutes. An
unmodified R44 fitted with an auxiliary fuel tank, carrying its maximum capacity of 185 litres of
usable fuel would have given an endurance of just over 3 hours.

AAIB Extract (2):

They established the helicopter in the cruise at 700 feet and a 30 kt tailwind gave them a groundspeed of 120 kt. Just over four hours later, approaching King George Island, they observed sea fog ahead of them so they headed to the southwest and attempted to make landfall.

A lot can be said by the AAIB by leaving things unsaid!

CharlieOneSix wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 10:17 am

FD2 wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 14, 2018 9:56 am

..... a Squirrel being downed by an unsecured tarpaulin from a ship's deck in Norway a few years ago, for instance.

That was flown by the famous - or infamous - 'Q'. He's a shy, retiring kind of bloke as can be seen from this extract from his own Facebook page:

Captain Q is a helicopter pilot of extreme excellence.

He's had his fair share of incidents over the years - one being the R44 ditching on a 440nm leg in the Antartic in 2003.

AAIB Report - G-NUDE Antartic Ditching

AAIB Extract (1):

The pilots would not provide details of the amount of fuel carried on board but reported that it was
sufficient for the crossing. Their flight plan specified an endurance of 7 hours 30 minutes. An
unmodified R44 fitted with an auxiliary fuel tank, carrying its maximum capacity of 185 litres of
usable fuel would have given an endurance of just over 3 hours.

AAIB Extract (2):

They established the helicopter in the cruise at 700 feet and a 30 kt tailwind gave them a groundspeed of 120 kt. Just over four hours later, approaching King George Island, they observed sea fog ahead of them so they headed to the southwest and attempted to make landfall.

A lot can be said by the AAIB by leaving things unsaid!

Max range with full main and auxiliary is 185 useable ((116 + 69) litres which gives 3 hrs max (tanks dry) as C16 says. I am surprised that they were allowed to stonewall the AAIB with respect to any additional fuel they may have carried over and above this (or not). If they didn't have a another tank on the back seat then this was a most egregious error indeed!

Caco

Update: the wheels grind slowly.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/ ... atal-crash

Cruel to all parties that the NZ authorities have taken so long to make this decision to prosecute. The family run business lost two sons within 3 months of each other in separate accidents, and the families of the passenger victims of the second accident must have have also suffered unduly due to the delay too.

I assume that there will be questions about the maintenance/operational procedures of the helicopter given...

TAIC chief commissioner Jane Meares also said there were three incidents in the month prior, in which doors on the same Hughes 500 helicopter opened in flight.

On the subject of how errant debris can down the best of professionals...



Nobody was killed in this accident, despite the TV show's hyperbole. Filmed off the Wild Coast of SA if my memory serves me correctly.

Update, finally:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/ ... e-fatality