Cosmick Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 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 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 About as accurate as most media stories about aviation. Completely wrong. I remember seeing video of the crash; what was the correct story? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 Try this link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5774750/asd_53_nov_67.pdf 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted December 10, 2018 Share Posted December 10, 2018 'Ops normal' for our ABC.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim McDowall Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaba-who Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downunder Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted December 11, 2018 Share Posted December 11, 2018 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted December 12, 2018 Share Posted December 12, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now