EC135 ditching

What have you heard?
dark horse
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 42
Joined: Apr 2013

EC135 ditching

Postby dark horse » Wed Mar 14 2018, 22:56

zzodr
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 47
Joined: Sep 2015

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby zzodr » Wed Mar 14 2018, 23:41

Balibelly
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 18
Joined: Apr 2016

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Balibelly » Thu Mar 15 2018, 04:31

:( I was only having beers with him In Bali a few weeks ago, such a great guy!
Last edited by Balibelly on Thu Mar 15 2018, 12:09, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1425
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby FerrariFlyer » Thu Mar 15 2018, 11:04

Latest news update regarding the search for a friend and peer. Thoughts are with his colleagues and family at this very difficult time.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-1 ... ht/9553452
User avatar
huey
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 93
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby huey » Fri Mar 16 2018, 08:06

Any more news on this?

Huey
Huey
User avatar
pohm1
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 520
Joined: Apr 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby pohm1 » Fri Mar 16 2018, 08:47

Multiple aircraft have been involved in the search, from SAR S92 to B206 and lots in between, sadly without success.

A sonar survey vessel has joined the operation today which hopefully find the wreck, in what is comparatively shallow water, ~20m I’m told.

P1
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1425
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby FerrariFlyer » Fri Mar 16 2018, 12:18

Saucepan
Gold Wings
Gold Wings
Posts: 101
Joined: Jan 2014

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Saucepan » Sat Mar 17 2018, 07:31

Missing pilot named. Family contacted.

https://thewest.com.au/news/pilbara/por ... b88777478z

Condolences and thoughts go to the people I know.
stick_monkey
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 32
Joined: May 2011

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby stick_monkey » Fri May 4 2018, 05:27

User avatar
Hello Pilots
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 407
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Hello Pilots » Fri May 4 2018, 06:50

Blows my mind that a company that operates MPTs SOP is three year HUET renewels.....the tragic result of this is evident AND employing a pilot who hadnt done one in 9 years.
A mate died because of a rushed job.
User avatar
skypig
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1522
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby skypig » Fri May 4 2018, 09:48

This is going to prove the adage:
“If you think safety* is expensive, try having an accident#”


* In this case HUET
# In this case negligence possibly contributing to a fatal outcome.
User avatar
Hello Pilots
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 407
Joined: Jul 2010

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby Hello Pilots » Fri May 4 2018, 10:33

I also thought those personal breathing thingies would have been mandatory? Shows how much I know.
I need a HUET which is valid for three year as its mandatory to throw a bit of water around during summer( hovering over a dam which one could probably stand up in with your head out of water). Now compare that to a job that requires every single flight to be conducted over water day and night and in some cases up to 120nm out to sea.
Correct again Mr Pig -“If you think safety* is expensive, try having an accident#”
After reading that prelim ATSB report there is a fair few of those holes in the swiss cheese lining up......Makes you wonder how serious those CRM courses are actually taken by operators.
All I can say is that Id be s#!t myself if I was in a position of responsibility with that company.
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1425
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby FerrariFlyer » Fri May 4 2018, 13:06

Read the interim report the day it was released and it confirms most people's suspicions as well as raising several new questions.

Of so many issues and questions the report raised, I was most stunned by the simple fact that our friend and professional colleague had not completed HUET in nine years yet he was conducting an operation over water that would expose him to the risk of ditching for a substantial period of his time airborne. Whilst HUET is but one tool in the safety equation for over water operations it is the most basic and a seemingly damning oversight.

Notwithstanding the substantial loss that is created as a result of a death within our industry, I trust that a valuable and much-needed lesson is learnt and some good comes from the accident else we risk repeating the same mistake again. Failing to do much after this incident means we don't evolve as an industry and we fail to achieve best practice - which is, effectively, to put in place any and all reasonable mitigating measures to increase the chances of safe egress after a ditching. Regular HUET in isolation is a good step but still neglects several other important things that can be done.

RIP BG.
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby havick » Sat May 5 2018, 03:10

FerrariFlyer wrote:Read the interim report the day it was released and it confirms most people's suspicions as well as raising several new questions.

Of so many issues and questions the report raised, I was most stunned by the simple fact that our friend and professional colleague had not completed HUET in nine years yet he was conducting an operation over water that would expose him to the risk of ditching for a substantial period of his time airborne. Whilst HUET is but one tool in the safety equation for over water operations it is the most basic and a seemingly damning oversight.

Notwithstanding the substantial loss that is created as a result of a death within our industry, I trust that a valuable and much-needed lesson is learnt and some good comes from the accident else we risk repeating the same mistake again. Failing to do much after this incident means we don't evolve as an industry and we fail to achieve best practice - which is, effectively, to put in place any and all reasonable mitigating measures to increase the chances of safe egress after a ditching. Regular HUET in isolation is a good step but still neglects several other important things that can be done.

RIP BG.


I wonder if the deceased was conscious after the impact and simply unable to extricate himself, or unconscious as a result of the impact. What a terrible way to go if he simply couldn’t get out.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
User avatar
bladepitch
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 612
Joined: Jul 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby bladepitch » Sat May 5 2018, 03:34

Havick.

My thoughts exactly and sadly, was probably the case...
lowlevelhell
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 76
Joined: Jan 2014

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby lowlevelhell » Sat May 5 2018, 04:02

havick wrote:
FerrariFlyer wrote:Read the interim report the day it was released and it confirms most people's suspicions as well as raising several new questions.

Of so many issues and questions the report raised, I was most stunned by the simple fact that our friend and professional colleague had not completed HUET in nine years yet he was conducting an operation over water that would expose him to the risk of ditching for a substantial period of his time airborne. Whilst HUET is but one tool in the safety equation for over water operations it is the most basic and a seemingly damning oversight.

Notwithstanding the substantial loss that is created as a result of a death within our industry, I trust that a valuable and much-needed lesson is learnt and some good comes from the accident else we risk repeating the same mistake again. Failing to do much after this incident means we don't evolve as an industry and we fail to achieve best practice - which is, effectively, to put in place any and all reasonable mitigating measures to increase the chances of safe egress after a ditching. Regular HUET in isolation is a good step but still neglects several other important things that can be done.

RIP BG.


I wonder if the deceased was conscious after the impact and simply unable to extricate himself, or unconscious as a result of the impact. What a terrible way to go if he simply couldn’t get out.


"At the time of recovery, he was not wearing his helmet, his harness was unfastened
and his PFD had not been deployed"

I dunno about you but that makes me think he was trying to escape but drowned, what a horrific way to die... :(
No bucks? No Buck Rogers! 8)
User avatar
havick
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1101
Joined: Jun 2007

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby havick » Sat May 5 2018, 05:56

lowlevelhell wrote:
havick wrote:
FerrariFlyer wrote:Read the interim report the day it was released and it confirms most people's suspicions as well as raising several new questions.

Of so many issues and questions the report raised, I was most stunned by the simple fact that our friend and professional colleague had not completed HUET in nine years yet he was conducting an operation over water that would expose him to the risk of ditching for a substantial period of his time airborne. Whilst HUET is but one tool in the safety equation for over water operations it is the most basic and a seemingly damning oversight.

Notwithstanding the substantial loss that is created as a result of a death within our industry, I trust that a valuable and much-needed lesson is learnt and some good comes from the accident else we risk repeating the same mistake again. Failing to do much after this incident means we don't evolve as an industry and we fail to achieve best practice - which is, effectively, to put in place any and all reasonable mitigating measures to increase the chances of safe egress after a ditching. Regular HUET in isolation is a good step but still neglects several other important things that can be done.

RIP BG.


I wonder if the deceased was conscious after the impact and simply unable to extricate himself, or unconscious as a result of the impact. What a terrible way to go if he simply couldn’t get out.


"At the time of recovery, he was not wearing his helmet, his harness was unfastened
and his PFD had not been deployed"

I dunno about you but that makes me think he was trying to escape but drowned, what a horrific way to die... :(


Thanks for the snapshot, must’ve skimmed over that part reading it on my phone.
"You'll have to speak up, I'm wearing a towel."
User avatar
skypig
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1522
Joined: Nov 2005

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby skypig » Sat May 5 2018, 07:01

Having completed my first HUET utilizing a UEBS* (Underwater Emergency Breathing System - mini SCUBA tank.) I think it should be considered negligent (if not illegal) to perform Off Shore ops without the system and regular training. Doubly so for anything with a higher risk, like say; night MPT.

It’s almost certain, that someone with the ability to remove their helmet and harness while underwater (But tragically perish, without egressing) would have had several minutes to find a way out with a UEBS.

Personally, I believe the 3 yearly requirement (increased from 2 yearly where I work) is far too long between proficiency practice.
Again, my opinion is an annual short course (2hrs?, a few dunks with UEBS, a few without.) would make a tragic outcome less likely should the Helicopter end up in the water.
The fact is, the more recently you have practiced, the more likely you are to survive a ditching.

“Safety is our top priority! Provided it’s cheap, and only inconveniences the front line workers - Hi Vis vests :roll: , Acronym rich “Safety Systems” )c/ , online safety training courses :arrow: , “bump hats”... Oc:= . True life saving initiatives, that cost more, and/or interfere with rosters - lets do the minimum.”





* I’ve done more HUET courses than I can count. All the previous ones relied on holding my breath. The surviving pilot in the subject accident states he didn’t have a chance to take a proper breath before the cockpit filled with water.
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1425
Joined: Aug 2006

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby FerrariFlyer » Sat May 5 2018, 07:54

skypig wrote: Having completed my first HUET utilizing a UEBS* (Underwater Emergency Breathing System - mini SCUBA tank.) I think it should be considered negligent (if not illegal) to perform Off Shore ops without the system and regular training. Doubly so for anything with a higher risk, like say; night MPT.

It’s almost certain, that someone with the ability to remove their helmet and harness while underwater (But tragically perish, without egressing) would have had several minutes to find a way out with a UEBS.

* I’ve done more HUET courses than I can count. All the previous ones relied on holding my breath. The surviving pilot in the subject accident states he didn’t have a chance to take a proper breath before the cockpit filled with water.


Agree 100% on the use of UEBS for overwater operations. I know people generally don't like wearing helmets due mainly for comfort reasons but they are a great way to protect your head (hearing and eyesight alike) as well as affording protection in an accident, ditching, birtstrike etc. UEBS becomes the gold standard and affords the maximum chance to escape.

The link below makes for compelling reading, in particular the section on Emergency Underwater Breathing Aids and Flight Helmets and Visors:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repor ... sec1_15_13

From the report:

1.15.13 Emergency Underwater Breathing Aids
In 1989, a Royal Air Force report demonstrated that an air supply significantly aided in escape from a submerged helicopter.51 Studies suggest that survival rates of helicopter ditching accidents may be low due in part to an inability to hold one's breath long enough to allow the helicopter to settle and to subsequently perform an escape from an often inverted and submerged helicopter.52 EUBAs have been shown to extend the amount of time available for underwater escapes beyond the 29 to 92 seconds53 normally required, and increase the likelihood of a successful escape.54

1.15.14 Flight Helmets and Visors
Although not fatally injured during the impact sequence, both pilots received severe injuries due in part to striking their heads/faces against the instrument panel. Neither pilot was wearing head protection (i.e., approved helmet, complete with visor).The majority of pilots surveyed cited discomfort as the reason they did not wear head protection. Very few of the surveyed pilots had fully considered that partial incapacitation due to a head or face injury could compromise their ability to help their passengers after an accident.
lowlevelhell
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 76
Joined: Jan 2014

Re: EC135 ditching

Postby lowlevelhell » Sat May 5 2018, 07:55

^^^ couldn't agree more mate!
No bucks? No Buck Rogers! 8)

Return to “I heard...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests