More fine news reporting from CH9

Got a good story? Tell it here.
User avatar
FerrariFlyer
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1411
Joined: Aug 2006

More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby FerrariFlyer » Sun Feb 11 2018, 06:31

Headline on the channel nine news feed reports that the tail ‘dropped off’...much like the quality of investigative journalism these days :roll:

Can anyone also shed any light on a new four seat R22?

Do journalists these days actually do any research into any of the ‘facts’ that they publish? Maybe they could consider calling their own flight department and ask a few questions?

https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/ ... wn-airport
Attachments
02AD3E3D-80A2-4A87-AB14-FFF2D1562794.jpeg
stick_monkey
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: May 2011

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby stick_monkey » Sun Feb 11 2018, 08:24

"Headline on the channel nine newsfeed reports that the tail ‘dropped off’...much like the quality of investigative journalism these days"

Gold FF!! :lol:
Probbo
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 38
Joined: Aug 2015

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Probbo » Sun Feb 11 2018, 10:00

Yep, the classic tail drop off after a misjudged auto. Been done numerous times before around the world. Good news, nobody seriously injured.
User avatar
Jabberwocky
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 411
Joined: Dec 2007

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Jabberwocky » Sun Feb 11 2018, 10:01

The skids went quite flat for a low level drop..?
User avatar
oneadi
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 11
Joined: Aug 2011

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby oneadi » Sun Feb 11 2018, 11:18

https://youtu.be/ykjz9qI2PPo

I think Denzel Made this point!
Welcome to Bladeslapper where opinions become facts! and everyone has an opinion. pop;
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby hand in pants » Sun Feb 11 2018, 23:16

The sad fact is that todays "reporters", I refuse to call them journalists, know absolutely nothing about what they report or have any interest in it. It's been the same for years now and is just getting worse. some years ago I was approached by a man with a note book and pen after landing a machine in a golf course near Bankstown, he asked me what happened. I told him I wasn't the pilot, even though I obviously was, and his reply was, "you can tell me what happened or I can just make something up". He made something up.
It goes further than just the clown in the street with a microphone, heads of news department must surely approve what goes to air or to print. It does seem obvious that there is no "quality control" at work, just make it sound like a drama and get it out there. The art of making simple things dramatic is alive and well too. Nothing like a life threatening car accident where nobody was injured. The house burns to the ground and its lucky nobody was home or there could have been deaths. They could have had 300 visitors and they might have all died as well. Nothing more news worthy than being at the court house and shoving the microphone in some morons face and asking stupid questions. Would you do it again, are you sorry for what you did. have you got anything to say to your victims? Usual answers from these bottom feeders, yes, no, I'll be back.
And they wonder why they are not popular anymore.
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
SpecialGray
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 73
Joined: Feb 2013

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby SpecialGray » Mon Feb 12 2018, 01:33

At least the front didn't fall off

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM&t=2s
Usually 'down here' wishing I was 'up there'
arrrj
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 340
Joined: Jul 2012

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby arrrj » Mon Feb 12 2018, 01:37

Disgraceful reporting. So typical of the laziness of reporters today.

It would be so hard to google how many seats a R22 had !

I doubt it was an practice auto accident, more likely a low level training maneuver gone wrong. The pic shows the machine on the western grass at BK. No autos into there. (Unless it was a real one, going into the main pad ?).

Top marks for the instructor who put it down the right way up, after the tail got chopped off.

It was 30 knots (from 120) at BK yesterday, Sydney was not so friendly for flying - I know, I was up :?

Arrrj
wotyaup2
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: May 2012

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby wotyaup2 » Mon Feb 12 2018, 03:07

arrrj wrote:Disgraceful reporting. So typical of the laziness of reporters today.

It would be so hard to google how many seats a R22 had !

I doubt it was an practice auto accident, more likely a low level training maneuver gone wrong. The pic shows the machine on the western grass at BK. No autos into there. (Unless it was a real one, going into the main pad ?).

Top marks for the instructor who put it down the right way up, after the tail got chopped off.

It was 30 knots (from 120) at BK yesterday, Sydney was not so friendly for flying - I know, I was up :?

Arrrj



Now I'm no expert, but if it was 30 kts, then I'm fairly certain that the aircraft should not of been flying anyway, as there is something in the POH about, blah blah blah more than 25kts wind, pilot manipulating the controls must have 200hrst TT and atleast 50hrs of that to be in an RHC R22. That means no dual instruction if the surface wind is more than 25kts.
Niko
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Jul 2014

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Niko » Mon Feb 12 2018, 03:17

wotyaup2 wrote:
arrrj wrote:Disgraceful reporting. So typical of the laziness of reporters today.

It would be so hard to google how many seats a R22 had !

I doubt it was an practice auto accident, more likely a low level training maneuver gone wrong. The pic shows the machine on the western grass at BK. No autos into there. (Unless it was a real one, going into the main pad ?).

Top marks for the instructor who put it down the right way up, after the tail got chopped off.

It was 30 knots (from 120) at BK yesterday, Sydney was not so friendly for flying - I know, I was up :?

Arrrj



Now I'm no expert, but if it was 30 kts, then I'm fairly certain that the aircraft should not of been flying anyway, as there is something in the POH about, blah blah blah more than 25kts wind, pilot manipulating the controls must have 200hrst TT and atleast 50hrs of that to be in an RHC R22. That means no dual instruction if the surface wind is more than 25kts.


Whilst it once was true - It was for pilots with low hours only. 25kt maximum limit within a 15kt gust range. This is no longer the case and this limitation will not be found inside the POH
_chopper
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 21
Joined: Feb 2014

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby _chopper » Mon Feb 12 2018, 03:55

Niko wrote:
wotyaup2 wrote:
Now I'm no expert, but if it was 30 kts, then I'm fairly certain that the aircraft should not of been flying anyway, as there is something in the POH about, blah blah blah more than 25kts wind, pilot manipulating the controls must have 200hrst TT and atleast 50hrs of that to be in an RHC R22. That means no dual instruction if the surface wind is more than 25kts.


Whilst it once was true - It was for pilots with low hours only. 25kt maximum limit within a 15kt gust range. This is no longer the case and this limitation will not be found inside the POH


Not So Niko.
Current R22 POH Section 2 Page 2-15

"The following limitations (1-3) are to be observed unless
the pilot manipulating the controls has logged 200 or more
flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 of which must be
in the RHC Model R22 helicopter, and has completed the
awareness training specified in Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, issued February 27, 1995.
1.
Flight when surface winds exceed 25 knots,
including gusts, is prohibited.
2.
Flight when surface wind gust spreads exceed 15
knots is prohibited.
3.
Continued flight in moderate, severe, or extreme
turbulence is prohibited."
Niko
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Jul 2014

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Niko » Mon Feb 12 2018, 04:26

_chopper wrote:
Niko wrote:
wotyaup2 wrote:
Now I'm no expert, but if it was 30 kts, then I'm fairly certain that the aircraft should not of been flying anyway, as there is something in the POH about, blah blah blah more than 25kts wind, pilot manipulating the controls must have 200hrst TT and atleast 50hrs of that to be in an RHC R22. That means no dual instruction if the surface wind is more than 25kts.


Whilst it once was true - It was for pilots with low hours only. 25kt maximum limit within a 15kt gust range. This is no longer the case and this limitation will not be found inside the POH


Not So Niko.
Current R22 POH Section 2 Page 2-15

"The following limitations (1-3) are to be observed unless
the pilot manipulating the controls has logged 200 or more
flight hours in helicopters, at least 50 of which must be
in the RHC Model R22 helicopter, and has completed the
awareness training specified in Special Federal Aviation
Regulation (SFAR) No. 73, issued February 27, 1995.
1.
Flight when surface winds exceed 25 knots,
including gusts, is prohibited.
2.
Flight when surface wind gust spreads exceed 15
knots is prohibited.
3.
Continued flight in moderate, severe, or extreme
turbulence is prohibited."


Thanks Chopper. That is the page that wotyaup2 was referring to

A bit of history behind this page. This page was put in because of a regulation SFAR 73. This Special Federal Aviation Regulation was issued due to a number of accidents involving R22 series aircraft. It was put in force in the late 90's -

In 2008 this SFAR was repealed and subsequently that page was terminated. Don't take my word for it, you can read all about it here http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument - note that the language used in SFAR is the same as the flight manual, giving evidence that Robinson was complying with the SFAR. This was no longer necessary when the SFAR was terminated - it was then extended with the -2. However those remain FAA requirements. CASA to my knowledge do not have them. Australia is governed by CASA, and not FAA

There are rules in Australia that do not apply elsewhere either. For instance the 25hrly inspection is a CASA requirement
User avatar
Bedouin Prince
2nd Dan
2nd Dan
Posts: 356
Joined: Aug 2008

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Bedouin Prince » Mon Feb 12 2018, 07:59

https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/upl ... _poh_2.pdf

It's still there. Just opened that up from the Robinson website, so if anything is current that should be.
I'm a pessimist, that way I'm either always being proven right, or pleasantly surprised.
Niko
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Jul 2014

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Niko » Mon Feb 12 2018, 08:23

Bedouin Prince wrote:https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/r22_poh_2.pdf

It's still there. Just opened that up from the Robinson website, so if anything is current that should be.


That’s the -2 I was talking about https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... binson.pdf

It’s a requirement for USA. Because they have SFAR 73-2. In Australia there is no SFAR 73 legislation to my knowledge. Feel free to correct if I’m wrong

Thus my example with upper frame inspections. There is a 25hrly requirement here in Australia but no requirement in USA. Different country different rules
Last edited by Niko on Wed Feb 14 2018, 05:56, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Twistgrip
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1024
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Twistgrip » Mon Feb 12 2018, 10:01

Irrespective of all that, I’m sure the instructor had more than 200 hrs.

Many years ago a CFI instructor at a flying school I was at used to can students when he saw the 25kt advisory limit but that was 6hrs after the TAF was issued that morning.

Had to remind him that it was cavok and calm until at least midday so could fit at least 2 students in. )c/
"You can watch things happen, you can make things happen or you can wonder what happened"
wotyaup2
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 27
Joined: May 2012

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby wotyaup2 » Tue Feb 13 2018, 04:49

Niko wrote:
Bedouin Prince wrote:https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/r22_poh_2.pdf

It's still there. Just opened that up from the Robinson website, so if anything is current that should be.


That’s the -2 I was talking about https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policie ... binson.pdf

It’s a requirement for USA. Because they have SFAR 73-2 In Australia there is no SFAR 73 legislation to my knowledge. Feel free to correct if I’m wrong

Thus my example with upper frame inspections. There is a 25hrly requirement here in Australia but no requirement in USA. Different country different rules



I don't know mate, I mean we all know how amazing CASA is at saying it was the pilots fault, and seen as it is still in the POH, if something was to go wrong, well I'm sure we could all agree that CASA's view would not be a positive one for the PIC involved, we have to abide by the POH, and its in there.
But I guess the next debate would be there view on the bit about "unless the pilot manipulating the controls". As all instructors (unless they inked there own log book) would have the hours, but during a training flight, they are not the one manipulating the controls. Still so much left open to interoperation.
User avatar
hand in pants
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1473
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby hand in pants » Wed Feb 14 2018, 01:50

Watyaup2, hard to argue with your logic. But, as an instructor you may not be operating the controls, but you are the pilot in command at all times. Things start to go wrong, you're there to fix it.
I feel for the poor bugger who was in the command seat, things can go wrong all the time and you catch it before death knocks on the window and grins at you. I blame my grey hair on all of the students who unknowingly spent their lesson trying to kill me and them without knowing it. And most of you know who you are.....................

And a lot of you went on to instructing and know I'm right.............
Hand in Pants, I'm thinking, my god, that IS huge!!!!!!!!
User avatar
CYHeli
4th Dan
4th Dan
Posts: 1820
Joined: Jun 2006

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby CYHeli » Wed Feb 14 2018, 03:16

Niko, thank you for the link, yes that publication has been repealed.
Here is a link to the version which is still current, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument

You are also correct that the SFAR as an FAA document is not enforceable in Australia. Unfortunately, CASA have considered it enough of an issue that they introduced the R22/R44 flight reviews as separate flight reviews from other SEH. So in effect, we might as well read the SFAR and apply it to training. In a previous employment, we actually printed the SFAR out and added it to the POH because most pilots had read the page in the POH but had never read the SFAR. It was there for education only, and it is a damn good guide.

HIP the POH was amended at some stage from reading the PIC to the pilot manipulating the controls because some instructors were too slow to grab the controls back.
The other expression that I like is "students doing their incompetent best."
What you leave behind is not what is engraved in stone monuments, but what is woven into the lives of others.
Niko
Silver Wings
Silver Wings
Posts: 31
Joined: Jul 2014

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Niko » Wed Feb 14 2018, 05:54

CYHeli wrote:Niko, thank you for the link, yes that publication has been repealed.
Here is a link to the version which is still current, http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guida ... enDocument

You are also correct that the SFAR as an FAA document is not enforceable in Australia. Unfortunately, CASA have considered it enough of an issue that they introduced the R22/R44 flight reviews as separate flight reviews from other SEH. So in effect, we might as well read the SFAR and apply it to training. In a previous employment, we actually printed the SFAR out and added it to the POH because most pilots had read the page in the POH but had never read the SFAR. It was there for education only, and it is a damn good guide.

HIP the POH was amended at some stage from reading the PIC to the pilot manipulating the controls because some instructors were too slow to grab the controls back.
The other expression that I like is "students doing their incompetent best."


100% CY, thanks.

The reason we went down this rabbit hole is because a member here stipulated that the pilot was braking the law. It's tough enough after an accident - and that's without members of an online forum posting that the pilot was breaking laws that do not exist in Australia. It was my intent to showcase that this is not the case. I didn't want to go through three rounds of 'whack a mole' but was too invested to let it slide

The Robinson Safety courses, SFAR courses/materials are of course excellent. After all, laws of physics apply equally around the world
User avatar
Eric Hunt
3rd Dan
3rd Dan
Posts: 769
Joined: Sep 2006

Re: More fine news reporting from CH9

Postby Eric Hunt » Wed Feb 14 2018, 06:59

After all, laws of physics apply equally around the world


They wouldn't if CA$A had their way - there would be a separate bunch of laws purely for Australia's benefit, way more complex than anything Newton could have dreamed up.

Return to “There I was...”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest