Cessna 402, VH-RJH

Summary

The owner/pilot of the Cessna 402 was conducting a check circuit following the installation of a repaired engine-driven fuel pump. He occupied the left control seat. The intended lessee, who was also a pilot, occupied the right control seat.

A witness observed the aircraft fly downwind on a left circuit for runway 18 and complete what appeared to be a normal base turn. When the aircraft was on final approach, with the landing gear extended, it briefly pitched nose up and yawed left before the nose pitched down and the yaw was corrected. The aircraft then rapidly lost altitude and crashed into scrub short of the airport boundary fence and approximately 200 m from the runway threshold. Both occupants sustained serious injuries. The intended lessee later indicated that both engines had ceased operating almost simultaneously when the aircraft was on final approach. He said that he then moved both fuel selectors from main tanks to auxiliary tanks.

The aircraft was examined shortly after the accident. Very little fuel remained in any of the four fuel tanks. Three days later, after the aircraft was removed to a maintenance facility, the fuel tanks were drained. The amount of fuel recovered from each tank was measured as follows:

Left main: 2.50 US gallons / 9.5 litres
Left auxiliary: 2.75 US gallons / 10.45 litres
Right auxiliary: 3.0 US gallons / 11.4 litres
Right main: 1.25 US gallons / 4.75 litres

Total 9.5 US gallons / 36.1 litres

The aircraft was equipped with optional 20 US gallon auxiliary fuel tanks. The Cessna 402 Pilot's Operating Handbook stated that the total unusable fuel for this configuration was 3 US gallons, consisting of 1 US gallon in each main tank, and 0.5 US gallons in each auxiliary tank.

Both engine-driven fuel pumps were removed for testing. They functioned correctly. The engine-driven fuel pump from the left engine had been re-installed the day before the accident after being repaired. During subsequent engine ground runs, maintenance personnel noted that the fuel gauges indicated less than 5 US gallons in each main tank. Although there was a small amount of usable fuel recovered from the main tanks, it is possible that aircraft attitude changes during the approach allowed the relatively small amount of fuel remaining to move away from the fuel pick-up points inside the main tanks, thereby starving the engines of fuel.

No documentary or witness information was found to suggest that the aircraft had been refuelled after the engine runs were completed, and prior to conducting the check circuit. Two witnesses stated that

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200102216
Occurrence date 18/05/2001
Location Maroochydore/Sunshine Coast, Aero.
State Queensland
Report release date 24/06/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Collision with terrain
Occurrence class Accident
Highest injury level Serious

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Cessna Aircraft Company
Model 402
Registration VH-RJH
Serial number 4020023
Sector Piston
Operation type Private
Departure point Maroochydore, QLD
Destination Maroochydore, QLD
Damage Substantial

Fairchild SA227-AC, VH-EES

Safety Action

Local safety action

As a result of the investigation, Airservices Australia advised that they were proposing a change to procedures in AIP and MATS. The changes proposed were to place the responsibility onto the pilot or vehicle driver receiving the conditional clearance to identify and avoid the aircraft or vehicle causing the conditional clearance, prior to proceeding, rather than relying on an implication that it was their responsibility. The other significant change proposed was to include "position" as a requirement of the conditional clearance. The proposed amendments were to be included in both MATS and AIP for consistency. As of 6 May 2002, the changes had been drafted for the final consultation process.

Significant Factors

  1. The Titan pilot did not comply with the condition of the clearance that was issued.
  2. Aerodrome works and associated background lighting made sighting of the Titan, from the tower, more difficult.
  3. The controller did not intervene when the Titan began to enter the runway to line up.



 

Analysis

The aerodrome controller was relatively busy and involved with multiple tasks prior to the occurrence. Both of the incident aircraft had been holding for a lengthy period and the controller was attempting to expedite each of their departures. By issuing a conditional clearance to the pilot of the Titan, the controller achieved two outcomes. First the pilot was tasked to line up, which would expedite the aircraft's departure and notify the pilot that he was next. Secondly, the controller, in effect, transferred his responsibility for separation to the pilot by making the clearance conditional. The condition of the clearance was that the pilot would monitor the departing aircraft and line up behind it. That distanced the controller from the responsibility of watching and waiting for the Metro to roll for take-off and then telling the Titan pilot to line up after the Metro had passed the intersection. The delegation of responsibility allowed the controller to concentrate on other tasks in the tower, such as the monitoring and control of taxiing aircraft around the tarmac area during the works in progress.

The Metro had been holding for departure for a significant period. The crew, when eventually cleared to line up and subsequently take off, responded quickly and accurately to fit in with what appeared on radio to be a busy and complex period. The controller sounded confident in the various instructions being issued and the crew would not have expected an aircraft to line up in front of them. The crew did not comprehend that the readback of the conditional clearance included advice that the Titan was at the Foxtrot intersection and was lining up. Their focus, once cleared for take-off, would have been on take-off checks and their departure profile.

The Titan had been holding for over 10 minutes and the pilot would have been keen to depart. He would not have been aware that the Metro was holding at the threshold of runway 16R. The Metro would have been difficult to see as its external lights would have blended in with the airfield lighting and the lights of Sydney to the north of the airport. When the Metro was cleared for take-off, because its position at the threshold was not annunciated by the controller and it was during the curfew period, the Titan pilot assumed the aircraft was departing from taxiway Golf. While the lights of the Metro would not have been obvious to the Titan pilot when he looked briefly to the right as he began to enter the runway, the landing lights should have been seen. Nevertheless, they may not have been obvious if they were directed away from the runway centreline while the Metro was still in the process of lining up.

Summary

A Fairchild SA227-AC (Metro) aircraft was cleared to take off from runway 16R at Sydney. A Cessna 404 (Titan), holding at the Foxtrot intersection with runway 16R, was cleared to line up behind the departing Metro. The Titan pilot acknowledged the conditional clearance and reported lining up at Foxtrot. As the Metro was rolling under take off power, the pilot noticed the Titan moving onto the runway. The Metro pilot veered the aircraft sharply to the right to avoid a collision and passed the Titan at 77 kts. The wingtip clearance between the two aircraft was estimated to be 6m. The take-off was aborted.

The investigation revealed that the Metro was cleared by air traffic control at 22:44 Eastern Standard Time to taxy to the Bravo One holding point on runway 16R. The aircraft was on a night freight operation to Brisbane and had two pilots on board. Bravo One was the most northerly of the taxiways on the eastern side of the north-south runways. The Bravo One taxiway entered runway 16R at the threshold allowing the full length of the runway for take-off. The co-pilot reported ready for take-off at 22:47:51, which was approximately 12 minutes before curfew. The Metro had taxied behind a Boeing 727 that was to depart first.

Aircraft movements between 23:00 and 06:00 local time at Sydney's Kingsford Smith Airport were regulated by the Sydney Airport Curfew Act 1995, the Sydney Airport Curfew Regulations and the Air Navigation (Aerodrome Curfew) Regulations. Aircraft that received a taxi clearance prior to 23:00 but subsequently departed after commencement of the curfew period were able to use the full length of the runway and were not required to reposition south of the intersection of runway 16R and taxiway Golf. However, aircraft that taxied after 23:00 were required to take-off from a position south of the intersection of taxiway Golf. That requirement was to minimise environmental noise in the residential areas to the north of the airport.

At 22:52:15, the controller had cleared the Boeing 727 to take off when the pilot of the Titan called for a taxi clearance. The Titan was scheduled for a single-pilot night freight operation to Canberra. The pilot of the Titan was instructed by the controller to stand by. Due to arriving traffic on runway 34L, the crew of the Metro was advised that a delay of around 10 minutes was probable. The Titan was then cleared to the taxiway Golf intersection, which was immediately changed to the taxiway Foxtrot intersection. The Foxtrot intersection was closer to the Titan's parking bay. Because the clearance was issued 7 minutes prior to curfew, taxiway Golf was not required for noise abatement purposes. The B727 departed and the controller then processed two other aircraft for landing on runway 34L before the Metro was cleared to line up at 23:04:12.

During the approximately 17-minute period that the Metro was waiting at the holding point, the controller made numerous transmissions to seven other aircraft, as well as the coordination with controllers in the Sydney terminal control unit. In addition, the controller had discussed the closures of taxiways with the safety officer in "Car 3" and had cleared an aircraft under tow on the north-east apron. All transmissions made by the controller sounded professional and confident.

When the second of the two landing aircraft had vacated runway 34L at taxiway Bravo 9, the Metro was cleared to take off from runway 16R. The clearance was issued at 23:05:00 and acknowledged by the pilot. Almost immediately, at 23:05:07, the pilot of the Titan was issued a conditional clearance to line up. The clearance was: "CSV, Metro departing, behind that aircraft line up". The pilot replied "Behind the Metro holding clear Foxtrot at the moment, lining up, CSV". Less than 30 seconds later, the Metro crew reported aborting take-off.

Neither the Metro pilot nor the controller understood that the Titan pilot had said that he was lining up at the Foxtrot intersection during the read back of the conditional clearance. The replay of the audio recording confirmed that the Titan pilot's readback transmission was difficult to understand.

The controller in the tower was working the combined position of aerodrome control and surface movement control. Although five controllers were rostered for duty until 2300, three had stood down earlier; after the last international aircraft had departed. Such a reduction in staff coverage was common practice. The other controller was absent from the tower on a break. The occurrence happened at night in clear weather conditions. Works in progress on the north-east sector of the airport increased the normal lighting within the area with a number of flashing lights and lighting towers.

The Titan pilot said that he understood that the line up clearance was a conditional clearance but had thought the Metro was departing from taxiway Golf because they were in the curfew period. He looked right and left when entering the runway but did not see the Metro, which was using the full length of the runway. The Foxtrot intersection was 462 m from the runway threshold and the Golf intersection was 1039 m from the runway threshold.

During discussions with the Metro crew, the pilot in command reported that all of their aircraft's external lighting was selected on, including the landing lights. After veering to the right to miss the Titan that was lining up, the pilot considered the take-off to be unstable and, therefore, aborted the departure. The aircraft returned to the apron.

The Manual of Air Traffic Services (MATS) stated at 6.3.8.2:

"An aircraft delayed by the traffic situation shall be issued traffic information if appropriate, and instructed to hold position off the runway, or shall be issued a conditional line-up clearance".

MATS did not provide a definition of a conditional clearance. However, there was a definition a conditional line-up clearance in the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP).

The AIP 3.4 - 14 at paragraph 4.5 defined Conditional Clearances as follows:

"Phrases such as "behind landing aircraft" or "after departing aircraft", will only be used for movements affecting the active runway(s) when the aircraft or vehicles concerned are seen by the appropriate controller, pilot or vehicle driver. In all cases, a conditional clearance will be given in the following order and consist of:

  1. identification;
  2. the condition (specify); and
  3. the clearance, eg:

    ATS: "(aircraft callsign) A340 ON SHORT FINAL, BEHIND THAT AIRCRAFT LINE UP".
    Pilot: "BEHIND THE A340 LINING UP (aircraft callsign)".
    Note: This implies the need for the aircraft receiving the conditional clearance to identify the aircraft or vehicle causing the conditional clearance."

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200102139
Occurrence date 15/05/2001
Location Sydney, Aero.
State New South Wales
Report release date 23/07/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Loss of separation
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Fairchild Industries Inc
Model SA227
Registration VH-EES
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Air Transport Low Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination Brisbane, QLD
Damage Nil

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Cessna Aircraft Company
Model 404
Registration VH-CSV
Serial number 4040217
Sector Piston
Operation type Air Transport Low Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination Canberra, ACT
Damage Nil

Boeing 767-338ER, VH-OGL

Summary

The Boeing 767 aircraft was at cruise altitude when the flight crew noticed a burning odour from the captain's light panel on the glareshield. The odour intensified and the flight crew donned supplemental oxygen masks. The crew then isolated the odour to the map and chart light rheostat switches, which were hot to the touch as was the surrounding panel. The switches were selected off and the odour dissipated. The crew descended the aircraft to flight level 250 in anticipation of a diversion and monitored the situation. As the odours did not recur, the crew elected to continue the flight as planned.

The operator reported that their maintenance personnel checked all instrument lighting control switches with no faults found. They then attempted to replicate the problem by turning on all switch rheostats to maximum intensity for a long period and observed no malfunction. A subsequent systems check revealed all operations normal. The aircraft technical log had noted a similar discrepancy two days prior to the occurrence. A decision was made to replace the map panel light rheostat as a precaution. No further problems were noted on subsequent flights.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200102129
Occurrence date 10/05/2001
Location 200 km S Kingscote
Report release date 04/07/2001
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 767
Registration VH-OGL
Serial number 25363
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Perth, WA
Destination Melbourne, VIC
Damage Nil

Piper PA-31, VH-FML

Summary

Approaching the top of the climb, the pilot of the Navajo observed that the cylinder head temperature (CHT) for the left engine was higher than normal. When the CHT started to exceed the accepted company maximum of 400 degrees Fahrenheit, the pilot enriched the mixture to attempt to control it. After reaching the desired cruise altitude and speed, a vibration was felt through the airframe. After confirming that the vibration was from the left engine, the pilot decided that further troubleshooting was not possible. He elected to shut down the left engine and feathered the propeller. With concern for last light, a diversion to an alternate aerodrome and successful single engine landing was carried out.

Maintenance investigation found that the left engine No. 6 cylinder fuel injection nozzle had become blocked. That cylinder assembly had recently been changed and the engineer thought that a small piece of ceramic might have been dislodged when the nozzle and supply line was disturbed. The cylinder also had the single cylinder head temperature probe for the left engine fitted to it and would have registered the high temperature in this cylinder due to the leaning effect of the blockage. The nozzle was cleaned and the aircraft returned to service.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200102124
Occurrence date 13/05/2001
Location 56 km E Telfer, (NDB)
State Western Australia
Report release date 10/07/2001
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Abnormal engine indications
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Piper Aircraft Corp
Model PA-31
Registration VH-FML
Serial number 31-8112015
Sector Piston
Operation type Charter
Departure point Punmu WA
Destination Port Hedland, WA
Damage Nil

Boeing 747SP-38, VH-EAB

Safety Action

Local safety action

Fatigue was a possible factor underlying the error. Management at the maintenance facility subsequently issued a safety alert and maintenance memo, stressing the importance of following the correct procedures and proper maintenance practices. Management has also instituted weekly meetings of engineers to discuss safety matters.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200101999
Occurrence date 05/05/2001
Location Darwin Aero.
State Northern Territory
Report release date 06/02/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 747
Registration VH-EAB
Serial number 22672
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Cairns, QLD
Destination Darwin, NT
Damage Nil

Bell 407, VH-WOQ

Significant Factors

  1. The operator's procedures were not appropriate to accept, plan and conduct an over-water, night, search-and-rescue flight.
  2. The helicopter was not adequately equipped to conduct a night, over-water, search and rescue flight.
  3. The conditions at a very low height above the water surface were conducive to visual illusions.
  4. The helicopter entered a high rate of descent on approach to the stranded yacht.

Analysis

The pilot commenced the approach from a height of 1,500 ft at about 1,900 m from the yacht and the helicopter impacted the water about 600 m short of the yacht. The inaccuracies induced by attempts to estimate distances at night, and given that the impact point distance from the yacht was also an estimation, it is likely that the pilot commenced his descent somewhat further out than he thought. However, even if the descent point was twice the distance he thought, then the rate of descent at about 50 to 60 kts would have been about 700 ft per minute, which correlates with the pilot's report that the helicopter was descending at 700 ft per minute passing 150 ft. The pilot also reported that he had diverted his attention to the outside, to a totally visual approach using only the searchlight for illumination. He had noted visual perception problems during the passes over the yacht. Although the pilot did not feel disorientated, he may have been experiencing the 'fishbowl' effect and some associated subtle disorientation and distortion of visual cues during the approach.

A descent rate of 700 ft per minute at 150 ft above the water was very high. The pilot was unlikely to arrest the rate of descent at 50 ft without the application of significant power. The wreckage evidence was consistent with the tail rotor striking the surface of the water at low power. Consequently, the introduction of a large amount of power before impact was unlikely.

It could not be determined if the use of the searchlight mitigated or exacerbated the 'black hole' effect. Any effect may have depended upon the intensity, angle, and beam width of the searchlight and what areas the searchlight illuminated during the approach. The pilot decided to revert to a visual only approach using the searchlight. It is likely that some form of visual illusion adversely influenced the pilot's handling of the helicopter during the latter part of the approach toward the yacht.

The high rate of descent flown during the latter stages of the approach was an inappropriate technique applied by the pilot. That was probably a result of the inadequate operator procedures and the pilot's lack of recency and proficiency in over-water night operations. Although the pilot was using the searchlight to assist him make a visual approach, the pilot lost situational awareness and did not visually comprehend the high rate of descent or the amount of power and control movement required to arrest the rate of descent. The pilot's loss of situational awareness was probably due to the lack of visual cues in the dark-night conditions and the lack of ground definition in the beam of the searchlight.

The decision to descend to 50 ft in black night conditions without the assistance of automatic stabilisation, height hold, automatic pilot or coupled systems was questionable especially when there was a lack of regulatory approval for the planned dropping of rescue equipment. The decision to transit the single-engine helicopter over water for an extended distance without a flotation system was arguably risky. The pilot appeared to have an inadequate understanding of the risks associated with the flight as it was planned especially considering the lack of regulatory approval, and his limited equipment, procedures, training and experience. The absence of clear organisational protocols for task acceptance or rejection may have influenced the pilot in accepting a task that involved a high risk.

The lack of formal risk management policies and procedures in determining task acceptance created an environment where the pilot was placed in a position where decisions were made without guidance as to what the operator considered acceptable risks. Although the operations manual permitted the helicopter to be operated below minimum safe altitude at night and to conduct search and rescue operations, the AOC did not permit the dropping of lifesaving equipment. Additionally, the operations manual provided no guidance on how such activities were to be conducted, including the patterns to be flown, rigging of equipment, crew interaction, and release parameters.

The crewman was usually employed as a paramedic and had been with the operator for 2 years as a part-time crewman, but he had not received CRM training. Consequently, the crewman was probably ill equipped to effectively contribute to the overall safety of the operation.

Although the crew successfully escaped the submerged helicopter wreckage, the difficulties experienced by the crew during the escape suggests that initial training and recency in helicopter underwater escape training (HUET) would have probably assisted in reducing the difficulties experienced.

The operator's lack of adequate documentation and associated lack of appropriate training, risk assessment tools, and published guidance inappropriately placed a large responsibility on the pilot to balance the safety of the aircraft and its crew with achieving life-saving missions that were the unit's function.

CONCLUSION

The helicopter was inadvertently flown into the water. The circumstances indicate that the accident was a result of human performance limitations and an absence of robust organisational defences.

FINDINGS

  1. The pilot was appropriately licensed and medically fit to conduct the flight.
  2. The crew was not adequately trained to conduct the flight.
  3. The operator did not have regulatory approval to drop articles from the helicopter by day or night.
  4. The operator's operations manual did not contain the required information or procedures for the pilot to conduct dropping of equipment from the helicopter.
  5. The operator's procedures, training and supervision were not adequate for the pilot to accept a night search and rescue operation over water.
  6. The crew was not adequately prepared for an emergency egress when the helicopter entered the water.
  7. The helicopter was considered capable of normal flight prior to impact with the water.

Factual Information

History of the flight

At about 1703 EST, aircraft operating north of Gladstone reported receiving an emergency locator transmitter (ELT) signal. Shortly afterwards, a satellite detected the signal, and at 1755 the Australian Search and Rescue organisation (AusSAR) established that the signal was originating from an area near Hixson Cay, on the edge of the Great Barrier Reef, about 150 NM northeast of Rockhampton. At 1900, a fixed-wing aircraft tasked by AusSAR departed Rockhampton to locate the source of the ELT transmission.

At 1953, the captain of a fishing vessel reported that he was communicating with the crew of a yacht who reported that the yacht was sinking. At 2006, the crew of the aircraft tasked by AusSAR reported locating the yacht and its two occupants. The crew also reported that the yacht's life raft had drifted away and that retrieval of the crew by the fishing vessel was unlikely due to the proximity of the reef. Nineteen minutes later, AusSAR received further reports from the crew of the aircraft that the yacht was in danger of sinking.

At 2055, AusSAR requested the availability of a Rockhampton-based rescue helicopter (Rescue 407) to assist in the rescue of the two people stranded on the yacht. The helicopter was only equipped for flight under the visual flight rules (VFR). The duty pilot advised AusSAR that he would not be able to recover the yacht's crew at night, but after confirming the weather details and planning the mission, he agreed to drop a life raft to them. He subsequently called in the duty crewman, who was employed as a paramedic and was a volunteer crewman with the helicopter rescue service.

AusSAR also sought the assistance of an instrument flight rules (IFR) capable helicopter, a Bell 412 (Rescue 500) from Brisbane. Rescue 500 departed Brisbane at 2115 and arrived at Heron Island at 0015.

The Rescue 407 crew refuelled the helicopter to full tanks and loaded several Jerry cans of fuel into the locker located behind the helicopter's cabin. The pilot reported that to hold fuel reserves for the required alternate airfield at Gladstone he had planned to land the helicopter at Hixson Cay to refuel from the Jerry cans. Hixson Cay was about 4 minutes flying time from the stranded yacht's location. Rescue 407 departed Rockhampton at about 2145, arriving on scene at about 2250. The fixed-wing aircraft that had been in the search area since 1945, departed for Rockhampton at about 2157.

The Rescue 407 crew reported that during the transit to the search area at 7,000 ft, they conducted the operator's standard over-water passenger briefing and the intentions for descending to locate the yacht. The pilot was occupying the right side cockpit seat and the crewman occupied the cabin seat next to the left cabin door. The pilot reported that he briefed the crewman that he intended to descend to 50 ft and hover-taxi past the yacht at about 25 kts keeping it on the left side of the helicopter. The crewman was to drop the life raft short of the yacht and then drape a 100 ft length of rope that was attached to the activation line of the life raft across the yacht for its crew to haul in the life raft.

The pilot reported that when he arrived on scene, he initially tracked towards the yacht at 1,500 ft, from west to east along the line of surf breaking on the edge of the reef, but he could not see the yacht in the white water of the surf. He attempted a number of approaches before changing the approach direction so the helicopter was tracking from south to north, at right angles to the reef. The pilot reported that during the last pass, he saw the yacht about 1 NM from the helicopter and commenced descent from 1,500 ft.

The pilot stated that he had initially set the Radar Altimeter (RADALT) altitude warning to 200 ft and after the helicopter had descended through that altitude, he reset the warning to 50 ft. When the helicopter was about 600 m from the yacht, the crewman called the RADALT as passing through 200 ft then 150 ft. On this call, the pilot reduced speed to 50 kts and noted that the rate of descent was 700 ft per minute. During the latter stages of the approach, the pilot's attention was directed totally outside, using the searchlight set to maximum beam width for external illumination. He was satisfied that the approach was progressing well. The crewman then called 50 ft and very soon after, the helicopter impacted the water. The pilot stated that, at the time the helicopter was flying at about 45 to 50 kts. He had not issued any instructions to the crewman to open the door or deploy the life raft. The crewman reported that he estimated the helicopter to be about 400 m from the yacht when he called 50 ft and that the pilot said, "good" before, "everything went black."

Both the pilot and crewman reported that the helicopter was operating normally before it impacted the water. The crewman said that both cabin doors were closed prior to impact.

The helicopter came to rest submerged inverted. Although both crewmembers were initially disoriented and the pilot experienced difficulty in escaping, both crewmembers successfully exited the helicopter. The pilot, who had not inflated his life jacket, returned to the helicopter soon after and retrieved the life raft from the cabin.

At about 2345, the fishing vessel lost contact with Rescue 407. Rescue 500 was tasked at 0038 to also search for Rescue 407, arriving on scene at 0140. During their approach to dispatch a life raft to the yacht, the crew of Rescue 500 saw the inverted helicopter and the associated life raft nearby. Rescue 500 dispatched a life raft for the yacht crew and then departed for Heron Island to await daybreak before attempting a rescue. Just after daybreak, Rescue 500 recovered the yacht and Rescue 407 crews.

Crew information

The pilot held a Commercial Pilot (Helicopter) Licence, a night VFR Rating (Helicopter) endorsed with Non-Directional Beacon (NDB), a current Grade 1 Flight Instructor Rating (Helicopter), and an expired Command Single-Engine Instrument Rating (Helicopter). The pilot was endorsed on the Bell 407 helicopter type. At the time of the occurrence, the pilot had accumulated a total of 9,593 flying hours, including 46.6 hours on type. He had flown 44.6 hours in the previous 90 days, including 41.6 hours on type and 16.4 hours at night.

The pilot reported that he had significant prior search and rescue experience, conducted in several helicopter types. He also reported that he had flown over 600 retrieval missions with a high percentage at night. In particular, the pilot commented that he had performed many missions to the small cays on the reefs at night without incident. The pilot said that he had completed Helicopter Underwater Escape Training (HUET) when he was in the Australian Defence Force, which was over 5 years prior to the accident. The pilot had not completed Crew Resource Management (CRM) training during his tenure with the operator.

The pilot held a current Class 1 medical certificate with a requirement to wear corrective lenses for distance vision and to have reading glasses available. The pilot's 4-day history leading up to the accident revealed irregular sleeping patterns but he had obtained sufficient sleep over this period. The pilot reported no physiological or medical condition that was likely to have impaired his performance, and that he was adequately rested and medically fit for the flight.

The crewman was employed as an ambulance officer, as an Advanced Care Paramedic and served as a part-time crewman with the helicopter rescue service. He had been part of the rescue service for 2 years but he had not undertaken HUET training or Crew Resource Management (CRM) training.

Helicopter information

The Bell 407 helicopter was equipped and certified to operate Day and Night VFR. It was not equipped with helicopter flotation equipment, automatic stabilisation or automatic pilot systems, nor was such equipment required by regulation. It was equipped with a 'Nightsun' searchlight.

The helicopter was fitted with a Bendix King KRA 10A radar altimeter receiver/transmitter unit and a KI 250 indicator. The indicator unit displayed height directly above the surface beneath the helicopter using a needle and dial-type analogue display. The 8.28 cm dial displayed height from 20 ft to 2,500 ft, although published specifications only assured accurate indications between 50 and 2,000 ft.

Meteorological information

Following the accident, the Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) provided the ATSB with an estimate of actual weather conditions at the accident site at 2330. The estimates were based on synoptic patterns and meteorological information for Gladstone. The BoM assessment indicated that visual meteorological conditions (VMC) would have existed at sea level with wind from 120 degrees true at 10 knots, no precipitation, good visibility, scattered cloud with a base of about 2,000 ft and some cloud at mid-levels.

The pilot reported that he was advised by the Meteorological Office at Rockhampton airport that the weather at Rockhampton and the area seaward of the coast would be fine with no cloud all night. The pilot did not report flying through cloud during the descent from 7,000 ft.

The pilot of the fixed-wing aircraft that had been dispatched to locate the ELT prior to the arrival of Rescue 407 reported that the visibility was good, with clear sky and that it was a dark night with only a small sliver of moon visible. The pilot returned to the area at about 0230 and reported that the weather conditions were similar to that observed earlier in the evening.

Astronomical data indicated that the moon was waxing crescent with 13 percent of the moon's visible disk illuminated. The moon set at 2025.

The crew of Rescue 500 reported that, while enroute to the search area, there was broken cloud at about 2,500 ft, no moon, extensive sea haze, and poor visibility.

Night VFR operations

There were no aviation regulatory requirements for pilots to consider the amount of external visual reference that was likely to be available for a flight conducted at night under VFR, with the exception of considering forecast cloud below the lowest safe altitude. The pilot was not required by the regulations to consider the amount of celestial illumination, amount of terrain lighting, and/or the presence of a visual horizon. Aviation weather forecasts did not provide information on the amount of celestial illumination nor were they required to do so. This information, however, was available from a variety of other sources.

There was no regulatory requirement for the night VFR rating competencies to be demonstrated during regular flight reviews or otherwise at recurrent intervals. There was no requirement for the holder of a night VFR rating to have demonstrated any recent instrument flying proficiency prior to conducting a flight at night.

Wreckage examination

When the helicopter wreckage was sighted from the air during the following morning, it was reported as being located about 200 m from the yacht, at an angle to the reef. A straight-line debris trail lying on the sandy seabed was visible through the shallow water. The salvage crew reported that the helicopter's initial impact point appeared to be 600 m south-southwest of the yacht on the reef edge with the debris lying in an approximate straight line between the two points.

The main transmission and remains of the main rotor were lying in an area of breaking surf just near the initial impact point and were not recovered during the salvage. The water depth at the point of impact varied between about 0.6 m and 1.8 m depending on the tide and the sea state.

The tail boom was broken in two places, with the mid portion recovered from deep water northeast of the reef.

An inspection of the helicopter components revealed that the tail rotor drive shaft had been severed by twisting in the direction of normal rotation at a position forward of the oil cooler fan. The tail rotor gearbox housing had cracked and split at the thrust bearing housing for the input drive shaft. The tail rotor drive shaft exhibited torsional damage consistent with the tail rotor slowing or stopping while the drive shaft continued to rotate while under power. This was consistent with the tail rotor striking the water while under power. The tail rotor balance weights, pitch links and blades did not exhibit damage consistent with having contacted the water under high power.

Photographs taken the morning after the accident showed that the locker door was open but still attached. The door's main structure hinge attachments were still attached to the door and evidence of doorframe fractures was consistent with the locking mechanisms being forced from the closed and locked position. Evidence also indicated that engine and main transmission cowls and tail rotor drive shaft tunnel cover fasteners were secure prior to impact.

Operator's procedures and training

The operator had an air operator's certificate (AOC) issued by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) 3 months prior to the accident. The AOC permitted the operator to conduct Search and Rescue but it did not specify permission to drop lifesaving equipment from the helicopter by day or night as required by the Civil Aviation Orders (CAO) 29.5. CASA advised that the operator had not approached the Authority for permission to conduct such operations.

The Civil Aviation Regulation (CAR) 215 required operators' operations manuals to, "contain information, procedures and instructions with respect to flight operations ... to ensure the safe conduct of the flight operations." This operator's operations manual had no information regarding procedures for dropping a life raft by day or night. The manual contained little detail or guidance for night operations, profiles or procedures required for descending the helicopter below minimum descent altitude over water at night, except as provided for in an exemption to CAR 174B provided by CASA. The exemption stated, in part, "The aircraft may only descend below 1,000 ft above the highest terrain within 10 miles after ground definition is established by use of the Nitesun (sic) searchlight using wide beam or the aircraft is established within three miles of destination." The manual did not provide advice, for example, on required crew interaction, the use of stepped descent profiles, maximum rates of descent, or minimum heights at which the helicopter could be flown over water at night.

The manual provided procedures for long over water flights. Flights over water more than 50 NM from a land mass suitable for landing were authorised provided that the flight could be conducted under VFR or night VFR procedures and navigated using two methods as described in the manual.

The operator did not require its pilots to hold a current command instrument rating on helicopters. There was very little information on restrictions or precautions when flying at night in remote areas or over water on dark nights, or considerations of the criteria for deciding whether to conduct operations involving long distances over water at night.

There was only a very brief and general section in the operator's operations manual pertaining to search and rescue operations. There was some additional information in the manual detailing considerations for long over water flights. Such considerations included the statement that "The Bell Long Ranger is not ideally suited to long flights over water. Pilots are to use common sense regarding retrievals from any point more than 50 miles from a place suitable for landing." The operator was not operating a Bell Long Ranger but rather a Bell 407. Although the Bell 206 Long Ranger and 407 share a common heritage, they are different helicopters with significant differences in performance and handling.

The operator did not have a formal risk management procedure to provide guidance to crew to assess risks associated with missions that may have been considered outside normal operations or a decision-making protocol for determining task acceptance or rejection.

None of the operator's personnel had received training regarding life raft deployment techniques, including the patterns to be flown, rigging of equipment, crew interaction, and release parameters. Neither the pilot nor the crewman had previously dispatched a life raft from a helicopter at night and had not received training from the operator in that procedure.

Night operations

Under certain conditions, external visual reference may be lost while flying an aircraft at night under VFR. These conditions are conducive to spatial disorientation and include operating over remote areas, in moonless or near moonless conditions, over water, and at times when the celestial horizon is obscured by cloud.

Spatial disorientation refers to an individual's failure to sense correctly the position, motion, or attitude of the aircraft or of him/herself. When spatial disorientation occurs, pilots experience great difficulty processing, believing, seeing, or interpreting the information on the flight instruments due to the erroneous information provided by their senses. In addition, the risk of spatial disorientation is high during instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) and night flying in either VMC or IMC.

There has been some research into visual illusions during night helicopter approaches. Previous visual illusion accidents have indicated that it is very difficult for a pilot, in dark-night conditions, to visually assess closing speed, rate of descent and glide path. Moreover, unaided night visual approaches may be as difficult as instrument approaches.

There are substantial difficulties with judging the approach glide path to a small illuminated area at night, particularly over an unlit area such as water. The 'black hole' phenomenon is particularly relevant to approaches over the sea because the intervening area is dark. The 'black hole' effect can provide an illusion of height, therefore, the pilot may perceive that the aircraft is higher than it actually is. In addition, the effect can entice pilots into keeping the visual angle of an approach constant by fixating on a source of light. The approach path will be too steep at first and then flatten out and result in a touchdown short of the nominated point.

Hazy or misty conditions can also influence the judgement of distance. Aerial perspective is affected by the dimming of the image of objects with distance. This, together with the reduction in colour contrast of distant objects, acts as a perceptual clue to distance. Distances therefore tend to be overestimated in low visibility or at night.

These false perceptions are considered to be very powerful. Even when pilots are aware of the 'black hole' effect, they may reject their instrument indications and believe the false impressions of glide path and height that the effect induces. The pilot reported that he was aware of the 'black hole' effect. The pilot also reported that he did not feel disorientated at any stage during the approach or at any other time during the flight.

'Nightsun' searchlight and Radar Altimeter (RADALT) operations

The operator's operations manual outlined some procedures for the use of the 'Nightsun' searchlight. As well as the requirements noted in the CAR 174B exemption provided by CASA, the operations manual also required that when the helicopter was below 500 ft, as indicated on the RADALT, the searchlight be operated on maximum beam width. On approach to land, the searchlight was not to be manipulated in azimuth or elevation below 200 ft RADALT altitude. Azimuth checks of the approach path were to be effected by yawing the aircraft. The RADALT warning was to be set to 200 ft.

The reflection, scattering, or other distortion of the searchlight beam by particles in the atmosphere over water, such as sea salt or sea haze may have produced what is sometimes called the 'fishbowl' effect. The pilot reported that during the passes over the stranded yacht, the searchlight seemed to make conditions a little blurry, like looking through a milk bottle.

Helicopters are rarely manually flown to low levels over water at night and those helicopters that are intentionally operated in such operations are normally equipped with automatic pilot and 'coupled' systems. These systems automatically conduct the approach, hover and departure with the pilot(s) monitoring the profile and system operation.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200102083
Occurrence date 27/04/2001
Location Howard Patch, Swain Reefs
State Queensland
Report release date 30/04/2003
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Occurrence class Accident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Bell Helicopter Co
Model 407
Registration VH-WOQ
Serial number 53436
Sector Helicopter
Operation type Aerial Work
Departure point Rockhampton, QLD
Destination Hixson Cay, QLD
Damage Substantial

Boeing 747-444, VH-NLH

Safety Action

Local safety action

As a result of the investigation, Airservices Australia reminded its Brisbane TOPS Group staff:

  1. to utilise staff appropriately to maintain safety and the integrity of the air traffic system, and
  2. to leave the operational room when not required for duty.

Brisbane Centre also reviewed refresher training with a view to incorporating controller defensive techniques.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200101996
Occurrence date 06/05/2001
Location GUTEV, (IFR)
State International
Report release date 11/02/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 747
Registration VH-NLH
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Sydney, NSW
Destination HONG KONG
Damage Nil

Aircraft details

Manufacturer The Boeing Company
Model 767
Registration ZK-NCL
Sector Jet
Operation type Air Transport High Capacity
Departure point Melbourne, VIC
Destination HONG KONG
Damage Nil

Grob G-115C2, VH-BGQ

Safety Action

Local safety action

As a result of the investigation, the operator conducted a review of night training operations together with an assessment of their aerodrome emergency plan. As a result of these reviews, the following actions were completed:

  1. The purchase of portable runway lighting;
  2. The purchase of additional emergency equipment;
  3. The review of the aerodrome emergency plan;
  4. The construction of an observation deck for instructors to monitor solo flying operations;
  5. The review and amendment of the training syllabus to include an introduction to night flying, scheduling students to complete instrument flying training (including night synthetic training) before introducing the night flying component;
  6. The discontinuation of the practice where night flying is scheduled concurrently with other training sequences;
  7. The introduction of a requirement for instructors to more closely monitor student duty times; and
  8. The introduction of human factors training (night flying), prior to the commencement of night flying training.

Analysis

The circumstances of the accident were consistent with the student becoming disorientated after take-off, possibly associated with the change in aircraft configuration during completion of the after take-off checklist.

The student was in the early phase of his night flying training and, although he reported that an unserviceable attitude indicator had contributed to his disorientation, he had only limited instrument flying experience. He had not completed the training required in the operator's syllabus prior to commencing night flying and, most probably, had not developed his instrument flying skills to the standard normally required for this stage of training.

The dual check immediately before the accident flight had been conducted only a short time after last light and possibly, when there was still some external visual reference available.

Although the student received a short rest break before commencing the accident flight, he had been in attendance at the aerodrome for most of the day and recently had returned from an extended navigation exercise. Accordingly, it is possible that fatigue had also affected the student's performance and his ability to maintain control of the aircraft with reference to the flight instruments.

Summary

The student pilot of a Grob 115 C aircraft was authorised by his instructor to conduct solo night circuits at Merredin, WA. Shortly after take-off from runway 28, and as the student commenced his after take-off checks (at about 300 ft AGL, including flap retraction and engine power reduction), he noticed that the aircraft was becoming difficult to control. As he scanned the aircraft's flight instruments he decided that the attitude indicator was unreliable and noted the directional indicator turning quickly to the left. Control inputs applied to reduce the rate of turn were unsuccessful. The student recalled that the airspeed indicator was indicating 140 kts.

The student reported that despite applying back-pressure to the control column and maintaining the pitch attitude for a climb, the aircraft continued to descend and impacted the ground beyond the aerodrome boundary. Immediately following the ground impact, the aircraft became airborne and the student recalled applying full power and commencing a climb. An instructor on the ground established radio communication and provided instructions to assist the student. The student stated that the attitude indicator remained unreliable for the entire circuit but, with the instructor's assistance, he was able to complete a normal approach and landing. As the nose was lowered to the runway during the landing roll, the propeller struck the runway and stopped. The accident occurred at approximately 2000 Western Standard Time. The student was not injured and vacated the aircraft without assistance.

Examination of the aircraft indicated that the nose wheel and oleo had been damaged during the initial impact with the ground and had detached from the aircraft prior to landing. The nose oleo was subsequently recovered from a paddock in the vicinity of a left base position for runway 28.

Last light at Merredin on the night of the accident was 1802. It was reported to be a dark night, with no discernible natural horizon. During the initial climb from runway 28, the student had no significant external visual reference available and was using the flight instruments to maintain control of the aircraft.

Following the accident, the operator contracted an independent maintenance organisation to examine the aircraft flight instruments, engine driven vacuum pump, and other associated systems. No pre-accident defect was detected.

The flying roster for the day indicated that the student was scheduled to complete two separate exercises, a navigation phase check during the afternoon, followed by solo night circuits. The student had arrived at the aerodrome at 1000 to prepare for his phase check.

A delay in departure time for the phase check meant the aircraft arrived back at Merredin after last light. Prior to concluding the phase check, the instructor completed three circuits with the student for the purpose of authorising his solo night flying. The total flight time for the phase check was recorded as 3.3 hours, of which 0.2 hours was logged at night. By 1845, all tasks associated with the phase check were completed and the student took a short meal break before recommencing duty for the night circuits.

The operator had a detailed flying training syllabus for the conduct of training. It was reported that a gap in the flying program had permitted some students to progress through their training at an accelerated rate, which introduced night flying at an earlier stage of training than was usual. The student had been previously assessed proficient in the required syllabus items for solo night circuit operations and had attained this standard in less than the minimum flight time contained in the operator's flying training syllabus.

At the time of the accident, the student's flying training included 3.6 hours dual night instruction, 2.5 hours night pilot-in-command, 4.4 hours instrument flying and 2.7 hours in a synthetic trainer. The syllabus indicated that a student required at least 9 hours in a synthetic trainer prior to commencing his night training, including a requirement for 5 hours of night simulation in the synthetic trainer. There was no provision for an exemption against those operations manual requirements.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200101929
Occurrence date 24/04/2001
Location Merredin, (ALA)
State Western Australia
Report release date 04/09/2002
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Collision with terrain
Occurrence class Accident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Grob - Burkhart Flugzeugbau
Model G115
Registration VH-BGQ
Serial number 82043/C2
Sector Piston
Operation type Flying Training
Departure point Merredin, WA
Destination Merredin, WA
Damage Substantial

Beech Aircraft Corp 1900D, VH-IMH

Safety Action

As a result of the investigation the airport operator advised the Australian Transport Safety Bureau that an improved bird hazard management program had been implemented. It will ensure that bird hazard dispersal measures are conducted within ten minutes of the period prior to the arrival and departure of regular public transport operations during the hours of darkness.

Summary

The Beech 1900D (B1900) accelerated to V1 (111 kts), when the crew noticed a flock of wood ducks crossing their path. At the same time there was a loss of aircraft performance so the crew rejected the take-off. The aircraft was brought to a stop without further incident.

Six wood ducks had impacted the aircraft in the vicinity of the right engine and caused extensive damage to the right engine and wing. Minor damage was evident in the left engine oil cooler.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority required airports handling aircraft of thirty seats capacity or larger to have a recorded bird hazard management program. At the time of the occurrence, Cooma airport had regular scheduled services by aircraft that did not exceed nineteen persons, however during the ski season aircraft with a capacity exceeding thirty persons operated into Cooma.

Bird dispersal control had been applied early in the morning, approximately twelve hours before the B1900's departure.

Analysis of bird hazard reports since January 2001, indicated an increase in bird numbers at Cooma airport. The airport operator had implemented a bird hazard management program but records showed that the program was not being applied consistently.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200101952
Occurrence date 03/05/2001
Location Cooma, Aero.
State New South Wales
Report release date 27/09/2001
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Aviation occurrence category Birdstrike
Occurrence class Accident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Beech Aircraft Corp
Model 1900
Registration VH-IMH
Serial number UE-230
Sector Turboprop
Operation type Air Transport Low Capacity
Departure point Cooma, NSW
Destination Sydney, NSW
Damage Substantial

Aerospatiale AS332L, VH-BHK

Summary

The Aerospatiale AS332L helicopter was tracking inbound to Darwin from the Timor Sea, in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). The pilot-in-command was using the global positioning system (GPS) to track to the initial approach fix for a runway 11 VOR/DME approach.

The pilot reported that when air traffic control cleared the helicopter for the approach, he switched his navigation source control switch from A NAV (the selection for navigation using GPS) to NAV 2 and VOR 2 for the approach. Immediately, the navigation EMERG MODE light on the pilot's bearing pointer's control panel illuminated. In accordance with the emergency checklist, the pilot selected his radio navigation sources to ADF 1, VOR 2 and NAV 2.

After the helicopter had passed the initial approach fix and was established on the final approach leg, the pilot observed that the course bar on his horizontal situation indicator (HSI) was central but his NAV 2 bearing pointer indicated that the helicopter was between 5 and 10 degrees right of track. The pilot, who was occupying the right pilot seat, asked the co-pilot to check the instrument indications on the left side HSI. The course bar on the co-pilot's HSI was indicating half scale left of track and the co-pilot's bearing pointer was also showing that the helicopter was to the left of track.

At that point the helicopter descended into visual meteorological conditions (VMC) and the pilot discontinued the instrument approach. The pilot changed his navigation source switches to the same selections as the co-pilot's switches and the pilot's course bar and bearing needle both showed the helicopter to be left of track, which it was. No OFF flags appeared on either pilot's navigation instruments prior to making the change. The pilot landed the helicopter normally and by the time the helicopter arrived at its base, the fault was no longer evident.

Engineers were unable to reproduce the fault on the ground. Engineers later reported that illumination of an EMERG MODE light indicates one of three types of fault;

(a) a fault in the navigation signal being received by the aircraft;

(b) a fault in the navigation switching power supply; or

(c) an internal fault in the navigation switching system.

Although engineers could not be certain, they suspected an internal fault in the switching system, probably a sticking relay. This was indicated by the appearance of the fault when the pilot switched navigation sources from A.NAV to NAV.2 for the approach.

Occurrence summary

Investigation number 200101926
Occurrence date 17/04/2001
Location 22 km WNW Darwin, (VOR)
State International
Report release date 13/06/2001
Report status Final
Investigation type Occurrence Investigation
Investigation status Completed
Mode of transport Aviation
Occurrence class Incident
Highest injury level None

Aircraft details

Manufacturer Aerospatiale Industries
Model AS332
Registration VH-BHK
Serial number 2096
Sector Helicopter
Operation type Charter
Departure point Northern Endeavour (TIMOR SEA)
Destination Darwin NT
Damage Nil