| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 122418 | 2011-12-20 02:48:00 | Viaduct chopper crash: findings released | Trev (427) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1249790 | 2011-12-20 14:22:00 | Immediately after the accident the pilot wasn't blaming the rigger www.radionz.co.nz so I wonder what he thought was to blame then. That's not what they said on the news last night. They said the pilot said he didn't know why the rigger did what he did as it wasn't in the plan. The rigger is also saying now that the pilot didn't follow the plan either. |
CYaBro (73) | ||
| 1249791 | 2011-12-20 17:22:00 | Yes the rigger said last night that the pilot flew to low. Wouldn't suprise me if someone dosen't lay criminal charges against someone. More Here. (www.nzherald.co.nz) :) |
Trev (427) | ||
| 1249792 | 2011-12-20 19:42:00 | There is great potential for the legal system to reap a very rewarding harvest here. For a start, the hi-vis jackets must be faulty to allow something like this to happen. |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1249793 | 2011-12-20 21:51:00 | It seems like very bad planning to me. Surely they must have known the measurements of the tower etc. and should have allowed extra for safety. The rigging supervisor was an idiot to do what he did and serious question should be asked of his capabilities. | mikebartnz (21) | ||
| 1249794 | 2011-12-21 07:25:00 | IMHO the pilot is at fault. He raised a tower with a cable that was too short to allow him to touch down again once the tower was erected. Ideally the cable should have been > 2x the length of the tower. Such a length would allow the cable to reach the ground and be securely held BEFORE the chopper blades came down alongside the cable. Given the swirling air around the blades it is suicidal to fly beside an unrestrained cable. That slack hanging cable could have been sucked in above the blades at any time, and although the rigger definitely drew the cable in, the accident may have happened without his interaction. At a bare minimum, a length of cable equal to the tower height, plus the length of the rotors, plus a small extra margin of error... but he had less than this. |
Paul.Cov (425) | ||
| 1249795 | 2011-12-21 08:41:00 | IMHO the pilot is at fault. He raised a tower with a cable that was too short to allow him to touch down again once the tower was erected. Ideally the cable should have been > 2x the length of the tower. Such a length would allow the cable to reach the ground and be securely held BEFORE the chopper blades came down alongside the cable. Given the swirling air around the blades it is suicidal to fly beside an unrestrained cable. That slack hanging cable could have been sucked in above the blades at any time, and although the rigger definitely drew the cable in, the accident may have happened without his interaction. At a bare minimum, a length of cable equal to the tower height, plus the length of the rotors, plus a small extra margin of error... but he had less than this. But who planned and designed the lift. From what I have read the rigging company hired the helicopter pilot do the lift. So was it the rigging company that used the wrong length cable ? And why did they not use an automatic release system for the cable ? |
wmoore (6009) | ||
| 1249796 | 2011-12-21 09:14:00 | And why did they not use an automatic release system for the cable ? My understanding was that they did but it failed for some reason...? |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||