15 Helicopters land in the World Heritage Area

[tastrax]

Compass Helicopters has also removed its Facebook site

[Tino B]

( isnt complaining about it while naming the beach and posting multiple stunning images of the area a bit like having a bet each way .........? ).

Inane.

[wildwanderer]

Re deletion of social media etc.

It's one of those things that PR consultants tell people to do.

If there is no social media presence and/or no website then there is no visuals or angry comments for media to screenshot and include in articles etc.So it becomes less of a interesting story and thus less negative coverage.

[Warin]

If there is no social media presence and/or no website then there is no visuals or angry comments for media to screenshot and include in articles etc.

Unless 'waybackmachine' has a snapshot of it.. then it never goes away.

[Mechanic-AL]

Hey Tino

tried to PM you but my message didnt want to fly.
If you feel like sending me a PM with an email address I would be happy to discuss where my inane thoughts are coming from.

Cheers
AL

[bushwalker zane]

WHAT THE FUDGE!?

Oh geez that really gets me mad. That feeling of isolation getting throughly and totally smashed by one helicopter is enough. Let alone 14! How could this happen?!

I am very keen on finding out what this 'investigation' PWS is doing will reveal. Big money maybe?

[bushwalker zane]

Make our voices heard. Write letters! I just wrote a letter to Mr Gutwein and one to Mr Jaensch. Get angry! This is not on.

Well done Dan for getting these photos and for the article. Such a shame it happened, but very lucky that you of all people where there to witness it.

[wander]

Does anyone know if flights need to be recorded by air traffic control or in flight log books? Is there a requirement for keeping GPS records?

Definitely - a flight plan is lodged, I believe with the nearest airport to the departure point. And at the end of the day they are required to log their return and cancel SAR (search & rescue). If a return is not logged then SAR automatically goes into effect.

Itinerary from Compass Helicopters:
https://www.compasshelicopters.com.au/t ... er-safari/

I cannot see how you would do that itinerary without basically going smack over National Park and or Wilderness, so they either have a permit in place or not.

They would be remiss to advertise such a product without a permit, is that a matter for the ACCC?

Looking at the costs I'm thinking the permit or fine might be only a small expense.

[Lophophaps]

Can someone please take a screen shot of the entire screen on the link? Does anyone know what permits are required for overflying national parks or WHA?

Australian Consumer Law has a number of provisions that seem to relate to this matter. Sections 60 and 61 of ACL deal with services, which must be executed with due care and skill, reasonably fit for the purpose, and of a nature, quality and condition such that they can be expected to achieve a result that the consumer makes known to the supplier. However, third parties probably cannot take action under these sections unless they act for the consumer. CASA advises that it is up to PAWS to investigate.

Hence, the process seems to be:
1 Find out what happened.
2 Find out what permits were needed for overflying and/or landing.
3 Find out if these permits were obtained.
4 If no permits were obtained, seek advice from PAWS about remedies and which statutes apply.
There are a number of other investigation aspects that can and should be done, depending on the answers above.

[stepbystep]

Incredibly sad to see. Surely someone somewhere had to give permission for this to happen in a national park. There is no way this sort of activity should be condoned.

( isnt complaining about it while naming the beach and posting multiple stunning images of the area a bit like having a bet each way .........? ).

No. It’s about context. The location had to be named for accuracy and verification. The average punter needs to understand what’s at stake, hence the pretty shots from the general area..

Every bay from Strahan to Cockle Creek is beautiful, and is also within the twwha. None of them are acceptable to be illegally exploited by entitled cowboys.

The investigation will be closely monitored.

[stepbystep]

A follow from The Mercury...

Oh dear ... EXIF data on my fancy camera shows first chopper arriving at 8:44am, the last at 9:12am
Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service that's 28mins, not 45! You are welcome to this actual data for your investigation 2nd fact check, it was Noyhener Beach NOT Stephens Bay. Punters wandered about casually not even grouping together for a group chat re their unfolding emergency. Questions...Why did Heli-Biz delete their FB page as first course of action? Why did they fly into SW Tasmania if weather conditions were deteriorating? Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy!

https://www.themercury.com.au/news/tasm ... 247b76ffd4

THE landing of 16 helicopters on a remote South-West Tasmanian beach was due to an emergency, organisers say.

Local bushwalker Dan Broun reported spotting the fleet of private helicopters landing on remote Noyhener Beach, near Port Davey in the state’s South-West, on February 28.

A spokesman for the group of pilots who were on a round-Tasmania heli-safari said four of the aircraft had lost contact with the lead groups, so the decision was made for an unscheduled landing.

“During the transit between Strahan and Southport, the groups had increased separation and the weather was deteriorating, which placed some stress on the lower time pilots and it was paramount that we stayed together for the safety of all those involved,” he said.

“It was decided that the safest and most sensible option was to land on a large beach at Stephens Bay and to avoid Bathurst Harbour due to previous discussions with Parks and Wildlife about a highly sensitive area around Bathurst Harbour and Melaleuca due to the orange bellied parrot, which we appreciate.”

He said landing on beaches was not desirable to helicopter owners due to the massive erosion issues.

The group waited 45 minutes for the final helicopters, before taking off again for Hobart via Southport.

“We always plan to be as professional as possible, however the elements can at times alter well thought out plans, therefore decisions based on safety must prevail otherwise accidents due to weather can happen and lives have been lost.

“This landing was a necessity and the same decision would be made again unless it was deemed that a landing in Bathurst Harbour airstrip would be a better option.

“We have made contact with Parks and Wildlife Tasmania last week and are assisting with their investigation.”

[wander]

Extremely poor flight planning and execution to allow the separation to occur and to have weather deteriorating to the point of having to land.

Therefore not fit for an overflight permit if they had one.

[taswegian]

Dad used to say "give them enough rope and they hang themselves"
The more these people talk the more they dig a deeper hole.
Good point wander.

[stepbystep]

Extremely poor flight planning and execution to allow the separation to occur and to have weather deteriorating to the point of having to land.

Therefore not fit for an overflight permit if they had one.

The weather was fine for flying until very late in the day, I should know we crossed the SW Cape Range and Pascoe Range that afternoon. This is just another lie to try and get off without a penalty. Couldn't lie straight in bed that lot.

[lefroy]

We can't jump to blame helibiz for this, they are no doubt only saying what PWS have told them to say...

[Nuts]

Not sure about over-flight permits, there's a 'fly neighbourly' agreement but even that appears to only focus on some hotspots:

Fly Neighbourly 7.pdf

(1.32 MiB) Downloaded 631 times

[Jon MS]

I read the letter in this morning's Mercury.

It does not add up in the slightest.

I am not a qualified helicopter pilot but over the past about 35 years I have done in excess of 500 heli flights and over 250 fixed wing flights over SW Tas. If they had an "emergency" any competent pilot would have headed to Melaleuca airstrip. Also, any competent flight plan would have had Melaleuca as a emergency staging point. It is totally clear that they landed for recreation reasons.

My suggestion is to challenge them to put their claim that it was an "emergency" into a statutory declaration.

Interestingly, if they had landed on Cox Bight would that have been legal???

[Lophophaps]

It would be good to get witness statement or stat decs about the weather that day from people in the area. Photos would be very evidentiary. Staging to Melaleuca makes sense. I hope that somebody grabbed the websites of these companies. Some information is or could be very useful.

[stepbystep]

My suggestion is to challenge them to put their claim that it was an "emergency" into a statutory declaration.

If it was a legitimate emergency this must have been reported to CASA immediately. To my knowledge it wasn't. They are crooks.
In my stat dec and that of my partner we provide witness statements on weather, photographs throughout the day and even some video.

[tastrax]

Every single person in those aircraft should be independently interviewed

[stepbystep]

Every single person in those aircraft should be independently interviewed

I'll suggest that to the compliance officer investigating.

[Eremophila]

It'd be interesting to see all of their logbooks.

Extremely poor flight planning and execution to allow the separation to occur and to have weather deteriorating to the point of having to land.
Therefore not fit for an overflight permit if they had one.

I agree - if the group leaders are so experienced, why did they allow such separation to occur ??

He said landing on beaches was not desirable to helicopter owners due to the massive erosion issues.

Funny - there are a number of beach landing photos on both Heli Biz and Compass' website.

[crollsurf]

What! I wasn't saying that. Don't give up, just about every one here has got your back.

Just put up a good fight. You already have them on the run, wish I could help

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[stepbystep]

What! I wasn't saying that. Don't give up, just about every one here has got your back.

Just put up a good fight. You already have them on the run, wish I could help

I know that. Thanks I've got the gloves on

[wander]

My suggestion is to challenge them to put their claim that it was an "emergency" into a statutory declaration.

If it was a legitimate emergency this must have been reported to CASA immediately..

That is certainly my understanding. Even more so considering the number of aircraft involved and the remoteness of the incident.

So we look forward to the CASA report, a prelim should be out in a month and final in about 12 months.

[Jon MS]

These are not the only unauthorised chopper landings on the south and west coasts this summer. This problem is getting rapidly worse and needs to be addressed.

There were at least 4 other landings on the coast north of Port Davey in Jan that I know of. Most or all of these landings are by people doing recreational cray fishing.

I would also like to thank Stepbystep for addressing this issue and bringing it to our attention.

[Lophophaps]

A few minutes ago I moved several posts from this topic. The post that triggered this was the subject of an alert, justified in my view. The other posts were in reply to that initial post. Please keep the conversation friendly and factual. It does not matter if there were 10 or 20 helicopters or if it was an emergency or legitimate emergency. They landed in fine weather, apparently without permission. The pictures show the times and there is a reliable eyewitness account, with the latter backing up the former. The matter is being investigated. Let's see what develops.

Moderator

[Nuts]

I too have a cynical bent where money is involved but let's keep things in perspective. The choice not to land at Melaleuca appears legitimate and in keeping with the fly neighbourly guidelines offered earlier (which I have to say are/were available to anyone with a google app).

It's also a fair call that the weather appeared to hold. But is it not also possible they were concerned the others had needed to put down somewhere and their concerns were indeed for later in the day?

Personally, choppers shouldn't be landing anywhere not absolutely necessary, including ministerial/vip visits and un-minimised flights by park staff (and I've witnessed a few) but so far this particular incident leaves open the possibility of a storm in a teacup, no matter what else we want it to be (and the Op should be an even happier chap if that is the case..)

I didn't read the deleted posts, I hope they weren't simply deleted to stifle a different POV? Or even a few otherwise tolerable, colourful words? This forum collective (and those who pop in time to time to adjudicate and report) has shown before that the old adage of 20 people telling you something , you should listen, only goes so far.

Also, a heli-tourism company would appear to easily afford social media attacks, but are we passing judgement on this as well? Or simply a criteria of 'people we don't like', rather than on investigated evidence.

[north-north-west]

15 helicopters staging an illegal landing is not a "storm in a teacup".

[Nuts]

Oh, I agree.