TAIC Report on Paraparaumu Mid-air Crash Released

The New Zealand Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) recently released its full report into the 17 February 2008 mid-air crash at Paraparaumu, involving a Robinson R22 flown by a pilot undergoing a flight examination, and a Cessna 152 flown by a solo pilot, in which all three occupants of both aircraft died.

The report identified the main contributing factor as the failure by the pilots to maintain adequate situational awareness. However, it also offered explanations as to why this was the case and in particular, described the design of the aerodrome circuit pattern (which had counter-rotating circuits around parallel runways) as “flawed” in that it “created the potential for two aircraft in different circuits to be at the same height at the same place.”

The report referred to a 1996 safety assessment by the CAA, in which the potential for a mid-air collision had already been identified. The report further commented that after the 1996 assessment—with the exception of lowering the grass circuit height—neither the CAA, nor aerodrome owners or aircraft operators had taken the opportunity to mitigate (identified) risks further.

While noting the limitations upon the CAA’s Director under current legislation as far as regulating operations around non-certificated aerodromes, the TAIC report noted “the CAA could have had more influence on safety matters at Paraparaumu through a more interactive and cooperative approach with aerodrome and aircraft operators.”

Importantly—and countering general media speculation at the time of the crash—TAIC determined that the ages of the respective pilots (19 and 17) had no influence on the crash. However, it suggested that inexperience—as opposed to age—was likely to have contributed to both pilots failing to maintain adequate situational awareness, and noted that the experienced flight examiner in the helicopter would likely have been preoccupied with monitoring his candidate’s procedures.

The report made the points that New Zealand’s age limitations were in line with international practice, and that the rigid structure of pilot training—a competency-based system incorporating strict requirements for authorisation and accompanied by close supervision—ensured that any student (irrespective of age) displaying inappropriate behaviour was likely to be identified early. It noted that both pilots involved in the crash had been considered competent and responsible students.

The TAIC report identified inadequate communication and coordination between the aircraft and highlighted the need for radio communication to assist pilots to be able to “see and avoid” other traffic.

Rick Lucas, the CEO of Helipro—the company that operated the crashed helicopter—said that the company prided itself on its safety record. He said that Helipro would not have been operating at Paraparaumu had it not been confident about its safety procedures.

He said that since the crash, Helipro had thoroughly reviewed its procedures for operating at Paraparaumu (and other like operations) and was satisfied. However, he conceded that there was always room for improvement and added that he remained committed to maintaining the best procedures and operations.

Lucas said that Helipro stands by its procedures on that day, which involved a routine training operation overseen by a highly experienced independent testing officer.

Mr Lucas was satisfied with the informal coordination that regularly occurred between his company’s chief instructor and that of the aero club.

While accepting TAIC’s view that there should be better coordination amongst operators, Mr Lucas said he believes this was happening at the aerodrome level on an informal basis. However, he said Helipro has now taken steps to formalise the process.

Helipro had only been operating at the aerodrome since 2005 and Mr Lucas had not previously been aware of the 1996 report by the CAA. He said he would be taking this issue up with CAA.

“At the end of the day,” Mr Lucas said, “this was a tragic set of circumstances and our heart goes out to the families affected. Helipro is not interested in apportioning blame. Lessons have been learned by all affected parties. We need to move on. We do not wish to comment beyond that.”