Army chopper crashed after evasive action, report finds
* On the night of July 28, 2023 an MRH-90 Taipan of the 6th Aviation Regiment plunged into the sea while flying in formation with three other choppers on a mission during Exercise Talisman Sabre 23
* Captain Danniel Lyon, Lieutenant Maxwell Nugent, Warrant Officer Class Two Joseph Laycock and Corporal Alexander Naggs died in the crash
* In response, the Director of the Defence Flight Safety Bureau formed an investigative team to determine the cause of the crash, identify factors that contributed to it and recommend safety improvements to prevent a recurrence
* The investigation concluded the primary cause of the accident was an unrecognised loss of spatial orientation, commonly referred to as spatial disorientation, meaning the pilots misperceived the aircraft's position in the air
* Due to low altitude and the high rate of descent of the aircraft the investigation concluded the pilots did not have time to regain an accurate picture of the helicopter's orientation and take recovery action before impact
* Varying visibility in overcast and showery conditions, where the horizon was more than likely not discernible, contributed to the pilots' spatial disorientation while they were maintaining formation using night vision devices
* Cabin doors were closed to minimise crew exposure to rain and low temperatures but this restricted visibility and the ability of crew to alert the pilot to where the aircraft was in relation to the sea
* The investigation found the pilots were likely experiencing a level of fatigue shown to impede optimal performance and increase susceptibility to spatial disorientation
* Policy relating to rostering practices was also found to be sub-optimal, contributing to an environment where fatigue-related risks were not mitigated effectively
* The investigation found the aircraft's engine and flight control systems were operating normally and there were no structural failures of the helicopter prior to impact
* It was also found that demands on key personnel responsible for aviation safety often exceeded workforce capacity, which likely degraded the effectiveness of Army Aviation's safety, quality and risk management systems
* The report does not seek to apportion blame or determine liability and does not recommend disciplinary or administrative action against organisations or individuals
* It identified 196 findings, resulting in 46 recommendations which have all been accepted by the Defence Aviation Authority
Defence All-hours Support Line (ASL) - 1800 628 036
Defence Member and Family Support - 1800 624 608
Open Arms – Veterans & Families Counselling - 1800 011 046
Lifeline - 13 11 14
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
01-07-2025
- The Advertiser
It's not how much you spend on defence but how well you spend it
This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality." This is a sample of The Echidna newsletter sent out each weekday morning. To sign up for FREE, go to It was another ignominious end. Dismantled, cannibalised for spare parts, their bodies were buried in an undisclosed location. They were never very good and were destined to be replaced, but a fatal crash in 2023 saw their demise brought forward. But Defence's jettisoning of the MRH90 Taipan helicopter wasn't the first time it had spent billions on a dud. In October 2008, their rotor blades removed, another terrible decision was shrink-wrapped, loaded onto semi trailers and trucked out of the HMAS Albatross naval air station near Nowra. If the MRH90 decision was a blunder, the decision in 1997 to buy 11 Super Seasprites for our fleet of ANZAC class frigates, was a catastrophe. At least the MRH90 flew. Not a single Super Seasprite became operational. You might as well have piled up in small denominations the $1 billion they cost and set fire to it. Of course, it's not just kit that's meant to fly which has the sour taste of expensive lemon about it. We've had the Collins class subs. Noisy, unreliable and, as discovered last year, corroding in the salt water meant to be their natural habitat. Having already cost about $20 billion, billions more is being spent to keep them going until the AUKUS subs arrive - if they do. The largest ships our navy operates - the two Landing Helicopter Decks, HMAS Canberra and HMAS Adelaide - arrived in the middle of the 2010s riddled with defects. HMAS Canberra chalked up 6000 of them. And the cost to keep them is nudging $200 million a year. I could go on. And on. And on some more. When it comes to spending money on defence, our track record on spending it wisely is far from flash. We have a history of spending a lot of buck for little bang. That's why alarm bells ring when there's a clamour for increased defence spending without any detail about how and where that money should be spent. Much of it is political noise, generated by NATO snapping to attention with a sharp "Sir, yessir!" - or a simpering "Yes, Daddy" if you were nauseated by its sycophancy when Trump visited - when it agreed to a US demand to lift its defence spending to 5 per cent of GDP. The Albanese government has batted away the calls from the usual suspects - Pete Hegseth, Karoline Leavitt and their two local parrots, Angus Taylor and Bridget McKenzie, neither of whom have spelled out of what spending they'd cut or taxes they'd raise to meet the extra spending. The government says Australia will decide on the capabilities it needs and spend accordingly. It's read the room and knows we don't like being told what to do - especially by the Trump administration. And we won't take well to extortion via tariffs either. It also knows Australia doesn't need to strike the same war footing as Europe. We don't have a war on our doorstep. There's no Russia imperilling our borders. That's not to say we shouldn't be clear-eyed about the challenges we face. China's military build-up cannot be ignored but also should not be overstated. It's unlikely to be coveting our distant shores because it's far cheaper to buy the resources we have than attempt to seize them. But can we ever know for certain? Probably not. Defence spending is important. But it's less a question how much we spend than how well. HAVE YOUR SAY: Should Australia follow NATO's lead and increase defence spending? Would you be happy to pay more tax to pay for more military hardware? Is China a bigger threat than the US to Australia? Email us: echidna@ SHARE THE LOVE: If you enjoy The Echidna, forward it to a friend so they can sign up, too. IN CASE YOU MISSED IT: - NSW Premier Chris Minns has refused to condemn the "brutal" actions of police who broke up a pro-Palestine protest that left a one-time federal Greens candidate with a serious eye injury. - A senior public servant who gave a relative's career a leg up while hiding their connection has been found to be corrupt by the National Anti-Corruption Commission. - One of Australia's biggest health insurers admits it incorrectly dealt with loads of claims and left customers thousands of dollars out of pocket. Bupa says it is "deeply sorry" for the conduct Australia's consumer watchdog found to be misleading and deceptive across more than five years. THEY SAID IT: "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defence than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom." - Martin Luther King jnr. YOU SAID IT: Truth might be the first casualty in war, but language falls soon after in a cacophony of buzzwords and euphemisms. "There also seems to be a great shortage of 'guardrails' in Australia in recent times," writes Ian. "No doubt, we could use some on our off-ramps. The expressions 'ethnic cleansing' and 'collateral damage' may be euphemistic, but they drip with irony and let the imagination run amok. So, they are all the more powerful expressions for it." David writes: "A concomitant aspect of the ongoing Coca-Cola-nisation of Australia is the gradual change of pronunciation of certain syllables/words/emphases adopted by news presenters/commentators: 'progress', where 'prog' rhymes with 'dog', and 'process' where 'proc' rhymes with 'boss'. The 'cig' in cigarette is emphasised instead of the 'ette'. Is it an inferiority problem, insecurity, ignorance? Whatever, it is painful." "The 'buzz phrase' that annoys me most? 'Reaching out' when all I did was make a phone call," writes Judith. "Nothing dramatic. I wasn't in dire straights. I didn't need rescuing. It was just an ordinary, garden variety phone call, probably to make an ordinary, garden variety enquiry about hours of trading. Or something equally mundane." Maggie writes: "Ethnic cleansing' revolts me. There's nothing clean about it; it's genocide. 'Decimate' - not nearly as bad as some people seem to think. 'That's incredible' - I hear, 'I don't believe you'. A diplomatic off-ramp? There's danger of simplistic thinking that might cloud a complex reality."
The Advertiser
13-06-2025
- The Advertiser
'We started a fire': ADF criticised over major blaze
The Australian Defence Force knew about fire risks posed by its aircraft years before an army helicopter sparked a catastrophic blaze that razed most of a national park during Black Summer, a coroner has found. The fire was ignited by the searchlight on an ADF MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, known as ANGEL21, when the crew landed for a toilet break while on a reconnaissance mission outside Canberra on January 27, 2020. The fire quickly spread from the Orroral Valley and went on to burn more than 82,000 hectares of the Namadgi National Park, causing significant damage to the environment and Indigenous sites. The ADF knew about the risk of the lights, which can reach temperatures as high as 500C after 10 minutes of use, after a Black Hawk helicopter ignited a grass fire in 2013, ACT Chief Coroner Lorraine Walker said in inquiry findings handed down on Friday. But while a warning about the lights was added to the Black Hawk flight manuals, it was not included in the MRH-90 document. "The situation is unlikely to have arisen had the aircrew been made aware through the MRH-90 flight manual of the risk of fire associated with landing lights," Ms Walker said in the ACT Coroners Court. "This failure reflects a systemic failure to apply the lesson learned in one context ... to the broader yet patently alike context of another aircraft utilising similar technology." The crew, who had been tasked to identify safe helicopter landing points as bushfires raged across southern NSW, were within their rights to stop for a break, the coroner found. But they made an error of judgment by failing to report the fire to their superiors and other authorities. The inquiry heard the crew noticed the fire soon after landing at 1.38pm, with a flight recording capturing one crew member saying: "We started the fire. We started a fire." As the flames moved towards the fuselage and the crew prepared to take off, another crew member was recorded saying: "Yep f***ing searchlight. Dammit." The crew made an emergency call at 1.45pm to report fire damage to the helicopter, but did not alert anyone to the blaze. When asked why he didn't immediately raise the alarm about the bushfire, the pilot said he was concerned the helicopter could "fall from the sky at any moment". Ms Walker said the situation was clearly frightening for the crew, but they should have reported the fire at a time of heightened risk. "It must have been obvious to any thinking person that a delay in reporting the fire could potentially impact the capacity of the relevant organisations to respond to it," she said. During the inquiry, the federal government did not dispute the searchlight had ignited the fire. Ms Walker made several recommendations, including that the findings from incident reports be shared across the ADF and included in any risk and training materials. The Australian Defence Force knew about fire risks posed by its aircraft years before an army helicopter sparked a catastrophic blaze that razed most of a national park during Black Summer, a coroner has found. The fire was ignited by the searchlight on an ADF MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, known as ANGEL21, when the crew landed for a toilet break while on a reconnaissance mission outside Canberra on January 27, 2020. The fire quickly spread from the Orroral Valley and went on to burn more than 82,000 hectares of the Namadgi National Park, causing significant damage to the environment and Indigenous sites. The ADF knew about the risk of the lights, which can reach temperatures as high as 500C after 10 minutes of use, after a Black Hawk helicopter ignited a grass fire in 2013, ACT Chief Coroner Lorraine Walker said in inquiry findings handed down on Friday. But while a warning about the lights was added to the Black Hawk flight manuals, it was not included in the MRH-90 document. "The situation is unlikely to have arisen had the aircrew been made aware through the MRH-90 flight manual of the risk of fire associated with landing lights," Ms Walker said in the ACT Coroners Court. "This failure reflects a systemic failure to apply the lesson learned in one context ... to the broader yet patently alike context of another aircraft utilising similar technology." The crew, who had been tasked to identify safe helicopter landing points as bushfires raged across southern NSW, were within their rights to stop for a break, the coroner found. But they made an error of judgment by failing to report the fire to their superiors and other authorities. The inquiry heard the crew noticed the fire soon after landing at 1.38pm, with a flight recording capturing one crew member saying: "We started the fire. We started a fire." As the flames moved towards the fuselage and the crew prepared to take off, another crew member was recorded saying: "Yep f***ing searchlight. Dammit." The crew made an emergency call at 1.45pm to report fire damage to the helicopter, but did not alert anyone to the blaze. When asked why he didn't immediately raise the alarm about the bushfire, the pilot said he was concerned the helicopter could "fall from the sky at any moment". Ms Walker said the situation was clearly frightening for the crew, but they should have reported the fire at a time of heightened risk. "It must have been obvious to any thinking person that a delay in reporting the fire could potentially impact the capacity of the relevant organisations to respond to it," she said. During the inquiry, the federal government did not dispute the searchlight had ignited the fire. Ms Walker made several recommendations, including that the findings from incident reports be shared across the ADF and included in any risk and training materials. The Australian Defence Force knew about fire risks posed by its aircraft years before an army helicopter sparked a catastrophic blaze that razed most of a national park during Black Summer, a coroner has found. The fire was ignited by the searchlight on an ADF MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, known as ANGEL21, when the crew landed for a toilet break while on a reconnaissance mission outside Canberra on January 27, 2020. The fire quickly spread from the Orroral Valley and went on to burn more than 82,000 hectares of the Namadgi National Park, causing significant damage to the environment and Indigenous sites. The ADF knew about the risk of the lights, which can reach temperatures as high as 500C after 10 minutes of use, after a Black Hawk helicopter ignited a grass fire in 2013, ACT Chief Coroner Lorraine Walker said in inquiry findings handed down on Friday. But while a warning about the lights was added to the Black Hawk flight manuals, it was not included in the MRH-90 document. "The situation is unlikely to have arisen had the aircrew been made aware through the MRH-90 flight manual of the risk of fire associated with landing lights," Ms Walker said in the ACT Coroners Court. "This failure reflects a systemic failure to apply the lesson learned in one context ... to the broader yet patently alike context of another aircraft utilising similar technology." The crew, who had been tasked to identify safe helicopter landing points as bushfires raged across southern NSW, were within their rights to stop for a break, the coroner found. But they made an error of judgment by failing to report the fire to their superiors and other authorities. The inquiry heard the crew noticed the fire soon after landing at 1.38pm, with a flight recording capturing one crew member saying: "We started the fire. We started a fire." As the flames moved towards the fuselage and the crew prepared to take off, another crew member was recorded saying: "Yep f***ing searchlight. Dammit." The crew made an emergency call at 1.45pm to report fire damage to the helicopter, but did not alert anyone to the blaze. When asked why he didn't immediately raise the alarm about the bushfire, the pilot said he was concerned the helicopter could "fall from the sky at any moment". Ms Walker said the situation was clearly frightening for the crew, but they should have reported the fire at a time of heightened risk. "It must have been obvious to any thinking person that a delay in reporting the fire could potentially impact the capacity of the relevant organisations to respond to it," she said. During the inquiry, the federal government did not dispute the searchlight had ignited the fire. Ms Walker made several recommendations, including that the findings from incident reports be shared across the ADF and included in any risk and training materials. The Australian Defence Force knew about fire risks posed by its aircraft years before an army helicopter sparked a catastrophic blaze that razed most of a national park during Black Summer, a coroner has found. The fire was ignited by the searchlight on an ADF MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, known as ANGEL21, when the crew landed for a toilet break while on a reconnaissance mission outside Canberra on January 27, 2020. The fire quickly spread from the Orroral Valley and went on to burn more than 82,000 hectares of the Namadgi National Park, causing significant damage to the environment and Indigenous sites. The ADF knew about the risk of the lights, which can reach temperatures as high as 500C after 10 minutes of use, after a Black Hawk helicopter ignited a grass fire in 2013, ACT Chief Coroner Lorraine Walker said in inquiry findings handed down on Friday. But while a warning about the lights was added to the Black Hawk flight manuals, it was not included in the MRH-90 document. "The situation is unlikely to have arisen had the aircrew been made aware through the MRH-90 flight manual of the risk of fire associated with landing lights," Ms Walker said in the ACT Coroners Court. "This failure reflects a systemic failure to apply the lesson learned in one context ... to the broader yet patently alike context of another aircraft utilising similar technology." The crew, who had been tasked to identify safe helicopter landing points as bushfires raged across southern NSW, were within their rights to stop for a break, the coroner found. But they made an error of judgment by failing to report the fire to their superiors and other authorities. The inquiry heard the crew noticed the fire soon after landing at 1.38pm, with a flight recording capturing one crew member saying: "We started the fire. We started a fire." As the flames moved towards the fuselage and the crew prepared to take off, another crew member was recorded saying: "Yep f***ing searchlight. Dammit." The crew made an emergency call at 1.45pm to report fire damage to the helicopter, but did not alert anyone to the blaze. When asked why he didn't immediately raise the alarm about the bushfire, the pilot said he was concerned the helicopter could "fall from the sky at any moment". Ms Walker said the situation was clearly frightening for the crew, but they should have reported the fire at a time of heightened risk. "It must have been obvious to any thinking person that a delay in reporting the fire could potentially impact the capacity of the relevant organisations to respond to it," she said. During the inquiry, the federal government did not dispute the searchlight had ignited the fire. Ms Walker made several recommendations, including that the findings from incident reports be shared across the ADF and included in any risk and training materials.
Perth Now
13-06-2025
- Perth Now
'We started a fire': ADF criticised over major blaze
The Australian Defence Force knew about fire risks posed by its aircraft years before an army helicopter sparked a catastrophic blaze that razed most of a national park during Black Summer, a coroner has found. The fire was ignited by the searchlight on an ADF MRH-90 Taipan helicopter, known as ANGEL21, when the crew landed for a toilet break while on a reconnaissance mission outside Canberra on January 27, 2020. The fire quickly spread from the Orroral Valley and went on to burn more than 82,000 hectares of the Namadgi National Park, causing significant damage to the environment and Indigenous sites. The ADF knew about the risk of the lights, which can reach temperatures as high as 500C after 10 minutes of use, after a Black Hawk helicopter ignited a grass fire in 2013, ACT Chief Coroner Lorraine Walker said in inquiry findings handed down on Friday. But while a warning about the lights was added to the Black Hawk flight manuals, it was not included in the MRH-90 document. "The situation is unlikely to have arisen had the aircrew been made aware through the MRH-90 flight manual of the risk of fire associated with landing lights," Ms Walker said in the ACT Coroners Court. "This failure reflects a systemic failure to apply the lesson learned in one context ... to the broader yet patently alike context of another aircraft utilising similar technology." The crew, who had been tasked to identify safe helicopter landing points as bushfires raged across southern NSW, were within their rights to stop for a break, the coroner found. But they made an error of judgment by failing to report the fire to their superiors and other authorities. The inquiry heard the crew noticed the fire soon after landing at 1.38pm, with a flight recording capturing one crew member saying: "We started the fire. We started a fire." As the flames moved towards the fuselage and the crew prepared to take off, another crew member was recorded saying: "Yep f***ing searchlight. Dammit." The crew made an emergency call at 1.45pm to report fire damage to the helicopter, but did not alert anyone to the blaze. When asked why he didn't immediately raise the alarm about the bushfire, the pilot said he was concerned the helicopter could "fall from the sky at any moment". Ms Walker said the situation was clearly frightening for the crew, but they should have reported the fire at a time of heightened risk. "It must have been obvious to any thinking person that a delay in reporting the fire could potentially impact the capacity of the relevant organisations to respond to it," she said. During the inquiry, the federal government did not dispute the searchlight had ignited the fire. Ms Walker made several recommendations, including that the findings from incident reports be shared across the ADF and included in any risk and training materials.
