Risk Assessment in operation

[Mars]

Thanks Bronx - it is clear that this is likely to result in a chain of posts so clearly a new thread is called for.

The picture below was posted on the Photo thread by 'oscar bravo'.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v140/Rotorheads/DSC01595_Agpilot.jpg


After viewing this picture, I posted the following:Well Oscar Bravo - it is nice to see you are safety conscious and are wearing a helmet.

Is it possible to see the risk assessment that went along with that.In fact I was trying to make a serious point; the pilot had considered the consequences on his health following a crash but was involved in an activity (rotors running with no-one at the controls) that, following a risk assessment by a number of authorities (including ICAO), is discouraged.

After a post by 'Heliringer' on my observations, the following was observedMy comment wasn't about the size of the pad per se - although it is small; it was the combination of location, small pad and rotors-running without a pilot at the controls.'Remote Hook' further commentedThere is nothing wrong with that what so ever. Happens ALL the time
In fact this was an interesting comment because in a previous thread on the wearing of helmets, 'Remote Hook' had posted the following:I think in this day and age, not wearing one is just plain ignorant. They cost what they cost, and they save lives. It's like the seat belt argument, there's always someone willing to fly in the face of wisdom and common sense.
Clearly, Remote Hook's comment on the wearing of a helmet was based upon a risk assessment of the likelyhood and consequences of a crash and, reference to seat belts was based upon a risk assessment of likelyhood and consequence of a car crash conducted by other expert groups (not getting at you Remote Hook only the ambiguity of the argument).

In another thread, a question has been raised about 'self regulation' replacing prescriptive requirements. Clearly no-one wants to see the accident rate increase (particularly when we have a number of initiatives aimed at reducing the accident rate by 80% in 10 years); any move away from prescriptive requirements can only be contemplated if operators take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

In such a 'brave new world' will the wearing of helmets become the norm but the risk associated with the operation in the photo be deemed to be acceptable. A similar discussion followed a post, in the same vein, about the relative risk of sitting in uncomfortable seats for thousands of hours as opposed to the 'extremely remote' probability of a crash leading to back damage.

The risk assessment for wearing of helmets is obviously accepted (in the more risk associated aerial work activities), and the wearing of seat belts accepted under all circumstances. Is that as far as we are prepared to go or are we forever to be condemned to the principle that 'it must be all right, we do it all the time'?

Mars







NB: Oscar Bravo took the ag ops picture. He is not the pilot.
It is one of several superb pics OB has posted in our Rotorheads Around the World collection.

Heliport

[Max_Chat]

Got to be one of the dumbest pilots I have ever seen.

[Brilliant Stuff]

We must not forget that people operate in different ways around the world. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who think nothing of leaving a running aircraft unattended. There was a documentary on Discovery where it showed an EMS helicopter something like a EC145 just landed on scene and the pilot got out in order to open the clamshell doors in order to hand the stretcher to the paramedics all this while the helicopter was idling.

These AGpilots have been operating like the picture shows for years and I presume the statistics will bear out that it is not as dangerous as it makes out. If they had lost a couple helicopters operating like that they would have stopped that kind of operation due to them not being able to afford to many helicopters.

Now this my thinking after reading the industry Magazines and the like.

Now I personally would feel unhappy to leave my helicopter running without me at the controls, but then my training was very thorough in regards to something like this and of course here in the UK the rules don't allow it.

I would like to just say hang fire before anyone brands these hard working pilots as cowboys.

[CYHeli]

I have left the controls of a running helicopter when picking up pax.
With the frictions tightened and sitting at idle, it was the safest way of conducting a pax briefing prior to loading them. I don't like the idea of trying to load pax by waving at them and hoping that it will be safe...
It's not a common occurrence, and before there is a stream of posts about briefing prior to arriving, or at the time of the booking, consider the surprise/gift flight. In my case an anniversary present. There was no opportunity to brief the wife prior to my arrival. After the shock of the gift and the husband's exuberance have both past, I conducted a briefing, loaded and flew. Should I have shut down? There would still be an element of danger as I ran it down for 2 minutes...

[HeliComparator]

I don't see that the fuss is about - the truck is only doing 30, well within the 55 speed limit:}

But seriously, its easy to condemn an activity as "being dangerous" just because its something we have not personally encountered before. In this case, perhaps they had considered the hazard of leaving the cockpit rotors running, wondered what the issue was (mainly uncommanded control movement?) and fixed it by adding some means of locking the controls that don't have OEM locking (yaw pedals?) as well as turning off the boost, thought of a procedure to ensure that the pilot does not try to take off with the controls still locked etc. But then again perhaps not!

But perhaps they had a couple of shortened blade incidents from the heli landing too close to the truck (following a hose leak where they had to cut some off the hose to repair it etc) and decided this was the lower risk option.

Whilst I have seen a lot of reports of ag helis hitting power lines etc, I have never seen one where it falls off a lorry. And how many ag pilots suffered illhealth from chemical poisoning versus being hit by debris from a helicopter falling off a lorry, yet they are not wearing even masks? You have to look at the big picture.

HC

[Heliringer]

When you're flying Ag you only get a few minutes turn around between loads, So if you need to piss etc. you've got to get out and leave it running, I also need to stand and move a bit because I dont need the distraction of a numb arse when flying.
If you are operating in outback Australia you tend to leave it running just incase it wont start after you shut down and your left in the middle of nowhere with a geologist!
I dont see anything wrong with the picture, it's normal to me here in Australia.

[Helinut]

One of the most common failings to doing risk assessments is to only do half a risk asessment. That is not to look at ALL the risks, and the changes that occur good and bad.

I have been brain washed into the UK system, so I know that leaving rotors running is not allowed. But taking a look at the picture, the use of the truck top means that no third parties can reasonably get to the rotors. The pilot and crew seem to be restricted to working close to the airframe so they cannot get to the rotors either. So where is the risk from the rotors running, so long as the cotrols are locked in some way?

Of course, in the UK the H&S Nazis would get you for working at height without edge protection, but let's not even go there..............

[Bronx]

condemned to the principle that 'it must be all right, we do it all the time' Condemned? :confused:
Or maybe because it's been tried and tested over many years and works.

There's always gonna be conflicts between the guys who've always flown in a sheltered environment with strict rules about everything and the guys working in parts of the world where they are self-sufficient and are allowed to think for themselves.

[Hippolite]

Personally, I don't condone the practice of leaving an aircraft running with no one at the controls. There have been some incidents of the aircraft sliding (one happended to an AS350 in Canada I think) from the unprepared landing site and ending up in the bottom of a valley.

However, I accept that it is standard practice in some places although I don't accept the reasons for having to do it. If you have to brief passengers, a shutdown or a ground crewman is a better option. If you have to pee, then you should have a proper break and stretch your legs and have some downtime.

In this case, the risk is potentially higher because the platform is basically unstable, ie. on pneumatic tyres. However, its hard to quantify numerically. It would probably be classed as a low probability but high consequence event.

I have recently witnessed a pilot leaving an aircraft running while he got out to fuel the aircraft while passengers were on board, not experienced passengers, tourists off on a sight seeing flight. To me, that is not acceptable because of the risk to the passengers.

HC, I take it that its not standard practice for both pilots to leave the controls while the aircraft is running on a helideck in Bristow (well not the UK part anyway but who knows about the GOM) If you don't see what all the fuss is about then what's wrong with one pilot going downstairs for a pee while the other pilot supervises the bag loading and refuelling? Although there are no control locks on a 332L or 225, surely you could fix a rope or something to the cyclic and tie it to the (uncrashworthy in some cases) seat?

[Hughes500]

Helinut

Where does it say in UK regs about not leaving a helicopter running ?
Personally I cant see a problem with the picture. A 206 at ground idle with the frictions on is not going to go anywhere. If left at flight idle - thats different.

[Brilliant Stuff]

That's the nubb of the problem IMHO common sense and experience is being eradicated thanks to people who don't know better and need to be seen to justify their existence in my part of the world, which makes for a boring/stressful life at times.

[Blind]

Although there are no control locks on a 332L or 225, surely you could fix a rope or something to the cyclic and tie it to the (uncrashworthy in some cases) seat?

Maybe they took them out of the tiger, but the puma has control locks unless I am very confused! They are used in high wind starts.

[topendtorque]

1) Like every good argument we have the sublime;

“Of course, in the UK the H&S Nazis would get you for working at height without edge protection, but let's not even go there..............”

In oz it’s anything over eight feet ~ thou shalt wear a safety harness ~ of course double decker road train drivers who are carrying very angry cattle cutely look forward to the day when they trip over their safety harness paraphernalia when they are walking on their twelve foot high catwalk and lob, suspended, upside down, in the midst of their cargo.


2) The ridiculous;

“as well as turning off the boost, thought of a procedure to ensure that the pilot does not try to take off with the controls still locked etc. But then again perhaps not!”

When y’get that procedure down pat, take out a patent it’ll be a beauty!!


3) The superbly ridiculous:

“I have recently witnessed a pilot leaving an aircraft running while he got out to fuel the aircraft while passengers were on board, not experienced passengers, tourists off on a sight seeing flight. To me, that is not acceptable because of the risk to the passengers.”

Nuff said, name rank and serial number and off to the bloody dungeons with that idiot!!


4) Then there’s the practical, logical and pragmatic;

“There's always gonna be conflicts between the guys who've always flown in a sheltered environment with strict rules about everything and the guys working in parts of the world where they are self-sufficient and are allowed to think for themselves.”

We’ve aired this a few times.


5) Lastly of course there’s the philosophical;

“You have to look at the big picture.”

Trucks or other vehicles that have springs and shock absorbers that are timed to automatically harmonise with brokeback helicopters, etc, etc, etc??????????????????????:)

Of course all I have to worry about is to whether I’ve lost a coat of paint!!:ugh:

[Hoveronly]

Bronx, Im with you! Where a procedure is taught, planned and thoughtfully carried out it becomes just another procedure. Living in areas of the world well away from immediate backup concentrates ones mind on what is really necessary. Of course there will always be idiots operating helicopters irrespective of whether they are in JAAR land or not! When landing in the bush in Africa, within seconds the aircraft is normally surrounded by seeming thousands (?) of locals. It is only the rotors running which keeps them away. I would land, close to ground idle, get out and walk around the helicopter sticking metal poles into the ground at intervals. With attached tape this forms a perimiter. I would then get back in and close the heli down - no dramas! :ok: Departing is the opposite procedure!

[finalchecksplease]

Hippolite,

The EC225 has control locks on the collective and cyclic.

Although I never left the controls unattended while still running, I can understand the reasons some people gave to justify it in their field of work. There will be inherent risk in doing so but as a previous mentioned reason getting stuck in the outback because the helicopter will not start after a shutdown must have its risks as well.

Greetings

Finalchecksplease

[tecpilot]

First: Seems to me not clear that the engine is running on idle.

Have flown some older BH 06 without rotor brake. If the engine is stopped you can go out because there is nothing do do on the neutral controls while the rotor is slowing down and you have no possibility to do anything in case of a problem. And the heavy rotorsystem of the BH 06 takes a long time to stop.

Second: Leaved the ship lot of times with engines running during Ag ops. Same opinion like Heliringer.

Third: Also today on high mountain ops we leave the engine(s) allways running because it could be difficult to start up again 3000-6000ft higher.

But use your brain!

If we like to discuss Risk Assessment we can find a lot of real problems in the helicopter business.

[CyclicRick]

I seem to remember that of all the helicopters I've ever flown the flight manual has something to say on the subject.
I would have thought that would be the last word on the subject.:confused:

[Hippolite]

Finalschecks

Thanks for the clarification. I don't remember them on the 332L though but maybe its just my decaying memory!

Shouldn't be a problem for HC and his first officers to hop out for a quick brekkie on the platform while leaving the aircraft running then, reduces the chance of a non start offshore which can be most inconvenient as we all know.

[HeliComparator]

Hippo

Why would we want to do that, when brekkie is served to us in the comfort of the cockpit? In the wonderous 225 there is no flying to be done, just a few buttons to press and then we can tuck in on the way home:8

In any case I am getting too old to get out - seized back and overweight means that once I'm in, a fork-lift truck has to be used to get me out:{

HC

[maxeemum]

.......and people wonder why the cost of Aviation Insurance is so high.

The problem with risk assessment is what some folks may find risky (worlds best practice risk matrix or gut instinct & experience determined), other folks may not find the same activity risky at all. Some of these folks wear the risky activity as a badge of honour and poo poo the folks that use a different approach......

As we have learn't (some the hard way), there are old and bolds there are no old bolds.....

THINK ABOUT YOUR AVIATION ACTIVITY-Your families want you back at the end o the day!

Max

:ugh:

[212man]

"In any case I am getting too old to get out - seized back and overweight means that once I'm in, a fork-lift truck has to be used to get me out"

Must be those crashworthy seats!;)

[tecpilot]

Have afternoon an awkward sedation meeting about an accident with an injured customer...

The real problem with this fu.. risk assessment is:
There are theorizers about us pilots, passing each psychological test, writing thousends of pages, talking artful, but not able to fly or to use their brains with common sense and they are the first and ever again involved in accidents and incidents and that will be so at all times.
Dazzlers! Kick them out!

I prefer the old style. Soft flushed cockpit managers we do not need in helicopter ops.
Sorry i'm pissed today :}

[razer]

The problem with risk assessment is what some folks may find safe (worlds best practice risk matrix or gut instinct & experience determined), other folks may not find the same activity safe at all. Some of these folks wear the safe activity as a badge
of honour and poo poo the folks that use a different approach...... Altered it just a little bit to illustrate a point: you're one of those folks poo poo-ing others that use a different approach!

[maxeemum]

Wow Razer, for your "first" post you have mastered cut and paste and the use of colour extremely well..... I am impressed. Interesting how you chose red to illustrate SAFE. ("Hang on I'll just pull to the red line, red is safe......DOH!)


Your point is exactly what the industry is trying to define when it comes to risk assessment vs risk management. What seems safe to you and your operation may not necessarily seem safe to others (based on equipment, your training, experience, recency, currency, weather, manipulative skill, financial resources, engineering & spare parts availability, moon state, tactical situation, air parity etc).

The concept I was discussing was plain and simple, think about your activities as for every action their is a consequence.....

Not interested in poo pooing-Just interested in sustainable long term operations.

:=

[topendtorque]

Careful with the paradigms there Max,

I'm not so sure this 'sharp' young fella has even soloed yet.

you'll bounce him clean off of his elevated pad onto his nose into the dirt beyond!:ugh: :{

[cl12pv2s]

Conceptual Risk is different for everyone!

It depends on so many factors, that it is a little rich to sit at one's computer and 'poo-poo' the actions in the picture without knowing the exact extent of the factors (pilot experience, cost and rewards of other methods of operation, stability of platform, wind direction and strength etc..etc..

Risk = Probability of Loss X Severity of Loss / Rewards

As most of those factors are subjective, it is futile here to argue the relative riskiness of this operation.

Here's some bedtime reading: http://www.risktaking.co.uk/concepts.htm

cl12pv2s

if you look at the hose and his relaxed hip-slumped pose it's clear that he having a wee into the tank

Are we sure this is a 'he'. I thought is was a lass.

[JimL]

In the interest of the debate, I offer up this extract:

"Aviation is remarkable for the giant technological leaps it has made over the last century. This progress would not have been possible without parallel achievements in the control and reduction of aviation’s safety hazards. Given the many ways that aviation can result in injury or harm, those involved with aviation have been preoccupied with preventing accidents since the earliest days of flying. Through the disciplined application of best safety management practices, the frequency and severity of aviation occurrences have declined significantly.

CONCEPT OF SAFETY

In order to understand safety management, it is necessary to consider what is meant by “safety”. Depending on one’s perspective, the concept of aviation safety may have different connotations, such as:

a) zero accidents (or serious incidents), a view widely held by the travelling public;

b) the freedom from danger or risks, i.e. those factors which cause or are likely to cause harm;

c) the attitude towards unsafe acts and conditions by employees (reflecting a “safe” corporate culture);

d) the degree to which the inherent risks in aviation are “acceptable”;

e) the process of hazard identification and risk management; and

f) the control of accidental loss (of persons and property, and damage to the environment).

While the elimination of accidents (and serious incidents) would be desirable, a one hundred per cent safety rate is an unachievable goal. Failures and errors will occur, in spite of the best efforts to avoid them. No human activity or human-made system can be guaranteed to be absolutely safe, i.e. free from risk. Safety is a relative notion whereby inherent risks are acceptable in a “safe” system.

Safety is increasingly viewed as the management of risk.

Safety is considered to have the following meaning:

Safety is the state in which the risk of harm to persons or of property damage is reduced to, and maintained at or below, an acceptable level through a continuing process of hazard identification and risk management."


Jim

[JimL]

Here is another quote from the same source:

"Analysis of accident data all too often reveals that the situation prior to the accident was “ripe for an accident”. Safety-minded persons may even have been saying that it was just a matter of time before these circumstances led to an accident. When the accident occurs, often healthy, qualified, experienced, motivated and well-equipped personnel were found to have committed errors that triggered the accident. They (and their colleagues) may have committed these errors or unsafe practices many times before without adverse consequences. In addition, some of the unsafe conditions in which they were operating may have been present for years, again without causing an accident. In other words, an element of chance is present."

Jim

[SASless]

Don't you just love hard and fast simple rules?

Hard and fast rules are really for the "simple" among us.

Perhaps it is the advantage of an education learned flying in the Bush....not some farmers corn field but "Bush" meaning it is you, the aircraft, a few drums of fuel, a hand pump, and bung wrench. (scratch the bung wrench....it always seems to get left behind at the Base Camp), allows one to experience the wonders of thumbing a virtual finger at the "baby sitter" mentality of modern aviation. (particularly in the UK).

No 200 foot longlines, no one skid touching passenger drops, no cruising at naught feet in a hover looking for a way down off a mountain, no cargo carrying by only eye balling the load, heck...I even had some guys that would climb down a tree if need be. I pity the folks that think themselves real helicopter pilots who have never hand pumped fuel, rolled fuel drums, rigged and hooked up their own sling loads, or changed a part without an engineer. You have not lived until you walk up a mountain lugging a new battery to find the helicopter starting on the first try on the old battery.

I would imagine the mustering bunch in Oz have done much of the same as well as the bush pilots working out in the middle of no where.

Have you ever drawn your own maps because there were none to be had as they had not been done by any government?

Ever fly for a solid week and never get within radio range of an ATC unit....over three countries?

All the rules are fine and dandy....but none of them beat plain old common sense. Risks taken haphazardly will kill you.....risks taken with due care and circumpsection may but at least it was despite of using your good sense to minimize the risks.

Blind obedience to the rules will shorten your career quicker than taking a calculated risk every now and then and knowing when to set on the porch and drink beer vice going flying.

Landing on trucks has been a common event for decades and I know not of a single aircraft damaged or a pilot or a crewmember being hurt as a result.

One guy's opinon......

[MSP Aviation]

:D:D:D

I applaud you SASLess.

[McGowan]

Well said SASless,

The shame of it all is that we have been doing "risk assessments" as Pilots forever. Everytime we take off, we think "is this going to work, yeah, can't see a problem, away we go". That for me is a risk assessment. Everything I do in a helicopter is done that way. I'm always thinking ahead and deciding weather what I'm about to do is going to come out okay. If I decide it's not going to work, I don't go and do it.
Now all they want is for us to do the "risk assessment" in a formal manner, write it down. A pain in the arse, but that's what is required by some companies now.
Far as I'm conserned, the photo is a great one and looks safe enough to me. Even though it does look like he is saving the enviorment by not peeing on the ground.
You can't eliminate risk, only minimise it to an acceptable level (a level that is safe enough not to kill me).
As has been said, there are those who sit there shiny behind in an office chair and have never been out of the city or in a helicopter who think they know how we should do what we do.
IMHO "they" can take a flying jump up their own blott.

[flyer43]

Far as I'm conserned, the photo is a great one and looks safe enough to me. Even though it does look like he is saving the enviorment by not peeing on the ground.


The photo is indeed a "great one" but it certainly doesn't look safe. With all that flat ground, and even a "road" available to land on with no obstructions to be seen, why would anybody choose to make a "pinnacle" landing on top of a very small, unstable platform? In this particular instance, would it not have been safer to land on the ground and use a longer "pee pipe" from the tanker to the helicopter?

I too agree with SASless - Most pilots do carry out their own self assessment of risk prior to commiting to a flight, but there are many more out there who seem to have no concept of risk whatsoever.

[Oogle]

You guys have never been fire bombing then.

Common practice in Aus during the fire season - and the Civil Aviation Orders allow it! :ooh:

[flyer43]

Oogle,

Ground running isn't the main concern, it's the actual location the pilot chose to land, let alone ground run, when there was plenty of hard & flat terra firma around!!

[unstable load]

Just to chuck in my sixpence worth....

If the guy chose to land on the readily available hard, flat ground that is so visibly plentiful in this picture, then the risk assesment chart would go bright red in a heartbeat.

WHY?, I hear you ask.

Beacause you now have a situation where a crew that is familiar with a particular task and more than likely TRAINED to do it that way suddenly has to change everything they are familiar with and work in a "foreign" environment.
Now, the suddenly available wide open spaces bring a HUGE risk to the fore where the helper for example stands a DEFINITE chance of wandering off and getting hit by that normally not clearly visible tail rotor, a situation that was not possible on the "dangerous" elevated platform they are familiar and dare I say it, safer with.

Naturally, just my opinion and subject to the expected nit-picking it will no doubt generate.:}

[MSP Aviation]

why would anybody choose to make a "pinnacle" landing on top of a very small, unstable platform

Unstable?! Phooey. We build our trucks "like a rock" this side of the pond.

[McGowan]

flyer43,
Just because you either wouldn't or couldn't land there does not make it unsafe. The Pilot on the day makes that decsion. He is there, knows what he is doing and has done it very well.
The vehicle is obviously purpose built for this operation. If the Pilot thought is wasn't safe, he wouldn't do it, if he thought it was beyond his capabilities, he wouldn't do it (if he went ahead anyway, his risk assessment would have been flawed and it would be a much different picture). People should not be slagged off at based on a photo.
I still stand by my opinion that it looks safe enough to me....................

[flyer43]

If the Pilot thought is wasn't safe, he wouldn't do it, if he thought it was beyond his capabilities, he wouldn't do it


This is an example of an pilot making a decision based on judgment gained from experience......

Video Clip (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT0uc5m9bFk)

[unstable load]

At risk of offending a lot of people, I believe that was a really bad decision made under the influence of ego and the desire to try to either outdo a previous bad decision, or set the standard for future silliness.

The US taxpayers investment at work.

[Mars]

This is one of two threads that might have been used for this post (the original one - containing notification of the accident - appears to have gone missing).

It is posted to highlight two elements which might have flagged a concern to the pilot (one on power reserves and the other on LTE) and triggered a risk assessment (the sort that is done on the spot once doubts are present).

As a matter of interest, in other parts of the world when there is exposure (e.g. probability of deck-edge strike), AEO HOGE has be ensured.

Mars

NTSB Identification: DFW07LA109
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, May 11, 2007 in E. Cameron 219, GM
Aircraft: Bell 206B, registration: N3RL
Injuries: 2 Minor, 2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On May 11, 2007, about 1245 central daylight time, a single-engine Bell 206B helicopter, N3RL, was substantially damaged when it collided with water shortly after takeoff from East Cameron 219, located in the Gulf of Mexico. The commercial pilot and one passenger were not injured. The remaining two passengers sustained minor injuries. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Rotorcraft Leasing Company, LLC., of Broussard, Louisiana. Day visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on-demand air taxi flight. The cross-country flight was originating at the time of the accident.

According to the pilot, he lifted the helicopter to a three-to-five-foot hover and performed a final check of the "gauges." Reportedly, the torque was indicating 96 percent and all other gauges were within "normal" parameters. The pilot then attempted to transition into forward flight. The pilot reported that the helicopter "appeared to settle as it approached the deck edge and did not feel like it was in transitional lift." After the helicopter crossed the edge of the deck, it entered into an uncommanded descent and right rotation. The pilot's attempts to regain control were unsuccessful. The pilot deployed the helicopter's emergency floats prior to impacting the water. The pilot and passengers were able to egress the helicopter into a life raft unassisted.

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector examined the helicopter once it was recovered. The inspector reported that the helicopter's fuselage sustained structural damage.

At 1253, the weather observation facility at LCH, which was located 45 miles north of the accident site, reported wind from 070 degrees at 5 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, clear of clouds, temperature 79 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point 80 degrees Fahrenheit, and a barometric pressure of 29.97 inches of Mercury.

[Mars]

Here is another accident for which Risk Assessment appears to be an issue. How many of these do we need before it dawns on pilots/operators that this is a practice that should not be condoned.

Mars

************************************************************ ********************
** Report created 11/16/2007 Record 1 **
************************************************************ ********************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 555BH Make/Model: B407 Description: Bell 407
Date: 11/09/2007 Time: 2110

Event Type: Accident Highest Injury: Fatal Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Unknown

LOCATION
City: MORRISTOWN State: TN Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N555BH, A BELL 407 ROTORCRAFT, WHILE STANDING WITH ROTOR STILL RUNNING, THE
PILOT WALKED INTO THE TURNING MAIN ROTOR AND WAS FATALLY INJURED,
MORRISTOWN, TN

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 1
# Crew: 1 Fat: 1 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 0 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: NOT REPORTED

OTHER DATA
Activity: Unknown Phase: Standing Operation: OTHER


FAA FSDO: NASHVILLE, TN (SO03) Entry date: 11/13/2007