look at the MAJOR twin accidents that have not killed people on the ground because they were over barren sea/land, and NOT over urban areas !! Had they been over urban areas we'd have a total disaster for helicopters in general.
Probably one of your most fatuous arguments AnFI - it's like arguing that if we had adjoining tectonic plates and volcanoes in UK we would be much more likely to die in an earthquake or eruption.
'Look, over there, that's really bad - imagine if it was over here!' So very Daily Mail and no basis for anything other than scaremongering.
IF Hyd TR is not necessary AND HydTR can kill you, THEN do you chose HydTR? (AW139 drivers?)
I thought we had established that on larger helicopters ie most twins, a hyd TR is necessary because of the power required to operate that TR with the high disc loadings involved.
Even light singles trying to get by on a non-hyd TR can run out of authority because the designer is trying to keep the disc loading low.
And btw the crash you keep harping back to was a 169 not a 139 - another erroneous 'fact' from you.
Any TR can fail and kill you, especially in a 400' hover at high power - your argument, as usual, lacks logical progression - just because it was a hyd TR doesn't mean all other TRs are inherently safe.
Do you seriously want free access to London for singles? What is wrong with the existing helilanes? They allow sufficient access whilst minimising risk to those below - what is wrong with that.
Twins can be allowed more freedom but are still most likely to be routed along the helilanes so what is your beef - do you want all singles to have the same freedoms as the air ambulance, police and SAR? That wouldn't make doing their job more difficult would it????