Originally Posted by
SASless
Stick to noting facts....information that is un-ambiguous....and if you insist....offer an opinion on that.
We still don't know if this pilot had a medical problem (and might not ever, depending on the condition of the remains). It is hard to fathom how someone who passed a commercial pilot checkride and was operating a helicopter of that caliber could make such poor choices. It seems more likely such a pilot would happily scud run (probably legally, 1/2 mile and clear of clouds and all that, and tell me nobody here hasn't done that) and run into a sailboat mast than assertively climb into the mung, twice (at least).
Is that a byproduct of people learning to fly on Robinsons instead fo helicopters I wonder.
It's a legitimate point to consider but I wish you would present it in a less juvenile way. Regardless, I disagree. Indeed, it is generally the opposite, because you are taught to fly rather conservatively, with greater respect for weather, wind, turbulence, density altitude, and so on. Because you have to in a Robinson. On the other hand, from the sidelines (because I will be forever stuck in Robinson-land) I have seen some evidence that when folks transition into their first turbine gig they get a little drunk with power, so to speak, doing a lot of max. performance departures, etc., etc. There could be some feeling of invulnerability there given the vast difference in performance. While that might lead to certain types of bad outcomes, it should still not play into IMC related negligence.
This folks is absolutely not how to represent our Industry
Referring to Kaiser's statement: definitely agree with you on that!!!
