Originally Posted by
Bell_ringer
Night restrictions don't just exist because of risks related to visual references, there is also much higher risk to a forced landing.
Enstrom's don't have the best reliability reputation, and while the brotherhood of pistonage will profess their absolute reliability, night work should be in turbine aircraft with better performance.
The only reason a piston is ever used in this type of role is cost, and cost rarely involves the safest option.
Hell, let's all just quit flying entirely, because nothing will ever be safe enough
Thankfully, that attitude does not prevail with either regulators or industry in the US. The vast preponderance of US general aviation operations, night or day, are in piston powered aircraft, much of it in single engine piston powered aircraft. Turbine powerplants are certainly more reliable, but it would seem that pistons are considered reliable enough here. Risk/reward and all that sort of thing that I've whined about incessantly. US general aviation certainly draws the line in a different place than the rest of the world (except maybe Brazil
) and yet things seem relatively safe.
However, it is worth pointing out that the insurance industry may be changing its mind, regardless of what regulators and industry think. Given the recent, high profile tour operator incidents in Hawaii (involving both piston and turbine helicopters), and the similar incidents in NYC (involving turbine helicopters exclusively--and this goes beyond the whole shoe selfie debacle), rates are up and underwriters are down. Not only are rates up, venues (parks, shows, fairs, etc.) are demanding higher coverage amounts. The helicopter tour industry, whether it's ride concession or actual sightseeing, is going to struggle harder to make money.
Originally Posted by
JimEli
That is certainly an interesting data point, and, as I conjectured previously, seems more likely IMHO than night operations. But the NTSB report will ultimately tell the tale.
Originally Posted by
helonorth
If I remember correctly, the camera thing was just a way around the 25 mile limit for a tour with no 135 certificate. This was in the U.S.
These operations are most typically conducted under an FAA LOA per 91.147. No "cheating" required. The LOA seems easier to obtain than the necessary insurance sometimes, although I've never been through the LOA process myself.