PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - What's more important Public or Flight Safety?
Old 3rd Mar 2004, 01:21
  #18 (permalink)  
handysnaks
Tightgit
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The artist formerly known as john du'pruyting
Age: 65
Posts: 804
Received 5 Likes on 2 Posts
The thread has gone on a bit since I first tried to post this (bl**dy btyahoo) however...

bramv22
There are no units in the UK that will keep an aircraft in the air 24/7. Although a few of us are available 24/7
(not TC's lot, they're just part timers!!). We would love to be able to keep one up 24 hours a day (snigger here).
But we can't. As an example, our unit will do anything from 0 to about 7.5 hours a day, but the annual average is
about 3.5 a day.

The reason we can't fly any more than that is of course the reason you (and now others) have already stated.

"This, they would never be able to do if they had to operate twins"

For all the talk of safety, if UK regs permitted the use of singles over the cities then I think a few units would choose to operate them. However, UK regs don't allow that (and probably never will!!). This suits most of us because given the choice (especially at night) we would rather be up there in a twin.
Personally, if the only way I could do this and earn beer coupons was to fly a single, then I'd still do it.

Headstheair, I appreciate your aspiration for a helicopter pilots job creation scheme.

"This all = more employment for more pilots, engineers and other support. A more effective spend than having to debate whether you can actually afford to have that £3m twin launched."

Given that you accept that in the current regulatory environment it can't happen do you consider the 3 million pound helicopter is too expensive?

"In the emergency services the R44 Police version can do 95% of the stuff that a twin can do"
However as a lot of police units are providing an air ambulance service as well I would say that is incorrect.
handysnaks is offline