Recuperator, I do indeed know how cut throat the helicopter business, that is why there needs to be regulatory control of safety issues. That way, there is a level playing field for everyone competing in the marketplace. If you are not permitted to overfly people or property, then everyone has the same limitations. If the customer can't accept the cost of doing the job safely, then I guess he won't get to complete his project.
I agree absolutely about the miniscule possibility of a dropped load taking out a cable car, but it still does not absolve the risk manager from
eliminating that possibility while it is in service and carrying members of the public. It is the risk managers duty to ensure that members of the public are not exposed to this risk (of which they are totally unaware).
All the examples of risk which you pose are directly related to the aircraft, pilot and operator. If the job is planned correctly, none of those should endanger the public. The operator and his crew either accept that risk, or find another profession. 3top makes some highly pertinent points including an excellent observation that a helicopter taking controlled emergency action is a very different animal than a dead weight external load dropping out of control from the sky.
Again, I categorically state that at no time have we ever intentionally overflown the general public or own crews. How can I make that statement so confidently? Because, in addition to the requirements of the FAA in the carriage of external loads, I have an entire other set of Federal regulation to obey. The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations.
Specifically:
1926.551(a)
Helicopter regulations. Helicopter cranes shall be expected to comply with any applicable regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration.
and
1926.551(i)
Hooking and unhooking loads. When employees are required to perform work under hovering craft, a safe means of access shall be provided for employees to reach the hoist line hook and engage or disengage cargo slings. Employees shall not perform work under hovering craft except when necessary to hook or unhook loads.
Additionally, we have to comply with specific State OSHA or equivalent agency regulations, and any other regulations specific to the type of operation being conducted. Within the above rule, it does not prohibit essential crew from being placed in a certain area of risk in positioning and placing precision loads, eg; tower construction - but that is an assessed, defined and mitigated risk by both the operator and contractor.
The OSHA regulations, like all rules, are an escalating level of regulation, with compliance from the most basic levels of general safety to the specific operation being performed. So;
1926.550(a)(19)
All employees shall be kept clear of loads about to be lifted and of suspended loads.
Do you start to understand why I can so confidently make the statements I make? In addition to basic safety sense, it is the law and I can ensure you it is enforced, observed, obeyed, complied with and is not subject to interpretation by either ourselves, or OSHA.
I assure you and repeat, categorically. I have never been involved in an operation that has intentionally overflown our crewmembers! It is simply not an acceptable practice. I would never consider any of my ground crew as "expendable" (your term), but they accept some degree of risk in the type of operation that we are undertaking. It is our responsibility to ensure the safe working environment for everyone of our crewmembers and we take that responsibility very, very seriously.
Let me explain the difference between anyone directly involved with the operation, and the general public. All crewmembers involved with the helicopter are directly aware of the risks associated with the specific helicopter operation being accomplished.
1926.551(b)
Briefing. Prior to each day's operation a briefing shall be conducted. This briefing shall set forth the plan of operation for the pilot and ground personnel.
The general public has no concept of the risk or understanding of any part of the helicopter operation being accomplished - nor should they. For that reason, it is essential that the operator assume the position of guardian of their safety - by ensuring that every step is taken to protect the public from any risk that helicopter operation places them in.
Furthermore, and I can put money on this. If that ski lift was switched off for the duration of the flights, you would have had a mob of people, who paid a lot of money to be there, bitterly complaining to management about the infringement on their skiing time, as it is their right to be on the slopes. They would have been up in arms and would have said themselves, even if in their own lack of wisdom, that there were little or no risk to themselves or others from a helicopter flying overhead at 1000 feet. Even if you had a vote, some people would still have elected to go up in the gondolas.
Self gratification and greed is some of our human downfalls. The owner / operator would also not have wanted to switch off the lifts as he also would not have wanted to lost any revenue during this time and would have approved the flights to keep the customers happy and the business coming in.
And I say this because, I would have been in front of the queue complaining angrily that there was no risks to us in the gondolas and that I wanted to go up to ski.
Finally. In the prepartory stages of this project the shutting down of the cable-car should have been discussed, and if required, compensated accordingly - it is all in the cost of doing business. The customers would simply have to do without the trip that day. Lots of things get shut down for lots of reasons - its just a part of life. I sincerely doubt that anyone was going up skiing at this time of year.
I would suggest to you that following this terrible accident, the Pilot, Operator, cable car operator, customer and families of those so tragically killed, might be more aligned to the viewpoint that I am presenting, than to the one that transpired. The people killed were an innocent party to what occurred. They paid their money to have a wonderful experience, not get killed in an entirely avoidable accident that was completely beyond their control or comprehension.
I would further suggest to you, that a regulatory framework will result to ensure that something like this never happens again in Austria and quite probably, anwhere in Europe.
I do sympathise with everyone involved. This is a terrrible tragedy.