First, you can't really take numbers like those in your first post as being more than a very, very general set, perhaps analogous to average life expectancy in a state. There's huge variations by sector. Prime example, the airline industry's safety stats are pretty dern good, but they're still part of the fixed wing universe's "8.38 per 100,000 hours flown" that you quote. "If you play in the street, you should expect to be hit by the bus"- the airlines don't play in the street, but some fixed-wingers do. Even though flying an aluminum tube for thousands of hours may be a lot of exposure to that fixed wing accident rate, it's not all that dangerous (or exciting) no matter how demanding it may be.
If 'the scheds' do well at safety numbers, it's because of three things: Well trained, current pilots operating in a system adapted to the job; Suitable equipment for the job being done; Risk adverse management. That's the long way of saying that in the end somewhere between 75% and 90% of all accidents are pilot error, so if you eliminate the opportunity for an error in the pointy end, your numbers have to improve. Even in the realm of helicopters, that works. I worked at PHI from '84 to '97. During one of those years, PHI's accident rate, per departure, approximated the scheds (or so I recall).
That was a HUGE change. They did this by analyzing their accident history and then making changes in training, operations, and safety culture. While the management that made that happen was in place, a line puke, er- pilot; mechanic; dispatcher; anybody at all, had a formal way to take exception to a proposed operation knowing that whatever the outcome, they'd receive an impartial hearing. And, their issue, if supported, would be THE BOOK, immediately. The take-home is this- no matter how "hazardous" your phase of operation may be, pilot error is still going to be the biggie. No matter what: fixed or rotary wing; sched or on-demand; day or night; IFR or VFR, I, thge pilot in command, decide how hazardous what I do will be.
Rotary wing has the potential to be as safe, or SAFER, than fixed wing. Other than catastrophic structural failures and inherently more critical operations such as those Mr Coyle alluded to, I'd much rather have an emergency in a helicopter than an airplane- if all else fails I'm going to crash moving much more slowly in a helo, and I'll need a much smaller area of favorable terrain to make that a survivable event. It's a fact that some parts of the helo world will never be as safe as 'the scheds', but they can do a lot better by minimizing pilot error.
Last edited by Devil 49; 19th Apr 2008 at 03:31.