SASless
"Suspect" means I have a hunch. Not know. And I stand by that. I'll be surprised if this accident is caused by a reason that would have affected an IFR twin. Probably LOC in IMC, possibly engine failure. Probably not some catastrophic failure with, eg, the airframe or rotor system - ie something that could have as likely happened to a twin. And I base my judgement on the fact that the acft crashed at night, into a forest, with some light fog around. Now can you confirm you disagree with my suspicion? What's your hunch? Be interesting to see when the report comes out - and even if I'm proven wrong, I mainatain the added risk factors existed.
Thank you for raising B206 G-AVII. This was indeed approved for IFR training. But only in daylight, with a minimum cloudbase of 1000ft. Don't think that helps your argument.
Jonwilson - read my previous post again. I did not maintain two pilot ops were necessary.
Agree with much of what Geoffers says. Especially question as to whether you would put your wife and kids in that heli for that trip? Surely the acid test. Would you? Not me. Do however think airliner two crew point not entirely appropriate - a small twin FW carrying 4 pax is, and that may well have one crew. Not convinced night workload that much more either apart from landing and that is largely down to pilot in control.
Sir Korsky - you chide SM for not showing compassion to the crew, as many ppruners would have known the pilot. But no mention from you of compassion for the heart surgeon and technician pax, who placed their trust in the pilot's judgement. It is indeed tragic for the pilot and his family, but at least he was in a position to make a judgement about about the risks involved and make a launch decision. I suspect the pax weren't. I hasten to add though this may be irrelevant should the cause turn out to be out of the pilot's control.
Interesting post from Jack Carson....