"Restricted" licence such a bad idea?
In the "Gazelle Crash" thread, someone mooted that perhaps PPLs should not be allowed to fly certain heli types due to them (the helis!) having known tendencies or vices. Unsurprisingly, that idea came in for a bit of stick. However.... is it such a bad idea?
Look at the parallels -
Want to buy a motorbike? You are restricted on what you can legally learn on and then buy and ride dependant upon your age and the bikes power output. Hence no 16 year olds on Suzuki Madass Bandits or whatever they are called.
Car driving? Not sure 'cos I passed my test back in the year dot, but don't you have to have one of those sets of green "newbie driver" plates on your car to warn the public that you are quite probably going to do something unpredictable. (mmm - perhaps they could be issued to Cessna 150 pilots...)
In our own case, if we want to own a CPL or an ATPL we have to do the required number of hours.
The only restriction over whether or not a PPL / CPL / ATPL can fly a certain type of heli is financial. If they have enough cash to buy it, pay for the training, run it and insure it - off they go.
Is that enough of a safety net? Should there be some sort of ladder of progression to be followed, whereby you can't fly "Type Y" until you have x hours on "Type Y", i.e. learn to walk before you run.
I can already hear the dreaded "human rights " bells tolling here on the anti-side of this argument!
On the other hand, if some types of aircraft do fall into the "difficult" category, and we ignore it, we all end up paying the price. The unfortunates who may end up in a smoking hole in the ground, and those of us who remain behind - 'cos we're the ones who get stitched up with the hike in insurance premiums!
What do you all think?