@ standto: Be sure, all of their pilots are very expensive CRM-trained.
I think it's not only the pilots who ought to attend
CRM training...I guess that's what standto was referring
to.
Just out of interest, would this aircraft be written off or is it viable to repair and return to use?
lol, I'd guess it's not going to be used again.
Regardless of the obviously pretty intact airframe
(compared to a normal a/c crash)
it would certainly be a risk - also for any insuring
company - it's probably like with cars that had accidents.
I could imagine that its re-usable (or recertifiable)
parts are going to be sold ...maybe you wanna
have a look on
www.ebay.com =)
I've been told that the ADAC and DRF prefer to hire former military and police force pilots.
Yes, that's definitely true - but actually mainly because
of their training and experience - there are pretty high
requirements that are generally not that easily met
by non-military pilots.
Perhaps this will make them reconsider their hiring policy?
I think you cannot generalize that - I was actually
referring to the fact that the threshold for such 'risky'
maneuvers is definitely lower if you've been trained
such stuff-but as an untrained (civilian) pilot you
are pretty unlikely to risk something you are not
experienced with - as long as it doesn't turn
out to be absolutely necessary to perform.
Actually, the ADAC would certainly also employ non-military
pilots if they have the necessary background/experience.
But particularly things like IFR-ratings with German Helicopter pilots are not that common among civilan pilots - though being
necessary to work as a rescue pilot for the ADAC.
Hours/PIC-time, IFR/night time are the limiting factors.
So, I totally agree here with tecpilot's posting.
Also, I consider John Eacott's description pretty correct -
though I question if it is indeed going to be an insurance
matter - because of the kind of accident I don't
know if any insurance policy is going to apply in that case.
But he's definitely right in saying that IF any insurance
company is going to pay for the helicopter that the wreckage
would then change the owner.
Are you suggesting that all ex-military pilots are likely to try this sort of thing?
Certainly it would be naive to assume that - there are too
many factors involved, I myself was actually only referring
to the fact that they were trained such maneuvers and
as such are more experienced/- also more likely
to successfully complete something like that.
Someone who's giving thought to do that for the first time
is in my opinion rather unlikely to undergo such an
attempt without proper supervision (for example by
an experienced (military) CFI).
[QUOTE]
Alright. we all did stupid mistakes-admitted. But would you fly underneath a bridge? Max headroom about fifteen feet!
[QUOTE]
I've read it was about 5,30 m compared to the 3,97 m
of the BO 105 (inflight).
Has anybody details about that ?
Since he's crashed obviously 15 m behind the bridge
it was - despite from the fact that he crashed - an
obviously technically well done maneuver...
which certainly wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't
been trained to do such things.