So let me get this right - you guys are advocating a slow steep approach into
every LS, no matter how unsuitable the floor might be for a Cat 1 engine failure after CDP landing (the slope and surface are often difficult to asses until in the hover) or how long you might spend in the H-V curve (in a single)?
Unless your LS is very small (which would necessitate a confined area approach) why not aim deeper into the LS in the knowledge that you will therefore be higher over the LS boundary (where the wires are most likely to be hidden) and are less likely to encounter tiny telephone wires (which will snap before they take out a helicopter) which are the most likely ones to surprise you.
Maybe you just don't have power lines marked on maps in countries where you operate but we do, right down to the 11KvA small lines on wooden poles (that will trap a helicopter) so for us, a decent map and a good recce, plus the abilkity to modify how we approach into the fields means we are not stuck in the - 'one size fits all and it's the only safe way to do it' slow, steep approach that seems to be the favourite of most here.
Sasless - I think I am the one advocating flexibility of thought and action - I can vary my approach to suit the conditions.
Gomer - no, we just don't have trees in UK
500 guy
The whole problem, and I dare say the reason we keep having these accidents is people like you that think they will be able to see wires on a full speed confined or semi-confined approach.
no, people keep having these accidents because they are not looking for wires adequately - I am happy that I can do that from a low level recce and confirm it on finals without having to fly ridiculously slow and steep. My choice of exposure has kept me safe for over 30 years in some quite demanding circumstances.