If the combatants would pause and take a breath, they might like to remember that this is supposed to be a forum for professional aviators, not a bunch of squabbling teenagers.
Aviation is a risky business. All risks taken by pilots should be carefully considered. Some have stated how they have felt obliged and justified in taking this particular risk (no pilot at the controls of a running helicopter). In a situation where there is a fear of an engine not re-starting, in a remote and potentially dangerous environment such as the circumstances quoted by John Eacott, a stranded aircraft could be more than inconvenient, uncomfortable, or expensive; it might also prove fatal.
However, a calculated risk taken in one extreme set of circumstances should not become the normal thing to do - because that's when the danger sets in. How many times do you risk playing "Russian Roulette" before you shoot yourself? Professional aviation shouldn't operate like that.
Was the obvious risk of leaving the aircraft unmanned justified in this tragic case? I'd say not and that this was a totally
avoidable accident. I'm sure the bereaved family would agree.
We aren't allowed to do this in UK by law. Seeing as most of our rules are retrospectively written because someone fouled up in a new way ( despite what some prefer to believe), I'm sure it's happened before.
CAP 393 Air Navigation: The Order and the Regulations
Section 1 Part 10 Page 5.
Pilot to remain at controls and be secured in seat
93 (1) This article applies to any flying machine or glider registered in the United Kingdom other than an EU-OPS aeroplane flying on a commercial air transport flight.
(2) The commander of an aircraft to which this article applies must cause one pilot to remain at the controls at all times while it is in flight.
(3) If the aircraft is required by or under this Order to carry two pilots, the commander must cause both pilots to remain at the controls during take-off and landing.
(4) If the aircraft carries two or more pilots (whether or not it is required to do so) and is flying on a flight for the purpose of the public transport of passengers, the commander must remain at the controls during take-off and landing.
(5) (a) Subject to sub-paragraph (b), each pilot at the controls of the aircraft must be secured in their seat by either a safety belt with or without one diagonal shoulder strap, or a safety harness.
(b) During take-off and landing a safety harness must be worn if it is required by article 37 and Schedule 4 to be provided.
(6) An operator must not permit a helicopter rotor to be turned under power for the purpose of making a flight unless there is a person at the controls entitled in accordance with article 50 to act as pilot-in-command of the helicopter.
Despite it being illegal here in UK, I have seen it being done, a commercial 206 being pax loaded by the lone pilot for so-called "joy-rides". There was no risk of an aircraft stranding, it was presumably being done only for financial gain, namely to expedite the operation and to save a bit of fuel and engine start cycles. I was in two minds about it at the time and I wasn't in a position to speak to the pilot. However, if I see it happening again I'd have no qualms about reporting it to the authority because it unnecessarily puts the lives of innocent people at risk. If a pilot chooses to do it and loses his own life, tragic enough, but that was his own mistaken choice.