Helicopter down in East River, NYC [Archive]

View Full Version : Helicopter down in East River, NYC

Pages : [1] 2

JTobias

11th Mar 2018, 23:51

Sky news reporting that a helicopter has crashed in to the East River in Mahattan.

https://news.sky.com/story/helicopter-crash-in-manhattan-reports-of-people-trapped-11286757

Looks like a Squirrel. Video footage here

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/11/helicopter-crashes-in-new-york-citys-east-river-reports-say.html

twinstar_ca

12th Mar 2018, 00:39

Obviously an AStar... popouts were inflated prior to water contact... so why the uncommanded roll to the right?? or was it intentional to stop the MR??

spinwing

12th Mar 2018, 01:07

Mmmmm ...

Oooh nasty ... might it have been a hydraulics related issue do you think ?

:eek:

My Condolences to the passengers families ....

MikeNYC

12th Mar 2018, 01:08

There was a Mayday call reporting Engine Failure.

spinwing

12th Mar 2018, 01:09

Ahhhh ...

that'd be it then ..

Kulwin Park

12th Mar 2018, 01:38

verticalspin

12th Mar 2018, 01:50

Rotorbrake is never applied during a ditching as this will cause the helicopter to yaw making the whole situation worse. You wait until the blades stop turning and sometimes you're even lucky enough and the helicopter will stay upright. The egress procedure we get taught in the military is to wait until all violent motion stops before exiting the aircraft to avoid getting hit by the turning blades on your way out. We have to go through lots of training to be able to execute an egress successfully. And I can say from experience that being upside down strapped into your seat underwater is not the most comfortable position to be in. For an untrained person this doesn't end well most of the time.

WillyPete

12th Mar 2018, 02:10

Obviously an AStar... popouts were inflated prior to water contact... so why the uncommanded roll to the right?? or was it intentional to stop the MR??

the speed they hit the water could likely have blown one side.

malabo

12th Mar 2018, 02:15

GrayHorizonsHeli

12th Mar 2018, 02:21

the live video i saw, they had the aircraft tied off at a dock inverted. all six bags still inflated.

cayuse365

12th Mar 2018, 02:23

Two dead three in critical condition, pilot survived. It was a photo shoot mission.

RIP for those who lost their lives

A Squared

12th Mar 2018, 02:30

Ummmm, ..... no. Applying the rotor brake as you describe would cause the fuselage to rotate rapidly in the opposite direction.

Ummmm ... no. Applying the rotor brake would cause the fuselage to rotate in the same direction.

vaqueroaero

12th Mar 2018, 02:47

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBwFBvl_Of0&feature=youtu.be

It sounds as though the harnesses the photographers were wearing made it difficult for them to get out.

Airbubba

12th Mar 2018, 03:52

There was a Mayday call reporting Engine Failure.

Yep, N350LH called a MAYDAY, then 'East River Engine Failure' on LGA Tower helo freq 126.05. The controller asked him to 'say again' a couple of times. The controller asked if he needed any assistance, one of the other helos said 'it was a MAYDAY La Guardia!'.

Sounds like the pilot climbed out and was on top of the inverted helicopter when a boat arrived from N355AG's radio report of the scene.

The MAYDAY call is about 5:15 into this liveatc.net clip:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/klga/KLGA-Twr2-Mar-11-2018-2300Z.mp3

For some reason my web browser player seems to mark the same spot on the clip as 10:30 so check there if you can't find the engine failure report at 5:15.

Edited audio of the MAYDAY posted here: https://clyp.it/wobx3yfk

NutLoose

12th Mar 2018, 04:00

NutLoose, that video is from a different crash 7 years ago ....

Thanks, removed.

Aerospace101

12th Mar 2018, 04:03

It sounds as though the harnesses the photographers were wearing made it difficult for them to get out.

This looks like one of the "Doors off" type flights for a photo shoot, where the pax are all tethered to the helicopter via harness, rather than a normal seat belt.

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 04:30

Ummmm ... no. Applying the rotor brake would cause the fuselage to rotate in the same direction.
In the same direction as the blade turn. Yes I agree.

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 04:35

This looks like one of the "Doors off" type flights for a photo shoot, where the pax are all tethered to the helicopter via harness, rather than a normal seat belt.
And there is no quick release for those harnesses? Wouldn’t that be extensively covered in the pax briefing?

With ‘no doors’ the egress should have been easier (once freed from harness). But let’s not forget cold water shock.

whoknows idont

12th Mar 2018, 05:22

Two people were declared dead at the scene, Commissioner Nigro said, and three others were declared dead after being taken to local hospitals, James Long, a Fire Department spokesman, said early Monday morning.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/11/nyregion/new-york-city-helicopter-crash.html

:(

mickjoebill

12th Mar 2018, 05:31

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBwFBvl_Of0&feature=youtu.be

It sounds as though the harnesses the photographers were wearing made it difficult for them to get out.
The commissioner said that the five passengers were "tightly harnessed" he didn't say what type of harness they were wearing.
We shouldn't just assume they were wearing a photographers harness unless it is standard procedure for Liberty to insist on one whenever the door is removed.

It is not uncommon for operators to operate doors off with a regular seatbelt.

Even with all the resources available in a capital city and despite being quickly on scene the last passenger apparently remained trapped for between 30-60 minutes.

This video shows police helicopter dropping divers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XuSJQKx7pg

MJB

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 05:32

It looks like it would've been ideal to whack on the Main Rotor Brake as soon as touchdown occurred. It would stop the blades whacking the water faster as it rolled, and a quicker exit for passengers.
I wonder if that is a requirement during ditching?
Condolences to the ones who didn't make it.
No rotor brake brakes the rotors faster than having the blades whacking the water.

In a helicopter without floats, that (ie, cyclic sideways, to as soon as possible stop blades by contact with water) would be the proper procedure.

The procedure for helicopter with floats has been explained by others in this thread.

It appears the mishap pilot’s problem was that due to high rate of descend at touch down the ship submerged anyway (despite the deployed floats).

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 05:45

the live video i saw, they had the aircraft tied off at a dock inverted. all six bags still inflated.
Can you pls link this video here?

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 05:59

Looked like a reasonable auto into water, maybe a little more impact than desired that damaged the right float, causing the eventual rollover. Flat water, may have made it more difficult to judge the flare height and contributed to the hard impact.
No flare; high rate of descent on touch down. Ship submerges at least up to shoulder level on impact.

Despite reports that the ship landed on its side, or flipped over upon ditching, the videos in the OP show that it stayed upright (albeit half submerged) for a few seconds while its blades slowed considerably by contact with water.

I would argue that the blades had come to a complete stop before the helicopter then turned towards its starboard side.

Flapwing

12th Mar 2018, 06:47

https://vimeo.com/42501875

KiwiNedNZ

12th Mar 2018, 06:54

Lot of miss comms here on operater.

FlyNYON run specific photo flights with all pax in full crewman type harnesses. Usually run 5 to a flight, one in front left seat and two on each side. The harnesses are anchored to hard points on the floor, I think where seat belts normally attach but not 100% sure. FlyNYON have their own AS350B3s and they also use Libertys helicopters when needed - hence why you see the red Liberty B2 with NYON stickers on it.

They operate from the Kearny Heliport over in NJ and not from any of the NYC heliports. Its only 3 mins flying time from Kearny to the city. They operate differently from the other tour operators who I think are under Part 135 and NYON are under 91 - but again not 100%. NYON do detailed briefings for all passengers at their facility - have sat in on these before and they are very detailed. I have used their harnesses for air to air shoots I have done in NYC and also used my own harness in their machines.

In my opinion they run a solid operation - pax are well briefed and the NYON pilots I have flown with are very professional.

Brother

12th Mar 2018, 09:04

Was this a "tourist" helicopter flight for people to take shots of NYC or a "charter" for a professional photographer which carried unnecessary passengers?

CaliforniaRed

12th Mar 2018, 10:01

Won't let me post URLs yet.

Tourist flight to take photos. It's this company's "experience": open door flights. You are in a harness attached to a hard point behind you as you sit with your feet dangling out.

site is flynyon.com

This guy was in another FlyNYON AS350 at the same time as the fatal flight:

his twitter account is twitter.com/EricAdams321

He has photos in his feed of what appears to be the deceased passengers walking towards the aircraft, and in flight minutes before the crash.

He also said they were told in their preflight briefing that there were knives attached to the harnesses and in an emergency, they had to cut themselves free, but were not told where the knives are located? If true, here come the lawsuits.

So in the event of a water crash, you rely on random passengers to stay calm in an emergency, locate the knife and cut themselves free, in this case upside down, before they drown? That seems ambitious if not reckless.

RIP

WillyPete

12th Mar 2018, 10:41

Does this screen grab look like the front stbd float was not inflated or at least semi-detached?

https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/180311213054-mobapp-east-river-helicopter-screengrab-super-169.jpg

John R81

12th Mar 2018, 10:47

CBS news report shows the ditching, but also has a shot of the up-turned helicopter secured to the pier with floats showing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRiRevmkqbI

cattletruck

12th Mar 2018, 11:20

knives attached to the harnesses
here come the lawsuits

Dear me, who is stupid enough to tether themselves up like that. I guess the converse is true to prevent tourists doing stupid things like undoing someone else's harness and making them fall out.

Another theme I keep noticing about these new trickle down rich is that most of them can't swim anyway. Were life vests employed on these flights if landing in water was a very real possibility if things went wrong?

I'm guessing she rolled over simply because the doors were open and the ship partially submerged during the emergency landing.

rotorrookie

12th Mar 2018, 11:20

sabbasolo

12th Mar 2018, 12:47

CNN quotes investigators saying that passenger baggage hit the emergency fuel cutoff, causing the engine failure

havick

12th Mar 2018, 13:20

Two dead three in critical condition, pilot survived. It was a photo shoot mission.

RIP for those who lost their lives

5+pilot on a photo shoot mission? Seems like an unnecessary amount of people on board for such a task.

Attorneys and the FAA are going to have a field day with this unfortunate accident.

GrayHorizonsHeli

12th Mar 2018, 13:20

Can you pls link this video here?

sorry, too late for that now, but as i watched the video over time, you could see that the one set of bags, the left side I believe, were deflating over time.
yet they all had inflation initially.

One thing to note, would be how fast did the bags inflate? when did he deploy them? because the bags may have still been in the inflating stage when he touched down on the water. that could lead to a least one under inflated bag and the roll over.

Reading this mornings news, I see the pilot believes a passengers bag pulled the fuel shut off lever.

Thomas coupling

12th Mar 2018, 13:24

I accept the pilot was 'busy' during the engine off but my personal take is that the excessive rate of decent caused the helo to hit the water too heavily allowing the mainframe to submerge temporarily thus allowing the rotors to impact the water. This must have aggravated any rotating movement of the frame flooding the cabin.

A Zero/Zero would possibly have allowed the cab to remain upright long enough for a relatively safe egress of pax. RiP

aterpster

12th Mar 2018, 13:40

Based on the circumstances of the recent Grand Canyon tour helicopter crash it seems like false economy to use helicopters with poor auto-rotation capabilities to operate as tour helicopters over difficult terrain or in dense cities. With a high inertia rotor the safety factor is much greater in the event of an engine failure. Also, since they fly "canned" routes they should have safe emergency landing sites mapped out along the tour route.

[email protected]

12th Mar 2018, 14:00

Were the pax wearing any safety equipment? Lifejackets or, more importantly, immersion suits?

I suspect the water temp is only a few degrees above zero C so cold-water shock would have played a big part in hindering their escape, with or without the knives being available.

DroneDog

12th Mar 2018, 14:05

Who would wear on of those harnesses, well I have, but I was shown how to release it in an emergency. I also made sure my video camera was securely fastened to the heli with a short length of rope in case I dropped it.

Somone has posted a video from the company in question Liberty Helicopters. It's a slick production (money has been spent)showing they do take safety seriously. In the video which I have no doubt all passengers are instructed to harness release and emergency exits procedures are clearly demonstrated. Also, the passengers are given life vests attached to waist belts. Ground marshalling and concise and clear instructions are given, They seem to be very professional outfit and I would have no issue flying with them.

Whenever people in an agency or newsroom learn a helicopter is being chartered for a shoot, everyone wants to go. I have had exactly the same scenario with everyone pulling favours trying to get a ride.After all, who would refuse a free chopper ride showing off New York?

RIP to those passed away, the suggestion that a camera bag caught the fuel shutoff is very believable, perhaps a flapping bag strap or something caught the control as it was being passed front to back.

Jack Carson

12th Mar 2018, 14:46

It appears that the engine was still powering the rotor after entering the water. The AS-350 has a relatively low inertia rotor and would have nearly stopped after the initial collective pull. The rotor was still turning pretty fast as multiple blades impacted the water.

SansAnhedral

12th Mar 2018, 14:47

Floor quadrant in AS350B2 for reference

http://oceania-aviation.com/static/images/aircraft/img/arimg914-9%20-%20Eurocopter%20AS350%20Collective.jpg

TylerMonkey

12th Mar 2018, 15:08

Please ID the levers to the left of the collective. ( red,red,yellow,red )

Top black knob is cabin heat ?

TIA

[email protected]

12th Mar 2018, 15:25

What causes cold-water shock?
Cold-water shock is the first stage of the sudden and unexpected immersion in water which temperature is of 15 °C or lower and occurs during the first minute of exposure. Cold-water shock likely causes more deaths than hypothermia. Canada’s substantially cold waters are especially dangerous when you fall into them unexpectedly.

Cold-water shock symptoms?
The reactions of the body may be muscle spasms and hyperventilation. Other symptoms may be an increase of the pulse and blood pressure. Sudden immersion into cold water may cause cardiac arrest, even for a healthy person. The shock of the cold water can also cause an involuntary gasp reflex that can cause victims to swallow water and drown, even for a good swimmer. Cold water can paralyze the muscles instantly.

Water temp in NY waters is 3.9 deg C at the moment.

albatross

12th Mar 2018, 15:29

Please ID the levers to the left of the collective . ( red,red,yellow,red )

Top black knob is cabin heat ?

TIA

From top of photo to bottom

Black knob: cabin heat
long Red lever: rotor brake
Yellow lever: throttle
Smaller red lever partialy hidden under the collective: Fuel shut off.

Guarded switch on the top left side of collective...I do not know.

As an aside: For photo we used to use a miltary harness/vest for photo: It had 2 leg straps and one chest stap. All had "quick release" fittings as seen on some parachute harnesses. "Click, click, click" and you were free. Took a good briefing and a couple of dry runs to make sure the pax knew how to exit. The harness had a D ring at the back which was attached to the aircraft with a strap resembling a military parachute static line. Sorry can not post photo of one.

Nubian

12th Mar 2018, 15:40

Guarded switch on the top left side of collective...I do not know.

HYD cut-off switch.

CONSO

12th Mar 2018, 15:41

looks like Apical Tri-bag floats. It's a B2 right? with the throttle and cut-off lever on the floor, it happend in Greenland some 15 years ago during photo flight that a camera strap got wrapped around the cut-off lever and when the photographer pulled his his camera up to take photos he cut off the engine.

Passenger's bag being looked at as possible cause of deadly East River helicopter crash | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/12/pilot-in-deadly-east-river-helicopter-crash-made-frantic-mayday-call.html)

Passenger's bag being looked at as possible cause of deadly East River helicopter crash

Gordy

12th Mar 2018, 15:44

From top of photo to bottom
Yellow lever: throttle
Guarded switch on the top left side of collective...I do not know.

Yellow is technically not a throttle but a "Fuel Flow Control Lever", (FFCL).

Guarded switch is the Hydraulic cut off switch.

Based upon everything I have seen and heard:

This was a photo shoot with FlyNyon, which is a tour specifically with doors off and people harnessed in to the floor.

No the passengers do not wear immersion suits.

It appears thee front right float did not inflate fully, causing the right roll.

Yes you will still have some rotation of the blades even after full pitch pull in an autorotational flare.

Flat light, over calm water, looked to me like a good auto, maybe mis-judged the attitude at the end a bit is all.

chopjock

12th Mar 2018, 15:46

albatross
Smaller red lever partialy hidden under the collective: Fuel shut off.

Does photo show this in run or shut off position?

Gordy

12th Mar 2018, 15:50

albatross
Does photo show this in run or shut off position?

It is wire tied in the cut off position. My guess is that if indeed a bag shut off the engine it was the FFCL not the fuel cut off lever that was moved.

albatross

12th Mar 2018, 15:52

albatross

Does photo show this in run or shut off position?

That is the run position. Pull up to shut off fuel. ( in all my Astar time I can not recall ever using it )
Throttle or "Fuel FLow Control Lever" (yellow) is in the off position.

Hot and Hi

12th Mar 2018, 15:52

I accept the pilot was 'busy' during the engine off ...
Yes, maybe with making Mayday calls, and trying to inflate the floats. ANC rules (aviate, navigate, communicate). Possibly, as other have said here, just misjudged the height due to water-related depth illusion.

On a different note: In my eyes these open door joy rides with tethered tourists dangling out of the aircraft don't meet my understanding of the following pre-take off checklist item:

No loose objects in the cockpit

If we have half a door open, we are already worried about a pax' camera or similar flying out and blown into the tail rotor. This (new and now fairly common) modus operandi seems to be turning this exceptional risk into a standard operating condition.

rotorrookie

12th Mar 2018, 15:56

Its wired with thin brass wire in the open pos like it is on the picture,
note! most B2's do not have this screen between the center controls and passenger seat installed

NorthEh

12th Mar 2018, 15:57

It is wire tied in the cut off position. My guess is that if indeed a bag shut off the engine it was the FFCL not the fuel cut off lever that was moved.

The witness wire on the fuel shutoff is not hard to break at all. It would be more likely that the fuel shutoff was pulled, rather than the FFCL which would have to be pulled to the right out of the flight gate, then up.

[email protected]

12th Mar 2018, 16:01

The impact looks very survivable, even if one isn't strapped into a seat, so the lack of safety equipment may become a big issue when the lawsuits start flying.

albatross

12th Mar 2018, 16:05

HYD cut-off switch.
Thanks...never flew a B2
We had the switch recessed in the top end of the collective.
Is the switch Fwd the "On" position? Push back for HYD CUT-OFF? If so I think it is a lttle back asswards. Reverse the switch and guard so you could just push it fwd with your thumb to activate Hyd Cut-Off while keeping your hand on the collective. That is grinding the coffee a little too fine however.

Had a couple of Hyd fails in the 350.. immediate action...shut off that darn horn so you could think! LOL

Also finding it strange folks saying the aircraft has unacceptable outo rotational characteristics ..we normally did full ons in yearly training. Zero speed touch downs were easy.

rotornut

12th Mar 2018, 16:08

Flat light, over calm water, looked to me like a good auto, maybe mis-judged the attitude at the end a bit is all.
He didn't flare so I agree that he probably misjudged his altitude over the water. I understand from float plane pilots that it's very difficult to accurately judge your height when landing on water, more so when it's dark.

NorthEh

12th Mar 2018, 16:17

Is the switch Fwd the "On" position? Push back for HYD CUT-OFF?

Had a couple of Hyd fails in the 350.. immediate action...shut off that darn horn so you could think! LOL

You are correct. The horn in the B2 is almost as loud/annoying as my wife...:E

albatross

12th Mar 2018, 16:28

He didn't flare so I agree that he probably misjudged his altitude over the water. I understand from float plane pilots that it's very difficult to accurately judge your height when landing on water, more so when it's dark.

As a float plane pilot too I can say you are correct...an engine failure over glassy water far from a shoreline for reference was not a "best case scenario".

TylerMonkey

12th Mar 2018, 16:32

He didn't flare so I agree that he probably misjudged his altitude over the water. I understand from float plane pilots that it's very difficult to accurately judge your height when landing on water, more so when it's dark.

It’s very hard to judge on floats , can look like a silver bowl ahead of you with no idea of the shape of the bowl inside. ( even though you know it’s flat ! )

We flew fixed rpm , low rate of descent , until you touched water or ran out of lake.
Watch the horizon or tree line , looking down is useless.

Gordy

12th Mar 2018, 16:35

He didn't flare

There are two videos showing the impact---one shows what looks to me like he flared, but leveled off. Had he have hit at 60 kts I think the aircraft would have toppled forward....he had maybe 5-10 kts of forward motion on impact.

Scroll down for both videos HERE. (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/11/helicopter-crashes-in-new-york-citys-east-river-reports-say.html)

helonorth

12th Mar 2018, 18:36

whoknows idont

12th Mar 2018, 18:54

Also, since they fly "canned" routes they should have safe emergency landing sites mapped out along the tour route.

Have you ever been to NYC? For a predetermined safe landing site you will probably need an open spot at least the size of a basketball court that is empty at any given time. Good luck finding just one spot anywhere along the route meeting these requirements.

Airbubba

12th Mar 2018, 19:09

Does this screen grab look like the front stbd float was not inflated or at least semi-detached?

Still in the process of inflating? Later pictures show it fully inflated.

Some shots of the floats hours later in this NTSB tweet:

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/973256722574991360

A Squared

12th Mar 2018, 19:24

Some shots of the floats hours later in this NTSB tweet:

https://twitter.com/NTSB_Newsroom/status/973256722574991360

Hmmm, middle starboard bag looks like it is full of water. Look at hte way it's hanging with a bulge, vs the other starboard floats which are loosely inflated.

A Squared

12th Mar 2018, 19:30

I understand from float plane pilots that it's very difficult to accurately judge your height when landing on water, more so when it's dark.

Yes, calm water and poor lighting conditions make it extremely difficult to accurately judge your height above water. I'd venture to say that the reflections of the city lights didn't help. Voice of experience here, no catastrophes, just been in those conditions a few times and know that even if you *think* you know your height above water, you really don't. Like TylerMonkey said, you hold an attitude and rate of descent that you know will be safe when you hit the water and wait for that to happen. I imagine that would be tough to do in an autorotation.

rotornut

12th Mar 2018, 20:03

I know someone who's son was killed in a floatplane on a lake. Apparently he misjudged his height over the water when making a turn and the wing tip hit the water and the plane crashed into the lake.

Good Business Sense

12th Mar 2018, 20:11

He didn't flare so I agree that he probably misjudged his altitude over the water. I understand from float plane pilots that it's very difficult to accurately judge your height when landing on water, more so when it's dark.

Hi Rotornut, re float planes - very true - we call it "glassy water". It's like a white out - we actually fly it on instruments (you just don't know when you're going to touch) - for example, fly along side a line of trees (known height) set up a 100/150 feet per minute rate of descent at minimum approach speed until you touch the water - it's a highly demanding heads in piece of flying .... and don't, don't anticipate or the touch down - uses a lot of distance.

A RAD ALT is extremely useful in these situations - say, set the alert at 10 feet or so - just so that you don't fly straight into the water without a flare.

Must be incredibly difficult in an autorotation

Airbubba

12th Mar 2018, 20:14

And why would five people be passengers on a 'photo' flight? It turns out that Manhattan tourist helo flights on Sunday have been banned by local authorities since 2016.

So, the scam (in New York City no less, I'm shocked I tell you :eek:) is to call the flight a photo flight and operate from New Jersey. Since folks on a photo flight are 'journalists' you can't restrict their First Amendment rights now can you?

Anyway, one of the folks was a journalist but the others were tourists and helo company employees.

From one of the local tabloids:

The helicopters tours have been a concern for years, with most complaints revolving around noise caused by the low-flying aircrafts.

In February 2016, Mayor de Blasio announced a deal he said would reduce helicopter tours from the Downtown Manhattan heliport around the city by 50% — and eliminate them altogether on Sundays.

But the deal was riddled with loopholes that have not significantly reduced chopper flights around the city, according to John Dellaportas, president of Stop The Chop NY NJ, which has pressed for measures against the sightseeing tours for years.

The deal only applied to the heliport near Wall Street operated by the city’s Economic Development Corporation.

Helicopter operators are able to dodge the regulations by marketing their flights as professional photography tours and by taking off from New Jersey, Dellaportas said.

Journalist, tourists among dead in East River helicopter crash - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/journalist-tourists-dead-east-river-helicopter-crash-article-1.3869869)

Flapwing

12th Mar 2018, 20:27

When I was still flying we gave “at the helicopter” safety briefings in addition to the video when available... then we would seat the pax, close the doors and ask pax at the doors inside to demonstrate opening from inside... there would be a look down, some fiddling then a sheepish look back up with the door still closed. 50% of the time...

havick

12th Mar 2018, 20:27

And why would five people be passengers on a 'photo' flight? It turns out that Manhattan tourist helo flights on Sunday have been banned by local authorities since 2016.

So, the scam (in New York City no less, I'm shocked I tell you :eek:) is to call the flight a photo flight and operate from New Jersey. Since folks on a photo flight are 'journalists' you can't restrict their First Amendment rights now can you?

Anyway, one of the folks was a journalist but the others were tourists and helo company employees.

From one of the local tabloids:

Journalist, tourists among dead in East River helicopter crash - NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/manhattan/journalist-tourists-dead-east-river-helicopter-crash-article-1.3869869)

Loopholes or no loopholes, some serious questions will be asked in court as to why the ‘journalists’ were using harnesses without a quick release mechanism. The answer will most like be (or at least subpoenad emails or txts to the effect) saying that they don’t want an untrained monkey pullling the quick release and falling out of the helicopter.

Instead they strapped everyone into the aircraft without adequate training to extricate themselves, as evidenced by everyone being dead except for the pilot.

I hope the company burns for this.

malabo

12th Mar 2018, 20:43

The industry will burn for this. And all that money vacuumed out by the legal settlements will cripple sightseeing helicopter operations specifically and manufacturers and operators generally. The self-funded career will die because of nowhere to build time (looking at all you EASA guys that have been relying on flying tours here to build time).

havick

12th Mar 2018, 20:47

chopjock

12th Mar 2018, 20:50

So this could all be down to a poorly designed FCL then...

havick

12th Mar 2018, 20:53

So this could all be down to a poorly designed FCL then...

Not really. If it was the FCL that caused the helicopter to go down then that’s one thing.

The real cause of the deaths are the people being unable to escape from the cabin underwater.

[email protected]

12th Mar 2018, 21:03

GrayHorizonsHeli

12th Mar 2018, 21:34

Immersion suits and air bottles (STASS or equivalent) would at least have given them a fighting chance.

and i got ******* chastised in the Pappillon thread for suggesting flame retardant overalls and flight helmets.

helonorth

12th Mar 2018, 21:43

and i got ******* chastised in the Pappillon thread for suggesting flame retardant overalls and flight helmets.

That probably because none of those things is ever going to happen!

EDLB

12th Mar 2018, 22:00

Physical the passengers seemed to be good in shape. One a 26 year old fire fighter. So definitely the harness release was a mayor factor.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/nyregion/victims-helicopter-crash-east-river.html?mabReward=ART_TS7&recid=11k9V8KXehGIu143S2tfA9TtD4T&recp=2&moduleDetail=recommendations-2&action=click&contentCollection=N.Y.%20%2F%20Region&region=Footer&module=WhatsNext&version=WhatsNext&contentID=WhatsNext&src=recg&pgtype=article

TylerMonkey

12th Mar 2018, 22:56

I doubt they are using these to connect either end of the safety tether to the floor hard points or the ring on the harness located between the shoulder blades. Static line hookup hardware like these would be a bad choice underwater or for a tour customer.
You need to push the large button to slide the hook open . . . and it’s a two handed excercise normally.
Makes no sense in a tour chopper.

Anyone know what hardware they normally use ?

https://i62.servimg.com/u/f62/11/94/64/62/8210c710.jpg

Photonic

12th Mar 2018, 22:57

And we are back to cold water shock.

Immersion suits and air bottles (STASS or equivalent) would at least have given them a fighting chance.

Even being shown a video of how to escape underwater would have better than nothing.

Planned flight over water out of auto range of land with water temp less than 5 degrees.........

I keep coming back to the water temps too, especially since it looks like the doors were off, hence the harnesses.

The video shows the fuselage partially submerging on first contact with the water (floats underwater), then a fairly quick roll-over. With the doors off, that cabin would have filled with frigid water very quickly. I wonder if a doors-closed flight might have given them a little more time.

I've done photo shoots (real ones) in a harness with doors off, but never over water at those temps.

SASless

12th Mar 2018, 23:38

Crab,

How far in advance would you have the customer book the flight....and the necessary training to use all that gear?

Surely you don”t think it fine to hand a passenger a PFD and Puff Bottle...as they head out the door to the aircraft do you?

And we are back to cold water shock.

Immersion suits and air bottles (STASS or equivalent) would at least have given them a fighting chance.

Even being shown a video of how to escape underwater would have better than nothing.

Planned flight over water out of auto range of land with water temp less than 5 degrees.........

TylerMonkey

12th Mar 2018, 23:39

Filmed a ship steaming in Goose Bay at minus 26C in the open door , no fun. The video camera lasted 20 minutes then broke the tape transport gears ! That was an AStar with both right side doors off . Thankfully we were out of options .

If I had to rig anybody else in the door ( or front ) I teach one procedure always. If you’re faced with a water landing then assume you will end up inverted. Now on dry land close your eyes and find your release system. Activate it with eyes closed. Do this 3 times and you’re good to go. So far we’ve never needed it . . . touch wood.

GrayHorizonsHeli

12th Mar 2018, 23:52

https://vimeo.com/42501875

@1:54, the guy in that x shaped thing...is that the harness they are wearing for photo shoots?

Photonic

13th Mar 2018, 00:14

One more thing... I've never ditched in a helicopter but did swim out of a near-shore ditch once in a GA fixed wing on a photo shoot. This was tropical, warm water. Egress wasn't hard, just regular seatbelts. We had to wait for the tail to sink enough to use the rear door (DeHavilland Otter), the pilot and co-pilot exited through their doors or windows.

As a non-pilot "civilian," even someone with many hours in light planes and helicopters doing photo missions, I remember there was a moment of disbelief -- "is this really happening??" -- when the plane hit the water. It was all very surreal. It took a few seconds to gather my thoughts, and get to work on exiting the plane. And this was in warm water.

I can't imagine trying to exit while inverted in shocking-cold water, strapped into a harness I wasn't familiar with, together with that initial reaction of not quite believing it's happening. Tourist passengers don't train for this. And these were young people in apparently good shape. I'm not surprised they didn't make it out.

EEngr

13th Mar 2018, 00:29

@1:54, the guy in that x shaped thing...

That's just a fancy tee-shirt.

GrayHorizonsHeli

13th Mar 2018, 00:52

ok i couldnt tell with my screen.

doing some google work, i found the website that shows the harness'
they look to be standard safety harness' and they are clipped in with a standard climbing ring.

https://www.flynyon.com/product/nyc-experience

McHover

13th Mar 2018, 01:01

I had 20+ years of being aboard rotary photo and filming missions in dozens of countries and the only consistent feature I could point to was inconsistency itself.

Charter operators’ procedures and equipment always varied. Always. So much so, that the only reliable way to have some oversight of one’s crew safety was to bring our own equipment (harnesses etc) and do our own briefings.

The ad hoc nature of helicopter operations and capabilities are their greatest asset. But you risk all if you forget that these same factors pose some of the most serious threats.

It will be most tragic indeed if we discover that members of the public have been ‘upsold’ a professional experience designed simply to circumvent local noise / planning legislation.

Our thoughts go out to all of those tangled in this awful mess.

======

Previous harness thread here (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/422324-photographer-s-harness.html)

jugofpropwash

13th Mar 2018, 01:32

And we are back to cold water shock.

Immersion suits and air bottles (STASS or equivalent) would at least have given them a fighting chance.

Even being shown a video of how to escape underwater would have better than nothing.

Planned flight over water out of auto range of land with water temp less than 5 degrees.........

I assume the pilot didn't have an immersion suit or air bottle.

Being able to get loose from the helicopter would have given the passengers a fighting chance. That and possibly a flotation device probably would have been enough - with the doors open, getting out wouldn't have been an issue and apparently the pilot was picked up fairly quickly. They would have been cold and wet, but....

Silver Pegasus

13th Mar 2018, 02:44

Having been on these Helis open door. You have a belt cutter and the 4 point harness is clipped on to the aircraft much like for high building work, however at the start and end of the flight the ‘seat belt’ is required.
So it could be they were belted in AND harnessed at the time if they were about to land at the NYC heliport..

That said no bags were allowed on mine (lockered at the heliport) with FlyNyOn and cameras were tethered to the harness.

It seemed like it was survivable for all, although if they were just harnessed in it would have been a worse impact for the passengers than the lap belted pilot.. as there is a good bit of give ie potential for movement on impact with the water. So I see some are suggesting they might have been conscious and able to try and get out but there is a possibility they were not.

As for flight suits.. I doubt many would do the experience if they had to have full flight suits on and even then it would have complicated matters further as they are fairly restrictive. I’ve worn them on a UK Coast Guard photo shoot and also transiting between North Sea offshore platforms, they for sure do not make it easier to exit an aircraft, so the argument about water shock or water survival is mute if you make it even harder to exit. I’ve also done the survival training for offshore helicopter travel and even those who have done it before in warmish water, with suits on can panic when dunked and fail to get out of the aircraft.

I don’t think there are any easy solutions to stopping a repeat of this other than mandatory twin engines (if proved to be an engine fault) and a no bags policy (if proven to be that) to prevent it having to go into the water in the first place.

Why the floatation devices failed should be the biggest future focus once the causation of engine loss is found.

ThreeThreeMike

13th Mar 2018, 02:56

With so many posters laying 100% of the blame at the operator's feet, I shall go out on a limb and say the passengers had responsibility to be aware of the potential dangers of the flight. They should also have been cognizant of where and how they were strapped in, and known the location of the knife mentioned in the briefing.

If one is going to engage in activities that might go awry, it's incumbent to familiarize oneself with safety features and devices which might mitigate the possibility of harm.

Many years ago I booked a ride in a PT-17 Stearman to experience my first taste of aerobatics. The pilot instructed me on egress technique from the front cockpit and the operation of the seat parachute. After we discussed what his bailout call would be and I strapped in, from that moment forward I was prepared to leave the aircraft if the need arose.

There's no doubt the passengers probably treated their safety briefing and the video as a version of the flight attendant speech they had heard dozens of times. Human nature, I suppose. But if one is planning to hang from the door of a helicopter to take photographs, being unprepared and ignorant of possible life saving actions is a mistake that might prove fatal.

However, I acknowledge their plight was severe, and that once the helicopter rolled upside down there was essentially no chance any of the passengers would survive.

A terrible tragedy.

Airbubba

13th Mar 2018, 03:21

NTSB Board Member Bella Dihn-Zarr gives an initial briefing on the accident:

https://youtu.be/OTCM1zce4hY

Aussierob

13th Mar 2018, 04:39

Story and video of subjects in aircraft before crash.

New York helicopter crash: Pilot reportedly blames bag as passengers identified - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/new-york-helicopter-crash-pilot-blames-bag-victims-identified/9541798)

Lonewolf_50

13th Mar 2018, 05:30

[email protected]

13th Mar 2018, 07:02

Crab,

How far in advance would you have the customer book the flight....and the necessary training to use all that gear?

Surely you don”t think it fine to hand a passenger a PFD and Puff Bottle...as they head out the door to the aircraft do you?
SAS, every passenger we took over the water on SAR was given a goon suit. life jacket and a through safety briefing - it took well under an hour.

Any that we took over water at night, had to have been dunker trained.

You wouldn't bungee jump without a briefing and a safety cord.

Silver Pegasus - you defeat your own argument about immersion suits - yes they are slightly more restrictive (modern ones are much better though) but they keep you alive long enough to orientate yourself and make the exit without the debilitating effects of the cold water stopping you.

DOUBLE BOGEY

13th Mar 2018, 07:08

Operating a SE Helicopter over a Hostile environment presents severe hazard such the engine fail.

rattle

13th Mar 2018, 07:52

Would it not be possible to have a central release system to the harnesses that was activated by water? From what I have seen, 5 people should be around to tell their stories of this accident. If you can't escape a sinking helicopter that has no doors, you have either been knocked unconscious (as mentioned above) or you are attached to it and can't free yourself. Does dunker training (which we can assume they haven't done) cover using a knife underwater? Assuming you can find it whilst suffering cold water shock in the dark or with your eyes closed, can you hold it, can it float away, does it easily cut through wet harnesses? Thinking about trying to do that makes me shudder. A fun day out suddenly goes extremely wrong. You have the shock of knowing the machine is going down so probably don't instantly decide to grab the knife or look at your harness. You then have the impact shock and the reality. Then the water. Then the panic. If the harness hooks could automatically be freed, you would surely have a chance?

I have flown over water and the pilot briefed us that in the event of a forced ditching, he would instruct us to remove our belts before impact - assuming it was a controlled auto, then brace.

Shocking to watch and I feel sorry for the pilot whatever he may or may not have done prior to the flight. To be able to swim away leaving the pax behind will live with him forever.

Flyting

13th Mar 2018, 08:33

https://youtu.be/V7reFbsBESU
Here you can see exactly how the pax were strapped in...
from 0:39 onwards

Thomas coupling

13th Mar 2018, 09:52

Christ, there's a load of data coming in on this, from suspected causes, to pax restraints, to auto technique, etc.

I'm going to look at this from an holistic perspective and 2nd guess what the NTSB determine as a consequence - or should I say......MUST consider/recommend.

In no particular order:
1.Legislate that when flying over hostile terrain - either operate ONLY twins, or fly at a height where a single engined aircraft can auto to hospitable terrain.

2. Bespoke the brief. In this instance, brief the consequence of flying over inhospitable terrain and what will happen when the aircraft lands. For a water landing, brief a comprehensive ditching episode whilst inverted and with limited or no viz. This brief would trigger the signing of an "Informed Consent" form which exposes the pax to the degree of risk they are about to embark on [The level of risk in such a flight is well above the norm and the pax must be left in no doubt what they are about to experience in terms of hazardous flight] In the UK this scenario is captured under a category of flight called: SSA and C (look it up).
https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201395.pdf

Informed Consent is a double edged sword: You are educating a person to accept something which carries above average risk WITHOUT frightening the customer! Your commercial head wants a good customer experience, your safety head says this isn't a good idea if it goes wrong.

3. Use a suitable harness (the ones in the video seemed ideal?). A "QRB" is all that is needed: Twist and pull away from you.
Forget knives. NO-ONE, repeat no-one is going to calmy saw away at their webbing whilst inverted in the pitch black holding their breath in cold water.

4. Consider 'guarding' sensitive switches/levers.

5. Limit the number of pax in a confined space.

6. Strip the pax of ALL loose articles prior to flight and remind them of their responsibilities whilst airborne regarding: speaking/moving/touching.

This accident should/will ricochet throughout the industry and bring into place more rigid rules and guidelines, which for some will drive them out of business and for others, wake them from their complacencies.

It looks to me like the pax didn't have a chance. They would have lost their SA and then their ability to think and move logically. It would be over in 90 seconds.

I'm guessing the pilot wasn't sufficiently high to get into a solid auto profile - the cab had over half a tonne of pax (inc pilot) onboard :eek: She must have dropped like a brick leaving the pilot no time to flare and reduce the RoD sufficiently to stay afloat.

Would you allow your family in one of these 'thrill seeking' trips in future?

MartinM

13th Mar 2018, 09:57

Here another Video. I think in Minute 1:29 you can see better that the hook on the passenger back is locked by a twisted nut, additional to the hook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuVB3yg8qc0

Try to unlock that think by yourself in the back, in a calm dry and warm condition.

Then try the same in case of an emergency, ice cold water and all of this upside down under water. I'ld say for untrained, impossible to do

tottigol

13th Mar 2018, 10:02

Some of you people are killing me. Look at the water temp, and the untrained pax.

I was fortunate to be the beneficiary of both helo dunker/escape training, and the hypothermia/cold water training in the Navy. Even with that training, without a well crafted anti exposure suit, I'd have as good a chance as any of them of being dead with immersion as a passenger with little to no CRM in the event of a quick loss of power/ditching into 4 degrees C water.

FFS, I am pleased that anyone at all is alive after this unexpected ditching.

Why did the engine die? That's the question.

And DOUBLE BOGEY:
Operating a SE Helicopter over a Hostile environment presents severe hazard such the engine fail.

Amen to both of you.
Even in the GoM there are set water temperature/weather combination for which SE helicopters are kept on the ground.

Non-PC Plod

13th Mar 2018, 10:09

Hi, TC!
I agree re knives and passenger SA etc. The "surprise & startle effect" would make it very probable that the passengers would freeze or panic with the sudden shock of the situation. Untrained pax are never going to be able to react quickly enough even to find the knife, let alone use it correctly.
I think the obvious answer here is that you need a trained crewmember in the back ( as happens on 99.9% of commercial flights ( talking fixed wing obviously) -to take charge and get the pax out in the event of an emergency.
In NYC like London, you have the equivalent of heli-lanes over East River and the Hudson, so an aircraft can autorotate to a relatively clear (if wet) area, where it is not a danger to people on the ground. I cant see another solution unless you are talking mandating twins over the city, and that is highly unlikely. If you look at the probability/ frequency of engine failures, it will come down to costs vs benefits, and money talks!

Bell_ringer

13th Mar 2018, 10:12

The video shows ground crew attaching the harnesses to the aircraft. The chances of someone that has never worn one before, or had practice removing the harness in a hurry, being able to do so, let alone when inverted and underwater is next to zero.
It shouldn't be a surprise that only the pilot managed to survive.

No doubt after this and the Grand Canyon accident there will be some changes coming to sight seeing ops.

Thomas coupling

13th Mar 2018, 10:13

PC Plod - you still in Italy? How long you got left there? Family OK?

You're right unfortunately, if the flying fraternity are anything like the NRA in yankee land, then money will always win and nothing will change for the better.

One can only hope that insurance companies and lawyers make things happen, then.

Stay safe buddy.

MartinM

13th Mar 2018, 10:14

Another contributing factor

4 people in the rear, camera equipment hanging around their neck, maybe two bodies and possibly bags and other floating devices that obstruct their ability to quickly find the knifes ...

chopjock

13th Mar 2018, 10:17

So unclipping your own harness from behind yourself is difficult? Why not brief pax to unclip each other's harness instead? Then no need to look for a knife...

Bell_ringer

13th Mar 2018, 10:58

So unclipping your own harness from behind yourself is difficult? Why not brief pax to unclip each other's harness instead? Then no need to look for a knife...

At the moment you realise you need to get loose you may already have a couple of people on top of you with the fastening line under tension. Getting it released in an environment where you can't communicate and people are panicking sounds improbable.
People drown regularly in a normal sea swell trying to save a panicking swimmer in distress.
In freezing water, upside down in a helicopter it's far more challenging.

Thomas coupling

13th Mar 2018, 11:04

I love it Chopjock - "Excuse me Sir, would you mind unclipping me at the back - just want to pop out for a mo!" You talk bo**ox still.

havick

13th Mar 2018, 11:14

Antsl

13th Mar 2018, 12:18

I've spent 30years working as a pro photographer, and my work includes occasional survey work from helicopters... six hours a day sitting in the door of a LongRanger wearing a survival suit, a harness (with quick release toggle) and waist belt while operating pro camera gear. I love the work, but it should only ever be one photographer in the door... not five.

The problem is that nowadays everyone with a DSLR or even a iPhone wants to be a professional photographer for a day, or an hour... and both society and industry is indulging these individuals. Yes, they get to fly about in a helicopter for an hour with the door removed, but as with most amateurs treading into pro territory, most never appreciate the challenges or dangers until it is too late.

Professional aerial photographers, like professional pilots, know the risks, practise procedures, work to checklists and usually have a higher level of awareness beyond the viewfinder than most amateurs ever would... a 10-minute prep talk before a door-off flight is not enough to prepare amateurs for what pros spend careers learning about and practising.

Some things are best left to the professionals. Had all five passengers been wearing conventional seat belts with both doors on the helicopter firmly closed, even with the hard landing there is a good chance that helicopter would not have immediately flooded with water, and all five passengers might possibly be alive today. Sad.

DroneDog

13th Mar 2018, 12:44

Flyting posted a customer video earlier.

There it is, look at the harness buckle, it's a simple clasp affair. But if you are hanging from this your full bodyweight pressed against the front clasp, it will make it incredibly difficult if not impossible to undo.
Indeed perhaps why it was chosen, if an inexperienced operative fell out whilst in flight and panicked there is no way they could accidentally open the harness.

EDIT: What would be the topic of discussion if a photographer had fallen out in flight and was suspended by his tether with a quick release mechanism and then he accidentally activated the quick release harness?

The harnesses I have used in the past are two-step device plug two separate levers affair and your out.

Flapwing

13th Mar 2018, 13:25

5 People Died in a Helicopter Crash in New York City's East River on March 11. I Was There. - The Drive (http://www.thedrive.com/opinion/19175/5-people-died-in-a-helicopter-crash-in-new-york-citys-east-river-on-march-11-i-was-there?utm_source=vertical-daily-news-news-from-the-web&utm_campaign=vertical-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=news-from-the-web&utm_content=V1)

Aerospace101

13th Mar 2018, 13:56

People die in aircraft crashes because they cant undo their seatbelts to evacuate. They panic and revert to trying to release a normal car seat belt mechanism, something they are more familiar with. That is why undoing the seat belt is in the safety demo.

So in this case, it would have been next to impossible for the pax to release themselves from their harness. In the cold, wet, dark, in full panic mode, hands shaking, they would have to 1. Remember they are harnessed to the helo, and not a normal seat belt. 2. understand that to escape they would have to cut themselves out, by locating their knife and then locating their tether, and then actually cut through the cable. Forget it. They should have had quick release harnesses like on a parachute. How did the FAA sign off this?

SASless

13th Mar 2018, 14:11

How many people sacrificed before the change in policy?

This latest crash shall bring change to the sight seeing industry especially following the Grand Canyon Sight seeing Crash.

And DOUBLE BOGEY:
Operating a SE Helicopter over a Hostile environment presents severe hazard such the engine fail.

Amen to both of you.
Even in the GoM there are set water temperature/weather combination for which SE helicopters are kept on the ground.

MartinM

13th Mar 2018, 14:21

There is an observation in one of the videos.

We can see that before impact, the floats are deployed already. Reading through an amount of checklists, unfortunately I don't have a AS350 POH handy, the B206 states that the floats may not be activated in flight with speed above 54 knots. Autorotation speed of the B206L3 with extender is 65 Knots.

Anyone has a clue what the specs for the AS350B2 is?

roscoe1

13th Mar 2018, 14:52

Hook knives are primarily used in two types of situations. First responders often carry them to cut seat belts or other fabric in rescue operations. Normally things have stopped moving at that point and the hook knife is much safer for the responder and the victim and since it has a razor blade in it may be faster and better than even a well sharpened knife. The second scenario is when it is carried and used by someone undergoing the emergency, as the souls in the helicopter were. Most sport skydivers carry them (I did although I never had to use one). The joke we used to make at the drop zone was that since nobody had them tethered, we would probably fumble it and watch it fall away as we were falling at high speed tangled in our canopy lines, or worse, someone else's lines. I seriously doubt that with no rehersal of a simulated emergency, where you actually unstow the knife and cut a piece of actual webbing that anyone would have successfully been able to do that in the few seconds they had before the helicopter rolled. Especially since there would probably have been people forced together and some pretty violent jostling going on. You still have to grab your tether and get the knife on it in a position where it would actually work. Easier said than done under good circumstances. My thought is that no type of release device is appropriate for inexperienced passengers in this sort of flight. They are all either too difficult to use or would be open to inadvertant release (such as a three ring release) by people who had not done immersive recurrent training. These flights should not be allowed by the FAA with doors opened unless standard seatbelts are worn. These people died because they wanted photos of their feet dangling and people who should have known better let it happen. Someone else can speak to the whole other issue of webbing or gear that can get caught on fuel shutoff lever or someone stepping on the collective while moving around. It's all right there along with insulation blankets or gear that goes out the door and hits a tail rotor. It should never happen.

Photonic

13th Mar 2018, 15:07

Note that the "Cake Boss" clip above, with the black helicopter, has no floats on the skids. Maybe floats are a very recent addition to the fleet? The clip was posted in October/2017.

Just an observation. The primary issue still seems to be the harness design, and whether tourists should be in this situation in the first place.

Gordy

13th Mar 2018, 15:28

Note that the "Cake Boss" clip above, with the black helicopter, has no floats on the skids. Maybe floats are a very recent addition to the fleet? The clip was posted in October/2017.

Because it is a twin engine. Floats only required on single engine.

John R81

13th Mar 2018, 15:36

Its good to know that when someone's bag handle pulls the emergency fuel cut-off that it's better to be in a twin!

[email protected]

13th Mar 2018, 15:41

The article that Flapwing links to is rather damning...

ShyTorque

13th Mar 2018, 15:43

Sir Korsky

13th Mar 2018, 15:46

Its good to know that when someone's bag handle pulls the emergency fuel cut-off that it's better to be in a twin!

95% of twin pax will be in the back where they belong ! I estimate there are around 45 IFR twin aircraft operating in the NYC area regularly - all two pilot S76/139/430/109/429 part 135, part 91 corporate and government.

[email protected]

13th Mar 2018, 15:48

Its good to know that when someone's bag handle pulls the emergency fuel cut-off that it's better to be in a twin!according to the article, it was one of the pax harnesses that caught the fuel shutoff.

From experience, having two people on harness in a big helicopter cabin can be a pain, 3 a choreographic nightmare so what 5 is like in a small single..........

Airbubba

13th Mar 2018, 15:56

Nubian

13th Mar 2018, 17:09

How many people sacrificed before the change in policy?

This latest crash shall bring change to the sight seeing industry especially following the Grand Canyon Sight seeing Crash.

Sasless,

As for the Grand Canyon prang, please contact the NTSB if you know something the NTSB don't.

One thing is for sure. If we change all SE to ME helicopters, we would only have twin accidents to discuss in the future.

Lets not overthink this accident!

6 people take off in a helicopter, they make a controlled ditching. 1 person walks to the ambulance to be taken to hospital for check, the 5 others has to be cut loose by divers from a helicopter with NO doors floating in the surface up to an hour after ditching!!!

1 had normal belts, the others didn't.

Hot and Hi

13th Mar 2018, 17:51

Its good to know that when someone's bag handle pulls the emergency fuel cut-off that it's better to be in a twin!
I agree. Neither the drowning in Hawaii, not this one here, nor the Grand Canyon Tour accident seem to immediately suggest that a second engine would have made a difference. (Of course for Grand Canyon, and this one here, we have to wait for the final report.)

albatross

13th Mar 2018, 17:52

Also those harnesses look like something construction workers would wear for working at height.
They should have been a milspec aircrew harness with quick release. Just my opinion.
I arrived at a base once and was asked to do a photo flight...I asked about a harness for the photographer... I was given a "construction" type harness with no quick release capability. I refused to use it.
I later found out that the company had no standard for harness to be used in "open door" ops.

SASless

13th Mar 2018, 18:48

John Eacott

13th Mar 2018, 20:07

Nubian

13th Mar 2018, 20:07

Nubian,

It is a difficult concept I suppose.

Folks burn to death following a crash in an aircraft without crash resistant fuel cells.

Folks drown in frigid waters due to improper safety harnesses.

Both are sight seeing flights.

That is eleven deaths or so in two crashes in what....a month or so?

Where do you think the Media, FAA, NTSB, Insurance Carriers, and Lawyers are going to be looking for explanations?

Sas,

The media is looking for a great story, no doubt as it sells and they are not out to change one little thing! The FAA, NTSB, Insurance will look at the causes which in these 2 accidents are quite different.

I see the FAA make stricter rules on this type of nonsense operation, GREAT!:D They will not make a twin requirement as they will see through the smoke and see the real problem which is not the single engine operation. They will get their support for this from the NTSB. For the aftermath of the GC, the FAA may mandate the use of crash resistant fuel cells based on the NTSB final findings unless there are very compelling evidence that point to other causes than pilot error, nothing else.
The insurers will no doubt increase premiums on all of us as they always do! The payouts are generally low compared to the profit they make by having ''high accident rates'' and they need accidents to happen on a semi frequent rate in order to justify their bread and butter!!

Do you really think the insurance premiums will drop with an all twin fleet??

Thomas coupling

13th Mar 2018, 20:29

Hot and Hi,

answer this if you will.................and honestly.

Do you have children?

If your children had been airborne in that helo....they would be dead now.

If your children had been in that same helicopter but it had been a twin squirrel, they would almost certainly be alive and still bugging the hell out of you!

A twin in this particular instance would have limped to safety on the river bank.

5 human beings and all their families would be sitting down to dinner right now., talking about the near miss they had that day.

Think carefully before you respond. Twins actually make a difference in instances like this. In fact if any COMMERCIAL operation flies over inhospitable terrain - it should be mandatory. But I accept that for most - the extra costs don't add up.

The funny thing is - if you think twins asre expensive - try having a fatal accident.

This company will never recover from this.:sad:

Paul Cantrell

13th Mar 2018, 20:36

Australia went through a few accidents some 20-30 years ago which brought the subject of cameraman’s harnesses into the spotlight, and we now have excellent ones available from a few companies. The best uses a ‘3 ring circus’ of overlapping metal rings to hold the harness strap onto the harness, the rings being locked in place by a plastic rod which goes through a sheath to a ripcord pull velcro’d to the top left harness.

Easy to release under any strain, the setup is based on parachute harness principles and is commercially available plus covered under CASA requirements. Not to be secured to the aircraft when the cameraman is strapped into the normal seat harness. The cost is both reasonable and affordable for any company serious about safety.

John,

How foolproof do you think that harness is when used by relatively inexperienced people fumbling with photo gear? Without seeing a picture, I'd worry that someone would inadvertently release their harness.

One might envision a way for the pilot to pull a pin that instantly untethers everybody. Of course, if a harness can snag a fuel control, it can probably snag an instant release control.

Unfortunately probably the best solution would be some fairly intensive training (a full day?) on how to use the system, but of course that's not going to work for what is essentially a sightseeing ride.

p.s.: can you give us a link to the system you're describing? I'd be interested to take a look...

Photonic

13th Mar 2018, 20:41

Thinking about the solutions -- I think a starting point is to assume that at least a few more people might have gotten out, if they were wearing basic seat belts instead of a full tethered harness. The pilot did. Cold shock would still be an issue, but they might have had a better chance. Especially if they had been given a quick "open your seatbelts and brace!" command by the pilot, during the auto into the water.

The harness is only required because they're offering not just a "doors off experience," but also the option to sit in the door frame with legs dangling. I'm not sure why everyone has to wear a harness in the cabin, even those seated in the rear, but maybe it's an insurance requirement if anyone is doing that. Or maybe people are trading off the "door sit" so everyone needs a harness.

Anyway, the immediate solution seems simple to me: Regulate these flights so doors can be off, including the usual requirements for no loose items, but keep the tourists in their seats with basic, quick-release seatbelts. It can still be "exciting" to fly that way. I've done it plenty of times on photo shoots where a harness and getting out on the skid isn't required for a wide angle shot. With today's self-stabilizing consumer cameras, you can get plenty of nice tourist photos without sitting in the open doorway. That's strictly for the "thrill" angle that these flights offer.

I'm not sure how this could be regulated while still allowing professional photo and film crews to operate as usual with harness when required. But it seems at least marginally safer for this kind of tourist flight. For the specific NYC zone, a lower limit on water temps in the East River might also be required.

I think twins vs. singles is a red herring, because this type of flight will still be offered worldwide in singles due to operating costs. The same issues of quick egress apply over land, due to possible fire hazard in a forced landing. Tourists just have no business being in these harnesses, or hanging out in an open doorway for kicks.

pchapman

13th Mar 2018, 21:15

Regarding Australia: we now have excellent ones available from a few companies. The best uses a ‘3 ring circus’ of overlapping metal rings to hold the harness strap onto the harness,

I see you posted about that already in 2010.

(Just one update to your understanding: The 'plastic rod' holding the 3-ring, that gets pulled, if it follows skydiving convention, would be a braided steel cable like a control cable, covered in a smooth plastic. So it is quite solid.)

Also popping up in that thread in a later year:
"Three well intentioned cameraman have drowned in last 15 years, trapped by their home made harnesses, 1 x fixed wing 2 x helicopters ( 1 x civilian 1 x military)
In all cases they were the sole occupant who perished."

Rules or common practice here in North American just happen to be less rigorous on the subject of restraints... for now.

chopjock

13th Mar 2018, 21:22

Tc
If your children had been in that same helicopter but it had been a twin squirrel, they would almost certainly be alive and still bugging the hell out of you!

You could say the same if they went up in a 206, no FCL to catch with a luggage strap !

John Eacott

13th Mar 2018, 21:30

John,

How foolproof do you think that harness is when used by relatively inexperienced people fumbling with photo gear? Without seeing a picture, I'd worry that someone would inadvertently release their harness.

One might envision a way for the pilot to pull a pin that instantly untethers everybody. Of course, if a harness can snag a fuel control, it can probably snag an instant release control.

Unfortunately probably the best solution would be some fairly intensive training (a full day?) on how to use the system, but of course that's not going to work for what is essentially a sightseeing ride.

p.s.: can you give us a link to the system you're describing? I'd be interested to take a look...

Nothing is ever 100% foolproof, but the ‘ripcord’ release is a padded grip (quite fat) that is held in place by an overlapping grip of velcro and very unlikely to be released accidentally.

A few threads previously, one referenced by pchapman is here:
https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/422324-photographer-s-harness.html?highlight=Harness

Thanks for the correction on the plastic coated steel cable :ok:

A109drvr

13th Mar 2018, 21:33

Did they do some sort of redesign after a passenger’s backpack caught the FFCL in N213EH in Alaska 10 years ago?

I haven’t flown an AS350 in 15 years so I am not really sure what they did, but I thought something came out of that investigation.

Praet

13th Mar 2018, 22:13

I think I found the model of harness they are using in the videos posted earlier:
Guardian Seraph confined space harness (https://www.guardianfall.com/performance-safety-products/full-body-harnesses/product/seraph-harness-for-confined-space).
(I think I got the manufacturer right, not 100% about the exact model)

Compare this video from their website. You can make out the manufacturer's logo to the left of the dorsal D ring pretty clearly when watching at 1080p:

https://i.imgur.com/niqytza.png

PPRuNe Towers

13th Mar 2018, 22:31

Another thumbs up for the 3 ring circus John described.

It doesn't dominate it is simply just how it's done worldwide for 40 years and on a scale that dwarves rotary and fixed wing open door ops.

In skydiving people are using the system from their very first jump - supremely simple, reliable and trainable. There are even novelty bras utilising the system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AItz8GcYx60

EEngr

13th Mar 2018, 22:34

Guardian Seraph confined space harness (https://www.guardianfall.com/performance-safety-products/full-body-harnesses/product/seraph-harness-for-confined-space).

That does not look like it was designed for a quick exit. The chest buckle will be difficult to undo with any tension on it. And then one must unbuckle or step out of the leg straps. Good luck reaching and opening the carabiner behind your back in a panic.

Perhaps the solution is a parachute type release handle which will release the other end of the safety straps (where they are attached to the helo structure). One pull releases everybody. Put the handle forward, where the pilot can reach it. And swat anyone who might inadvertently try to play with it.

RMK

13th Mar 2018, 22:48

The three-ring system does work great. Each ring is a 10x increase of force. The smallest ring is held with only 10lbs force, the middle 100lbs and the largest ring 1000lbs. So good for 200lb people at up to 5G.

It's used on all sport skydiving equipment.

Silver Pegasus

13th Mar 2018, 23:11

RatherBeFlying

13th Mar 2018, 23:25

You can buy this type of harness at a big box store. But people should absolutely not be tethered during landing and takeoff when they're belted in anyway.

But of course that means you have to have a crewmember to clip in and unclip passengers when leaving and returning to their seats which reduces revenue and requires another salary.

Offshore oil crews wear goon suits and get dunker training, but naïve passengers don't :confused:

heli1980

13th Mar 2018, 23:30

S012 Aircrew Safety Harness
This was originally developed as a Camerapersons Harness for media personnel filming from helicopters. It was later modified to incorporate a 3-ring quick release into the rear attachment strap that is activated from a pillow handle at the front. (The 3-ring is widely used on sport parachutes to release the main parachute in an emergency.)
This S012 is popular with Air Dispatchers, Helicopter Winch Operators and others who, during flight, are close to an open hatch.

The S012 has been tested to Australian Standard AS 1891:1983 and approved by CASA under the provisions of CAR (1998) 21.305A. Application to an individual aircraft requires separate approval. Not approved for take off or landing.

LRP

13th Mar 2018, 23:40

The elephant in the room is the FAA. They either approved this tether system, or did not monitor this operation since they openly advertised the use of the system. Should be interesting.

roscoe1

13th Mar 2018, 23:48

The three ring release has been around for many years and is about the best there is for loads under tension being released. HOWEVER, it is not as fast if there is no tension on it and I can imagine in the shamble of a rollover accident something getting pressed up against it or stuck in it that would keep it from releasing. I have also seen on exactly two occasions where an experienced person misassembled the riser halves by slipping both smaller rings rings through the large ring ( in a bit of a hurry) and inserting the teflon coated ripcord through the loop. In that case the more load it is under, the harder it is to pull and can actually prevent a cutaway from happening. Other jumpers spotted the misrouting while going to altitude, these were all experienced people. I suggest that nobody less than a qualified professional film crew needs to have their feet in an open door for a helicopter ride. Yes, it is an E ticket, big fun thing to do but considering the real risk of over water flights without everyone having a HEEDs device on their harness it should be banned. Stop trying to make it safe for the public because it is inherently more dangerous than they know.

cavuman1

14th Mar 2018, 00:22

Follows a post I made in March 2017 concerning personal experience with helicopter accidents, harness/seatbelt releases, and photography.

Dear Vertical Freedom,

You definitely put the WOW in your pilotage and photographic skills! I garnered four hours of PIC time in an Evergreen Bell 206 Long Ranger way back in 1978. (I had accumulated 760 hours in Cessna 152's, 172's, 185's, and 320's at the time.) I could hover, barely...

One Sunday my friend/instructor called to see if I would like to bring my then-wife, son, and friend along for a sight seeing pleasure flight in the chopper. We spent nearly an hour doing maneuvers and low-level, high-speed runs over marshland and ocean. We requested and were granted landing permission at KSSI (St. Simons Island) when we were three minutes out at 3,000' MSL. My so-called friend came on the intercom and said "Watch this!" I recall, in slow motion, his reaching out from the right seat to cycle the emergency fuel cut-off switch. The annunciator panel went from green to orange to red. We were going to auto-rotate and were too low to get a relight/restart. I turned around and told my wife, son, and friend (who was busy shooting 3 frames/second with his Nikon) to Brace-Brace-Brace.

We flared 50' too soon and went down on the beach. Airspeed was indicated at 60 kts. and the VSI was pegged full down. Our skids dug into the sand, we tipped forward, and the main rotors made a clean decapitation of the boom. My wife grabbed our 8-year-old son and exited beneath the still-rotating main, which fluffed her hair. Had she been an inch taller - curtains! I fumbled frantically and finally released my five-point harness and exited stage left.

We walked about a quarter mile up the beach on Sea Island and encountered four gentlemen who were leaning out of a porch on the third floor of a condominium. They yelled "Hey! Did you see that helicopter go down? It was smoking and going too fast!" I responded "Yeah! We were in it!" "Do you want a drink?", they asked. Moments later, four gentlemen from Atlanta hugged us and motioned to a table upon which were half-gallons of every alcoholic beverage known to modern man. I grabbed a bottle and glugged. Our "pilot", replete in the knowledge that the FAA would be around soon, did not partake. My wife, who worked for the Sea Island Company, commandeered one of their limousines and took our son home. Our friend still has photos of the entire episode.

All by way of saying Thank You for bringing the joy of High Flight back to me. I have been afraid all these years and now am not. I owe a debt of gratitude to he who understands the serenity of a clear blue mountain lake, a kind and beautiful Bride, and the miracle of Himalayan Mountain Highs.

- Ed

Gordy

14th Mar 2018, 00:33

The elephant in the room is the FAA. They either approved this tether system, or did not monitor this operation since they openly advertised the use of the system. Should be interesting.

The FAA only requires you to wear your seat belt for take off and landing. It is my understanding looking at all the videos and dialog that standard seat belts were worn during take off and I assume landing. Once airborne, they can take those off, and there is no further requirement until landing, therefore the harnesses are a bonus and do not need to be approved as I am guessing they are attached to he hard points on the floor.

The rules say nothing about once airborne.

14 CFR 91.107 Use of seat belts (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/ED04BDB686B8524A86257CDE004C3881?OpenDocument)

Highlight added by me:

Sec. 91.107

Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator--

(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.

Airbubba

14th Mar 2018, 02:16

NTSB update on the investigation:

UPDATE: NTSB Investigation of New York City Helicopter Crash
3/13/2018

NEW YORK (March 13, 2018)—The National Transportation Safety Board continued its investigation Tuesday into the March 11, 2018 crash of an Airbus Helicopters AS350B2 (N350LH) into New York’s East River.

The helicopter was substantially damaged when it impacted the river and subsequently rolled inverted during an autorotation, killing five passengers and injuring the pilot.

The pilot had contacted the LaGuardia Airport air traffic control tower for entry into the Class B airspace while flying at an altitude of 2,000 feet. Approximately five minutes later, the pilot declared “Mayday” and stated that the helicopter’s engine had failed. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the scheduled 30-minute aerial photography flight that was operated by Liberty Helicopters under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight originated from Helo Kearny Heliport (65NJ), Kearny, New Jersey.

Parties to the NTSB investigation are the Federal Aviation Administration, Liberty Helicopters and the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la sécurité de l'aviation civile (BEA France). Airbus Helicopters and Safran Helicopter Engines are technical advisors to the investigation.

Significant activities today included:

Physical examination of the accident helicopter at New York Police Department’s Aviation Unit headquarters in Brooklyn by airworthiness, powerplant, and survival factors investigator

Engine was prepared for removal and teardown

Helicopter structure and systems examined by airworthiness investigators.

Rotor and flight control systems examination initiated

Survival factors investigators examined and documented passenger restraint system

Investigators interviewed Liberty Helicopters’ chief pilot

Interviewed witnesses and rescue personnel

Interview with accident pilot to be scheduled

NTSB’s Transportation Disaster Assistance team consulted with NYPD regarding personal effects

Recovered electronic devices, including a Go-Pro camera, which is being sent to the NTSB laboratories in Washington for readout

Recovered Appareo Vision 1000 from helicopter. Unit and memory card were placed in water for transport to NTSB laboratories. The Vision 100 could provide data on pitch, roll, and yaw as well as position, vertical speed, ground speed and altitude and ambient sound

Imagery of the ongoing NTSB investigation are available at the NTSB's Flickr page at https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/ and video is available at the NTSB's YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/NTSBgov.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180313.aspx

GrayHorizonsHeli

14th Mar 2018, 02:48

I have a curiosity to see the footage recovered. But i also have a gut wrenching feeling that it would show more than I would
want to see. I respect those that have to endure that.

LRP

14th Mar 2018, 05:14

The FAA only requires you to wear your seat belt for take off and landing. It is my understanding looking at all the videos and dialog that standard seat belts were worn during take off and I assume landing. Once airborne, they can take those off, and there is no further requirement until landing, therefore the harnesses are a bonus and do not need to be approved as I am guessing they are attached to he hard points on the floor.

The rules say nothing about once airborne.

14 CFR 91.107 Use of seat belts (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/ED04BDB686B8524A86257CDE004C3881?OpenDocument)

Highlight added by me:

Sec. 91.107

Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child restraint systems.

(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator--

(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder harness.

(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft(except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.

I agree, however you've got that "careless or reckless" thing to deal with.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/13/nyregion/faa-helicopter-crash-harnesses.html

Unregistered_

14th Mar 2018, 05:36

The whole harness/photo journalists designation of the passengers is a workaround so they can fly. The passengers shouldn’t have been there in the first place.
Do you really think they truly understood the risks involved?
This is one of those cases of skirting the regs where it’s not a problem until there’s crash.

100% You're not getting on a harness like that with me until you show me a valid HUET cert. I'm amazed they are allowed to fly like that.
Still, having said that, I was just in Las Vegas for the Heli Expo, there was still H130's flying charter circuits until midnight! WTF?

Unregistered_

14th Mar 2018, 06:19

The elephant in the room is the FAA. They either approved this tether system, or did not monitor this operation since they openly advertised the use of the system. Should be interesting.

Oh, and this is ok too? I give up.

Live out your Black Ops or First Person Shooter Video Game fantasies in the ONLY gunship helicopter shooting range in Las Vegas!

Experience an open-door low flight-helicopter tour over our 71-acre private shooting range through the Mojave Desert.

Choose a belt-fed M249S SAW or an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

Bell_ringer

14th Mar 2018, 06:30

On the twin engine debate.
Wasn't there a twin airbus that ended up in a new york river a while ago? Admittedly, it was a different kind of bus :E

ShyTorque

14th Mar 2018, 07:55

There's a great deal of debate about passenger harnesses but surely more relevant is the cause of the aircraft entering the water in the first place and why it rolled inverted after touching down.

MartinM

14th Mar 2018, 08:08

I have a curiosity to see the footage recovered. But i also have a gut wrenching feeling that it would show more than I would
want to see. I respect those that have to endure that.

Well, me being Helicopter Marshaller and Pilot, flying from time to time a EC120B, would seriously want to know what happened.

The harness topic, is one of those things that came directly into my mind from last year. We had the Swiss Helicopter Championship in precision flying. I was hooked up to a fixed harness. No way to unscrew it myself.

Being as well member of the board for the Swiss Helicopter Federation, the safety for our helicopter ops is our utmost concern. We got our yearly assembly end of April. If we can issue certain learning, recommendations to the Heli OP in Switzerland, this will be great.

henra

14th Mar 2018, 08:48

There's a great deal of debate about passenger harnesses but surely more relevant is the cause of the aircraft entering the water in the first place and why it rolled inverted after touching down.

Hmm, I'm not so sure.
Helicopters will always find ways to end in the drink upside down. People need to have a chance to egress. On land a situation with a fire on board after a mishap would have been equally horrendous.
No way such harnesses without any quick release by the person wearing it should be allowed anywhere and for anyone in helicopters.
Yes it is highly questionable if such feet on skids operations should be allowed for tourists. That said, if it were professional photographers, the result would have been exactly the same.
If they had proper HUET: With that harness in question very likely still same result.

SuperF

14th Mar 2018, 09:59

So TC, how does a twin go when the fuel cut off is flicked?

I thought that two engines going silent went down as quick as one engine going silent.

And because its one of these super safe twins, that never hits buildings and never hits the water with TWO professional pilots onboard, it also has No floats, so sinks even quicker...

MartinM

14th Mar 2018, 10:02

Single or twin, does not matter if a pax can hit the cut off lever by mistake.

[email protected]

14th Mar 2018, 10:08

But you would have to hit 2 fuel shut offs rather than one which is possible but less likely.

chopjock

14th Mar 2018, 10:12

crab
But you would have to hit 2 fuel shut offs rather than one which is possible but less likely.

Unless they are positioned along side each other perhaps?

John Eacott

14th Mar 2018, 10:21

The way that these threads go off on a tangent is always interesting; it is speculation at the moment whether the fuel cut off was activated, or whether the FCL was pulled back, or even if there was another cause of engine failure. It has been confirmed that no personal items are allowed on board with doors off except the cameras, yet there is speculation about pax bags snagging or hindering their escape. Whatever the cause, the issue of anchoring pax into the machine with no apparent means of releasing their harness except by using a knife is demented.

Further links to the CASA oversight of crewmans harness here;

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/159631/download?token=49D8J-oM

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/airworth/atso/atsoc1003.pdf

Hopefully other jurisdictions can learn from this.

John Eacott

14th Mar 2018, 10:24

crab

Unless they are positioned along side each other perhaps?

But they aren’t in a Twin Squirrel: why persist in going down this rabbit hole? It’s as bad as a well known contributor opining that single engine is safer than a twin, and totally irrelevant to the accident.

falcon900

14th Mar 2018, 10:42

Understandably, the focus of this thread has been drawn to the harnessing of the passengers, and it is difficult to escape the conclusion that it played a major part in restricting their egress from the aircraft, with tragic consequences.
There are a couple of other aspects of the incident which seem to me to require further consideration though, none less so than the proposition that the fuel cut off could have ben accidentally operated by a passenger strap / harness of some sort.
I should say at the outset that whilst we have yet to have this proposition confirmed as the cause of the engine out, I am interested that nobody here has suggested that it is not possible or is even improbable. Certainly, with 5 PAX harnesses, and assorted camera and iphone tethers, there would be no shortage of snagging opportunity, and the photo reproduced earlier clearly highlights that there is much in the between seat area upon which to snag.

The fuel cut off lever would be just one of the potentially catastrophic options (and for those advocating twin engine aircraft as a mitigant, cutting off their fuel would have much the same outcome as here) : None of the Rotor brake, fuel flow, or collective would benefit from a sharp uncommanded tug in flight.

It is surely entirely foreseeable that something could snag a critical control in flight, and entirely reasonable that they should have been shielded or protected in some way?

Secondly, there is the question of the inherent risk of operations of this nature. Regardless of the quality of the safety briefings, these excursions were taking civilians into an inherently hostile terrain in the event of aircraft failure, with the most likely emergency landing venue being on water at a dangerously low temperature. The facts that they were tethered to the aircraft, and were not wearing immersion suits dramatically reduced their survival prospects from the level which they would otherwise have been at, which was itself by no means 100%.
Risk taking is unavoidable, and sometimes thrilling, but in this case it strikes me that the passengers could not have properly appreciated the risks they were taking, and the operators could.

John R81

14th Mar 2018, 11:25

95% of twin pax will be in the back where they belong ! I estimate there are around 45 IFR twin aircraft operating in the NYC area regularly - all two pilot S76/139/430/109/429 part 135, part 91 corporate and government.

So nothing to do with twin engine, just "don't have passengers sitting in the front 95% of the time".

Actually - I routinely don't have unqualified passengers in the front seat when the duals are fitted. Shortly after getting my license I did but within a year I had experienced two "slight" interferences of the controls (I was not smart enough to learn from the first). I decided that passengers can't be relied upon to appreciate how easy it is for them to restrict the flight controls, let alone move the cyclic / collective / peddles or inadvertently move switches, no matter how comprehensively you brief them.

Now, I'm not running commercial sight-seeing or photographic trips, so the loss of 1 seat is not important to me.

2016parks

14th Mar 2018, 12:36

There are plenty of military-issue quick release vests, including some which, I assume, can be clipped to a tether. Pull the cord/ring and they fall to pieces and fall right off you—no straps remaining around the legs or such. Specifically designed to save your life when you are laden with a hundred pounds or more of gear and fall into the water. So the technology is there. The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.

MartinM

14th Mar 2018, 12:47

The question is, do you want untrained civilians rooting around in an open-doored aircraft, who can with one inadvertent pull or hook literally launch themselves into space? Not me. Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.

I agree. Regular pax I would not like have them manipulating the harness.

Now, looking at the perspective that a door-off flight is not a regular flight, which does not use regular harness, it might be a enhanced briefing needed.

Same for my peers that are flying helicopter precision flying at low level. I was tighten up last year holding the buoy down and hanging out of the helicopter. I would have not had any chance to get off the heli in case of a emergency. I was locked into position tighten from my back. Until now I would never have questioned this. Now I certainly do.
At the competition no team had a quick release harness, except the pilot of course.

Swiss Helicopter Federation is giving this a second thought as of today.

SASless

14th Mar 2018, 13:03

Falcon......I am not convinced the Operator was conscious of the risk imposed by the harness set up.

SASless

14th Mar 2018, 13:11

Freedom is an amazing thing ain’t it!

We operate on the premise if it ain’t illegal it can be done.

Folks on the eastern side of the Saltwater Divide operate on the premise if it isn’t approved it can not be done.

From my military experience shooting a machine gun from a helicopter is a hoot....doing it without being shot at is a real hoot!

Oh, and this is ok too? I give up.

Live out your Black Ops or First Person Shooter Video Game fantasies in the ONLY gunship helicopter shooting range in Las Vegas!

Experience an open-door low flight-helicopter tour over our 71-acre private shooting range through the Mojave Desert.

Choose a belt-fed M249S SAW or an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle.

:ugh::ugh::ugh:

havick

14th Mar 2018, 13:16

Nubian

14th Mar 2018, 13:22

Pictures from the NTSB.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/ntsb/with/39899543385/

Should be quite clear for some... combined with the other available information.

Thomas coupling

14th Mar 2018, 13:24

Everyone seems to have latched onto the harness issue in the absence of any evidence thus far. I think this may just be a red herring in that looking at video and pics of the 5 pax, they were all young and all healthy. If anyone is going to extricate themselves from a tight space, under pressure, atleast one of them is. But they didn't. So is the culprit 5 x harness designs?
I therefore shift my attention to:
Cold shock syndrome.
Loose articles in the cabin area - snagging hazards.
Both of these will provide enough time to determine the fatal outcome.

My final observation.
Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.
There is a word for this - it's called complacency (Never happened before, so won't happen in future brigade).
Safety Management requires: not reactive management, not pro-active management but predictive management if you are to stay ahead of the safety game. Go looking for problems and don't wait for them to come to you.

2016parks

14th Mar 2018, 14:03

Having flown over 2000hrs on the twin squirrel (where critical switches/levers are in the cockpit roof), I never gave it a 2nd thought that NO-ONE who operates single squirrel's like this one or similar - where critical switches/levers are on the damn floor - actually decided it was wise to put a protective perspex shroud between the pax and the control(s). Mind blowing in retrospect to think there are operators out there who fly 'strangers' in their cab's yet don't consider the ergonomic layout to cater for their type of operation.

Good points. And along those lines:
Assume there was, in fact, a critical (fuel) control accidentally moved to the wrong position. How long before the pilot realizes this has happened? Can it be reset, and if so, how long does that take? Is a full engine restart needed, and how long does that take? In other words, one this occurs, is it unrecoverable unless at a high enough altitude?

henra

14th Mar 2018, 15:16

Strap 'em in tight and don't let them out of their seats.

But please not by a device that needs to be unscrewed by someone else!

henra

14th Mar 2018, 15:25

Everyone seems to have latched onto the harness issue in the absence of any evidence thus far. I think this may just be a red herring in that looking at video and pics of the 5 pax, they were all young and all healthy.

Did you bother to check how to unleash the harness by oneself?
The Harness was NOT designed for that.
The band-aid was to attach a small knive somewhere to the harness (did they even know where? Someone said that in another flight this was not even really shown - but I guess it doesn't matter). I doubt even with proper HUET plus an immersion suit they would have had the slightest chance with that harness.
On the other hand the pilot got out.
In a Squirrel with Pax upfront he was in the midst of the same chaos and in the same cold water and he still made it out. That's no coincidence.

Photonic

14th Mar 2018, 15:39

Right, the focus on harness designs is irrelevant except for the lawyers at this point. The fix for this situation is simple. Ban tourist flights with people sitting in the door with legs dangling, so they need a harness at all. Give them a door-less flight while they're belted normally in their seats without a full harness, so quick egress is possible in the event of ditching or fire.

This entire situation is caused by the way they're offering to let people sit in the door frame during the flight. That just shouldn't be done unless someone has experience, and a proper harness and crew to monitor the situation (i.e. professional photo/film crew on assignment).

ThreeThreeMike

14th Mar 2018, 15:53

https://youtu.be/V7reFbsBESU
Here you can see exactly how the pax were strapped in...
from 0:39 onwards

I made an earlier comment that in the event of a ditching the passengers should have been prepared to act and possibly extricate themselves from the helicopter.

After seeing the restraint (a standard building construction fall safety harness) and the location of the tether (apparently a light chain) attachment point (hard against the rear cockpit bulkhead) I see my comments were quite unreasonable.

With four passengers in the rear seating area, the inversion and immersion of the helicopter would have made it all but impossible for them to cut the heavy harness in four places to effect escape.

e7pilot

14th Mar 2018, 16:01

A few random thoughts:

Report listed that two of the passengers who died were full time employees of flynyon. While we don't know their job function yet, it's pretty telling that if they can't make it out then tourists didn't stand a chance.

the 40min NYC rescue video linked upthread seems unnecessarily complicated, and likely cost time: rescue and divers getting into position, driving into what appears to be a park, walking quite a ways, and standing there listening to teams and strategies being announced while the helicopter riders were drowning or giving in to shock/hypothermia. Looked like 50+ responders in the video. I may have overlooked this, but how many minutes after the crash before divers were in the water?

henra

14th Mar 2018, 16:14

Right, the focus on harness designs is irrelevant except for the lawyers at this point. The fix for this situation is simple. Ban tourist flights with people sitting in the door with legs dangling, so they need a harness at all.

So, you think had that happened to professional photographers instead of the touris, they would have been able to free themselves???

Yes I agree, this practice of tourist flights with feet dangling out the cabin should be stopped. But it shouldn't stop there. These kinds of of harnesses should not be allowed anywhere close to a helicopter. In no circumstance.
Edit: If you can't trust people to safely deal with an emergency release and to fall out accidentally well that is then obviously a scenario that can't be done (would probably apply here). /Edit.
The comment from the participant of the Helicopter championships shows to me that there is a wider problem with these harnesses in the industry. When I read that I had pictures of a toppled but largely intact yet burning Robbie with a poor soul strapped to it running through my mind.

havick

14th Mar 2018, 16:33

So, you think had that happened to professional photographers instead of the touris, they would have been able to free themselves???

A professional outfit and crew would not allow the use of such equipment. Also, airwork such as this would be limited to one photographer/camera operator and at most perhaps some sort of director (usually in the front with the pilot). Even then any extra persons on board other than a pilot and the sole camera operator would be met with heavy resistance unless it is proven the particular mission could not be achieved without them being on board, and then they would have to be appropriately equipped and trained to standard.

So yes, it’s likely that a professional crew/outfit would not be met with such difficulties exiting from a helicopter. Of course other factors at play such as type of impact, consciousness, airframe/door/window deformation etc

Gordy

14th Mar 2018, 16:38

Could a single fast launch team on standby with rescue knives, air tanks, and flotation devices have had a better outcome had they been there within 5min?

Police divers jumped out of a police helicopter within 4 minutes I believe. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D96hPIroy8M

TylerMonkey

14th Mar 2018, 16:41

If operators continue to put tourists on any harness / monkey strap combinations there will likely be more fatalities.
If you are trained crew or professional camera operator (who has been trained to release your harness or hard point attachment point ) you will always have a better chance . . not perfect but better.
Tourists should not be on any system other than a seat belt or 4 point release they are familiar with.
This has now become obvious but at a high cost.

JohnFTEng

14th Mar 2018, 16:41

Sorry if similar has been posted already but try searching for bbc astronaut trading water escape to see what it's like in clear swimming pool with multiple instructors and safety guys. Now do it first time in cold murky water no STASS no training and tricky harness. Sadly I think that is non survivable.

henra

14th Mar 2018, 17:02

Police divers jumped out of a police helicopter within 4 minutes I believe. See here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D96hPIroy8M

Assumed that the timing is real time?
I understand that it took between 30 and 60 minutes after the crash to get them out of the water. I somehow cannot imagine it took them 26 minutes to get the first one out? The helicopter was still afloat so visible. They had to go down only 2 to 3 meters and the water was calm. Surely more a benign set of circumstances for a rescue. I guess maybe the time stamp in the video might not be uncut

Photonic

14th Mar 2018, 17:16

So, you think had that happened to professional photographers instead of the touris, they would have been able to free themselves???

No, I'm saying a professional photographer wouldn't have been in that situation in the first place. I did hundreds of hours of pro aerial work over the years before I retired, in small planes and helicopters with the door off. Maybe 10% of the flights in a harness because wide angles weren't needed for much of the work.

I would have taken one look at that harness and booked another company for the gig. Any pro would have. I know the lines are blurred now with everyone and their dog wearing a camera, but it's not rocket science to know what's up, when you do this for a living and it's not your first flight in a harness.

Tourists should stay in their seats, belted in normally for quick egress, and never in a harness where it's likely to be their first time.

e7pilot

14th Mar 2018, 17:17

Police divers jumped out of a police helicopter within 4 minutes I believe. See here:

Assumed that the timing is real time?
I understand that it took between 30 and 60 minutes after the crash to get them out of the water. I somehow cannot imagine it took them 26 minutes to get the first one out?

I remember reading the 30-60min figure somewhere else. Although NYC is of the 'best chance for quick water rescue' spots worldwide, I question the logic and sensitivity of the NY Fire dept releasing such a long video showing the successful operation. 5 out of 6 died---I wouldn't pat myself on the back much over this operation.

I wonder how good the flynyon little rescue knives are. If they are anything like the emergency escape hammer tools sold for underwater car escapes they probably won't work half the time

I'd hope the FAA does a time test of tourists, even on dry ground wihout full tension on their harness:

1) finding their knife for the first time, then cutting away either all 4 straps needed to release themselves, or the main anchor point. Is it even capable of fitting and a clean/quick cut of the thick reinforced main harness, without snapping or reverting to a sawing motion?

2) testing the same while blindfolded. (still not upside down or underwater...)

Airbubba

14th Mar 2018, 17:20

First lawsuit filed and they are going after the pilot as well as the 'photo shoot' operators:

The family of a Dallas journalist who died in a helicopter crash Sunday says the harnesses passengers were wearing prevented them from escaping from New York City's East River.

A lawsuit filed Tuesday in New York state court says Trevor Cadigan was unable to escape from his seat on the Eurocopter AS350B2 because of the harness he was cinched into.

Cadigan, along with his friend Dallas Fire-Rescue firefighter Brian McDaniel and three other people, drowned when the charter helicopter capsized in the river, medical examiners said.

The passengers had been on board for a private photo shoot. Only the pilot survived.

The way passengers were harnessed, with a release mechanism in the back, there "was just no prospect of safely escaping," said Gary C. Robb, a lawyer for Cadigan's parents.

"Hanging upside-down in frigid water — stunned by the helicopter crash, tightly harnessed, release inaccessible, with no advanced training — is a death trap," Robb said.

The lawsuit, which names Liberty Helicopters, the pilot and others, seeks unspecified damages, but Robb says the family mainly wants to end open-door flights for taking aerial photos.

Liberty Helicopters did not respond to requests for comment and referred inquiries to federal authorities.

The lawsuit alleges Liberty Helicopters is vicariously liable for the actions of the pilot, Richard Vance, and states that he was "negligent and careless in failing to take reasonable steps to extricate the passengers ... after he secured his own release."

Passengers' safety harnesses on open-door photo tours are different from pilots' seat belts, said helicopter pilot Bill Richards, of the aerial photography company New York Film Flyers.

"The pilot survived because the pilot has a single-point release on his seatbelt. It's sitting right in front of him right in the middle," Richards said. "All he has to do is pull up one lever and the seatbelt comes apart, and he's practiced getting in and out of the aircraft hundreds and hundreds of times and knows exactly how to do that."

Harnesses made to keep overzealous passengers from falling out of an aircraft's open door, he said, are much harder to unstrap. Passengers get a knife they can use to cut themselves free, but that doesn't mean the passengers know how to use them.

The lawsuit alleges that the policy of providing a knife for passengers to cut through their harnesses and free themselves is "grossly negligent and reckless." It also refers to the harnesses secured from the back with a carabiner as a "death trap" because they do not permit passengers to activate the release mechanisms on their own.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/courts/2018/03/13/dallas-familys-lawsuit-says-harnesses-may-trapped-victims-fatal-new-york-helicopter-crash

rotorrookie

14th Mar 2018, 17:45

This is the accident in Greenland 1996 I refering to earlier. https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=31146

Glevum

14th Mar 2018, 18:30

SES make a purpose built camera harness with a 3 ring release.

The release handle requires two actions to release.

https://ses-safety.com/rescue-slings-harnesses/

GrayHorizonsHeli

14th Mar 2018, 19:31

Thank you. NYC continues to be one of the 'best chance for quick water rescue' spots worldwide.

I wonder how good the flynyon little rescue knives are. If they are anything like the emergency escape hammer tools sold for underwater car escapes they probably won't work half the time

I'd hope the FAA does a time test of tourists, even on dry ground wihout full tension on their harness:

1) finding their knife for the first time, then cutting away either all 4 straps needed to release themselves, or the main anchor point. Is it even capable of fitting and a clean/quick cut of the thick reinforced main harness, without snapping or reverting to a sawing motion?

2) testing the same while blindfolded. (still not upside down or underwater...)

most of those knife cutters you can buy for your car seatbelts to use in an emergency, work mediocre at best. I've used them. maybe half the time they sliced a car seatbelt cleanly. the other times, the belt would jam or fold over and you wouldnt get thru.
The thicker webbing on the harness would require a bigger and stronger cutter, and so far I haven't seen what they offered.
If it was the type you use for your car, I wouldn't think you wouldnt be very successful.

KiwiNedNZ

14th Mar 2018, 19:32

Some very interesting comments about this accident. Thought I would add my .02 cents worth since I am someone who spends most of my time strapped into the back of Helos doing air to air shoots and in fact I have been flying with the crews of FlyNYON since its inception some 6 years ago. Here are my thoughts and observations.

I have seen comments from people saying that this operation was just a way to beat the air tour operations rules. Sorry but totally disagree and I know that for a fact. Pat Day who started NYON, previously NYonAir was and is an avid photographer. He would use their own AS355 at the beginning to go and shoot aerial photos of NYC for a stock library they had back then and also sell the images to clients who wanted unique aerial perspectives of NYC. He then had many people approach them wanting to shoot that same type of image - so they started doing photo flights where Pat would take along one or two others and they would all capture some cool images. I was one of the originals when that was happening. It was offering photographers a unique way of shooting photos of NYC. It was NEVER about trying to circumvent the rules associated with Part 135 tour operators as some on here have stated.

The comment from this photographer who has been after his 15 mins of fame by doing stories and blogs about how he was in the other helicopter about how they didn't brief pax about where the cutter was I find very hard to believe as I have seen, sat through and watched the briefings many many times. My guess is he was told but he was focused on something else and didn't listen. Me - I have been guilty of that myself. Complacency can bite you in the ass - the I have done this many times before and know where stuff is so no need to listen to this bit. Knowing the staff that NYON have based at Kearny Heliport I doubt that any would have not explained this to the pax. However the caveat on this is that I dont know the Liberty pilots that they use when their own machines are busy. Liberty have a lot of pilots and I personally only flew with them maybe once or twice and the ones I did fly with explained everything in detail, however I cant speak for them all.

While I would never be attached into a helicopter the way NYON have their pax anchored they are also caught between a rock and a hard place. Pat and all the team there including the chief pilot, line pilots, owners and staff take safety 110% seriously. They know the risks of what is happening - people who have never flown in a helicopter being harnessed in and you hope to christ that none of them want to have a come to Jesus moment and decide to go free falling. The method they have them anchored in reduces the risk immensely in having one of the harnesses come loose or them inadvertently coming out of it. BUT that has the downside in a situation like this of being able to get out in a hurry in an emergency. I have my own personal device for cutting webbing and from time to time I practice grabbing it and pretending to do it just so I am familiar with where it is located and what I need to do. Do I think these pax could have done this while upside down in the water, after the shock of having an auto into freezing cold water - being blunt not a ****s show. But they obviously had to weigh up the risks - which had a higher priority - stopping someone coming loose of their harness 2000ft up over NYC or catering to what could happen if a heli went down. I cant or wouldn't answer that on their behalf as thats something they decided on.

In regards to peoples comments about being in seatbelts as well. On EVERY flight I have done, whether its been flying on and air to air shoot in NYC or shooting with RFS on the fires in Australia I have ALWAYS been instructed to sit on a seat (if there was one) and have my seatbelt buckled for take off and landing. Once airborne I was advised I could remove the seatbelt and rely on my harness. NYON was the same. All takeoffs and landings from Kearny or NYC helipads I had my harness on and would sit on the seat with my seatbelt on. On the NYON flights there would be one person sitting on the front seat and two people on the floor either side in the back. All would be tethered into hard points on the aircraft floor. The tether straps are adjustable and would be tightened so that the chances of anyone being able to accidentally slip out would be slim. However saying that there have been cases of pax who loosened themselves off and leant out just to get a "cool" shot. When the pilots of those flights saw that they pax was explained in very blunt and certain terms what they thought of that and they would either sit down and follow the rules or the heli was on its way back.

The comment about the tether being caught around the fuel control lever got me thinking if this was actually possible. I checked with a friend who flies AS350s and he said technically it is possible however would be interested to know where the photographers harness in the front seat was connected to as there is absolutely NO way the tether from one of the photographers in the back seat could become wrapped around the FCL in the front as they all tether behind the pax and are anchored behind them by the back bulkhead.

Many people on here are confusing what NYON do with normal air to air cameraman saying it should just be one cameraman and a director in there etc. Sorry but you are on completely the wrong track. These are dedicated photo flights where you have five photographers onboard shooting images of NYC - also they aren't just the selfie brigade - there are a lot of actual commercial photographers who go along on these flights to shoot scenics of NYC - its a lot cheaper for them than chartering the helicopter just by themselves. Yes the selfie brigade is a big part of the business but not the majority. We only see the instagram images out there because this part of their clientele is very much into social media. Other high profile photographers images do pop up on social media but as a business related post not a "hey look at me" type post. Do I agree with the open door flights for photographers like this - yes and no. Yes because I think its something pretty amazing to be able to view and shoot photos of a city like NY or Miami or Las Vegas from the open door of a helicopter. No - and I say that because even though NYON conduct thorough briefings for the pax I still think they dont understand fully the risks associated with what they are doing. I have been doing this now for nearly 30 years and even now when I go flying I still think about the "what ifs". I am always looking out for other traffic in case we end ups in the same airspace. When I am in a single I am always checking in with the pilot how we are off for fuel (reason for that is we nearly ran out of gas on one shoot). Maybe its just me getting older that I become more aware of the risks. Back when I was the age of those who lost their lives I was more bullet proof and nothing mattered except the fun I was having.

BIGGEST thing I took away from this accident was if I was in a similar situation could I get out. The answer to that would probably be NO. Reason for that is up until now I have always used a harness that has me carabenered onto an aircraft hard point and with a squeeze and release type carabiner that attaches to the back of my harness. I did HUET training some time ago but unless you are up to speed ie: do it every year or so I dont think you would be able to get out of an upside down heli in the water. Yesterday after reading John Eacotts post and editing some photos I shot of the Helitrek BK117 crew in Australia I researched the aircrew harness that has the emergency ripcord type option that with one hard pull on the handle will separate me from the tether. I contacted the manufacturer and placed an order for one. While Priority 1 and ARS make great crewman harnesses which is what I have been using to date, this accident made me realise I want one that is VERY easy to get out of should something happen. On some recent shoots I have been 30-40 mins offshore in a single and I got to thinking about where I was attached, could I have got out easily enough and the answer each time was a resounding NO - something I will admit I never gave much though on until Sunday. So for me this harness will now become standard, it will be like an Amex card - never leave home without it.

So finally my thoughts on where NYON should go from here - it is the USA and these flights will continue. This is what I would do and these are just my thoughts.

1. ALL flights over NYC will go back to using the AS355 twin (please no more single vs twin commentary) :} like they had in the beginning. Had they been in the 355 then this thread would not exist. Yes I realise other issues could happen that the second engine would make no difference but in this case it would.

2. Remove and burn every one of those current harnesses they have. Replace them with the harness I mentioned above that give pax a quick and easy way to detach themselves from the aircraft.

3. When water temp is below X degrees then look at using immersion suits - explain its for added safety if something goes wrong. Like someone said they are not that cumbersome these days so its an option.

4. If Option 3 isn't possible then cease doing flights when water temp is below X degrees.

5. Maybe include a fully trained NYON staff member to oversee everything in the back. Give them access to some sort of device that could jettison all attachments of the pax should something happen.

Anyway thats just my 0.2 cents worth. Prob missed a bunch of stuff but decided to put my thoughts down as this accident bought home our own mortality, especially since people like myself, Mike from Vertical, Lyn from Rotorcraft Pro etc spend a LOT of time in the back of different machines in different environments.

Ned

chopjock

14th Mar 2018, 20:14

Ned,
When I am in a single I am always checking in with the pilot how we are off for fuel (reason for that is we nearly ran out of gas on one shoot).

I have to ask. You would not be worried about fuel if in a twin?

henra

14th Mar 2018, 20:20

I would have taken one look at that harness and booked another company for the gig. Any pro would have.

One would hope so. If that is the case for all the professional photographers out there I accept your point.
Hell, me as not a professional photographer I would have refused being strapped to a thing that doesn't float well but that can burn quite well with a harness that I can't unlock myself. But then again I also check the egress routes in hotels or other big buildings.

That said I read that post about the Heli Championships...

Tourists should stay in their seats, belted in normally for quick egress, and never in a harness where it's likely to be their first time.Again: Fully agreed.

KiwiNedNZ

14th Mar 2018, 21:09

Chopjock - Should have said when in either :) Just something I always do since that day :)

chopjock

14th Mar 2018, 22:39

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/recletters/A-10-131.pdf

Hell, has anyone not read this? from 2010

The NTSB concludes that the design and location of the FFCL and its detent track in
Eurocopter AS350-series helicopters allows for easy access to and inadvertent movement of the
FFCL, which could cause a serious or catastrophic accident if the movement occurs at a critical
point during flight or on the ground.
Therefore, the National Transportation Safety Board recommends that the European
Aviation Safety Agency:
Require Eurocopter to review the design of the fuel flow control lever (FFCL)
and/or its detent track on AS350-series helicopters and require modification to
ensure that the FFCL is protected to prevent unintentional movement out of its
detents and that it does not move easily to an unintended position. (A-10-131)

KernelPanic

15th Mar 2018, 00:03

2. Remove and burn every one of those current harnesses they have. Replace them with the harness I mentioned above that give pax a quick and easy way to detach themselves from the aircraft.

The harness you have pictured is the Air Safety Solutions crew harness. Originally designed as a cameramans harness and heavily used in Australia for that exact purpose. A very comfortable and functional harness which is easy to put on. The quick release mechanism is easy to locate and operate - grab the red pouch and pull - the three ring circus on the rear of the harness gives way and the built in wander lead detaches. (Google for a link to the supplier.)

Tango and Cash

15th Mar 2018, 00:17

Ned,

Excellent post and thanks for sharing your experiences and (extremely informed) opinions.

TC

Photonic

15th Mar 2018, 00:57

The question remains -- why expose tourists to this danger in the first place?

It's easy enough to distinguish between a tourist flight and a professional photo flight, which is where this NYON company seems to be blurring the lines.

A tourist flight is one where the company pilot flies a pre-determined flight path, probably the same one every day. The pax are along for the ride.

A professional photo flight is one where the client consults with the pilot, sets the objective and flight path (within operational and safety limits), and the pilot follows the client's directions.

One of those situations should have pax belted in their seats without a harness for hanging out the doorway and taking selfies and pix of their feet dangling. The other should have good harnesses and people who know how to use them, probably not for the first time.

bront

15th Mar 2018, 01:29

If the front passenger had taken his seat belt off (as he was allowed to do once they had taken off), it could have been that that hooked on the cut off or fcl when he tried to put it back on. Happened to me but luckily whilst I was on the ground.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 01:36

Airbubba

15th Mar 2018, 02:05

So its not just a doors off tourist flight like Liberty or NY Heli etc.

Don't know if they were circumventing the rules by calling the flight a photo shoot but it seems in this case that only one of the passengers had any experience or credentials as a journalist. The most expensive piece of photographic equipment named so far in the NTSB and media reports is a GoPro camera posting to Instagram.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 02:27

They weren't, if you read my post above they were always a photo flight from the start with no doors, something that was not being offered anywhere else. They weren't part of a cookie cutter around Manhattan flight like a normal tour flight - they went where the pax wanted to go. Its irrelevant if the pax was a journalist or a professional photographer, thats not who the flights were targeted at. They were targeted towards those with an interest in photography either professional or amateur.

Photonic

15th Mar 2018, 02:31

"A professional photo flight is one where the client consults with the pilot, sets the objective and flight path"

The NYON flights do not follow a prescribed path. During the briefings the pilot will consult with the pax and ask if there are any places they want to go and shoot. He will try and encompass as many of the locations as is possible within the flight time. So its not just a doors off tourist flight like Liberty or NY Heli etc.

I think the distinction I made above still applies. You're talking about tourists choosing between a few options in a set flight path, and not everyone onboard is looking for exactly the same thing.

A professional photo/film/video flight is aimed at a specific objective, where the client is telling the pilot exactly what they need. It's an airborne tripod, run by the person handling the camera. I've done hundreds of those, and it's a big difference in the number of people in the cabin, length of flight, and risk factors.

The big problem I see going forward is that professionals will be using more drones for this kind of work, leaving helicopter company owners to move towards these thrill-seeker rides when they lose the photo/film work.

rattle

15th Mar 2018, 07:28

Ignoring the desire to have your feet in shot, do many professionals hang out of the door? I have done professional photography flights from an R44 (please let's not start an argument about the Robinson fleet) and happily been able to shoot out of the front and rear doors without obstruction from the aircraft. Clean shots, all whilst secured by the 3-point seat belt. The pilot put me where I needed to be to get the shots.

The only harness I have used was in a Navy Seaking where I did sit "feet out" to get the shots once the door had been slid open.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 08:04

I use a harness but I dont lean out to get any of my shots. In some cases I will sit on the floor of the AS350 or Bell 429 as examples but will not lean right out - dont see the point in adding that extra level of risk when it doesn't actually make much difference to the shots I am trying to get.

have I ever shot the feet in the image shot - only once and wasnt intentional.

Jarvy

15th Mar 2018, 09:05

I've been watching this thread since the start but have only just felt the need to say something. Sorry KiwiNedNZ but these are pure and simple tourist flights looking for that bit extra, be that hanging out or just better shots. Have you ever sat in the middle 2 seats of a Squirrel? Difficult to get any photos of the wonderful NYC skyline.
Just look at NYONs website for the proof of where they think the market is.
I used to live in Central Manhattan just a few blocks from the East River and spent many an hour just watching the helicopters coming and going. Not many tourist helicopters as they mainly used the Hudson. But sunset shots of NJ aren't as good so that's why this tourist flight was over the East River on a Sunday.
As SASless said earlier there is a different mind set in the US in that if it doesn't say I can't then I can and will. In a ideal world they would have been fully trained and briefed in emersion suits with quick release harnesses, all in a nice big twin but no market for that due to the high cost.
Going forward will anything happen, probably not. Just maybe they will stop the front seat using a harness if that was found to be the cause of the ditching.

MartinM

15th Mar 2018, 10:05

I would not blame the operator for the harness used. If the lever guard was ever retrofitted is subject to NTSB. This would be OP responsibility.

The harness in first place is for regular commercial flights to prevent from tourists to fall out of the skies. The harness has no quick release. Excited tourists easily could manipulate this. I see it every time I handle pax boarding my helicopter. I reularly have to pull them away from the ramp, from the tail rotor and from putting their feet on the pedals in front seat, even having told them to to do so. More, considering the risk of one falling from the skies or the times you got to ditch the helicopter, I would opt for the harness without rapid release too.

Case two. I do precision flying in helicopter. We fly 100ft above ground, doing slalom and flying through pylons. The chance is given to have a touch, go down, catch fire. At that point I need to get out of the burning wreck quick. For this, quick release is essential. Asides from the fact that I know and accept the risk to die for this fun.

Two different cases.

Glevum

15th Mar 2018, 11:16

The harnesses used were inappropriate for use in a helicopter.

They prevented fast and simple egress from the aircraft.

If the aircraft had caught fire then the passengers would have found it very difficult to exit the aircraft.

There are harnesses on the market that are specifically designed for the task.

They should have been used.

henra

15th Mar 2018, 11:38

More, considering the risk of one falling from the skies or the times you got to ditch the helicopter, I would opt for the harness without rapid release too.

The to be expected result of the lawsuit in this particular case might make you re- think this position.
And I also do not want to be in the shoes of the poor pilot. Sitting on top of the wreckage being unable to help and see people drown helplessly less then 10ft away from you. Horrendous.

havick

15th Mar 2018, 12:03

Lonewolf_50

15th Mar 2018, 12:24

I am curious as to the lack of response to chopjock's post about the 2010 finding.

rotorrookie

15th Mar 2018, 12:34

SASless

15th Mar 2018, 13:05

At what point in the process is the Authority (FAA), the Manufactuer, the Operator, and the Pilot expected to anticipate such an event and take preventative action?

We have to consider the legal concept of “the burden of knowledge” in looking at this tragedy.

Another way is to define the failures to act that allowed these five people to be in such a situation.

At times like this I wish I had gone to law school after my military service as I would be making a wad of money out of this!

falcon900

15th Mar 2018, 14:33

SaSless,
many a true word spoken in jest!
I was touching on a burden of knowledge point earlier on when I suggested the operator should have been able to foresee more or less what happened here.

Something snagging a control : excited passengers moving around, assorted attachments and lanyards, key controls on the floor : Reasonably foreseeable

Emergency landing on water : densely built up area under much of flightpath, water under much of the rest: Reasonably foreseeable

Aircraft doesnt float upright on landing : difficulty in achieving a smooth autorotation, history... : Reasonably foreseeable

Passengers trapped in aircraft : Upside down, cold shock, need to use knives/ unshackle harnesses. (lack of doors a mitigant) : Reasonably foreseeable.

Simply my opinion of course, but whatever way you look at it, I dont think the operators would have had to spend too long thinking about it to imagine that a scenario like this was a possibility in the event of an aircraft emergency.

Gordy

15th Mar 2018, 15:54

These are dedicated photo flights where you have five photographers onboard shooting images of NYC - also they aren't just the selfie brigade

Ned, you are clutching at straws...... Look at the first line on their webpage:

BOOK YOUR HELICOPTER RIDE
Where would you like to fly?

https://www.flynyon.com/

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 16:44

Not clutching at anything Gordy - Am only telling you what I have seen personally and what pat the owner has told me from day one. If thats what the marketing people are pushing on the website then I cant argue with that.

[email protected]

15th Mar 2018, 17:03

Falcon900 - absolutely - it takes about 10 seconds of 'what ifs' to conclude that it is a high risk scenario operating a single, over water at dusk with multiple pax secured in unsuitable harnesses.

But its OK, they were making dollars and creating jobs.......................

Gordy

15th Mar 2018, 17:08

Ned, I just post what I see.

As you say, clearly the marketing team are not focused on just professional photographers.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 17:44

Gordy - Pats idea wasn't to focus on just professional photographers - it is photographers of all types - pro, amateur, semi pro etc. Suppose thats where it becomes difficult how to class them.

Photonic

15th Mar 2018, 19:09

Gordy - Pats idea wasn't to focus on just professional photographers - it is photographers of all types - pro, amateur, semi pro etc. Suppose thats where it becomes difficult how to class them.

It's not difficult at all. A professional photo shoot is one where the camera crew determines the exact flight path (within reason), objective to be photographed, and time of day. A tourist ride follows a mostly-set flight path with far less input about the flight. It's a "ride" not a bespoke flight.

A professional camera crew is likely to be at least somewhat experienced with the situation, including use of the (proper) harness systems.

A tourist ride should have more restrictions on what is offered, considering it's probably the first time some of these people have ever been in a helicopter. One of those restrictions could be having them stay in their seats, belted in normally, without a harness for hanging out the doorway. Except for the middle rear seat, there is just no need for that, to get good photos in a doors-off helicopter. I've done that hundreds of times in a helicopter, and only used a harness for very special circumstances when wide-angle shots were required.

Let's get real... NYON isn't offering to let people sit on the floor with their legs hanging out in order to get better photos. They're selling thrills.

KiwiNedNZ

15th Mar 2018, 19:53

"Let's get real... NYON isn't offering to let people sit on the floor with their legs hanging out in order to get better photos. They're selling thrills."

You believe whatever you want and I will believe that the owner of the company has told me, who I have known for ten years.

John Eacott

15th Mar 2018, 21:44

An earlier post linked to the publicity videos associated with the photographic flights, and one clearly show the route being planned on the basis of the requests from the pax/amateur photographers. I would say that Ned is right in his assertions and the mooted premise that these are single route scenic flights are incorrect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuVB3yg8qc0

Good to see that you are buying a new harness, Ned. We put you in a quick release harness whenever you flew with us, all those years ago. How time flies....

SASless

15th Mar 2018, 22:12

havick

15th Mar 2018, 22:25

Take a wander over to the New York Post web site.....there is an interesting article about the Chief Pilot and the CEO of Liberty Helicopters I am told by a former pprune member. The article can be found in the “Metro” section if you scroll down a bit!

http://https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/helicopter-crash-companys-bosses-have-shady-pasts/ (https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/helicopter-crash-companys-bosses-have-shady-pasts/)

Here you go.

SASless

15th Mar 2018, 22:36

http://https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/helicopter-crash-companys-bosses-have-shady-pasts/ (https://nypost.com/2018/03/14/helicopter-crash-companys-bosses-have-shady-pasts/)

Here you go.

A second article reporting the filing of the first law suit suggests the Big Guns are coming out looking for big money. The Attorney just won a 100 Million Dollar settlement for a burn victim of a helicopter crash.

mickjoebill

16th Mar 2018, 13:25

I would opt for the harness without rapid release too.

To my knowledge, in the period 2000-2013 two cameramen have perished trapped in non standard harnesses, whilst ALL other passengers and pilot survived.
There is story of one cameraman falling when he unbuckled himself in a large military helicopter to better secure his equipment.

So on that basis, it is safer not to be harnessed in...

Aviation safety bodies have received and studied Aerial filming/photo accidents, which included ditchings.

The risk assessment of the NYC operation is, on face value, from a professional aerial filming perspective, below best industry practice.

Whatever caused the loss of power (as if there has never been a claim that camera crew have accidentally interfered with flight controls!)
the lives of passengers hinged on a successful auto into water in whatever weather prevailed, day or dusk.
Glassy surface included.

If the auto was botched or a float failed then we all agree passengers would perish. Even with world class emergency services and medical care on the doorstep.

I’ve yet to read a comment from experienced crew who are surprised that passengers were unable to free themselves in this ditching.

The final, rotten, discragefull ignominy is the thought of the hapless pilot who was ill-equipped to carry out a rescue of his passengers, mere meters away.

From the perspective of the victims families, they will be soon realising that their personal life, mortgage and accident insurance probably excludes the flight.

They will have to fund a fight in court and prove negligence of the charter company.

What an industry!

Aren’t you guys interested in at very least improving your own survivability?
Helmets? Survival suits? Rescue Training? Loose objects and straps in the cabin? Photographer seated next to you?

Outside of war zones, aerial filming kills more photographers and cameramen than all other causes combined.

It’s an ongoing, toxic combination that deserves special attention.

Mjb

muermel

16th Mar 2018, 13:33

New update from the NTSB on the case.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180315c.aspx

MartinM

16th Mar 2018, 13:40

Loose objects and straps in the cabin?

At the company I work as marshaller, the policy is very clear. No objects except what you can handhold. Bags, belts unused headsets have to be placed in the baggage compartment. This is required, as the EC120B has seats which absorb crash energy. If the movement would be obstructed be objects underneath, then this would be a safety issue.

GrayHorizonsHeli

16th Mar 2018, 14:17

New update from the NTSB on the case.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20180315c.aspx

I just love how they avoid the status of the fuel levers. Its like it's the holy grail of secrets to be kept until they release their findings in a year or more. Do they chuckle with great joy in this?

Where were they? on ? off? middle of their travel? simple fact checking statement would be sufficient.

I know there are pro's and cons to releasing that information at this stage, but the pilot made a statement after the crash....why the veil of secrecy on the status ? This would be a tactile fact that would be beneficial to many I believe.

MartinM

16th Mar 2018, 14:50

Where were they? on ? off? middle of their travel? simple fact checking statement would be sufficient.

I would love to see the state of two lever in this particular case

FFCL (OFF - FLIGHT - EMER)
FSL [ON (FWD) - OFF (AFT)]

e7pilot

16th Mar 2018, 20:09

I would love to see the state of two lever in this particular case

FFCL (OFF - FLIGHT - EMER)
FSL [ON (FWD) - OFF (AFT)]

don't know if the position of either matters post-crash. pilot may have moved one or both as soon as engine started dying.

what does matter is the witness wire on the fuel cutoff. if broken, fuel flow was interrupted during flight.

MikeNYC

16th Mar 2018, 20:47

FAA orders immediate halt to doors-off flight utilizing restraints without emergency release devices:

FAA Statement 1/3: #Helicopter operators, #pilots & consumers should be aware of the hazard from supplemental restraint devices during an emergency evacuation during “doors off” flights. The FAA will order operators & pilots to take immediate action to control/mitigate this risk.

FAA Statement 2/3: Until then, the #FAA will order no more “doors off” operations that involve restraints that cannot be released quickly in an emergency.

FAA Statement 3/3: Additionally, the #FAA will conduct a top to bottom review of its rules governing these #flights to examine any potential misapplication that could create #safety gaps for #passengers.

That was fast.

(Was unable to embed a link, seems to be posted by the FAA only on Twitter so far).

DCP123

16th Mar 2018, 22:02

MikeNYC

16th Mar 2018, 22:06

Check the NTSB's revised report on that accident.

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=A-10-129

Date: 1/23/2015
Response: We are aware that, on July 1, 2012, Eurocopter (now Airbus Helicopters) introduced a modification to the FFCL design for new Airbus Helicopter (AH) 350B2 type design helicopters; that the modification includes a locking feature for the IDLE, FLIGHT, and STOP positions of the FFCL; and that a separate locking device limits the FFCL’s access to the emergency range. We are also aware that moving the FFCL from the locked positions requires the operator to push either a start button or a dedicated push paddle. Although you did not require Eurocopter to redesign the FFCL, we believe that the company’s decision to do so and your involvement in the redesign process constitute an acceptable alternate solution to the problem. We are encouraged that, although you evaluated the AS350 fleet and found that mandatory retrofit to in-service helicopters was not supported by current data, you plan to continue to monitor the data for related events. Accordingly, Safety Recommendation A 10 129 is classified CLOSED—ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE ACTION.

(Emphasis added)

mickjoebill

16th Mar 2018, 23:33

FAA orders immediate halt to doors-off flight utilizing restraints without emergency release devices:

That was fast.

FAA can’t claim they didn’t know these flights were occurring regularly or that the circumstances of the entrapment (cold shock and harness design) were unforseen.

Worldwide, the FAA are regarded as the lead safety authority who oversee the industry, that for two decades, has killed more members of the media than all other causes combined, war zones aside.

Aerial photography can be thrilling and should continue to be available to the general public, whilst it will never be as risk free as roller coasters it can be made safer for all.

For a start, FAA should rewrite the above ban to include all flights using harnesses without quick releases, not just flights without doors.
Otherwise they are effectively condoning the same harness being used for identical flights as the accident flight only in aircraft with sliding doors.
So FAA are in effect, rubber stamping the scenario of an even more dangerous situation of inversion with doors closed and existing harness!

Mjb

havick

16th Mar 2018, 23:50

FAA can’t claim they didn’t know these flights were occurring regularly or that the circumstances of the entrapment (cold shock and harness design) were unforseen.

Worldwide, the FAA are regarded as the lead safety authority who oversee the industry, that for two decades, has killed more members of the media than all other causes combined, war zones aside.

Aerial photography can be thrilling and should continue to be available to the general public, whilst it will never be as risk free as roller coasters it can be made safer for all.

For a start, FAA should rewrite the above ban to include all flights using harnesses without quick releases, not just flights without doors.
Otherwise they are effectively condoning the same harness being used for identical flights as the accident flight only in aircraft with sliding doors.
So FAA are in effect, rubber stamping the scenario of an even more dangerous situation of inversion with doors closed and existing harness!

Mjb

Did you read then ban? I think you are misinterpreting what they’re saying.

roscoe1

17th Mar 2018, 01:08

For some reason, rather than just issuing an emergency AD or FAA order, they sent out a Tweet. Now to the masses, the FAA has already banned harnesses that are not easily released by the passenger. Dudes, as fas as I know, a Tweet has no regulatory authority despite what the orange guy may think. If you read their tweet, it says they "WILL" be reviewing these procedures and they "will" be issuing some sort of document that has regulatory authority. I hope anyone conducting these flights is smart enough to self police and get the best equipment out there to meet this requirement but beware...rushing to change equipment and training protocols often has unintended consequences or unforseen problems. I think everyone should just back off from these flights umless real pro photographers who know the risks are involved. Forget the civilians and rediculous foot selfies.

mickjoebill

17th Mar 2018, 01:23

Did you read then ban? I think you are misinterpreting what they’re saying.

Precisely, misinterpretation = loophole.

Mjb

verticalspin

17th Mar 2018, 04:20

Nubian

17th Mar 2018, 09:11

Here's a video of the Miami operation of said company flying one of Liberty Helicopters AS350 B2s. As it just so happens the B2 in the video is the sister ship of that flight that ended up in the East River the other day that was flying a similar route and and can be heard on radio searching the river after the ditching.
From minute 17:12 onward you can get a clear look at the FFCL and FSL. You can also clearly see some of those harness straps dangling fairly close...

www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYN6tqc1BUc

Just a slight difference between the helicopter in the video and the accident helicopter.
The accident helicopter had a 2-passenger bench up front, not the standard seat as in this video. The bench puts the middel passenger (if this seat was used) even closer to the fuel-levers than in the video.

Hopefully the Vision1000 worked properly and survived. Then it should give good details of what actually happened.

MikeNYC

17th Mar 2018, 13:29

Hopefully the Vision1000 worked properly and survived. Then it should give good details of what actually happened.

NTSB also reported there was at least one GoPro onboard, but that would likely be facing outward.

SuperF

17th Mar 2018, 23:29

Years ago the Jet Ranger fuel shut off had to have a guard installed over it, as some long legged pilot knocked it off with his knee, i think. And that switch is right in front of the pilot.

It certainly makes the JR and LR family, with a distinct Pilot and Pax cabin look like a far safer option for these types of flights, as there is far less chance of the pax bag straps etc messing things up.

When we have photo missions we always ask how many pax they want, if the answer is how many seats have you got then you know that it is just a scenic flight, using the pictures as an excuse, and they "may" be able to claim it as a business expense. it sure isn't a true photography mission when they want to fill every seat wth pax, its a joyride with an excuse to have the doors open!

Fareastdriver

18th Mar 2018, 08:25

Perhaps they should have the same rules as slinging operations where the only people allowed on board are those directly connected with the task in hand.

FairWeatherFlyer

18th Mar 2018, 13:04

Another tragic loss. I must admit that in the past I have dissuaded my own immediate family from flying on sightseeing trips such as this one, in at least three different countries. Having assessed the overall risks involved I just didn't want them unknowingly exposed to them. As someone who has earned my living flying helicopters, I wish I didn't have reason to say that.

What criteria are going into your evaluation?

I find myself in an odd position here as someone who very recently recommended the tourist flight in NYC to friends for a summer trip. I did it many year back and it's a great flight. For layout reasons I'd told them to go Bell. I had mentioned these photography flights as I know a friend who did one but assumed the price would be way too much for my friends. I thought the photography flights were two PAX only and knew they were using harnesses but hadn't thought much about how the harnesses worked nor how they would work under mental or physical stress or if anchor point was submerged/not level.

If I was living in NYC I suspect I would have had a ride on one of these photography flights as I do enjoy doors off flying (in the summer).

Returning to the accident itself, one factor that hasn't been mentioned much is the surprise/shock/panic for PAX from the MR hitting the water, looks like about 4s after the big splash.

gulliBell

19th Mar 2018, 12:37

...Returning to the accident itself, one factor that hasn't been mentioned much is the surprise/shock/panic for PAX from the MR hitting the water, looks like about 4s after the big splash.

If the helicopter does not remain upright on the water, it is very unlikely that passengers would escape from a submerged helicopter without appropriate underwater escape training. Even without cold water shock.

I have never seen a passenger harness used in a helicopter operation that was not of the quick release type. I'm absolutely staggered to learn that they were using those harnesses.

finalchecksplease

19th Mar 2018, 12:44

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/faa-targets-flynyon-company-behind-craze-doors-off-flights/?utm_source=vertical-daily-news-top-story&utm_campaign=vertical-daily-news&utm_medium=email&utm_term=top-story&utm_content=V1

Interesting read.

FairWeatherFlyer

19th Mar 2018, 14:04

For reference, one previous water entry (for a 206B with no floats) where some PAX got out, some didn't, (presumably standard Bell harness up front and lap belts in the back):

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/465430-helicopter-down-nyc-oct-2011-a.html

I hadn't read the end of that episode. It's sad to see that getting out and prompt medical attention don't always lead to a good outcome.

Cyclic Hotline

20th Mar 2018, 03:38

The entire set of circumstances is really beyond belief. A well-executed emergency ditching in calm conditions, on a busy waterway inside a major city, with the doors already removed, so no hindrance to the pax exiting the cabin even in a potentially very dangerous situation.

And the pax who have never been in this aircraft before, have no prior knowledge or practical training on the actual process for separating themselves from the aircraft, in a process that would be a challenge to many trained aircrewmen, let alone someone who just walked off the street and now finds themselves in an emergency situation beyond their comprehension or experience.

Here you go, here's your knife!

A complete, utter and total failure of the regulator and everyone else that allowed this situation to occur. It is inconceivable that a fare-paying occupant could be put in a situation like this and die in a wholly survivable occurrence on a busy waterway in one of the great cities of the United States.

Completely and totally unacceptable.

My sympathies are with the innocent pax that died, and the families that survive them. You deserve everything the legal system awards you.

And for the all the others involved, sadly you will pay dearly for what you did and what has occurred here. But you all created it.

Thomas coupling

20th Mar 2018, 09:54

It does worry me though that the NTSB have no teeth and doubtless, the FAA will file it away in: Investigation complete; where it will gather dust.
I would imagine the ONLY major changes from this is to replace all current harnesses designed this way and to beef up the ditching brief.
We don't want to harm the industry now do we?

With luck the real 'game changers' will be the demise of this company and a massive increase in insurance premiums. That'll make operators sit up and listen.

roscoe1

20th Mar 2018, 14:59

havick

20th Mar 2018, 15:37

This was a horrible accident. With all the emphasis on the type of harness used we should not lose sight of the fact that based on what they believe to be known, this was not the cause of this accident. The preliminary cause is that something yanked the lever. This could still have been the case with any kind of harness you use. How do you avoid that in ships where that potential exists. That can obviously happen with a regular doors on flight if loose objects are moved. A less than perfect autorotation is not that uncommon when the circumstances are a real emergency so the quick release is critical but successful egress is still required and that may depend on where you are flying and what you have to land on when the lever is snagged.

All valid and I entirely agree with you, but don’t forget it’s likely all would have survived if either;

A) they weren’t in a harness at all.
B) had a quick release (3 ring type) harness or similar.

The whole type of harness thing is more an argument for a civil suit for damages and apportioning blame for the deaths.

But I agree with you that the accident wouldn’t have happened in the first place if no one was wearing a harness (no tether/wander lead to snag the FCL).

Gordy

20th Mar 2018, 17:53

With luck the real 'game changers' will be the demise of this company and a massive increase in insurance premiums. That'll make operators sit up and listen.

Increasing insurance premiums will force some out of business. I do know many operators are listening and have made changes already. The NTSB is already issuing recommendations and HAI is setting up a working group.

NTSB Press release (https://ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/mr20180319.aspx)