This ride's a bit low, don't you think?

[Robbiee]

https://youtu.be/RwFaHvl_VCg

,...or is it just me?

[Ascend Charlie]

Far hark....

[nomorehelosforme]

These fairground Helicopter rides were discussed recently, quick turnover of PAX, quick 3 minute trip with as much thrill as they can, low, tight turns, close as possible to a local stadium or other local landmarks..... come back after dusk it gets even more thrilling then in my R44!!!

[Sikpilot]

A bit low is an understatement. More like 1 safety hazard on top of another. My kids would never be allowed to fly in there after seeing that.

[[email protected]]

What you want is an FAA inspector sitting behind him saying 'practice engine failure -go!' pretty much anywhere round that route to show him how very limited his options are.

Was he wearing spurs and a stetson?

[B2N2]

I’m not seeing anything wrong with that.
Road, car park, empty lot, road, car park etc etc etc.
I’m pretty sure they picked that route because of the options for a quick landing.
How many of you that have answered fly a helicopter?


* I don’t....

[Ascend Charlie]

I do,....well...did for 45 years...and that scares the fork out of me. No options for anything safe. Sure, there is a road there - but cars coming head-on at you. Park, with powerlines around it. No time to do anything that could be considered safe. Didn't look like he got above 300' at any stage.

[B2N2]

And the regulations don’t require that.
Its no different from any other low altitude helicopter operation.

[Bellrider]

Mmmmmmh, where is the ground staff, helping the pax out of the box? How can you assure that nobody walks into the tail?

[PANews]

"I’m not seeing anything wrong with that."

It is a pretty typical scenario in the USA and [as a non-pilot] I have taken similar profile rides a couple of times.

The more I learned the more I could see the accident waiting to happen. I would never go anywhere near most US joy ride flights these days, especially after observing typical flights departing and arriving. Too low transits and take-offs invariably towards a fast closing gap/obstacle. Profiles that are usually not necessary. It all looks good as a bit of bravado or stunting but not professional or appropriate if there are passengers aboard.

Unfortunately, even when there is an accident [how many?] the chances of it being read as a result of bad practice across a vast country like the USA are virtually nil.

Overall it - bravado flying - damages the safe flying perception of helicopters.

[Bell_ringer]

Road, car park, empty lot, road, car park etc etc etc.

A lot of people driving on those roads. If that engine has a moment he's going to need to reach deep into the bucket of talent.
It must be a US-thing, do that in other parts of the world and you'd be explaining yourself.
Should be no surprise why the average Joe and politicians want to start banning helicopters.
The few, profiting at the expense of the many.

[Mutley1013]

Would the flight not also be in breach of the law regarding minimum safe distances? I think I am right in saying a waiver can be applied for, but I find it hard to believe that the route \ operation shown would be acceptable to the FAA.

[rudestuff]

Would the flight not also be in breach of the law regarding minimum safe distances? I think I am right in saying a waiver can be applied for, but I find it hard to believe that the route \ operation shown would be acceptable to the FAA.
There is no 500' rule for helicopters in the US, but granted that was a pretty dumb profile.

[cattletruck]

And just a couple of months ago here's an Oz pilot flying IFR...

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

[Nubian]

There is no 500' rule for helicopters in the US, but granted that was a pretty dumb profile.

But FAR 91.119 (a) say "Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface." Although (d) (1) exempt helicopter from the 500/1000/2000 ft rule mentioned in (b) and (c) of the same paragraph, it does NOT do so for (a)


§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:
(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.
(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.
(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.
(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -
(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and
(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) (https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119#c) of this section.

From the video, I'd say you have to be Skygod himself, if you under no circumstances don't break 91.119 (a) at any point..... Not long ago there was a couple of accidents discussed here involving R-44's having the same flying profile which involved both people being killed on ground and property damage, at least one with footage as well. Would say that the only difference, is that in this clip there was no emergency....

[helonorth]

This guy will be lucky if he doesn't get hit with careless and reckless operation.

[gulliBell]

...§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. Except when necessary for takeoff or landing....
Yeah. But. It could be argued in this operation that the landing phase commences as soon as the take-off phase is complete. Therefore no breach of minimum height rules.
The Chief Pilot of that operation needs to be held accountable for the conduct of the operation. Not just with the flying of the helicopter, the control of passengers on the ground is a shambles.

[[email protected]]

B2N2 - amusing that you as a non-helicopter pilot can accurately assess the safety of that flight when a number of us that do fly helicopters for a living (the clue is in the name of the forum, Rotorheads) say it is inherently unsafe.

He is only in a position to make a safe engine off landing without hazard to others for about 5% of that flight - the rest of the time he and the kid in the front would be in a pretty horrific accident if the engine stopped/drivebelt failed etc.

[aa777888]

I can speak to this directly as a pilot who put many hours into the logbook flying fair rides in an R44 this past summer.

Clearly this guy gave some thought to an engine out problem, and some thought to noise abatement, but probably not enough thought to either. Both are serious issues that need to be respected in this game. He does fly over roadways and parking lots to apparently attempt to satisfy both issues. But, it appears the ride was 2 minutes for $20. At that price point you are a) on the "backside of the earning curve" i.e. you are spending too much time on the ground and b) it forces you to stay low and tight. $30 for 4-5 minutes is a much better "sweet spot". You can still bang out around $750 worth of loads an hour (gross, assumes a 2.5 load factor and 10 loads an hour) but operating tempo is greatly reduced which enhances safety, and you have the ability to fly higher and take more care with respect to your flight path and noise footprint. So IMHO it was too low.

As for how confined the spot was, that place was relatively easy compared to some. The biggest issue here is that American fair-goers are all SUPER-sized. And fairs attract these people like flies because of such fair staples as fried dough, chili dogs, and all kinds of other crap. You post a weight limit of 250 (although the POH limit is 300lb) because you know some folks will lie, you run with less than half tanks max., and if you get too big a load you split it up. Finally, you pick up, do a power check, and, if necessary put it back down and kick somebody out. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen, and not everybody leaves happy, but they are alive. As a lightweight myself, when I get down to a quarter on the main and zero in the aux., just a couple of loads before it's time to fuel, that's when you get called out to take a heavy load. I've never done any high altitude training, but I suspect some of the same technique carries over. FWIW the ship in the video appeared to have about a quarter in the main and aux. each, but it was hard to see.

Finally there is ground safety. Almost everyone does this too casually for me. That said, if you put one person each side as a tail rotor guard/people catcher, it does only take one person to escort the new load out and the old load back. Then the catchers load up the ship, make sure everyone is belted in and doors are closed. In the video in question I see exactly one ground person, which is not enough. And then there are the little kids, mentally challenged individuals young and old, and the drunks, most of whom you don't want in the front seat, and some of whom you don't want on the helicopter at all. You hope the ground staff is sorting this stuff out for you, and mostly they do, but every once in a while somebody slips through the cracks.

As for "stunting", steep turns are always fun but you need to read your audience and you need to watch that blade slap. Happy sounds, not frightened sounds, are what you shoot for, and I always adjust my ride by chatting up the pax in the first minute and making a few maneuvers to test the waters. Plus if you are over population there's only so much of this you really want to subject the ground to from both a sound footprint and PR perspective. I've done events where nearly every ride had a few steep turns, and I've done events where nearly every ride was limousine smooth. It all depends on the audience and the venue.

I could wax poetic about this for a long time. It's an interesting and challenging operating area, with many nuances and subtleties, seriously. To be done safely and profitably you need to bring your "A" game, and it needs to be "safety first, fun second, profit third".

[snchater]

aa777888

Thank you for your informative and interesting post.
A refreshing change to read such a well thought out explanation.
Safe flying
G-XLTG ( a plank driver!)

[Nubian]

Yeah. But. It could be argued in this operation that the landing phase commences as soon as the take-off phase is complete. Therefore no breach of minimum height rules.
The Chief Pilot of that operation needs to be held accountable for the conduct of the operation. Not just with the flying of the helicopter, the control of passengers on the ground is a shambles.

Hehe, yeah! What chief-pilot?

[OutsideCAS]

Aside from the safety issues being stated - it did look like fun. :8

[B2N2]

B2N2 - amusing that you as a non-helicopter pilot can accurately assess the safety of that flight when a number of us that do fly helicopters for a living (the clue is in the name of the forum, Rotorheads) say it is inherently unsafe.

He is only in a position to make a safe engine off landing without hazard to others for about 5% of that flight - the rest of the time he and the kid in the front would be in a pretty horrific accident if the engine stopped/drivebelt failed etc.

I’ve never even set foot in a helo but it “looks” alright to me. Mostly because I don’t know what a helo is capable of at these altitudes. To me it appears he carries sufficient extra speed to give him some more energy to work with.
It appears to be inherently no more dangerous then flying a fixed wing single engine over a congested area.
Or a twin :rolleyes:
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article236977663.html

[Pat Cox]

I can speak to this directly as a pilot who put many hours into the logbook flying fair rides in an R44 this past summer...
<snip>
...I could wax poetic about this for a long time. It's an interesting and challenging operating area, with many nuances and subtleties, seriously. To be done safely and profitably you need to bring your "A" game, and it needs to be "safety first, fun second, profit third".

Very insightful, thank you for posting your observations.

[Two's in]

There flies an individual with absolutely no power of imagination.

[nomorehelosforme]

I can speak to this directly as a pilot who put many hours into the logbook flying fair rides in an R44 this past summer.

Clearly this guy gave some thought to an engine out problem, and some thought to noise abatement, but probably not enough thought to either. Both are serious issues that need to be respected in this game. He does fly over roadways and parking lots to apparently attempt to satisfy both issues. But, it appears the ride was 2 minutes for $20. At that price point you are a) on the "backside of the earning curve" i.e. you are spending too much time on the ground and b) it forces you to stay low and tight. $30 for 4-5 minutes is a much better "sweet spot". You can still bang out around $750 worth of loads an hour (gross, assumes a 2.5 load factor and 10 loads an hour) but operating tempo is greatly reduced which enhances safety, and you have the ability to fly higher and take more care with respect to your flight path and noise footprint. So IMHO it was too low.

As for how confined the spot was, that place was relatively easy compared to some. The biggest issue here is that American fair-goers are all SUPER-sized. And fairs attract these people like flies because of such fair staples as fried dough, chili dogs, and all kinds of other crap. You post a weight limit of 250 (although the POH limit is 300lb) because you know some folks will lie, you run with less than half tanks max., and if you get too big a load you split it up. Finally, you pick up, do a power check, and, if necessary put it back down and kick somebody out. It doesn't happen that often, but it does happen, and not everybody leaves happy, but they are alive. As a lightweight myself, when I get down to a quarter on the main and zero in the aux., just a couple of loads before it's time to fuel, that's when you get called out to take a heavy load. I've never done any high altitude training, but I suspect some of the same technique carries over. FWIW the ship in the video appeared to have about a quarter in the main and aux. each, but it was hard to see.

Finally there is ground safety. Almost everyone does this too casually for me. That said, if you put one person each side as a tail rotor guard/people catcher, it does only take one person to escort the new load out and the old load back. Then the catchers load up the ship, make sure everyone is belted in and doors are closed. In the video in question I see exactly one ground person, which is not enough. And then there are the little kids, mentally challenged individuals young and old, and the drunks, most of whom you don't want in the front seat, and some of whom you don't want on the helicopter at all. You hope the ground staff is sorting this stuff out for you, and mostly they do, but every once in a while somebody slips through the cracks.

As for "stunting", steep turns are always fun but you need to read your audience and you need to watch that blade slap. Happy sounds, not frightened sounds, are what you shoot for, and I always adjust my ride by chatting up the pax in the first minute and making a few maneuvers to test the waters. Plus if you are over population there's only so much of this you really want to subject the ground to from both a sound footprint and PR perspective. I've done events where nearly every ride had a few steep turns, and I've done events where nearly every ride was limousine smooth. It all depends on the audience and the venue.

I could wax poetic about this for a long time. It's an interesting and challenging operating area, with many nuances and subtleties, seriously. To be done safely and profitably you need to bring your "A" game, and it needs to be "safety first, fun second, profit third".

Enjoyed that, and quite amusing......

[aa777888]

snchater, Pat_Cox, nomorehelosforme: thanks, gents :)

[Tickle]

Great post, aa777888. A fascinating insight.

[industry insider]

gulliBell wrote

Yeah. But. It could be argued in this operation that the landing phase commences as soon as the take-off phase is complete. Therefore no breach of minimum height rules.

That would be my argument exactly, if it was me!

[FH1100 Pilot]

We can debate and argue about the "safety" of such operation from now until kingdom come. Defenders - and surely the operator - will obviously say they're doing it safely and not violating any FAR's. Those of us with more experience and better judgment wouldn't go near such an operation - the risk is simply too high. I'm truly surprised that the FAA didn't get some noise/low-flying complaints.

aa777888's post was pretty darn good - a very "fair and balanced" appraisal. He's done that work (fair rides) and I have not. I have but one quibble. I timed the ride at just about (or just under) three minutes. (There was a slight edit just before the turnaround at the stadium that cut some time out.) The sign said $20 per person. Assuming a three pax minimum, that's $60 per ride. At three minutes per ride, you can do 20 rides per flight hour (collective up to collective down). That's friggin' $1,200 per flight hour - not too shabby! Now, we know that even though the minimum is supposed to be three pax, not *every* ride will have three. Still, even if your average load factor is 2.5, that's still $1,000 per flight hour. For an R-44. Here in the U.S., most of these state fairs last a whole week. See why the fair ride operators are drawn to this type of work?

[[email protected]]

And there is the problem - the justification for this inherently unsafe flying of fare-paying pax is making money - an end that seems to justify so many means when the operation is clearly too risky for most to contemplate.

The industry does not need joy-rides to develop pilots for proper commercial work - if you want to fly low and fast in a helicopter, sign up for the military.

[flylow]

aa777888's post was pretty darn good - a very "fair and balanced" appraisal. He's done that work (fair rides) and I have not. I have but one quibble. I timed the ride at just about (or just under) three minutes. (There was a slight edit just before the turnaround at the stadium that cut some time out.) The sign said $20 per person. Assuming a three pax minimum, that's $60 per ride. At three minutes per ride, you can do 20 rides per flight hour (collective up to collective down). That's friggin' $1,200 per flight hour - not too shabby! Now, we know that even though the minimum is supposed to be three pax, not *every* ride will have three. Still, even if your average load factor is 2.5, that's still $1,000 per flight hour. For an R-44. Here in the U.S., most of these state fairs last a whole week. See why the fair ride operators are drawn to this type of work?Yeah, it's pretty obvious you have not done these types of rides. A 3 minute ride will never give you 20 rides per hour, as you have load times in between each ride. Load times can vary from maybe 30 seconds for a quick turn around to a couple of minutes, depending on the crew and the passengers being unloaded and loaded. And don't forget about fueling every so often. However, it does look like the flight from the video stays too low.

[DeeGee62]

Apart from the flight safety aspect, which I am not qualified to comment on, surely irresponsible in terms of road safety. Something flying that low along a busy highway and over junctions could likely distract or scare drivers and cause a road accident.

[Fareastdriver]

The most dangerous part of that flight was driving to the fairground and back.

[helonorth]

The most dangerous part of that flight was driving to the fairground and back.
Maybe that time but flying like that will catch up to you eventually.

[ApolloHeli]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you have not done these types of rides. A 3 minute ride will never give you 20 rides per hour, as you have load times in between each ride. Load times can vary from maybe 30 seconds for a quick turn around to a couple of minutes, depending on the crew and the passengers being unloaded and loaded. And don't forget about fueling every so often. However, it does look like the flight from the video stays too low.

I think you missed where he stated "per flight hour" meaning per hour on the datcon, not on your watch. If the collective is down on the floor while pax are swapping the datcon won't tick over.

[aa777888]

Again, there are a lot of subtleties and nuances associated in optimizing these operations for safety, efficiency, and profit.

From an operational tempo perspective, consider that 10 loads an hour (5 min. flying, 1 min. on the ground, give or take for both segment), at a load factor of 2.5, and $30 per seat, is $900 per collective Hobbs hour gross, $750 per straight hour vs. the previously discussed $1000/collective, $750/straight time at $20/seat same load factor and a 15 loads per hour pace. 15 loads per hour is very difficult on people, machines, and safety. This isn't slinging Christmas trees. It's just not worth the extra $100. If you are falling behind on your 10 loads per hour because of a difficulty during unload/load, you just shorten up the next 2 or 3 rides. Nobody notices, no fuss, no muss. At 15 loads an hour you are just not going to maintain that pace. Charge more, go slower, people will pay, it's safer.

Ferry time matters. On site fuel is critical, you can't be sending helicopters for fuel. You need to shut down periodically and check fluid levels and telatemps. Do you bring one, two or even three helicopters? At an agriculture or just fun fair you are lucky to keep one helicopter continuously busy. At any sort of "gear head" event (tractor pull, drag racing, etc.) you almost can't bring enough helicopters. Gear heads will wait in line for an hour for a 4 or 5 minute experience! At one of those busy events at least one relief pilot is a requirement, two is nice if you have two ships working. Two ships works your ground staff twice as hard, so you bring more. Will the venue safely accommodate space for 2 or 3 helicopters? The list on how to do this well goes on and on.

As for safety, these op's are under Part 91, need an LOA from the FAA, and the venue will often require additional insurance coverage. Not saying there aren't questionable op's out there, but if so it's partially due to lack of FAA and underwriter oversight. You know that any op you mount is going to result in a ton of social media videos. People are looking at these. Do you really want to be on social media doing something dumb and have to answer to the FAA or, much, MUCH worse in today's insurance environment, your underwriter?

On a more personal note, doing these events can be a ton of fun. Every load is different, people are pretty jolly at fairs and similar events, and the hours you put in your log book represent much more challenging flying than droning along on a 20 or 30 minute scenic flight. But like any kind of flying, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

[helonorth]

Again, there are a lot of subtleties and nuances



No, not really. I did plenty of these fair rides years ago. I really could not possibly care less about the nuts and bolts of it. If you can't operate safely and make money don't do it.

[FH1100 Pilot]

Yeah, it's pretty obvious you have not done these types of rides. A 3 minute ride will never give you 20 rides per hour, as you have load times in between each ride. Load times can vary from maybe 30 seconds for a quick turn around to a couple of minutes, depending on the crew and the passengers being unloaded and loaded. And don't forget about fueling every so often. However, it does look like the flight from the video stays too low.
Yeeaaaaahh...I guess reading comprehension isn't really your strong suit there, flylow. You're probably just a pilot - probably always be a pilot, never anything more. :-/ I feel bad for you. Look genius, as someone else has already pointed out, I was speaking about FLIGHT HOURS. I even specified it. FLIGHT HOURS are what we use to calculate costs...in other words, how much collective-up to collective-down FLIGHT TIME is being put on the components, etc. Because at the end of the day, you total up the revenue, divide it by the Hobbs, and that gives you your revenue per hour. And yes, at 3 minutes per ride, you absolutely CAN do 20 rides per flight hour. But...20 rides per clock hour? No, of course not, but who cares?

It matters not one bit how much "time" it takes to accrue those flight hours (as aa777888 keeps confusingly referring to). Time on the ground is irrelevant. Again, who cares? What matters is what that aircraft is costing you! Yeah, you might put in a 10- or 12-hour duty day hopping rides but only put 6.0 on the Hobbs. Sure, there's ground time, time to refuel, lunch/pee break for the pilot... But if those 6.0 hours generate $6,000 for you, it ain't half-bad money, methinks. The DOC on an R-44 is, what, $190/hour? So that 6.0 hours on the Hobbs COST you $1,140? Oooh, you did a total of one hour ferrying back and forth to a nearby airport for fuel because you're a dummy and don't have fuel on site? Big deal, that hour only *cost* you $190 - all your other expenses stay the same. It really isn't rocket surgery.

Soooo....nice little profit, even considering those expenses (pilots, hotel room, local fees, etc) might add up to another $2,000 per day,. Still almost $3,000 PROFIT per day? And how many days will we work this season? Now, does it ever work out so perfectly? Of course not - no business ever works in real life like the blue-sky numbers on paper that we show the banks.

[aa777888]

Sorry, you guys are all correct. It's stupid to pay attention to the details, to maximize revenue safely, to actually run a business and all that sort of thing. Oh, wait, I forgot, it's PPRUNE :ugh:

Not sure what you mean by "direct operating cost", but the actual cost before profit of a busy R44 (one that is flying at least 500 hours a year) is about $250/hr. It's probably up a little given the recent 20-50% increases in insurance cost in the US this year.

[212man]

Not sure what you mean by "direct operating cost"

You might want to look that one up - kind of a fundamental concept in the commercial business model.

[[email protected]]

Every load is different, people are pretty jolly at fairs and similar events, and the hours you put in your log book represent much more challenging flying than droning along on a 20 or 30 minute scenic flight. What exactly is challenging about it??? Day, VMC flying circuits to a field............doesn't get much easier frankly.

If you mean challenging because you are putting yourself, the fare-paying pax and people on the ground at risk and hope you don't have a malfunction - that's just dumb, not challenging.

You have alluded to large pax - do you calculate your AUM and C of G for each challenging circuit, do a power check before transitioning, consult the RFM to make sure you have enough performance margin to operate safely, give the pax a comprehensive safety brief and show them how to egress the aircraft after an emergency landing? Or are you too busy making money?

[staticsource]

Quite simple really,

What a f!£king idiot - I would be seriously pissed if that was my son in the pax seat

[aa777888]

You might want to look that one up - kind of a fundamental concept in the commercial business model.
Argh. Yes, I was not precise enough in my language. I know what it means. But I'm not sure FH1100 does because he was pretty far off the mark, dollar-wise, and it is a meaningless number. Nobody operates solely on the basis of DOC. Indirect costs count, too.

[Deadstick126]

An airframe trying to shake itself apart.

[aa777888]

What exactly is challenging about it??? Day, VMC flying circuits to a field............doesn't get much easier frankly.Think of it more like ag work, except you are heavy when you return also. The spots are typically tight and require more attention than an easy day going in and out of 80 acre fields or paved runways. Is it super-challenging for a properly trained commercial pilot? No. Is it more challenging than boring holes in the sky with some old ladies in the back? Yes.
You have alluded to large pax - do you calculate your AUM and C of G for each challenging circuit, do a power check before transitioning, consult the RFM to make sure you have enough performance margin to operate safely,Yes, yes, and yes. These are all pre-calculated. About all the pilot has to do is occasionally remind ground staff to put the heavier folks in the back or prevent a third passenger from boarding.
give the pax a comprehensive safety brief and show them how to egress the aircraft after an emergency landing?This admittedly could be done better. Let's face it: a thorough briefing with demonstrations would take nearly as long as the flight itself.

Anyhow, I thought some people would appreciate a real-world perspective. If it's going to degenerate into the typical PPRUNE slag-fest about how only certain missions and certain helicopters are worthy of being flown then have at it. NYC's got positions for you, they think only public safety flights are worthy of leaving the ground.

[Robbiee]

Think of it more like ag work, except you are heavy when you return also. The spots are typically tight and require more attention than an easy day going in and out of 80 acre fields or paved runways. Is it super-challenging for a properly trained commercial pilot? No. Is it more challenging than boring holes in the sky with some old ladies in the back? Yes.
Yes, yes, and yes. These are all pre-calculated. About all the pilot has to do is occasionally remind ground staff to put the heavier folks in the back or prevent a third passenger from boarding.
This admittedly could be done better. Let's face it: a thorough briefing with demonstrations would take nearly as long as the flight itself.

Anyhow, I thought some people would appreciate a real-world perspective. If it's going to degenerate into the typical PPRUNE slag-fest about how only certain missions and certain helicopters are worthy of being flown then have at it. NYC's got positions for you, they think only public safety flights are worthy of leaving the ground.

I appreciate it,...thanks.

[nomorehelosforme]

Think of it more like ag work, except you are heavy when you return also. The spots are typically tight and require more attention than an easy day going in and out of 80 acre fields or paved runways. Is it super-challenging for a properly trained commercial pilot? No. Is it more challenging than boring holes in the sky with some old ladies in the back? Yes.
Yes, yes, and yes. These are all pre-calculated. About all the pilot has to do is occasionally remind ground staff to put the heavier folks in the back or prevent a third passenger from boarding.
This admittedly could be done better. Let's face it: a thorough briefing with demonstrations would take nearly as long as the flight itself.

Anyhow, I thought some people would appreciate a real-world perspective. If it's going to degenerate into the typical PPRUNE slag-fest about how only certain missions and certain helicopters are worthy of being flown then have at it. NYC's got positions for you, they think only public safety flights are worthy of leaving the ground.

No Slagfest, but there seems no control of PAX ... as mentioned before where are the ground crew gently guiding them away from the TR, we all know what can happen with an excited PAX after a quick ride, or transfer. whether it be a fairground ride or a Helicopter ride.. disorientiontation

[Ascend Charlie]

The bits I didn't like about the conduct of the ride:

Flight was too low. Only just level with the flags on top of the fairground, and below the level of one of the many towers he flew past.
Flight was too low.
Flight was STILL too low.
On arrival, pilot lets go the collective and is leaning out his door, while kid is unstrapping and leaving the front seat. And don't try to justify it by saying "the collective lock is on" because we all know that the Robinson collective lock is a lock in name only. Potential for a serious accident, it has happened too many times before.
Pax were out their doors and moving around well before the "handlers" came with the next load.

Just didn't like it. I have run many hundreds of scenic rides, but with far greater safety than these people.

[[email protected]]

Yes, yes, and yes. These are all pre-calculated. About all the pilot has to do is occasionally remind ground staff to put the heavier folks in the back or prevent a third passenger from boarding. Unless you weigh each pax and carefully position them, you have no idea what your AUM or C of G is.

It isn't a slagfest and pax flying done safely is still fun - but this 'get em in, whizz em round and get em out' isn't safe pax transport no matter how you try to put a positive spin on it.

If you are operating heavy all the time you have higher collective position and increased Nr decay in the event of a power loss - you have very little power margin and I suspect transient exceedances over the MAP limit are a regular (but perhaps ignored) occurrence.

[industry insider]

212 wrote

You might want to look that one up - kind of a fundamental concept in the commercial business model.

And a concept which is widely misunderstood.

[JRK]

Was holding short once for a while waiting for a guy to backtrack and observed one of these with a student trying to learn hovering above grassy patch of the AD.
I swear they nearly buried the back end into the dirt a couple of times. Must have been inches away.
No thanks, I'll stick to my fixed wing...

[RMK]

Was holding short once for a while waiting for a guy to backtrack and observed one of these with a student trying to learn hovering above grassy patch of the AD.
I swear they nearly buried the back end into the dirt a couple of times. Must have been inches away.
No thanks, I'll stick to my fixed wing...

If you don't like helicopters, why are you on a helicopter forum?

[HeliHenri]

.
Well, to say that he doesn't like helicopter ! :E
.

[Bell_ringer]

If you don't like helicopters, why are you on a helicopter forum?

Sometimes, even stuck-wing drivers, want to hang around real pilots :E

[alicopter]

Was holding short once for a while waiting for a guy to backtrack and observed one of these with a student trying to learn hovering above grassy patch of the AD.
I swear they nearly buried the back end into the dirt a couple of times. Must have been inches away.
No thanks, I'll stick to my fixed wing...
Since you seem, from your own writing quoted above, to only have ONE wing... watch out for a likely spin!!!
You've got a point though... sticking to a rotary wing is much more of a headache!!!... As well as gravity you also have to fight centrifuge force, hence needing good nails to grab your blade...

[JRK]

.
Well, to say that he doesn't like helicopter ! :E
.

Yes, it's not a matter of like or dislike. I'm just s**t scared of them...:)

[HeliHenri]

Yes, it's not a matter of like or dislike. I'm just s**t scared of them...:)

Well, this is the case for everyone here, that's why alcohol exists. https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/evil.gif
.

[Hot 'n' High]

I’ve never even set foot in a helo but it “looks” alright to me. Mostly because I don’t know what a helo is capable of at these altitudes. To me it appears he carries sufficient extra speed to give him some more energy to work with.........

Hiya B2N2, like you, I'm FW but have "played" in a Sea King, Lynx, Gazelle and an R22. The Gazelle flew like a dream (the SK and Lx were fine too) but the R22 was doing it's best to kill me I swear for the entire hour I was trying to control it. It went a looooong way to explain why my friend, the R22 Instructor, was the way he was - psychotic!!!!! Having also flown with (as pax)/briefed with loads of helo aircrew, I'd not be going anywhere near that ride! Nor anywhere near where the bits that would fly off it in a crash went! Call me a woosie ..... but!!! :8

Stick with your namesake - loved my Islander flying .... and my hearing has almost recovered after 12 years!!!! :ooh: Tho I agree re the dangers of a twin if you had engine failure at low level in a take-off. My plan if, during "immediate actions", it was going pear-shaped, was to do a rapid conversion to a no-engine glide which would probably reduce the death toll.... Thankfully, never, ever had to make that call..... . :eek:

Cheers, H 'n' H

[aa777888]

@Robbiee: :)

Unless you weigh each pax and carefully position them, you have no idea what your AUM or C of G is.From a precisionist point of view I agree with you. But, alas, again my imprecision of speech catches me off guard with you pedantic types. Truthfully, yeah, we eyeball it, and we trust people to tell us their correct weight. It's not that hard to know you are at least within max. gross weight and CG limits if you put the heavy weights in back and don't have a heavy weight person in the front. If you spend some time with an R44 W&B spreadsheet it's actually quite forgiving. A stock Raven II will hold 851 lbs of people and pilot with half tanks. With an average 180 lb pilot that leaves 223 lbs per seat. If everyone is under 200 you are good to load however you want. Over that two people in the back is pretty much it because of CG, unless the up front pax is a lightweight (under 150). So it's not that hard to stay within limits.

It isn't a slagfest and pax flying done safely is still fun - but this 'get em in, whizz em round and get em out' isn't safe pax transport no matter how you try to put a positive spin on it.That's your opinion based on your tolerance for risk. There are many people who won't fly in or even be around a Robinson helicopter. There are some non-pilots in this topic that have expressed opinions that they would never fly on any helicopter. Everything is relative, but please don't assume your risk assessment exists on a fixed scale that applies to all people. Ride concessions can be and are done safely all of the time. Other professionals, including regulators and underwriters, agree that this is so.

If you are operating heavy all the time you have higher collective position and increased Nr decay in the event of a power loss - you have very little power margin and I suspect transient exceedances over the MAP limit are a regular (but perhaps ignored) occurrence.I can't agree with you more. This is why task specific training in these operations is so important. This is why I wrote early about having to bring your "A" game. And I've been so trained, as has everyone else in the op I'm associated with. The potential for MAP exceedances are the single biggest issue, and as a helicopter owner myself I don't want them happening to my ship either. Whether other op's take the same care I couldn't say. But these op's can be done "right", for values of "right", which I'm pretty certain you and I will never agree on, to be honest and fair and all that sort of thing.

[[email protected]]

Ride concessions can be and are done safely all of the time. Other professionals, including regulators and underwriters, agree that this is so. I'm sure that is the case but it would probably involve a sensible minimum performance level, minimum stipulated weights and heights and proper briefing for the pax.

Given previous jobs I have had, I have a high appetite for risk when that risk is justified - making a few bucks isn't that justification in my book - your sliding scale of 'right' would have to be at one end of my arc of tolerance for fare-paying pax but is probably closer to what I would accept for troop carriage in a conflict scenario.

There are plenty of us here with a wide experience of helicopter usage (and abusage) and have had to justify our risk-taking against duty of care to crew and pax rather than duty of care to profit margins.

[cavok_flyer]

To be honest, a flight like that as a young lad would for sure get me interested in flying helicopters!

[RINKER]

Do they normally do these flights without headsets for pax.
Hard to communicate with pax and not too good for their hearing either.

Hi Static source, you certainly would not have let me away with this kind of flying..
R

[aa777888]

Do they normally do these flights without headsets for pax.
Hard to communicate with pax and not too good for their hearing either.Obviously some folks don't. The op's around here do. It is stupid not to from pretty much any perspective you care to name: health (hearing protection), safety (instructions to passengers) and just sheer enjoyment (everyone can talk to each other). If the pax get too loud there are buttons and knobs to take care of that on the audio panel. The only downside is wear and tear on the headsets.

[212man]

Not very hygienic either!

[RINKER]

aa777888 I agree re button on panel I often found with young passengers
they were so excited to have a mic and headphones they couldn’t help themselves
so they did get muted occasionally.

[Ascend Charlie]

For these mini-short rides, take the mics off the headsets. They can still listen to the pilot, but the pilot isn't distracted by the kids saying "Hello! Can you hear me? CAN YOU HEAR ME??"

Hygiene takes a very poor second place to safety. They can share their nits and they can hear the instructions to stay alive.

[Pearly White]

212 wrote



And a concept which is widely misunderstood.
And highly malleable to suit whatever financial jiggery-pokery is going on at the time.

[JustinHeywood]

This thread showcases the best and worst of pprune.
An interesting topic and video is posted, followed by commentary on a spectrum from the doom merchants to the ‘nothing to see here folks’; the know-nothings and the much worse know-a-little types.
Occasionally some erudite soul will turn up (eg. aa777888) and cast some actual knowledge and experience to those interested in the topic at hand; inevitably he/she is attacked by nit-picking pedants determined to win some personal pissing competition.
These forums are a bit like life - the trick is to find people worth listening to, and ignore the rest.

[[email protected]]

So nobody can have an opinion who doesn't agree with you ? Perhaps you like living in an echo chamber, the real problem with social media nowadays.

If you can't acknowledge input from Professional Pilots then don't come to PPRUNE. If you can't acknowledge the safety points made about the video then re-read them.

There is a great deal more to helicopter operations than giving rides at a fair.

[MaxR]

The most dangerous part of that flight was driving to the fairground and back.

Yes, but only because you might get hit by a helicopter coming the other way down the road?

Too low? Almost certainly. Safe? Probably not. Worth twenty bucks? Oh yeah.

[HeliHenri]

Yes, but only because you might get hit by a helicopter coming the other way down the road?

Too low? Almost certainly. Safe? Probably not. Worth twenty bucks? Oh yeah.

I'am totally with you,
But only if the customers are fully informed about your two first points and choose to take the risk (and I Don't speak about the family in the car hit by the helicopter).
.

[Nubian]

Sorry, you guys are all correct. It's stupid to pay attention to the details, to maximize revenue safely, to actually run a business and all that sort of thing. Oh, wait, I forgot, it's PPRUNE :ugh:

Not sure what you mean by "direct operating cost", but the actual cost before profit of a busy R44 (one that is flying at least 500 hours a year) is about $250/hr. It's probably up a little given the recent 20-50% increases in insurance cost in the US this year.

I wonder why?

And:

Think of it more like ag work, except you are heavy when you return also. The spots are typically tight and require more attention than an easy day going in and out of 80 acre fields or paved runways. Is it super-challenging for a properly trained commercial pilot? No.

Ag work?? One thing is the safety of the on-board, but they are not the only ones in danger here.
Second bit: Ever heard of complacency? You know the thing that happens to everyone else?!

JustinHaywood,
Occasionally some erudite soul will turn up (eg. aa777888) and cast some actual knowledge and experience to those interested in the topic at hand; inevitably he/she is attacked by nit-picking pedants determined to win some personal pissing competition.

Yeah, I'm sure the individuals on the receiving end in the links below would fully agree with your statement......:rolleyes:

https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/05/dad-72-killed-after-helicopter-crashes-and-mangles-car-with-its-blades-9122181/

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2013/05/08/breaking-news/helicopter-crashes-downtown-no-serious-injuries/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/injured-helicopter-crashes-cars-pennsylvania-fairgrounds/story?id=65933174

Now, these are just a few examples.

[Lude-og]

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2013/05/08/breaking-news/helicopter-crashes-downtown-no-serious-injuries/



Pedant Alert! I think this particular example in Honolulu might be a bad one given that this resulted in not much more damage on the ground than to an already parked Mazda after the long run-on landing following an engine failure (maintenance mishap undetectable to the pilot from what I remember) over downtown Honolulu at a few thousand feet while conducting photo work. Not even this particular pilots best real-life engine off landing!

And for what its worth I think that JustinHeywood made some wry commentary and observation on this thread which I think should be taken as just that.

[Hot 'n' High]

..............
An interesting topic and video is posted, followed by commentary on a spectrum from the doom merchants to the ‘nothing to see here folks’; the know-nothings and the much worse know-a-little types.
............


;) H 'n' H will be viewed as one of those highlighted in the quote above then, probably the 3rd!!!! :ok:

Joking aside, I found aa777888's input fascinating as I've never been professionally involved in that aspect of helo ops - apart from a ride in an Alouette at a showground when I was 9 and a similar flight in a Jet Ranger when I was 49 (or something like that!) at an airday. I was fascinated in the Jet Ranger flight to watch how it was operated/routed as, by then, I had been involved in RW aviation for 3 decades and had a FW CPL/IR. I'd also met my Robbo pal by then! I can now add a further decade of FW aviation to that - now, sadly, medically brought to an end! But I also see [email protected]'s viewpoint - but our backgrounds are probably similar in terms of risk and when we would go for it.

Trust me, my personal view is that I'd not partake in the flight exhibited in the video. Why? Because it scares me! Is that sort of flying killing lots of people? No, it isn't. Would there be time to sort out a problem if it developed? Doesn't seem that way to me - that's my view! Could that sort of business be operated differently and still make money? Probably not and, as aa777888 says, "Ride concessions can be and are done safely all of the time. Other professionals, including regulators and underwriters, agree that this is so." so I'd not suggest ending them. It's just not for me!

Could you guys who do such work for living assess that vid and draw some conclusions for your own decision-making in the future? Maybe hearing someone like me go "WTF?" might cause someone to go "Hell, I've been doing this for 25 years, looks OK to me .... but, hey, I'll just watch that Vid again and see what that plonker (me, H 'n' H) is on about"! A friend of mine died on a low level Navex flying a route he'd instructed on several times. His complacency meant he was 6 ft lower than normal at one point ... 1 really special bloke (and his student) gone in an instant!

Why was he extra-special? A few years previously, as an Engineer, I'd asked him to stop flying a certain legal flight manoeuvre which I know he enjoyed (and it "looked good", I'll give him that!) but was potentially not helping some long-term structural issues we were having. Instead of bawling me out he agreed he'd not actually looked at it that way ... and he never did it again ..... well, bless him, not while he was in sight of me! Had he/his crew/pax been under fire I'd have expected him to fly that way - and more - to get 'em home safely - sod the long-term structural issues!

Anyway, that's my humble contribution .... and H 'n' H will crawl back under his rock! Till next time that is! You know, I think I'll go and have a beer - in memory of the 2 guys on that fateful Navex - may they RIP! :hmm:

[aa777888]

On a more general note: it is easy to single out almost any particular type of operation for nit picking. One can easily compile a lengthy list of any type of operation gone bad: rides, tours, mustering, ag, corporate, pleasure, VIP, utility, military--you name it. Accidents (most should really be called "negligents") happen in every type and genre of operation.

Also, people are comfortable with what they know. Those who grew up flying nothing but turbines, and then went right into multi-engine IFR op's with very rigidly defined SOPs, are understandably uncomfortable if not outright horrified at someone jumping into an inexpensive single engine piston machine and performing some task without a large manual of rules and regulations, a high inertia rotor system, and a turbine. Similarly, those who started life in a piston single can't understand why anyone would see what they do as so risky. Familiarity may breed contempt, but un-familiarity can also breed another kind of contempt.

People on PPRuNe are apt to draw a line in the sky between what they find "acceptable" and "unacceptable" based on a combination of real facts, perceptions (which are not facts), experience, and their own risk tolerance. Most of the hot buttons are easy to identify because they do indeed involve additional risks: mustering, lightweight piston singles (mostly Robinson helicopters), rides, tours, night VFR, single engine IFR--I'm probably missing a few. And yet if you start mining accident databases you find that things are not as bad as you think.

At any rate, to paraphrase a famous novel, "Some helicopter operations are more equal than others." Where you draw that line is up to you. If you draw it in public, as I sometimes do on PPRuNe, one must be willing to suffer the slings and arrows of others who draw it differently. Obviously I enjoy posting here. I learn a lot by having such conversations, and while I may get frustrated from time to time, so far it has not extended to keyboard rage :}

Cheers and blue skies!

[MaxR]

aa777888 You seem very erudite, level-headed, knowledgeable, even-tempered and reasonable. Are you sure you're well suited to posting on Pprune? Seriously, thanks for the interesting insights.

[Hot 'n' High]

aa777888 You seem very erudite, level-headed, knowledgeable, even-tempered and reasonable. Are you sure you're well suited to posting on Pprune? Seriously, thanks for the interesting insights.

:ok: MaxR, you most eloquently summed up my response to aa777888's last post! Truth is many of us have diverse backgrounds/experiences which all, strangely, end up with the same goal - transporting people safely from A to B without killing them, us or innocent bystanders - but, as aa777888 observes, those differences lead to our own bias/comfort zones. Tis the way it is! My respect for RW pilots is immense - my memory of the SAR we launched one night to escort a "sickie" 90+ miles back to "Mum" returning to "Mum", only now being escorted by the "sickie" as that was now "more S" than the SAR now was still haunts me! I was glad when that Watch ended!

I've often wondered how one gets such opinionated views on here PPRuNe - and my view is this:- many/most of us have/had responsibility for that goal - often relying on split-second decisions to continue/go around or passing that job off as being good to go despite the 100's of maintenance steps, many of which were conducted in a workshop maybe 1000's of miles away when a component was serviced, and over which we had no control. Not many jobs out there where you need that ability, or rather the confidence, in being able to make those decisions - or to invite the wrath of management by calling "Time" to consider this or that.

To work in a profession where, as engineer or pilot, we could so easily kill, and yet we take it for granted - is something! Makes us all a bit odd really - but in the best way as, ultimately, whatever we do, the goal is exactly the same! And we should always question, or feel free to ask. How many things have come to light due to that "damn fool question" someone asked? On more than one occasion, a "throw-away" line alerted people to a problem. Upon such bricks, aviation thrives!

And, in all of this, you may gather, I do propose H 'n' H as being odder than most - why do you think I took on the name?!!!! As the saying goes "Suits you, Sir!"! ;)

Stay safe one and all, whatever we get up to! Cheers, H 'n' H

[aa777888]

Thank you for the kind words, gents :)

[[email protected]]

H and H - sadly I think I know who you refer to in your comment about a friend dying on a navex with a student - he went through his QHI course in the early 90s when I was teaching on it.

[Hot 'n' High]

H and H - sadly I think I know who you refer to in your comment about a friend dying on a navex with a student - he went through his QHI course in the early 90s when I was teaching on it.

[email protected], that fits timewise. TG was the Instructor, not sure who the Stude was. I had moved on to Vl by that time. IIR, they were heading back to Cu from Shawbs down the Wye Valley on a low level Navex when they caught a wire. So v sad! I believe it was all over in seconds....

Sorry for the melancholy thread drift...... :sad: H 'n' H

[Steve76]

...time is money.

[B2N2]

Again, there are a lot of subtleties and nuances associated in optimizing these operations for safety, efficiency, and profit.

From an operational tempo perspective, consider that 10 loads an hour (5 min. flying, 1 min. on the ground, give or take for both segment), at a load factor of 2.5, and $30 per seat, is $900 per collective Hobbs hour gross, $750 per straight hour vs. the previously discussed $1000/collective, $750/straight time at $20/seat same load factor and a 15 loads per hour pace. 15 loads per hour is very difficult on people, machines, and safety. This isn't slinging Christmas trees. It's just not worth the extra $100. If you are falling behind on your 10 loads per hour because of a difficulty during unload/load, you just shorten up the next 2 or 3 rides. Nobody notices, no fuss, no muss. At 15 loads an hour you are just not going to maintain that pace. Charge more, go slower, people will pay, it's safer.

Ferry time matters. On site fuel is critical, you can't be sending helicopters for fuel. You need to shut down periodically and check fluid levels and telatemps. Do you bring one, two or even three helicopters? At an agriculture or just fun fair you are lucky to keep one helicopter continuously busy. At any sort of "gear head" event (tractor pull, drag racing, etc.) you almost can't bring enough helicopters. Gear heads will wait in line for an hour for a 4 or 5 minute experience! At one of those busy events at least one relief pilot is a requirement, two is nice if you have two ships working. Two ships works your ground staff twice as hard, so you bring more. Will the venue safely accommodate space for 2 or 3 helicopters? The list on how to do this well goes on and on.

As for safety, these op's are under Part 91, need an LOA from the FAA, and the venue will often require additional insurance coverage. Not saying there aren't questionable op's out there, but if so it's partially due to lack of FAA and underwriter oversight. You know that any op you mount is going to result in a ton of social media videos. People are looking at these. Do you really want to be on social media doing something dumb and have to answer to the FAA or, much, MUCH worse in today's insurance environment, your underwriter?

On a more personal note, doing these events can be a ton of fun. Every load is different, people are pretty jolly at fairs and similar events, and the hours you put in your log book represent much more challenging flying than droning along on a 20 or 30 minute scenic flight. But like any kind of flying, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

Thank you for taking the time to post that.

[Helisweet]

You need a twin to do this safely, and a different tour over non congested areas, 15 min flight min., so each non deadly ride would rise to 400 bucks.....

[Robbiee]

You need a twin to do this safely, and a different tour over non congested areas, 15 min flight min., so each non deadly ride would rise to 400 bucks.....

Something like this,...kinda?
https://youtu.be/GOxw-ZFB-Io

[[email protected]]

Not so much!

Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids??????? Was the little lad even strapped in???

No safety equipment or ear protection visible anywhere, ultra low level with the gear up, low level over water (again no safety equipment.

Just because it's in a twin doesn't make it OK - another cowboy operator.

[RMK]

ultra low level with the gear up

That was so the wheels didn't hit the corn stalks as he flew low over the corn field - safety first!

[aa777888]

Not so much!

Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids???????

But...why? Leaving aside the issue of kids, why should adults not be allowed to have such a ride? Is it not their choice to do so? As long as there is no danger to people on the ground, of course.

Hell, people love to take chances. Bungee jumping. Skydiving (tandem--trying to keep in the realm of the passenger). Flying down the highway on the back of a motorcycle. Rafting down river rapids. Jet boating up river rapids. Rides in aerobatic aircraft. Rides in rally cars, race cars, on the back of race bikes on a racetrack. Parasailing. Banana boat rides (and other inflatable tow-behinds). The list is endless of passengers who willingly place themselves into obvious danger, into obviously risky situations, because they WANT to be thrilled.

The idea that anything dangerous or risky is improper or illegal and should therefore be banned is a very, very dangerous idea. It's a slippery slope because pretty soon they'll be taking away all of your sharp kitchen utensils. Oh wait, they are already doing that in the UK, aren't they? :E

Here in 'merica the "fun police" need not apply, although we have plenty of overly helpful "legislators". Remember, nobody ever gets into politics to leave you alone.

If somebody wants to risk balling up a machine in the middle of cornfield (and this can be risked while still meeting all FAA regulations), and people are willing to risk being in that ball, they should be allowed to. They might have to be self-insured, or not insured, to do so, but that's totally fair.

And that's just passenger thrills. That doesn't even get into first person thrills like skydiving for yourself, SCUBA diving, skiing, mountain climbing, again the list is endless, and some activities are quite extreme, e.g. low level wingsuit flight. Should all these people stay home, too?

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be for anyone.

Yeah, yeah, I know, just when you thought aa777888 was sane. What can I say, I'm a BIG believer in personal freedom.

Finally, remember what I wrote above about rides appropriate to your audience and venue. You may have noted from the video that this took place at a major US skydiving drop zone. These people do not have the same risk tolerances as the average person. I should know, because I am a skydiver as well. And they have a high believe in personal freedom. It is therefore unsurprising that the ride took the form it did. If that 222 had gone down there would have been a celebration of life for all who perished, that they had died doing what they loved, and not a bunch of lawsuits on top of lawsuits. If it had been Aunt Martha and Uncle John at the local agricultural fair, it's a good bet the ride would have been quite a bit different, and that there would be lawsuits if by chance something bad did happen while they were getting the aviation equivalent of a hay ride.

"We don't do that kind of flying here. It's dangerous and irresponsible."
"Too many lawsuits."
"Well, who does?"
"He does."
"Hey Hawk. This guy wants a scary ride."

[YOUTUBE]zQTDoxrgBeU[/ YOUTUBE]

[Robbiee]

,...and I thought you were joking?
https://youtu.be/YaZZjyAcAzE

[Bell_ringer]

But...why? Leaving aside the issue of kids, why should adults not be allowed to have such a ride? Is it not their choice to do so? As long as there is no danger to people on the ground, of course.

You are quite right, however, this assumes the people are aware of the risk. Joe Punter has no clue about the risk, sees a "ride" and automatically presumes the operator wouldn't be doing it if it wasn't safe.
If everyone onboard are skilled, fully aware of what they are up to and have the appetite for leaving a smoking hole in the ground, then good luck to them.
Unfortunately, even in this instance, they will drive up the premiums for everyone else, making it difficult for sensible and responsible people to enter or stay in the game and encourage local law-makers to over-regulate the environment.

If you want a fun ride, go visit a theme park.

[Ascend Charlie]

A theme park has inspectors who test every ride on a regular basis to ensure that the riders are safe - although every now and then it runs off the rails, so to speak. But it is extremely rare, on the percentage of successful rides against injuries, that anybody gets hurt.

If you wanna do a tandem meat-bombing run, you have to sign their forms of "all care but no responsibility", listen to their training, watch a video, get strapped into a harness by a professional, and you know that you are taking a big risk to do so.

These carnival rides have no such checks, have no training or warnings, little supervision on entry or exit, and a low-time pilot who wants to show off. Big difference.

[[email protected]]

As Bell Ringer and AC have said aa777888, personal freedom is great - providing people who elect to take those risks are fully aware of them beforehand - if not, you turn into a nation of Darwin Award winners, removing yourselves from the gene pool through ignorance.

Many of the general public are poorly informed and are happy to abdicate responsibility for their own safety to other people, whether those people are fit and proper to ensure that safety or not.

If you agree it is OK to exploit that ignorance because you are happy to take their money - 'Hell they should know better shouldn't they, it's a free country' - then perhaps you are not the enlightened thinker you believe.

[[email protected]]

As for the knife business - there is rising knife-crime in UK and there are plenty of people trying to highlight it and reduce it - people don't generally kill other people without weapons........

Removing all sharp objects from kitchens is clearly an extreme and impractical view and we already have controls on who can buy knives - but when weapons are easily found around the house thanks to the parents purchases, it is not surprise that young people who feel threatened (for whatever reason) decide that carrying knives makes them safer - it doesn't. Sound like a familiar scenario?????? We don't have a National Knife Association in UK to prevent controls on weapons:E

[Torquetalk]

,...and I thought you were joking?
https://youtu.be/YaZZjyAcAzE

Can really learn a lot from Akkad Daily. George Soros a jew! Who’d have thought?

[GrayHorizonsHeli]

apparently being born has become a hazard to my health.

I cant wait for this thread to die too.

[212man]

apparently being born has become a hazard to my health.
.
Well, it certainly has fatal consequences

[aa777888]

Bell Ringer and Crab: I disagree with you. The folks I've met all see the helicopter ride as the risk it is. None I've met treat it as totally safe. Nearly every load wants it to be as "dangerous" and as "exciting" as it can be. The video posted is about as extreme example of that as you will find, which, again, is completely unsurprising given that it occurred at a skydiving drop zone. Everybody in America wants their ride to be the Red Bull BO105. Certainly there are exceptions, as there are in all things, but I believe you misjudge the American public. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

Bell Ringer: is even more strongly disagree with your statement "If you want a fun ride, go visit a theme park." Clearly there is no way that you and I are going to agree. Your fears of regulation are, sadly, well founded, but to use a time-worn phrase, freedom isn't free. One must fight for it.

As for being an "enlightened thinker", my idea of a truly enlightened world is one where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. I am quite sure my idea of enlightenment does not equate to most of yours. I abhor "nanny state" attitudes at both individual and state levels. People should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not hurt others. People do not need to be protected from themselves.

Just to restore at least the appearance of sanity, since you all no doubt consider me nuts at this point, I will say that a combination of personal limits, machine limits, and the characteristics of most of the venues have me demonstrating a safety margin significantly larger, to say the least, than some of the antics shown in the videos posted in this topic. But I'll fight tooth and nail for anyone's right to put those limits wherever they want to as long as they don't endanger non-participants, and I'll bet you a beer that the line for the 222 ride got longer, not shorter, once everyone at the DZ saw the first load go at it.

It does make you wonder if that 222 is still insured, though!

[[email protected]]

Bell Ringer and Crab: I disagree with you. The folks I've met all see the helicopter ride as the risk it is. None I've met treat it as totally safe. Nearly every load wants it to be as "dangerous" and as "exciting" as it can be. The video posted is about as extreme example of that as you will find, which, again, is completely unsurprising given that it occurred at a skydiving drop zone. Everybody in America wants their ride to be the Red Bull BO105. Certainly there are exceptions, as there are in all things, but I believe you misjudge the American public. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.

Not a cultural thing, more a human thing - we like excitement and the buzz of adrenaline gives us a kick and we like to bet on the odds of not dying because we can convince ourselves that it won't happen to us - right up until it does.

If the 222 had speared in, killing or injuring all on board,but a second was available to carry on the rides, how long would the queue have been then?

It's like speeding or other minor lawbreaking - all great fun until you get caught even though you had convinced yourself you wouldn't.

Show people the real consequences of the choices they make - not absolute consequences but possible ones - and you would see a change in some people's (though not all) behaviour.

If, heaven forbid, a skydiver piles in due to target fixation or a chute malfunction - do the rest of the club immediately get in the air to freefall themselves or do some of them actually contemplate their own vulnerability to the whim of fate?

We used to get excellent human factors presentations from a USAF Colonel who told a story of a friend - a super-good jet jock Squadron Commander, combat ace and multi formation leader who suddenly had an epiphany whilst taxying out to lead a 4-ship. His subconscious finally got the message through to his conscious that what he was doing was dangerous (ie military flying) - something his conscious had suppressed for many years, a failure to acknowledge reality - he taxiied back in and shut down, never to fly again.

We can kid ourselves that our risky behaviour won't come back and bite us in the ass but we are completely at the mercy of fate.

Everyone has their own appetite for risk and it can be competitive (risky shift) in groups of people like pilots, skydivers, racing drivers etc but the ones who survive those, and other similar, professions often do rationalise and minimise, where possible, those risks but still need a big dose of luck.

Taking your child, not strapped in, on an ultra low level thrill-seeking flight just seems like tempting fate to me.

Ignoring the fact that many rules and regulations (the nanny state) are to protect people from making the same stupid mistakes over and over again isn't freedom of choice - it is stupidity.

[Fly Aiprt]

"We don't do that kind of flying here. It's dangerous and irresponsible."
"Too many lawsuits."
"Well, who does?"
"He does."
"Hey Hawk. This guy wants a scary ride."



Just plain ordinary standard aerobatics at safe atitude, with parachute, headset etc...
Took a lot of people on those rides.
No helo pilot here, so not sure how it compares with this low height Bell ride...

[Ascend Charlie]

People should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not hurt others. People do not need to be protected from themselves.

Does this mean that all road markings (double unbroken lines etc) and speed limits can be removed? Take away the guard rails on corners above cliffs? Remove all safety fences at lookouts? Take away all things that stop you from being free to do what you wish?

Horsefeathers.

[FH1100 Pilot]

I guess I have to side with aa777888 on this one. I mean, this ain't the 1950's where we're all innocent of or naïve about the hazards and risks of helicopters. These days, you'd have to be living in a cave to not realize how dangerous they can be. And sooooo...if someone wanted to take one of those wild fair rides or the rock 'n roll 222 ride at the skydiver convention...then...their survivors can't really claim that they were completely ignorant of the risks. As long as most reasonable precautions are taken... And yeah, laws and regulations do get enacted to protect us from ourselves...but how much governmental injection in our lives is over-reach? Do I need the government to force me to wear a helmet when I ride my motorcycle? I think not. I mean, I do wear a helmet but I don't like to be told I have to. So I agree with aa777888 in that as long as it doesn't endanger innocents outside of the area of operation, what's the big deal?

Now, me personally...no, I wouldn't fly for such an operation. By balls must've shrunk as I've gotten older. I leave that kind of stuff (like Christmas tree slinging) for the younger, more capable pilots. That said, I didn't see anything extreme about the 222 flight. Which brings me to...

Actual Reason For This Post: Someone wondered if N222GQ still has insurance? Ironically enough, N222GQ was bought by an EMS operator, became N73RX and flew as an air ambulance for a while. Then, keeping the N73RX registration, it changed hands to a private owner who apparently has moved it Guatemala. So it's had a long and happy life since the thrill rides at Skydive Chicago in 2001. Must've been through more than a couple of Annual Inspections between then and now.

[aa777888]

Does this mean that all road markings (double unbroken lines etc) and speed limits can be removed? Take away the guard rails on corners above cliffs? Remove all safety fences at lookouts? Take away all things that stop you from being free to do what you wish?

Horsefeathers.To a certain extent, yes. Less is often more. Here's some interesting news, old news, actually: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/2185762/German-town-bans-road-signs-to-cut-accidents.html

As you might imagine, I remembered that experiment right away, being completely taken by it when it happened 11 years ago, given my interest in personal freedom.

I live in a place where there are no helmet laws (for adults), no seat belt laws (for adults), and once upon a time (the 1980's) not even an open container law--yes, you could drink and drive as long as you were not over the limit (federal highway funding extortion put an end to that last freedom). And no permits are required to buy, own or carry any sort of firearm nor any sort of knife. And a plethora of additional freedoms other places don't have. Which is why I live here. We seem to get along just fine, indeed much better than other places that have all kinds of laws "to keep everyone safe". Laws, rules and regulations do not make you safe. They are no substitute for common sense, and do not stop those bent on doing stupid, or evil, stuff.

Anyhow, this seems to have digressed into philosophy more than aviation, although one can affect the other.

[Autonomous Collectiv]

Does this mean that all road markings (double unbroken lines etc) and speed limits can be removed? Take away the guard rails on corners above cliffs? Remove all safety fences at lookouts? Take away all things that stop you from being free to do what you wish?

Horsefeathers.

A six inch spike on the steering wheel would prevent a lot more accidents than a seatbelt!

[Robbiee]

https://youtu.be/CRHyJYZimvM


,...or you can just encase yourself in bubble wrap:cool:

[[email protected]]

Ah, aa777888 - the 'I'm alright Jack' philosophy - very enlightened.

[aa777888]

Ah, aa777888 - the 'I'm alright Jack' philosophy - very enlightened.
I had to look that one up. It's not an expression we have on this side of the pond.

You've missed the mark entirely. Those with strong Libertarian leanings such as myself are among the most likely to help a neighbor or a stranger and to do folks favors. And you make a mistake by equating a desire for freedom with the selfish, perjorative form of self interest, which is 100% incorrect, and because it may be the only form of self interest you understand. There is instead something called enlightened self interest. This latter form is not incompatible with the greater good, indeed it improves on it.

At any rate I'd be happy to debate with you at length the subject of socialism vs libertarianism, but this is probably not the right venue.

[Bell_ringer]

People do not need to be protected from themselves.

In the ideal world perhaps.
In this one however, the now defunct concept of common sense has departed the building and ignorance and stupidity is on the rise.
Rules are created because of the few not because of the many, and it has been shown time and again that people do need to be protected from themselves and from each other.
Do you think for one moment that if any of those flights didn't end well, that those onboard wouldn't be calling lawyers, claiming they didn't know and pointing fingers everywhere but themselves?

When hard lessons have been learned, celebrating that you don't need a helmet or a seat-belt isn't a display of freedom, it is a display of foolishness.
It is worth remembering that the damage and risk isn't confined to an individual.
When it goes wrong, others have to risk their lives to clean up the mess, not to mention the friends and families that must live with the consequences.

You can't live without risk, that is no way to live.
Throwing caution to the wind and hoping for the best isn't the solution either.

[[email protected]]

Something of a trumpet solo there aa777888 (look up blowing your own trumpet) are you sure you don't diverge into this territory? Rational selfishness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_egoism) is a more individualistic form of enlightened self-interest. It is a term generally related to Ayn Rand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand)'s Objectivist philosophy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)), which refers to a person's efforts to look after their own well-being, to cultivate the self, and achieve goals for the good of the self. The focus in rational selfishness might be considered to be more self-directed (where the benefit to the group or society is a possible by-product (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-product)) than the focus of enlightened self-interest which is more group-directed (and the benefit to oneself might be more of the by-product). Some authors say that this concept elevates egoism to the level of a moral principle:E

[aa777888]

Crab: insults are not debate. I offered to debate with you outside of this topic. If you still wish the last word here please, by all means, go right ahead.

[[email protected]]

Not an insult my dear chap, but we have another saying over here - 'If the cap fits, wear it'.

Nuff said.

[nomorehelosforme]

Absolutely marvelous, that seems to be the end of what was a fascinating debate, better than Boris and Corbyn, Trump and the Democrats and Many other great debates... totally off thread but entertaining regardless!

As with all great debates it is time to vote. So here is mine.
Crab 57%
aa777888 43%

[Self loading bear]

Crab 57%aa777888 43%

In Dutch we have a proverb
When two dogs are fighting over a bone,
a third walks with it alone..,,

For me Bell ringer 90%

[nigelh]

SLB ... well said !! aa...don’t worry about Crab being rude and aggressive . It’s not his fault and he can’t help it . How would you feel if you were the very best at everything and then had to talk to complete idiots here , some of whom didn’t even train with Her Majesties forces God forbid ..... !!!

[Washeduprotorgypsy]

Yeah. Igor Sikorsky, the Wright brothers.

Unhelmeted, unbuckled, unregulated idiots.

Endangering the public "stock" numbers and mindsets with their killer contraptions.

How else is everyone supposed to live forever in perfect physical health if not in their perfectly proscribed boxes?

While it's probably an unnecessary and circumventable risk, impressing young kids with a visceral experience in a helicopter. Might some be inspired to pursue a career in aviation from it? Are the best aviation candidates those kids who ve skinned their knees on bicycles and climbed real trees , or the kids raised hydroponically on the couch, safely digesting awesome computer graphics?

Just a hunch but I suspect the death defying, spluttering sound of a Robinson at a the local fair is as important a "sound of freedom" as the sonic boom, afterburner,twin turbine.

Fly on little Robbie, fly on...

[aa777888]

SLB ... well said !! aa...don’t worry about Crab being rude and aggressive . It’s not his fault and he can’t help it . How would you feel if you were the very best at everything and then had to talk to complete idiots here , some of whom didn’t even train with Her Majesties forces God forbid ..... !!!

Thank you for the kind note, Nigel, most appreciated :)

[Cutsnake]

Aa777888 70%
Crab 30%
Crabs ego gets in the way every time 😂

[Hot 'n' High]

..... Crabs ego gets in the way every time ��

Maybe it's coz he's from the Junior Service! ;)

Joking aside, I do understand much of what he says as Crab and I have similar backgrounds (I won't rub the Senior Service bit in too much ... honest .... and I wasn't Mil Aircrew). But I also see the side presented by aa777888 and others. Bottom line, only the Regulators decree "right" and "wrong", and through setting those "rules", act as the "moral guardians" for/on behalf of Joe/Jenny Public who, on the whole, cannot know enough to make an informed decision - hell, we struggle ourselves at times! That's how societies have asked Governments to protect them.

Of course, it is our duty to operate within those rules. Adding margins will deffo improve safety - but we see so many "Ops want this, I'd feel happier doing that" threads here as adding to the margins often costs dosh. So, providing you operate within the rules you are meeting the Regulators obligation to provide an approriate level of safety for whatever the task is, as demanded by society. If, as Captain, you add to those margins, that is a personal choice - and you may be asked to explain your decision to your seniors. And there is nothing that prevents one, as a member of society, from adding margins over and above those set by the Regulator, for e.g. not joining the queue for the flight at the showground.

Here tho, once your view is aired, I feel it's time to leave it for others to take or leave it. Feel that strongly - go and knock on the door of the Regulators as that is how things are changed.

Anyway, the sun has set over the Yardarm here so, in good Senior Service tradition, time to go check the Bar is open.

Drat, and I said I'd not go on about the SS! So sorry Crab! Hope you forgive me! Now, where is that G 'n' T? :ok: Cheers, H 'n' H

[nigelh]

No keep it up Hot . You are RN and definitely way higher in the pecking order than RAF where apparently they still sit next to their wives at dinner !! The Senior Service would never be so naff ....

[Ascend Charlie]

they still sit next to their wives at dinner !! The Senior Service would never be so naff ....

Who needs wives when you have cabin boys? And barrels? And golden rivets?

[Bell_ringer]

Yeah. Igor Sikorsky, the Wright brothers.
Unhelmeted, unbuckled, unregulated idiots.

Well, Wilbur and Orville would have to have waited 50 years for the crash helmet to be invented and another 5 for the FAA to be formed. :}
Every generation does the best they know how.
Today, test pilots are a highly skilled bunch who's abilities are more than just being the only guys crazy enough to get into a new contraption.

In 20 or 30 years, future generations will probably look back at what we all did and shake their heads in disbelief, over their vegan latté.
That's just the way societies are, you learn from mistakes and you try improve.

The thrill of flying should be about the experience, not just an adrenallin rush from narrowly cheating death.
For that there are Robbies :E

[[email protected]]

And wazzing around in a Robbie with pax from a fair on board is hardly cutting edge aviation - don't know how that prompted parallels to Igor and the Wright Brothers..............

H and H - I get more than enough inter service banter from the Ex-RN and Ex-AAC guys I work with so no snowflaking here:ok:

[Hot 'n' High]

H and H - I get more than enough inter service banter from the Ex-RN and Ex-AAC guys I work with so no snowflaking here:ok:

:ok: [email protected], the joys of such banter is sadly missed "outside" where I am! Just can't resist the odd moment if it presents itself! As ever, no offence meant! And I'll terminate this thread-digression so we can get on with the serious discussion to hand - to which I have nothing further to add. I was about to say "useful to add" but that may be taking my earlier contributions beyond the bounds of their true value! :O

Cheers, H 'n' H

[Washeduprotorgypsy]

And wazzing around in a Robbie with pax from a fair on board is hardly cutting edge aviation - don't know how that prompted parallels to Igor and the Wright brothers....:

Just using hyperbole to shed light on the fact that if it weren't for the risk taking, inventiveness, innate intelligence and efficiency of those in the private sector, we might be still be waiting for a government design bureau to provide us with helicopters.

Maybe that same thread of intelligence still lives in the capabilities of private operators.

I don't propose anarchy of civil aviation but the idea of a stifling climate of exponential regulatory oversight that thinks it can prevent any accident is just as absurd...especially the economics. Not to mention the time and energy lost for private operators that might be put to better use elsewhere in providing a "safe" operation.

At the end of the day , the helicopter "fair ride" provides a certain quality of life to the populace. .To see an end to that because a crushing "safety" culture, me thinks we've stumbled too far down a very difficult to reverse path. I understand that the equipment and training standards might alarm some of those in more rigorous and elite environments. But I think some credit must be given to those ladies and gentlemen in these privately run operations to vet themselves and excel given comparatively limited means. The fact that in the western world , the technology always seems to trickle out of the private sector would seem to indicate we ve got something to offer, down here in the cheap seats?

[[email protected]]

WuRg - I haven't said all such rides should be regulated out of existence - the ones shown on this thread however take the risks too far in an effort to maximise the thrill-factor, the same factor could be achieved at higher heights and improved safety (like strapping pax in for example).

As for technology trickling out of the private sector in the Western world - I think you will find far more comes out of military R and D because the funding is always there - how many different sectors benefit from and/or rely on GPS for example?