Another low flying fairground incident.

[nomorehelosforme]

Surely not a Robinson still doing tour flights at 11.00pm.......LIVINGSTON PARISH- Residents in Livingston Parish expressed concern late Tuesday night when they reportedly spotted a helicopter flying so low they were sure it was on its way to crashing.

The calls to emergency personnel came in around 11 p.m., some saying they'd seen the helicopter flying extremely low near the Parish fairgrounds, which are off Florida Boulevard near North Range Road.

Some told first responders they also heard a loud noise and assumed the helicopter had crashed.

The helicopter did not crash, according to representatives with the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office. Early Wednesday morning, the Sheriff's Office confirmed that the helicopter landed safely in Hammond with no injuries.

Some believe the loud noise Livingston eyewitnesses heard was due to the helicopter hitting a few trees.

At this time, the identity of the individual manning the helicopter and the organization the aircraft may be affiliated with remain unknown.

At times, helicopters are legally allowed (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/lgb/local_more/media/FAA_Guide_to_Low-Flying_Aircraft.pdf) to fly lower than other aircraft as it’s much easier for them to perform emergency landings than it is for other aircrafts. In addition to this, they’re often used by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies, requiring a bit of leeway from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)

[Robbiee]

Here, maybe this will liven it up for ya?

https://youtu.be/NVIbCvfkO3E

[ApolloHeli]

Forgive the stupid question but are commercial operations allowed at night on single engines in the U.S.A.?

[Gordy]

Forgive the stupid question but are commercial operations allowed at night on single engines in the U.S.A.?
There are no stupid questions, but the answer is yes.....why would a twin be required?

[ApolloHeli]

There are no stupid questions, but the answer is yes.....why would a twin be required?

Here in Europe singles aren't allowed to be used for Commercial Air Transport operations at night. Anything single and rotary after civil twilight generally can only be private.

[Ascend Charlie]

In Oz, night charter is in a twin, and the pilot must hold an instrument rating.

[SFIM]

Forgive the stupid question but are commercial operations allowed at night on single engines in the U.S.A.?

A couple of years ago I asked this exact question here

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/613739-se-cat-flights-night-quiz.html

for me now as it was then it’s all about the stabilisation not the number of engines.

[Robbiee]

Here in Europe singles aren't allowed to be used for Commercial Air Transport operations at night. Anything single and rotary after civil twilight generally can only be private.

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

[ApolloHeli]

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that regulation is but I'm certain it's not new.

[John R81]

I believe that the reason behind the regulation is that originally helicopters all had piston engines, which were less reliable than they are today. The rule was made and never revoked, despite engines becoming more reliable.

[chopjock]

What is a low flying fairground?

[chopjock]

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

So you mean pilot error then? As is everywhere else...

[Bell_ringer]

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

Laws exist to protect the people on the ground, not only those in the air.
In dense urban environments there is little margin for error and a low probability of a forced landing that can be safely done without damage to people and property, and magically redundant powerplants help reduce that risk.
Since most traffic is commercial in rotorwing the regulations probably make sense to those that make the regs.
That pilots have a habit of flying into things doesn't negate the concept of probability.

Low flying is a regular killer, so cowboy operators that make their livelihoods by offering thrill rides to uninformed members of the public, are just riding the statistical curve towards a smoking hole in the ground.
Still, it's a great way to generate ongoing demand for Frank and co. :}

[Bell_ringer]

I believe that the reason behind the regulation is that originally helicopters all had piston engines, which were less reliable than they are today. The rule was made and never revoked, despite engines becoming more reliable.

Philosophical question: are engines more reliable today?
From a design and manufacturing perspective components are possibly of a more consistent quality, but failures almost always end up due to poor or lack of maintenance, or poor installation.
The human aspects have not changed.
The volumes of flight hours have increased, as has urban density so if anything the risks are greater now than they were before.

[nomorehelosforme]

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

I don't think you will find any official reports that state the wire or the weather caused an accident.... unless you believe everything you read in your daily tabloid news reports.

[Shackman]

Apolloheli: Anything single and rotary after civil twilight generally can only be private.

Or military (although admittedly all the Squirrels and, I believe, Gazelles have now been withdrawn).

[nonsense]

What is a low flying fairground?
It's an oblique reference to this earlier thread (https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/627153-ride-s-bit-low-don-t-you-think.html) from November last year.

[homonculus]

the regulations probably make sense to those that make the regs

As with the government's response to Covid, too true.

As with the government's response to Covid, the common man is disadvantaged and has to obey

[aa777888]

Low flying is a regular killer, so cowboy operators that make their livelihoods by offering thrill rides to uninformed members of the public, are just riding the statistical curve towards a smoking hole in the ground.
How does that have anything to do with the operation that was described in the original post, which, other than occurring in the vicinity of a fairground, almost certainly had nothing to do with fairs or helicopter ride concessions?

It's been a very sad year around here: all of the fairs and other events that would normally have enjoyed a helicopter ride concession have been cancelled due to the pandemonium :(

[Bell_ringer]

How does that have anything to do with the operation that was described in the original post, which, other than occurring in the vicinity of a fairground, almost certainly had nothing to do with fairs or helicopter ride concessions?


apart from low-flying? Very little.

[nomorehelosforme]

apart from low-flying? Very little.

Bell Ringer, it was only a matter of time before aa777888 weighed in on this thread in defense of the quick thrill ride industry.. oh and don't forget the tree trimming that supposedly occurred

[Robbiee]

Low flying is a regular killer, so cowboy operators that make their livelihoods by offering thrill rides to uninformed members of the public, are just riding the statistical curve towards a smoking hole in the ground.
Still, it's a great way to generate ongoing demand for Frank and co. :}

Hmm, having worked for a "cowboy operator" who put his operation right inside a wire basket, I almost want to agree with you.

,...still not quite sure why he'd have to add a second engine to do those thrill rides after the sun goes down though? Unless maybe star light causes engines to sputter?

[tigerinthenight]

still not quite sure why he'd have to add a second engine to do those thrill rides after the sun goes down though? Unless maybe star light causes engines to sputter?

I'm no helicopter pilot, but presumably it's considerably harder to pick a safe landing site and perform an autorotation into it when you can't see it?

[Bell_ringer]

I'm no helicopter pilot, but presumably it's considerably harder to pick a safe landing site and perform an autorotation into it when you can't see it?

this is indeed what someone aware of their limitations might be thinking.
Of course if you believe you have superior skills and are keen to find opportunities to display them, then a little nighttime auto won’t be top of mind.

[Robbiee]

I'm no helicopter pilot, but presumably it's considerably harder to pick a safe landing site and perform an autorotation into it when you can't see it?

Well, I am a helicopter pilot (with over 350 hours of flying at night over the city in my little ol' single engine 22), and I'm just wondering why my engine is now suddenly more likely to fail just because the sun has gone down?

[tigerinthenight]

I'm just wondering why my engine is now suddenly more likely to fail just because the sun has gone down?

I don't wish to come across as blunt, but are you deliberately missing the point? Nobody is suggesting that the reason it is prohibited is because of an increased chance of engine failure at night - they are suggesting that a night-time engine failure in the dark is considerably more likely to end badly than if it occurred during the day - considerably enough so that the authorities deem the risk to be too great.

[Bell_ringer]

I don’t fly twins and have crossed my fair share of dense urban areas, generally I opt for a wider route where there are more golf courses and sports fields, not because I lack confidence in Rolls Royce but because the idea of negotiating powerlines, railways, streetlamps, bridges, telecom towers, people, cars and buildings (to name a few), when by the time you’ve spotted them you are committed, does not fill me with excitement.
Doing it at night into a black hole, less so.

At those moments, I would happily have a second engine onboard.
It is unsurprising that in some parts of the world, authorities have made that a requirement.
When someone does get hurt, as rare as it may be, they have to answer to Joe public who does not care what you are flying and generally considers anything flying above an unnecessary threat.
Palookas doing stupid things in aircraft, just motivate bureaucrats to create more regulations that ruin it for everyone else.

[Robbiee]

I don't wish to come across as blunt, but are you deliberately missing the point? Nobody is suggesting that the reason it is prohibited is because of an increased chance of engine failure at night - they are suggesting that a night-time engine failure in the dark is considerably more likely to end badly than if it occurred during the day - considerably enough so that the authorities deem the risk to be too great.

That logic just seems backwards and unrealistically overly cautious to me. At night you alter your flight path (if you can) to a "more favorable to forced landing areas" one, but to be flying around and suddenly now that its dark I have to go back home and jump in a twin is ridiculous!

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well?

[Bell_ringer]

That logic just seems backwards and unrealistically overly cautious to me. At night you alter your flight path (if you can) to a "more favorable to forced landing areas" one, but to be flying around and suddenly now that its dark I have to go back home and jump in a twin is ridiculous!

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well?

it’s not about you. It’s about the people on the ground that don’t have a say in your recreational or professional pursuits.
Authorities have decided that what you consider acceptable for risk is irrelevant and have, rightly or wrongly, set the bar higher for everyone else’s safety.
you will forgive them for not taking your word about how talented you are.

[tigerinthenight]

Gee, what smugness.

Say, does someone have to come along and hold your hand when you walk out to your twin at night,...'cause you know, is dark and you could slip and fall? :{

When you're driving do you refuse to wear a seat belt because you fail to see how wearing a seat belt stops you from crashing?

[ApolloHeli]

That logic just seems backwards and unrealistically overly cautious to me. At night you alter your flight path (if you can) to a "more favorable to forced landing areas" one, but to be flying around and suddenly now that its dark I have to go back home and jump in a twin is ridiculous!

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well?

I just want to point out private flight at night in singles is still allowed. I'm not sure if that was misunderstood, but the regulation is only for commercial operations where paying passengers are aboard (a rich guy with his own personal paid pilot wouldn't fall under the regulation btw). If you're flying around in your R22 for fun, assuming it's got the right kit for NVFR, you're happy to continue regardless of daylight.

[Robbiee]

When you're driving do you refuse to wear a seat belt because you fail to see how wearing a seat belt stops you from crashing?

When you drive at night do you put on a second seat belt?

[Robbiee]

I just want to point out private flight at night in singles is still allowed. I'm not sure if that was misunderstood, but the regulation is only for commercial operations where paying passengers are aboard (a rich guy with his own personal paid pilot wouldn't fall under the regulation btw). If you're flying around in your R22 for fun, assuming it's got the right kit for NVFR, you're happy to continue regardless of daylight.

No, misunderstanding. We just have plenty of single engine night operations over here involving paying passengers.

[[email protected]]

Ok - put your hands up if you have done an auto at night to the hover - on an airfield where everything is level and clear.

Now keep your hands up if you have done an auto to the hover off airfield.

Anyone scared themselves sh*tless yet?

Now imagine it happening at an unplanned moment where you have to select a suitable landing area in the dark AND THEN carry out an EOL you can walk away from.

Does anyone still not get why it is more risky at night???

[Robbiee]

Ok - put your hands up if you have done an auto at night to the hover - on an airfield where everything is level and clear.

Now keep your hands up if you have done an auto to the hover off airfield.

Anyone scared themselves sh*tless yet?

Now imagine it happening at an unplanned moment where you have to select a suitable landing area in the dark AND THEN carry out an EOL you can walk away from.

Does anyone still not get why it is more risky at night???

Hmm, just how many people have their hands up? Does this happen so often that at least 50% of pilots now have their hands up? In all the years single engine helicopters have been giving rides over the Vegas strip at night (and there's a lot of them) how many of those pilots have their hands up?

If I were to ever get a job giving rides in a single at night, exactly what are my odds of having an engine failure at night?

[megan]

exactly what are my odds of having an engine failure at nightNo body is much interested in the odds of a night engine failure, they're interested in your ability to get them on the ground in one piece. With all the lights on the Vegas strip you can hardly call it "night", try out in the middle of the GAFA on a moonless night.Now imagine it happening at an unplanned moment where you have to select a suitable landing area in the dark AND THEN carry out an EOL you can walk away fromSingle engine Huey we used 35 knots for the auto night/IMC with the landing light pre positioned to hopefully give you enough warning for a pitch pull, not knowing if you were going into trees or a clear area. Don't recall ever doing it to the ground at night in training as it was a long, long time ago.

[Robbiee]

No body is much interested in the odds of a night engine failure, they're interested in your ability to get them on the ground in one piece. With all the lights on the Vegas strip you can hardly call it "night", try out in the middle of the GAFA on a moonless night.

Giving rides over Vegas at night doesn't count as night? Well never mind then. I'm a city guy, couldn't care less about flying in the middle of,...wherever.

[Ascend Charlie]

with the landing light pre positioned to hopefully give you enough warning for a pitch pull, not knowing if you were going into trees or a clear area.

Megan, our instructors would say to turn on the landing light around 300' agl (too much reflected glare above that) and if you don't like the look of what you are going to crash into, turn it off again.

Look ahead and die visually, GCA out...

[[email protected]]

Hmm, just how many people have their hands up? Does this happen so often that at least 50% of pilots now have their hands up? In all the years single engine helicopters have been giving rides over the Vegas strip at night (and there's a lot of them) how many of those pilots have their hands up? Robbiee - when you got your licence, you had to demonstrate your ability to get the aircraft on the ground safely following an engine failure - during the day - so there is a check and balance that gives you and your insurers a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will likely survive (even if you bend the aircraft a bit).

If you haven't trained to do night autos - at least to the hover - what are your chances of safely executing the manoeuvre?

And it doesn't have to be just engine failure - a TR failure or a fire for instance, would put you in the same position of needing to get on the ground really quickly.

Generally guys who fly twins have had practice in a simulator doing all these things - how many single engine pilots get that extra training?

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Maybe people doing or advocating night single flying haven't really thought through the extra risks in their libertarian desire for freedom to make money.

I wouldn't go night flying in a single without NVG - at least I could see where I was going to crash.

[SFIM]

I have done a lot of night flying in singles, I think you just have to accept that that if something goes wrong that the outcomes are much more likely to be worse !

[[email protected]]

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well? No, you just don't fly over them in a single - it's not rocket science.

[aa777888]

Bell Ringer, it was only a matter of time before aa777888 weighed in on this thread in defense of the quick thrill ride industry.. oh and don't forget the tree trimming that supposedly occurred
Please allow me to politely and respectfully point out that there are others who are just as reliably predictable in their posting when they feel the subject of ride concessions comes up, perhaps more so since they posted before I did.

At the admitted risk of some thread drift (not that there hasn't been quite a bit already), it would be an interesting study to see which type of operation had the higher fatality rate per pax and per hour: the "slow thrill ride" (more conventional tour) industry, or the "quick thrill ride" industry. I can't get the NTSB database to produce easy results, i.e. one would have to wade through every report individually to determine the context of the flight.

[Robbiee]

Robbiee - when you got your licence, you had to demonstrate your ability to get the aircraft on the ground safely following an engine failure - during the day - so there is a check and balance that gives you and your insurers a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will likely survive (even if you bend the aircraft a bit).

If you haven't trained to do night autos - at least to the hover - what are your chances of safely executing the manoeuvre?

And it doesn't have to be just engine failure - a TR failure or a fire for instance, would put you in the same position of needing to get on the ground really quickly.

Generally guys who fly twins have had practice in a simulator doing all these things - how many single engine pilots get that extra training?

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Maybe people doing or advocating night single flying haven't really thought through the extra risks in their libertarian desire for freedom to make money.

I wouldn't go night flying in a single without NVG - at least I could see where I was going to crash.

I'd rather have the freedom to make that choice for myself. As for the unsuspecting public, well, feel free to post a sign at each tour operation that reads, "If you did this flight in a twin, you'd have a "×%" better chance of surviving in the event of an engine failure".

I would though love to see you flying up to the city at night in a 22 with goggles on,...that would be precious! :ok:

[[email protected]]

It all depends on your appetite for risk and how much you believe it won't happen to you.

For the 'quick thrill' industry, it seems a high appetite for risk and a great belief it won't happen to you = short flights at low level over less than ideal landing areas. Clearly the level of pilot skill is so much higher than in other commercial operations that the risk is worth exposing the pilot and pax to in order to make a few bucks.

If that's what floats your boat and lets you think it is somehow professional and 'risk-mitigated' then carry on but don't expect sympathy if it ends in tears.

I love the use of statistics to defend taking risks with other people's lives. Just because it hasn't happened or happens infrequently doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, it just means you have been lucky so far.

[Robbiee]

It all depends on your appetite for risk and how much you believe it won't happen to you.

For the 'quick thrill' industry, it seems a high appetite for risk and a great belief it won't happen to you = short flights at low level over less than ideal landing areas. Clearly the level of pilot skill is so much higher than in other commercial operations that the risk is worth exposing the pilot and pax to in order to make a few bucks.

If that's what floats your boat and lets you think it is somehow professional and 'risk-mitigated' then carry on but don't expect sympathy if it ends in tears.

I love the use of statistics to defend taking risks with other people's lives. Just because it hasn't happened or happens infrequently doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, it just means you have been lucky so far.

The same can be said for me choosing to live in California, since at any moment we could have another big earthquake that could level the cities and collapse the bridges..

If you need to see me as a wild risk taker for flying a single at night and/or needlessly risking the lives of the trusting but gullible public, so be it,...I'm a cowboy anyway.

Thing is though, I do think it will happen to me, which is why I'm always looking for possible forced landing areas, but over time I started to feel that its far less probable than many other issues I fear at night, like bird strike, getting hit by another aircraft, the fog suddenly closing me in, hitting that last minute unseen obstacle on approach, LTE, and SWP,...and no second engine will help my odds there.

,...but then I guess every pilot who hasn't crashed could just be considerd lucky, day or night.

[aa777888]

It just means you have been lucky so far.
Well then surely that applies to any operation, eh?

[[email protected]]

Robbiee - perhaps you are just lucky enough to be able to have helicopter flying as a hobby, rather than those of us who have to earn our living assessing,taking and mitigating those risks.

aa777888 - yes but professional mitigation of those risks helps reduce the odds rather markedly.

[Robbiee]

Robbiee - perhaps you are just lucky enough to be able to have helicopter flying as a hobby, rather than those of us who have to earn our living assessing,taking and mitigating those risks.
.

Yeah, you're probably right. Chances are the engines says to itself, "This guys just flying for fun, so I won't quit on him,...better to wait for the guy whose getting paid to crash me".

,...probably why birds never hit me either. :hmm:

[Ascend Charlie]

hitting that last minute unseen obstacle on approach, LTE, and SWP,

Well, you still believe in LTE, so you perhaps also think that the Magic Helicopter Fairy is watching over you at night.

Dream on.

[Torquetalk]

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Can't post it, but I have a video of a police Schweizer 333 that suffered engine failure and had to autorotate at night in a built-up urban area. Crew survived but hit a wire just shy of making a car park. They did a great job, but even then...

[Robbiee]

Well, you still believe in LTE, so you perhaps also think that the Magic Helicopter Fairy is watching over you at night.

Dream on.

Grown ups are having a discussion, so next time ask daddy before you use his computer,...okay Sport.

Now go to be, its getting late.

[megan]

Now go to be, its getting lateGoing by the spelling it's way past your bedtime. ;)Giving rides over Vegas at night doesn't count as night?Hardly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b55dtD8Fbm0

This is night.

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

[capngrog]

What an interesting thread! I read through the entire thing, but I somehow missed the actual statistics regarding helicopter engine failure rates at night vs. helicopter engine failure rates during daytime. Failing that, what is the overall helicopter engine failure rate? Of course there will be a significant difference between piston and turbine engines. Oh by the way, how does night VFR/ IFR differ significantly from daytime IFR with respect to engine failure? Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?

Cheers,
Grog

[Robbiee]

Going by the spelling it's way past your bedtime. ;)Hardly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b55dtD8Fbm0

This is night.

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

So, exactly what's the point you're trying to make here,...just how macho you are for flying in a black hole, or that the FAA should change its definition of night?

[Robbiee]

What an interesting thread! I read through the entire thing, but I somehow missed the actual statistics regarding helicopter engine failure rates at night vs. helicopter engine failure rates during daytime. Failing that, what is the overall helicopter engine failure rate? Of course there will be a significant difference between piston and turbine engines. Oh by the way, how does night VFR/ IFR differ significantly from daytime IFR with respect to engine failure? Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?

Cheers,
Grog
No one in this thread (other than myself) seems all that interested in the stats and/or your chances of having an engine failure at night vs. day. All they seem to care about is, "its harder to see at night, therefore we only want to fly twins".

[tigerinthenight]

No one in this thread (other than myself) seems all that interested in the stats and/or your chances of having an engine failure at night vs. day. All they seem to care about is, "its harder to see at night, therefore we only want to fly twins".

Right, because that's the reason people are against the idea of single-engine helicopters flying at night. Nobody is suggesting that the chances of engine failure are higher - why would they be? It's because if there is an engine failure, the ability to pick out a suitable landing site and carry out an autorotation into it is greatly diminished at night.
Pretending to assume people must be suggesting the chances of engine failure are greater at night is a straw-man argument.

[tigerinthenight]

Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?


Yes, absolutely. They are here in the UK.

[Bell_ringer]

Its an interesting phenomenon that those most cavalier about risk understand it the least.
that the difference between the probability of engine failure and the the probability of surviving one when you can’t see where you are landing isn’t grasped rather demonstrates the point.

Everyone is free to take the risks with which they are comfortable, its when you expect your pax and the people living beneath you to be happy with your choices, or desire to make money, that authorities can and should intervene.
regulations are rarely made because of the actions of responsible people exercising common sense.

I’m going to leave it there and not encourage the trolling that has become a theme on this thread.

[Ascend Charlie]

Singles can fly in IMC if they are properly equipped and the pilot is trained and licenced. (Maybe not in the UK?) Same at night. As long as you flick the switch to let the engine run on black air instead of white air.

The problem comes when paying passengers want to be inside. The pilot by himself knows and accepts the risks he is taking. The pax expect a perfectly safe flight with a soft landing at the desired spot, but that is not predictable at night or in IMC. Hence the second engine to keep you up and allow you to choose your crash site more carefully.

[AviatorAtHeart]

Can't post it, but I have a video of a police Schweizer 333 that suffered engine failure and had to autorotate at night in a built-up urban area. Crew survived but hit a wire just shy of making a car park. They did a great job, but even then...

Here it is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjUueBU6t8c

[[email protected]]

Bellringer - good post, sums up the problems with those amateurs who want to justify their actions regardless of professional advice.:ok:

[Robbiee]

Right, because that's the reason people are against the idea of single-engine helicopters flying at night. Nobody is suggesting that the chances of engine failure are higher - why would they be? It's because if there is an engine failure, the ability to pick out a suitable landing site and carry out an autorotation into it is greatly diminished at night.
Pretending to assume people must be suggesting the chances of engine failure are greater at night is a straw-man argument.

Stats help prevent needless over-regulation. Do the stats show that passengers always survive daytime engine failurs in tour helicopters, but always die in nighttime ones? I took a ride in Vegas as a tourist in a Jet Ranger many years ago, what were my odds of dying that night,...1/10. 1/50,...1/1,000? Am I just lucky to be alive after that ride, because they drop out of the skies regularly?

Stats might even prove that having a twin doesn't make it any safer at night. Twins still crash in IIMC?

[Hot and Hi]

I will fly any day VFR Night in a single. Over cultural lights that is. Not in order to better see the autorotation landing zone, but in order to avoid any risk of spatial disorientation.

Most accidents at night - even in countries where singles may fly at night - are not at all caused by engine failure. But by fuel starvation, mismanagement of aircraft systems that in a twin are inherently more complex. By CFIT, or by a false sense of security that lures pilots without IFR proficiency into thinking they can wing it (do I need to give examples? England, LA, Bahamas, just check the parallel thread...).

I further can't help the feeling that operators often use very old twins (in order to meet the regulatory requirements where twins are required) for obvious capital cost reasons. Old twins that - even if not necessarily less reliable - have very complicated AP and various other stabilisation systems that all depend on, or interfere with each other, and that are just too complicated for the average charter pilot to ever become proficient with.

So no, I guess the argument that flying singles at night within the regulations exposes people on the ground the *undue* risk is baseless.

[megan]

So, exactly what's the point you're trying to make hereMerely that there is a difference between night and night. Similarly you have dark night conditions during the day, try an unlit airport at the base of a mountain that's in the lee of a setting sun. In the first video you could take a person who has just done their first solo and they could fly around all night, providing the lights stayed on, in the second you better be on top of your IMC skills. A reading of page 36 of the following report is germain, as the report says,The concept of risk has three elements
•the perception that something could happen
•the likelihood of something happening
•the consequences if it happens.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24411/aair200304282_001.pdf

[aa777888]

aa777888 - yes but professional mitigation of those risks helps reduce the odds rather markedly.

@crab and @Bell_ringer: let's face it, as far as the both of you are concerned, the only safe way to fly tours, short form or long form, would be in a twin. Because short tours typically occur at low altitudes over congested areas, and long tours (e.g. Grand Canyon, Hawaii, etc.) often occur over forbidding terrain. However a twin would make the business case infeasible (nobody would pay the required price), and in many cases the use of even a single engine turbine ship the same. This makes that part of the industry a substantial province of the venerable R44, which you both seem to feel is hopelessly inadequate to the task from a passenger risk perspective given the typical flight profiles.

And yet, from a strictly US perspective, both the passengers and operators would appear to disagree with you. Leaving aside the recent pandemonium--er--pandemic nonsense, the industry does a booming business, and the short form, piston-powered subset would seem, admittedly anecdotally based on media reporting, to do so more safely than the single turbine, long-form part of the industry.

As someone who has done quite a bit of the short-form, and a limited amount of the long-form, my impression is that the average US short-form customer desperately wants to risk their lives, they want the "thrill ride", or at least the impression of one. They have no illusions. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to do aerobatics. Alas, my standard answer is "This is not the Red Bull helicopter." Throwing in a few mildly steep turns is enough to have them asking for a few Kleenex to clean themselves up with, and I don't mean vomit. Thus maintaining the illusion and not the reality of danger which, of course, is vitally important. Meanwhile the long-form US passenger prefers a limousine ride, even those who want to shoot "shoe selfies" (none of my passengers, thank goodness).

At any rate, in the US it's not the FAA that controls this business sector, it's the insurance industry. I'm proud to say that the operation I'm associated with still enjoys low enough rates, even with the recent departure of several US underwriters and substantial rate increase across the board (thanks so much, certain HI and NY op's), to make the venture profitable. This is even in the face of underwriter representatives showing up at one of our events to monitor operations, something which we welcomed wholeheartedly.

I hope you find the preceding discussion professional enough, because I and those I'm associated with certainly approach the business with a very professional attitude toward both business and safety.

[[email protected]]

You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.

[krypton_john]

You say increased risk, Crab, but based on the numbers, there really isn't increased risk in single or piston operations in the tours context. We know that of all the accidents, somewhere between very few and none are caused by engine failure and many are caused by factors unconnected to number of engines such as pilot error, fuel, W&B, weather, failure of dynamic components etc.

[[email protected]]

KJ - that doesn't mean the risk is reduced - history is not a predictor of future events.

[ShyTorque]

For those wanting a thrill, I think bungee jumping elastic ropes are probably twice as thick as they need to be.....

[aa777888]

You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.
This is a great post, crab. Seriously, because now I finally have an appreciation for where you are coming from.

Tell you what: when you are the absolute ruler you can outlaw things you think other people don't need. In the meantime, capitalism reigns, freedom reigns, people will make up their own minds, and if there is a market for what you think is something too risky, or too annoying, or too whatever, it really doesn't matter, does it, other than that it makes you unhappy. The market will seek it's own level. If insurance rates go up, or everyone is arrested for murder, or whatever, then the little guys running the little shows will dry up and you'll be happy. Or they won't and it will be business as usual.

And how is this any different than driving in cars? Imagine this dystopian vision: did you really need to go to the store? If you had only ordered off of Amazon you might not have hit and killed that innocent person, not to mention all the fuel you wasted.

People do a million things every day that put other people at risk and that they don't need to do. That includes pretty much all of general aviation. It's called freedom. It can be ugly at times, but the pluses outweigh the minuses by a long, long ways for dare say most of us.

[Robbiee]

You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.

The people underneath those "thrill" rides at night in Vegas are mostly inside a casino where they cannot hear anything over the bells and whistles of the poker machines, the rest are half drunk walking to their next party and assuredly couldn't care about the noise overhead,...if they can even hear the choppers over the traffic.

,....but then all of Vegas need not exist, or Disneyworld, or movie theaters, or anything we do in between slaving away for that all mightly dollar!

As for the Grand Canyon, I don't think they do tours at night, so no little animals are losing any sleep.

Just out of curiosity, does going on a ride at night in a twin, suddenly inspire "the great unwashed" to wash themselves? :rolleyes:

[[email protected]]

but the pluses outweigh the minuses by a long, long ways for dare say most of us.
perhaps for the terminally selfish with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........

If you want to know what I really think, then imagine how someone who went through a demanding selection system and years of unrelenting training with the constant threat of failing, in order to have the honour of serving their country and use those hard-won skills to save lives (some to take them) but to do good, valuable and necessary things with a helicopter (I include Police, EMS and firefighters in that category)- imagine how they might view someone with deep pockets who bought themselves a licence going through a training system that was never going to fail them because they could keep paying, who wants to lecture them about freedom...............and have the perks of flying in a helicopter without ever earning them.

[Bell_ringer]

Crab, you need to appreciate you are appealing to an American perspective, one where everything is your right, something no one should meddle with, where every opportunity should be milked for every penny and if there are a few casualties along the way, well, that is the price of doing business.
besides, its only seldom that tourists end up drowned in a river so regulating that would be a gross overstepping of authority.

[Robbiee]

perhaps for the terminally selfish with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........

If you want to know what I really think, then imagine how someone who went through a demanding selection system and years of unrelenting training with the constant threat of failing, in order to have the honour of serving their country and use those hard-won skills to save lives (some to take them) but to do good, valuable and necessary things with a helicopter (I include Police, EMS and firefighters in that category)- imagine how they might view someone with deep pockets who bought themselves a licence going through a training system that was never going to fail them because they could keep paying, who wants to lecture them about freedom...............and have the perks of flying in a helicopter without ever earning them.

Your view of civilian pilots is so delusional I don't know where to begin. I could only afford to become a pilot by burying myself in debt (like so many who weren't born with a perfect military quality body) that will take me two or three lifetimes to pay off. Plus my pockets are so deep from driving a semi for a living that I haven't enjoyed the only sliver of unnecessary freedom I had for over a year, because I can't afford the ridiculously high cost of renter's insurance!

​​​​​​​,...and I earned my license you sanctimonious jackass!

[[email protected]]

No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?

[[email protected]]

By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.

[Robbiee]

No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?

You can't just buy a license, you still have to perform to standards, and prove you posses the required level of knowledge. Plus you also have to work for that money to pay for (not the license) but the training required to pass the tests to get that license,...and I actually did fail my commercial checkride, and had to get more training in order to live up to the required standards.

,...as opposed to being the "chosen one" who then gets his training for free plus a job waiting for him when its over.

[Robbiee]

By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.

,...and I don't tar all military pilots with the same brush, just the one's who lecture me on how they're more deserving of being a pilot.

[aa777888]

...with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........
I think the philosophical differences here are terminally irreconcilable. For example, my idea of the greatest respect for fellow humans is to leave them alone and not tell them what they can and can't do. I suspect you find this horrifyingly degenerate as opposed being the highest form of respect. Not trying to change your mind, and you won't change mine.

If I had lots of cash I'd be owning and flying a one or two or five million dollar machine. I worked super hard to get what I have. I work super hard to keep what I have.

[[email protected]]

Robbiee - the standard required for a CPL is nothing like the pinnacle you seem to imagine it to be. Have a look on the 139 thread about the standards maintained by many commercial pilots from a TRE who has seen a lot.

You simply won't understand the level that most military pilots are required to operate to nor the fact that being selected 'chosen' for training is only the first step on a very competitive, difficult and demanding path. Don't forget, I have a commercial licence too...

I didn't have to do just one check ride to get my wings, nor my operational captaincy nor my instructor qualification, it is a never ending round of check and test rides in the military.

aa777888 - you might find it surprising but I am generally a live and let live sort of person but, in my chosen profession of aviation, I expect high standards of those sharing the sky with me - I don't see much in the way of high professional standards in the pleasure flight industry, just a sausage machine for generating cash as quickly as possible with a thin veneer of concern about passenger safety.

There's a reason we don't have single engine airliners.....

[Robbiee]

Robbiee - the standard required for a CPL is nothing like the pinnacle you seem to imagine it to be. Have a look on the 139 thread about the standards maintained by many commercial pilots from a TRE who has seen a lot.

You simply won't understand the level that most military pilots are required to operate to nor the fact that being selected 'chosen' for training is only the first step on a very competitive, difficult and demanding path. Don't forget, I have a commercial licence too...

I didn't have to do just one check ride to get my wings, nor my operational captaincy nor my instructor qualification, it is a never ending round of check and test rides in the military.


Just because you went through more rigorous training and testing for your wings, doesn't mean my were simply handed to me. If they were, I'd be a cfii, instead of just a lowly commercial pilot with forty hours of hood time and a book of hand made lesson plans.

[Senior Pilot]

Enough; time for a rest :hmm: