"Restricted" licence such a bad idea?

[StevieTerrier]

In the "Gazelle Crash" thread, someone mooted that perhaps PPLs should not be allowed to fly certain heli types due to them (the helis!) having known tendencies or vices. Unsurprisingly, that idea came in for a bit of stick. However.... is it such a bad idea?

Look at the parallels -

Want to buy a motorbike? You are restricted on what you can legally learn on and then buy and ride dependant upon your age and the bikes power output. Hence no 16 year olds on Suzuki Madass Bandits or whatever they are called.

Car driving? Not sure 'cos I passed my test back in the year dot, but don't you have to have one of those sets of green "newbie driver" plates on your car to warn the public that you are quite probably going to do something unpredictable. (mmm - perhaps they could be issued to Cessna 150 pilots...)


In our own case, if we want to own a CPL or an ATPL we have to do the required number of hours.

The only restriction over whether or not a PPL / CPL / ATPL can fly a certain type of heli is financial. If they have enough cash to buy it, pay for the training, run it and insure it - off they go.

Is that enough of a safety net? Should there be some sort of ladder of progression to be followed, whereby you can't fly "Type Y" until you have x hours on "Type Y", i.e. learn to walk before you run.

I can already hear the dreaded "human rights " bells tolling here on the anti-side of this argument!

On the other hand, if some types of aircraft do fall into the "difficult" category, and we ignore it, we all end up paying the price. The unfortunates who may end up in a smoking hole in the ground, and those of us who remain behind - 'cos we're the ones who get stitched up with the hike in insurance premiums!

What do you all think?

[SASless]

If you can buy the ticket to the dance.....you should be able to tango your heart out! You come down with fallen arches....that is your problem! Rather than find ways to make things more restrictive.....we need to find ways to make things safer. I would suggest that the industry do just like other areas of endeavour do.....let the insurance companies dictate training standards and set premiums based upon perceived risk. Keep the bureaucrats out of it! Freedom is a wonderful thing.....if you ever have enjoyed it and can understand the benefits of it.

[HeloTeacher]

Not sure how it works over there but in Canada each type requires an endorsement. Some measure of safety can be enforced by instructors who ensure a certain measure of competency in their students.

This won't stop all the problems but it will help.

[t'aint natural]

Requiring commercial or military levels of experience before allowing pilots to fly would kill general aviation stone dead.
Yes, aircraft occasionally crash. Yes, even more rarely one of us gets killed. As far as I know, with the exception of Lockerbie (which wasn't an accident) no member of the public on the ground has been killed by a crashing aircraft in the UK since the War.
I'm a consenting adult, I know the risks, and I don't need any more nannies saving me from myself. Please go away.

[nonradio]

And finally, I do hope you aren't implying the Gazelle is a 'difficult' machine to fly?

[StevieTerrier]

t'aint natural -

It wasnt a question about requiring PPLs to have vast amount of experience before being allowed to fly. It was about whether or not some helicopter types should require the pilot to have attained a certain amount of experience - perhaps on a similar type (JetRanger vs Gazelle) which has more benign qualities - before being let lose in one which may "bite".

They may have the same classification - single-engined light turbine helicopter - but that doesnt mean they have the same characteristics. After all, a Cessna 150 is classed as a single-engined land aircraft. So is a Spitfire. I believe that people wanting to fly the Spitfire or similar types of warbirds generally cut their teeth on Harvards before blatting off at 300 mph.

SASless - insurance companies dictating the terms - whatever next! A lot of operators in the States are already "self-insuring" (= not bothering with hull insurance) as the rates are so high .
And it wouldnt stop the privateers anyway - if you can afford £250,000 for a heli, you can certainly find another £10k to insure it. However, for a commercial operator, its another £10K post-tax profit to be found somehow, and all because somebody else f@@@d up. Isnt it better to stop it happening in the first place, rather than us all paying for it later?

Hopefully the annual LPC checks may help reduce the accident rate. It may be more costly to the individual but at least they are getting an annual "MOT" on their flying skills.

(PS I just posted this to see what the response would be - that doesnt mean I'm advocating the idea, so don't shout at me, alright???) ta!

nonradio -

I have no personal experience of the Gazelle, short of being overtaken by them, so I cant say if its hard or easy to fly. In fact, there seems to be two camps whenever there is a Gazelle posting. One side says it is an easy machine with no vices, it must be pilot error. The other says it has yaw control problems, so its a heli problem.

Even the "experts" dont seem able to agree, so I'll keep my nose out of that one thanks!

[Whirlybird]

Hmmm...and I keep hearing that on the one hand it's illogical that most of us learn on the R22, arguably the hardest helicopter to fly, and on the other hand that if we do it means we'll be likely to fly anything afterwards. :confused:

Since in the UK you have to get a type rating for every new type of helicopter, maybe we should make sure both instructors and students/pilots know that certain types are going to take a lot more training. In the fixed wing world, you could, legally, learn to fly on a C152, then buy yourself a Spitfire and fly it. If you had any sense, you wouldn't. I don't think this is any different.

But then, what do I know? I'm just a 300 hr helo pilot who hasn't flown many types. And perhaps that's the problem. If I had the money (which I don't, unfortunately), and if I wasn't a PPRuNer, I could buy a Gazelle with no idea it had potential problems, possibly do a conversion with someone who didn't know that either, and off I could go. And if that's the case, something needs changing, but by education not legislation.

[Chuck K]

Sorry if I'm behind the curve here but, don't you have a ratings system for helo types already in the UK?
As I understand it, somebody gets a licence on one type, then he has to train and pass another check to get a rating for every subsequent type he wants to fly.
Isn't five hours only the minimum conversion time? It may not sound much, but if he's inexperienced or it's a more complex type, he's not going to get it in 5 hours.

It seems to me you guys in the UK have to contend with a hell of a lot too much regulation by your CAA anyways.
Do you want more? :eek:

[kbf1]

Firstle you can't learn in a piston machine and hop straight into a turbine without doing a conversion course from piston to turbine and having the rating recorded. Secondly, you have to have a type-rating for each machine you operate. In theory you can't learn in an R22, pass your PPL and then hop into a Gazelle/Squirrel/Bell and fly it off the next day. Each machine has a different conversion route depending on the complexity of the helicopter and it's systems.

What you can't legislate for however, is someone doing something stupid, especially when they lack experience on that type. No licence restrictions are ever likely to alter that fact, which doesn't produce a convincing argument for a restricted licence. As most turbine machines are hired via firms like Cabair or London Heli et al, it is unlikely they would let you take a hire without first passing a competence test with a TRE first, regardless of experience. They will also want to verify your route and intentions so as not to put either you or their asset at undue risk.

For the record, the Gazelle does have some small quirks, but it otherwise a fantastic machine to fly, I learned on one!

[Thomas coupling]

Whirly, I wouldn't agree with you that the R22 is the hardest to fly...most unforgiving, yes, but certainly not the hardest.

[misterbonkers]

Principly, Stevie Terriers idea is good.

In real terms, perhaps,

(note not every single frickin type included! just an idea for performance wise - so no smart remarks on what i missed out!)

0-100 hours - R22, R44, H269, Bell 47, Enstrom F28, 280Fx

100+ hours Jetranger, 480,

150+ hours, MD500, gazelle, longranger, MD600 etc, squirrel,

200+ hours twin/multi-engine types.

Only a rough idea, but what would be the consensus?

I guess they could bring out a rule whereby, say if you wanted to fly a type before you had enough hours, you must do say 20hours dual on type (i.e. the conversion) as opposed to normal 5 hours.

Only meant for discussion purposes!!!!

[MBJ]

Any more bright ideas, Misterbonkers, and I'm afraid I'll have to send big Luigi around to sort you out!

Leave it to the Type Rating Examiners to assess pilot's competence. No more arbitary hours limits, please!

I can't believe an unfortunate landing (In a type that has been used as an ab initio trainer) has generated so much hot air!

[Nick Lappos]

Steve,

I am late to this thread, sorry.

I know that the FAA does officially pass judgement on what you ask, for every type. As a certification rule, the FAA requires that any aircraft above 12,500 pounds must have a specific endorsement for you to be PIC. For aircraft below that weight, a board meets as part of the official type certificate process. This board is made up of FAA operational check pilots who judge the flight skill needed to decide if a specific type checkout should be required.

The FAA does not require specific signoffs for each type helicopter, unless that pilot and helo are used in Part 135 operations.

[offshoreigor]

Whirly,

I would argue the statement that the R22 was the most difficult to fly. If it were, they wouldn't let students lose on them, would they?

Try AUX OFF in an S61. Or AFCS OFF in an S76. Or......the list goes on.

I know from guys like TC, that the Lynx can be a fiery bitch as well!!!

Cheers, :eek: OffshoreIgor :eek: