UK Rotorheads: PLEASE READ

[Heliport]

There are two separate very important, issues being discussed on this Forum at the moment.
They are separate, but both may have a serious impact upon many of us in different ways.

Please read: Dennis Kenyon's post in Scandal or not? CAA rejects AAIB Safety Recommendations
Dennis lost his son in the accident.
Dennis is 'one of us' and wants some good to come out of this tragedy in which three youngsters were killed. He wants to ensure that no other pilot loses his/her life, and no other family is bereaved in another similar crash.
You may not fly, or know anything about, the Hughes 300. That doesn't matter - the principle does. The AAIB has identifed problems which need to be resolved in the interests of flight safety but the CAA refuses to implement those recommendations and can see no weaknesses in its present procedures.

Is Dennis right? Read his post and decide for yourselves.
I realise many people in aviation are afraid of 'crossing the CAA' in case it affects their own dealings with the Authority. But we post anonymously on PPRuNe unless we choose to reveal our identities.
If you agree with him, and don't want to take the risk of getting on the wrong side of people who can make your professional life difficult, just submit a post of support. The CAA monitors this site - let the Authority know what you think.


Mirror exposes deadly helicopter peril!
The Mirror has started a campaign against helicopters over London, using 'Terrorflying' as a front page headline. It is blatant and outrageous scare-mongering.

We can't hope to compete with the Mirror's ability to mislead the public, but we can contact the people and bodies which make the decisions to put our informed views forward - and point out the stupidity of the Mirror's arguments.

Helicopter flights over London were banned for a very short time immediately after 9/11 but it was only for a very short time, and then reinstated. If the Mirror's campaign is successful, we may never be allowed to fly over London again.

If the freedom is lost now, what are the chances of it ever being regained?

Bear in mind that noise campaigners may jump on this bandwaggon for their own ends.


These are two entirely separate issues, but they have two things in common: [list=1] They seriously affect others in the helicopter community, even if they don't affect us personally.

We have an opportunity to try to do something to help before it is too late.
[/list=1]

We may not be successful - but we should at least try.

Heliport

[Shawn Coyle]

Heliport:
Didn't the Mirror sponsor HEMS for a long time? Wonder if they have had that pointed out to them.

[Dantruck]

Sorry Shawn
It was The Express.
Nice thought though...
Dantruck

[Skaz]

for years and years all kinds of safety issues have been identified in all aspects of aviation, fixed wing, rotory wing, maintenace etc etc....but somehow there is always a reluctance of people, mostly operators, management in companies, beuracrats, government officials to apply those changes....those people that do not sit their asses in the left (or right for you flingwing types) seat , those that do not put their lives on the line, flying the line. sometimes in medevac ops, SAR etc Saving lives....until a HUGE accident happens and people die, then they act

when will they learn, how many more of us have to die:yuk: :{

[Genghis the Engineer]

Safety shouldn't be a commercial issue but it is.

In the case of the distressing Hughes / Kenyon case, it may be that CAA fondly hope that companies will happily implement the recommendations without it being mandated. The fact is, that in a harsh commercial world many will be blocked from doing so by their own resident beancounters. Mandate it, everybody has no choice, the cost gets passed to the customer - but evenly across the board so the commercial operators (and their beancounters) aren't all that worried because it maintains a level playing field.

It shouldn't be that way, but it is. It's the reason that in other spheres I'm known as an opponent of too much reduction in regulation at the lowest end of GA, because it gives a commercial advantage to those prepared to cut the most safety corners. The CAA's approach to the Hughes safety issues could be regarded in the same light.

G

[Tail Bloater]

I think that we are all aware that Newspapers are irrisponsible and are not answerable for the articles that they write. Their aim is to make money from sensationalism at whatever cost to individuals or sections of society.
This senareo is hard to combat. If the MIrror is hell bent on alarming their readers (in their millions) with this proaganda it will take a concerted effort to place before the public a convincing truthful account of the reason/need/purpose of helicopters jouneying into London.
My view is this:-
Our nation has benefitted from the technolgy that the 21st century has evolved. To the average person on the street they cannot always see the benefits of technology that they arn't able to fully understand or appreciate. It is in this aspect of ignorance that the Mirror is aggitating their readers to make unqualified decisions about.
As we all seem to be aware we cannot expect much support from the CAA on these matters as it is outside their juristiction.
AOPA/BHAB etc are our only means to fight these alligations and we should fully support these fine institutions who labour very often for little reward on behalf of our industry.
For myself I have seen the destruction that sensationalism can bring. Bloody Sunday was a result of media mis-truths and sensationalistical reporting.

The arrogance of the CAA in the Dennis Kenyon affair is unbelieveable and I cannot understand what they have to gain from such a stance.
I endorse the rationale of the AAIB to endeavour to implement product improvements to make my job safer. The Health and Safety Executive mandate to ensure that work place safety is improved must surely be brought into this. 'Fit for purpose' must be the basis of concern for those in Office to promote Safety.


End

[imabell]

boycott the mirror and never carry their photographers or journalists to any event they may be covering. :mad:

[All-Blacks]

Imabell - how about letting them get aboard but who said anything about them making it to their destination. No seatbelts + door removed = very happy pilot :p

Has the industry thought about fighting back and conducting their own public awareness campaign, maybe getting the BHAB off their backside to do something. Arent they there to represent the operators in the UK - or at least thats what it says on their website. Or are they another blowhard organisation. :confused:

They could spend some of the thousands of pounds to fund some ads in those papers such as the Express etc to counter the story or why not go to one of their Mirrors oposition and give them a free flight over London as well as an insight into the industry and what they offer to the people of London, visits to such operations as the Met Police, HEMS operation, and maybe the downtown heliport there.

Anyway just some suggestions and ideas.

AB