Pat Malone at it again..... promoting the helicopter industry

[Bravo73]

Hear, hear, TC.

[DBChopper]

My God , guys - when did PPRuNe get so bloody angry ?

An article appears in the press which shows general aviation and, in particular helicopters, in a good light. It is obviously meant as a light read - entertainment. It glosses over the details. It is light-hearted. It was written in a newspaper and not a technical publication, least of all a flying magazine.

Yes, it is simple in its approach, but clearly by design. It is not aimed at helicopter pilots, however many thousands of hours they have, whether civil or military, however many would-be's they have "chopped."

If it makes one person think, "that sounds like fun" and pop in to enquire about lessons, at Heliair or Harry's Helis - and forgive me for sticking my neck out - isn't that a good thing? If the costs of running and maintaining a helicopter are more than quoted then I'm sure the Times reader in question will find out about that before handing over the dosh for their new helicopter, or simply head back home on their bicycle. If the skills needed are greater in fact than those needed to ride a bicycle (which I suspect was an example of the acquisistion of motor skills, rather than a direct comparison), then I'm sure he or she will discover this during the very early stages of training, as does every other PPL(H) student.

Last of all guys, if you are going to get angry, insulting, personal, and going to sit hammering vitriol into your keyboards, make it at something (with respect, Pat) a little more important than an article in Sunday paper, about a leisure activity.

[Heliport]

An article appears in the press which shows general aviation and, in particular helicopters, in a good light. It is obviously meant as a light read - entertainment. It glosses over the details. It is light-hearted. It was written in a newspaper and not a technical publication, least of all a flying magazine.

Yes, it is simple in its approach, but clearly by design. It is not aimed at helicopter pilots .......

If it makes one person think, "that sounds like fun" and pop in to enquire about lessons, at Heliair or Harry's Helis - and forgive me for sticking my neck out - isn't that a good thing?

Well put and yes, IMHO, it is.

And, while we discuss the issues, let's bear in mind that Pat Malone is on our side. He's a talented journo who uses every opportunity he gets to promote general aviation, and the helicopter industry in particular.

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

I think some of you under extimate the skill which is involved in rideing a bike.

I have nearly 30 hours with my cycling instructor and he tells me as soon as I have done my cycling prof test theory and completed my medical I will be going solo. With stabalizers of course.

[Whirlybird]

Don't tell me Mrs Dalgleish, the chaplains wife can cater for a donk stop in the climb out from her vicarage helipad in piddle trenthide at 200' 40kts in her R22

But who's to say she can't LEARN to?

I learned to fly helicopters. I'm nothing special. I probably have above average intelligence (so they tell me), but my coordination's never been that great, and although I now joke about how untechnically-minded I was, it wasn't without some truth. I didn't find flying easy, but then, I didn't find driving or learning to ride a bike that easy either...yes, I DO remember both those. But it wasn't that difficult either. It required work, study, practice, and determination...and still does. And most people can have those, if they want to.

TC, I refuse to add to the overblown mystique of helicopter pilots. Too many people think we're all gods or super-people anyway...and we're not. It really is not all that difficult to learn to fly a helicopter. Getting out of some of the situations that people doing your sort of job could find themselves in may be. But that wasn't what Pat was talking about. Learning to fly well enough to get from A to B, in reasonable weather, at a safe height, and stand a good chance of coping with an unlikely emergency, is what is required for what he was talking about. And that requires the skills learned in a PPL(H) course. And what's stopping everyone doing one? Money. And lack of interest. And the belief that they need to be a god or a super-person. That's all.

[ShyTorque]

All I can say is, that given a choice between flying a Robbo and spending five hours each way on Janie Omorogbe's pillion there's simply no contest.

Hey, Janie.....

I'd even offer to ride the bike back as long as she held on tightly

I'd even drive her back in the VW Camper.....

[Pat Malone]

Don't some of you guys worry about sounding pompous? Not to mention silly?
Sorry if you can't deal with it, Thomas Coupling, but you're not Superman. If I had a student with your mindset I'd sit him (or her) down and have a long chat about attitude - about how arrogance leads to accidents. I'd try to beat a little humility into him, get him to realise his shortcomings. Get off your high horse. You're not a brain surgeon or a concert pianist, you're a pilot, and any average joe can be taught to do what you do.
Anybody who believes to the contrary needs to address some self-esteem issues.

[thecontroller]

Hear hear, I know plenty of idiots who have PPLs and CPLs, that I wouldn't trust to drive me anywhere, let alone fly me.

[Hughes500]

Pat

You need to be better informed about mil flying, if any Joe can make it why do the mil have a 700 to 1 success rate. That is for every 700 people who apply to be an army pilot only one makes it ! That is a higher drop out rate than the SAS. As for your figures if that is what you have been told then you are very very nieve or never owned a machine. Rectifying some of the AD's would use up your £ 2500 - thought about your 12 year / 2200 hour rebuild at about £ 150000. Hm that is £12500 a year plus depreciation. If you are unlucky enough to have an R22 you will be spending a fortune changing blades due to corrosion !
Are you hoping to br Heliair sales rep ?

Nice one TC although you did go a bit OTT

[DBChopper]

Hughes500,

Did we read the same article?

What the hell has the military helicopter pilot dropout rate got to do with an item about enjoyable ways to travel during your leisure time?

It referred to normal, everyday people, flying simple helicopters, for pleasure. Nothing more. And at every helicopter school, at every airfield, on nice sunny days, you will see us nice, normal people doing exactly that

[Heliport]

Hughes500

By all means disagree as strongly as you like with Pat Malone's views, but there was no call for the offensive snide comment at the end.

Pat is a successful journalist and publisher - aviation being only one of the areas he covers. He used to instruct part-time (not at HeliAir, as far as I know) until he gave it up because of the demands of his main job, so I doubt if he'd want to give up his current business to become a helicopter salesman.

I can understand you not liking someone promoting Robinsons but, if features like his attract more people to learn to fly, instructors like yourself benefit - some will learn on a Hughes, and may even come to you. If affluent people read his feature and decide to charter a helicopter for their next long trip, professional pilots and operators benefit.

I don't suppose your animosity to PM has anything to do with him writing an article criticising the CAA for prosecuting an instructor who has an ongoing dispute with a customer of yours? (The customer whose arrogant and selfish disregard for his neighbours generated such adverse publicity for helicopters in the national press.)

_________________

It seems some people here would have been happier if the Sunday Times feature had pointed out to potential students that flying helicopters might seem like fun, but it's difficult, expensive and a potentially dangerous hobby.

Or that every single aspect of helicopter flying, starting with instruction, is fantastically expensive in the UK?

Or told potential charter customers of the old adage 'Time to spare, go by air'?





(I happen to disagree with much of what Pat Malone has said in this discussion, but that's irrelevant.)

[Say again s l o w l y]

My, my what a load of ego's there seem to be here.

As has been said before, this is a good article that puts Heli's in a positive light in a major newspaper. How can that be a bad thing?

We may all have differing opinions about parts of it, but for god's sake get off your high horses.

Thomas Coupling, you seem to make a habit of producing angry and in my view non-sensical postings. This article was not about sky gods or however else you may wish to describe yourself, but about normal folk who may wish to use a heli for their own purposes, or do you want to keep this industry totally to yourself?

To be totally honest, speaking as a CFI, CPL(H), ATPL(A) and all round superhero (in my own mind admittedly) this flying lark is not as difficult as you are trying to make out. Maybe it is for you, but I really quite enjoy it. It's challenging certainly, but there are other things that I find harder, such as trying to plaster a wall properly.

One last thing, Mil pilots are usually good handling pilots, but if they all had an ego like yours they would be the last people I'd want to sit next to. Luckily all the best crews I've worked with have never had this issue. Something about letting their actions do the talking I believe.

[headsethair]

Ah, DB. You are naive. Don't you know that you can ONLY be a heli pilot if you've been trained at the taxpayer's expense ?

Here's Pat Malone doing a bit of PR for the industry. (And by "industry" I mean funded on a commercial basis or with private money.) And, just like motoring journos and others, he has to remember that he is writing for a wide audience. He has to use general terms.
Out here in the real world (where people like TC hardly ever venture) there's a whole GA heli industry struggling to survive against increasing regulation, higher expenses and tw*ts like TC who preach that light singles (and particularly Robinsons) are not safe. Take a look at the CAA CHIRP and find the true story about light single safety and reliability.
I wonder if TC has ever wondered why the failure rate in mil training is so high ? Could it be the quality of instruction ? Could it be the time/budget pressure ? Could it possibly be bad filtering of applicants ?
In the real world a potential student turns up and is told how much the process will cost THEM in minimum terms. That immediately clears out all those who are not totally dedicated. Then, when they've gone past 20 hrs and still can't hold a hover, there's another weeding out.
However, if you're prepared to stick at it and keep handing over your money, you will reach the correct standard and you will become a helicopter pilot. That applies to about 98% of the able-bodied, clear thinking population.
Of course the likes of TC have a vested interest in protecting the mystique of helicopter pilots. Take a trip around The Derby this weekend and count the shoulder stripes, the shades and the swagger.
Don't get me wrong - I do believe that good helicopter pilots are hard working, multi-skilled, intelligent and very well trained. But whether the licence says PPL or CPL or ATPL is irrelevant. Whether privately or taxpayer funded is irrelevant. It's the training, experience and character that matters - to fly well in our airspace you have to remain open-minded and have an ability to consider those around you.
The worry about TC is he just seems too blinkered to be a good pilot. Do you think he really exists or is he on here just to wind up other ppruners ?

[ThomasTheTankEngine]

Put simply flying a helicopter is a motorized skill, Which most people can learn. All it take's is money, practice, hard work and experiance, The more experiance the better it get's, ie judgement and recogniseing your limit's get's better with expeiance.

You don't have to be superman or superwoman.

For TC you say you've failed lots of students over the years, In eight years of instruction I've only had to tell 3 or 4 people that flying wasn't for them. Maybe that's the differance with the mil & the civil side of thing's or maybe you need to address your method's of instruction.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Please can I have a say!

I read the article in the ST with great interest, it was a bit glossy and skipped some of the possible importants bits, like cots and time to train for the PPL(H) and then the need to have many hours of NavEx and handling in order to be able to be confidente and GOOD enough to take a pax.

Normally most people who take the route of PPL(H) are the better off , or at least have the ability to get hold of funds which arent really required to be spent on new shoes and dress's, however that is where the difference is between PPL(H) and some of you more SUPER types who always seem to look on and make disdainful comments about the lower ranks of the Helicopter Pilots, One thing that we all have is the ability and training to be called a HELICOPTER PILOT, some of us do it purely for fun, some of us are lucky enough to use it daily or weekly in connection with our business's, some of US are paid to fly a helicopter much like a Bus Driver who travell's up and down the A6 or Edgeware Road.

What binds us all together whether you like it of not is the word PILOT,

Some of you were trained totally free courtesy of US, the TAX payer's, you have benefitted through the free training to now have a reasonablty secure job, paid quiet possibly for not even flying some time's.

We lowley pilots who occupy the lower perches in the Helicopter Tree have the same basic knowledge of what you SUPER men do, like it or not that is why the CAA set a basic test for new pilots to take part in.

What seperates us all, is EXPERIENCE, you super dooper CPLs have loads of hours that equates to experience, we lower hour jockeys have our enthusiasm and the will to carry on learning from every flight and indeed from every conversation on forums such as this one.

To any one of you multi thousand hour pilots I doff my cap to you, but I bet your weekly wage I can beat any of you driving a landrover over unmade terrain, I have 35 years of this experience , so if you really want to be Super Hero types and have the respect that you rightfully deserve learn about Humility, it is one attribute that cannot be taught in any class room>

I hope Pat Malone write many more pieces about Helicopters, It will not sway me one jot that he may be doing it for Harrys Helicopter INC Plc, what it means is us the pilots lower down the ladder will see that Helicopters may be more acceptable in our back fields!!

Certain people made comment about the AAC drop out rate, if TC was one of their instructors, the Student could fail by not bowing before entering said cab, TC I feel your comment about "CHOPPING" stands as a good indicator of your level of understanding, added to that the AAC have only certain hours allowable to train and normal grunt to fly something that initially is very demanding, so sitting with God bellowing in the ear cups is bound to have a deliterious effect on the Student pilots nerve!

Call me old fashioned, but patience is a Virtue always found in women, Never found in men, so perhaps the AAC should have female instructers!

Peter R-B
Vfr

Pat, I look forward to your next Sunday Times Flight Story

[Hughes500]

Heliport Etc

My reply was in defence of TC and Pat Malones very OTT comments about him. Tc was only teling the truth. I have no problem with Robinson products providing they are used for what they were designed to do.
What I do have a problem with is Pat's typical jorno half truths. The running costs on these things are far far greater than he portrays.

As for an ongoing dispute one of my customers is having it did not even cross my mind.

Three cheers for Pat Malone in bring helis to everyones attention, but do not mislead people in how much these things cost. I m sure none of us want to have the same reputation as second hand car salesmen or estate agents, which ios where we will ultimately go !

I had no intended to be too OTT, Heliport if I have please accept my apologies to both you and Pat

H500

[ShyTorque]

There are a number of differences between military flying training and that found in the civilian world, and in the "chop rate" simply because the requirements are quite different.

I'm not claiming that military pilots are superheroes. However, there is a large difference in the ability and capacity levels required to fly for recreation in a simple, single engined helicopter and those required of a military pilot flying a large, complicated helicopter full of troops or weapons, at extremely low altitude and high speed, into a tactical situation - especially so in poor weather conditions or by night. Similar for those abilities required to operate an Anti-submarine or Search and Rescue helicopter.

It should be remembered that even to get selected for a military flying training scheme, a candidate will have undergone close scrutiny during a highly competitive selection process. Not everyone has the mix of abilities required, it's a plain fact, or there would be a NIL drop out rate and no need for a selection process.

Someone has pointed out that military training is at the taxpayer's expense. Because of this, the training system HAS to provide the best pilot product for the money and it is very much geared to avoid failure at a late stage, when the training becomes considerably more expensive per hour (and a very large amount of public money will have been invested). Military students are only given a small amount of flex hours, especially in the very early stages of training, before their continuation on the course is put under formal review.

Certainly in my time, a student was immediately considered for review if a trip was failed (i.e. didn't perform to the required levels of the syllabus, which is laid out for the instructor in writing). He would refly the trip, probably with a different instructor or flight commander. If this was also not up to the standard required, he would be formally interviewed, told why he was on review and given a small number of hours (5?) while his overall performance was reviewed. If it was unsatisfactory, he would be required to fly with the Chief Instructor, which was sometimes the student's last trip in the system (the dreaded "Chop Ride").

Civilian flying schools operate under a quite different regime to this. While the instruction given at most is very good indeed, it has to be borne in mind that they do exist to make money by providing a service to a paying customer. They therefore have the flexibility to accommodate the requirements of a much wider spectrum of abilities.

[Pat Malone]

Hughes500:
My own cost analysis is based on Robinson ownership and I was lucky enough to make a profit on my last one, without creative accounting.
As to my "typical jorno half truths", the costs panel in the ST story was actually written by a sub-editor who did his own research; nonetheless I agree with his figures. If there's an unused Astro out there it would probably sell for £185,000. Insurance is between £8 and £9K, and servicing runs around £2,500 a year - obviously depending on level of usage, star annuals and luck. The cost of fuel for the flight was what I paid, plus the landing fee at Bodmin.
There is no claim that this represents the entire cost of helicopter ownership, any more than the figures for the Honda or the VW represent the full cost of bike or car ownership. It's merely a guide, and a good one at that.

[Thomas coupling]

Let's just agree to disagree Pat?

I can't be bothered to respond to some of these comments - it's too late in the day, I've just come away (relatively unscathed) from a CAA audit and it's been a long week.

It's certainly stimulated the conversation.

Each to their own.

[Vfrpilotpb]

Hey TC, do I smell broken glass

PR-B
Vfr