Pat Malone at it again..... promoting the helicopter industry
Just a numbered other
Tc
And while you're away perhaps you could try to retrieve your head from another part of your anatomy.
Such arrogant twaddle.
****e'awk's view is somewhat more balanced.
The military requirement is far greater than the civvie's wish to fly a robbie for fun (not that I'd ever want to....bloody horrid things).
Perhaps I shouldn't own a motor bike because I'll never be able to ride it as well as Valentino Rossi.
But I'm sure he doesn't find his manhood threatened by every bloke who buys a bike.
And while you're away perhaps you could try to retrieve your head from another part of your anatomy.
Such arrogant twaddle.
****e'awk's view is somewhat more balanced.
The military requirement is far greater than the civvie's wish to fly a robbie for fun (not that I'd ever want to....bloody horrid things).
Perhaps I shouldn't own a motor bike because I'll never be able to ride it as well as Valentino Rossi.
But I'm sure he doesn't find his manhood threatened by every bloke who buys a bike.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record guys, I've met TC, and he's a pussycat! And a pussycat with a brain too; he talks a lot of sense about most things, and has given me good advice in the past. 
I dunno just what happens to him when he gets on Rotorheads. 
TC, now you don't mind my spilling the beans, do you?
And calling you a pussycat was meant as a compliment, honest!!!!
I dunno just what happens to him when he gets on Rotorheads. TC, now you don't mind my spilling the beans, do you?
And calling you a pussycat was meant as a compliment, honest!!!!
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: In my tank engine
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are differance between civil and mil helicopter training requirements.
But I would say Pat's article (Although inacurate) was not aimed at recruiting pilot for Her Magesty The Queen.
A few other people said he was just recruiting for Heliair. This is normal buisness if I can recruit for my company in the paper (Free advertising) I would. Wouldn't you?
But I would say Pat's article (Although inacurate) was not aimed at recruiting pilot for Her Magesty The Queen.
A few other people said he was just recruiting for Heliair. This is normal buisness if I can recruit for my company in the paper (Free advertising) I would. Wouldn't you?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone writes an article for a national circulation Sunday newspaper in which he promotes the helicopter industry - and he get's criticised for not concentrating enough on the negatives!
In his piece for the Sunday Times feature, Pat Malone wrote: Flying a helicopter is a lot easier than driving a car.
He gave as his reasons: “It has no brakes or gears, there are no bends, traffic lights, speed limits, contraflows, middle-lane hoggers or caravans. With a helicopter you just push the stick in whichever direction you want to go and look out the window. “
Could it be he assumed people who buy the Sunday Times would realise he didn't mean his assertion to be taken literally? He wasn’t writing for the Sun or the Mirror.
In any event, he started off with the down-sides: See his opening paragraphs. Do they really give the impression that flying helicopters is something any Jack or Jill could do? Would his description of the reality of flying around the UK tempt someone not even comfortable driving in bad conditions to take up helicopter flying?
TC says: “They are not as versatile as land transport in the UK for getting from A to B throughout the year - IF you have to guarantee getting there?”
True. But wasn't that clear from PM's opening words: “Either I win this race or I don’t finish …….. Nothing on four wheels or two can stick with a vehicle that flies at 140mph in a straight line — once you get off the ground.”
He then described the weather problems with which anyone who flies in the UK without an IR is all to familiar and, having looked at the forecast, persuaded a more experienced professional pilot to go with him as a precaution.
And then pointed out that, having got to the destination, they couldn’t wait there very long because of the weather - QS had to get home that evening, and PM in time for work the next day.
TC and PM, both of whose posts I always enjoy reading, have been a little extreme here – but both enjoy provoking a discussion.
IMHO, TC misses the point. The standard needed even to earn your basic military ‘wings’ is in a completely different league from that required to pass a PPL - but military standards aren’t necessary to fly safely as a recreational pilot.
PPLs fly helicopters; professional pilots (military and civvy) operate them. IMHO, there’s an enormous difference between the two.
Maybe TC has overstated his argument but, on the other hand, anyone who suggests someone good enough to get a PPL could necessarily achieve the standard required to get his/her military wings, even with extra training from a patient instructor, is IMHO very mistaken.
I read the article and assumed HeliAir provided the aircraft and got mentioned in return. Even if that's true, so what? There’s nothing unusual about that.
I read Headbolt's post and assumed it was sour grapes by someone with a financial interest, ownership or instructor, in another helicopter school. (If he's not, he can correct me.)
Anyone promoting helicopters must give all the facts correctly
Really? That would be a first for anyone promoting anything.
People selling, or hoping to, should of course give the facts truthfully. Just like all flying schools tell all potential students about all the little ‘extras’ they’ll have to pay during their training,
Maintenance Costs
I assumed from the layout that the ‘competitors’ didn’t write that part. PM says he didn't; the other two might have because there were references to their car and bike reviews.
However, accurate figures or not, would anyone really go out and buy a helicopter on the strength of a few lines in a light-hearted, non-specialist, feature in a weekend paper? Without doing any further research?
PM says (on this thread) “As to the expense, it's all relative. Here in the UK we have never in history bought more yachts, Porsches and Ferraris, more exotic holidays, more second homes, and we've never had more leisure time. There are hundreds of thousands of very rich people out there, and we're not attracting enough of them into this industry.”
Isn’t that the point?
Isn’t that where such features in the non-aviation media help the helicopter industry by promoting public awareness? If the article encourages even one ST reader to look into learning or buying, people somewhere in the industry may benefit.
In stark contrast to the Sunday Times article, if I didn't already fly helicopters and came across this thread while looking into the idea, I think I might be tempted to take up sailing instead.
(Edit)
TTTE
Pat Malone is a journalist and helicopter enthusiast.
I think he instructed years ago at one of the Redhill schools. To the best of my knowledge, he's never work for HeliAir.
In his piece for the Sunday Times feature, Pat Malone wrote: Flying a helicopter is a lot easier than driving a car.
He gave as his reasons: “It has no brakes or gears, there are no bends, traffic lights, speed limits, contraflows, middle-lane hoggers or caravans. With a helicopter you just push the stick in whichever direction you want to go and look out the window. “
Could it be he assumed people who buy the Sunday Times would realise he didn't mean his assertion to be taken literally? He wasn’t writing for the Sun or the Mirror.
In any event, he started off with the down-sides: See his opening paragraphs. Do they really give the impression that flying helicopters is something any Jack or Jill could do? Would his description of the reality of flying around the UK tempt someone not even comfortable driving in bad conditions to take up helicopter flying?
TC says: “They are not as versatile as land transport in the UK for getting from A to B throughout the year - IF you have to guarantee getting there?”
True. But wasn't that clear from PM's opening words: “Either I win this race or I don’t finish …….. Nothing on four wheels or two can stick with a vehicle that flies at 140mph in a straight line — once you get off the ground.”
He then described the weather problems with which anyone who flies in the UK without an IR is all to familiar and, having looked at the forecast, persuaded a more experienced professional pilot to go with him as a precaution.
And then pointed out that, having got to the destination, they couldn’t wait there very long because of the weather - QS had to get home that evening, and PM in time for work the next day.
TC and PM, both of whose posts I always enjoy reading, have been a little extreme here – but both enjoy provoking a discussion.
IMHO, TC misses the point. The standard needed even to earn your basic military ‘wings’ is in a completely different league from that required to pass a PPL - but military standards aren’t necessary to fly safely as a recreational pilot.
PPLs fly helicopters; professional pilots (military and civvy) operate them. IMHO, there’s an enormous difference between the two.
Maybe TC has overstated his argument but, on the other hand, anyone who suggests someone good enough to get a PPL could necessarily achieve the standard required to get his/her military wings, even with extra training from a patient instructor, is IMHO very mistaken.
I read the article and assumed HeliAir provided the aircraft and got mentioned in return. Even if that's true, so what? There’s nothing unusual about that.
I read Headbolt's post and assumed it was sour grapes by someone with a financial interest, ownership or instructor, in another helicopter school. (If he's not, he can correct me.)
Anyone promoting helicopters must give all the facts correctly
Really? That would be a first for anyone promoting anything.
People selling, or hoping to, should of course give the facts truthfully. Just like all flying schools tell all potential students about all the little ‘extras’ they’ll have to pay during their training,
Maintenance Costs
I assumed from the layout that the ‘competitors’ didn’t write that part. PM says he didn't; the other two might have because there were references to their car and bike reviews.
However, accurate figures or not, would anyone really go out and buy a helicopter on the strength of a few lines in a light-hearted, non-specialist, feature in a weekend paper? Without doing any further research?
PM says (on this thread) “As to the expense, it's all relative. Here in the UK we have never in history bought more yachts, Porsches and Ferraris, more exotic holidays, more second homes, and we've never had more leisure time. There are hundreds of thousands of very rich people out there, and we're not attracting enough of them into this industry.”
Isn’t that the point?
Isn’t that where such features in the non-aviation media help the helicopter industry by promoting public awareness? If the article encourages even one ST reader to look into learning or buying, people somewhere in the industry may benefit.
In stark contrast to the Sunday Times article, if I didn't already fly helicopters and came across this thread while looking into the idea, I think I might be tempted to take up sailing instead.
(Edit)
TTTE
Pat Malone is a journalist and helicopter enthusiast.
I think he instructed years ago at one of the Redhill schools. To the best of my knowledge, he's never work for HeliAir.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 4th Jun 2005 at 14:35.
Having found the time to review all these latest entries, I will put my hand up and accept that I was OTT with my response.
The mil bit certainly clouded the issue.
I certainly didnt wish to convey that there was a link between mil pilots and the great unwashed - God forbid
What I was trying to convey there albeit badly, was that even before these mil ab initio pilots even progressed to the stage where they had to use the helo in anger (advance flying training) they were still crumbling at a stage where basic helo flying was being taught.
Nor was I establishing a link between helicopter pilots (who fly for social reasons only) and 'professional' pilots (in the true sense of the word).
I firmly remain convinced that anyone who can master a chunk of complicated heavy metal, capable of killing you, steer it in the right direction with a map in one hand (ooops!) whilst talking to others, time after time - is better equipped (mentally) than jo average. Nothing (in my experience) will change that view.
The mil bit certainly clouded the issue.
I certainly didnt wish to convey that there was a link between mil pilots and the great unwashed - God forbid
What I was trying to convey there albeit badly, was that even before these mil ab initio pilots even progressed to the stage where they had to use the helo in anger (advance flying training) they were still crumbling at a stage where basic helo flying was being taught.
Nor was I establishing a link between helicopter pilots (who fly for social reasons only) and 'professional' pilots (in the true sense of the word).
I firmly remain convinced that anyone who can master a chunk of complicated heavy metal, capable of killing you, steer it in the right direction with a map in one hand (ooops!) whilst talking to others, time after time - is better equipped (mentally) than jo average. Nothing (in my experience) will change that view.
The Original Whirly
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
anyone who can master a chunk of complicated heavy metal, capable of killing you, steer it in the right direction with a map in one hand (ooops!) whilst talking to others, time after time - is better equipped (mentally) than jo average.
OK, before you say it, there are a few differences. Car drivers can stop to look at their maps. If the engine or some other essential bit quits, they simply roll to a halt. And if they don't like the weather, they carry on regardless, or stop for a cup of tea.
OTOH, your helicopter pilot doesn't have zillions of other people zooming along at 70+ mph, inches away from him/her. If he's lost, he can ask a nice person on the radio to tell him where to go. If he really doesn't like the weather, he can plonk his machine in a field...which is probably safer than the motorway hard shoulder.
All of that is pretty much what Pat said in his article, so I won't bother going on.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"have a look at any motorway!"
Yes indeed. (Or any other road for that matter.)
The majority of drivers lack the ability to think outside the box even when doing something as simple as driving a car.
"OK ..... there are a few differences."
Yes, just a few.
Do you really believe that flying a helicopter, even in ideal conditions, is no more difficult than drivng a car?
That anyone who can learn to do one can necessarily learn to do the other?
That anyone with sufficient coordination to drive a car has sufficient coordination to fly a helicopter?
I appreciate you were using your writer's flair to make your point, but many drivers do actually see motorway driving as some death-defying experience with "zillions of other people zooming along at 70+ mph, inches away from him/her". Just like those, or the same people as, who 'hate all those big lorries' on motorways - so lacking in confidence and competence they fail to realise that drivers of the big artics are amongst the safest and most skilled drivers on the road.
Do you really believe that sort of person would be up to flying a helicopter safely - and coping with a problem while still remembering to fly the helicopter - even if they could be taught by some patient instructor just enough to get through a PPL course?
I'd have some reservations about flying in a fixed-wing with someone like that, but I certainly wouldn't feel safe in a helicopter flown by one of them - just in case we had a problem which they'd promptly turn into an emergency, and I'd end up as 'The Passenger' in the AAIB's fatal accident report.
I'm not suggesting people who can fly helicopters, whether operationally or otherwise, are some superhuman breed who could do anything they chose to do better than ordinary mortals. Far from it. But we do have certain characteristics/skills which others with different characteristics/skills may not. (And vice versa, obviously.)
It's true that not many people fail a PPL course, but I suspect that's only because those who would fail don't even consider learning to fly. We tend to enjoy the things we're good at, and to be good at the things we enjoy. If we know we wouldn't be good at and/or enjoy some activity, we tend not to do it - unless we have to for some reason.
Arguing that anyone could be taught to fly helicopters is like saying anyone could be taught to be an artist. We might be able to learn to use some elementary techniques but, if we don't have at least some natural flair in our make-up, we could never be an artist.
Yes indeed. (Or any other road for that matter.)
The majority of drivers lack the ability to think outside the box even when doing something as simple as driving a car.
"OK ..... there are a few differences."
Yes, just a few.
Do you really believe that flying a helicopter, even in ideal conditions, is no more difficult than drivng a car?
That anyone who can learn to do one can necessarily learn to do the other?
That anyone with sufficient coordination to drive a car has sufficient coordination to fly a helicopter?
I appreciate you were using your writer's flair to make your point, but many drivers do actually see motorway driving as some death-defying experience with "zillions of other people zooming along at 70+ mph, inches away from him/her". Just like those, or the same people as, who 'hate all those big lorries' on motorways - so lacking in confidence and competence they fail to realise that drivers of the big artics are amongst the safest and most skilled drivers on the road.
Do you really believe that sort of person would be up to flying a helicopter safely - and coping with a problem while still remembering to fly the helicopter - even if they could be taught by some patient instructor just enough to get through a PPL course?
I'd have some reservations about flying in a fixed-wing with someone like that, but I certainly wouldn't feel safe in a helicopter flown by one of them - just in case we had a problem which they'd promptly turn into an emergency, and I'd end up as 'The Passenger' in the AAIB's fatal accident report.
I'm not suggesting people who can fly helicopters, whether operationally or otherwise, are some superhuman breed who could do anything they chose to do better than ordinary mortals. Far from it. But we do have certain characteristics/skills which others with different characteristics/skills may not. (And vice versa, obviously.)
It's true that not many people fail a PPL course, but I suspect that's only because those who would fail don't even consider learning to fly. We tend to enjoy the things we're good at, and to be good at the things we enjoy. If we know we wouldn't be good at and/or enjoy some activity, we tend not to do it - unless we have to for some reason.
Arguing that anyone could be taught to fly helicopters is like saying anyone could be taught to be an artist. We might be able to learn to use some elementary techniques but, if we don't have at least some natural flair in our make-up, we could never be an artist.
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 5th Jun 2005 at 10:55.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: A big comfy armchair
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the points about the difference between the Military and civilian environments that have been made so far are valid. But the key point in the military system (particularly the UK) is one of budget.
In the military system one of the key questions that is asked about any trainee pilot is not whether he/she will be able to operate the aircraft safely and effectively in the demanding environment of war but whether he/she can be taught to do so in a (very) restricted timescale. If I recall correctly the slack available to a pilot in the training system (UK Army) was no more than 7 hours in a total schedule of 200. If the trainee had issues that would take longer than that to solve he would be binned. I bel;ieve a great deal of the 'military flying is hard' ethos comes directly from this time/budget pressure in the training system. Although I confess I wouldn't be happy doing a Cat III NVG sortie (formation, night, low level) with a journeyman PPL>
In the military system one of the key questions that is asked about any trainee pilot is not whether he/she will be able to operate the aircraft safely and effectively in the demanding environment of war but whether he/she can be taught to do so in a (very) restricted timescale. If I recall correctly the slack available to a pilot in the training system (UK Army) was no more than 7 hours in a total schedule of 200. If the trainee had issues that would take longer than that to solve he would be binned. I bel;ieve a great deal of the 'military flying is hard' ethos comes directly from this time/budget pressure in the training system. Although I confess I wouldn't be happy doing a Cat III NVG sortie (formation, night, low level) with a journeyman PPL>
