Private helicopter rescues lost children
Crab,
I was being a bit faceitous when I mentioned Cougars but only half so really. California since the banning of Cougar hunting have now begun to see Cougar attacks on humans become more frequent to the tune of about one fatal attack per year now and numerous non-deadly attacks.
As to the pilot taking the "only" action left to him as you suggest, one never has just one choice of action. One may be faced with "good choices" and "not so good" choices.
"What if'ing..." is a game that can be played by anyone after the fact but is not predicated upon being involved directly in the event.
The folks involved in this rescue made a decision based upon their ability, training, and experience just as any crew does. They are not "mad men" or kamikaze's but are seasoned professionals.
It was not so long ago there was a discussion here in Rotorheads about a refused rescue by an elderly couple caught by a rising tide during cold rainy weather. They elected to endure the cold and wet and refused "rescue".
They were criticized for not accepting the offered rescue although they walked back to their car afterwards cold and wet but unharmed.
Which side of the argument will the "professionals" wish to cling to?
I was being a bit faceitous when I mentioned Cougars but only half so really. California since the banning of Cougar hunting have now begun to see Cougar attacks on humans become more frequent to the tune of about one fatal attack per year now and numerous non-deadly attacks.
As to the pilot taking the "only" action left to him as you suggest, one never has just one choice of action. One may be faced with "good choices" and "not so good" choices.
"What if'ing..." is a game that can be played by anyone after the fact but is not predicated upon being involved directly in the event.
The folks involved in this rescue made a decision based upon their ability, training, and experience just as any crew does. They are not "mad men" or kamikaze's but are seasoned professionals.
It was not so long ago there was a discussion here in Rotorheads about a refused rescue by an elderly couple caught by a rising tide during cold rainy weather. They elected to endure the cold and wet and refused "rescue".
They were criticized for not accepting the offered rescue although they walked back to their car afterwards cold and wet but unharmed.
Which side of the argument will the "professionals" wish to cling to?
crab says: In this situation he got away with it...
Yes, he "got away with" doing something that helicopters are eminently capable of doing...and have been doing routinely for fifty years before there was such widespread availability of sheriff's department with good rescue capabilities.
So...the S.O. should have accepted the offer of help since it was an offer of an asset with capabilities that were otherwise unavailable to them (however temporarily).
So...the 407 pilot should have reported the position of the kids when he found them and discussed all the options before proceeding.
Was the ground rescue party really "only 1/2 mile" away? Could they have given an accurate ETA to reach the kids, and would that ETA have not been long? Could the 407 pilot have then done something differently?
For instance, could the 407 have radioed the coordinates in and then dropped off his partner to stay with the kids until help arrived and circled overhead in the meantime?
As pilots, we're taught to take the "most conservative response." Doing that night toe-in landing might not have been excessively risky in an of itself (helicopters do this, after all). But given the circumstances (rescue posse already and out working and "close by"), perhaps the most conservative thing to do would have been...well, something else.
It's all hindsight, of course. It worked out okay. End justifies the means and all. Could have been tragic - wasn't. Could have had a similar image to the Blackhawk tumbling down the side of the snow-covered mountain - didn't. So there.
But there was a distinct lack of coordination that night. I think both parties maybe lost sight of the fact that it was the safe rescue of the kids that was paramount, not getting into any petty power struggles.
Yes, he "got away with" doing something that helicopters are eminently capable of doing...and have been doing routinely for fifty years before there was such widespread availability of sheriff's department with good rescue capabilities.
So...the S.O. should have accepted the offer of help since it was an offer of an asset with capabilities that were otherwise unavailable to them (however temporarily).
So...the 407 pilot should have reported the position of the kids when he found them and discussed all the options before proceeding.
Was the ground rescue party really "only 1/2 mile" away? Could they have given an accurate ETA to reach the kids, and would that ETA have not been long? Could the 407 pilot have then done something differently?
For instance, could the 407 have radioed the coordinates in and then dropped off his partner to stay with the kids until help arrived and circled overhead in the meantime?
As pilots, we're taught to take the "most conservative response." Doing that night toe-in landing might not have been excessively risky in an of itself (helicopters do this, after all). But given the circumstances (rescue posse already and out working and "close by"), perhaps the most conservative thing to do would have been...well, something else.
It's all hindsight, of course. It worked out okay. End justifies the means and all. Could have been tragic - wasn't. Could have had a similar image to the Blackhawk tumbling down the side of the snow-covered mountain - didn't. So there.
But there was a distinct lack of coordination that night. I think both parties maybe lost sight of the fact that it was the safe rescue of the kids that was paramount, not getting into any petty power struggles.
t What Risk?
By Russ Niles, Newswriter, Editor
Smith said the nighttime toe-in maneuver was too risky. "I would not have allowed our pilots to do that mission," he said. Korhdt heard about the missing kids on the 11 p.m. TV news and called Gunsauls, who met him at the airport. Their Bell 407 helicopter has both night-vision equipment and forward looking infrared equipment (the sheriff's choppers have neither). They first found the searchers and then "just followed the natural lay of the land" trying to put themselves in the children's place in terms of choosing a route. They spotted the pair glowing brightly in their night-vision goggles against the dull background of the hillside and went to work. Pete Cunha, a local California Highway Patrol pilot contacted by the newspaper, also said rescuers should have left the task to experts. "It's not a game for amateurs," said Cunha.
By Russ Niles, Newswriter, Editor
Smith said the nighttime toe-in maneuver was too risky. "I would not have allowed our pilots to do that mission," he said. Korhdt heard about the missing kids on the 11 p.m. TV news and called Gunsauls, who met him at the airport. Their Bell 407 helicopter has both night-vision equipment and forward looking infrared equipment (the sheriff's choppers have neither). They first found the searchers and then "just followed the natural lay of the land" trying to put themselves in the children's place in terms of choosing a route. They spotted the pair glowing brightly in their night-vision goggles against the dull background of the hillside and went to work. Pete Cunha, a local California Highway Patrol pilot contacted by the newspaper, also said rescuers should have left the task to experts. "It's not a game for amateurs," said Cunha.
Seems these "amateurs" are more capable than the Sheriff's Office.
This link reports an accident involving a PJ Helicopter operated by Butte County using Sheriff's Office pilot and observers. The aircraft was owned by PJ but operated by the Sheriff's Office on an ad hoc charter basis.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...93LA323&akey=1
Perhaps there is more to this conflict than meets the eye? As I have said before....the SO is familiar with the operator and crew of the "amateur" aircraft.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...93LA323&akey=1
Perhaps there is more to this conflict than meets the eye? As I have said before....the SO is familiar with the operator and crew of the "amateur" aircraft.
You know sometimes when your dad or grandpa does or says something which to you is so: "old school". For example:
My dad used to be a racing driver (formula ford) before getting too old for it and then moving onto advanced motorist instructor etc etc. There is NOTHING you can tell my dad about driving a car: cadence braking / understeering / oversteering / heel and toe / double declutch, blah blah................and on it goes.
When I was little I hung on every word and assumed those 'tactics' were set in concrete.
Now my son is driving - his instructor told him cadence braking went out about 20 yrs ago. You don't use gears to approach junctions (use the brakes - cheaper!). The 'pace' of driving has to rise somewhat to keep up with faster moving traffic today, so he is instructed to drive up to the limit quickly and not loiter etc etc.
It was the same with my helo instructing and techniques - and ATTITUDE towards my every day flying. "I'm an instructor, I'm a veteran helo pilot, therefore everything I know and apply MUST be right".
It was only when I left the Mil did I realise - things change. And on the whole they change for the better (I think). Standards are continuously revised, health and safety is big in industry, risk management is an empire in itself. These have usually been introduced by "outsiders" who don't have specialised experience in a narrow field (helos). An outsider can see the big picture and change things for the better when you might not have spotted it yourself. The thing is - the world might be a lot more bureaucratic but it is certainly SAFER.
I have had to acclimatise to this way of doing things otherwise i too become "old school" and I have yet to be accused of being that to date
Was the driver of this private rescue helo, old school perhaps. Did he come from the way of thinking - I have a helo, a helo can do most everything, I am experienced, I've seen alot, done a lot - let's go for it?
Would a young 'new school' pilot have gone through the same thought processes perhaps? Or would he/she be more in tune with today's perspectives on things?
Are some of the respondents on this thread 'old school'?
My dad used to be a racing driver (formula ford) before getting too old for it and then moving onto advanced motorist instructor etc etc. There is NOTHING you can tell my dad about driving a car: cadence braking / understeering / oversteering / heel and toe / double declutch, blah blah................and on it goes.
When I was little I hung on every word and assumed those 'tactics' were set in concrete.
Now my son is driving - his instructor told him cadence braking went out about 20 yrs ago. You don't use gears to approach junctions (use the brakes - cheaper!). The 'pace' of driving has to rise somewhat to keep up with faster moving traffic today, so he is instructed to drive up to the limit quickly and not loiter etc etc.
It was the same with my helo instructing and techniques - and ATTITUDE towards my every day flying. "I'm an instructor, I'm a veteran helo pilot, therefore everything I know and apply MUST be right".
It was only when I left the Mil did I realise - things change. And on the whole they change for the better (I think). Standards are continuously revised, health and safety is big in industry, risk management is an empire in itself. These have usually been introduced by "outsiders" who don't have specialised experience in a narrow field (helos). An outsider can see the big picture and change things for the better when you might not have spotted it yourself. The thing is - the world might be a lot more bureaucratic but it is certainly SAFER.
I have had to acclimatise to this way of doing things otherwise i too become "old school" and I have yet to be accused of being that to date
Was the driver of this private rescue helo, old school perhaps. Did he come from the way of thinking - I have a helo, a helo can do most everything, I am experienced, I've seen alot, done a lot - let's go for it?
Would a young 'new school' pilot have gone through the same thought processes perhaps? Or would he/she be more in tune with today's perspectives on things?
Are some of the respondents on this thread 'old school'?
TC,
I reckon the CFS subscribes to your concept and invites outside evaluation of their methods, concepts, constructs, and procedures.
I reckon the CFS subscribes to your concept and invites outside evaluation of their methods, concepts, constructs, and procedures.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Chico, CA
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots w/PJ Helicopters top notch
[B]I WAS INVOLVED IN A PORTION OF THIS EVENT AND NO I WILL PASS TO SAY WHOM OR HOW I WAS, BUT THE PILOT OF THE BELL MODEL 407 (which had higher tech "I.R" and "FLIR" scope's than any CHP aircraft) WHICH AGAIN I MUST INCLUDE HAS SEVERAL BELL HELICOPTER AWARDED TROPHYS ONE OF WHICH RECOGNIZES 25,000 FLIGHT HOURS IN BELL HELICOPTERS, AND LETS NOT FORGET PEOPLE "LITTLE CHILDREN" & "COLD" SO FOR A PRIVATE HELICOPTER OPERATOR BECAUSE THE PILOT HAS OHH 15-16 ASSORTED HELICOPTERS OF HIS OWN AS WELL HAD MADE THE CHOICE AT "O'DARK THIRTY" IN THE AM TO SPOOL UP THE 407 AND START SEARCHING AT THE HOURLY COST PUSHING $700 AT THAT DATE SHOULD SAY A WHOLE HECK OF ALOT FOR U NEGATIVE FOLKS, AND IF THEY WERE CONTRACTED BY BUTTE CO THE BILL WOULD MORE THAN LIKELY PUSH $3K. >> answer this please: were and what was the 2 C.H.P helo's doing that whole afternoon into night???? <<< iam personailly sick of watching the 2 eurocopter AS350B3 million dollar machines we tax payers fund sit and fly laps around the Redding region as though they were at their call in Shasta Co only?
