Safety Record: Heli v Fixed
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Record: Heli v Fixed
Without wishing to set off the old hare, about helicopters being inherently dangerous, we have enough experience here to assess the safety record of helicopters since their invention.
What is the safety record of helicopters compared to fixed wing.
What's the least biased parameter to use for a measure?
Perhaps, reported accidents per hours flown, or fatalities per hours flown?
What is the safety record of helicopters compared to fixed wing.
What's the least biased parameter to use for a measure?
Perhaps, reported accidents per hours flown, or fatalities per hours flown?
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with DaveReidUK...there's no meaningful comparison.
However, as an unscientific observation, in many decades of continuous use of aircraft, starting with being ferried around by the RAF in FW and the RN in RW, then working for airlines and/or airports ever since and using civil aircraft a lot as a result, and all the while flying myself in FW including gliders, I have been in four genuinely life-threatening situations.
Two were due to my own stupidity when flying myself, and two were in helicopters.
I have remained alive by being more careful than I used to be, and most importantly, by avoiding helicopters as much as possible.
However, as an unscientific observation, in many decades of continuous use of aircraft, starting with being ferried around by the RAF in FW and the RN in RW, then working for airlines and/or airports ever since and using civil aircraft a lot as a result, and all the while flying myself in FW including gliders, I have been in four genuinely life-threatening situations.
Two were due to my own stupidity when flying myself, and two were in helicopters.
I have remained alive by being more careful than I used to be, and most importantly, by avoiding helicopters as much as possible.
Last edited by Capot; 1st Jul 2012 at 15:27.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see the difficulty, so let's try limiting the database to non-commercial and non-military flights.
That should make the passenger carrying capacity more even.
What would be interesting is to have helicopter pilot's unprejudiced opinions, if possible.
Do heli-pilots feel safer flying fixed wing?
That should make the passenger carrying capacity more even.
What would be interesting is to have helicopter pilot's unprejudiced opinions, if possible.
Do heli-pilots feel safer flying fixed wing?
Originally Posted by Hasel Checks
What would be interesting is to have helicopter pilot's unprejudiced opinions, if possible.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the stats (and using the contents of the AAIB hangar as a marker) would be based far more on the experience levels of the pilots than the type of aviation. Hang-gliders and microlights/ultra light and gyrocopters give AAIB most trade. The hours flown in rotary in support of gas and oil drilling all year round in some pretty cack weather at times do much to demonstrate the safety of helicopter passenger carrying. Across the board flight safety culture and technology is having dividends in safety. The problem is that an airliner loss such as a TU154 will muddy the fiqures especially if a fundamentally safe aeroplane is lost due to insufficient maintenance or crew currency. How different from the seventies when aeroplanes seemed averse to flight and attracted to terra firma in small pieces.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apart from the unimpeachable facts that no other form of transport yet devised by mankind has saved more lives than it has taken, or that for many years the B206 Jetranger was the safest flying machine on the FAA register there is no case to ask, nor answer.
Despite helos being dependant on several dynamic systems essential to maintain controlled flight and planks are not there ought to be corresponding failure stats. The B206 safety case suggests that if it is present at all it isn't very significant.
There are some helos with a shocking safety (ie accident) record - like Gazelles, despite when in Military hands were one of the safest aircraft ever so the crash stats aren't a useful guide to safety of the aircraft itself, and believe me we used to do things in those old Gaz pieces that few civvies would have thought of. Its the people the aircraft attract that cause the stats, not the airframes.
The Mitsubishi MU2 is apparently a perfectly safe aircraft - if you treat it right. But then a Piper Cub is a brutal killer if you don't...(not quite sure how you'd achieve that but it must be possible). The Starfighter only got called the widowmaker in some countries, not others. Why do you suppose that was?
How can anyone make a scientific statement on such an open question?
Any aircraft is as safe as YOU make it.
And n response to the "safety aids" alluded to below. What the f*** are they? Things that prevent accidents - Oh yes? how? In confined site? Give over!
Fire extinguishers and fearnought suits are for after the accident, they have no bearing on safety as understood by prevention of the accident in the first place. In my book that stuff is response equipment, not safety related.
Despite helos being dependant on several dynamic systems essential to maintain controlled flight and planks are not there ought to be corresponding failure stats. The B206 safety case suggests that if it is present at all it isn't very significant.
There are some helos with a shocking safety (ie accident) record - like Gazelles, despite when in Military hands were one of the safest aircraft ever so the crash stats aren't a useful guide to safety of the aircraft itself, and believe me we used to do things in those old Gaz pieces that few civvies would have thought of. Its the people the aircraft attract that cause the stats, not the airframes.
The Mitsubishi MU2 is apparently a perfectly safe aircraft - if you treat it right. But then a Piper Cub is a brutal killer if you don't...(not quite sure how you'd achieve that but it must be possible). The Starfighter only got called the widowmaker in some countries, not others. Why do you suppose that was?
How can anyone make a scientific statement on such an open question?
Any aircraft is as safe as YOU make it.
And n response to the "safety aids" alluded to below. What the f*** are they? Things that prevent accidents - Oh yes? how? In confined site? Give over!
Fire extinguishers and fearnought suits are for after the accident, they have no bearing on safety as understood by prevention of the accident in the first place. In my book that stuff is response equipment, not safety related.
Last edited by Agaricus bisporus; 1st Jul 2012 at 20:04.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Penzance, Cornwall UK
Age: 84
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hours flown is rather misleading. I suggest the number of take-offs and landings ought to be considered. There could be several of these in the space of one flying hour. Very few of these would be at airfields with all the safety trimmings in place. Most of these (I'm thinking of my own experiences in Ulster) would have been in fairly confined spaces with no safety aids and as mentioned above in every type of weather, day or night. Not swinging the lamp, just giving an opinion.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then a Piper Cub is a brutal killer if you don't...(not quite sure how you'd achieve that but it must be possible).
.
Hasel Checks, for some sort of genuine compare i'm thinkin you would have to compare simular flight op's, e.g IFR heli and fixed wing op's from airport to airport, or perhaps heli and fixed wing mustering op's.... tho, even in mustering, fixed wing dont cover all the terrain types that helicopters do.
.
Hasel Checks, for some sort of genuine compare i'm thinkin you would have to compare simular flight op's, e.g IFR heli and fixed wing op's from airport to airport, or perhaps heli and fixed wing mustering op's.... tho, even in mustering, fixed wing dont cover all the terrain types that helicopters do.
.
or that for many years the B206 Jetranger was the safest flying machine on the FAA register
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On a more sensible note than my post earlier, I was involved years ago in the aftermath of a very nasty accident when a Bell 212 (I think) suffered a stopped rotor at 1,000ft over the Gulf (near Das) with 14 SOB or thereabouts. My task involved, among others things, listening to the ATC tape, which was dreadful.
The point struck me then, and still does, that what would be a minor problem in a FW aircraft very easily becomes a fatal one in a helicopter. On that occasion the rotor brake malfunctioned and caused the gear box to freeze, as I recall, which for a helicopter is the same as the wings coming off a fixed wing aircraft if an engine stops.
It's the vulnerability to upsets that makes a helicopter intrinsically less safe (note; NOT unsafe) than fixed wing. I have been in a number of auto-rotations, deliberate and unwanted, and give me a FW forced landing every time.
The point struck me then, and still does, that what would be a minor problem in a FW aircraft very easily becomes a fatal one in a helicopter. On that occasion the rotor brake malfunctioned and caused the gear box to freeze, as I recall, which for a helicopter is the same as the wings coming off a fixed wing aircraft if an engine stops.
It's the vulnerability to upsets that makes a helicopter intrinsically less safe (note; NOT unsafe) than fixed wing. I have been in a number of auto-rotations, deliberate and unwanted, and give me a FW forced landing every time.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
give me a FW forced landing every time.
In a RW you can often autorotate to a stop first, if necessary, then land.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,584
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The old adage "It is better to stop and then try to land than it is to land and then try to stop" is good for me.
And although might seem to presuppose a certain level of skill in stopping before you land it makes no different assumption in the land/stop case.
Which, when faced with a bollock level fencepost in the chosen field would you prefer?
Me? I hae nae doots!
And although might seem to presuppose a certain level of skill in stopping before you land it makes no different assumption in the land/stop case.
Which, when faced with a bollock level fencepost in the chosen field would you prefer?
Me? I hae nae doots!
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Which, when faced with a bollock level fencepost in the chosen field would you prefer?
Any comparison would have troubles with the basics:
a plank is dynamically stable, and it only crashes when the pilot makes it happen.
a chopper is dynamically unstable and the pilot is the only thing that stops it from crashing.
Big difference there.
a plank is dynamically stable, and it only crashes when the pilot makes it happen.
a chopper is dynamically unstable and the pilot is the only thing that stops it from crashing.
Big difference there.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Indeed. I attended a Cathay Pacific CRM course where they spoke of "the safety window" (this was safety altitude) and how it was important to be very cautious of operating below it, to the extent of considering it an emergency situation.
I told them that I seldom got the opportunity to operate at or above safety altitude. Quite a few ears pricked up, especially as we provided their SAR cover in that part of the world.
I told them that I seldom got the opportunity to operate at or above safety altitude. Quite a few ears pricked up, especially as we provided their SAR cover in that part of the world.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Binghi:
Good point, this brings home how difficult it is to compare the two.
I've witnessed close-up how Kiwi helicopter pilots use their machines for catching Red Deer, and the kinds of manoeuvres (and risks) they take are incomparable to fixed winged aircraft, (even crop spraying Fletchers!)
So whatever parameter was chosen to force a run-off, one could always dismiss it with the thought,
"Yes, but what is each machine accomplishing during its flight."
Interesting discussion though.
Hasel Checks, for some sort of genuine compare i'm thinkin you would have to compare simular flight op's, e.g IFR heli and fixed wing op's from airport to airport, or perhaps heli and fixed wing mustering op's.... tho, even in mustering, fixed wing dont cover all the terrain types that helicopters do.
I've witnessed close-up how Kiwi helicopter pilots use their machines for catching Red Deer, and the kinds of manoeuvres (and risks) they take are incomparable to fixed winged aircraft, (even crop spraying Fletchers!)
So whatever parameter was chosen to force a run-off, one could always dismiss it with the thought,
"Yes, but what is each machine accomplishing during its flight."
Interesting discussion though.
Last edited by Hasel Checks; 3rd Jul 2012 at 01:52.