Millionaire helicopter pilots to ferry emergency services...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC
Not sure why you conclude this must be "for hire or reward" and hence requires an AOC. There are other voluntary groups in UK providing both fixed and rotary wing resources to other agencies and CAA has cleared their activities as not being aerial work, not requiring commercial pilots or an AOC. Obviously this give them no breaks from the low flying rule, etc, but anything they do has to be planned to be legal and safe within those rules.
Also, just because pilot time & machine cost is given for free does not mean the pilots are inadequate in some way. In addition to the comment about hrs being more important than CPL/PPL (though as JP is CPL I am not sure why that old prjudice was dragged out and beaten-up), I know one voluntary group that has many current commercial pilots who give time generously to command their, or someone else's, aircraft. Included amongst these pilots are big tin pilots, big tin training captains, current CPL(H), ex military, ex-north sea heli and at least one ex SAR pilots. There are a number of PPL (both sort) also and typically it is the latter group that also own the aircraft and therefore take the hit for machine cost.
My view? Get off his case. He is doing something that the fire service concerned appear to want, he has CAA and other rules with which to comply, and from the posts of the only chap who is talking to him he seems to be taking things seriously and sensibly. If his planned activites are inside regulations and they are safe then "hat's off" to him. If they are no, he has so many people watching intently that he is going to fall fould of the CAA.
Of course, those with experience (and I am being serious, not sarcastic) could volunteer some valuable time with him to help set this up, get the right SOPs, etc.
I think the comment about "dedicated resource" was right - too costly. If the Police machine is doing nothing, then use that. But is it so bad to have individuals volunteering their machiens, at their own cost, to help out? Singles:- I know; but they are what individuals generally (not always) own. What if this was seen to be so useful that commercial pilots - such as yourselves - were contracted to command the flight (paid, etc) - not a full-time job but adding to the flight time and pay that you do get?
As an industry, taking a "glass-half-full" attitude and helping with this seems to me to be much more likely to bring more helicopter work into the UK.
Not sure why you conclude this must be "for hire or reward" and hence requires an AOC. There are other voluntary groups in UK providing both fixed and rotary wing resources to other agencies and CAA has cleared their activities as not being aerial work, not requiring commercial pilots or an AOC. Obviously this give them no breaks from the low flying rule, etc, but anything they do has to be planned to be legal and safe within those rules.
Also, just because pilot time & machine cost is given for free does not mean the pilots are inadequate in some way. In addition to the comment about hrs being more important than CPL/PPL (though as JP is CPL I am not sure why that old prjudice was dragged out and beaten-up), I know one voluntary group that has many current commercial pilots who give time generously to command their, or someone else's, aircraft. Included amongst these pilots are big tin pilots, big tin training captains, current CPL(H), ex military, ex-north sea heli and at least one ex SAR pilots. There are a number of PPL (both sort) also and typically it is the latter group that also own the aircraft and therefore take the hit for machine cost.
My view? Get off his case. He is doing something that the fire service concerned appear to want, he has CAA and other rules with which to comply, and from the posts of the only chap who is talking to him he seems to be taking things seriously and sensibly. If his planned activites are inside regulations and they are safe then "hat's off" to him. If they are no, he has so many people watching intently that he is going to fall fould of the CAA.
Of course, those with experience (and I am being serious, not sarcastic) could volunteer some valuable time with him to help set this up, get the right SOPs, etc.
I think the comment about "dedicated resource" was right - too costly. If the Police machine is doing nothing, then use that. But is it so bad to have individuals volunteering their machiens, at their own cost, to help out? Singles:- I know; but they are what individuals generally (not always) own. What if this was seen to be so useful that commercial pilots - such as yourselves - were contracted to command the flight (paid, etc) - not a full-time job but adding to the flight time and pay that you do get?
As an industry, taking a "glass-half-full" attitude and helping with this seems to me to be much more likely to bring more helicopter work into the UK.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,579
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
During three and a half decades of flying for a living I've lost over two dozen colleagues and friends. Some of the deceased were very close, including my best friend, who was doing the same job as myself at the time of his accident.
I'm deliberately not joining in the "strongly against" campaign on this subject but there's one thing I have learned always to bear in mind.
It's this: "What would the accident inquiry and/or the insurance company have to say?"
The latter is of increasing importance, irrespective of what we would like.
I'm deliberately not joining in the "strongly against" campaign on this subject but there's one thing I have learned always to bear in mind.
It's this: "What would the accident inquiry and/or the insurance company have to say?"
The latter is of increasing importance, irrespective of what we would like.
TC
1. Not my mate, have done 2 x LPC's over the past 2 years.
2. The rule is 1000ft and be able to alight without danger to people or property
3. You do not need to have an AOC for what he proposes to do as he is not flying for hire or reward. He is giving his time and aircraft away so he can do what he likes.
If it is classed as aerial work as long as the pilot has a cpl then under EASA he can carry pax as long as they are directly related to the task, I think max is 8 but stand to be corrected.
4. What is wrong with the fire service looking at all aspects ? JP is sensible enough to say no and already has done
Perhaps have a look at the rules / posts before posting
I am playing devils advocate here, if nothing else to have an interesting discussion. On that point if single engine is so dangerous why did the UK mil put 341's over Belfast and why do the FAA and most non European countries allow flight over built up areas ?
1. Not my mate, have done 2 x LPC's over the past 2 years.
2. The rule is 1000ft and be able to alight without danger to people or property
3. You do not need to have an AOC for what he proposes to do as he is not flying for hire or reward. He is giving his time and aircraft away so he can do what he likes.
If it is classed as aerial work as long as the pilot has a cpl then under EASA he can carry pax as long as they are directly related to the task, I think max is 8 but stand to be corrected.
4. What is wrong with the fire service looking at all aspects ? JP is sensible enough to say no and already has done
Perhaps have a look at the rules / posts before posting
I am playing devils advocate here, if nothing else to have an interesting discussion. On that point if single engine is so dangerous why did the UK mil put 341's over Belfast and why do the FAA and most non European countries allow flight over built up areas ?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
H500
Mmmm,
H500; "Ok guys Mr P spoke to me today to ask for my advice on what he had been asked to do by the Brigade, namely to use a longline under the heli with a fireman on the end, to water rescue people He was very concerned that this was not a safe thing to do and asked if I would do such a thing.."
If JP had asked JohnR81 and he told JP that they do it in other places around the world, and showed him the video found on this site, ecms Aviation Systems GmbH » Human External Cargo I have the sneaky suspicion that he would go with it.
Fortunately, IMHO, he didn't!
What is wrong with the fire service looking at all aspects ? JP is sensible enough to say no and already has done
H500; "Ok guys Mr P spoke to me today to ask for my advice on what he had been asked to do by the Brigade, namely to use a longline under the heli with a fireman on the end, to water rescue people He was very concerned that this was not a safe thing to do and asked if I would do such a thing.."
If JP had asked JohnR81 and he told JP that they do it in other places around the world, and showed him the video found on this site, ecms Aviation Systems GmbH » Human External Cargo I have the sneaky suspicion that he would go with it.
Fortunately, IMHO, he didn't!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
On that point if single engine is so dangerous why did the UK mil put 341's over Belfast
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SS
You paint me in a bad light. Look through my posts and you would see that I would not act the way you suggest.
Are you taking side-swipes because you don't have a constructive objection, just an emotional one?
You paint me in a bad light. Look through my posts and you would see that I would not act the way you suggest.
Are you taking side-swipes because you don't have a constructive objection, just an emotional one?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Age: 71
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance is an important limitation to such "innovative hele operations".The main ones that matter are the aircraft insurance and employers' liability for the fire service.
If the underwriters are not told ahead of this "trial" they would simply walk away from any accident, if it occurred. If they were told, do you think for one moment they would be happy to insure the operations? I doubt it very much and there would certainly be a MASSIVE hike in premium. You are legally obliged to tell an insurer about anything that an insurer might want to know about that affects the risk of what they insure.
Questions about needing an AOC are (in my view) not at all certain: it is not at all certain that "gain" could be proven. However,it is undoubtedly the case that an aircraft needs to be insured to fly legally. Just having a cert of insurance does NOT make the aircraft insured, no matter what. Explicit and implied limitations exist which will render insurance invalid.
If H500 does nothing else, can I suggest he encourages JP to approach his insurer, to tell them about what is planned.
As the only helicopter aviation expertise apparently involved, JP's response to the proposition to dangle a fireman under his hele on a rope, does not give much faith in his risk management skills.
Until people have really been involved in emergency operations, it is easy for them to fail to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the heroic actions of a person who gets involved in an ad-hoc rescue by chance AND the person or organisation who plans to get involved in emergency work.
If the underwriters are not told ahead of this "trial" they would simply walk away from any accident, if it occurred. If they were told, do you think for one moment they would be happy to insure the operations? I doubt it very much and there would certainly be a MASSIVE hike in premium. You are legally obliged to tell an insurer about anything that an insurer might want to know about that affects the risk of what they insure.
Questions about needing an AOC are (in my view) not at all certain: it is not at all certain that "gain" could be proven. However,it is undoubtedly the case that an aircraft needs to be insured to fly legally. Just having a cert of insurance does NOT make the aircraft insured, no matter what. Explicit and implied limitations exist which will render insurance invalid.
If H500 does nothing else, can I suggest he encourages JP to approach his insurer, to tell them about what is planned.
As the only helicopter aviation expertise apparently involved, JP's response to the proposition to dangle a fireman under his hele on a rope, does not give much faith in his risk management skills.
Until people have really been involved in emergency operations, it is easy for them to fail to understand that there is a fundamental difference between the heroic actions of a person who gets involved in an ad-hoc rescue by chance AND the person or organisation who plans to get involved in emergency work.
As a doctor the last thing I need is an offer of a lift from Mr P. As with all doctors I am required to live within 10 miles of my hospital so Mr P won't have checked his tail rotor before I am in theatre, and anyhow I work there in the day so the only time I need a lift is in the dark.
As a specialist in working on road traffic accidents for 20 years I have never needed any US cutting gear. The normal stuff is fine.
And most importantly I need the fire commander on the ground with me not 2000 feet above.
The London Fire Brigade seriously looked at a dedicated helicopter some 12 years ago, using a 117 we had been trialing previously. I was told it was a failure even in central London where senior officer access, tall buildings etc might be an issue.
I often see wealthy benefactors desperate to help hospitals. One of the most difficult issues is to direct their money where it is needed not where they think it is needed. Given that this is most likely the case here, Mr P needs wise council from a senior fire officer but not the understandable slagging he is getting here
As a specialist in working on road traffic accidents for 20 years I have never needed any US cutting gear. The normal stuff is fine.
And most importantly I need the fire commander on the ground with me not 2000 feet above.
The London Fire Brigade seriously looked at a dedicated helicopter some 12 years ago, using a 117 we had been trialing previously. I was told it was a failure even in central London where senior officer access, tall buildings etc might be an issue.
I often see wealthy benefactors desperate to help hospitals. One of the most difficult issues is to direct their money where it is needed not where they think it is needed. Given that this is most likely the case here, Mr P needs wise council from a senior fire officer but not the understandable slagging he is getting here
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Sorry if there's any confusion JohnR81
I re-read this thread each time I find something interesting and although initially you seemed to follow suit, your recent post of;
...seems to fully support the idea of continuing with the planned activities.
I'm sure that most of us on seing the request of "using a longline under the heli with a fireman on the end, to water rescue people", said something along the lines of clucking bell. I just got the impression from your post that you may suggest to go ahead as it had been done elsewhere.
Apologies if this was misinterpreted
I re-read this thread each time I find something interesting and although initially you seemed to follow suit, your recent post of;
My view? Get off his case. He is doing something that the fire service concerned appear to want, he has CAA and other rules with which to comply, and from the posts of the only chap who is talking to him he seems to be taking things seriously and sensibly. If his planned activites are inside regulations and they are safe then "hat's off" to him. If they are no, he has so many people watching intently that he is going to fall fould of the CAA.
I'm sure that most of us on seing the request of "using a longline under the heli with a fireman on the end, to water rescue people", said something along the lines of clucking bell. I just got the impression from your post that you may suggest to go ahead as it had been done elsewhere.
Apologies if this was misinterpreted
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,579
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
The suspension of a person under the aircraft on a rope would need a specific CAA permission in any case; it's not something to be attempted just because someone asks. Knowing the CAA stance on singles, I doubt it would be allowed in any planned circumstances.
There was a certain pilot who was prosecuted by the CAA because someone accidentally became entangled in the USL gear after load pick up. First thing the pilot knew about it was when the same "hooker up" appeared underneath the helicopter at the drop site, unhooking the underslung load.
There was a certain pilot who was prosecuted by the CAA because someone accidentally became entangled in the USL gear after load pick up. First thing the pilot knew about it was when the same "hooker up" appeared underneath the helicopter at the drop site, unhooking the underslung load.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suspension of a person under the aircraft on a rope would need a specific CAA permission in any case
I've been involved with doing it a few times in the UK in a UK reg machine. We had to be an ME with either SSE at all times or, more likely, flyaway once the "load" had been landed and cut away. We didn't use the SACRU although we could have done with a secondary safety device (send a stamped adressed postcard for details).
All approved by the CAA of course. Not recommended under a single though.
A million years ago, we had CAA permission to carry a trapeze artist on a long line under a 47 - he wasn't attached so it was kind of irrelevent if the engine had quit - he could have fallen off anyway - those were the days *sighs*...
DB - only a teeny weeny bit
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Bristol
Age: 54
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SilsoeSid - "I'm sure that most of us on seing the request of "using a longline under the heli with a fireman on the end, to water rescue people", said something along the lines of clucking bell."
Funnily enough, that was my reaction, and the reaction of the watch when told! Along with 'Cluck off'.........
Funnily enough, that was my reaction, and the reaction of the watch when told! Along with 'Cluck off'.........
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Locally, the ambulance service(Greater Manchester) use those big white modified commercial vehicles with loads of kit and lights and sirens and two crew and loads of risk assessments and other stuff.
They also have Volvo estates (NOT the biggest one) one man and a bit of kit,bells whistles and jam-butty stripes.
Then they have MOTORCYCLES........so how the fxxk does that work?..... some sort of Tardis-feature in the panniers that it can carry all the kit that an ambulance carries?
Of course not! depending on circumstances, the car or M/Cyc. can arrive long before the "meat-wagon" , Assess and perhaps stabilise the patient and thereby "stretch" the "Golden hour" thereby SAVING LIVES.
Also, a revelation to many, a fair proportion of the ambulances and crews are run by part-time volunteers (St. John Ambulance ) No longer do they buy castoffs ,but new kit, fully trained personnel and these people are the equal of the full-timers directly employed regulars and are treated equally.
the same considerations "could" apply to the "volunteer heli service"
I don't think anyone's suggesting they'll ever take the place of a multi-million pound fully equipped dedicated machine, but as with the motorcycle , many a housefire has been put out with a saucepan or garden hose.
Anyone remember the cops poncing about at a 3 foot deep lake whilst a kiddy drowned?..... same mindset appears here on this thread, certain posters appear to be so brainwashed by institutionalised ar5e covering, they've forgotten to think constructively.
Sone of the wilder flights of fancy are obvious non-starters...as for remote surveillance, there are many R/C helo cameraship operators in the USA.....in the case of a RTA, the model can be up, transmitting live TV and taking high-quality stills, whilst the full-size is still in transit.
Don't be arrogant and dismiss the "volunteers" out of hand!....have you ever stopped to think, " who trained the professionals, where did the trainers learn?"
Empirical knowledge or self-appointed "experts" that's how!
Sit down, analyse and collate and suddenly you have a professional framework.....add all the back -covering and then Nero starts fiddling whilst Rome burns.
Of course this is all total crap, 'cos after all, I'm not a professional, so therefore don't know what i'm talking about.
They also have Volvo estates (NOT the biggest one) one man and a bit of kit,bells whistles and jam-butty stripes.
Then they have MOTORCYCLES........so how the fxxk does that work?..... some sort of Tardis-feature in the panniers that it can carry all the kit that an ambulance carries?
Of course not! depending on circumstances, the car or M/Cyc. can arrive long before the "meat-wagon" , Assess and perhaps stabilise the patient and thereby "stretch" the "Golden hour" thereby SAVING LIVES.
Also, a revelation to many, a fair proportion of the ambulances and crews are run by part-time volunteers (St. John Ambulance ) No longer do they buy castoffs ,but new kit, fully trained personnel and these people are the equal of the full-timers directly employed regulars and are treated equally.
the same considerations "could" apply to the "volunteer heli service"
I don't think anyone's suggesting they'll ever take the place of a multi-million pound fully equipped dedicated machine, but as with the motorcycle , many a housefire has been put out with a saucepan or garden hose.
Anyone remember the cops poncing about at a 3 foot deep lake whilst a kiddy drowned?..... same mindset appears here on this thread, certain posters appear to be so brainwashed by institutionalised ar5e covering, they've forgotten to think constructively.
Sone of the wilder flights of fancy are obvious non-starters...as for remote surveillance, there are many R/C helo cameraship operators in the USA.....in the case of a RTA, the model can be up, transmitting live TV and taking high-quality stills, whilst the full-size is still in transit.
Don't be arrogant and dismiss the "volunteers" out of hand!....have you ever stopped to think, " who trained the professionals, where did the trainers learn?"
Empirical knowledge or self-appointed "experts" that's how!
Sit down, analyse and collate and suddenly you have a professional framework.....add all the back -covering and then Nero starts fiddling whilst Rome burns.
Of course this is all total crap, 'cos after all, I'm not a professional, so therefore don't know what i'm talking about.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,579
Received 435 Likes
on
229 Posts
Cockney Steve,
I don't think any of the contributors to this thread would hesitate for one second to do whatever it took to rescue someone if it was possible at the time, and some already have. Unfortunately, a single, spur of the moment, risky/lucky/courageous act is one thing. Planning to achieve a rescue by helicopter is a different matter and needs a proper risk assessment and the proper equipment and training for it to be acceptable.
I once turned down a "spur of the moment" SAR mission in a police helicopter in very severe weather (night, heavy snowfall and thick fog) because I knew the risk to the aircraft was too great. The likelihood of finding, let alone rescuing, the lost persons was unlikely because the search area was enormous, there wasn't even a known start point. At that stage it wasn't even certain that the persons needed rescuing, but it was known that they were well equipped to stay out overnight. I was strongly criticised at the time by the control room supervisor, a senior policeman. He tried to call out another police helicopter from a neighbouring force and then RAF Search and Rescue. Both declined the job, for exactly the same reasons as myself. The following day, the lost persons walked out of the hills, fit, healthy, totally unharmed and happy and returned home, blissfully unaware that a rescue mission was even being considered.
Had I flown the mission and had an accident, (and with three persons on board as against two "survivors"), who would have been held responsible? Not the senior policeman, not the "survivors".....just me.
Sometimes we shouldn't try to learn from scratch from our own mistakes, we should learn from the experience of others. Sometimes that involves saying NO!
I don't think any of the contributors to this thread would hesitate for one second to do whatever it took to rescue someone if it was possible at the time, and some already have. Unfortunately, a single, spur of the moment, risky/lucky/courageous act is one thing. Planning to achieve a rescue by helicopter is a different matter and needs a proper risk assessment and the proper equipment and training for it to be acceptable.
I once turned down a "spur of the moment" SAR mission in a police helicopter in very severe weather (night, heavy snowfall and thick fog) because I knew the risk to the aircraft was too great. The likelihood of finding, let alone rescuing, the lost persons was unlikely because the search area was enormous, there wasn't even a known start point. At that stage it wasn't even certain that the persons needed rescuing, but it was known that they were well equipped to stay out overnight. I was strongly criticised at the time by the control room supervisor, a senior policeman. He tried to call out another police helicopter from a neighbouring force and then RAF Search and Rescue. Both declined the job, for exactly the same reasons as myself. The following day, the lost persons walked out of the hills, fit, healthy, totally unharmed and happy and returned home, blissfully unaware that a rescue mission was even being considered.
Had I flown the mission and had an accident, (and with three persons on board as against two "survivors"), who would have been held responsible? Not the senior policeman, not the "survivors".....just me.
Sometimes we shouldn't try to learn from scratch from our own mistakes, we should learn from the experience of others. Sometimes that involves saying NO!
Last edited by ShyTorque; 1st Dec 2012 at 16:36. Reason: correction to grammar and insert link.
SS
Not sure if it was my eyesight but didnt see an earthing line, although I have never done anything like that I have had belts from a longlining 500's when my turn to hook up loads, dont normally use an earth line keeps the ground crew on their toes, plus dont get a huge belt, different in a BK117 I am syre
Not sure if it was my eyesight but didnt see an earthing line, although I have never done anything like that I have had belts from a longlining 500's when my turn to hook up loads, dont normally use an earth line keeps the ground crew on their toes, plus dont get a huge belt, different in a BK117 I am syre
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
The saying I remind myself of, goes something like:
'The secret to flying is not knowing how to fly, it's knowing when not to'.
'The secret to flying is not knowing how to fly, it's knowing when not to'.