Helicopter down in East River, NYC

[havick]

Latest installment from The NY Times;

http://https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/nyregion/flynyon-crash-helicopter-east-river.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

[Vertical Freedom]

That’s a frightening read....so basically all PAX where imprisoned without a hope in hell of escaping

[Hot and Hi]

The F.A.A. confirmed that it conducted “routine oversight” of Liberty’s operations on Oct. 31 and “observed supplemental harnesses outside a helicopter.” But a spokesman for the agency said that its inspectors would not have rendered judgment on the harnesses because supplemental restraints are not subject to inspection.

Mr FAA, I don’t think we’ll get away with this one.

[KiwiNedNZ]

But a spokesman for the agency said that its inspectors would not have rendered judgment on the harnesses because supplemental restraints are not subject to inspection.

So does that mean that if an FAA Inspector saw the harnesses and had concerns about their use ie: pax couldn't get out if in the water, then because the harnesses aren't subject to FAA inspection they would just go "oh well" and walk away.

[[email protected]]

The internal documents, and interviews with people familiar with FlyNYON’s operation and Mr. Vance’s account, paint a portrait of a company that at times appeared to put business concerns ahead of safety concerns as it scrambled to meet surging demand for a daring form of aerial tourism that it pioneered.

that about sums up the problem.

Let me be clear, this isn’t a safety issue with the harnesses,” Patrick K. Day, the chief executive of FlyNYON, said in a January email exchange with pilots who had raised concerns.

I hope Mr Day gets his ass sued, or even better, a spell in jail.

[Nubian]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

that about sums up the problem.

I hope Mr Day gets his ass sued, or even better, a spell in jail.

I think he's part of the group that is sued already, but if not, he surely will be.

[WillyPete]

It looks like the FAA had made some decisions about safety harnesses, just not enforcing them on the industry.
Social media trends move faster than a regulatory body.

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/fly...rs-off-flight/

Both Liberty and FlyNYON’s own pilots expressed a preference for more expensive blue harnesses that had been certified for helicopter operations by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), were a better fit for more of FlyNYON’s passengers, and had a lower, more accessible attachment point at the small of the wearer’s back.

Yet FlyNYON’s CEO, Patrick Day, Jr., had dismissed their concerns and discouraged further questions about the yellow harnesses.

“Pilots . . . Let me be clear, this isn’t a safety issue with the harnesses, the pilot may not query about the harness,” Day wrote in an email dated Jan. 17. “If they have an issue as with all issues that aren’t safety related they can take it to their Cheif [sic] pilot who can address it with me.”

[FlimsyFan]

Maybe I am overly sensitive, but I find it surprising that the company involved is busy posting on social media its busy ongoing tour flight schedule. Something along the lines of media causing a fuss, let NTSB do their thing.

Each to their own, but it seems a bit inappropriate to me.

[EESDL]

Failings of SMS - they ticked the boxes so all was well
Accountable Manager and CP disconnect.
AM just a greedy ignoramous (in aviation safety and management)

SMS would have worked if CEO of the brokering/crowd-sourcing part of the business was not allowed to over rule the CP; and CP acted on pilots’ feedback and professional opinion.
Afterall, why bother with pilots meetings?

CEO needs to go to jail where he can learn about ‘accountability’

[Airbubba]

Yet another analysis of the mishap and the lack of escape scenarios for the doomed pax in this article by Eric Adams. He was a pax on the sister FlyNYON helo N355AG.


https://www.wired.com/story/helicopt...cape-training/

[Cyclic Hotline]

Let's contemplate two very different, extremely unlikely scenarios.

1. A fully loaded airliner suffering a double engine power loss and ditching in the East River.

2. A float-equipped, single-engine helicopter, with no passenger doors installed, suffering a power loss and performing a well-executed autorotation, with float deployment, in the East River.

Now, anticipate the likely outcomes, and consider any external factors that might alter that consideration.

Inexcusable...

[TylerMonkey]

If the FAA’s mandate is to ensure safety for all fare paying passengers in aviation , then when the seatbelts are off and you are left relying on a “supplemental” harness that is still physically attached to the airframe you don’t think they would consider that system having any potential flaws ? Seems like a dereliction of duty . . . or maybe it’s just me.

[roscoe1]

If you ask me

Yes, you can look at it that way. The FAA will be in CYA mode I suspect. It is a loop hole that they didn't see coming....I'm sure they don't even know what a "shoe selfie" is or that you would need to unbuckle your seat belt to capture one. All quite legal with an opened door. You don't even need to wear any kind of tether up until now. It is in the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" category.

[SASless]

Cyclic, Back in the day when Eastern Airlines flew NYC-MIA....the FAA decided in its infinite wisdom that 727’s being three engined were statistically immune from a need to ditch on that route.

About three weeks later a bumbled fingered FE managed to flameout all three engines.

The crew got them all running again before any one got their feet wet.

The FAA then ordered the re-installation of rafts and jackets for those flights having approved their removal just weeks before!

[FH1100 Pilot]

It might be worth adding here that under FAR Part 135, no restraint OF ANY KIND was required of the FlyNYON pax. Remember, restraints (seat belts) are only required for takeoff and landing. It is perfectly permissible for passengers to unbuckle and indeed walk around the cabin, even on airline flights! And evidently the AS350 has no prohibition against open-door ops.

So FlyNYON probably thought they were going above and beyond the FAA's requirements by providing the additional harness to keep the pax from falling/jumping out in flight. Ultimately this turned out to be a huge mistake.

I can understand the pilots' resistance. Every idiot helicopter pilot knows that when a helicopter goes in the water it inevitably "turns turtle" as all of the weight is up top. Every idiot helicopter pilot knows that helicopters often burn after they crash (especially Astars). Oh, so let's tether the pax in with screw-type carabiners with attach points that are BEHIND them! Great idea!

Too bad the pilots weren't more forceful in their objections. I'm sure some of them probably saw this coming. Too bad FlyNYON's management wasn't more experienced in flight ops. For they *should* have seen this coming.

[LRP]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

It might be worth adding here that under FAR Part 135, no restraint OF ANY KIND was required of the FlyNYON pax. Remember, restraints (seat belts) are only required for takeoff and landing. It is perfectly permissible for passengers to unbuckle and indeed walk around the cabin, even on airline flights! And evidently the AS350 has no prohibition against open-door ops.

So FlyNYON probably thought they were going above and beyond the FAA's requirements by providing the additional harness to keep the pax from falling/jumping out in flight. Ultimately this turned out to be a huge mistake.

I can understand the pilots' resistance. Every idiot helicopter pilot knows that when a helicopter goes in the water it inevitably "turns turtle" as all of the weight is up top. Every idiot helicopter pilot knows that helicopters often burn after they crash (especially Astars). Oh, so let's tether the pax in with screw-type carabiners with attach points that are BEHIND them! Great idea!

Too bad the pilots weren't more forceful in their objections. I'm sure some of them probably saw this coming. Too bad FlyNYON's management wasn't more experienced in flight ops. For they *should* have seen this coming.

§91.13 Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.


I think the FAA has a copy of this.

Just sayin'

[FH1100 Pilot]

Kind of vague, don't you think?

[LRP]

Originally Posted by FH1100 Pilot

Kind of vague, don't you think?

It is, no argument there.

However if you were to advertise a "doors-off" tour and tell the customers that they were free to remove the seatbelt after takeoff and move about the open cabin to take photographs, my guess is that your FAA Inspector would be all over you.

The harness was obviously a risk mitigation and the FAA knew it. Now they're acting shocked.

[havick]

Originally Posted by LRP

It is, no argument there.

However if you were to advertise a "doors-off" tour and tell the customers that they were free to remove the seatbelt after takeoff and move about the open cabin to take photographs, my guess is that your FAA Inspector would be all over you.

The harness was obviously a risk mitigation and the FAA knew it. Now they're acting shocked.

Yet everyone else who operates with harnesses/wander leads do not utilize fixed harnesses (ie screw type attachment without a quick release mechanism), nor are the people wearing harnesses typically walk up passengers (I suppose NYONAIR call them professional photographers but I’m pretty sure a judge will disagree).

[roscoe1]

Originally Posted by LRP

It is, no argument there.

However if you were to advertise a "doors-off" tour and tell the customers that they were free to remove the seatbelt after takeoff and move about the open cabin to take photographs, my guess is that your FAA Inspector would be all over you.

The harness was obviously a risk mitigation and the FAA knew it. Now they're acting shocked.

That is precisely why open door flights should be banned for the general public unless seatbelts are worn all the time OR the FAA needs a new regulation that states that open door flights in helicopters OR airplanes may only be conducted when FAA approved harnesses are in use. Vendors will then produce harnesses with quick release tethers that are made to a (new) appropriate TSO and then just as seat belts need only meet a TSO they can be used in any aircraft when installation is signed off by a mechanic (or a pilot if deemed appropriate). Make removal and installation a minor alteration and be done with it.