Helicopter down in East River, NYC
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another tragic loss. I must admit that in the past I have dissuaded my own immediate family from flying on sightseeing trips such as this one, in at least three different countries. Having assessed the overall risks involved I just didn't want them unknowingly exposed to them. As someone who has earned my living flying helicopters, I wish I didn't have reason to say that.
I find myself in an odd position here as someone who very recently recommended the tourist flight in NYC to friends for a summer trip. I did it many year back and it's a great flight. For layout reasons I'd told them to go Bell. I had mentioned these photography flights as I know a friend who did one but assumed the price would be way too much for my friends. I thought the photography flights were two PAX only and knew they were using harnesses but hadn't thought much about how the harnesses worked nor how they would work under mental or physical stress or if anchor point was submerged/not level.
If I was living in NYC I suspect I would have had a ride on one of these photography flights as I do enjoy doors off flying (in the summer).
Returning to the accident itself, one factor that hasn't been mentioned much is the surprise/shock/panic for PAX from the MR hitting the water, looks like about 4s after the big splash.
I have never seen a passenger harness used in a helicopter operation that was not of the quick release type. I'm absolutely staggered to learn that they were using those harnesses.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: London, UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For reference, one previous water entry (for a 206B with no floats) where some PAX got out, some didn't, (presumably standard Bell harness up front and lap belts in the back):
Helicopter down in NYC (Oct 2011)
I hadn't read the end of that episode. It's sad to see that getting out and prompt medical attention don't always lead to a good outcome.
Helicopter down in NYC (Oct 2011)
I hadn't read the end of that episode. It's sad to see that getting out and prompt medical attention don't always lead to a good outcome.
Last edited by FairWeatherFlyer; 19th Mar 2018 at 14:05. Reason: adding type and float info
The entire set of circumstances is really beyond belief. A well-executed emergency ditching in calm conditions, on a busy waterway inside a major city, with the doors already removed, so no hindrance to the pax exiting the cabin even in a potentially very dangerous situation.
And the pax who have never been in this aircraft before, have no prior knowledge or practical training on the actual process for separating themselves from the aircraft, in a process that would be a challenge to many trained aircrewmen, let alone someone who just walked off the street and now finds themselves in an emergency situation beyond their comprehension or experience.
Here you go, here's your knife!
A complete, utter and total failure of the regulator and everyone else that allowed this situation to occur. It is inconceivable that a fare-paying occupant could be put in a situation like this and die in a wholly survivable occurrence on a busy waterway in one of the great cities of the United States.
Completely and totally unacceptable.
My sympathies are with the innocent pax that died, and the families that survive them. You deserve everything the legal system awards you.
And for the all the others involved, sadly you will pay dearly for what you did and what has occurred here. But you all created it.
And the pax who have never been in this aircraft before, have no prior knowledge or practical training on the actual process for separating themselves from the aircraft, in a process that would be a challenge to many trained aircrewmen, let alone someone who just walked off the street and now finds themselves in an emergency situation beyond their comprehension or experience.
Here you go, here's your knife!
A complete, utter and total failure of the regulator and everyone else that allowed this situation to occur. It is inconceivable that a fare-paying occupant could be put in a situation like this and die in a wholly survivable occurrence on a busy waterway in one of the great cities of the United States.
Completely and totally unacceptable.
My sympathies are with the innocent pax that died, and the families that survive them. You deserve everything the legal system awards you.
And for the all the others involved, sadly you will pay dearly for what you did and what has occurred here. But you all created it.
It does worry me though that the NTSB have no teeth and doubtless, the FAA will file it away in: Investigation complete; where it will gather dust.
I would imagine the ONLY major changes from this is to replace all current harnesses designed this way and to beef up the ditching brief.
We don't want to harm the industry now do we?
With luck the real 'game changers' will be the demise of this company and a massive increase in insurance premiums. That'll make operators sit up and listen.
I would imagine the ONLY major changes from this is to replace all current harnesses designed this way and to beef up the ditching brief.
We don't want to harm the industry now do we?
With luck the real 'game changers' will be the demise of this company and a massive increase in insurance premiums. That'll make operators sit up and listen.
This was a horrible accident. With all the emphasis on the type of harness used we should not lose sight of the fact that based on what they believe to be known, this was not the cause of this accident. The preliminary cause is that something yanked the lever. This could still have been the case with any kind of harness you use. How do you avoid that in ships where that potential exists. That can obviously happen with a regular doors on flight if loose objects are moved. A less than perfect autorotation is not that uncommon when the circumstances are a real emergency so the quick release is critical but successful egress is still required and that may depend on where you are flying and what you have to land on when the lever is snagged.
This was a horrible accident. With all the emphasis on the type of harness used we should not lose sight of the fact that based on what they believe to be known, this was not the cause of this accident. The preliminary cause is that something yanked the lever. This could still have been the case with any kind of harness you use. How do you avoid that in ships where that potential exists. That can obviously happen with a regular doors on flight if loose objects are moved. A less than perfect autorotation is not that uncommon when the circumstances are a real emergency so the quick release is critical but successful egress is still required and that may depend on where you are flying and what you have to land on when the lever is snagged.
A) they weren’t in a harness at all.
B) had a quick release (3 ring type) harness or similar.
The whole type of harness thing is more an argument for a civil suit for damages and apportioning blame for the deaths.
But I agree with you that the accident wouldn’t have happened in the first place if no one was wearing a harness (no tether/wander lead to snag the FCL).
NTSB Press release
Damage to the industry .....
......already done and dusted.
FAA are in regulation free fall - Twitter ? For heaven’s sake!
Can pax relatives take FAA to court for lack of safety oversight?
I almost admired US’s ease of airspace use until you realise that it’s just another way of ignoring the blinding obvious - an almost ‘Devil may care’ view.
Looks like the helicopter provider and certificate holder - the operator? - will take the brunt of it, with the ‘broker/enabler’ in hot pursuit to the bottom.
FAA are in regulation free fall - Twitter ? For heaven’s sake!
Can pax relatives take FAA to court for lack of safety oversight?
I almost admired US’s ease of airspace use until you realise that it’s just another way of ignoring the blinding obvious - an almost ‘Devil may care’ view.
Looks like the helicopter provider and certificate holder - the operator? - will take the brunt of it, with the ‘broker/enabler’ in hot pursuit to the bottom.
TC .... that’s easy for an old retired codger like you to say . I wonder how you would have reacted 30 years ago when you were still nice and loved the business you were entering??!! Higher premiums do not help safety and never have ...all they do is price people out of the business. ( but it would not effect the big charter boys as much ). I do agree that whoever thought tying your pax to the aircraft was a good idea cannot be a pilot . I worry about being able to undo my basic seatbelt in a ditching ....... I wouldn’t fly without knowing a quick fool proof method of releasing.
TC is closer to the mark than most grasp.
The NTSB can only make Recommendations and the FAA’s ponderous bureaucracy and convulated Rule making process can make a Saint curse!
I am amused the Tweeting thing seems to coming into vogue in Washington DC.
The NTSB can only make Recommendations and the FAA’s ponderous bureaucracy and convulated Rule making process can make a Saint curse!
I am amused the Tweeting thing seems to coming into vogue in Washington DC.
NigelH - how the devil are you - long time no stalk?
I am deeply involved in aviation litigation currently for a very big client.
You have to understand this:
The regulator is suddenly waking up to the fact that they need to be more defensive as to who owns the risk when an incident happens. Hold that thought.
The owner/operator won't find it in their interest to 'hold the risk' - they will assume that if the regulator tells them they are following the rules, then all is well - and the regulator (because the rules and regs are being followed) holds the risk.
We therefore have s stand off between advce/guidance/rules given by the regulator and the way an operator carries out their operation (thinking they are fine because they have followed that advice etc).
So in this incident, the operator "appears" to have followed the rules regarding pax/photex trips. Harnesses, briefs, insurance etc etc.
But who actually holds the risk?
When an incident surfaces, this anomally is centre stage:
Has the FAA/CAA issued the correct guidelenes. Are they guidelines or are they mandatory? Has the regulator derisked the operation when they gave them their operators licence? Is the regulator responsible for actively policing operations?
Enter stage right - the lawyer and the insurance underwriter.
While debate is ongoing between regulator and operator, either in or out of court, the underwriter and the lawyer look at the risk and who actually owns it (they are looking from outside the industry) and they plot to mitigate the actual cause and plan to minimise future risks.
So the lawyer sues anything that moves and the underwriter ramps up premiums to reduce or buffer future claims.
I guess the point is - does the industry need the occasional spring clean in these two areas ( or to put it bluntly - does that part of the industry need a rocket under its ar*e) to make it realise that the risk really sits fairly and squarely with the person bringing the risk to the show - the OPERATOR.
Nigel - ignore this at your peril:
In this modern age, when you bring risk to "innocent third parties" (IE: people who are not familiar with risk, or simply want a good time, or don't expect to be hurt), you need to reduce this risk to ALARP.
One of the mitigators towards ALARP is: A very healthy insurance policy!
It protects your company and more importantly it protects you as the owner of that company once the lawyers come after you.
So in answer to your question about costs driving small fry out of business - Good! If they can't protect the customer or even themselves, guess what - good riddance.
Consider a comprehensive insurance policy as a safety net for you and your family - because without it Nigel, your entire estate is at risk.
I am deeply involved in aviation litigation currently for a very big client.
You have to understand this:
The regulator is suddenly waking up to the fact that they need to be more defensive as to who owns the risk when an incident happens. Hold that thought.
The owner/operator won't find it in their interest to 'hold the risk' - they will assume that if the regulator tells them they are following the rules, then all is well - and the regulator (because the rules and regs are being followed) holds the risk.
We therefore have s stand off between advce/guidance/rules given by the regulator and the way an operator carries out their operation (thinking they are fine because they have followed that advice etc).
So in this incident, the operator "appears" to have followed the rules regarding pax/photex trips. Harnesses, briefs, insurance etc etc.
But who actually holds the risk?
When an incident surfaces, this anomally is centre stage:
Has the FAA/CAA issued the correct guidelenes. Are they guidelines or are they mandatory? Has the regulator derisked the operation when they gave them their operators licence? Is the regulator responsible for actively policing operations?
Enter stage right - the lawyer and the insurance underwriter.
While debate is ongoing between regulator and operator, either in or out of court, the underwriter and the lawyer look at the risk and who actually owns it (they are looking from outside the industry) and they plot to mitigate the actual cause and plan to minimise future risks.
So the lawyer sues anything that moves and the underwriter ramps up premiums to reduce or buffer future claims.
I guess the point is - does the industry need the occasional spring clean in these two areas ( or to put it bluntly - does that part of the industry need a rocket under its ar*e) to make it realise that the risk really sits fairly and squarely with the person bringing the risk to the show - the OPERATOR.
Nigel - ignore this at your peril:
In this modern age, when you bring risk to "innocent third parties" (IE: people who are not familiar with risk, or simply want a good time, or don't expect to be hurt), you need to reduce this risk to ALARP.
One of the mitigators towards ALARP is: A very healthy insurance policy!
It protects your company and more importantly it protects you as the owner of that company once the lawyers come after you.
So in answer to your question about costs driving small fry out of business - Good! If they can't protect the customer or even themselves, guess what - good riddance.
Consider a comprehensive insurance policy as a safety net for you and your family - because without it Nigel, your entire estate is at risk.
I wouldnt be quite so confident in an insurance policy as a safety net in jurisdictions, like the UK, where personal criminal responsibility can attach in cases of more egregious non compliance with Health and safety legislation.
I have no idea whether there is a US equivalent, but if there is, I would have thought that there must be serious questions to answer concerning risk management at the operator and the potential culpability of those responsible for it.
I have no idea whether there is a US equivalent, but if there is, I would have thought that there must be serious questions to answer concerning risk management at the operator and the potential culpability of those responsible for it.
Hello TC ..
I see your point and it certainly does make sense and I will definitely have a good look at my own position. Re risk v reward I think it will mean that I will likely stop all commercial flying , which you will probably see as a good thing !! I have been in and out of the Helicoper business for nearly 40 years now ( blemish free ) but think that it now is not worth the risk .
As you say , they could come after me personally for my entire estate and I don’t think my kids would be too happy about that . I have always worked upon the basis of operating using common sense , but this is not enough in this day and age ... I certainly would never fly with pax who had no idiot proof method of escape. ( I do believe I would have a good chance of going back into a cockpit to just pull a belt buckle but not a complex harness ....)
I still think it is a damn shame that we will be left with a handful of large operators and all the great old characters with one or two machines will be forced out . But that’s progress for you !!!
I see your point and it certainly does make sense and I will definitely have a good look at my own position. Re risk v reward I think it will mean that I will likely stop all commercial flying , which you will probably see as a good thing !! I have been in and out of the Helicoper business for nearly 40 years now ( blemish free ) but think that it now is not worth the risk .
As you say , they could come after me personally for my entire estate and I don’t think my kids would be too happy about that . I have always worked upon the basis of operating using common sense , but this is not enough in this day and age ... I certainly would never fly with pax who had no idiot proof method of escape. ( I do believe I would have a good chance of going back into a cockpit to just pull a belt buckle but not a complex harness ....)
I still think it is a damn shame that we will be left with a handful of large operators and all the great old characters with one or two machines will be forced out . But that’s progress for you !!!
Nigel: The problem is the definition of common sense.
I know of several "small" operators who are very successful commercially for the following reasons:
1. They comply with the letter of the law.
2. They are open and tranparent with their operation to the regulators AND the insurance underwriters. Insurance companies love endless details on operations so that they can more easliy provide an accurate quote.
3. They insure properly.
4. They do everything to protect their estate.
With regard to the last...remember this. NO insurance policy can mitigate sufficiently against statute law / common law.
That is to say that where there is serious injury, death or serious damage to property, it is up to the Coroner/law to appropriate UNLIMITED fines against the perpetrator.
My advice:
Make sure there is a sufficient buffer between you and the claimant regarding insurance cover.
If I was a small time operator like this one in the US, I would be looking at around $150 - 200,000,000 cover (because it's America where spilling a coffee over someone initiates an $80,000,000 claim!
In the UK: £50 - 100,000 for product/third party/ passenger cover.
I would put everything I own privately in my wifes name!!!
I would have a decent litigation lawyer on my books.
Risk Management and a very decent SMS is where it's att these days Nigel.
Stay safe.
I know of several "small" operators who are very successful commercially for the following reasons:
1. They comply with the letter of the law.
2. They are open and tranparent with their operation to the regulators AND the insurance underwriters. Insurance companies love endless details on operations so that they can more easliy provide an accurate quote.
3. They insure properly.
4. They do everything to protect their estate.
With regard to the last...remember this. NO insurance policy can mitigate sufficiently against statute law / common law.
That is to say that where there is serious injury, death or serious damage to property, it is up to the Coroner/law to appropriate UNLIMITED fines against the perpetrator.
My advice:
Make sure there is a sufficient buffer between you and the claimant regarding insurance cover.
If I was a small time operator like this one in the US, I would be looking at around $150 - 200,000,000 cover (because it's America where spilling a coffee over someone initiates an $80,000,000 claim!
In the UK: £50 - 100,000 for product/third party/ passenger cover.
I would put everything I own privately in my wifes name!!!
I would have a decent litigation lawyer on my books.
Risk Management and a very decent SMS is where it's att these days Nigel.
Stay safe.
Not sure which is the greatest risk .. flying commercially or putting everything in the wife’s name !!!
As you say premiums will go up and as they are a fixed cost the low hour operators will be screwed . An extra £10k is £100/hr @ 100 hrs but just
£33 @ 300 .
Thanks .
As you say premiums will go up and as they are a fixed cost the low hour operators will be screwed . An extra £10k is £100/hr @ 100 hrs but just
£33 @ 300 .
Thanks .
If you ask me
It seems to me that the subject of risk assumption should be much simpler to suss out. The job of a regulator is to tell you what you may do, under the certificates you have been issued. Their follow-up requirements are to ensure you are operating pursuant to said certificates. The thing that is a keystone here is that their regulations tell you, as stated, what you MAY do. They can never be expected to tell you all you may not do as the entirety of that spectrum would dwarf a normal library. So as long as passengers have approved seatbelts and have been briefed and are wearing them as required, what happens beyond that is the responsibility of the owner operator and pilot. The FAA may have a hard time banning restraints that are not required in the first place. What they could do is ban the flight with doors open or off by putting it in the GOM manual for the company.
How about insisting that harnesses have to be approved for specific use - not just purchased from local hardware store?
A direction that would be refreshing would be for the regulator to ensure that the company that advertises a flight is also the company that ‘enables’ the flight - if that means they have to own and operate the aircraft, and be the one approved to carry out such a safety-related business, including air and ground crew then you will find a step-change in attitude and accountability.
A direction that would be refreshing would be for the regulator to ensure that the company that advertises a flight is also the company that ‘enables’ the flight - if that means they have to own and operate the aircraft, and be the one approved to carry out such a safety-related business, including air and ground crew then you will find a step-change in attitude and accountability.
