Helicopter down in East River, NYC
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
http://https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/nyregion/flynyon-crash-helicopter-east-river.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
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.
Last edited by Hot and Hi; 8th Apr 2018 at 07:43. Reason: Style
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.
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.
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.
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 hope Mr Day gets his ass sued, or even better, a spell in jail.
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/
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.”
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.”
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Each to their own, but it seems a bit inappropriate to me.
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’
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’
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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/
https://www.wired.com/story/helicopt...cape-training/
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...
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...
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Interloper
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
(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'
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.