Helicopter down in East River, NYC
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Perception
The harnesses used on the FlyNYON’s flights are illegal.
Fact
Before the accident, there were no rules prohibiting the harnesses previously used on flyNYON flights. However, the FAA has since prohibited the use of harnesses so moving forward, all our passengers will wear FAA-approved three-point seatbelts installed by the manufacturer. at all times."
My Perception is that just because there is no prohibition at the time, doesn't negate the fact they didn't do their homework and determine the safety of the harness' they were using. This means they are negligent. They made a decision that killed people.
might as well have put a loaded gun in that pouch with the instructions to use it should the aircraft ditch in the water.
The harnesses used on the FlyNYON’s flights are illegal.
Fact
Before the accident, there were no rules prohibiting the harnesses previously used on flyNYON flights. However, the FAA has since prohibited the use of harnesses so moving forward, all our passengers will wear FAA-approved three-point seatbelts installed by the manufacturer. at all times."
My Perception is that just because there is no prohibition at the time, doesn't negate the fact they didn't do their homework and determine the safety of the harness' they were using. This means they are negligent. They made a decision that killed people.
might as well have put a loaded gun in that pouch with the instructions to use it should the aircraft ditch in the water.
Yes it's true the harnesses were not illegal, but the the question of whether they were legal is if little or no relevance. For an absolute fact, they were a fundamental factor in the deaths. No amount of saying they weren't illegal changes that.
Yes it is true the helicopter was owned by and operated under the certificate of Liberty Helicopters. Again, completely irrelevant. The rides were sold through FlyNYON on the helicopters FlyNYON arranged. It's not like the crash happened to some other operator that FlyNYON had no association with, this was a helicopter they (FlyNYON) were selling rides on.
As far as the refunds. He denies that they are refusing to give refunds and then in the very next sentence, admits that they are not giving refunds to reservation holders who have decided that have changed their minds about the operation.
I think that the efforts to "correct the record" speak volumes about the honesty and integrity of the individual.
This is what I am saying - the man has made a mountain of trouble for himself trying to address the issue on SM without advice from his lawyer. The plaintiffs will have a field day with his comments. That post of his probably cost him another half a million!
I'll be interested to learn the final lawsuit cost?
In the UK currently the going rate for the death of a white male above average income earner, married with 2 kids is between £5 and £8million GBP. Then there is all the collateral damage costs and legal costs.
Something like this:
5 dead: £20-£25million.
Written off AS350: £2million repairs?
Rescue services charges: £2million.
Lawyers: £5million?
Looking at: £25 (ish) million, minimum perhaps? (GBP).
First they go for the pilot and his/her estate.
2nd: The company selling the tickets.
Both of which will of course become bankrupt if their insurance is below this figure!
In the UK the coroner decides on statute law (death/injury of persons/damage to property) and exactly how much should be awarded and against whom. Technically - it could be limitless.......
In addition, the law could decide to prosecute, which brings a whole load of headaches for the defendant.
From a british perspective I would see (assuming they are found guilty of negligence):
Owner of company - sued for millions.
Pilot sued for millions.
Company going into administration.
Possible bankruptcies.
Possible criminal charges.
Possible law suit against regulators.
Possible law suit against operating base where these flights launched from.
In the UK currently the going rate for the death of a white male above average income earner, married with 2 kids is between £5 and £8million GBP. Then there is all the collateral damage costs and legal costs.
Something like this:
5 dead: £20-£25million.
Written off AS350: £2million repairs?
Rescue services charges: £2million.
Lawyers: £5million?
Looking at: £25 (ish) million, minimum perhaps? (GBP).
First they go for the pilot and his/her estate.
2nd: The company selling the tickets.
Both of which will of course become bankrupt if their insurance is below this figure!
In the UK the coroner decides on statute law (death/injury of persons/damage to property) and exactly how much should be awarded and against whom. Technically - it could be limitless.......
In addition, the law could decide to prosecute, which brings a whole load of headaches for the defendant.
From a british perspective I would see (assuming they are found guilty of negligence):
Owner of company - sued for millions.
Pilot sued for millions.
Company going into administration.
Possible bankruptcies.
Possible criminal charges.
Possible law suit against regulators.
Possible law suit against operating base where these flights launched from.
New York is not the UK.....fortunately for both sides.
This isn't the UK, and as noted above, the details are different.
You have already been advised how the deep pockets approach works over here, but each case has its own rhythm, logic, and in some cases illogic. I think you are making far too many assumptions in your guessing game ... and since I am not an attorney, I'll leave it at that. I wouldn't begin to guess on how the defendant pile will be composed.
A few things: with six dead, I'll offer you something in eight figures as a bottom estimate. (There's a local attorney whose been bringing in 2-20 million dollar judgments in trucking accident cases, and we aren't in New York ... )
Not sure how many millions the company is insured for, but some of the loss of life pay out will be under an insurance thing. Many insureds do not disclose the full extent of their liability coverage, rules differ in some locales so enough of that. I think most states have statutory minimums ...
Chill Lonewolf, hence all my question marks. It is only a start.......
What's come out of a serious accident over here in the UK is that pilots often don't check their owners/operators insurance levels.
They jump into a plane/helicopter and fly it because they love it. But when the wheel comes off - it's the pilot who everybody in law law land targets!
What's come out of a serious accident over here in the UK is that pilots often don't check their owners/operators insurance levels.
They jump into a plane/helicopter and fly it because they love it. But when the wheel comes off - it's the pilot who everybody in law law land targets!
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chill Lonewolf, hence all my question marks. It is only a start.......
What's come out of a serious accident over here in the UK is that pilots often don't check their owners/operators insurance levels.
They jump into a plane/helicopter and fly it because they love it. But when the wheel comes off - it's the pilot who everybody in law law land targets!
What's come out of a serious accident over here in the UK is that pilots often don't check their owners/operators insurance levels.
They jump into a plane/helicopter and fly it because they love it. But when the wheel comes off - it's the pilot who everybody in law law land targets!
Airbus. They obviously have deep pockets, which is a primary consideration. There's also a fairly obvious case against them. The fuel shutoff getting snagged is a significant factor in the incident, and there was a previous NTSB recommendation about the location and propensity to get snagged of the furel control, whcih wasn't addressed. Granted, it's not an Airworthiness Directive, or anything else of a mandatory nature, but you don't need an explicit legal requirement to have a duty of care or whatever the legal term is.
The Float manufacturer. Likely fairly deep pockets, and the failure of their floats to keep the ship upright was a significant factor in the outcome.
The Manufacturer of the harness. Because their harness didn't have a quick release. Granted, their harness wasn't intended for this use, and it's intended use doesn't require a quick release, but those details probably won't matter in a wrongful death lawsuit. They probably have deep pockets and their product was there at the scene. that's really all it takes to get sued in the US.
FlyNYON? Not doubt they will be named, but who knows how much money they actually have. I suppose it depends on their insurance coverage. That will determine how vigorously they are pursued.
I'm not saying the pilot won't be named, but he's almost certainly a much smaller financial target than the above, so that will work in his favor to some degree.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In Communicado
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is only speculation in this case, but I know from past experience that a major manufacturer is likely to attempt to spread the blame in an effort to reduce their own liability exposure. The installer and maintainer of their product are likely to suffer collateral damage, deservedly or not.
Let the finger pointing commence, then. Won't bring anyone back. 
US waking up to consequences
Can’t help but feel that latest incident has not helped Blades cause.
They’ve had some success in using social media and technology to cover the fact they they are, in effect, arranging scheduled services without necessary licences.
East Hampton airfield have cottoned-on to the fact that since Blade were fined a couple of years ago for carrying out such a service; it appears little has changed - allegedly !
They’ve had some success in using social media and technology to cover the fact they they are, in effect, arranging scheduled services without necessary licences.
East Hampton airfield have cottoned-on to the fact that since Blade were fined a couple of years ago for carrying out such a service; it appears little has changed - allegedly !
East Hampton wants Feds to investigate app-based copter service
The town has revoked Fly Blade’s airport license agreement and has given the company 30 days to shut down its kiosk at the airport in Wainscott.
The town has revoked Fly Blade’s airport license agreement and has given the company 30 days to shut down its kiosk at the airport in Wainscott.
An investigation by the Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings office found that during 2014, Fly Blade “held itself out as a direct air carrier and engaged in unauthorized air transportation as an indirect air carrier,” according to an April 2015 consent order from the department. The agency ordered the Manhattan company to pay a civil penalty of $80,000.
To be fair JA, East Hampton seem to be in the news for all the wrong reasons - such as applying levy to landing fees to then use in litigation - against the Constitution, apparently??
Blue Sky News Article
Blue Sky News Article
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a case in Queensland Australia, during the hearing and awarding of costs, the MRO had a presumed ten percent liability in relation to costs and penalties.
The incident destroyed the helicopter and badly injured the pilot when an oxy bottle " exploded". Although the bottle came connected and ready to install, the courts rationale was the MRO had some sort of duty of care.
Everyone evenly remotely involved may be subject to a claim.
The incident destroyed the helicopter and badly injured the pilot when an oxy bottle " exploded". Although the bottle came connected and ready to install, the courts rationale was the MRO had some sort of duty of care.
Everyone evenly remotely involved may be subject to a claim.
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Middle England
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty damning report. Sounds like a ghastly company with a very misguided culture driven from the top.
The “fake news” thing along with “something” happened that slowed our progress (ie a multiple fatality accident” is an absolute disgrace.
Clearly operating tour flights. FAA need to put an end to this before the next one is in the drink...or worse
FF
The “fake news” thing along with “something” happened that slowed our progress (ie a multiple fatality accident” is an absolute disgrace.
Clearly operating tour flights. FAA need to put an end to this before the next one is in the drink...or worse
FF
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
An NTSB hearing has (finally) been scheduled for December 10, 2019.
MEDIA ADVISORY: Fatal Doors-Off Helicopter Crash Subject of Board Meeting
9/23/2019
WASHINGTON (Sept. 23, 2019) — The National Transportation Safety Board announced Monday its intention to hold a public board meeting Dec. 10, 2019, 9:30 a.m., to determine the probable cause of the fatal crash.
A FlyNYON- branded Airbus AS350 B2 helicopter operated by Liberty Helicopters, Inc., crashed in the East River, New York, March 11, 2018, killing all five passengers and injuring the pilot. Previously released information about the NTSB’s investigation of the accident is available online at https://go.usa.gov/xVy28.
The public docket, which contains information considered in the development of probable cause for the accident, is available online at (URL) [sic].
The NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation just eight days after the crash, calling on the FAA to prohibit commercial flights that use passenger harness systems that do not allow for rapid release with minimal difficulty. That urgent safety recommendation was closed-acceptable action taken, July 26, 2018.
WHO: NTSB investigative staff and board members.
WHAT: An open to the public board meeting.
WHERE: NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center, 410 10th St., SW, Washington, DC.
WHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019, 9:30 a.m. (EST)
HOW: Media covering the meeting in person are asked to be in place no later than 9:15 a.m. on the day of the event. The public meeting will also be webcast. A link for the webcast will be available at http://ntsb.windrosemedia.com shortly before the start of the meeting.
A FlyNYON- branded Airbus AS350 B2 helicopter operated by Liberty Helicopters, Inc., crashed in the East River, New York, March 11, 2018, killing all five passengers and injuring the pilot. Previously released information about the NTSB’s investigation of the accident is available online at https://go.usa.gov/xVy28.
The public docket, which contains information considered in the development of probable cause for the accident, is available online at (URL) [sic].
The NTSB issued an urgent safety recommendation just eight days after the crash, calling on the FAA to prohibit commercial flights that use passenger harness systems that do not allow for rapid release with minimal difficulty. That urgent safety recommendation was closed-acceptable action taken, July 26, 2018.
WHO: NTSB investigative staff and board members.
WHAT: An open to the public board meeting.
WHERE: NTSB Boardroom and Conference Center, 410 10th St., SW, Washington, DC.
WHEN: Tuesday, Dec. 10, 2019, 9:30 a.m. (EST)
HOW: Media covering the meeting in person are asked to be in place no later than 9:15 a.m. on the day of the event. The public meeting will also be webcast. A link for the webcast will be available at http://ntsb.windrosemedia.com shortly before the start of the meeting.
NTSB Release A Pretty Harrowing Transcript of The Accident
A harrowing video from inside a doors-off sightseeing helicopter that crashed in a New York City river last year shows doomed passengers struggling to free themselves from harnesses as the aircraft fills with water, federal investigators said Monday.
'How do I cut this?' one passenger asks, just 13 seconds before the helicopter becomes completely submerged in the East River in March 2018.
The National Transportation Safety Board made a transcript of the video public on Monday, but the footage itself was not provided.
It was taken from a GoPro camera mounted on the cabin ceiling. Investigators had been looking at whether the harnesses hindered passengers' escape from the helicopter, which flipped over and quickly sank.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pter-sank.html
'How do I cut this?' one passenger asks, just 13 seconds before the helicopter becomes completely submerged in the East River in March 2018.
The National Transportation Safety Board made a transcript of the video public on Monday, but the footage itself was not provided.
It was taken from a GoPro camera mounted on the cabin ceiling. Investigators had been looking at whether the harnesses hindered passengers' escape from the helicopter, which flipped over and quickly sank.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...pter-sank.html
When I think about being tethered to an aircraft with a harness that is secured BEHIND me with a screw-type carabiner...I mean, it just gives me the willies. Or heebie-jeebies, one or the other. Because off the top of my balding head I can come up with a couple of very valid reasons that I might want to un-ass an aircraft tout de suite! And then I think about trying to reach *BEHIND* me to unscrew the carabiner. If such a scenario doesn't make your skin crawl, then buddy, you have less fear than I do.
And that poor pilot; sheesh, he must have known that those harnesses were a literal death sentence for his pax. I mean, just suppose he couldn't have made the river? Suppose he ended up landing in Manhattan somewhere and...let's be honest for a moment - botched the auto and it rolled onto its side and burned. Astars have been known to do that. Those pax would still be dead. I mean, come on. To all you real pilots out there I ask: Would YOU take off in a helicopter in which the pax could not quickly and easily release their own restraints and get the heck out if it were on fire...or under water? HECK NO, you wouldn't! Part of every pre-takeoff safety briefing I've ever given includes instruction about releasing the seatbelts, which have a different release motion than the cars with which we're all familiar. How did that pilot handle that bit?
I'm wondering...I mean, I'm really at a loss for words as to why NOBODY in either company (FlyNYON or Liberty) took a look at those harnesses and said, "Uhhhhhh...hold on. This ain't great." When the lawsuits come - and you know they will - there's going to be a *BUNCH* of people on the hot-seat, including, unfortunately, that PIC.
And that poor pilot; sheesh, he must have known that those harnesses were a literal death sentence for his pax. I mean, just suppose he couldn't have made the river? Suppose he ended up landing in Manhattan somewhere and...let's be honest for a moment - botched the auto and it rolled onto its side and burned. Astars have been known to do that. Those pax would still be dead. I mean, come on. To all you real pilots out there I ask: Would YOU take off in a helicopter in which the pax could not quickly and easily release their own restraints and get the heck out if it were on fire...or under water? HECK NO, you wouldn't! Part of every pre-takeoff safety briefing I've ever given includes instruction about releasing the seatbelts, which have a different release motion than the cars with which we're all familiar. How did that pilot handle that bit?
I'm wondering...I mean, I'm really at a loss for words as to why NOBODY in either company (FlyNYON or Liberty) took a look at those harnesses and said, "Uhhhhhh...hold on. This ain't great." When the lawsuits come - and you know they will - there's going to be a *BUNCH* of people on the hot-seat, including, unfortunately, that PIC.