This ride's a bit low, don't you think?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
H and H - sadly I think I know who you refer to in your comment about a friend dying on a navex with a student - he went through his QHI course in the early 90s when I was teaching on it.
Sorry for the melancholy thread drift......
H 'n' H
Again, there are a lot of subtleties and nuances associated in optimizing these operations for safety, efficiency, and profit.
From an operational tempo perspective, consider that 10 loads an hour (5 min. flying, 1 min. on the ground, give or take for both segment), at a load factor of 2.5, and $30 per seat, is $900 per collective Hobbs hour gross, $750 per straight hour vs. the previously discussed $1000/collective, $750/straight time at $20/seat same load factor and a 15 loads per hour pace. 15 loads per hour is very difficult on people, machines, and safety. This isn't slinging Christmas trees. It's just not worth the extra $100. If you are falling behind on your 10 loads per hour because of a difficulty during unload/load, you just shorten up the next 2 or 3 rides. Nobody notices, no fuss, no muss. At 15 loads an hour you are just not going to maintain that pace. Charge more, go slower, people will pay, it's safer.
Ferry time matters. On site fuel is critical, you can't be sending helicopters for fuel. You need to shut down periodically and check fluid levels and telatemps. Do you bring one, two or even three helicopters? At an agriculture or just fun fair you are lucky to keep one helicopter continuously busy. At any sort of "gear head" event (tractor pull, drag racing, etc.) you almost can't bring enough helicopters. Gear heads will wait in line for an hour for a 4 or 5 minute experience! At one of those busy events at least one relief pilot is a requirement, two is nice if you have two ships working. Two ships works your ground staff twice as hard, so you bring more. Will the venue safely accommodate space for 2 or 3 helicopters? The list on how to do this well goes on and on.
As for safety, these op's are under Part 91, need an LOA from the FAA, and the venue will often require additional insurance coverage. Not saying there aren't questionable op's out there, but if so it's partially due to lack of FAA and underwriter oversight. You know that any op you mount is going to result in a ton of social media videos. People are looking at these. Do you really want to be on social media doing something dumb and have to answer to the FAA or, much, MUCH worse in today's insurance environment, your underwriter?
On a more personal note, doing these events can be a ton of fun. Every load is different, people are pretty jolly at fairs and similar events, and the hours you put in your log book represent much more challenging flying than droning along on a 20 or 30 minute scenic flight. But like any kind of flying, it's not everyone's cup of tea.
From an operational tempo perspective, consider that 10 loads an hour (5 min. flying, 1 min. on the ground, give or take for both segment), at a load factor of 2.5, and $30 per seat, is $900 per collective Hobbs hour gross, $750 per straight hour vs. the previously discussed $1000/collective, $750/straight time at $20/seat same load factor and a 15 loads per hour pace. 15 loads per hour is very difficult on people, machines, and safety. This isn't slinging Christmas trees. It's just not worth the extra $100. If you are falling behind on your 10 loads per hour because of a difficulty during unload/load, you just shorten up the next 2 or 3 rides. Nobody notices, no fuss, no muss. At 15 loads an hour you are just not going to maintain that pace. Charge more, go slower, people will pay, it's safer.
Ferry time matters. On site fuel is critical, you can't be sending helicopters for fuel. You need to shut down periodically and check fluid levels and telatemps. Do you bring one, two or even three helicopters? At an agriculture or just fun fair you are lucky to keep one helicopter continuously busy. At any sort of "gear head" event (tractor pull, drag racing, etc.) you almost can't bring enough helicopters. Gear heads will wait in line for an hour for a 4 or 5 minute experience! At one of those busy events at least one relief pilot is a requirement, two is nice if you have two ships working. Two ships works your ground staff twice as hard, so you bring more. Will the venue safely accommodate space for 2 or 3 helicopters? The list on how to do this well goes on and on.
As for safety, these op's are under Part 91, need an LOA from the FAA, and the venue will often require additional insurance coverage. Not saying there aren't questionable op's out there, but if so it's partially due to lack of FAA and underwriter oversight. You know that any op you mount is going to result in a ton of social media videos. People are looking at these. Do you really want to be on social media doing something dumb and have to answer to the FAA or, much, MUCH worse in today's insurance environment, your underwriter?
On a more personal note, doing these events can be a ton of fun. Every load is different, people are pretty jolly at fairs and similar events, and the hours you put in your log book represent much more challenging flying than droning along on a 20 or 30 minute scenic flight. But like any kind of flying, it's not everyone's cup of tea.
Thread Starter
Not so much!
Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids??????? Was the little lad even strapped in???
No safety equipment or ear protection visible anywhere, ultra low level with the gear up, low level over water (again no safety equipment.
Just because it's in a twin doesn't make it OK - another cowboy operator.
Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids??????? Was the little lad even strapped in???
No safety equipment or ear protection visible anywhere, ultra low level with the gear up, low level over water (again no safety equipment.
Just because it's in a twin doesn't make it OK - another cowboy operator.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: London
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
ultra low level with the gear up
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Not so much!
Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids???????
Again the sort of flying that is quite acceptable with troops in a combat zone but with fare paying pax and young kids???????
Hell, people love to take chances. Bungee jumping. Skydiving (tandem--trying to keep in the realm of the passenger). Flying down the highway on the back of a motorcycle. Rafting down river rapids. Jet boating up river rapids. Rides in aerobatic aircraft. Rides in rally cars, race cars, on the back of race bikes on a racetrack. Parasailing. Banana boat rides (and other inflatable tow-behinds). The list is endless of passengers who willingly place themselves into obvious danger, into obviously risky situations, because they WANT to be thrilled.
The idea that anything dangerous or risky is improper or illegal and should therefore be banned is a very, very dangerous idea. It's a slippery slope because pretty soon they'll be taking away all of your sharp kitchen utensils. Oh wait, they are already doing that in the UK, aren't they?
Here in 'merica the "fun police" need not apply, although we have plenty of overly helpful "legislators". Remember, nobody ever gets into politics to leave you alone.
If somebody wants to risk balling up a machine in the middle of cornfield (and this can be risked while still meeting all FAA regulations), and people are willing to risk being in that ball, they should be allowed to. They might have to be self-insured, or not insured, to do so, but that's totally fair.
And that's just passenger thrills. That doesn't even get into first person thrills like skydiving for yourself, SCUBA diving, skiing, mountain climbing, again the list is endless, and some activities are quite extreme, e.g. low level wingsuit flight. Should all these people stay home, too?
Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it shouldn't be for anyone.
Yeah, yeah, I know, just when you thought aa777888 was sane. What can I say, I'm a BIG believer in personal freedom.
Finally, remember what I wrote above about rides appropriate to your audience and venue. You may have noted from the video that this took place at a major US skydiving drop zone. These people do not have the same risk tolerances as the average person. I should know, because I am a skydiver as well. And they have a high believe in personal freedom. It is therefore unsurprising that the ride took the form it did. If that 222 had gone down there would have been a celebration of life for all who perished, that they had died doing what they loved, and not a bunch of lawsuits on top of lawsuits. If it had been Aunt Martha and Uncle John at the local agricultural fair, it's a good bet the ride would have been quite a bit different, and that there would be lawsuits if by chance something bad did happen while they were getting the aviation equivalent of a hay ride.
"We don't do that kind of flying here. It's dangerous and irresponsible."
"Too many lawsuits."
"Well, who does?"
"He does."
"Hey Hawk. This guy wants a scary ride."
[YOUTUBE]
If everyone onboard are skilled, fully aware of what they are up to and have the appetite for leaving a smoking hole in the ground, then good luck to them.
Unfortunately, even in this instance, they will drive up the premiums for everyone else, making it difficult for sensible and responsible people to enter or stay in the game and encourage local law-makers to over-regulate the environment.
If you want a fun ride, go visit a theme park.
A theme park has inspectors who test every ride on a regular basis to ensure that the riders are safe - although every now and then it runs off the rails, so to speak. But it is extremely rare, on the percentage of successful rides against injuries, that anybody gets hurt.
If you wanna do a tandem meat-bombing run, you have to sign their forms of "all care but no responsibility", listen to their training, watch a video, get strapped into a harness by a professional, and you know that you are taking a big risk to do so.
These carnival rides have no such checks, have no training or warnings, little supervision on entry or exit, and a low-time pilot who wants to show off. Big difference.
If you wanna do a tandem meat-bombing run, you have to sign their forms of "all care but no responsibility", listen to their training, watch a video, get strapped into a harness by a professional, and you know that you are taking a big risk to do so.
These carnival rides have no such checks, have no training or warnings, little supervision on entry or exit, and a low-time pilot who wants to show off. Big difference.
As Bell Ringer and AC have said aa777888, personal freedom is great - providing people who elect to take those risks are fully aware of them beforehand - if not, you turn into a nation of Darwin Award winners, removing yourselves from the gene pool through ignorance.
Many of the general public are poorly informed and are happy to abdicate responsibility for their own safety to other people, whether those people are fit and proper to ensure that safety or not.
If you agree it is OK to exploit that ignorance because you are happy to take their money - 'Hell they should know better shouldn't they, it's a free country' - then perhaps you are not the enlightened thinker you believe.
Many of the general public are poorly informed and are happy to abdicate responsibility for their own safety to other people, whether those people are fit and proper to ensure that safety or not.
If you agree it is OK to exploit that ignorance because you are happy to take their money - 'Hell they should know better shouldn't they, it's a free country' - then perhaps you are not the enlightened thinker you believe.
As for the knife business - there is rising knife-crime in UK and there are plenty of people trying to highlight it and reduce it - people don't generally kill other people without weapons........
Removing all sharp objects from kitchens is clearly an extreme and impractical view and we already have controls on who can buy knives - but when weapons are easily found around the house thanks to the parents purchases, it is not surprise that young people who feel threatened (for whatever reason) decide that carrying knives makes them safer - it doesn't. Sound like a familiar scenario?????? We don't have a National Knife Association in UK to prevent controls on weapons
Removing all sharp objects from kitchens is clearly an extreme and impractical view and we already have controls on who can buy knives - but when weapons are easily found around the house thanks to the parents purchases, it is not surprise that young people who feel threatened (for whatever reason) decide that carrying knives makes them safer - it doesn't. Sound like a familiar scenario?????? We don't have a National Knife Association in UK to prevent controls on weapons
,...and I thought you were joking?
https://youtu.be/YaZZjyAcAzE
https://youtu.be/YaZZjyAcAzE
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bell Ringer and Crab: I disagree with you. The folks I've met all see the helicopter ride as the risk it is. None I've met treat it as totally safe. Nearly every load wants it to be as "dangerous" and as "exciting" as it can be. The video posted is about as extreme example of that as you will find, which, again, is completely unsurprising given that it occurred at a skydiving drop zone. Everybody in America wants their ride to be the Red Bull BO105. Certainly there are exceptions, as there are in all things, but I believe you misjudge the American public. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.
Bell Ringer: is even more strongly disagree with your statement "If you want a fun ride, go visit a theme park." Clearly there is no way that you and I are going to agree. Your fears of regulation are, sadly, well founded, but to use a time-worn phrase, freedom isn't free. One must fight for it.
As for being an "enlightened thinker", my idea of a truly enlightened world is one where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. I am quite sure my idea of enlightenment does not equate to most of yours. I abhor "nanny state" attitudes at both individual and state levels. People should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not hurt others. People do not need to be protected from themselves.
Just to restore at least the appearance of sanity, since you all no doubt consider me nuts at this point, I will say that a combination of personal limits, machine limits, and the characteristics of most of the venues have me demonstrating a safety margin significantly larger, to say the least, than some of the antics shown in the videos posted in this topic. But I'll fight tooth and nail for anyone's right to put those limits wherever they want to as long as they don't endanger non-participants, and I'll bet you a beer that the line for the 222 ride got longer, not shorter, once everyone at the DZ saw the first load go at it.
It does make you wonder if that 222 is still insured, though!
Bell Ringer: is even more strongly disagree with your statement "If you want a fun ride, go visit a theme park." Clearly there is no way that you and I are going to agree. Your fears of regulation are, sadly, well founded, but to use a time-worn phrase, freedom isn't free. One must fight for it.
As for being an "enlightened thinker", my idea of a truly enlightened world is one where everyone takes responsibility for their own actions. I am quite sure my idea of enlightenment does not equate to most of yours. I abhor "nanny state" attitudes at both individual and state levels. People should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not hurt others. People do not need to be protected from themselves.
Just to restore at least the appearance of sanity, since you all no doubt consider me nuts at this point, I will say that a combination of personal limits, machine limits, and the characteristics of most of the venues have me demonstrating a safety margin significantly larger, to say the least, than some of the antics shown in the videos posted in this topic. But I'll fight tooth and nail for anyone's right to put those limits wherever they want to as long as they don't endanger non-participants, and I'll bet you a beer that the line for the 222 ride got longer, not shorter, once everyone at the DZ saw the first load go at it.
It does make you wonder if that 222 is still insured, though!
Bell Ringer and Crab: I disagree with you. The folks I've met all see the helicopter ride as the risk it is. None I've met treat it as totally safe. Nearly every load wants it to be as "dangerous" and as "exciting" as it can be. The video posted is about as extreme example of that as you will find, which, again, is completely unsurprising given that it occurred at a skydiving drop zone. Everybody in America wants their ride to be the Red Bull BO105. Certainly there are exceptions, as there are in all things, but I believe you misjudge the American public. Perhaps it is a cultural thing.
If the 222 had speared in, killing or injuring all on board,but a second was available to carry on the rides, how long would the queue have been then?
It's like speeding or other minor lawbreaking - all great fun until you get caught even though you had convinced yourself you wouldn't.
Show people the real consequences of the choices they make - not absolute consequences but possible ones - and you would see a change in some people's (though not all) behaviour.
If, heaven forbid, a skydiver piles in due to target fixation or a chute malfunction - do the rest of the club immediately get in the air to freefall themselves or do some of them actually contemplate their own vulnerability to the whim of fate?
We used to get excellent human factors presentations from a USAF Colonel who told a story of a friend - a super-good jet jock Squadron Commander, combat ace and multi formation leader who suddenly had an epiphany whilst taxying out to lead a 4-ship. His subconscious finally got the message through to his conscious that what he was doing was dangerous (ie military flying) - something his conscious had suppressed for many years, a failure to acknowledge reality - he taxiied back in and shut down, never to fly again.
We can kid ourselves that our risky behaviour won't come back and bite us in the ass but we are completely at the mercy of fate.
Everyone has their own appetite for risk and it can be competitive (risky shift) in groups of people like pilots, skydivers, racing drivers etc but the ones who survive those, and other similar, professions often do rationalise and minimise, where possible, those risks but still need a big dose of luck.
Taking your child, not strapped in, on an ultra low level thrill-seeking flight just seems like tempting fate to me.
Ignoring the fact that many rules and regulations (the nanny state) are to protect people from making the same stupid mistakes over and over again isn't freedom of choice - it is stupidity.
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: French Alps
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Took a lot of people on those rides.
No helo pilot here, so not sure how it compares with this low height Bell ride...
People should be free to do what they wish as long as it does not hurt others. People do not need to be protected from themselves.
Horsefeathers.