Another low flying fairground incident.

[[email protected]]

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well?

No, you just don't fly over them in a single - it's not rocket science.

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by nomorehelosforme

Bell Ringer, it was only a matter of time before aa777888 weighed in on this thread in defense of the quick thrill ride industry.. oh and don't forget the tree trimming that supposedly occurred

Please allow me to politely and respectfully point out that there are others who are just as reliably predictable in their posting when they feel the subject of ride concessions comes up, perhaps more so since they posted before I did.

At the admitted risk of some thread drift (not that there hasn't been quite a bit already), it would be an interesting study to see which type of operation had the higher fatality rate per pax and per hour: the "slow thrill ride" (more conventional tour) industry, or the "quick thrill ride" industry. I can't get the NTSB database to produce easy results, i.e. one would have to wade through every report individually to determine the context of the flight.

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Robbiee - when you got your licence, you had to demonstrate your ability to get the aircraft on the ground safely following an engine failure - during the day - so there is a check and balance that gives you and your insurers a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will likely survive (even if you bend the aircraft a bit).

If you haven't trained to do night autos - at least to the hover - what are your chances of safely executing the manoeuvre?

And it doesn't have to be just engine failure - a TR failure or a fire for instance, would put you in the same position of needing to get on the ground really quickly.

Generally guys who fly twins have had practice in a simulator doing all these things - how many single engine pilots get that extra training?

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Maybe people doing or advocating night single flying haven't really thought through the extra risks in their libertarian desire for freedom to make money.

I wouldn't go night flying in a single without NVG - at least I could see where I was going to crash.

I'd rather have the freedom to make that choice for myself. As for the unsuspecting public, well, feel free to post a sign at each tour operation that reads, "If you did this flight in a twin, you'd have a "×%" better chance of surviving in the event of an engine failure".

I would though love to see you flying up to the city at night in a 22 with goggles on,...that would be precious!

[[email protected]]

It all depends on your appetite for risk and how much you believe it won't happen to you.

For the 'quick thrill' industry, it seems a high appetite for risk and a great belief it won't happen to you = short flights at low level over less than ideal landing areas. Clearly the level of pilot skill is so much higher than in other commercial operations that the risk is worth exposing the pilot and pax to in order to make a few bucks.

If that's what floats your boat and lets you think it is somehow professional and 'risk-mitigated' then carry on but don't expect sympathy if it ends in tears.

I love the use of statistics to defend taking risks with other people's lives. Just because it hasn't happened or happens infrequently doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, it just means you have been lucky so far.

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

It all depends on your appetite for risk and how much you believe it won't happen to you.

For the 'quick thrill' industry, it seems a high appetite for risk and a great belief it won't happen to you = short flights at low level over less than ideal landing areas. Clearly the level of pilot skill is so much higher than in other commercial operations that the risk is worth exposing the pilot and pax to in order to make a few bucks.

If that's what floats your boat and lets you think it is somehow professional and 'risk-mitigated' then carry on but don't expect sympathy if it ends in tears.

I love the use of statistics to defend taking risks with other people's lives. Just because it hasn't happened or happens infrequently doesn't mean it can't or won't happen, it just means you have been lucky so far.

The same can be said for me choosing to live in California, since at any moment we could have another big earthquake that could level the cities and collapse the bridges..

If you need to see me as a wild risk taker for flying a single at night and/or needlessly risking the lives of the trusting but gullible public, so be it,...I'm a cowboy anyway.

Thing is though, I do think it will happen to me, which is why I'm always looking for possible forced landing areas, but over time I started to feel that its far less probable than many other issues I fear at night, like bird strike, getting hit by another aircraft, the fog suddenly closing me in, hitting that last minute unseen obstacle on approach, LTE, and SWP,...and no second engine will help my odds there.

,...but then I guess every pilot who hasn't crashed could just be considerd lucky, day or night.

[aa777888]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

It just means you have been lucky so far.

Well then surely that applies to any operation, eh?

[[email protected]]

Robbiee - perhaps you are just lucky enough to be able to have helicopter flying as a hobby, rather than those of us who have to earn our living assessing,taking and mitigating those risks.

aa777888 - yes but professional mitigation of those risks helps reduce the odds rather markedly.

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

Robbiee - perhaps you are just lucky enough to be able to have helicopter flying as a hobby, rather than those of us who have to earn our living assessing,taking and mitigating those risks.
.

Yeah, you're probably right. Chances are the engines says to itself, "This guys just flying for fun, so I won't quit on him,...better to wait for the guy whose getting paid to crash me".

,...probably why birds never hit me either.

[Ascend Charlie]

hitting that last minute unseen obstacle on approach, LTE, and SWP,

Well, you still believe in LTE, so you perhaps also think that the Magic Helicopter Fairy is watching over you at night.

Dream on.

[Torquetalk]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Can't post it, but I have a video of a police Schweizer 333 that suffered engine failure and had to autorotate at night in a built-up urban area. Crew survived but hit a wire just shy of making a car park. They did a great job, but even then...

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie

Well, you still believe in LTE, so you perhaps also think that the Magic Helicopter Fairy is watching over you at night.

Dream on.

Grown ups are having a discussion, so next time ask daddy before you use his computer,...okay Sport.

Now go to be, its getting late.

[megan]

Now go to be, its getting late

Going by the spelling it's way past your bedtime.

Giving rides over Vegas at night doesn't count as night?

Hardly.

You Tube

This is night.

You Tube

[capngrog]

What an interesting thread! I read through the entire thing, but I somehow missed the actual statistics regarding helicopter engine failure rates at night vs. helicopter engine failure rates during daytime. Failing that, what is the overall helicopter engine failure rate? Of course there will be a significant difference between piston and turbine engines. Oh by the way, how does night VFR/ IFR differ significantly from daytime IFR with respect to engine failure? Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?

Cheers,
Grog

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by megan

Going by the spelling it's way past your bedtime. Hardly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b55dtD8Fbm0

This is night.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIMLoLxmTDw

So, exactly what's the point you're trying to make here,...just how macho you are for flying in a black hole, or that the FAA should change its definition of night?

[Robbiee]

Originally Posted by capngrog

What an interesting thread! I read through the entire thing, but I somehow missed the actual statistics regarding helicopter engine failure rates at night vs. helicopter engine failure rates during daytime. Failing that, what is the overall helicopter engine failure rate? Of course there will be a significant difference between piston and turbine engines. Oh by the way, how does night VFR/ IFR differ significantly from daytime IFR with respect to engine failure? Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?

Cheers,
Grog

No one in this thread (other than myself) seems all that interested in the stats and/or your chances of having an engine failure at night vs. day. All they seem to care about is, "its harder to see at night, therefore we only want to fly twins".

[tigerinthenight]

Originally Posted by Robbiee

No one in this thread (other than myself) seems all that interested in the stats and/or your chances of having an engine failure at night vs. day. All they seem to care about is, "its harder to see at night, therefore we only want to fly twins".

Right, because that's the reason people are against the idea of single-engine helicopters flying at night. Nobody is suggesting that the chances of engine failure are higher - why would they be? It's because if there is an engine failure, the ability to pick out a suitable landing site and carry out an autorotation into it is greatly diminished at night.
Pretending to assume people must be suggesting the chances of engine failure are greater at night is a straw-man argument.

[tigerinthenight]

Originally Posted by capngrog

Should single engine helicopters be grounded during IMC?

Yes, absolutely. They are here in the UK.

[Bell_ringer]

Its an interesting phenomenon that those most cavalier about risk understand it the least.
that the difference between the probability of engine failure and the the probability of surviving one when you can’t see where you are landing isn’t grasped rather demonstrates the point.

Everyone is free to take the risks with which they are comfortable, its when you expect your pax and the people living beneath you to be happy with your choices, or desire to make money, that authorities can and should intervene.
regulations are rarely made because of the actions of responsible people exercising common sense.

I’m going to leave it there and not encourage the trolling that has become a theme on this thread.

[Ascend Charlie]

Singles can fly in IMC if they are properly equipped and the pilot is trained and licenced. (Maybe not in the UK?) Same at night. As long as you flick the switch to let the engine run on black air instead of white air.

The problem comes when paying passengers want to be inside. The pilot by himself knows and accepts the risks he is taking. The pax expect a perfectly safe flight with a soft landing at the desired spot, but that is not predictable at night or in IMC. Hence the second engine to keep you up and allow you to choose your crash site more carefully.

[AviatorAtHeart]

Originally Posted by Torquetalk

Can't post it, but I have a video of a police Schweizer 333 that suffered engine failure and had to autorotate at night in a built-up urban area. Crew survived but hit a wire just shy of making a car park. They did a great job, but even then...

Here it is:

You Tube