Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Another low flying fairground incident.

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Another low flying fairground incident.

Old 23rd Aug 2020, 11:05
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
Bellringer - good post, sums up the problems with those amateurs who want to justify their actions regardless of professional advice.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2020, 16:03
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by tigerinthenight View Post
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.
Stats help prevent needless over-regulation. Do the stats show that passengers always survive daytime engine failurs in tour helicopters, but always die in nighttime ones? I took a ride in Vegas as a tourist in a Jet Ranger many years ago, what were my odds of dying that night,...1/10. 1/50,...1/1,000? Am I just lucky to be alive after that ride, because they drop out of the skies regularly?

Stats might even prove that having a twin doesn't make it any safer at night. Twins still crash in IIMC?
Robbiee is offline  
Old 23rd Aug 2020, 16:45
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Africa
Posts: 394
I will fly any day VFR Night in a single. Over cultural lights that is. Not in order to better see the autorotation landing zone, but in order to avoid any risk of spatial disorientation.

Most accidents at night - even in countries where singles may fly at night - are not at all caused by engine failure. But by fuel starvation, mismanagement of aircraft systems that in a twin are inherently more complex. By CFIT, or by a false sense of security that lures pilots without IFR proficiency into thinking they can wing it (do I need to give examples? England, LA, Bahamas, just check the parallel thread...).

I further can't help the feeling that operators often use very old twins (in order to meet the regulatory requirements where twins are required) for obvious capital cost reasons. Old twins that - even if not necessarily less reliable - have very complicated AP and various other stabilisation systems that all depend on, or interfere with each other, and that are just too complicated for the average charter pilot to ever become proficient with.

So no, I guess the argument that flying singles at night within the regulations exposes people on the ground the *undue* risk is baseless.

Last edited by Hot and Hi; 23rd Aug 2020 at 17:41.
Hot and Hi is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 02:26
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,550
So, exactly what's the point you're trying to make here
Merely that there is a difference between night and night. Similarly you have dark night conditions during the day, try an unlit airport at the base of a mountain that's in the lee of a setting sun. In the first video you could take a person who has just done their first solo and they could fly around all night, providing the lights stayed on, in the second you better be on top of your IMC skills. A reading of page 36 of the following report is germain, as the report says,
The concept of risk has three elements
•the perception that something could happen
•the likelihood of something happening
•the consequences if it happens.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24411/...304282_001.pdf
megan is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 03:07
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
aa777888 - yes but professional mitigation of those risks helps reduce the odds rather markedly.
@crab and @Bell_ringer: let's face it, as far as the both of you are concerned, the only safe way to fly tours, short form or long form, would be in a twin. Because short tours typically occur at low altitudes over congested areas, and long tours (e.g. Grand Canyon, Hawaii, etc.) often occur over forbidding terrain. However a twin would make the business case infeasible (nobody would pay the required price), and in many cases the use of even a single engine turbine ship the same. This makes that part of the industry a substantial province of the venerable R44, which you both seem to feel is hopelessly inadequate to the task from a passenger risk perspective given the typical flight profiles.

And yet, from a strictly US perspective, both the passengers and operators would appear to disagree with you. Leaving aside the recent pandemonium--er--pandemic nonsense, the industry does a booming business, and the short form, piston-powered subset would seem, admittedly anecdotally based on media reporting, to do so more safely than the single turbine, long-form part of the industry.

As someone who has done quite a bit of the short-form, and a limited amount of the long-form, my impression is that the average US short-form customer desperately wants to risk their lives, they want the "thrill ride", or at least the impression of one. They have no illusions. I can't tell you how many times I've been asked to do aerobatics. Alas, my standard answer is "This is not the Red Bull helicopter." Throwing in a few mildly steep turns is enough to have them asking for a few Kleenex to clean themselves up with, and I don't mean vomit. Thus maintaining the illusion and not the reality of danger which, of course, is vitally important. Meanwhile the long-form US passenger prefers a limousine ride, even those who want to shoot "shoe selfies" (none of my passengers, thank goodness).

At any rate, in the US it's not the FAA that controls this business sector, it's the insurance industry. I'm proud to say that the operation I'm associated with still enjoys low enough rates, even with the recent departure of several US underwriters and substantial rate increase across the board (thanks so much, certain HI and NY op's), to make the venture profitable. This is even in the face of underwriter representatives showing up at one of our events to monitor operations, something which we welcomed wholeheartedly.

I hope you find the preceding discussion professional enough, because I and those I'm associated with certainly approach the business with a very professional attitude toward both business and safety.
aa777888 is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 06:15
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 10:51
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 936
You say increased risk, Crab, but based on the numbers, there really isn't increased risk in single or piston operations in the tours context. We know that of all the accidents, somewhere between very few and none are caused by engine failure and many are caused by factors unconnected to number of engines such as pilot error, fuel, W&B, weather, failure of dynamic components etc.
krypton_john is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 12:35
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
KJ - that doesn't mean the risk is reduced - history is not a predictor of future events.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 13:58
  #69 (permalink)  

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 12,910
For those wanting a thrill, I think bungee jumping elastic ropes are probably twice as thick as they need to be.....
ShyTorque is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 16:03
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.
This is a great post, crab. Seriously, because now I finally have an appreciation for where you are coming from.

Tell you what: when you are the absolute ruler you can outlaw things you think other people don't need. In the meantime, capitalism reigns, freedom reigns, people will make up their own minds, and if there is a market for what you think is something too risky, or too annoying, or too whatever, it really doesn't matter, does it, other than that it makes you unhappy. The market will seek it's own level. If insurance rates go up, or everyone is arrested for murder, or whatever, then the little guys running the little shows will dry up and you'll be happy. Or they won't and it will be business as usual.

And how is this any different than driving in cars? Imagine this dystopian vision: did you really need to go to the store? If you had only ordered off of Amazon you might not have hit and killed that innocent person, not to mention all the fuel you wasted.

People do a million things every day that put other people at risk and that they don't need to do. That includes pretty much all of general aviation. It's called freedom. It can be ugly at times, but the pluses outweigh the minuses by a long, long ways for dare say most of us.



aa777888 is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 16:23
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
You are trying to justify the existence of an industry that doesn't need to exist. The great unwashed don't need their 'thrill' rides and the people living underneath the routes certainly don't need the noise and worry about accidents.

The Grand Canyon certainly doesn't need the noise and air pollution - something like 400 flights a day in what is supposed to be a beautiful and tranquil place - just to service a bunch of lazy people who can't be arsed to go and walk down into the canyon to admire its majesty. The next step is the awful Escalade that planners keep pushing for.

When making money can only be achieved by taking and putting other people at increased risk with no tangible upside other than a thrill, maybe that money making just shouldn't happen.
The people underneath those "thrill" rides at night in Vegas are mostly inside a casino where they cannot hear anything over the bells and whistles of the poker machines, the rest are half drunk walking to their next party and assuredly couldn't care about the noise overhead,...if they can even hear the choppers over the traffic.

,....but then all of Vegas need not exist, or Disneyworld, or movie theaters, or anything we do in between slaving away for that all mightly dollar!

As for the Grand Canyon, I don't think they do tours at night, so no little animals are losing any sleep.

Just out of curiosity, does going on a ride at night in a twin, suddenly inspire "the great unwashed" to wash themselves?
Robbiee is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 17:21
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
but the pluses outweigh the minuses by a long, long ways for dare say most of us.
perhaps for the terminally selfish with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........

If you want to know what I really think, then imagine how someone who went through a demanding selection system and years of unrelenting training with the constant threat of failing, in order to have the honour of serving their country and use those hard-won skills to save lives (some to take them) but to do good, valuable and necessary things with a helicopter (I include Police, EMS and firefighters in that category)- imagine how they might view someone with deep pockets who bought themselves a licence going through a training system that was never going to fail them because they could keep paying, who wants to lecture them about freedom...............and have the perks of flying in a helicopter without ever earning them.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 17:47
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Brantisvogan
Posts: 745
Crab, you need to appreciate you are appealing to an American perspective, one where everything is your right, something no one should meddle with, where every opportunity should be milked for every penny and if there are a few casualties along the way, well, that is the price of doing business.
besides, its only seldom that tourists end up drowned in a river so regulating that would be a gross overstepping of authority.
Bell_ringer is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 17:59
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
perhaps for the terminally selfish with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........

If you want to know what I really think, then imagine how someone who went through a demanding selection system and years of unrelenting training with the constant threat of failing, in order to have the honour of serving their country and use those hard-won skills to save lives (some to take them) but to do good, valuable and necessary things with a helicopter (I include Police, EMS and firefighters in that category)- imagine how they might view someone with deep pockets who bought themselves a licence going through a training system that was never going to fail them because they could keep paying, who wants to lecture them about freedom...............and have the perks of flying in a helicopter without ever earning them.
Your view of civilian pilots is so delusional I don't know where to begin. I could only afford to become a pilot by burying myself in debt (like so many who weren't born with a perfect military quality body) that will take me two or three lifetimes to pay off. Plus my pockets are so deep from driving a semi for a living that I haven't enjoyed the only sliver of unnecessary freedom I had for over a year, because I can't afford the ridiculously high cost of renter's insurance!

​​​​​​​,...and I earned my license you sanctimonious jackass!
Robbiee is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 18:05
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 18:12
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 18:59
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?
You can't just buy a license, you still have to perform to standards, and prove you posses the required level of knowledge. Plus you also have to work for that money to pay for (not the license) but the training required to pass the tests to get that license,...and I actually did fail my commercial checkride, and had to get more training in order to live up to the required standards.

,...as opposed to being the "chosen one" who then gets his training for free plus a job waiting for him when its over.
Robbiee is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 19:01
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: California
Posts: 345
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.
,...and I don't tar all military pilots with the same brush, just the one's who lecture me on how they're more deserving of being a pilot.
Robbiee is offline  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 19:20
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 628
Originally Posted by [email protected] View Post
...with no respect for their fellow humans - look at me, I have lots of cash and can do what the f*** I like and you can't stop me.........
I think the philosophical differences here are terminally irreconcilable. For example, my idea of the greatest respect for fellow humans is to leave them alone and not tell them what they can and can't do. I suspect you find this horrifyingly degenerate as opposed being the highest form of respect. Not trying to change your mind, and you won't change mine.

If I had lots of cash I'd be owning and flying a one or two or five million dollar machine. I worked super hard to get what I have. I work super hard to keep what I have.
aa777888 is online now  
Old 24th Aug 2020, 21:11
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 8,194
Robbiee - the standard required for a CPL is nothing like the pinnacle you seem to imagine it to be. Have a look on the 139 thread about the standards maintained by many commercial pilots from a TRE who has seen a lot.

You simply won't understand the level that most military pilots are required to operate to nor the fact that being selected 'chosen' for training is only the first step on a very competitive, difficult and demanding path. Don't forget, I have a commercial licence too...

I didn't have to do just one check ride to get my wings, nor my operational captaincy nor my instructor qualification, it is a never ending round of check and test rides in the military.

aa777888 - you might find it surprising but I am generally a live and let live sort of person but, in my chosen profession of aviation, I expect high standards of those sharing the sky with me - I don't see much in the way of high professional standards in the pleasure flight industry, just a sausage machine for generating cash as quickly as possible with a thin veneer of concern about passenger safety.

There's a reason we don't have single engine airliners.....
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.