Another low flying fairground incident.
Bellringer - good post, sums up the problems with those amateurs who want to justify their actions regardless of professional advice.
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.
Pretending to assume people must be suggesting the chances of engine failure are greater at night is a straw-man argument.
Stats might even prove that having a twin doesn't make it any safer at night. Twins still crash in IIMC?
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.
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 16:41.
So, exactly what's the point you're trying to make here
The concept of risk has three elements
•the perception that something could happen
•the likelihood of something happening
•the consequences if it happens.
•the perception that something could happen
•the likelihood of something happening
•the consequences if it happens.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
aa777888 - yes but professional mitigation of those risks helps reduce the odds rather markedly.
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.
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 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.
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.
KJ - that doesn't mean the risk is reduced - history is not a predictor of future events.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 415 Likes
on
218 Posts
For those wanting a thrill, I think bungee jumping elastic ropes are probably twice as thick as they need to be.....
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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 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.
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.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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 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.
,....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?
but the pluses outweigh the minuses by a long, long ways for dare say most of us.
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, 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.
besides, its only seldom that tourists end up drowned in a river so regulating that would be a gross overstepping of authority.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
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.
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.
,...and I earned my license you sanctimonious jackass!
No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?
By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
No, you bought your licence. How many people you went through training with failed and were sent home to think again?
,...as opposed to being the "chosen one" who then gets his training for free plus a job waiting for him when its over.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
By the way, I don't tar all civilian pilots with the same brush, just those that want to lecture me on freedom.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 850
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
...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 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.
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.....
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.....