How Can I Convince My Family That Helicopter Flying is No More Dangerous Than FW?
 

My family (who will be helping a lot with funding in one way or another) are keen for me to go fixed wing route, and try my very best to get a job with the Airlines eventually.

I however, have no desire to go fixed wing. I've heard all the pros and cons of both many times, and still feel rotary is the one for me. In fact, I find fixed wing boring after going up with mates etc etc.

I've tried to google some facts and the first thing I saw was this

So not a good start lol. Can anyone think of any way I can convince them? I've tried explaining all I can, but everytime they see a heli crash on the news or anywhere they automatically think the worst.

Need to convince them firstly for help with finding/loans, being guarantoor etc, and also would be good to have them on my side of course

ETA: At the end of the day, they may well be more RW accidents than FW, but I need them to understand that its not as dangerous as they think and its not a deathtrap flying RW, and am just getting nowhere

Cheers
Garfs

There are more helicopter accidents statistically because most helicopters operate in areas without a supporting infrastructure, where there are not as many written rules and procedures to cover the operation, and by pilots who are operating on their own without direct supervision or the benefit of a copilot. The variety of tasks they are capable of and called on to perform are larger in number than the fixed wing world, and they operate closer to the margin of design than fixed wing aircraft. Flights are shorter in duration, and concentration more intense for longer periods.
If you look at accident rate per takeoff and landing, historically the most dangerous part of any flight, helicopters are significantly safer than nearly any fixed wing operation.
The US Navy has a higher accident rate than the US Air Force, but has good reasons for it. Same with helicopters in comparison to fixed wing.

Follow your heart
Demonstrate your conviction
They will support your decision
and, they will still love you.

Meantime, I operate in a fairly rough environment, and my stats are way better than your numbers. Most good muster operators are running at better than less than one reasonably serious accident every 13,000 hours.

I know one dude who has in excess of 20K hours, all mustering, all in R22's, in fact he is not even endorsed on anything else except an R44. As far as I am aware he is still to scratch a machine and has only had a couple of real emergencies.

besides F/W's cannot fly backwards. get into it.
tet

Garfs,

I started a thread re Helicopter accidents and why they happen, do a search and check out the findings............most seemed to be down to pilot error of some sort so providing you are a competent pilot.

If you are in the UK, go to one of the organised safety evenings, there you will get the EXACT figures relating to accidents.

Good luck.

Garfs:

It will be tough convincing them. Especially since Hollywood also gives helicopters a bad name. Just watched "Broken Arrow" a few weeks ago on the tube. Every helicopter that shows up crashes five minutes into the scene!!:eek: Does not inspire confidence in the machine for a lay person.
Good Luck in your endeavours .
Alt3.

Every thing that Shawn Coyle said plus pick a period of excellent weather with good viz. and book them a site seeing trip with a reliable operator.

Thanks for all the replies :)

KNIEVEL77 I shall have a look for the thread right after this. Unfortunately, I am not in the UK anymore so wont be able to attend anything of the sort over there.

I left the UK and my job as a police officer there as I realised it wasnt the career for me, and have just thought, sod it, if I dont go for my CPH now I will never do it (after toying with the idea for the past 3-4 years).

Cheers
Garfs

You may want to compare stats on transport by car, bus, bicycle, motorbike et al. They make intersting comparisons. Even walking somewhere is more 'dangerous' than flying.

If they (your family) are willing, I suggest a trial flight for them, and if possible get the instructor to demo an 'engine failure'. You'd be suprised the number of people that don't know about autorotation and think helos just drop out of the sky when the engine stops!

Helicopter flying can kill you....being in a job you do not care for will do the same thing but takes longer.

If you really want to take up flying...fixed wing or helicopter, what your family thinks (assuming you are single without children) doesn't matter. If you have a family (wife and children)....your first obligation is to be the best provider for them you can be. The road to a paying job flying helicopters is a long expensive way.

Weigh your obligations against your dream....and make your decision.

SASless

Thats another one of those posts that should go down in history, wish I'd written it myself.

:D

GS

Well the reason it matters is largely due to funding, partly in form of a loan, as well as being guarantor for my loan should I go ahead.

I dont have a wife or children yet, but about being a provider, if all goes to plan I have been told by the family that at the moment I am very fortunate as I stand to inherit the family business, which will be able to provide me and my future family with more than enough assuming nothing goes terribly wrong(another reason why I am not attracted by the possible financial rewards of a FW pilot)

At the moment family say they will fund an Integrated FW course, but not a CPL(H)

How old are you?


If this is what you want to do, go do it. On this topic alone I bet there's about 100,000hrs worth of experience, we're all still here.

Either get the funding independently, or start standing up to your bloody parents. Did they tell you who to date, or how many beers to drink at the pub?

If you're trying to justify one career over the other by statistics you're finished. Statistically I should be dead many times over in cars, motorbikes, helicopters, airplanes, pubs, boats, Dorm Rooms... and just about everywhere else I've been...

Sorry to sound a bit harsh, but good god man, if you DO start flying helicopters for a living, it takes initiative, dedication and solid DECISION MAKING skills... And that's just to get your first job. When you're out in the bush(should you go that route) your on your own...

If this is your passion, make it happen. Mom and Dad are just that, they don't factor into this decision.

RH

The stats at work say flying helicopters in the offshore role is 18 times safer than riding a motorbike. !!:ok:

Garfs, to answer your question: You can't. People assess risk differently. And usually it is on an emotional scale. Sure, we know that driving can be dangerous, but we still do it because we've determined that it's one of life's "acceptable" risks. To non-aviators, flying helicopters seems like one of life's "unacceptable" risks. Hence, their reluctance to fund your CPL-H but their willingness to fund your F/W training.

And let's face facts, flying helicopters *is* dangerous...if you equate danger with high-risk (as some do) because flying helicopters is certainly highly risky. We pilots minimize the danger and the risks, both to ourselves and to others. We try to convince ourselves that what we do isn't *really* all that risky/dangerous...no, not really. But deep down inside we know that it is. We see it all the time - highly experienced pilots who bite the dust due to one simple lapse of judgment. Too much of what we do depends on us doing our job...not just "well" but perfectly. And that's a lot on our shoulders, to be honest, don't you think? How many other professions can you think of in which the participants need to do their job perfectly - no room for error - or they die?

You'll probably never convince your family that helicopter flying is as "safe" as fixed-wing flying. Heh- it's amazing that they now consider fixed-wing flying safe. For compared to the airlines, general aviation flying surely is not. Best of luck to you, though. You'll probably have to go it alone if you want to pursue helicopters. Me, I'd let them fund my f/w stuff, get going in that direction and transfer to helicopters later.

or should I do a CPL(A) and convert to fixed wing? Not a good idea with not many jobs around at the minute!

Sounds like your family are being overdramatic... You should make a decision based on what you want to do and stick to it. There is room to discuss that, yes, everyone reacts on a different emotional scale etc, however they should make the effort not to offload that onto you. They should support you, not discourage it because of some 'perception' that it's the route to an early death.

My family thought it was VERY dangerous flying helicopters ..........so they packed me off to Texas to get my CPL (H) :eek:

Hi Garf

Have you read GASIL (Safety, incident & accident mag from the UK CAA) on a yearly basis they print accident stats, its available on line.

...but at least i didnt have to learn on a Robbo :eek: oops :oh:

First, you can't really take numbers like those in your first post as being more than a very, very general set, perhaps analogous to average life expectancy in a state. There's huge variations by sector. Prime example, the airline industry's safety stats are pretty dern good, but they're still part of the fixed wing universe's "8.38 per 100,000 hours flown" that you quote. "If you play in the street, you should expect to be hit by the bus"- the airlines don't play in the street, but some fixed-wingers do. Even though flying an aluminum tube for thousands of hours may be a lot of exposure to that fixed wing accident rate, it's not all that dangerous (or exciting) no matter how demanding it may be.

If 'the scheds' do well at safety numbers, it's because of three things: Well trained, current pilots operating in a system adapted to the job; Suitable equipment for the job being done; Risk adverse management. That's the long way of saying that in the end somewhere between 75% and 90% of all accidents are pilot error, so if you eliminate the opportunity for an error in the pointy end, your numbers have to improve. Even in the realm of helicopters, that works. I worked at PHI from '84 to '97. During one of those years, PHI's accident rate, per departure, approximated the scheds (or so I recall).
That was a HUGE change. They did this by analyzing their accident history and then making changes in training, operations, and safety culture. While the management that made that happen was in place, a line puke, er- pilot; mechanic; dispatcher; anybody at all, had a formal way to take exception to a proposed operation knowing that whatever the outcome, they'd receive an impartial hearing. And, their issue, if supported, would be THE BOOK, immediately. The take-home is this- no matter how "hazardous" your phase of operation may be, pilot error is still going to be the biggie. No matter what: fixed or rotary wing; sched or on-demand; day or night; IFR or VFR, I, thge pilot in command, decide how hazardous what I do will be.
Rotary wing has the potential to be as safe, or SAFER, than fixed wing. Other than catastrophic structural failures and inherently more critical operations such as those Mr Coyle alluded to, I'd much rather have an emergency in a helicopter than an airplane- if all else fails I'm going to crash moving much more slowly in a helo, and I'll need a much smaller area of favorable terrain to make that a survivable event. It's a fact that some parts of the helo world will never be as safe as 'the scheds', but they can do a lot better by minimizing pilot error.