For the commercial side that is true - I have never known it so bad for so long. However the issue for Heliair and other companies like it is that they on the whole serve the PPLs, self fly owners and ab initio training market. The commercial side can bounce back if the economy recovers. Heliair's market however has been falling for twenty years. Repeated attacks by the taxman in the UK and elsewhere makes it increasingly difficult to either buy or run a helicopter on a business. Both capital costs and running costs have escalated well ahead of inflation and earnings. and there really isnt an ideal helicopter for the serious private owner.

Q has carved out a niche by providing an excellent service - if you book an aircraft you are never let down. The aircraft is out, fuelled and ready. Support is never too much trouble, you can go and come when you please, and the price is highly competitive. So what is left of this market has gravitated to HQ leaving the competition floundering. Not healthy.

The same old petty bickering ...!!! I trained on the Hiller and Bell47 and fly everything up to Agusta 109 ...so no heavies. I believe that until the CAA understand that they are killing the industry things will not get better . I have operated in a small way without an AOC for thirty years . Would i like to be able to operate with an AOC ? Yes probably , but the cost and bureaucracy make that impossible . I fly on the FAA ticket because again the red tape involved in flying multiple types in EASA land make that also difficult . I don,t think i am anywhere near unique when i say that i would quit helicopters altogether if i had to be in the system as it is . More and more people fly every year , and every day , outside of the AOC system ( i would guess over 90% in the small fixed wing market !) and it seems to work fine . I reckon that if you dropped all the prices by 20% you would generate a lot more flights ...and you would be more profitable , if we scrapped the onerous side of the AOC requirements .
I am about to get a Bell 505 . It is a simple helicopter . It will be very cheap to run ( circa £350-400 per hour i reckon ) and would be ideal for cheaper charter ......but there are none on AOC yet and i am told the costs will be high .
Why ?? It is just an L4 with a French engine and 5 seats !!! So if you would like to charter one you cant ....but you will be able to lease one . And you will be able to fly into Battersea without floats and fly at night . None of it really makes sense to me and i have watched the helicopter (GA) industry die over the last 20 years or so without anyone so much as lifting a finger to stop it . When we leave Europe it would be nice if we could go onto a system more like the N reg and let all the single engine owners generate a little income towards their overheads and in turn introduce a whole new group of people to flying ... it will still be expensive ..but a lot cheaper than chartering now !

Under EASA rules, if you do "aerial work" you don't need an AOC anyway (that would appear to include photography). The wrinkle in the UK is that the ANO makes no allowance for the "essential persons" that you can carry on such work.

Phil

You dont actually need an AOC for anything other than ad hoc charter . If someone wants to do a number of hours charter they can always just lease your aircraft and do it much simpler and cheaper privately !! The UK system is so restrictive and expensive that owners think they can only use their aircraft for themselves or rent out to operators at very low rates . They may just want to get say 25 hours a year to help with cost of insurance and that doesnt work with AOC,s . All they need to do is find a few people who would like to charter , do a lease agreement with them for X hours and give them a list of approved pilots . Job done . The crazy part is that they can then legally do much more with the helicopter then the operator can do such as night flying , no floats etc etc which personally i wouldnt have thought was enhancing safety !! The fixed wing boys have done this for years now very happily and that is why they seem to thrive . If there was such a thing as an AOC Light which would work for single machine operators wanting to do a few hours a year we would all join . If its going to cost £20k a year and a raft more paperwork then its pretty obvious its not going to work !!

Paco . So you are saying that i can take say three pax , all with cameras , and fly them around with no AOC or other permit ? The problem is that you will then get into an argument about who was necessary for the flight . If you just do a lease you get over all of that and know that you are acting legally . I am not aware that anyone has ever been prosecuted for leasing , unless they havent bothered draw up a lease agreement or are providing their own pilot within the price . The CAA also want the aircraft maintained to the same level as an AOC machine . ( at least that was the case when i last asked them about 10 years ago ...)

Off the top of my head (meaning correct me if I'm wrong) you can take up to 6 essential persons to from and during an aerial work flight. Here s the ICAO definition:

Aerial work. An aircraft operation in which an aircraft is used for specialized services such as agriculture, construction,
photography, surveying, observation and patrol, search and rescue, aerial advertisement, etc.

It's the etc bit that intrigues the lawyer in me....

Mmmm...so your Mother coming on photo flight and her job is to point out the things to photograph may work ....?? I think i would still go " belt & braces "
and do the whole job as a lease . That way i wont need the lawyer in you !!

You could shoot a coach and horses through the ANO if you had a lawyer with the right attitude..... Starting with whether it was laid before Parliament properly.... And whether the CAA have permission in the Enabling Act to do certain things....

I was a student of Glenda's at HA too in the late 90s. I stayed with HA for many years until the sale. It then became an odd place to visit. Instructors seemed hard to find, lessons got cancelled, then you got somebody who had never flown with you. After a break, I went to HQ. It's a great place with some great people. I don't fly with Q by choice but they have some regular instructors who know my limits. There's always somebody around to offer advice, and the engineering side is open and welcoming so no questions seems too small. Even if I am not flying, I drop in if I am nearby for work as there's always a familiar face to catch up with or a machine being maintained to ask about. HA Denham was a bunch of lecturing rooms and a big, empty reception area where I personally felt out of place.

The CAA considers itself to be above such trivialities as the law. For example, I understand that the Senior Flight Examiner (for one) is continuing to conduct CPL skill tests despite not holding a Class 1 medical, in clear breach of the EU Regulation.

I think that shows common sense !!
Why do you need a Class 1 when you are sitting next to a CPL doing a skills test ? I would argue that you shouldn't need any medical to pass on skill so good on him !!!

NIGEL
Maybe so but if there’s a set of rules that are in place surely the authority that controls them should comply
Otherwise it could make things difficult for the people taking the tests when their licences get pulled years later
There was a examiner in Yorkshire not CAA that his medical had run out the CAA cancelled the pilots licence if the examinees and they had to retest

When I did my CPL test, the CAA's chief examiner, that conducted the test, didn't have a a type rating on the machine.

MD600 . I was being a bit tongue in cheek and do agree with you . However if the CAA themselves made sensible rules we could ALL abide by them !!!! I think it seems crazy to have older experienced pilots who cannot do training or check rides due to no medical.
One of my checkrides was done by a pilot who had never flown the helicopter in question so effectively I was giving HIM a lesson !! At the end of the day he is there to observe so I would have thought no need for duals either ?

presumably in a Robbie???

Very good decision - disappointing that he was even willing to show you:ugh:

I was shown low G and demonstrated it back during my training in the early nineties, never hurt me... :ok:

He conducted my PPL test in a 22 that was 70 pounds overweight, because he was 2 hours late and the planned machine had gone back to its owner. He overruled my protests and then within several minutes of lifting off he wanted me to do a confined area landing into a very small woodland clearing. Again, he ignored my protests that we were too heavy, insisted I land there and then berated me for going in there with too much weight and not enough power to get out without putting the MAP in the red. Exasperating.

Wasn’t this thread about HA? For sure, Q is marmite but his business seems to be doing better than the Fat One’s.

As the person who started this thread, I'd rather it be about HA (and the associated inference that it's a shame to see parts of the industry contracting) than Q bashing, not least because I'm a fan of Q's (there you go, have declared my interest).

rr84c - you are correct that it is a shame about the industry contracting but it is interesting that a few have voiced concerns about said individual.

He is, by all accounts, a good pair of hands in a helicopter but pilots with his 'larger than life' type of personality have been the subjects of many Flight Safety seminars and courses that I and many others have attended over the years - usually when dissecting the causes of a fatal accident.

When his 'talent' runs out, perhaps because he believes his own press or just chances his arm once too often, it is likely to have severe consequences.

Confidence is everything in flying training - over-confidence is not.

Perhaps you should set your sights a little higher when looking for a role-model.