That I do agree with ! In this day all tanks should be as crash proof as possible . Sadly as with most things helicopter related the price will be astronomical......

there's other industries and heli operations that make you don safety gear when using their services, so give a fair example at to why you think it's a bit of a stretch?
I can see a one size fits all overall emblazoned with the company logo as they waddle you out to the aircraft for your wedding photo shoot in the valley, because the FAA said so. Is it cool? no. Is it cumbersome and a PITA? yes.

Do you don Flame Retardant clothing to ride BA, Virgin, Air Canada, American, United?

As we say here....State rests its case yer Honor!

But how many have died on BA and Virgin recently?

Crash worthy tanks are a no brainer.
The rest is ridiculous...

Have you ever been involved in tourist ops?
There has been some complete rubbish said on this thread, this taking the prize...

"They were flying because in Tourism flying they fly everyday unless it is unflyable. The visitors are only there once normally so you have to take their money while you can. That is the commercial reality. Sad but true."

Are you a commercial pilot? What company dosnt fly if its flyable?...
You will go out of business pretty quick if you only fly on nil wind, sunny days.

It might be worth looking at the numbers flown, vs accidents in tourist operations. It might surprise you.

GrayHorizonsHeli, before donning the fireproofs you going to ask your guests to strip off their synthetic garments? Could be interesting with the ladies.

Don't assume I think its a great idea either. But I've seen how lawyers work. Lawyers make companies pay/lose money thru liability claims. We all know how liability works.

BBC announces one law suit

Claims:

The pilot was at fault for crashing
The Directors were at fault for not fitting crash-resistant fuel cells
The manufacturers of the aircraft were at fault for not building the machine with crash resistant fuel cells
A mechanic was at fault for work on the tail
An Inspector was at fault for work on the tail

They missed the FAA for not mandating the retro-fitting of crash resistant fuel cells. After all, that's what they did to Robinson aircraft.

probably shouldn't surprise you that even one unnecessary death is one too many regardless of statistics. Agreed?




On a side note: do any current tour operators require you to sign a waiver acknowledging and accepting the risks? If so, what specifically does it refer to?
I would assume if you don't have a waiver, offering some sort of legal protection or at least something to argue in court, the operator assumes any and all risk to passenger safety.

have they made in the Grand Canyon....a couple of airliners have you know.....with no survivors.

Final report out
 

In its final report into the incident, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in the US concluded tailwinds, potential downdrafts and turbulence were the probable cause of the loss of control of the aircraft.The "most significant factor" affecting survival of those on board the helicopter was the post-crash fire, according to the findings.

The aircraft was "not equipped, nor was it required to be equipped, with a crash-resistant fuel system".

After the crash, the helicopter company announced that it would fit crash-resistant tanks to its fleet.


https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-55674015

Can’t find the actual NTSB report.

Since 5 out of 6 pax died of burns injuries, rather than impact injuries, I am surprised the NTSB did not take the opportunity to explore the legislative history of CR Fuel tanks and review the benefits of mandating them.

I can see a Reg 28 Report (prevention of future deaths) being requested at the UK Coroners Inquest into the issue of CR fuel tanks in Helicopter Operations in the UK.

Have you found/seen the report? How do you know that they didn’t?

I couldn't find the report either! It's not one of their big published reports, but is in their database:
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-main-public/basic-search
Select "Investigations"
Paste the accident number under "NTSB number": WPR18MA087 and then "Search"
Scroll down .. the PDF report and the docket will be listed

thanks - so, in fact, zero recommendations!

That’s the land of the free for you. Don’t encumber operators with responsibility and accountability, that would get in the way of making a buck.
A few people here and there is a small price to pay.
Keep calm and carry on.

NTSB published a safety recommendation report in 2016 .. requesting FAA & EASA to inform operators about CR tanks and urge them to fit, where available ...
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/...s/ASR1602.aspx
2016 seems a long time ago :(

Yes, that was the accident that popped up when I was searching.

I guess the concept of fires and aviation crashes is still in its infancy. Will take a while to address......

I speak from personal knowledge since I represented 5 out of 6 of the families, and was privy to the Post Mortem Reports. The press reports and video show 3 pax survivors, two of whom later died of their injuries. Enough said.