Another low flying fairground incident.
 

Surely not a Robinson still doing tour flights at 11.00pm.......LIVINGSTON PARISH- Residents in Livingston Parish expressed concern late Tuesday night when they reportedly spotted a helicopter flying so low they were sure it was on its way to crashing.

The calls to emergency personnel came in around 11 p.m., some saying they'd seen the helicopter flying extremely low near the Parish fairgrounds, which are off Florida Boulevard near North Range Road.

Some told first responders they also heard a loud noise and assumed the helicopter had crashed.

The helicopter did not crash, according to representatives with the Livingston Parish Sheriff's Office. Early Wednesday morning, the Sheriff's Office confirmed that the helicopter landed safely in Hammond with no injuries.

Some believe the loud noise Livingston eyewitnesses heard was due to the helicopter hitting a few trees.

At this time, the identity of the individual manning the helicopter and the organization the aircraft may be affiliated with remain unknown.

At times, helicopters are legally allowed to fly lower than other aircraft as it’s much easier for them to perform emergency landings than it is for other aircrafts. In addition to this, they’re often used by law enforcement and emergency medical service agencies, requiring a bit of leeway from the Federal Aviation Authority (FAA)

Here, maybe this will liven it up for ya?

Forgive the stupid question but are commercial operations allowed at night on single engines in the U.S.A.?

There are no stupid questions, but the answer is yes.....why would a twin be required?

Here in Europe singles aren't allowed to be used for Commercial Air Transport operations at night. Anything single and rotary after civil twilight generally can only be private.

In Oz, night charter is in a twin, and the pilot must hold an instrument rating.

A couple of years ago I asked this exact question here

https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/61...ight-quiz.html

for me now as it was then it’s all about the stabilisation not the number of engines.

Is engine failure your number one cause of accidents there? Ours is wire strikes (second by weather, I believe) which don't care how many engines you have.

I'm not sure what the reasoning behind that regulation is but I'm certain it's not new.

I believe that the reason behind the regulation is that originally helicopters all had piston engines, which were less reliable than they are today. The rule was made and never revoked, despite engines becoming more reliable.

What is a low flying fairground?

So you mean pilot error then? As is everywhere else...

Laws exist to protect the people on the ground, not only those in the air.
In dense urban environments there is little margin for error and a low probability of a forced landing that can be safely done without damage to people and property, and magically redundant powerplants help reduce that risk.
Since most traffic is commercial in rotorwing the regulations probably make sense to those that make the regs.
That pilots have a habit of flying into things doesn't negate the concept of probability.

Low flying is a regular killer, so cowboy operators that make their livelihoods by offering thrill rides to uninformed members of the public, are just riding the statistical curve towards a smoking hole in the ground.
Still, it's a great way to generate ongoing demand for Frank and co. :}

Philosophical question: are engines more reliable today?
From a design and manufacturing perspective components are possibly of a more consistent quality, but failures almost always end up due to poor or lack of maintenance, or poor installation.
The human aspects have not changed.
The volumes of flight hours have increased, as has urban density so if anything the risks are greater now than they were before.

I don't think you will find any official reports that state the wire or the weather caused an accident.... unless you believe everything you read in your daily tabloid news reports.

Apolloheli: Or military (although admittedly all the Squirrels and, I believe, Gazelles have now been withdrawn).

It's an oblique reference to this earlier thread from November last year.

As with the government's response to Covid, too true.

As with the government's response to Covid, the common man is disadvantaged and has to obey

How does that have anything to do with the operation that was described in the original post, which, other than occurring in the vicinity of a fairground, almost certainly had nothing to do with fairs or helicopter ride concessions?

It's been a very sad year around here: all of the fairs and other events that would normally have enjoyed a helicopter ride concession have been cancelled due to the pandemonium :(

apart from low-flying? Very little.

Bell Ringer, it was only a matter of time before aa777888 weighed in on this thread in defense of the quick thrill ride industry.. oh and don't forget the tree trimming that supposedly occurred

Hmm, having worked for a "cowboy operator" who put his operation right inside a wire basket, I almost want to agree with you.

,...still not quite sure why he'd have to add a second engine to do those thrill rides after the sun goes down though? Unless maybe star light causes engines to sputter?

I'm no helicopter pilot, but presumably it's considerably harder to pick a safe landing site and perform an autorotation into it when you can't see it?

this is indeed what someone aware of their limitations might be thinking.
Of course if you believe you have superior skills and are keen to find opportunities to display them, then a little nighttime auto won’t be top of mind.

Well, I am a helicopter pilot (with over 350 hours of flying at night over the city in my little ol' single engine 22), and I'm just wondering why my engine is now suddenly more likely to fail just because the sun has gone down?

I don't wish to come across as blunt, but are you deliberately missing the point? Nobody is suggesting that the reason it is prohibited is because of an increased chance of engine failure at night - they are suggesting that a night-time engine failure in the dark is considerably more likely to end badly than if it occurred during the day - considerably enough so that the authorities deem the risk to be too great.

I don’t fly twins and have crossed my fair share of dense urban areas, generally I opt for a wider route where there are more golf courses and sports fields, not because I lack confidence in Rolls Royce but because the idea of negotiating powerlines, railways, streetlamps, bridges, telecom towers, people, cars and buildings (to name a few), when by the time you’ve spotted them you are committed, does not fill me with excitement.
Doing it at night into a black hole, less so.

At those moments, I would happily have a second engine onboard.
It is unsurprising that in some parts of the world, authorities have made that a requirement.
When someone does get hurt, as rare as it may be, they have to answer to Joe public who does not care what you are flying and generally considers anything flying above an unnecessary threat.
Palookas doing stupid things in aircraft, just motivate bureaucrats to create more regulations that ruin it for everyone else.

That logic just seems backwards and unrealistically overly cautious to me. At night you alter your flight path (if you can) to a "more favorable to forced landing areas" one, but to be flying around and suddenly now that its dark I have to go back home and jump in a twin is ridiculous!

There are plenty of places that even in the daytime are gonna result in a crash (no matter how good your auto skills are) if you have an engine fail over them,...do they require a twin as well?

it’s not about you. It’s about the people on the ground that don’t have a say in your recreational or professional pursuits.
Authorities have decided that what you consider acceptable for risk is irrelevant and have, rightly or wrongly, set the bar higher for everyone else’s safety.
you will forgive them for not taking your word about how talented you are.

When you're driving do you refuse to wear a seat belt because you fail to see how wearing a seat belt stops you from crashing?

I just want to point out private flight at night in singles is still allowed. I'm not sure if that was misunderstood, but the regulation is only for commercial operations where paying passengers are aboard (a rich guy with his own personal paid pilot wouldn't fall under the regulation btw). If you're flying around in your R22 for fun, assuming it's got the right kit for NVFR, you're happy to continue regardless of daylight.

When you drive at night do you put on a second seat belt?

No, misunderstanding. We just have plenty of single engine night operations over here involving paying passengers.

Ok - put your hands up if you have done an auto at night to the hover - on an airfield where everything is level and clear.

Now keep your hands up if you have done an auto to the hover off airfield.

Anyone scared themselves sh*tless yet?

Now imagine it happening at an unplanned moment where you have to select a suitable landing area in the dark AND THEN carry out an EOL you can walk away from.

Does anyone still not get why it is more risky at night???

Hmm, just how many people have their hands up? Does this happen so often that at least 50% of pilots now have their hands up? In all the years single engine helicopters have been giving rides over the Vegas strip at night (and there's a lot of them) how many of those pilots have their hands up?

If I were to ever get a job giving rides in a single at night, exactly what are my odds of having an engine failure at night?

No body is much interested in the odds of a night engine failure, they're interested in your ability to get them on the ground in one piece. With all the lights on the Vegas strip you can hardly call it "night", try out in the middle of the GAFA on a moonless night.Single engine Huey we used 35 knots for the auto night/IMC with the landing light pre positioned to hopefully give you enough warning for a pitch pull, not knowing if you were going into trees or a clear area. Don't recall ever doing it to the ground at night in training as it was a long, long time ago.

Giving rides over Vegas at night doesn't count as night? Well never mind then. I'm a city guy, couldn't care less about flying in the middle of,...wherever.

Megan, our instructors would say to turn on the landing light around 300' agl (too much reflected glare above that) and if you don't like the look of what you are going to crash into, turn it off again.

Look ahead and die visually, GCA out...

Robbiee - when you got your licence, you had to demonstrate your ability to get the aircraft on the ground safely following an engine failure - during the day - so there is a check and balance that gives you and your insurers a warm and fuzzy feeling that you will likely survive (even if you bend the aircraft a bit).

If you haven't trained to do night autos - at least to the hover - what are your chances of safely executing the manoeuvre?

And it doesn't have to be just engine failure - a TR failure or a fire for instance, would put you in the same position of needing to get on the ground really quickly.

Generally guys who fly twins have had practice in a simulator doing all these things - how many single engine pilots get that extra training?

I reckon a night EOL going from the very bright lights of Vegas into a dark parking lot or park would be pretty horrible, with or without a landing lamp.

Maybe people doing or advocating night single flying haven't really thought through the extra risks in their libertarian desire for freedom to make money.

I wouldn't go night flying in a single without NVG - at least I could see where I was going to crash.

I have done a lot of night flying in singles, I think you just have to accept that that if something goes wrong that the outcomes are much more likely to be worse !