That is all for an aerodrome, this was an off-aerodrome site

"Private" .... that term which (unless the CAA have at last properly addressed the problem) means all safety rules can be ignored. I wonder just how many passengers are aware of the difference between Private and AOC flights.

If we're now getting into the realms of private vs commercial, then maybe some of you who listen to podcasts may find this one on the Sala crash somewhat interesting. It does go on a bit but episodes 5, 7 and 8 are particularly interesting. The podcast is on BBC and is called 'Transfer'

As pilots, we're the professionals behind the controls so we should be the ones making sure everything we do is to the highest possible standard. Do we think lights are necessary to assist in a night departure from a poorly lit site? Then ask for them. You can buy a set of lights which you can put out for orientation. These can easily be picked up by someone nominated on the ground after departure and posted on to the operator for a few quid!! ( I already know one operator who does this) . Or how about places that are expecting helicopters, spend a few pounds and buy some decent lights. We don't know what the cause of this accident was, or if it was well lit, but the wx conditions certainly appeared to make things more difficult for the pilot.

yes, I'm sure most of them just assume because they have paid for the flight that it will come with all the same safety protections as flying off on their hols on BA or other airlines.

I wasn’t trying the challenge your credentials. I was referring to the fact that the majority of civilian night operations are still carried out under what the RAF began referring to a “reversionary night flying” about thirty years ago, ie without the use of individual night vision devices and compatible lighting.

The rules state that sites used for public transport must be adequately lit by night. Private sites for non public transport nights not necessarily so. For the last twenty years or so, working for non pt operators I’ve sometimes been without the privilege of operating from an adequately lit night site and many that wouldn’t be legal for PT. I have refused some and been castigated for doing so. On one occasion the owner accepted my decision but called in a commercial operator who did the job I’d refused on safety grounds, using a far less experienced pilot…but not from this operator.

See above - some can be aware of, but will accept, a potentially greater risk because that is their mentality.

Almost in my parish this one and familiar with the estate as my other half has ridden all over it a few times. If the shoot was organized by the Naylor-Leyland owners then I would have thought the obvious LZ would be on their grass strip (my outline) in front of the ‘big house’. It’s certainly long enough for an ultralight and well maintained so no problem for rotary. There are plenty of broadleaf copse low down but the pine trees are on the adjacent higher ground.
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a9d0b2d934.jpg

NVIS training is not overly onerous, but every penny counts to private helicopter companies, and they will not go to NVIS ops as long as they can get away with not spending the money. Even if NVIS is best practice in our industry (which it unquestionably is), until something is mandated then these sorts of accidents and incidents will happen because its routine for the operator. Currency is not an issue in police ops but even if it was, most medium to big onshore companies either have access to a sim or have their own sim where currency is easily maintained....

That's just bonkers, don't these people have any sense of self preservation?

In the onshore world it's ALL about money. Operators will do anything to get the work and anything to try to shave every penny off a job

At a well known onshore IFR operator.. I have witnessed the Operations manager (who was the Chief Pilot's 'partner') shouting in the background "what's wrong with him? he's got an IR, just tell him to get on with the job" when a pilot had phoned in after having to divert due to poor weather (thus wiping out the profit from the job)

That's an example of the kind of thing that goes on.

Crab, for the answer to your question I suggest you look again at the PM I sent you 30 Jan 2020 re commercial pressure. Reading hargreaves99 comments I guess nothing much has changed in the last twenty-five years.

Possibly not but I always considered it my job as Captain to preserve my own skin and therefore protected them too.

Some successful business people are high risk takers by nature but obviously that characteristic isn’t at all ideal if you’re their helicopter pilot! The big problem comes when having to deal with ebullient and/or aggressive characters where you might be the only person who ever says “NO!” to them. I’ve been there, too. Walked away from that pressure in one employment because I felt it almost every day and it was doing my health no good.

Guaranteed, in the event of an accident (and history proves it), those who applied pressure for the flight to go ahead will likely be the first ones taking very large backward steps, away from accepting any responsibility and dumping it at the pilot’s door.

Paradoxically, prior to flying in the military one has to prove to an authorising officer that the flight can safely be undertaken. In the civilian world, the pilot might find himself having to prove that it cannot!

More prevalent in fixed wing ops, but also occurs in rotary (no names, no pack drill) is the idea of a "fare paying passenger" having two contracts. One to rent a serviceable aircraft and another contract to hire the services of a jockey qualified on type. The awkwardness comes when the aircraft owner gets the jockey to manage the bookings (ie both contracts) which could then be seen as "one". The Sala case is likely to develop into clarifying the insurance implications of this. [Note, I'm certainly not saying that happened here, just responding to the Private v AOC comment]

In Brazil, every aircraft which is commercially operated has to have "TAXI AEREO" above the doors so a passenger can check for themselves and be reassured
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....3d52ae96e0.jpg

Helihub

The problem with AOC v private is the incredible expense that goes with having an AOC against the amount one makes. It is even worse when it comes to single engine VFR AOC where one has to have something like 300m of open space infront of one to take off . Somewhat defeats the object of having a helicopter in a load of instances. When I had an AOC the number of jobs we had to turn down due to the sites not being big enough was a joke. I remember one customer getting very shirty when I said no to a pick up he said "what is wrong with the system, my mate landed his R22 in my garden and it is unsafe to fly a Hughes 500 in and out."
I realise it is all about safety but if an engine is that likely to fail on take off should single engine helicopters be allowed ? There is a risk to everything we do, the probability of an engine failure on take off is so low as to be not worth talking about. I shut down my AOC as one couldn't legally make a profit doing it with all the expense, pointless auditing etc etc. Realistically to stop the Sala case happening Gatwick needs to make the costs and hoop jumping more realistic and then it would be able to control what happens out there. Seeing as that is never going to happen the problem will never go away.The law is the law, It is not illegal for someone to hire a helicopter, it is not illegal for someone to hire a jockey. It is only illegal for a jockey to offer his services, a helicopter and fuel to a punter. It would be almost impossible to draw up a law to prevent Sala case. For instance a CPL can be hired to fly an N reg ac for the" owner", but they are not strictly the owner as in most cases a trust owns the machine , so you start to see the problem for the law makers.

Agreed, CAA regs and fees are strangling the industry.

eg

£96 fee to add an expired type rating back onto to your licence, why?

£9 fee to book a CAA medical appointment with your AME. why?

I would think it is because they don't get enough money from the Govt

Last time I paid £14, do you have a discount code hargreaves99 :p

I did that and you were absolutely right - I am better informed now:ok:

Yes me too £14

Under the US FAA system there is no "Fee" paid to the FAA by the Pilot with the only costs being those charged by the Flight Surgeon providing the Examination.

A full description of the system can be found at this Link.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33620822/