EASA Proposals - Take Action Now!!!
 

People,

I've just received a letter from the Helicopter Club of Great Britain regarding a consultation process that might result in some significant , and adverse, changes to the way helicopters can operate in the U.K.

The proposals include the installation of ELT's, emergency flotation equipment for flights over water (including twins) and other items of equipment for flying at night.

All operators, regardless of whether we are owners, have an opportunity to reply and we must do so or we could be seriously affected if these proposals are implemented.

I have summarised the proposals on my blog which can be found here New EASA Proposals. Take Action Now!!!! .

Please take a look, download the letter from the HCGB and make your responses to EASA before it's too late.

Joel

Done!

123456789 characters

Well done!
Thanks :ok:

Joel

JTobias - please do not take offense at my comments but I have to disagree quite strongly with your post. Of course this is my own opinion and I am not saying everyone must agree, but I do not think you should necessarily be telling people to complain about these measures just because that is your standpoint.

By all means people should read and make up their own minds, and then if they feel strongly enough contact the EASA.

However, I believe all of these measures are a good thing, and a step in the right direction. I fly offshore and over water every working day and would not dream of flying without some sort of serviceable flotation equipment. If you are advocating to do so in order to save money is a good idea, then I will have to disagree. Your comment "even for twins" also I find rather naive. Do you believe the only reason for ditching is an engine failure?

I really cannot see why any sensible pilot could disagree with any of this. Night flying on a dark night with a pitot/static failure or AI fail on you is perhaps a far scarier prospect than you realise, and to advocate again that the use of back-up instrumentation at night is a bad idea is frankly insane.
Whilst you may be happy to fly in such a manner, would your passengers/friends/family, in the aircraft also be so happy to know that you can be so complacent about the safety of their lives. There are way too many helicopter accidents every year, so anything and everything possible should be done to make it safer. I have lost way too many friends in helicopter accidents, so any improvements in safety must be welcomed.
I for one will FULLY SUPPORT the EASA proposals, and I am truly sorry that this may cost you money, but if it prevents anymore accidents and fatalities it can only be a good thing.
This is not intended as a personal attack on you, but I merely seek to point out that people should take all the facts (not just financial), and make up their own minds.

Errr, that's going to make things rather expensive for people who need to do a night rating for their CPL.

Are those who want light touch regulation also keen on light touch SAR when all goes wrong??

I liked the qoutes on the website that made the good old British CAA (c1998) look like the saviours of GA. Is someone using Bernie Ecclestone's rose tinted glasses to look at history?

As I said on the previous thread on this subject; this is an important juncture in European aviation and you should be prepared at least to go to the web site and take a look at the proposal.

The HCGB do have some interesting points but have missed one thing that might have been highlighted; at the last major revision of Annex 6 Part III, a decision was taken to follow the FAA lead and separate out the SARPs for instruments into three parts: VFR day; VFR night; and IFR. EASA have not chosen not to make the same simplification - it would have made a difference.

There are two elements in the list provided by the HCGB which do need highlighting: the requirement for a second attitude indicator for VFR night has no precedent in JARs or ICAO - it is a mistake; the requirement for an alternative source of static pressure for VFR night is also an overkill - it is usually required only for flight in IMC.

For CAT pilots: good luck in trying to establish the exact requirements for IFR instruments, the combination of inheritance, four rules and many AMCs will test your resolve to the limit.

The requirement for 'ditching approval'/'floats' for all helicopters comes straight out of JAR-OPS 3 because the ICAO text for GA is:which was intended to take care of offshore operations conducted by oil companies with their own helicopters; or to provide flexibility for (relatively) short over-water transits to be permitted to GA by the State.

Providing a raspberry to EASA will not do the trick; in the case of flotation equipment, it might be pointed out to them that the Commercial Rules are not proportionate and are not applied to GA in any existing regulation (if that is correct). It might also be a good idea to provide the contents of the ICAO note to these two clauses:Jim

Stats?
 

Does anyone have any figures for how many helicopter flights are taken over the irish sea or the English channel every year with A/C that do not have floats? Also how many of them have to ditch. I can't remember any happening in the past few years. Where are the hard facts for this supposed increase in safety? It seems to me to be a restriction on people's freedom. I hate the fact that a faceless European institution it trying to reduce our freedom to fly.
Time to pull out of Europe and all the !!!! is stands for.

So does that mean it will never happen, or can never happen? Should we wait until a few people die in the sea first and a few very expensive SAR missions are deployed before we decide floats are a good idea?
Freedom to fly is fine as long as it is not unnecessarily endangering others or restricting their rights. You have the freedom to fly as long as you fly responsibly and in accordance with the relevant regulations, whether you agree with them or not. Far too many SAR aircraft are scrambled due to people essentially not taking proper precautions, and being prepared with respect to basic safety, and this is not just applicable to flying. This is an unnecessary cost both in monetary terms and in terms of the safety of crews who are going to come out and try and find the hapless individuals, who are expecting a pick-up when all goes wrong.
Freedom to fly is fine - but it is not free, It has a price, an that is responsibility. We must always consider our actions and ask "what if?"
We used to drive around in cars without seatbelts and airbags, but now that is unthinkable. We eventually realised how much this was costing the health services, and forced change. Agreed - a different scale, but the principle is the same.

What?! Have you any idea of the tiny profit margins in the flight training business?

I know it's safer to have all this extra equipment on public transport flights, but for doing a 5 hour night rating in a single-engine piston heli? Give me a break...

I (and others) still can, quite legally, in the UK. The Government did not require retro-fit of seatbelts, fog-lights and other "safety" items. And that is also a matter of principle.

This proposal does require retro-fitting of equipment which, as has been pointed out, is not feasible for smaller aircraft, whether or not a commercial flying school has to pay for the fit.

If we legislated for every possible accident, would we ever be allowed to get out of our beds? :}

Cheers

Whirls

warning sarcasm, disdain and anger follow
 

I know that name calling will not help my argument but I can't help thinking you are an arse.

People like you amaze me. If you think flying is so very dangerous don't do it. Go home wrap yourself in cotton wool and call your life over right now because in effect you are saying that people are not able to judge risks for themselves. I am a climber. I go out and climb up steep rock faces and sometimes even ice and snow and God forbid I sometimes do it in bad weather. People like you would ban me from doing if it looked like it might rain or if I didn't have the right qualifications. People like you are trying to kill me before I'm dead. I despise you and your arguments you are trying to create a world of the living dead. Time you hung your wings up and buggered off to a nursing home where people will make sure everything is safe for you.

Every one has a level of risk he\she will take,the problem is that there are others that think they should be making that decision for us, personally I would take a beacon, and wear a life vest if going over sea, as to the floats big decision, maybe if I flew over sea every day, as for the other instruments, light, for night flying jury out I don't, would have another look at my risk factor, if I did, at present playing with another control could prove riskier than fixed lamp.
If I was taking money for a flight yes I would expect a different level of safety, which I would expect to pay for on the hire cost.
Whirly & CDoc are both on the mark does the risk warrant the cost to the industry \ private flyer.
Left comments what a nightmare site, still they are trying to grow the empire I suppose:E

i don't see how that is totally relevant to the argument. If an aircraft does goes down in the water, SAR would attend whether the aircraft had floats or not; because the occupants would still need rescuing.

Is there a similar set of requirements being made for fixed wing?

Horror Box

Thanks for the reply. However, to a degree, your'e shooting the messenger.
All of the comments on my blog are made by the HCGB not me. I am simply regurgitating them. I do however fully agree with their viewpoint, which is why I put the post up.

In any case, although it's probably perfectly clear what my position is, I haven't told readers how to reply, just that they should consider the proposals and make a comment.!

as far as your comments are concerned, if you are flying offshore regularly in a commercial capacity, then I think you should have as much protection as you can get - floats or otherwise. However for most operators the requirement to install all of that equipment is simply un-necessary. I fly over the water 3 or 4 time each year and I don't want to have my ability to do this restricted.

I'm perfectly capable of accepting the risk and in terms of floats, there not going to have that much effect if I have a problem over water. Yes it would be great to have them but to insist on them with absoluteley no justifiable reason is preposterous. With respect to you (and I have no doubt you are a far more experienced pilot than I am) you (probably) aren't picking up the bill for your machine. And before you say were all putting finance before safety, were not. It's simply not a proportionate proposal.

There is every possibility that when I'm driving down the motorway in the fast lane I may have a blow out, but I don't have a double set of wheels at each corner of my axle.

I appreciate your comments, but these proposals need to be proportionate.

Joel

The new Bell 429 doesn't have a steerable landing light, but has a two-angle main landing light, and better lighting to the side than any other helicopter I've ever seen - does that meet the intent of the proposed new ruling????

Whirls fair lady......accidents can happen in bed too!

Thank you for this well put argument, it really adds to the quality of any debate! I hope no one I know is ever anywhere near you or your helicopter, and that you are not as unprofessional in your approach to flying as you appear through this post, because you are a bloody liability. I am afraid it is people like you who will give helicopter flying a bad name, and frankly it is better off without you. Whilst I can see and agree to a degree with the points others have made, I still think it is worthy of sensible discussion, something you have clearly already dismissed. :=

Yes - but an ELT will make it a hell of a lot quicker and easier.

Chopper Doc... I'll fly with you anytime...