Coincidently it's very similar to the number(42) who've died on the roads in NYC during the first quarter of this year.

Mayor Adams Announces Traffic Deaths Reach Historic Low During First Quarter of 2025

I’m not on the banning side, but to make it comparable by risk we would need to know the number of flights.

Ten miljon pax would be two million flights, right (thinking all flights was 5 pax in average).

This is 110 flights every day for 50 years, with the 5pax cabin factor in average.
This is 14 flights every hour if performed 8h 7 days a week.
14 flights an hour is ~ 3-4 helos doing 20 min back-to-back flights constantly. I have no knowledge of the number of helicopters doing this during the 50 years but I think it was not tens of millions?

In this case it was the eight tour of the day at 3 pm.

Except if you dig a bit deeper you’ll find the underlying cause for these flight “banning” efforts has more to do with noise issues that have been going on for decades in NYC vs any real safety issues. And to further their noise advocacy efforts various people and groups will latch onto any aircraft accident or incident and make it their battle cry in the name of safety.

The NYC council has systematically restricted downtown helicopter movements for years. However, they always come up short to completely ban any and all aircraft movements even though there are still around 30,000+ helicopter fights per year in the city. They even have a special 3-digit number you can call to report helicopter noise issues which last I checked was 10,000+ complaints per year. So this current move is nothing new. Regardless, there is plenty of public info out there about this ongoing movement which was well established before this recent unfortunate accident:

NYC Council Report

Stop the Chop.

Various NYC articles

Grew up in NYC, thru high school anyway but got involved in helicopters and in 1972 had an experience kinda related to this problem and was exposed to a convenient alternative solution.
Place and Mission: German Army ( HEER ) base, Buckeburg, Germany. 1972. Flight demonstration of the Sikorsky S-67 Gunship to the German Army aviation community by giving German Army pilots the opportunity to fly the S-67.
Guest Pilot: Oberst ( Colonel ) Joachim Ott, Base Commander. Note: Col. Ott was known to us. He had been checked out in the CH-53 at the factory prior to the CH-53G being produced in Germany.
Weather: Low overcast at 4-500 ft, with visibility clear below the overcast.
Flight Commentary: Cleared the pattern after takeoff, and with me flying took it to Vh which was approx 176-8 KIAS and some basic maneuvering as limited by the ceiling, then handed it over to the Colonel ( very good stick BTW ) who liked to fly lower than I did. So, we are maybe 200, mostly less and I’m certain we are going to cause trouble with the Buckeburg inhabitants.
ICS:
Dixson: ( as we are now not far above the house TV antennas ) “ Col Ott, isn’t this a bit low-don’t you get noise complaints?
Col. Ott: Yes we do, John, I make it a point that I get the noise complaints by answering them on the telephone personally”
Dixson: Col. Ott what do you tell them?”
Col. Ott: “ I ask them are they sure it is one of our helicopters?”
Dixson: “ And what do they answer, Colonel?”
Col. Ott: “ they say, oh Colonel,we know it is one of your helicopters we can see your identification:.The German Cross.
Dixson: And you respond?”
Col. Ott: “Are you sure it isn’t a Red Star?
Dixson: And?
Col. Ott: “ they say: oh no Colonel we know its your helicopters because they don’t have a red Star”
Dixson: “And?
Col. Ott: “Be thankful for that and I hang up”
Dixson: Don’t some of them call back?
Col. Ott: “ They never call back”

I told this story to our Ch. Pilot upon return to the US. Suggested he try the Colonel Ott approach, but all I got was a look that said my next performance appraisal was in jeopardy.

Thanks for the number crunching, :ok: so probably more than a million but less than ten million.

Just a demented silly thought


Perhaps they can look into what percentage of travel on airlines could be defined as Non-essential?
After all do you really need to go to Disney World or the Caribbean?

Criteria would need to be met and justification would be required before passengers could purchase a ticket.

That would cut down on problems with airport congestion, reduce ATC requirements Nationwide and would be good for the environment. Not to mention the background ambient noise reduction in large cities.


Kind of like rationing to save fuel and tires during WW2

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....5eb4ad319.jpeg

If we could please return to the topic at hand...:)

Any updates on the NY accident?

Aside from the NTSB Preliminary Report, their 'Docket' on this accident hasn't been released yet, which presumably only occurs once they release a final report:

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/?NTSBNumber=ERA25MA171

The public docket is posted when the interim Factual Report is released.

A reliable source has stated that no problems were found with the main transmission, thus again pointing to the rotor blades as originally postulated. Nothing else has the energy potential to disassemble the aircraft.

https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/527081
Rumor is there were VH blades installed on this machine.

Well kinda maybe perhaps.....if one includes vertical pins and TT Bars and perhaps the Hub as being part of the "rotor blades".

Those failures could release one of the blades and create the kind of Imbalance that would result in a catastrophic failure of the aircraft but not be a "blade" failure.

I would call it a blade retention failure. It would matter not which brand of blade was installed in that case.

If the Tail Boom failed structurally and found its way up into the rotor system and thus create a "blade failure" would that be different than a failure in one of the Rotor Blades occurring without any outside cause akin to that?

I am trying to sort out how you are defining "Blade Failure".

To assess blame we ought to be very specific as to how we allocate "blame".

Care to expound upon your post to clarify your observation which in general I fully agree with but I am still waiting for information that points me to the root cause and originator of the process that caused the aircraft to come apart as it did in apparent level cruise flight in benign weather.

All of the pictures of the recovered rotor system showed the hub, TT straps, and blade pins/roots intact. Does not appear to be a retention failure (unless we consider the retention of the main balance pocket, which is something I alluded to earlier in this thread)

Occam's razor suggests more and more this was likely an issue with the VH blades and their well documented, however poorly explained and understood, vertical hop phenomenon - between the noticeable tail wag at ground idle of the accident aircraft before the incident, to the flight envelope at the moment of the incident, to the condition of the rotor system at recovery.

Based on the construction and analysis approach used, as a career blade and rotor designer I still do not understand how the 206 VH blade design was certified in the first place.

rumours are correct

And quite some time after latest accident, ASN wikibase has been updated to reflect that it was a 1990 built Bell 206L-3, C-GSHF.

Canadian TSB status on Great Slave Helicopters accident :sad:

Air transportation safety investigation A25W0084 - Transportation Safety Board of Canada

Fly Safe, Always :ok:

Reckon something is going to happen with VHA and mostly negative.

That TSB report specifically highlighted Van Horn blades.

One thing that has been alluded to by Crab in an earlier post is FW clutch slip and re-engagement which has happened more than once on a 206B and sheared the mast clean off on the one in Canada. Maybe in this case the mast twisted, then bent, as it is heavier than a 206B mast, and whirl took the mast and gearbox with it. Just going back through the video it looks like the cabin yaws violently and leaves the tail-boom behind. There was an AS355 that had a clutch slip and re-engagement in the C-Box in the UK many years ago that completely disintegrated in flight and that was with only a C-20 engine. Just another option in the conjecture.

I believe not. Mast Yield would have been obvious at this stage whether engine or transmission related.

On a side note RVDT was that AS355 out of an airfield /tack in Hampshire? Lost a friend in that one.

PM me if you wish...,

Racing track?