most trial lesson students forget everything as soon as you take off

Come on peeps let’s try and keep the facts straight. We all know that media do frequent this forum.

Whilst we do not mandate SFAR 73 training, this is still a requirement as part of a type rating under Training Areas of Special Emphasis (TASE). Instructors are still required to have a minimum of 50hours on Robinson Helicopters and 15 on type before instructing on the type.

That aside I do agree that most of the trial lesson brief is forgotten as soon as you step out the hangar doors.

Trial lessons should as you say should just be 1 on 1. You wouldn’t put your whole family in your car on your first driving lesson now would you?

Will be interesting to learn which seat the instructor was sitting in. If LH then OK, if RH then duals should have been removed surely.

Why? Do they remove the dual controls in a Cessna when you are not instructing?

Well, with pilot error, I at least have a chance. With mechanical failure I'm at the mercy of The Fates. Which would you rather have as 80% of the accidents in the aircraft you fly?

for what it’s worth, the BBC reporter took this completely out of context and stirred up the operator using the out of context quote. Media make mistakes sometimes… this journalist was corrected and the complete in context message was shared with numerous media outlets today. Our message was clear that there is insufficient information to evaluate this case at this point and the AAIB are the only ones who can properly investigate.

The reporter asked about whether there would be a recall or safety directive because of this accident… our response was the quote above to clearly say that the vast majority of accidents don’t result in directives, SB’s or similar. But of course the journalist went to the operator and told them we blamed the pilot.. all nonsense.

But it was supposedly a lesson, so he was instructing!

Suggest you wind your neck in a bit.
(I see that subject of your vitriol has responded in a gentlemanly fashion, and example you'd do well to follow).

Folks,

Chill Out!

At this point, no one.....repeat NO ONE....can assert with any credibility what caused this tragic accident.

There simply is not enough information in the public domain to be able to do that.

One can surmise, suggest, hint, observe, pontificate, or offer wild assed guesses but no one knows yet what the cause is or shall be determined to be by the Investigators.

Hairstreak and Robbiee jumped the gun it appears and in my view owe some apologies for leaping to conclusions that appear to be based upon some disinformation. As to this only Fate determines the outcome of a mechanical failure I see that as pure rubbish. Yes, there are single point failures in every single aircraft flying that is the case but there are also a host of other failures that can be coped with by a well trained and capable pilot. I would suggest if you actually think Fate alone determines every mechanical failure you are in the wrong business.

How many posts have I made offering to have solved this one? You might want to take a look at the Montana EMS Crash thread and see what I offered there. There is a reason for the difference.

That was an event hot for debate, Night, said to be foggy, EMS, Single Pilot Bell, hasty off airport landing zone, and a patient that wound up being transported by road following the crash and that thread has gone dead quiet.

That a somewhat plain cause with a concrete base was easy to figure out makes it far different than this tragedy.

From the R44 II POH, section 4:

CAUTION
Remove left seat controls if person in that seat is not a rated helicopter pilot.

Is this what that should look like? (same aircraft, June 2025)
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b36aca2dd9.jpg

If this was an instructional flight both sets of controls would have been installed and the instructor/captain would have been in the left seat

If this was a "sightseeing" AOC public transport flight then the left hand set of controls would have been removed and the captain would have been in the right seat.

Exactly, and the picture shows the latter case so the whole argument about the flights being lessons is debunked (as was obvious anyway).

Thank you, but not really.

The BBC quoted the operator:https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgnnm7pzj1t

If you look on their website, they do seem to offer pleasure flights, trial lessons, and PPL(H) training. We can debunk the assumption that they're not able to offer pleasure flights properly, they clearly can and do (and they're cheaper).

We've heard upthread that it's not possible to offer pleasure flights from the airfield on the isle that they were operating from, because the airfield is not licensed, but they were allowed to conduct trial lessons. [see below]

It does look like they're operating well within regulations.
It's a matter of opinion whether these regulations serve their purpose.

I think Adventure 001/Northumbria Helis do pleasure flying/London tours from a private site/field just east of London, which I assume has fire cover in place. So I would also assume they are allowed to operate from "unlicenced" places. I stand to be corrected of course.

You are of course correct.

Sone details here https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/20482

As we may know the AAIB may comment upon the flight and its authority but I’ve never (not that I read endless reports but enough to take a view) seen the operation cited by the AAIB as causal. Aside from noise is their any rationale why a flight conducted as instructional would be compromised verse a sight seeing flight via an operator with an AOC? (Much of the guidance material above refers to many things around operation and procedures whilst on the ground for example)

My personal view is that having passengers in the back of an instructional flight could well be a distraction for both the Captain and the student. Can you really give good safe flight instruction with potentially two people in the back talking even if occasionally?
So from my point a view, an instructional flight operated as a quasi sight seeing flight is compromised.
I'm sure they were and probably still are operating within the rule book but if that needs to change, it's over to the CAA.

Either way, a tragic event and my condolences to those families involved.

Of course we can all imagine many things that might lead rise to LOC but they largely remain just imaginative or in the never say never catagory. certainly I can’t see what an AOC would prevent.

As we probably have all experienced in our own flying careers the very first lesson is largely an experience because for most it is the first time for flight in a light aircraft. I suppose my point being that as a person in control of the aircraft an instructor shouldn’t be deficient and having +2 POB shouldn’t be an issue if the aircraft is flown in limits. You might also imagine the briefing would be beyond any basic pax flight?

You realize that section 4 is NOT a limitation or mandatory.

Section 2 contains this:
So certainly in FAA land, he would not need to remove the dual controls. (Caveat--the POH I verified with was from 2019, and this may have changed).