|
In most lands, FAA not withstanding, they manage to have accidents with just one set of working controls.
having someone up front whose focus is on taking in the scenery, and most likely, recording the moment, with duals, while trying to tick all the training boxes for a legal flight, just seems like a great way to cleanse the gene pool. Imho. |
Originally Posted by hargreaves99
(Post 11945801)
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.
|
Originally posted by 212man “Exactly, and the picture shows the latter case so the whole argument about the flights being lessons is debunked (as was obvious anyway)”
I don’t agree, I believe your theory is incorrect and the picture shows nothing more than a previous pleasure flight in the same airframe. It’s this simple: Pilot in LH seat = lesson Pilot in RH seat = pleasure flying The operator in question has the capability to do both types of flight as they are a UK AOC holder as well as an ATO. I’ll wait for the AAIB report to find out what happened as the depth and level of detail they go to is beyond most people’s comprehension. |
Originally Posted by Gordy
(Post 11945920)
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). Concerning cautions in the POH in general. Section 1, page 2, revised 10 Jul 2012: CAUTION Equipment damage, injury, or death can result if procedure or instruction is not followed. |
[QUOTE=TTSN;11946038]
Originally Posted by 212man
(Post 11945741)
Exactly, and the picture shows the latter case so the whole argument about the flights being lessons is debunked (as was obvious anyway).[/QUOTE
Frankly pathetic, your theory is debunked and the picture shows nothing more than a previous pleasure flight in the same airframe. It’s this simple: Pilot in LH seat = lesson Pilot in RH seat = pleasure flying The operator in question has the capability to do both types of flight as they are a UK AOC holder as well as an ATO. I’ll wait for the AAIB report to find out what happened as the depth and level of detail they go to is beyond most people’s comprehension. |
Originally Posted by TTSN
(Post 11946038)
Originally Posted by 212man
(Post 11945741)
Exactly, and the picture shows the latter case so the whole argument about the flights being lessons is debunked (as was obvious anyway).
Pilot in LH seat = lesson Pilot in RH seat = pleasure flying The operator in question has the capability to do both types of flight as they are a UK AOC holder as well as an ATO. I’ll wait for the AAIB report to find out what happened as the depth and level of detail they go to is beyond most people’s comprehension. Something most pilots learn early: attention to detail. Apply some to your environment, here, if you please. (I figured out how to use the quote function in less than a week; why has it taken you so long?) As regards the combining of a lesson/trial, and carrying passengers, that's one of those risk assessment things that each organization will approach somewhat differently. As I don't fly in the environment where this accident took place, I'll wait for the report to understand the bounds on the regulations better - when the experts publish their findings. |
[QUOTE=TTSN;11946038]
Originally Posted by 212man
(Post 11945741)
Exactly, and the picture shows the latter case so the whole argument about the flights being lessons is debunked (as was obvious anyway).[/QUOTE
Frankly pathetic, your theory is debunked and the picture shows nothing more than a previous pleasure flight in the same airframe. It’s this simple: Pilot in LH seat = lesson Pilot in RH seat = pleasure flying The operator in question has the capability to do both types of flight as they are a UK AOC holder as well as an ATO. I’ll wait for the AAIB report to find out what happened as the depth and level of detail they go to is beyond most people’s comprehension. |
Hughes500 I was talking specifically about Robinson’s - I know in a Hughes 500 C,D and E it’s usually left seat so didn’t mean to offend you 😀
|
Originally Posted by Hughes500
(Post 11946155)
That comment shows how little you know about who sits where. The instructor can sit in left or right seat. The only difference is who has the starting mechanism and who is going to start it, as in quite a few machines the start system is on the left set of controls . Which means the pilot will always sit on the left side no matter who is doing what
|
I thought this thread was about a helicopter crash?
Might we get back to that somehow? Or is it there is nothing that known that is worth discussing re this crash? |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11945585)
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. |
Originally Posted by SASless
(Post 11946271)
Or is it there is nothing that known that is worth discussing re this crash?
This is the internet, nothing is always worth discussing at length :E |
Originally Posted by LOZZ
(Post 11946047)
The page you quote from is still the same for that text in the POH I am referencing where that page was last revised 26 JAN 2024.
Concerning cautions in the POH in general. Section 1, page 2, revised 10 Jul 2012: CAUTION Equipment damage, injury, or death can result if procedure or instruction is not followed. |
Originally Posted by Gordy
(Post 11946442)
SO still not a legal requirement then. As a CFI, he can legally be the PIC from either seat.
|
Originally Posted by LOZZ
(Post 11946649)
Ah I see, for you this is about legal requirement, fair enough.
As with most things, there are many different ways of analyzing a situation: Legally, Morally, Philosophically, Medically and Religiously. Each one will have a different outcome….. I go by the mantra of: “If ya do the right thing, you are not wrong”. Gotta love it. |
There can be a lot of daylight between what is ethically/morally right and what is legally acceptable.
When is training not training? If the intent is a scenic flight, which can only be operated by ticking training boxes, at what point does the F-word (fraud) start raising its head? People lost their life, lawyers will be all over this from a potential criminal and liability perspective. When they put every aspect of this operation under a magnifying glass and dissect every detail, will the justification stand up to scrutiny? I doubt who sat in what seat will be a consideration. |
Originally Posted by Bell_ringer
(Post 11946680)
If the intent is a scenic flight, which can only be operated by ticking training boxes, at what point does the F-word (fraud) start raising its head?
We also do not know at this point why the accident happened. We do not know whether the fact that there was a customer at the controls was a factor, though I think there's precedent for that? For example, the cause of the crash could be a mechanical failure (possible, although less probable). So it kinda makes sense to speculate about a "what if" about that, although it'll likely go nowhere as long as we don't know what happened. But it makes no sense at all to suggest fraud or rule-bending, because everything we've found out so far indicates that the operator didn't need to bend any rules. |
I see that company regularly flying form my homebase airfield . They seem to run a proper operation, like all of us I m sure they will get things not quite right every so often ( please dont read anything into that ).
I guess we will never actually know the why's 100% unless there is evidence of a mechanical problem or there is film footage from inside. |
Other companies who have an ATO only (ie no AOC) seem to sell "trial lessons where you can sightsee from the back"
eg https://flyingpighelicopters.co.uk/r...kyline-flight/ https://flyingpighelicopters.co.uk/s...copter-flight/ |
Originally Posted by Hughes500
(Post 11946723)
I see that company regularly flying form my homebase airfield . They seem to run a proper operation, like all of us I m sure they will get things not quite right every so often ( please dont read anything into that ).
I guess we will never actually know the why's 100% unless there is evidence of a mechanical problem or there is film footage from inside. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:17. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.