Hawaii Tour Helicopter Missing 12/26

[Doc Holliday]

Nate you’re kind of all over the place here. .

What’s new?

 

[Bell206]

if tourist flights (supposedly) have a better safety record than any other GA heli flying? (Not my words, the claim made above.)

Not quite. Read it again. Helicopter general aviation is safer than fixed-wing general aviation (commercial or non-commercial) by published accident rate. And just so we're on the same page, the standard definition of general aviation: is all civilian flying except scheduled passenger airline service.

Most of the tourist helis aren’t single engine.

FYI: most tourist helicopters are turbine single engine and do not cost $3M+ a copy. Don't know where you keep getting your info, but most is not correct.

the public won’t be truly protected from them.

Do you think this same public should be “protected” prior to going on any type of non-121 flight even when no cost or money is involved like an Angel Flight, or if someone’s Uncle Bob gave the visiting family a ride in his 1960 182? By the context of your comments, since the public “thinks they’re all the same” wouldn’t it follow your Safety Third mantra to protect them as well? And while you consider statistics a game, it’s also “math,” which points to Uncle Bob’s flight being a riskier endeavor to the public family than any air tour ops you choose to select by a factor of 3. It’s easy to cherry pick certain facets of aviation to make a point on, but in the end they’re all related some in form or fashion.

Safety Third will continue for my lifetime. The public wants cheap thrill rides. They have no idea what it costs to do it correctly.

More curiosity. What would you change in the current system to provide these thrill rides to the public in the “correct” manner?

 

[JOhnH]

Boy, talk about thread drift. We went from concern and sympathy for the deceased to this.

 

[denverpilot]

No I’ve been consistent. The tour biz as a whole minus all of the aviation gobbledegook YOU have added as defense, kills tourists regularly due to economics of the biz. 91, 135, industry alphabet soup safety “programs”, all completely unrelated to my initial accurate assessment of Safety Third.

Like I said, it’s nice there’s some good ones. They aren’t all, and won’t ever be. We’ll be reading about more fatals and tourist thrill rides will keep killing customers.

Just an economic fact of life. There will always be low quality low dollar operators and enforcement usually doesn’t catch them.

I also pointed out that none of us are really surprised by it. It’s not exactly shocking news or anything.

I never said I wouldn’t take the risk. Clearly I did. I knew the silly little floats on the skids were a joke and we’d be dead if we went for a swim strapped to a heli. The pilot may have had dunk tank training, we sure as hell haven’t.

We were the only two aboard who actually attempted to release the harnesses and reattach them.

There were people who couldn’t figure out how to get out of them once the flight was over with. They were dead meat flying.

The odds smiled on them that day. They figured it’s just like a teenager lowering the grab bar at Disney. Clueless.

Oh well. No matter what anybody thinks of my simple economics assessment, another 13 year old tourist is amongst the latest body count.

You’re right about the twin thing. I thought ours was a twin but looked, yeah... single turbine. Like you said we both have no qualms about knowing a risk of death is involved in our other single flying.

I don’t think the other passengers had even the slightest clue. Their knowledge level was “pretty helicopters” on TripAdvisor or a four color pamphlet from the hotel kiosk.

I have hope this one is mechanical. Nearly 70 year old pilot brought down by a rain squall? I assume by age he was fairly experienced. Next we hope the maintenance logs don’t look shady in the daylight.

 

[Bell206]

Their knowledge level was “pretty helicopters” on TripAdvisor or a four color pamphlet from the hotel kiosk.

And by your collective replies above, their knowledge appears to be only a notch below your knowledge level. Enjoyed the discussion.

 

[retpd2001]

Most of the tourist helis aren’t single engine.

Sorry, but you are wrong.

 

[denverpilot]

And by your collective replies above, their knowledge appears to be only a notch below your knowledge level. Enjoyed the discussion.

I never claimed to understand how to pay for a $3M machine at less than $500 in profit per flight. I simply said ... AGAIN ... that is a very difficult ECONOMIC nut to crack. The rest is ancillary to that and brought up by others. And in each example given, there were still examples that proved the original point.

Worth the risk to me to see pretty scenery but I’m not going to pretend the tourism flying industry isn’t *consistently* deadly.

Like I said, point to one person you know who’s truly surprised the biz dunked another helicopter fatally in the islands. Or another Alaska charter whacked a mountain in iffy weather.

Nobody ever has been, or will be, surprised by this in my lifetime.

Get mad at me. I don’t care. Get mad enough the biz changes and there isn’t a single fatal in a decade.

I say the economics of that sort of flying will never allow that good of a safety record. That’s all I have said. Maybe the economics of all flying.

I’m cool if the tourism flying industry proves that wrong *consistently*.

No big deal. Just economics. Someone will always do a job cheaper and less safe than someone else. The question is more how you avoid them vs pretending they don’t exist.

When this started I simply stated the facts. The biz killed some more folks. It always will.

The rest of aviation also does. Tourism crashes are just some of the least surprising.

It’s nothing personal against those of you trying to do it right. You aren’t the pilot who strapped someone in with a Home Depot carabiner and joked about how drunk they were. You also don’t have any way to truly stop such a yahoo.

It’s just like my main biz. Y’all aren’t ever going to have computers that work truly right at $500 a laptop. Suckage will continue. The market only bears so much quality/safety.

You guys could give me a helicopter ride the quality and safety of Marine One, and I could assemble a team to build you an OS that would never crash.

Neither of us can afford it. Oh well.

 

[denverpilot]

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Agreed and already stipulated. Interesting that they’re not though, isn’t it? Another example of the economics problem of Safety Third.

 

[Tantalum]

Could be nothing, but after seeing the tour helicopters in Hawaii first hand underneath you on a ridge flying in and out of the clouds in a canyon and hear the locals tell about stories of them flying through archways and below the treetops down a narrow field or clearing, then you hear about an accident, you have to wonder..

It's like the guy with a really low credit score missing a payment.. sure maybe the check got lost in the mail, but is that really the most likely thing that happened??

 

[Everskyward]

I say the economics of that sort of flying will never allow that good of a safety record. That’s all I have said. Maybe the economics of all flying.

But "that sort of flying", as well as most adventure travel, is riskier than sitting at home in a chair. Even without the economic aspect, many tour operators are there to give the passengers a cool memory, if not a thrill. Look at the pilots who crash the airplanes they fly themselves doing risky, fun things. Knowing where to draw the line is a challenge. Curious where you would draw it since you don't seem to approve of where it's drawn now.

 

[Tantalum]

many tour operators are there to give the passengers a cool memory, if not a thrill

Yup, exactly. Air travel is cool enough, especially when you're looking at the amazing Hawaii coast from a helicopter.. leave the thrills for the zip lines, parasailing, etc.. flying through the clouds in the canyons and under coastal arches is reckless

 

[Tantalum]

This is the arch I've mentioned a couple times, locals say it is common for helicopters to bring tours through there.. actually flying through it.. allegedly it was done once in a crappy movie back in the 70s and since then it's been a local treat of the pilots to repeat the stunt

20-30 seconds in

 

[Bell206]

flying through the clouds in the canyons and under coastal arches is reckless

to repeat the stunt

FWIW: I've never been able to explain the unique capabilities of helicopters to an airplane person. So I won't try now. But to keep within the spirit of your avatar statement... the optimist helicopter pilot flies his helicopter through coastal arches because he can... the pessimist airplane pilot calls it reckless or a stunt because he can't. It is what it is.

 

[Doc Holliday]

FWIW: I've never been able to explain the unique capabilities of helicopters to an airplane person. So I won't try now. But to keep within the spirit of your avatar statement... the optimist helicopter pilot flies his helicopter through coastal arches because he can... the pessimist airplane pilot calls it reckless or a stunt because he can't. It is what it is.

But...but.....helicopters are soooo "dangerous!"............

 

[JOhnH]

But...but.....helicopters are soooo "dangerous!"............

I know you say that tongue in cheek, but they are dangerous. That said, I would take a helicopter tour any day of the week rather than drive I-4 through Orlando, or any of the Interstates through Atlanta. Those are insane.

 

[Doc Holliday]

I know you say that tongue in cheek, but they are dangerous. That said, I would take a helicopter tour any day of the week rather than drive I-4 through Orlando, or any of the Interstates through Atlanta. Those are insane.

Your Bonanza is dangerous as well.

 

[Tantalum]

FWIW: I've never been able to explain the unique capabilities of helicopters to an airplane person. So I won't try now. But to keep within the spirit of your avatar statement... the optimist helicopter pilot flies his helicopter through coastal arches because he can... the pessimist airplane pilot calls it reckless or a stunt because he can't. It is what it is.

I'll give you that, I suppose it's like people saying "small planes are dangerous" who know nothing about planes.. but I do stand by my statement that pushing the limits to thrill your passengers is ill advised. Obviously it must be cool at all hell to cruise down the Jurassic Park canyons with the jungle 50 yards to the left and right of you, but, I'm also not surprised when an accident happens, and I wonder how much of a briefing the pax get. A heli tour of the Hudson or NYC or whatever is probably much more "mundane" than what these guys do..

But...but.....helicopters are soooo "dangerous!"............

ha! I never said that

I know you say that tongue in cheek, but they are dangerous. That said, I would take a helicopter tour any day of the week rather than drive I-4 through Orlando, or any of the Interstates through Atlanta. Those are insane.

Your Bonanza is dangerous as well.

And motorcycles, cars, skiing, surfing, mountain biking, hiking, etc., are all "dangerous"

Mechanically though helicopters have a lot more stuff going on than most planes.. and (from what I understand) require a high degree of airmanship to fly.. so perhaps the people that fly them are more proficient, but strictly speaking they're less tolerant of either mechanical, or, human failure, than, say a C172


PS - I'm not suggesting we need more regulations, or whatever, just that I don't think most people who sign up for these rides are aware of the level of risk they're taking on by going on one of these tours. The raft tour we did down the NaPali coast had some genuine pucker factor moments when they brought the raft inside the breakers near sea caves, etc., but they warned us about two dozen times before we left the port what we would be getting in for, and gave several opportunities for people to change their mind before we left port

 

[JOhnH]

Your Bonanza is dangerous as well.

Of course it is.
The old phrase goes "Everything in life that is fun is either illegal, immoral or fattening".
I would add to that; dangerous.
btw, I wasn't criticizing helicopters. I'd rather be in a helo with an engine out than a single engine fixed wing with an engine out. And I HAVE been in a single engine fixed wing when the engine failed and I lived to tell about it.
Rather, I was emphasizing how dangerous other things we do every day are.

 

[denverpilot]

But "that sort of flying", as well as most adventure travel, is riskier than sitting at home in a chair. Even without the economic aspect, many tour operators are there to give the passengers a cool memory, if not a thrill. Look at the pilots who crash the airplanes they fly themselves doing risky, fun things. Knowing where to draw the line is a challenge. Curious where you would draw it since you don't seem to approve of where it's drawn now.

I fully approve of where it’s drawn now. But it’s going to kill people regularly. I never mentioned at ALL where I sit in that regard but hinted heavily at it by actually climbing in one.

And that same company had a fatal after that. Oh well.

My point has always been that the economics of it don’t allow it not to be deadly.

 

[Everskyward]

I fully approve of where it’s drawn now. But it’s going to kill people regularly. I never mentioned at ALL where I sit in that regard but hinted heavily at it by actually climbing in one.

Yeahbut you thought it was a twin.

I've gone on a couple helicopter tours. One was over an active volcano in Hawaii, and the other was over Victoria Falls, in Zimbabwe. Someone else did the research on both these flight (she does LOTS of research), but she never mentioned the safety record of either of these companies, just your chances of getting a good view. I just googled "Victoria Falls helicopter accidents" out of curiosity. I could only find two. One in 2004 and one in 2014. Neither were fatal. But they don't go that low, follow designated routes, and seem like they are communication with other helicopters during the flight. Note that I didn't do this before the flight.

 

[Bell206]

and (from what I understand) require a high degree of airmanship to fly..

Perhaps you should try it sometime. I soloed in a Hughes 269 first, then a 172 several years later but never got beyond a student pilot. I preferred fixing them to flying them and wanted to be a great mechanic vs a great pilot. But with that said, after a couple hours in a helicopter you might be surprised on the airmanship question....

but strictly speaking they're less tolerant of either mechanical, or, human failure, than, say a C172

I would beg to differ. Mechanically for example, if your 172 pukes an engine you 'll need several 200 feet+ of flat land to get down in one piece vs your average helicopter needing an area of your average suburban front yard in a properly executed auto-rotation. As to human failure, they are both equal.

 

[Tantalum]

Perhaps you should try it sometime.

I've thought about it.. but it's insanely expensive compared to renting a fixed wing

 

[Bell206]

But it’s going to kill people regularly.

And what form of transportation doesn't?

My point has always been that the economics of it don’t allow it not to be deadly.

Yet, by your own words (post #47), you specifically state you don't understand the economics of helicopter operations. So, my continued question is, how can you make a valid "point" that something is deadly when you don't have a clue how it actually operates regardless how "difficult" it may seem to your limited knowledge on the subject? Perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard and reflect?

 

[Bell206]

I've thought about it.. but it's insanely expensive compared to renting a fixed wing

They have "discovery flight days" in the helicopter world too. Come on, just do it. Cross over to the dark side....

 

[Everskyward]

They have "discovery flight days" in the helicopter world too. Come on, just do it. Cross over to the dark side....

I did, and I was hooked. But that was a long time ago. One of the least financially responsible things that I have done.

 

[Geosync]

I’ve investigated some fatal helo crashes and just as many near misses that could have easily been smoking craters. In fact the only times I’ve been on helos is sling loading other helo wrecks out of the forests. It’s incorrect to say that tour ops don’t care about safety, they care quite a bit(not sure about the Liberty situation) in general. They don’t want to kill tourist s or have their pilots killed either. But if you look at the ops tempo of these operations, they are flying a TON. Basically 365 days a year, as long as there is daylight. With those numbers it’s only a matter of time before an accident, but I don’t remember multiple fatal accidents by the same operator within 10 years of each other. They aren’t any more capitalistic than any aviation business. But helicopters are much more complex than fixing wing aircraft, throw on top of that single pilot ops in a single engine helo, there WILL be accidents. Maybe tour operators should go to two IFR rated and current pilots flying a twin model of the EC-130 with a Fan-in-tail(i guess that’s the EC-145). Of course that would more than double the prices of the flights.

 

[geezer]

In aviation, you progress up the ladder until you have met your limit.

Airline Captain is the goal, but not all reach it.

The route up includes many time builders to get to the hours in your log book required to advance.

That enroute step can be air tour, hauling cargo, or CFI, among the many possibilities.

Some will find that they do not have the skills to become airline captains, and remain at one of the steps of the ladder.

The employers at each level try diligently to hire and keep the pilots who do meet the skill level that is needed for their operation, which can be a challenge, and failure to succeed can put them out of business faster than failing to fly in marginal weather.

Unfortunately, there are way too many that get stuck in the CFI category. ( I will get flamed for this by the CFI's here who have thin skin).

The reason I pick CFI's as an example, is, I have had a lot of experience with them. On of them was so bad, he was fired, and never instructed again, and his first medical was also his last. He quit flying completely. The FAA database is magic for that kind of research.

I just tallied my experiences with CFI's. Over 40+ years, I have flown with 20 CFI's.
10 excellent
4 good
4 fair
2 terrible

Should I be criticizing all CFI's because only half are excellent? No, but there were 5 or 6 of them that I only flew with once, and kept changing until I found an instructor who was skilled at teaching what I needed to learn. Fortunately, 5 of my first 6 instructors were excellent, and prepared me to recognize poor practices and shortcuts.

My first 4 instructors were building time to get into the next step to airline captain, and 3 made it. They certainly set a high standard for my later instructors to meet, but also, made it possible for me to recognize good instructors, and stick with them.

The tour pilot in Hawaii may have been a very good one, and a small bit unusual turbulence tossed him out of balance at too low altitude, or some mechanical part failed, leaving him with an uncontrollable aircraft. It is way too early to posit that the operator, or the pilot was cutting corners.

 

[Tantalum]

4 fair
2 terrible

Curious, what makes a CFI fair or terrible?

Teaching style, personality, turning out "some-day-he'll-kill-himself" pilots?

 

[denverpilot]

And what form of transportation doesn't?

Of those operated by professionals. Tons.

QUOTE="Bell206, post: 2850867, member: 31758"]

Yet, by your own words (post #47), you specifically state you don't understand the economics of helicopter operations. [/QUOTE]

I think you missed the sarcasm of that sentence. Making money is basic math. Money in vs money out. The math in that sentence if done by any third grader shows you need 5000 flights just to pay for the machine. Not that difficult. I figured you were smart enough of an audience to do that math.

QUOTE="Bell206, post: 2850867, member: 31758"]

So, my continued question is, how can you make a valid "point" that something is deadly when you don't have a clue how it actually operates regardless how "difficult" it may seem to your limited knowledge on the subject? Perhaps it's time to step away from the keyboard and reflect?[/QUOTE]

Deadly is deadly. You familiar with any other thrill rides that kill as many people per ride as these tour flights do where a professional is doing the driving? Drowns 13 year olds?

Someone mentioned rafting. It might be up there. I’d have to check. But most of those aren’t multimillion dollar operations and the “guide” was selling burgers at McDs yesterday and has his guide hat on today. Let’s stick to thrill rides with at least some sort of training required to drive the $3M vehicle.

Like I said. Catch up to other types of aviation and go 10 years without a fatality in the tour biz. I won’t mind. I also don’t mind the way it is now. But it’s the commercial ops killer in aviation.

All to look at pretty scenery. Which I also don’t care about. I did it. The scenery was nice. I didn’t fool myself into thinking we weren’t all dead if the pilot or machine failed and dunked us. Nobody on the flight had any ability to self extricate from a sinking helicopter. *

Zero ability. Dead.

* The pilot did. Being ex military with dunk tank training.

It’s okay. I wasn’t planning on paying for the flight at a cost that would include a personal rescue swimmer for each of us. Economics. I’m sure if I was a bejillionaire and wanted that, some high end operator would happily do it.

But it’ll never happen at the $100 tourist flight level. That’s okay. The thing goes in the water you’re probably dead. Oh well.

The contrast is interesting though. Air carriers had to create ETOPS standards in fixed wing before they could even go overwater in a twin in my lifetime. And everyone still jokes that it stands for “Engines Turn Or Passengers Swim”.

The little FAA approved pool floaties they stuck on us and those adorable skid floats were cute, though. The NYC heli floated nicely upside down. Heavy part down. Yay physics. LOL.

 

[geezer]

Tantalum asked:
Teaching style, personality, turning out "some-day-he'll-kill-himself" pilots?

Terrible is a man who states that a walk around preflight is a waste of time, the plane just landed 10 minutes ago, and had no problems. He had not even checked the oil when he gassed it up to go again.

Terrible is taking a student up for 8's on pilons, there is a fair crosswind, and the student does the turns, and stays on the pilons, the instructor says "You are doing that all wrong" and describes how it should be done. The student says "I don't think that will work, show me" and the instructor fails to keep even near the pilons. Unfortunately for him, I had already learned from an excellent instructor. This was the instructor who was fired and quit flying completely. I was supposed to be getting Instrument training with him, he had failed the Instrument Instructor check ride twice, and they fired him when he failed the 3rd time.

Fair, is an instructor who only instructs in Pipers, and doing a BFR in a Cessna 172, requires that the approaches and landings be done with out flaps because he is accustomed to the view of the runway inbound to what he is familiar with. A good man for Piper pilots, but I only flew with him once. My home field was 2400 feet, and the prevailing wind put us approaching over 60 foot trees 100 feet from the end of the pavement. The instructor must adjust to the capabilities of the plane in use, and the type of runway the plane is based at.

Fair is an Instrument instructor who insists on starting out with intercepting and tracking Victor Airways even though you have 100+ hours of very long cross countries via airways, and there is pre existing training that includes precision approaches in the logbook. He refused to take up where I had left off. This was particularly insulting, as I customarily did flight following, and flew to instrument standards on my cross countries.

Excellent is an instructor who took me for a 2 hour introductory lesson, and ran me through the entire Instrument check ride, and said if I could do that twice, he would sign me off. I did not disappoint him when I did go for it, but took 12 more hours with him to get to where I wanted to be. I was demanding of myself as well as my instructors.

 

[Bell206]

But it’s the commercial ops killer in aviation.

You're stuck in a hole. If I could take your shovel away I would. To use a quote from someone else here: can't take advantage of an unarmed man no longer. Hope you work things out for yourself.

 

[denverpilot]

You're stuck in a hole. If I could take your shovel away I would. To use a quote from someone else here: can't take advantage of an unarmed man no longer. Hope you work things out for yourself.

A common online tactic is to simply say the other guy is dumb without refuting any of their factual points. It bores the hell out of me.

Feel free to discuss. You really haven’t yet.

Either a 13 year old was just drowned again by the industry for a thrill ride or she wasn’t.

It’ll happen again.

If your contention is that my economics statement is wrong, fine. All operators magically make a million bucks profit a flight tomorrow. What gets done to not drown 13 year olds?

Jump in anytime. A list of “safety” groups and their names hasn’t stopped it yet.

I say the price yah and the amount of actual safety are inseparable. And the biz hasn’t gone a decade without a fatality and won’t before I die.

Prove me wrong. Make it happen at the same price. I’m totally cool with it. Risks can be mitigated. But not at tourist prices.

If you’re satisfied with the death rate, by all means... keep it. I rode the ride and took my chances knowing the risk was there.

I wouldn’t have ridden with the NYC operator at any price, their marketing said all anybody needed to know. There’s always signs. You do have to know what a Home Depot carabiner looks like, and a non-aviation harness, though. Those that don’t, get to drown attached to a helicopter.

If you’ve gone one extra step and seen dunk tank video you know people are likely dead without that training too. It’s okay. The industry can’t afford to dunk tank Mr and Mrs Smith and the kids before takeoff.

If you’re upset about that economic fact, refute it. I have never EVER said I care what the death rate is. Only that it exists and won’t be mitigated at the tourism price point.

We have aircraft types and business models that currently don’t have those risks but had them in the past. They did figure out how to do it at tourist price points. But they won’t hover near the pretty waterfall.

It’s okay. Just facts. Nothing to get bothered about if your operation is improving. You’ll drag the average up from the scum like the NYC operator maybe. Or not, and one will replace them that’s just as bad.

They cater to idiots who want to hang their dogs out the side of a flying machine. I suspect unless the regulators and enforcement folk get serious there will always be a market and a provider for people that stupid. Economics. Not P&L. Not day to day cash flow. Not that zoomed in.

Just basic economies of cheap thrill seekers.

It’s only been a generation since we were crashing Twin Otters and larger airliners around here with skiers in them. We even chucked a number of them off of ski lifts.

Stuff like that can change.

Again, I don’t mind. I’ll be impressed even when I realize there hasn’t been a fatal in a decade in tourist thrill rides.

Do it. Eradicate the operators like the NYC morons.

(That’s what eventually worked here by the way. Operators like Rocky Mtn and Aspen bearing the crap out of the safety drum at each other while battling for the lowest prices and best schedules. Regulators really didn’t fix it. They showed “concern” but it took heavy competition to really change it forever. That was only one human ago...)

You mentioned the industry alphabet gobbledegook isn’t used for marketing? Why not? I know of one operator who’s two years away from that magic ten years without a fatality.

They’ll be able to put that on commercials like airliners of the 50s. We are members of gobbledegook and we haven’t killed anyone in ten years. They’ve got two to go. Be cool if they make it. Might as well flaunt it.

It’s the real way to change the economics inside passenger’s brains. Make it a value add and lots will flock to the operator. Probably pay marginally more for it too. Measurable and achievable goal.

 

[Doc Holliday]

A common online tactic is to simply say the other guy is dumb without refuting any of their factual points. It bores the hell out of me.

Feel free to discuss. You really haven’t yet.

Either a 13 year old was just drowned again by the industry for a thrill ride or she wasn’t.

It’ll happen again.

If your contention is that my economics statement is wrong, fine. All operators magically make a million bucks profit a flight tomorrow. What gets done to not drown 13 year olds?

Jump in anytime. A list of “safety” groups and their names hasn’t stopped it yet.

I say the price yah and the amount of actual safety are inseparable. And the biz hasn’t gone a decade without a fatality and won’t before I die.

Prove me wrong. Make it happen at the same price. I’m totally cool with it. Risks can be mitigated. But not at tourist prices.

If you’re satisfied with the death rate, by all means... keep it. I rode the ride and took my chances knowing the risk was there.

I wouldn’t have ridden with the NYC operator at any price, their marketing said all anybody needed to know. There’s always signs. You do have to know what a Home Depot carabiner looks like, and a non-aviation harness, though. Those that don’t, get to drown attached to a helicopter.

If you’ve gone one extra step and seen dunk tank video you know people are likely dead without that training too. It’s okay. The industry can’t afford to dunk tank Mr and Mrs Smith and the kids before takeoff.

If you’re upset about that economic fact, refute it. I have never EVER said I care what the death rate is. Only that it exists and won’t be mitigated at the tourism price point.

We have aircraft types and business models that currently don’t have those risks but had them in the past. They did figure out how to do it at tourist price points. But they won’t hover near the pretty waterfall.

It’s okay. Just facts. Nothing to get bothered about if your operation is improving. You’ll drag the average up from the scum like the NYC operator maybe. Or not, and one will replace them that’s just as bad.

They cater to idiots who want to hang their dogs out the side of a flying machine. I suspect unless the regulators and enforcement folk get serious there will always be a market and a provider for people that stupid. Economics. Not P&L. Not day to day cash flow. Not that zoomed in.

Just basic economies of cheap thrill seekers.

It’s only been a generation since we were crashing Twin Otters and larger airliners around here with skiers in them. We even chucked a number of them off of ski lifts.

Stuff like that can change.

Again, I don’t mind. I’ll be impressed even when I realize there hasn’t been a fatal in a decade in tourist thrill rides.

Do it. Eradicate the operators like the NYC morons.

(That’s what eventually worked here by the way. Operators like Rocky Mtn and Aspen bearing the crap out of the safety drum at each other while battling for the lowest prices and best schedules. Regulators really didn’t fix it. They showed “concern” but it took heavy competition to really change it forever. That was only one human ago...)

You mentioned the industry alphabet gobbledegook isn’t used for marketing? Why not? I know of one operator who’s two years away from that magic ten years without a fatality.

They’ll be able to put that on commercials like airliners of the 50s. We are members of gobbledegook and we haven’t killed anyone in ten years. They’ve got two to go. Be cool if they make it. Might as well flaunt it.

It’s the real way to change the economics inside passenger’s brains. Make it a value add and lots will flock to the operator. Probably pay marginally more for it too. Measurable and achievable goal.

Speaking of "gobbledegook"........

 

[Tantalum]

Tantalum asked:
Teaching style, personality, turning out "some-day-he'll-kill-himself" pilots?

Terrible is a man who states that a walk around preflight is a waste of time, the plane just landed 10 minutes ago, and had no problems. He had not even checked the oil when he gassed it up to go again.

Terrible is taking a student up for 8's on pilons, there is a fair crosswind, and the student does the turns, and stays on the pilons, the instructor says "You are doing that all wrong" and describes how it should be done. The student says "I don't think that will work, show me" and the instructor fails to keep even near the pilons. Unfortunately for him, I had already learned from an excellent instructor. This was the instructor who was fired and quit flying completely. I was supposed to be getting Instrument training with him, he had failed the Instrument Instructor check ride twice, and they fired him when he failed the 3rd time.

Fair, is an instructor who only instructs in Pipers, and doing a BFR in a Cessna 172, requires that the approaches and landings be done with out flaps because he is accustomed to the view of the runway inbound to what he is familiar with. A good man for Piper pilots, but I only flew with him once. My home field was 2400 feet, and the prevailing wind put us approaching over 60 foot trees 100 feet from the end of the pavement. The instructor must adjust to the capabilities of the plane in use, and the type of runway the plane is based at.

Fair is an Instrument instructor who insists on starting out with intercepting and tracking Victor Airways even though you have 100+ hours of very long cross countries via airways, and there is pre existing training that includes precision approaches in the logbook. He refused to take up where I had left off. This was particularly insulting, as I customarily did flight following, and flew to instrument standards on my cross countries.

Excellent is an instructor who took me for a 2 hour introductory lesson, and ran me through the entire Instrument check ride, and said if I could do that twice, he would sign me off. I did not disappoint him when I did go for it, but took 12 more hours with him to get to where I wanted to be. I was demanding of myself as well as my instructors.

Thanks, there are certainly some less capable CFIs out there. I went through 2 different people before I found the person who worked.. although my biggest issues seemed to revolve more around what seemed like a lack of "caring" on the part of the CFI as they were young and just rushing for hours. Later, the dude who finished my PPL, was an older guy who just enjoyed flying.. same with my instrument instructor, he enjoyed flying

 

[Zeldman]

Airline Captain is the goal

You do realize that there are many folks that will disagree with you on that.

No problem with the folks that desire to be an airline captain, but that is their goal, not the ultimate goal of every professional pilot.

 

[geezer]

Airline Captain is the goal
Zeldman said:

You do realize that there are many folks that will disagree with you on that.

TRUE

I am one of the pilots who had no intention of becoming an airline pilot, just a very skilled and safe pilot to fly my family on vacation trips. Family lives far away.


No problem with the folks that desire to be an airline captain, but that is their goal, not the ultimate goal of every professional pilot.

My best instructors were a mix of those who aspired for ATP, and made it, plus those with other professional goals.

The two best of the non ATP type were both Electrical Engineers, and good ones. They were both IR, but only one was CFII. My PPL was the plain CFI, and he gave me my most demanding Instrument training, flying a Cessna 150 under the hood in turbulence that tossed us into 30 degree banks, over and over, for 30 minutes. After that , flying into a cloud did not cause any panic. He also had me do precision approaches under the hood to less than 20 feet, so I would be convinced that if I was trapped on top, the only good solution was to crash under control on the runway of a large airport that knew I was descending and landing regardless of visibility. A crash on or near a runway with crash trucks out and waiting, following a 3 degree descent, is the most survivable option.

That CFI also stressed declaring the emergency early, with plenty of gas, so many options were open, and a missed approach was possible, as many times as necessary to get a needle centered crash. If the FAA takes the certificate following such a crash, and you walked away with all of your passengers, you won the lottery. I never had to contemplate such a decision, as my flight planning and no go decisions were very conservative, but I did meet some weather that was amazing far from forecast in the early days with weather delivered by teletype.

The instructors focused on getting as many hours in their log book as possible from each student sent me running away.

 

[denverpilot]

Speaking of "gobbledegook"........

Truth though. Commercial aviation thrill ride industry needs to clean house, but it can’t ... or more accurately, refuses to.

Golf clap for the continuous denial.

Prove me wrong. Make it a decade without a fatality. Other commercial aviation segments have done it.

I say they can’t afford it. That’s all I’ve ever said here. Safety Third.

One major tour operator has two years to go. They might just touch the goal...