Pilot threatened with arrest for helping NC victims of Hurricane Helene...excuse me?

[Llewtrah381]

I have to wonder if you actually listened to the guys story and watched the video. If you did, you weren’t paying very good attention, and / or you don’t understand helicopter operations.

It’s clear the son was a useful, perhaps necessary, crew member for that particular mission.

I did. And I also read the online report they did: https://www.qcnews.com/news/investi...ordered-out-of-lake-lure-under-arrest-threat/

The “copilot” son is a Junior in High School. No mention anywhere of him having any flight experience or being a licensed pilot. I don’t think the R-44 requires a “copilot” anyway - certainly not one without a helicopter license. Yeah, extra eyes are useful but the pilot ultimately flew the woman off by himself without the “copilot”.

The helicopter is a 4-seater but he chose to only fly with one passenger - because he deemed the driveway to be too unstable to take on more weight. I’d be surprised if that didn’t come up in his explanation to the leader of the First Responders who’s getting trashed here (I’m sure the pilot would have explained why three trips were needed). Seems pretty reasonable to me for him not to be comfortable with some pilot he knows nothing about flying back to pick up the husband, especially in a non-emergency situation with an unstable landing spot - I know I wouldn’t be. An unstable landing spot could be a setup for a disaster he would then need to deal with.

The story we have seems a bit embellished (with the “copilot” stuff for sure) and one-sided.

 

[murphey]

An example where good intentions were not just disruptive but extreme hazards. Floods and fires are all too common in Colorado these days. The fires a few years ago brought out local looky-loos with their drones. Unfortunately, the moment a non-participating, non-authorized air device is in the area (drone or airplane) the air-based fire fighters (the air tankers and small aircraft that are the advance team) are required to immediately vacate the area due to potential collisions. This means the fire continues with no air-support, no air-drops. I don't remember if anyone was arrested.

 

[Albany Tom]

It's a common occurrence in emergency situations for people to self-dispatch. That doesn't mean being the first person at the scene of an accident and helping, it's showing up at an emergency scene where there is already an official response and offering to help out. It happens with both regular people and with trained first responders. It's not always a bad thing, but it can be a PITA and a danger in many circumstances, and the standard training for most (all?) first responders is to avoid it whenever possible. As an example, they want the fire guys to report to their own stations and let their team get brought in by the group running the incident.

One of the reasons for the concern is that the incident commander has a responsibility to deal with the incident AND to protect the responders. They need to keep track of everyone working whatever the incident is in order to look out for them. This is especially true of large scale events that go on for days, partly because people get tired and partly because they rotate commanders and staff. But even small incidents can have problems. Not realizing someone is still in the building where the fire was because someone extra showed up, or almost as bad, thinking someone is still in it, and having to risk sending in people in when there's no one to find. Worst case that I'm aware of was around California wild fires in the 80's I think, where they have lost entire crews, just because nobody knew there was one in some particular area that was about to have the fire sweep through. So a lot like the airplane regs, a bit of incident command training is written to avoid repeating instances of lives lost.

Anyway, being aware of the dangerous of self-dispatch is part of standard fire and police training everywhere in the country, it's in the first NIMS course. How that's done, and how friendly they are about it is probably all judgement calls, but I can see how after the second time (guessing) an incident commander has to tell someone that they don't need that resource, that the third time they're going to give a more direct response. That the pilot is making an issue about it, to me, is an indication that he's probably in the wrong. Maybe not. Pilots can be arrogant, so can a sheriff. In the air, pilot runs the plane. During an incident, incident commander runs the incident.

Sorry about the ramble. Over the years I've volunteered or worked at a few large scale incidents. The process is more complicated and more of a PITA than most people realize.

 

[Salty]

I did. And I also read the online report they did: https://www.qcnews.com/news/investi...ordered-out-of-lake-lure-under-arrest-threat/

The “copilot” son is a Junior in High School. No mention anywhere of him having any flight experience or being a licensed pilot. I don’t think the R-44 requires a “copilot” anyway - certainly not one without a helicopter license. Yeah, extra eyes are useful but the pilot ultimately flew the woman off by himself without the “copilot”.

The helicopter is a 4-seater but he chose to only fly with one passenger - because he deemed the driveway to be too unstable to take on more weight. I’d be surprised if that didn’t come up in his explanation to the leader of the First Responders who’s getting trashed here (I’m sure the pilot would have explained why three trips were needed). Seems pretty reasonable to me for him not to be comfortable with some pilot he knows nothing about flying back to pick up the husband, especially in a non-emergency situation with an unstable landing spot - I know I wouldn’t be. An unstable landing spot could be a setup for a disaster he would then need to deal with.

The story we have seems a bit embellished (with the “copilot” stuff for sure) and one-sided.

He was hot loading. And for good reason. His son was communicating with the passenger and getting them safely into the heli. To shut down would have created all sorts of other issues. In my opinion doing it without the son would have been foolishly dangerous.

 

[Llewtrah381]

He was hot loading. And for good reason. His son was communicating with the passenger and getting them safely into the heli. To shut down would have created all sorts of other issues. In my opinion doing it without the son would have been foolishly dangerous.

I know from the video he was hot loading but that’s not the reason he quoted. Plus, I didn’t realize you could hot load one person but not three. Learn something every day

 

[Salty]

I know from the video he was hot loading but that’s not the reason he quoted. Plus, I didn’t realize you could hot load one person but not three. Learn something every day

I think you are aware that there is a difference between operating with 4 people on board and 2 people. Why are you intentionally ignoring that?

Your position is that the son didn't need to be there, and the pilot left him behind on purpose and separated the rescuees on purpose. What a scumbag this pilot is. He spent all that money just to get in the fire departments way and separate husbands and wives from each other and abandon his Son. He should be arrested for sure.

 

[Llewtrah381]

Your position is that the son didn't need to be there, and the pilot left him behind on purpose and separated the rescuees on purpose. What a scumbag this pilot is. He spent all that money just to get in the fire departments way and separate husbands and wives from each other and abandon his Son. He should be arrested for sure.

Not even close, but you know that.

You also know we only have one side of the story and that side is trashing some unnamed rescue leader. The “side” bro g the news media, not technically this pilot.

He went up to drop off water and supplies. Great. He changed his mission to transporting people in an uncoordinated way.