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

Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Llewtrah381 said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Llewtrah381 said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
Salty said:
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.
Click to expand...
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”, by the way, was 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.
 
Last edited:
Llewtrah381 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't remember him saying he forgot to use right or left pedal as appropriate .
 
Lindberg said:
He said that he wouldn't have but for the TFR that went up 20 minutes after their conversation.
Click to expand...
Even so an assistant fire chief is not the enforcer of a TFR and probably doesn't know what one is. This reminds me of the glider pilot that was wrongfully arrested in SC because the LEO thought that it was illegal to fly near a nuke plant. I am going with the assumption that there is no other side to this. I would have flown off picked up the husband and son and landed somewhere else. I am hoping that the Assistant Chief gets roasted hard for this as I figure that this is not his first time at this kind of behaviour.
 
Last edited:
frfly172 said:
Would like to know what operations were taking place in the area.self dispatching to an emergency site could be dangerous.
Click to expand...
So is flying in general. Helicopter pilots are trained to do off airport landings. Kind of the whole point of having a helicopter in the first place, don't ya think? Otherwise it is an incredibly expensive way to fly slow and low.
I'm back. Have you missed me?
 
Last edited:
It's not just pilots being threatened with arrest for trying to help. Word I hear from locals on the ground who traveled from Tennessee into the Asheville area is they have been advised the same.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cdb
Princesspilot206 said:
Update:
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting that update. Worth the watch!
Sounds like the fire chief guy is on the defensive for a good reason: he wasn't being reasonable.

Also love the TV interviewer: [paraphrased]
City manager: "it's dangerous to have pilots around there that aren't properly trained"
TV Interviewer: "So ugh, yeah, less than 24 hours later the city was asking for private pilots to come in and help out... The pilot you kicked out was one of them... Do you think he magically got all the training he needed to operate safely in that 24 hours?"
 
murphey said:
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.
Click to expand...
Not sure that this is an applicable example. Aerial firefighting is a different situation than this one. At the time there was no TFR. My understanding was the pilot was dropping of supplies and came upon the couple by chance on his way back. So, then wave to them as you flew by? I think not. Rules are fine. Values are better.
 
Makes me angry to watch that woman defend such deplorable behavior.

I am seriously impressed with that reporter. Other than not noticing that the guy that was “unavailable” for interview walked in the door in the middle of the interview (couldn’t get his ass back out fast enough lol) he did not let her get away with anything. His pointed questions made it clear that bad decisions were made.

I wish she would have simply apologized and admitted they could have done better. She could have done that while still supporting her staff. Instead she doubled down and supported a bad decision.IMG_0526.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Salty said:
Makes me angry to watch that woman defend such deplorable behavior.

I am seriously impressed with that reporter. Other than not noticing that the guy that was “unavailable” for interview walked in the door in the middle of the interview (couldn’t get his ass back out fast enough lol) he did not let her get away with anything. His pointed questions made it clear that bad decisions were made.

I wish she would have simply apologized and admitted they could have done better. She could have done that while still supporting her staff. Instead she doubled down and supported a bad decision.View attachment 134023
Click to expand...

I laughed at the fire chief spokesperson’s fire alarm at the top right corner of the door.
 
frfly172 said:
Would like to know what operations were taking place in the area.self dispatching to an emergency site could be dangerous.
Click to expand...

Being unprepared for the situation and becoming part of the problem. Or not intending to actually help, just seeing what useful stuff is laying around, unattended, with no electricity to power alarms.

Regardless, we are hearing of government being excessively overbearing here. Only "authorized" aid organizations are being allowed in and some people on the ground say they've gotten nothing. Apparently they people charge are making all the same mistakes again on a grander scale.

If this wasn't the mountains with prepared people, good neighbors, and a few clear running springs, I'm sure a lot more people would have died already.
 
Whether we have the "whole picture" or not, this interview with the pilot is pretty damning of those turning the pilot away.

There must occur in any Incident Commander's mind, the conflict of having absolute control of the scene vs rejecting valuable offers of help. I would not want to be in that position.
 
Someone got a link to the interview? I can't watch it on POA, just comes up as a simple image.
 
There is a story on the NY Post website concerning NASCAR driver flying his heli to help storm ravaged victims. I cannot post a link. Also a special page setup on facebook for airdrop assist from TX. It is subtitled "opairdrop". They have made > 180 safe assistance flights as of this post.
 
What a mess, big mistake by Chief Melton, but at the end of the day, not a great situation to be in and he should get some slack.

FEMA seems like they are really flubbing this one, they and every federal agency involved should be held accountable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top