Squirrel down in Manhattan

[jimiemick]

There is a report from a camera man who was on another flight at the time, He had been in the safety briefing which was "a short 15min video with no pilots present to answer questions"
He also said "no one showed us where the knife was once we where strapped in"

So many people are now also pointing their fingers at the pilot saying "how can he survive and everyone else died" He has training and knew what he was doing, the video shows how quickly the Heli hit the water and over turned.
Even with the knife in hand and knowing you where going down, who could say " yea i could 100% get out in freezing cold water with not much clothing on"

To me the main issue seems to be that people might not have been paying attention with the excitement of the flight, possibly to clouding your mind and focus when watching safety videos.

The main reason for engine failure well lets see what the NTSB finds

[Mag seal]

The pilot survived because he was in a normal seat belt not the harness that the Pax were wearing. It looks like these harnesses could only be released from the hard point or cut. I've never used one like that, the ones I've used have the Parachute style "rip cord" for quick release.

HUET is difficult but can you imagine, no training, upside down, no quick release so you have to struggle to find the end of your tether and work out how to unclip it, or hack through the webbing with a knife that you've been told is there but not shown its actual location.

I wonder how the courts will see this.

[Icefather]

I could see why they used these fixed type of harness and not the parachute style @magseal mentioned. They are taking people they don’t know up 1000ft above the ground with 1 crew member who has to stay on the controls. You don’t know what’s going on inside these guys heads and if one wanted to try skydiving who would get sued . I personally think that they could have built some sort of pilot activated release lever that works in conjunction with the floats to release the safety wire where they are mounted too but I don’t really know much about that side of it.

[havick]

I could see why they used these fixed type of harness and not the parachute style @magseal mentioned. They are taking people they don’t know up 1000ft above the ground with 1 crew member who has to stay on the controls. You don’t know what’s going on inside these guys heads and if one wanted to try skydiving who would get sued . I personally think that they could have built some sort of pilot activated release lever that works in conjunction with the floats to release the safety wire where they are mounted too but I don’t really know much about that side of it.

And there in lies the litmus test. You pretty much answered the whole quandary as to why there’s 5 dead. They shouldn’t have been on the aircraft in the capacity they were in the first place.

If they’re worried about someone falling out of the aircraft by accidentally releasing the harness in-flight, then it was a company decision that killed all these passengers.

The company will burn for this and it wouldn’t surprise me if the owner and pilot face some sort of criminal negligence charges over this.

Most of us have done dumb things in helicopters and got away with and later cringe at ourselves, but this is next level.

[Icefather]

[quote="havick”]

The company will burn for this and it wouldn’t surprise me if the owner and pilot face some sort of criminal negligence charges over this.

Most of us have done dumb things in helicopters and got away with and later cringe at ourselves, but this is next level.[/quote]

Unless there was some sort of wavier or something that they got signed this is ‘MURICA after all.

[havick]

[quote="havick]

The company will burn for this and it wouldn’t surprise me if the owner and pilot face some sort of criminal negligence charges over this.

Most of us have done dumb things in helicopters and got away with and later cringe at ourselves, but this is next level.[/quote]

Unless there was some sort of wavier or something that they got signed this is ‘MURICA after all.[/quote]

Doubt any sort of waiver will help them in this instance. Pretty damning when the only survivor is the pilot and the deceased are boat anchors by way of fixed harness.

[zzodr]

The first lawsuit has just been filed.

[Twistgrip]

Link to article:

https://nypost.com/2018/03/13/helicopter-crash-victims-family-sues-aviation-companies-pilot/

I think this case and findings will shake up the whole industry. There is so much going on here from why it flamed out, the Auto and subsequent rollover and types of harnesses etc .As Havick alluded to, the lawyers are going to have a field day with this.

[hand in pants]

Can't wait to see what our mob do as a result. Going to be a knee-jerk reaction for sure.

[Queestce]

Wow. I have never heard of tourists being strapped into a fixed harness, clipped to the airframe, and then buckled up over the top of that... That's a horrific way to go. I'd have drowned for sure. Shocking.

[hoverthrust]

Wow. I have never heard of tourists being strapped into a fixed harness, clipped to the airframe, and then buckled up over the top of that... That's a horrific way to go. I'd have drowned for sure. Shocking.

you are so correct on many levels Queestce.

That is the silliest thing I've heard of. Now looking back at some of the other tourist photos it was only a matter of time before this happened.
Double strapping in is a perfect example where un necessary over safety has killed these poor pax.

I think a bronze medallion Wespac rescue crewie, fit, trained, practiced and fully prepared would struggle to get their way out and cut their way out of this, let alone an excited Pax with no training.

For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.
It makes sense that we have that standard after you see what happened in NY on Sunday.

This is where they go too far on safety. I have seen so many times where safety cancels out sense and double safety can be a double negative.
To some people they can think something is safe, when in reality its the exact opposite.

[Eric Hunt]

For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.

Perhaps you are wrong - on photo sorties, where the cameraman was on a tethered harness and free to move around the cabin, he was still required to be seated with a seatbelt on for the takeoff and landing.

But our harnesses had a ripcord on the front, under a velcro tag, which released the rear tether instantly, should the need arise.

[hoverthrust]

For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.

Perhaps you are wrong - on photo sorties, where the cameraman was on a tethered harness and free to move around the cabin, he was still required to be seated with a seatbelt on for the takeoff and landing.

But our harnesses had a ripcord on the front, under a velcro tag, which released the rear tether instantly, should the need arise.

Perhaps you are wrong

[hoverthrust]

For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.

Perhaps you are wrong - on photo sorties, where the cameraman was on a tethered harness and free to move around the cabin, he was still required to be seated with a seatbelt on for the takeoff and landing.

But our harnesses had a ripcord on the front, under a velcro tag, which released the rear tether instantly, should the need arise.

Perhaps YOU are wrong old mate

Yes you are correct - He is required to be seated in a seatbelt during the take off and landing stage but BOTH shall not be attached AT THE SAME TIME.

If you have been instructing this double jeopardy then you have been instructing the cameraman illegally.
Of course there can be a 5 second time where he will tether himself before releasing the seatbelt but this is not during the whole flight, or doubled up during the take off and landing phase of flight.

If you have one of those velcro harnesses as you mentioned yes they are better than cutting your way through a strap and a condition in some instruments.


this is how it works old mate

Under CAR Regulation 1988 251 section 1 you are required to wear a seatbelt.
under section 3 you have a direction or usually called an instrument to have an exemption to wear a seatbelt and to wear a harness
you apply for an instrument to CASA and then you put that with your AOC
You then become exempt from solely complying with CAR 251 (1)
Further to that CASA usually require you to use the quick style release harnesses
You will see in the copy of the instrument I have included below Transfer between a seat belt and a safety harness during flight must only take place at a height above 1 000 feet AGL with the cabin doors closed.
the key word here is TRANSFER

so in effect what happened in NY shouldn't happen here in Australia as in my previous post --For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.

Questions??????
I normally charge $250 per hour for legal advice consider this a free one.

Below is the regulation and a typical instrument exception in full. I have saved you the time to read it in my summary above.



CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 251

Seat belts and safety harness
(1) Subject to this regulation, seat belts shall be worn by all crew members and passengers:

(a) during take-off and landing;

(b) during an instrument approach;

(c) when the aircraft is flying at a height of less than 1,000 feet above the terrain; and

(d) at all times in turbulent conditions.

Penalty: 10 penalty units.

(2) Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to an authorised officer of CASA undertaking examinations, inspections or checks of the work of an aircraft's crew or the operation of an aircraft or its equipment under regulation 262.

(3) CASA may direct that a type of safety harness specified in the direction shall be worn in place of a seat belt in the circumstances set out in the direction.




Exemption — requirement to wear seat belt and safety harness

1 Duration
This instrument:
(a) commences on the day of registration; and
(b) expires at the end of February 2018, as if it had been repealed by another instrument.
2 Repeal
Instrument CASA EX126/11 is repealed.
3 Application
This instrument applies to the pilot in command and crew members of an aircraft operated by Hinchinbrook Helicopters Pty Ltd, Aviation Reference Number 779619 (the operator), when undertaking specific aerial work or performing tasks where the assistance of the operating crew or camera operator is required.
4 Exemption
A crew member of the operator’s aircraft is exempt from the requirement of subregulation 251 (1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (CAR 1988) to the extent mentioned in Schedule 1.
5 Conditions
The exemption is subject to the conditions mentioned in Schedule 2.
Schedule 1 Extent of exemption

The exemption extends only to the direction under subregulation 251 (3) of CAR 1988 that is contained in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of Civil Aviation Order 20.16.3 and relates to the wearing of a seat belt or a safety harness when an aircraft is flying at a height of less than 1 000 feet above the terrain.
Schedule 2 Conditions

1 Operations must only be conducted in V.M.C.
2 The operator must include in the operator’s operations manual operational circumstances when a safety harness and a seat belt may be used and the procedures for the use of the safety harness.
3 An approved seat and seat belt must be available for use in an emergency by the wearer of a safety harness.
4 If a safety harness is worn, it must be adjusted to ensure that the person wearing it is secure and is not able to completely exit the aircraft in case of emergency.
5 The safety harness must be of a “quick release type” which can be released under load but which requires 2 positive, separate and distinct movements for release.
6 If using the safety harness, the crew member must be able to move about in a manner that would not adversely affect the centre of gravity of the helicopter or the ability of the pilot in command to control the helicopter.
7 Transfer between a seat belt and a safety harness during flight must only take place at a height above 1 000 feet AGL with the cabin doors closed.
8 The pilot in command of the aircraft must ensure that all crew members are briefed on normal emergency procedures and crew member functions and responsibilities in the event of a forced landing.

[Eric Hunt]

For a long time in Australia we don't allow double harness and seatbelt.

Read the quote, and you would have saved some time with the references, though somebody else might benefit from it.

It is 18 years since I did this stuff, totally in accordance with the rules at the time and ops manuals etc.

But thanks anyway. The only other lawyer I knew in the aviation business was Dangerous Dan the Rescue Man.

[hoverthrust]

Hey Eric,

Sorry if my reply was a little harsh - but it was not meant to be directed totally at you but to benefit others who take these threads as fact and then bureaucrats think we need to change things as a knee jerk reaction to 1 incident.

Just backing up what I left as a simple statement, hopefully is education to any.

My point is this stuff is already in play in this country. The last thing we need is a new law, and someone fixing something that isn't broken.

HT

[Pinnacle]

Vertical mag and the NTSB report:

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/ntsb-i ... content=V1

NTSB report:

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Repor ... L&IType=MA

[zzodr]

Sounds like the pilot did everything he could in a very stressful situation.