Months Before Deadly Crash, Helicopter Pilots Warned of Safety Issues
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
> "Among its claims was the promise of a “proprietary eight-point safety harness system.” A pilot who has worked with FlyNYON said that the company’s most commonly used harness was actually not proprietary at all, nor was it intended for aviation use. Rather, it was merely a yellow nylon construction harness available on Home Depot’s website for $52, which came in only one size."
"actually-doesn't-trap-you-upside-down-submerged-in-the-river"?
What is the benefit of waiting? So that the water does not "slosh" you around the helicopter?
It's a much better situation than a big transport helo going into a pounding ocean. Still terrifying, but in this situation, a simpler release would probably saved a life or two.
Well, the pilot -- wearing a normal belt -- was the sole survivor; and claims that he tried to disengage the belt of the passenger next to him unsuccessfully before escaping.
from the NTSB preliminary report:
"After impacting the water, the chin bubble on the pilot's side began to fill with water, which quickly covered the floor. He kept his restraint on and reached down for the front seat passenger's carabiner attachment to the helicopter. He turned the knurled screw "two or three rotations"; by that time, the helicopter was "listing past a 45° roll." He then decided to egress the helicopter, and by the time he unbuckled his restraint, he was fully under water."
The fact that they were screwed to the floor sounds makes it sound egress would be nearly impossible in an emergency. The way those harnesses are designed there is almost no way to free yourself if they are under tension. You effectively need to call someone else to help you get out.
On top of all that, the mammalian diving reflex means that unless you are experienced and well-prepared you are probably going to gasp as you go under water. Even a strong swimmer can drown due to the effects of the diving response, most commonly in a chaotic situation where they don't have the time or space they normally would to recover.
Of course given the chaos I don't think you could say everyone would have survived with different belts on, but I think it would have been much more likely.
Carabiner attachments inside the cabin would hopefully also made it easier for passengers and crew to release each other's harnesses if someone was incapacitated or panicking?
Note: I've watched offshore rig crew friends of mine going through 'ditching' training in the pool simulator, and can attest that keeping calm and methodical under the circumstances can be extremely difficult, even under controlled conditions.
So many failures happening here.
It is difficult enough in the simulator - which, as you say, simplify matters immensely over an actual crash:
a) The pool with the simulator is well lit. Many places, it is even heated, so you don't get the added stress of being lowered into icy cold water.
b) Each participant has a dedicated rescue diver sitting opposite him, ready to assist at any sign of trouble.
c) The simulator is lowered into the water in a controlled fashion, without any jolts.
d) There's only one seat by each window, so you don't have to first help your mate out, then exit yourself.
Incidentally, I've found it is much easier to get out after the cabin is inverted - your buoyancy makes you pop from your seat like a cork the moment you open the harness; being inverted, you are being pushed towards your seat, and all you need to do is to pop out the window, grab the opening with one hand, undo the buckle with the other and pull yourself out. Much simpler when your buoyancy works with you than against you.
During my last refresher, we asked whether we could make it a bit more realistic by putting out the lights and leaving a few newspapers and such in the cabin (for floating around once it filled with water, further disorienting you.)
We were told in no uncertain terms that wouldn't happen; it was deemed too risky for the rescue divers - who were fully kitted out with oxygen an'all.
Note to self: I do not want to be in a helicopter emergency landing on water. Ever.
I haven't looked into the legal background, but my guess is that offshore workers' unions have lobbied for it - and, most likely, it only applies to flights to/from sites operated by major players.
Also, some countries refuse to recognize training from other countries (Brazil, I am looking at you!) - so you end up having to do the same basic training in [n] jurisdictions, having [n] different certificates on you at all times, all with their individual refresher requirements...
Depending on where you're embarking from, equipment like this may already be available - though not with a 15-minute supply, more like a minute, perhaps.
When I've flown from Norway in latter years, our survival suits (worn throughout the flight) have been equipped with a rebreather device - you bite down on a mouthpiece connected to a plastic bag integrated in your suit, and as you exhale into the plastic bag, you can then draw the same air back in again - no CO2 scrubbing. The mouthpiece is equipped with a valve which lets you breathe normally while above water; you then close it as you are submerged and breathe into the bag until you've reached the surface again.
The idea being that this will do for a minute or two - and in that minute, you're either out of the wreck or dead.
(I've asked the simulator instructor how long we spend underwater - he shrugged and said 'On average, six to fifteen seconds' - so a minute is a long, long time.)
Given that your odds of survival are 0% if you are effectively chained to a sinking helicopter, and are at least greater than 0% if you are not, I'd say it's a big deal. Further, the articles I've read said that the helicopter was hovering over Central Park when the fuel was shutoff, and in fact the pilot considered landing there before deciding that there were too many people around. Had he known that his passengers had a 0% chance of escaping once he landed on water, I imagine he would have attempted to land in Central Park.
It was over the river the entire time. It wasn't over Central Park, just far north enough to be near it. Trying to make it to Central Park from the river with no engine power could have had a worse outcome if he'd not been able to make it and ended up striking a building; then everyone on the copter would still be dead, including whoever was hit on land.
For starters, the article we are commenting on itself.
”While hovering over Central Park, [the pilot] told them, the single-engine helicopter, an AS350 B2 model made by Airbus, suddenly lost power.”
And then of course the NTSB report [1]:
”[The pilot] then observed engine pressure and fuel pressure warning lights and believed he had experienced an engine failure. He lowered the collective pitch control to maintain rotor rpm and let the nose continue to turn to the right. Central Park came into view and he briefly considered landing there but thought there were "too many people.”"
That’s where I got my information, and I consider both of them to be fairly credible sources considering that both of them quote the pilot directly and one of them is the NTSB.
[1] https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?E...
Hierarchical systems, are mostly humming all day long with people trying to save there asses. Which generates systems that are deaf to real dangers,thus making hierarchical company structure a inherent source of risk and dangers.
https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/606426-helicopter-down-eas...
I've lost count how many NTSB reports, dozens, I've read where corporate power dictated operational outcome to a pilot against the pilot's better judgment, and everyone on board dies. And every time NTSB says the corporate dictate is a contributing factor to the accident, but ultimately the accident itself was due to pilot error.
So strictly blaming the pilot isn't eliminating accidents where the pilot's judgment was perturbed by company pressure. If the company is shown to have intimidated pilots, there needs to be accountability for it, and serious consequences.
The helicopter pilot community is so small they were afraid of getting blacklisted.
---
The company is gonna get sued out of existence. The NYT report made them look super shady.
If the company used intimidation tactics, that may be a crime, a corrupt intent to subvert compliance with FARs as it pertains to safety. If so, I sincerely hope a prosecutor is assigned who is skeptical of blaming only pilots, and will recognize intimidation as significant distortion on pilot judgment and authority. I don't like the idea of the corporate veil protecting a CEO who overrides the judgment of pilots let alone also uses economic coercion by threatening their career - so if that's really what happens I hope he's criminally prosecuted.
But as a pilot, I still can't completely hold pilots blameless when they saw enough safety concerns to say something about it to the company, witnessed insufficient remediation, did nothing else, and now people are dead.