From: cantrell@seqp4.sequoia.com (Paul Cantrell)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: SPANISH CHOPPER PILOT DIES
Date: 31 Aug 92 18:29:24 GMT
Organization: Sequoia Computer Systems

In article <1992Aug24.053023.24608@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, mperlman@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshal "Airborne" Perlman) writes:
> A spanish chopper pilot in a Jet Ranger [it was a fire fighting chopper]
> tryed to pick up water FROM A PUBLIC POOL...he struk the tail rotor on
> a chain link fence...lost his yaw control..and the chopper spun (with no
> tail rotor) into the pool..where he died <prob. due to being submerged in the
> water>.
> 
> NOW...it was sad that he died, and he was trying to do a good thing...but
> I FEEL that he crossed a line of 'aviation ethics'. YOU don't take a chopper
> to get water into a residential area <that is where it happened..at a public
> pool>...let alone with homes, walls, fences around. IT IS just common
> sence. 

I usually elect myself to defend the helicopter pilots, so here I go again :-)

It's not uncommon to have airplane pilots react this way about helicopters.
Many of the things a helicopter pilot does looks hazardous to the
uninitiated, when it isn't particularly. We went through a similar
discussion when a JetRanger pilot hit a tower in California during poor
weather conditions. Airplane pilots left and right were critisizing the
pilot for attempting the flight. It *would* have been unreasonable to
attempt the flight VFR in an airplane, but may have been reasonable in a
helicopter. The fact that an accident occurred just proves that it wasn't
totally without risk. If you think flying a light airplane under nice VFR
conditions is without risk, I've got some news for you... For the IFR ASEL
crowd, hoo boy... :-(

Landing in a confined area to load up on water isn't all that unusual or
hazardous. Probably a lot less hazardous than the part where you drop it
on top of a burning fire! ;-)

A JetRanger doesn't carry all that much water (around 100 gallons at a
time), and what makes it effective for fighting fires is quick turnaround.
This means the pilots use available ponds, streams, lakes, or pools nearby
the fire.

A really experienced pilot often can operate from an area not much larger
than the rotor system (sometimes *smaller* than the rotor system, if he's
sharp). A public swimming pool is a pretty large area, and I don't really
see a problem with landing there as long as people are kept out of the
area (so a child, for instance, can't be hit by a rotor) and loose
material such as tables, chairs, etc. have been removed so they won't be
blown around by the rotor downwash. This could be easilly accomplished by
landing nearby, appointing someone to keep the public away, and spending a
few minutes making the area free of blowing objects.

It's too bad the pilot misjudged his tail rotor clearance, and it's not
exactly an unusual occurance (anymore than landing gear up is unusual for
airplanes), but it doesn't mean the operation was inherently dangerous.
Saying it's against ethics and that you "JUST DON'T DO THAT" is similar to
saying that airplanes should NEVER BE HAND PROPPED. Hey, it can be
dangerous if the risks aren't managed, but someone with experience can do
it safely. The fact that an accident occasionally happens just points out
that it's somewhat hazardous, and extra caution is warrented.

I have a related story. The instructor I did my commercial training with
was flying on a utility patrol mission one day in a piston helicopter. She
misjudged her fuel, and ended up running low. Rather than risk trying to
make it to an airport, she decided to get gas at a gas station (not
strictly legal, but unofficially endorsed by the aircraft manufacturer in
the factory training program). It turned out to be one of those gas
stations with a big, high roof over the pump area. After landing in a
field next to the gas station, it turned out that the only method they had
to transfer fuel was to use a can of questionable cleanliness.

Instead of risking fuel contamination, she decided to hover the helicopter
under the roof, up to the pumps. She refueled, and then continued her
flight. Later, she was charged with recklessness (by the State Police; as
far as I know the FAA never charged her). She lost, and was fined.

The thing was, we hover up to fuel pumps and trucks all the time. You can
judge your rotor blade quite closely. The consequence of a mistake can be
terrible, but the actual risk is pretty low if you know what you are
doing. Although most of the local pilots seem to side against her, I never
really saw the problem, other than it was a perception problem on the part
of the gas station owner (who understandably didn't want his gas station
blown up). Hovering the helicopter is just like taxiing an airplane - you
get to know how far out the wing extends, and generally can avoid hitting
things with it, when using reasonable caution. The consequences of a
mistake are, I admit, substantially higher in the helicopter.

I've landed in areas *much* smaller than the typical public swimming pool,
and can safely say that while this particular spanish pilot apparently
misjudged the space, the operation could probably have been conducted with
reasonable safety.

Don't be too quick to judge the abilities of pilots or aircraft which are
unfamiliar to you. You often find out they are capable of much more than
you realize, without being unsafe.

					Paul Cantrell
--
cantrell@sequoia.com
-- 
cantrell@sequoia.com