chris pochari

I thought of something similar that VIP operators might use to avoid landing regulations. Is Olive Engineering still around? I'd be very interested in finding out more about this. It's always funny when you randomly find someone on the internet that independently invents something so unique as this!

Looks awesome, this would be great for a helicopter tour business.

One simple reason. Lack of a large defense industry due to their military being almost nonexistent after WW2. Many of today's helicopter designs were originally intended for Military use. The Bell 407 for example is derived from the OH-58. Now obviously there are many rotorcraft that don't have military history, but a significant number do. So without a large defense industry spending billions on large contracts with private manufacturers, the private sector alone would not do it, there isn't a large enough market and it wouldn't be profitable. Just look at what's happening with the "Future vertical lift program" tons of money and innovation going into the development of new rotorcraft, non of this would happen alone in the private sector. All this wonderful innovation eventually becomes accessible to the private sector, i,e now we can use UH-60s for heavy lift! I can't think of any other reasons, China is developing new rotorcraft, most of it seems to be defense related. Russia obviously has a very large helicopter portfolio, with most of them being used by the military, and occasional private sector use.

http://www.helico-fascination.com/recits/daniel-liron/272-rene-mouille-du-genie-a-l.html

You make a good point on how the tour operations in Grandcanyon and Hawaii were essentially "grandfathered" in. They got started before the regulations were put in place and the FAA couldn't just shut down the entire industry. Whereas other national parks never had a tour industry to begin with even before the regulations.

Schweizer 300/Hughes 269s seem to be prone to ground resonance, have a look at the NTSB database! Could there be something about its rotor head design that's causing the high incidence of ground resonance?

Being interested in rotor heads myself I figured I'd pop in with a question. What are you guys' opinion on Rigid bearingless flexbeam type rotor heads, i,e EC135, UH 1Z, MD 902, UH 1Y, Kawasaki OH 1.

Great points

From what I understand Part 91 only requires the PIC to have 150 hours (part 135 is 500), the other 350 hours must be either insurance or the operator's preference.

If the operator has Hull insurance the insurance companies usually require 1000 hours or they'll have to pay a very high percentage of the hull value per year. Tour operators flying under part 135 have to carry 2 million in liability so I imagine that also increases the hour requirements. Plus the airport requirements, which can be quite high sometimes. Really it's the part 91.147 tour operators that give jobs to new pilots, a lot of small mom and pop single ship piston tour operations operate under part 91.147. I'm not aware of the insurance requirements for part 91.147, it's probably less than Part 135. The hour requirements reflect the demands of the insurance companies more than operators, at least that's what I've heard.

Better than 2000 hours for EMS

I never took a stance on noise, i'm simply saying that without the Grand Canyon or Hawaii there wouldn't be much of a heli tour industry, and no jobs for new pilots. Considering the preoccupation with finding jobs on this forum I'm surprised to see people with negative opinions of the air tour industry. Offshore has a grim future due to peak oil demand, EMS is oversaturated and will see little growth, utility is depressed especially in Canada due to the commodity slump and other areas of the rotary industry such as surveying, crop dusting and ENG face disruption from drones. The air tour industry at least seems to have a bright future, considering the growth of international tourism.

I mean there are no air tours like Grand Canyon, Hawaii etc. I was in Vegas for HAI 2018 and I must have seen twenty EC130s fly over from the Grand Canyon, there is nothing like that in any other National park. Imagine if every National park had an air tour industry as developed as Hawaii or Grand Canyon how many jobs there would be for low hour pilots!

I've always wondered why some national parks, Grand Canyon and Hawaii have such a developed heli tour industry whereas others such as Yellowstone or Yosemite just to name a few have no air tour industry what so ever. Is it because of regulations, national parks or FAA? Or could it be due to a lack of infrastructure and also the very high altitudes? My understanding is the Grand Canyon is at high altitude, so what stops air tours in other National parks? I just mentioned Yosemite and Yellowstone but many others such as Glacier national park, Zion, Grand Teton etc come to mind as well. Any thoughts?

God doesn't care about helicopters because he doesn't exist