Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi all, firstly i am neither apalled nor offended at the conversation here. I understand how easy it can be to get a bit heated in forums, esp on topics lile this. It has all been really helpful information and given me a much stronger understanding of the sad fact that it was some other pilots error that took his life. I know i will live my whole life never getting past that single piece of information... esp given the attitude i'd been hearing from drew about this pilot only days before.. i do not think this guy was in a safe mindset. But drew did make the decision to go up with him, and i knew going into this the risks involved, as did he. I am just glad he got even a few months to live his dream as a commercial pilot. Better than none at all. I still want to see what ways i can help to improve safety.. and will still be looking into it. For now i thsnk you all for the insights you've given me.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nearly Retired, he is one of the best sticks I know. Heck I was flying with him the other day. And I can tell you this, two sets of eyes are way better than one, for this kind of work. I am not saying thay you can't do it safely with just one set of eys you can, and you can do it well to. There is going to be trade offs in everything you do, you can load a aircraft with all the boxes and gismos you want, its still not going to matter a wit, if all it dose is just add to the distraction. I don't fly R-44's its not the helicopter for Cherry Drying, but guys do. That is my feeling on the subject. As for this junk well he died doing what he loved is just a crock, the boy killed himself doing a job nobody else wanted for a substandard pay rate. I am sorry for you loss but that is the hard truth of the matter. A lot of pilots starting out are so focused on getting flight time, its all about flight time and time in type that they have a hard time some times to just say no. You sometimes run the risk of loosing a job. And with the economic troubles the nation is in, a lot of guys me included some times will push it to keep the customer and the employer happy. In the end you are not really going to find what you are looking for here, the lost and the burden of that lost is yours and yours alone. My faith would tell me that his work here on earth was finished and the Lord reqired him for other things. If that helps you any.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not make some smaller tennis ball sized markers tied together that you could throw up like a pair of shoes?

 

jpilhk.png

 

If not for they lawyers it may work, I'm sure they sould fall off in a good enough wind, and the first time it did, the utility would get sued. Add to that, the utility may get sued anywhay if somone hits it. Several utilities have been sued for marking some lines that were less than 200 feet, but not all of them. A utility has only to options to protect itself legally. Mark every span of wire, or mark exactly as AC 7640-k says, including ball sizes and types.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still not sure how much good it would do anyway, and it would still cost a fortune to put those up on EVERY SINGLE LINE. Who's going to foot the bill? And when it's all said and done, you will still get pilots that make a mistake and hit the wires. Hasn't it already been pointed out that 60% of interviewable pilots that hit wires KNEW that they were there? Just like pilots that hit other obstacles usually knew that they were there. Human error is the problem, and that can be a very difficult thing to mitigate.

 

I think most of us are agreed that the only real preventative measure is awareness training and good decision making skills, and even that is not going to guarantee you don't make a mistake and hit something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I understood what SBuzzkill said, was as a suggestion for the pilot himself, to go and "prep" the fields that he has been contracted for. So if I have a contract for this particular field A, I go beforehand, when it is still nice, sunny, and dry, and I throw a few "tennis-ball-markers" on the lines that might be a factor when I actually have to fly to dry the cherries. And I see a good/valid point there. Obviously the wires will be much easier recognizable, if they have those balls hanging from them...

 

 

Now, for the fact that pilots usually knew about the wires that they hit, I interpret it as: the pilot had seen/identified the wire at some point in the past, but still the moment they hit it, I think in most cases they were not anticipating it (vs. misjudging the distance clearance between the wire and some part of the aircraft)

 

 

The main concern for me though is complacency and inconsistency. If you end up trusting the tennis balls for wire identification, there is still a good chance that a "marked" wire will not be marked anymore (because the string broke, because the storm pushed all the balls at one side, because the farm animals/cats had such a good time with the new game/toy, etc) and will eventually get you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Of course I have no idea how you would retrieve them when you're done or how hard it would be to actually get them on the lines (never thrown a pair of shoes before) :lol: But at least it's an idea. I get a little tired of hearing "awareness and training is the answer."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shenanigan, there is no "if" about it. Avoiding wire strikes while cherry-drying ABSOLUTELY is dependant on the pilot not making a mistake and hitting a wire. It cannot be any simpler than that.

 

There are two schools of thought on two-pilot operations in the cherry-drying business. One group says that the second pilot is a distraction and does not enhance safety. Another group says that a second pilot can help out and is an asset.

 

In the case of the accident that is the reason for this thread, the Robinson R-44 in question actually *DID* have two certificated commercial pilots onboard! So what does that tell us? Tells me that two pilots is not always the answer. It gives support to those who say, "Perhaps the one pilot got distracted by the second pilot."

 

I don't know.

 

All I know is that flying is hazardous. It is intolerant of even the smallest mistake. It can be deadly.

 

I wish there was an easy solution...something we all could point at and go, "AHA! That's the key!" But there is not. We're pilots, and we have to stay vigilant and not make mistakes 100% of the time. Tough to do, sometimes. That's why they pay us the big bucks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one time I did frost patrol, which was in Michigan. The farmers set up big fire heaters under all the wires where we would be patrolling, about 6 feet apart from each other. We got there before the sun went down and flew over the fields we would be patrolling spotting all the wires that would be hazardous to our safety, with the help of the farmers. They worked very well, easily seeing where all the wires were. I don't know how operations work elsewhere, and realize this is not practical for all frost patrol operations. This is not fool proof as you all know, if you lost focus or were getting tired you could easily hit a wire. Like mentioned before, It is still the pilots job to keep track of all the wires, it just aides them in doing so.

 

This is not a normal operation in Michigan. We didn't have much of a winter so the companies produce started growing early, a cold front proceeded to move in and they needed more help than there heater fans could handle. My CFI has experience with frost patrol, and I was able to learn a lot from him that night. it put in perspective to me how safety conscious and prepared one has to be in all helicopter operations. Before I went to the airport that day, I watched wire strike avoidance videos and read topics on VR to try to be as safe, and prepared as possible.

 

My condolences go to Andrews Family, Fiancé and Friends. I to only knew him from VR forum. He was always very helpful and informative, I enjoyed reading his responses. RIP Sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

There are two schools of thought on two-pilot operations in the cherry-drying business. One group says that the second pilot is a distraction and does not enhance safety. Another group says that a second pilot can help out and is an asset.

 

In the case of the accident that is the reason for this thread, the Robinson R-44 in question actually *DID* have two certificated commercial pilots onboard! So what does that tell us? Tells me that two pilots is not always the answer. It gives support to those who say, "Perhaps the one pilot got distracted by the second pilot."

 

I don't know.

 

 

 

What you're talking about is basic CRM. Two heads and two eyes in my opinion are always better than one. That is, if they know how to work together. If it is a breakdown of CRM in the cockpit, it is a failure of the PIC to not be aware and correct it. It doesn't support nor negate the 2 pilots vs 1 pilot argument. However I do see where you are coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you're talking about is basic CRM. Two heads and two eyes in my opinion are always better than one. That is, if they know how to work together. If it is a breakdown of CRM in the cockpit, it is a failure of the PIC to not be aware and correct it. It doesn't support nor negate the 2 pilots vs 1 pilot argument. However I do see where you are coming from.

 

The problem with that is that most civilian pilots do not get trained in how to operate with more than one person in the cockpit properly and efficiently as they do in the military until much further on in their careers. I was a part of a CH-47 crew for several years (in the back), so I KNOW that when used properly, multiple sets of eyes is better than one. But as a civilian, I never received any training on how to properly communicate who's focus is outside or inside the cockpit at every moment, sectors of responsibility and proper overlap of sectors, and who is going to do what functions during the flight. I know all this stuff because of my time as an FE on hooks. Never heard a word of it spoke of during my PPL through CFI flight training. Without the proper training and coordination, or at least some sort of a PLAN on how things are going to work on the flight, two eyes are just as bad, if not worse, than one. If pilot A was talking about how the wind is blowing the rotor wash down to the next row of cherries, and pilot B is listening, and looking, where pilot A is looking, they are both distracted simultaneously while they are about to fly into wire C. A very possible scenario.

 

Yes, breakdown of CRM. Unacceptable. Boils down to an error in the PIC's judgement. But I think that is where the argument that two heads is not necessarily better than one comes from.

Edited by nightsta1ker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nearly retired,

 

Saying the Pilot must not make a mistake is like saying the problem cannot be solved. Pilots make mistakes and will continue to do so. I've certainly made mistakes, luckily nothing that has killed me or anyone else.

 

In my opinion, aviation is all about creating redundancy for safety. We wouldn't put such expectations on a component. We wouldn't say the safe operation of this aircraft is completely dependent on the engine operating perfectly or a hydraulic pump. There would be a backup system or a procedure for a failure. If the expectation in cherry drying is that no pilot ever loses awareness of a difficult to see wire or has a lapse in judgement for a moment than there will be just as many accidents next year, and the year after until perfect people are created.

 

I don't know the answer, but I suspect there is a solution that will greatly mitigate and reduce wire strikes. Maybe making the owners mark the wires in some way. Maybe the company operating the aircraft mandating a certain distance to be maintained from wires, or having the pilot mark boundaries on the ground to help identify his position. I really couldn't say, but I am sure mistakes will continue to happen and if the price is fatality I think a reasonable solution could be found to help reduce pilot error. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shenanigan says:

 

If the expectation in cherry drying is that no pilot ever loses awareness of a difficult to see wire or has a lapse in judgement for a moment than there will be just as many accidents next year, and the year after until perfect people are created.

 

YOU ARE CORRECT, SIR!

 

The price for error IS fatality. As long as there is no legal prohibition against using helicopters for cherry-drying, and as long as pilots accept the risks of the job and take them willingly, then as you say the accidents will continue.

 

And here's why it will not change: Only a handful of pilots die each year in such accidents. We're not killing hundreds or even dozens of us, nor are we killing paying passengers, nor innocent people on the ground. So in the overall grand scheme of things, the number of fatalities is insignificant to the rule-makers and People In Charge. It's most definitely *not* insignificant to those who lose loved ones to fatal accidents, but we must come to terms with the fact that nothing will get done...nothing will change. We keep saying (well, some of us do) that if a cherry-drying pilot hits a wire, then it is HIS fault and his fault ALONE. Period. End of story.

 

I've seen pictures of small helicopters doing cherry drying, with their skids right down in the trees, and I'll tell you, not in a million years would I do this job in an R-22, R-44 or S-300. For if that's not suicide, it's suicide's close cousin. My S-55 allows me to stay comfortably *above* most wires and obstructions. I love that. But the S-55 is not really suitable for small tracts (less than 10 acres, say) so we do not pursue that business.

 

Oh, and you are incorrect in one thing you said, Shenanigans:

We wouldn't say the safe operation of this aircraft is completely dependent on the engine operating perfectly or a hydraulic pump. There would be a backup system or a procedure for a failure.

 

No offense intended, but you're not a pilot, are you? We absolutely DO depend on the one-and-only engine to keep running perfectly. None of us have a backup engine or hydraulic pump, as desireable as those features might be! In our line of work there are plenty of "single-point" failure modes that can put us in the trees. It aint a perfect world out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a pilot. I know for an aircraft to be certified by the FAA it must meet certain criteria. Any critical component that would result in an a fatal crash must be deemed to be so unlikely to fail that the odds of failure are something like 1 in a billion. If that cannot be met than there must be a backup system in case the component fails, and if that cannot be done than there must be a procedure that allows for the aircraft to be safely landed if the component fails. In the case of a single engine helicopter, this is met by making the aircraft capable of autorotation and publishing the avoid ranges. Other components (like blades) may have replacement requirements so they cannot be used until they fail.

 

Human error can be looked at the same way. If a mechanic forgets to install screws on a critical component he is double checked by an inspector, the aircraft is then checked again on preflight so the safety of the aircraft is not solely dependent one one man never making a mistake.

 

You're right, no regulatory authority will likely do anything but the question was whether there is any solution and I think there probably is, even though I don't know specifically what that solution could be. 2 accidents or so a year seems quite high to me. I guess I just came from the school of thought that more than one thing causes an accident and just assigning blame does not prevent the next accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am a pilot. I know for an aircraft to be certified by the FAA it must meet certain criteria. Any critical component that would result in an a fatal crash must be deemed to be so unlikely to fail that the odds of failure are something like 1 in a billion. If that cannot be met than there must be a backup system in case the component fails, and if that cannot be done than there must be a procedure that allows for the aircraft to be safely landed if the component fails. In the case of a single engine helicopter, this is met by making the aircraft capable of autorotation and publishing the avoid ranges. Other components (like blades) may have replacement requirements so they cannot be used until they fail.

 

Human error can be looked at the same way. If a mechanic forgets to install screws on a critical component he is double checked by an inspector, the aircraft is then checked again on preflight so the safety of the aircraft is not solely dependent one one man never making a mistake.

 

You're right, no regulatory authority will likely do anything but the question was whether there is any solution and I think there probably is, even though I don't know specifically what that solution could be. 2 accidents or so a year seems quite high to me. I guess I just came from the school of thought that more than one thing causes an accident and just assigning blame does not prevent the next accident.

 

Some of this is just absolutely incorrect. Mechanics often do work on aircraft without ever having another set of eyes verify their work. Generally speaking, on most GA aircraft only work that requires a form 337 or an annual inspection requires an IA stamp to verify the work has been done correctly. So check and balances are not always there. And considering that cherry drying is done outside of the recommended parameters for a safe autorotation, pilots are assuming the risk that they are going to bend the bird if the engine fails.

 

You are right though that assigning blame does not prevent the next accident.

 

I have to take Nearly Retired's side on most of this though. If rules are imposed on the growers to mark wires, and it becomes too much of a hassle, they will stop hiring helicopters to dry their cherries and will find another way. Pilot's will continue to go out there to dry cherries knowing full well the danger. And pilots will continue to make mistakes and crash. Some of those that crash will perish. Really, when you think about the number of aircraft out there flying, and that the general experience level of many of those pilots is fairly low, it's pretty amazing that there are not MORE crashes than there are already.

 

I can appreciate your opinion Shenanigan, but there are some cold hard realities about this industry that must be faced at some point. Unlike most of the fixed wing world, us helicopter pilots are generally on our own with very few rules and regs defining what we can and can't do. This is a double edged sword. It allows us to do our jobs, but it also means that we can get ourselves into a lot of trouble.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Some of this is just absolutely incorrect. Mechanics often do work on aircraft without ever having another set of eyes verify their work. Generally speaking, on most GA aircraft only work that requires a form 337 or an annual inspection requires an IA stamp to verify the work has been done correctly. So check and balances are not always there. And considering that cherry drying is done outside of the recommended parameters for a safe autorotation, pilots are assuming the risk that they are going to bend the bird if the engine fails.

 

You are right though that assigning blame does not prevent the next accident.

 

I have to take Nearly Retired's side on most of this though. If rules are imposed on the growers to mark wires, and it becomes too much of a hassle, they will stop hiring helicopters to dry their cherries and will find another way. Pilot's will continue to go out there to dry cherries knowing full well the danger. And pilots will continue to make mistakes and crash. Some of those that crash will perish. Really, when you think about the number of aircraft out there flying, and that the general experience level of many of those pilots is fairly low, it's pretty amazing that there are not MORE crashes than there are already.

 

I can appreciate your opinion Shenanigan, but there are some cold hard realities about this industry that must be faced at some point. Unlike most of the fixed wing world, us helicopter pilots are generally on our own with very few rules and regs defining what we can and can't do. This is a double edged sword. It allows us to do our jobs, but it also means that we can get ourselves into a lot of trouble.

 

Were you in 160th once?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shenanigan writes:

 

If a mechanic forgets to install screws on a critical component he is double checked by an inspector, the aircraft is then checked again on preflight so the safety of the aircraft is not solely dependent one one man never making a mistake.

 

Interesting point! But not quite. At least not in the civilian world. During my time at PHI (13 years) I had two tail rotor failures. One happened just after I landed on a platform (whew!) and the other occurred just after liftoff to a hover but before transitioning into forward flight. (Double-whew!) Both were the result of human error: Mechanics had taken the tail rotor driveshaft apart and put it together without fully tightening the hardware, then cowled it up and sent the ship on its merry way. On the 206, the t/r driveshaft is not typically preflightable on an offshore oil platform where the winds might take the cover away and send it overboard.

 

In my first experience, my mechanic didn't tell me he'd had the t/r driveshaft apart because he worked according to his own checklist which was not available to the pilot. In the second instance, I was not even the first pilot to fly the ship after maintenance - I was the third! It just took that long for the hardware to work its way apart.

 

As Nightsta1ker points out, not every company requires a "two sets of eyes" approach to aircraft maintenance. In PHI's case, they ultimately came up with a "compulsory check" for certain airworthiness items - meaning a second person had to look over the first mechanic's work if it involved things like flight controls, etc. In my "real" job back home, we have one contract mechanic who comes in to work on our ship when needed. He usually does not have anyone looking over his shoulder. I do the "compulsory check" thing when I'm there, but I'm not always. And frankly, how do I even know if he put the rotor hub back together properly after changing the TT straps?

 

There are plenty of places in aviation where the safe outcome of something is solely dependant on just one person doing his or her job 100% correctly. We'll probably never change that. And to be honest, I'm not sure I'd like it much if there were some "big brother" (either electronic or human) watching over me in the cockpit to make sure I'm not picking my nose when I should be watching the chip-o-meter or something.

 

And yes, while there are emergency procedures for engine failure and loss of hydraulics, if either of those things happened when you were hoving low over a cherry orchard, you'd be in a big bind - you'll be in the trees. Maybe not a fatal accident, but I did not understand that you were meaning that in your original post.

 

It is a pure fantasy to think that *all* accidents can be prevented. However there are those who think so. They usually take umbrage at people like me who shrug and go, "Hey, we're human, we're going to screw up sometimes. Get over it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

500F

I appreciate the heavy wire problem, even dedicated cutters may not help either, but anything that gives you another chance.

Real low wires are normally not 3 inch.

We are back to the reece, even walk, drive, round if possible, then you have to remember where you\ they are.

A moments lapse & you can be a statistic.

I am sure all here feel for the friends, family, of any one who looses their life & looks to use the sad happening to prevent others doing same, Sarah must have a strong personality to be here in the first place

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldnt count on the TC turn, on anything other than small distribution lines. Many transmission lines are ACSR, Steel re-inforced, and some are nearly 3 inches in diamater.They are not going to be cut by any rotor.

They can, and will. I have seen the results of 206 blades cutting through 230kv conductors and the pilot was able to continue flying the aircraft. You would have to be one lucky SOB though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...