Jump to content

Video: R22 saves RC plane from tree tops.


Joe Blow
 Share

Recommended Posts

The guys in this video are getting fairly beat-up by the morons over on the JH "bad" board, which is no surprise. Me, I'm kind of conflicted about it. I mean, they did something that only a helicopter (or a big crane) could do. They did it successfully, and they did not crash. So...hmm...

 

Was it unreasonably risky or dangerous, as the nanny-staters and "They should be violated!" crowd over on JH seem to think? Well, they were in a sparsely-populated area with no people or houses around. They risked only themselves and their helicopter, which the foul-mouthed PIC evidently owns. So it was his machine to risk. The student was on-board for the caper from the get-go. So, meh- what do I care? They did a good deed.

 

I guess the most bothersome thing is the attitude displayed by the PIC. He jumped into action very quickly, without too much (any?) forethought or planning. Just once-around and then down into the trees. I know there wasn't much wind that I could see (and RC guys don't fly in much wind anyway) but the PIC didn't even do a cursory wind-check. It was just a tad too impulsive for my taste. No planning at all; just do it. He seemed pretty egotistical, too. (But I guess every helicopter pilot is guilty of that, whether he/we admit it or not.) Hey, you own your own helicopter company? Great. You think you're God's gift to aviation...world's greatest instructor? Great. Good for you. I hope your student was impressed with your mad skillz. I wasn't.

 

No hover-check on departure either. Just pull-and-go. I hate that. Even after all these years and hours in the seat, I still pause when I get it into a hover. I take a breath, look around and say, "Is there any way I can *not* do this?" And then if everything seems and feels right I go. I don't take an hour doing it, either, but I always do it. I know it sounds horribly pompous and sanctimonious, but I never, ever, ever just pull-and-go.

 

If my friend Keaton had done that with the round-motor S-58 he was flying last summer, we'd be talking about him in the past-tense right now - as in, "Poor Keaton. If only that thing had caught fire in a hover instead of up at 300 feet that goofy sumbitch would still be with us." HOVER-CHECK, PEOPLE!

 

Speaking of fire, the R-22 PIC's cigarette smoking bothered some. But is there a law against smoking in flight? I don't think so. Hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em, what do I care.

 

The last thing that did bother me is what a vulgar society we are becoming. F-this and f-that. Especially with a camera rolling (or maybe because the camera was there?). I was watching the video thinking, "This guy is a class act. Not." Not somebody I'd like to be friends with, that's for sure. You kiss your mama with that mouth, boy?

 

In the end, it was pretty cool that they were able to grab the RC plane from the treetop. Good timing. Whether or not what they did was God-awful-unsafe and whether they should be reported to the FAA for certificate action is not for me to say. If it was my helicopter (probably a turbine, not a Robby) and I saw the RC plane go into the trees, I might've done the same thing. With more planning though.

 

And less cursing.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, stable approach with plenty of wind indicators (trees and ponds) in case there even was any wind, cleared the tail, had an exit in case he needed it, and was very controlled the entire time. He discussed the takeoff although I agree with Nearly Retired that he should have at least stabilized it in the hover since he obviously had the power.

 

Pick it apart if you want but I don't see anything super dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of fire, the R-22 PIC's cigarette smoking bothered some. But is there a law against smoking in flight? I don't think so. Hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em, what do I care.

 

 

Yes, there is a law. The POH states that a NO SMOKING placard must be in view of both occupants. FAR 91.9 "Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements" states:

 

(a) ...,
no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified
in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards
, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

 

(The POH is the RFH. Youtube user lists his country as United States.)

 

There are probably other regulations that cover this as well. The willingness to break this rule demonstrates a hazardous attitude as defined in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) chapter of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK):

 

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary.

 

 

Just my objective, professional $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, there is a law. The POH states that a NO SMOKING placard must be in view of both occupants. FAR 91.9 "Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements" states:

 

(a) ...,
no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified
in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards
, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

 

(The POH is the RFH. Youtube user lists his country as United States.)

 

There are probably other regulations that cover this as well. The willingness to break this rule demonstrates a hazardous attitude as defined in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) chapter of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK):

 

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary.

 

 

Just my objective, professional $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The cigarette wasn't lit, so that's a non issue.

 

50' MSL when they were set on the ground. Hover check may not have been needed, but would have been prudent if for no other reason than to take a quick snap shot of the helicopters "health," so to speak. 1*

 

The recon to action was pretty quick. I would have taken a little more time setting it all up and telling the right seater what I was going to do, what I expected of him, and told him to keep a close eye on not only the tail, but the skids as well because of the snag hazard with the branches.

 

I also would have most likely performed an OGE hover check prior to scooting into the tree tops, just in case.

 

On the ground I would have rolled the power down, too.

 

In the end, no harm no foul, on their part.

 

I'm not picking it apart to bash on the pilots. I'm picking it apart to use it as a learning experience, just so everyone knows.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, there is a law. The POH states that a NO SMOKING placard must be in view of both occupants. FAR 91.9 "Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements" states:

 

(a) ...,
no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified
in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards
, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

 

(The POH is the RFH. Youtube user lists his country as United States.)

 

There are probably other regulations that cover this as well. The willingness to break this rule demonstrates a hazardous attitude as defined in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) chapter of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK):

 

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary.

 

 

Just my objective, professional $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pick it apart if you want but I don't see anything super dangerous.

 

That's only half of the equation though. Risk management decisions should be based on an analysis of risk vs reward. I've certainly put my aircraft in much more dangerous situations, but the payoff was always higher. The only real reward here was at a personal level. The satisfaction of being able to help someone out, and knowing you were the only one in the world at that moment in time with the capability to do so. Probably a bit of an adrenaline rush and a story to tell your grandkids, too. These are legitimate rewards if in fact the pilot was also the owner of the aircraft and he was flying for recreation. Whether that's worth putting the aircraft in a position where a mishap is more likely and will have more severe consequences is a decision for the pilot. This wouldn't be an acceptable decision for a professional pilot though. That should be clear because if you ask yourself whether you would want a prospective employer seeing this video, I think everyone would answer "no."

 

Nearly Retired addressed my other concern. If you are going to do this you should take a couple minutes to reduce the risk as much as you can. Think about possible alternatives, identify the hazards and discuss your plan for dealing with them before you're confronted with them (asking the student to check the tail when he was already down in the trees was a bit late).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Yes, there is a law. The POH states that a NO SMOKING placard must be in view of both occupants. FAR 91.9 "Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements" states:

 

(a) ...,
no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified
in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards
, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

Omg your ridiculous.....you sound like a mobile far aim......my goodness, I so hope your not an instructor. What a tight ass.....your students will suck at flying choppers. You sound like your still studying for ur CFI written. And as I posted to all your negative followers, the smoke was an electronic cigarette, I'm trying really hard to quit, also as I posted to all you tight ass negative posters that have nothing better to do than to bash a chopper dude.......what you losers think really matters to me, my heart is broken. Thanks for your input. You should read some of the post on YouTube......you guys will then understand how ridiculous you really are.....I'm sorry for you.

(The POH is the RFH. Youtube user lists his country as United States.)

 

There are probably other regulations that cover this as well. The willingness to break this rule demonstrates a hazardous attitude as defined in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) chapter of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK):

 

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary.

 

 

Just my objective, professional $.02

 

 

Yes, there is a law. The POH states that a NO SMOKING placard must be in view of both occupants. FAR 91.9 "Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements" states:

 

(a) ...,
no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified
in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and
placards
, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.

 

(The POH is the RFH. Youtube user lists his country as United States.)

 

There are probably other regulations that cover this as well. The willingness to break this rule demonstrates a hazardous attitude as defined in the Aeronautical Decision Making (ADM) chapter of the Pilots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK):

 

The Five Hazardous Attitudes

Anti-Authority: “Don’t tell me.”

This attitude is found in people who do not like anyone telling them what to do. In a sense, they are saying, “No one can tell me what to do.” They may be resentful of having someone tell them what to do, or may regard rules, regulations, and procedures as silly or unnecessary.

 

 

Just my objective, professional $.02

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The guys in this video are getting fairly beat-up by the morons over on the JH "bad" board, which is no surprise. Me, I'm kind of conflicted about it. I mean, they did something that only a helicopter (or a big crane) could do. They did it successfully, and they did not crash. So...hmm...

 

Was it unreasonably risky or dangerous, as the nanny-staters and "They should be violated!" crowd over on JH seem to think? Well, they were in a sparsely-populated area with no people or houses around. They risked only themselves and their helicopter, which the foul-mouthed PIC evidently owns. So it was his machine to risk. The student was on-board for the caper from the get-go. So, meh- what do I care? They did a good deed.

 

I guess the most bothersome thing is the attitude displayed by the PIC. He jumped into action very quickly, without too much (any?) forethought or planning. Just once-around and then down into the trees. I know there wasn't much wind that I could see (and RC guys don't fly in much wind anyway) but the PIC didn't even do a cursory wind-check. It was just a tad too impulsive for my taste. No planning at all; just do it. He seemed pretty egotistical, too. (But I guess every helicopter pilot is guilty of that, whether he/we admit it or not.) Hey, you own your own helicopter company? Great. You think you're God's gift to aviation...world's greatest instructor? Great. Good for you. I hope your student was impressed with your mad skillz. I wasn't.

 

No hover-check on departure either. Just pull-and-go. I hate that. Even after all these years and hours in the seat, I still pause when I get it into a hover. I take a breath, look around and say, "Is there any way I can *not* do this?" And then if everything seems and feels right I go. I don't take an hour doing it, either, but I always do it. I know it sounds horribly pompous and sanctimonious, but I never, ever, ever just pull-and-go.

 

If my friend Keaton had done that with the round-motor S-58 he was flying last summer, we'd be talking about him in the past-tense right now - as in, "Poor Keaton. If only that thing had caught fire in a hover instead of up at 300 feet that goofy sumbitch would still be with us." HOVER-CHECK, PEOPLE!

 

Speaking of fire, the R-22 PIC's cigarette smoking bothered some. But is there a law against smoking in flight? I don't think so. Hey, smoke 'em if you got 'em, what do I care.

 

The last thing that did bother me is what a vulgar society we are becoming. F-this and f-that. Especially with a camera rolling (or maybe because the camera was there?). I was watching the video thinking, "This guy is a class act. Not." Not somebody I'd like to be friends with, that's for sure. You kiss your mama with that mouth, boy?

 

In the end, it was pretty cool that they were able to grab the RC plane from the treetop. Good timing. Whether or not what they did was God-awful-unsafe and whether they should be reported to the FAA for certificate action is not for me to say. If it was my helicopter (probably a turbine, not a Robby) and I saw the RC plane go into the trees, I might've done the same thing. With more planning though.

 

And less cursing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This mentally challenged person is the reason that we have such high insurance rates. Love how he is newhere to be found on these sites defending himself. "f*ckinG LOSER", pardon my french.

No dude ....it's the people that crash these things that increase insurance rates......your just like the rest of these guys on this forum that only have ugly things to say. You guys need to lighten up and enjoy flying your machines.......wow! You call me mentally challenged.....OMG, you guys are RIDICULOUS and have no idea how to relax. TIGHT ASSES! BREEEAAATH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What they did in flight and accomplished safely could have been done a little better but it worked out OK.

 

Did anyone recognize that upon landing the student could have gotten out and walked the RC to the owners and not let them approach under the rotor system with no coordination with the folks on the ground. The adult handed the RC to the child. If he lifted it up into the rotor system we would not be condoning any previous actions.

 

My question would be "What will they decide to rush into next time?"

 

Mike

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's not the perfect example of poor decision making, I don't know what is.

It's so easy to pick out you new CFI guys. Just wait till you cross over 5 or 6 thousand hours in these amazing machines, having the opportunity to experience the endless dimensions choppers have to offer, it's endless and truly an amazing experience.......you said it right, you truly don't know what is.......

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

That's only half of the equation though. Risk management decisions should be based on an analysis of risk vs reward. I've certainly put my aircraft in much more dangerous situations, but the payoff was always higher. The only real reward here was at a personal level. The satisfaction of being able to help someone out, and knowing you were the only one in the world at that moment in time with the capability to do so. Probably a bit of an adrenaline rush and a story to tell your grandkids, too. These are legitimate rewards if in fact the pilot was also the owner of the aircraft and he was flying for recreation. Whether that's worth putting the aircraft in a position where a mishap is more likely and will have more severe consequences is a decision for the pilot. This wouldn't be an acceptable decision for a professional pilot though. That should be clear because if you ask yourself whether you would want a prospective employer seeing this video, I think everyone would answer "no."

 

Nearly Retired addressed my other concern. If you are going to do this you should take a couple minutes to reduce the risk as much as you can. Think about possible alternatives, identify the hazards and discuss your plan for dealing with them before you're confronted with them (asking the student to check the tail when he was already down in the trees was a bit late).

  • Like 1
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...