Helicopter Tour Safety?

rpadula

rpadula

En-Route
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
4,731
Location
Suwanee, GA
Display Name
Display name:
PancakeBunny
A very good friend and I were recently reminiscing about the time I took him and his new bride up for a scenic ride around Maui in a rented 172 years ago.

Today he wrote to say there going back to the big island and asked if there was a publicly available database to check on tour company safety records. Is there?

I could point him to the NTSB site, but I was wondering if there was anything else. Search blows at the FAA website.
 
Just a very unscientific opinion based on a few years flying in Hawaii: Don't use Blue Hawaii helicopters. Personally I would not fly any charter helicopter tour because their whole ethos is quick turnaround and high volume. 99.99% of the time you will be safe, but if my hands aren't on the controls I get jumpy close to terrain. Some skirt the edge of acceptable go/no go decisions and I have seen them in MVFR low over the water. This info is eight years old so things might have changed, but I know BH splashed a Eurocopter into a ridge on Molokai during a heavy rain storm in 2011.
 
Last edited:
We went up with BH in one of their virtually brand new Eco copter things off of Oa'hu but that was a very low volume operation there and the pilot was obviously on-call.

We were "stuck" on Oa'hu after an event at the Convention Center and a cancellation of a different form of transport to the other islands.

After talking to him for a bit, learned he was an ex-Aussie Army pilot. Didn't seem particularly dangerous. Unless you're scared of accents. ;)

I liked how they hid the weight scale in the step in front of the counter. "Step up here for your wristband". Ha. Yep. Writing down weights for loading.
 
denverpilot said:
I liked how they hid the weight scale in the step in front of the counter. "Step up here for your wristband". Ha. Yep. Writing down weights for loading.
Click to expand...

Heli USA wasn't so subtle on Kauai in 2006. And they used it to figure out W&B side to side, as well as front/rear. The one time my wife has been in a helicopter. First time I'd been in a helicopter since Army ROTC in the early 70s. Probably the last time I'll ride in one. Fixed wing for me.
 
The wristband had your assigned seating on it. I was surrounded by lightweight midgets that day, so my chubby butt was seated squarely in the rear center seat.

Thankfully, visibility was good in the Eco-whatchamacallit helicopter from that seat. It's generally custom-designed for the sightseeing mission and the rear seat is higher than the front two seats.

The skinny dude got the front seat. ;). My wife and his wife were on either side of me in back.
 
Per hour I'm sure they are safer then going up in a C-172 with your average private pilot. C-172 crashes just aren't newsworthy.
 
Bear in mind that helicopter tour operations are time building jobs for inexperienced pilots.

In the fixed wing world, one usually has some measure of experience under one's belt before getting a turbine job. I think I'd been flying for 12 years before I got into my first turboprop.

In the helicopter world, one ends up in a turbine helicopter right off the bat; as soon as one has enough time instructing in an R22 or comparable training helicopter, one's first job outside of instructing is usually either the Gulf of Mexico, or flying tourists.

You're getting the least experienced pilot available, when you get into those tour aircraft, and they're flying above the Grand Canyon, Volcanos, and other places that you really don't want to go if you have a problem. Frankly, I'd like to have the most experience and judgement up there I can in such a situation. Wouldn't you?
 
DouglasBader said:
Bear in mind that helicopter tour operations are time building jobs for inexperienced pilots.
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

Couple this with flying near vertical terrain with typically unpredictable winds and frequent terrain obscuring rain. The only special qualification for these pilots is that they are usually licensed tour guides as well.
 
BS Turbine helicopter pilots have more experience then commuter fixed wing pilots. More valuable experience as well.
DouglasBader said:
Bear in mind that helicopter tour operations are time building jobs for inexperienced pilots.

In the fixed wing world, one usually has some measure of experience under one's belt before getting a turbine job. I think I'd been flying for 12 years before I got into my first turboprop.

In the helicopter world, one ends up in a turbine helicopter right off the bat; as soon as one has enough time instructing in an R22 or comparable training helicopter, one's first job outside of instructing is usually either the Gulf of Mexico, or flying tourists.

You're getting the least experienced pilot available, when you get into those tour aircraft, and they're flying above the Grand Canyon, Volcanos, and other places that you really don't want to go if you have a problem. Frankly, I'd like to have the most experience and judgement up there I can in such a situation. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...
 
DouglasBader said:
Bear in mind that helicopter tour operations are time building jobs for inexperienced pilots.

In the fixed wing world, one usually has some measure of experience under one's belt before getting a turbine job. I think I'd been flying for 12 years before I got into my first turboprop.

In the helicopter world, one ends up in a turbine helicopter right off the bat; as soon as one has enough time instructing in an R22 or comparable training helicopter, one's first job outside of instructing is usually either the Gulf of Mexico, or flying tourists.

You're getting the least experienced pilot available, when you get into those tour aircraft, and they're flying above the Grand Canyon, Volcanos, and other places that you really don't want to go if you have a problem. Frankly, I'd like to have the most experience and judgement up there I can in such a situation. Wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

:yikes:

Holy misinformation batman.

Right now turbine tour pilot jobs require 1500 PIC Helicopter minimum and Hawaii mins are usually 2 - 3 thousand minimum.

Signed,
Your friendly piston powered helicopter tour pilot.
 
jaybee said:
:yikes:

Holy misinformation batman.

Right now turbine tour pilot jobs require 1500 PIC Helicopter minimum and Hawaii mins are usually 2 - 3 thousand minimum.

Signed,
Your friendly piston powered helicopter tour pilot.
Click to expand...

Yup and those pilots still aren't as safe as weekend warriors in rented C-172s and not even close to the safety of Colgan's professional and experienced pilots.:rolleyes::rofl:
 
Right now turbine tour pilot jobs require 1500 PIC Helicopter minimum and Hawaii mins are usually 2 - 3 thousand minimum.
Click to expand...

Like I said, low time pilots, building hours.
 
DouglasBader said:
Like I said, low time pilots, building hours.
Click to expand...

funny... :rofl:

seriously - you think RJ's hiring 300 hrs total and 100 multi is better :no:

I guess no one should be able to to do any job until they have 5000 hours or will it take 10,000 to satisfy you :dunno:

As said before by many people, hours is the absolute worst way to categorize someone's skill set. You can not force someone to have good ADM.

Anyhow... I'll take a 1000 hr helicopter tour pilot over a 300 hr RJ pilot any day of the week.
 
I met a pilot a couple years ago who had a job flying jets with only 450 total time. USMC Captain, flying a Harrier, had completed a combat tour.

Quality, not quantity.
 
Ahem, back to the original question: are there any searchable databases to check on particular operators?
 
seriously - you think RJ's hiring 300 hrs total and 100 multi is better
Click to expand...

I never thought it was a good idea. Congress doesn't think it's a good idea either, hence mandating 1,500 hours minimum and an ATP.
 
We're going to start using the same Congress that allowed it for longer than I've been alive -- as a shining example of intelligent decision-making now, are we? That's laughable.

FAA could have put a stop to it without Congressional approval too. If they were truly concerned enough to live out their Safety mantra and Charter. They didn't for fear of Union and political repercussions.

I think it'd be safer to just stick with "I never thought it was a good idea". Backing it up with Washington idiots doesn't make the argument any stronger.

And for what it's worth, I agree and disagree. They're will be bad 1500 hour pilots and there will be great 250 hour pilots. The root-cause is a training/education system where someone can log all those 1500 hours in CAVU weather in the desert southwest and be in command of an airliner in the northeast soup and icing a few months later.

But anyway, I'll take your opinion over any politician's any day of the week, Doug.
 
The political decision is purely knee-jerk, as always.

I've always maintained that if I'm going to put a family member on a flight, especially one one that I've paid, then I want to know there's an experienced, competent hand up there.

The airline environment is different than a single-pilot helicopter environment, however. When a 300 hour FO is put in the right seat, he has little control over the outcome of the flight as a second in command, and is given considerable training in standardization. In the airline environment, everyone does everything the same way, with the intent that one can play mix and match between Captains and FO's and still achieve standard operating practices.

Contrast that with a single pilot helicopter; no supervision in flight by a standardization pilot or other crew member, relative inexperience, and not nearly the level of training (or training oversight) that goes into the airline pilot. It's not the hours directly, and it's not the job. Airlines have been able to put 300 hour pilots in the right seat largely because they're put in a position where they can't hurt much.

The closest comparison one might be able to make with the helicopter operation would be to talk about putting a 300 hour pilot as a copilot in the helicopter, which isn't the case; in this case, the PIC in the helicopter is the inexperienced pilot.

One must also look at the total time in the industry and in flight operations, not just total hours. A tour helicopter pilot who spent six months or a year getting through his or her certificates and ratings, a year instructing, and then gets on the line flying a tour, has a couple of years of experience, and is acting at the PIC. The PIC of the airline flight using that 300 hour FO will have considerably more years of experience (to say nothing of hours).

Remember that both the helicopter tour operation, and the commuter airline are both entry level jobs.
 
Another inadequate plank driver. In that rookie tour pilots couple of years experience he has made more PIC decisions in tougher situations than that copilot will in 20 years of big iron button pushing. Airplane pilots are big wussies(and subconsciously know it):goofy::lol:
 
In those first two years, that pilot has been receiving training and has been being working as a flight instructor. Tough decisions as a student or instructor?

Now, he's flying over an active volcano, gaining his first experience in a working job, with paying passengers on board, as he builds time.

Inexperience: is it everywhere you want to be?
 
And doing photo flights, powerline stuff, who knows what else. Far more PIC decisions than jet drivers. Heck in decisions per second bus drivers far out decide airplane pilots. You don't have to hide your fear of helicopters with pilot qualification nonsense, it is a brave new world you can proudly stay on the ground with the ladies and be openly afraid.
 
DouglasBader said:
In those first two years, that pilot has been receiving training and has been being working as a flight instructor. Tough decisions as a student or instructor?

Now, he's flying over an active volcano, gaining his first experience in a working job, with paying passengers on board, as he builds time.

Inexperience: is it everywhere you want to be?
Click to expand...

In helicopter instruction the instructor is not sitting on his hands. It takes quite a bit more experience to take a new student out for his first few hours in a helicopter.

Side by side, the helicopter instructor is going to have more experience in his first thousand hours than a fixed wing instructor just due to the nature of the beast.
 
And doing photo flights, powerline stuff, who knows what else. Far more PIC decisions than jet drivers. Heck in decisions per second bus drivers far out decide airplane pilots.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. It's an entry level job.

You don't have to hide your fear of helicopters with pilot qualification nonsense, it is a brave new world you can proudly stay on the ground with the ladies and be openly afraid.
Click to expand...

I enjoy helicopters; they're great, extremely versatile, useful, valued machines.

After several decades of flying formation under power lines, flying into very active forest fires, flying in combat zones and through jungles and deserts and snow and ice, flying into level 5 thunderstorms, and a host of other professional duties ranging from the mundane to the classified to the knuckle-busting, sweat-soaked busy days and nights, I'm more than happy to sit a day out with the ladies. In fact, given the choice, I'll take my time with my lady over any of those activities.

If you're young enough and foolish enough to play macho man and smack your pride around with questions of fear or no fear, have at it. One day you'll have enough experience to cut out that childishness and grow up to act like a professional. In the meantime, thump your chest and feel proud. When you've been there and done that, you may be a little more conservative and change your tune.

Then again, maybe not. One day you may have to decide if you want to be an old pilot or a bold pilot.

In helicopter instruction the instructor is not sitting on his hands.
Click to expand...

This I know, yet no one has stated any such thing.

Side by side, the helicopter instructor is going to have more experience in his first thousand hours than a fixed wing instructor just due to the nature of the beast.
Click to expand...

There's no question that flying a helicopter can be a demanding, hands-on operation. This doesn't change the fact that flying tours is an entry-level operation for low-time pilots.
 
Last edited:
Sheesh, guys... does everything have to degrade into personal insults here lately?

Frankly, the problem will always be there and has always been there...

There's no way to gain experience other than by doing, and even if we "ban" inexperienced pilots from some cockpits, they'll just end up somewhere else... expect more "training" crashes over the next ten years.

Henning has made some points recently about the overall trend from ex-military aviators filling seats to having far more broke-piled-high-with-loans-larger-than-a-mortgage-paid-as-they-went civilians filling a lot more of the seats now.

Making someone pay to get to 1500 hours isn't really going to improve safety... it's just going to mean they're a lot more broke and desperate to keep a job even if the company has shoddy maintenance or other bad practices.

This will have unintended consequences. And they won't necessarily have any more "experience" of the types needed to fly the bigger aircraft when they get there.

Helicopters tend to be slightly more self-selecting... civilian helicopter pilots are significantly more broke or were significantly more wealthy to start with... don't know how to factor that into the overall idea, but the move to more broke-civilians isn't happening as fast in the helicopter world. IMHO.
 
DouglasBader said:
Contrast that with a single pilot helicopter; no supervision in flight by a standardization pilot or other crew member, relative inexperience, and not nearly the level of training (or training oversight) that goes into the airline pilot. It's not the hours directly, and it's not the job. Airlines have been able to put 300 hour pilots in the right seat largely because they're put in a position where they can't hurt much.
Click to expand...

Okay at first I thought you were just misinformed.

Secondly I see you have some experience to bring to the table.

But lastly and most important, this quote I quoted you on is just ridiculousness and stupid.
 
Up here at my airport alone (PAJN) there are four helicopter tour operators. A couple of them work year 'round serving remote sites but all of them are extremely busy during the summer. While some of the pilots are building time, most are very qualified and often ex-military helo pilots that return year after year. Same goes for the various fixed wing operators here. My company for example is about 70% high time "lifers" like myself that love the work and location, and 30% low time guys building hours. We have had very good sucess with low time pilots for summer positions in fact, partly due to them being "teachable" and not yet set in their ways. This way we are able to train them to fly as we need them to, safely and legally with emphasis on customer service skills. The Hawaii operators might be a completely different game however so I cannot comment on them, just my own observations here. Bottom line, you have a permanent core of experienced pilots that live here supplemented seasonally by lower time pilots that are "taken under wing".
 
Last edited:
Airlines have been able to put 300 hour pilots in the right seat largely because they're put in a position where they can't hurt much.
Click to expand...

Exactly, not only that, they belong there at 250hrs because they can learn their trade there under the tutelage of the captain, at least that's how it's supposed to work, except now we have a couple generations where we can't even count on captain competency anymore. The 1500hr to right seat rule was a bad move which will do nothing but exasperate the issue. They should have made CFI the 1500 ticket, not SIC in an airliner. As a CFI they have the opportunity to ruin hundreds of more pilots.
 
They should have made CFI the 1500 ticket, not SIC in an airliner.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, except for Flight Safety International and other professional training institutions, primary flight instructing remains a starvation-wage activity for many, and it's not regulation that determines participants, but willingness to pay, and willingness to work for those wages.

As experience increases and opportunity horizons expand, few (save the retired) are willing to accept the limitations of the instructing environment. Many of us enjoy it, but few of us can afford to stay doing it.

I've friends who own flight training schools or operations, who fly for a living to be able to survive, and do the instruction on the side, or employ others to do the instruction for them on the side.
 
DouglasBader said:
Unfortunately, except for Flight Safety International and other professional training institutions, primary flight instructing remains a starvation-wage activity for many, and it's not regulation that determines participants, but willingness to pay, and willingness to work for those wages.

As experience increases and opportunity horizons expand, few (save the retired) are willing to accept the limitations of the instructing environment. Many of us enjoy it, but few of us can afford to stay doing it.

I've friends who own flight training schools or operations, who fly for a living to be able to survive, and do the instruction on the side, or employ others to do the instruction for them on the side.
Click to expand...

No arguments, like I said, the training system is screwed up. However, it's not like there's a wage difference between CFI and right seat in an airliner, in fact, some take a pay cut for a couple of years.

The entire pilot development system for the airlines needs to change.
 
DouglasBader said:
Really? Why is that?
Click to expand...

See Aaron's post for one testimony. I can provide similar. We are not simply thrown in the seat without proper training as your post would indicate.

300 hr right seater can't hurt much..... neither can a 1500 helo PIC - again you can't force good decision making. You seem to be hung up on hours as an indicator of one's abilities. Seriously flying is not that hard. If you haven't gotten it by 100 hours you should probably quit. I would hazard a guess that 90% of helo PICs that make to 1000 or more are properly vetted. The inherently unstable machine has a tendency to wash out the dweebs better than fixed wing.
 
Last edited:
jaybee said:
See Aaron's post for one testimony. I can provide similar. We are not simply thrown in the seat without proper training as your post would indicate.

300 hr right seater can't hurt much..... neither can a 1500 helo PIC - again you can't force good decision making. You seem to be hung up on hours as an indicator of one's abilities. Seriously flying is not that hard. If you haven't gotten it by 100 hours you should probably quit. I would hazard a guess that 90% of helo PICs that make to 1000 or more are properly vetted. The inherently unstable machine has a tendency to wash out the dweebs better than fixed wing.
Click to expand...

In general I accept your theory as I understand it, (that hours alone do not a pilot make), but I think the human factors and business requirements these sightseeing flights should be taken into account as well. After the initial newness of the experience dulls, the pilot is almost like a horse pulling a milk wagon over the same route day in and day out. The spiel to the passengers, the pressures of schedules and the repetitive nature of the task stack the deck towards complacency.
Hawaii offers scenic opportunities that only a helicopter can fully exploit, and anyone who wants to should take a ride. But full disclosure of the risks inherent of this type of flying should not be dismissed.
 
We are not simply thrown in the seat without proper training as your post would indicate.
Click to expand...

My post indicated no such thing, as no one here, least of all me, has stated or insinuated any such thing.

You seem to be hung up on hours as an indicator of one's abilities.
Click to expand...

I am not at all "hung up" on hours, though it's perhaps the most universal metric used for addressing pilot experience for hiring, certification, insurance, etc. It's certainly an applicable value in many cases, and there's clearly a big difference between a 300 hour pilot fresh out of training at a 30 year veteran with 8000 or 12000 hours.

If you haven't gotten it by 100 hours you should probably quit. I would hazard a guess that 90% of helo PICs that make to 1000 or more are properly vetted.
Click to expand...

That really depends on the type of operation. In firefighting, for example, a 25000 hour pilot doing his first hour on a fire was a one hour pilot.

My present employer sets a 5000 hour minimum to hire, but competitive minimums are generally much higher, and we see a lot of applicants with north of 20,000 hours.

There's a reason for that.
 
With 500 hours fixed-wing, then almost as many in an R22 I thought I was pretty competent several years ago when an old salt said something that's stuck with me.

"I wish I was as good as I thought I was when I was at a thousand hours."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top