Tasman

[arctic_front]

That's called sarcasm by the way, for those of you devoid of a sense humour!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

anytime an operator bends some metal....they will pay....unfortunately, they make everybody else pay too. I wonder how this will affect the low rates everybody is charging for their equipment? seems kinda crappy to have low-balled the contract just to end up wrecking the machine. must have found a way to make money that way? ( more sarcasm ) I guess they might have it fixed in time for fire season.

 

glad no injuries tho....add a law suit to the bill and they would really make $$$$

[Helilog56]

Makes me wonder if that waiver that everyone signs to avoid potential lawsuits, (should someone get seriously hurt, or worse), are worth the paper they are written on? If the pilot/flight crew, or company where found negligent, what then? :down:

[407 Driver]

The waivers do work. CMH had a big case about 9 years ago over an avalanche fatality (14 years ago), and the waiver held up.

 

....a paragraph from the final report....

 

141 In the result, I find the waiver valid and sufficient to exonerate the defendants from liability for the negligence alleged, and in the circumstances, the waiver as executed is binding on the plaintiff.

 

The complete report is here...

 

Bay Street Avalanche

[mtnhopper]

metal can be bent back :up: Glad everybodys fine

[Helilog56]

Actually I do recall that.....Was there any indication that the helicopter flight crew would be or could be held responsible for an avalanche? Would that situation differ from a pilot that turned downslope, downwind with a heavy aircraft, knowing that he/she were putting the aircraft at risk? If a passenger on board were injured to a point of not being able to work or maintain a life style because of pilot error, should they not have a right to be compensated? I have virtually no experience in your field 407, henceforth my interest.

[407 Driver]

If the previous poster was correct, he said, 9 on board at 6,000', that sounds like a light load, as 9 normal skiers = about 1,800 lbs, so with a half a tank of fuel, the old chicken should be around 9,000 Lbs AUW, My recollection of the performance charts (HP kit) is that the old gal should legally depart at that altitude up near 11,200 Lbs. But then, my memory isn't what it used to be. I'll check and confirm the figures in the AM.

 

The flight conditions on site are not known to us either.

 

To answer the rest of your questions...I don't know. I see no reason for a pilot or aircrew to be involved in an avalanche issue, as the crew has little control over where they ski. We only can dictate where they land, due to flight conditions, etc.

 

I'll see if I can dig up any info on other HeliSki issues, like that terrible crash/fire that happened years ago at Weigle-world with Fast Eddie.

[Jammed left]

Here is my 2 cents about waivers...from a personal perspective...as I am no lawyer. The waivers, if well constructed, work well to protect a person under many circumstances up to and sometimes including negligence. Once actions involved in an accident reach the 'gross negligence' stage...you're pretty much on your own (as I understand it). In an incident that I was involved with (non aviation), we had to prove that the signee had the appropriate time to look over the waiver and was in a state of mind that we believed that person could understand the waiver (like anyone can really understand them)..

 

Waivers worked well for us, but it could be that the strength of a waiver varies directly with the size of the plantiffs bankroll....

[Outwest]

407 is correct when it comes to avalanches, the waivers do hold up. However, aircraft accidents are a different matter. This latest accident is almost a carbon copy of one that occured in Blue River. In that one, everyone including the Heliski operator, Helicopter company, Bell Helicopter and the Pilot were named in the suit. The good news is that with this last one no one was injured or worse. Having been in a similar position as the this last pilot (roll over, no injuries) I can tell you the ensuing kangaroo court held by the company and TC are not a lot of fun, but at least no time was spent in court.

[Squirrel]

Here is some second hand info from one of our guides who was talking to a guide that was on the ground watching at the time - apparently the guide and another group were mustering for a subsequent 212 lift and saw it happen - take the info with some speculation as they are not pilots...

 

The 212 lifted and on turning for departure, the tail struck the slope then bounced a couple of times and ended up supported by the ski basket on the side. Didn't sound like it was even thru translation when it happened - what caused that to happen is not clear.

 

Apparently the avalanche they had was later the same day, everyone OK except the guide was slightly injured.

 

Will see if I can get any more info, but like other accidents, it still isn't clear what exactly happened and what caused it to happen.

[thekingshead]

Depite the recent events up there in Whistler, lets all take a second and put aside the negatives and the future actions to follow. Think about the positives that came out of this accident EVERYONE IS STILL ALIVE and not seriously injured. It is easy for everyone to point fingers and lay blame without knowing the facts! The Pilot that was in command is a true professional to the aviation industry and is a friend to me and many others. Thrilled he and his passengers escaped virtually unharmed considering the outcome.

Summer is coming and it looks as though its gonna be a busy one, so lets all remember to play it safe. There will always be another day to drop water on tree's and another day to take skiers to the top of a mountain. No need for unnessary risks and bad decisions with maitenance and flying. The last thing we need is another accident and more of our friends dead!

 

Play safe out there.