Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Does anyone know where to find accident statistics on the web for the Canadian helicopter industry (including total annual helicopter hours)?

 

I have only been able to find reference to Aerial Work 702 - 3.4/100,00 hours and Air Taxi 703 - 8.1/100,000

 

There was no mention whether that is fixed wing or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what would be interesting here, is if someone like say, a low timer or anyone else with tons of time on his/her hands, were to compile a very simple and unscientific statistic of the causes for all the helicopter accidents/incidents in the last ten years and also list the most common total hours/hours on type of the pilots for each of those accidents.

We would know if the minimums recomended to customers by "consultants" are justified or not.

 

Yes, no, maybe????

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think 'maybe,' 'Dude. You know what they say about statisitics, and the less knowledgeable the compiler, the less likely reliable conclusions. For example, how would you rate/classify an accident where an engine failure concluding with a machine rolled up in a farmer's wet pasture? Some factors that may, or may not, be included are the cause of the failure, the pilot's training and technique, the met conditions at the time, and the landing environment and surface. Anyway, my point is that there is no simple way to compile meaningful statistics of something as complicated as human/machine accidents. (IMHO) B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well actually come to mention it...I've got a data management project I'm working on right now doing that exactly. Using NTSB reports I can use the conclusions of the investigators to classify the accidents. It's a lot of work to read every investigation but the stuff I'm learning about crashes is incredible. Unfortunately the method for reporting accidents wasn't as good a few years back making it harder to classify those accidents. From what I've read so far.... pilots are bad for helicopters :rolleyes: .... especially people like me :P ...(although the reports always blame the instructor for not providing adequate supervision during the crash flight). I'll post some of my findings when I'm finished if you want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right about that downwash but it would still be interesting to find out the percentage of accidents whose initial cause was either mechanical or pilot error.

 

i.e. an engine fails but the pilot panicks and forgets to drop the pole and falls out of the sky, that would still be classified as primarily caused by mechanical failure.

I' m more interested in finding out how many accidents were the direct cause of pilot error and how many of those involved a low time pilot.

 

What I'm basically getting at is this: what data supports customers claims that they are in better hands with an experienced pilot rather than a 100 hr wonder.

 

That being said, if I had the choice to send my wife and kids for a flight, my first instinct would be to send them with one of our higher time guys rather than a 100 hr pilot. I can also honestly say that I would trust any of our low timers to fly them just the same.

I've seen plenty of high time drivers out there that all of our low time guys/girls would put to shame when it comes to attitude, professionalism and work ethics!

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm basically getting at is this: what data supports customers claims that they are in better hands with an experienced pilot rather than a 100 hr wonder.

 

 

Again, isn't that the basic problem with staistics, 'Dude?' The conclusions drawn by every viewer can be different. As in my example, while the engine failure initiated the accident, was the 'real cause' perhaps poor training or technique, or even a combination of gusting wind and terrible surface? We'll all have opinions, but I don't want to beat a flagging horse here, just caution against too much reliance on staistics unless the source, the parameters, the compiler, and the interpreter are scrupulously objective. Otherwise, what's inferred can be grossly misleading or all to easily misinterpreted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi downwash and helidude.

 

I hear both of you and think that you are ultimately on the same page. Helidude appears to be implying that there just may be a current overeliance on narrowly based statistics by customers (and possibly insurance companies). I have periodically considered this myself. Just what facts and figures are those setting the bar relying on? It would be interesting to hear their overall rationale.

 

100'

Link to post
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.

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...