True Cat A Performance
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australasia
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Folks,
It has been an excellent thread, perhaps more incidentally than directly.
Despite the generally high level of technical input, the untouched issue seems to be that which gave rise to Xnr's original question: is the regulator, in this case TC, justified in placing operational limits on certain helipad operations?
I will presume that TC is constrained to act within the public policy imperatives of the Canadian Parliament and thus is reflecting the desire of its political master to reduce the risk to the general public, perceived or otherwise, of helicopter operations into these places. Operating rules are designed to protect both the travelling public in aircraft and those on the ground who may be exposed to the post-accident "metal rain". Category A or Class 1 performance rules are simply risk minimisers and that is why the concept exists. It seems quite logical that the certification rules reflect public policy and that the cost/benefit argument has been run and won.
All of the "what I would prefer" stuff is largely irrelevant.
I, too, loved it when I had one big engine and ******-all rules and could carry more further and faster than anyone else, but I also knew that there were a lot of things that could turn all of that fun into disaster and kill lots of people and destroy lots of property. But if I want to run a business in certain transport modes and within certain communities, then I know that the risk of all that fun is not acceptable from either a commercial or a social perspective. And that, folks, is why Nick works so hard to help produce an affordable "true Cat A" machine - the market demands it because certain societies demand it.
As Shawn has clearly identified, the true task of the industry and the regulator is maximise the utility and minimise the cost of the public safety rules. I see in this debate the same misconception that plagues the Australian aviation scene and actively hinders industry progress, so say after me: "The regulator does not exist to satisfy the whims of the industry, it exists to satisfy the whims of the general public!"
It has to be recognised that certain societies are prepared to accept higher transportation costs to pay for higher levels of safety, perceived or otherwise, or, if that transport mode cannot be provided economically, are prepared to find alternative modes.
The danger to all helicopter operations in urban or high value areas is that it will only take one accident to one "redneck" actively flouting the rules, regardless of the reason, to create a public backlash that we will never get over. The solution will not come from civil disobedience - it will come from close and positive engagement with the policy makers, combined with sound risk analysis and identification of the social benefits of helicopter operations that appeal to the masses who overwise see us as noisy, dirty and far outside their financial reach.
As for the HV Diagram and seating configuration (??) argument, that looks like the first target for some serious lobbying and regulatory review....
Stay alive,
[email protected]
It has been an excellent thread, perhaps more incidentally than directly.
Despite the generally high level of technical input, the untouched issue seems to be that which gave rise to Xnr's original question: is the regulator, in this case TC, justified in placing operational limits on certain helipad operations?
I will presume that TC is constrained to act within the public policy imperatives of the Canadian Parliament and thus is reflecting the desire of its political master to reduce the risk to the general public, perceived or otherwise, of helicopter operations into these places. Operating rules are designed to protect both the travelling public in aircraft and those on the ground who may be exposed to the post-accident "metal rain". Category A or Class 1 performance rules are simply risk minimisers and that is why the concept exists. It seems quite logical that the certification rules reflect public policy and that the cost/benefit argument has been run and won.
All of the "what I would prefer" stuff is largely irrelevant.
I, too, loved it when I had one big engine and ******-all rules and could carry more further and faster than anyone else, but I also knew that there were a lot of things that could turn all of that fun into disaster and kill lots of people and destroy lots of property. But if I want to run a business in certain transport modes and within certain communities, then I know that the risk of all that fun is not acceptable from either a commercial or a social perspective. And that, folks, is why Nick works so hard to help produce an affordable "true Cat A" machine - the market demands it because certain societies demand it.
As Shawn has clearly identified, the true task of the industry and the regulator is maximise the utility and minimise the cost of the public safety rules. I see in this debate the same misconception that plagues the Australian aviation scene and actively hinders industry progress, so say after me: "The regulator does not exist to satisfy the whims of the industry, it exists to satisfy the whims of the general public!"
It has to be recognised that certain societies are prepared to accept higher transportation costs to pay for higher levels of safety, perceived or otherwise, or, if that transport mode cannot be provided economically, are prepared to find alternative modes.
The danger to all helicopter operations in urban or high value areas is that it will only take one accident to one "redneck" actively flouting the rules, regardless of the reason, to create a public backlash that we will never get over. The solution will not come from civil disobedience - it will come from close and positive engagement with the policy makers, combined with sound risk analysis and identification of the social benefits of helicopter operations that appeal to the masses who overwise see us as noisy, dirty and far outside their financial reach.
As for the HV Diagram and seating configuration (??) argument, that looks like the first target for some serious lobbying and regulatory review....
Stay alive,
[email protected]
