This is why we don't do helicopter tours

[JIMinNC]

Can someone point me to the article that says the pilot, Sean Johnson, wasn't certified? The NTSB has not released any information on him except to say he had 788 logged flight hours and was a licensed commercial pilot with an instrument rating. On another point statistics about aircraft safety can be very misleading for those of you who are not in the flying profession. They could be based on miles flown, hours flown, mishap fatalities, takeoffs and landings or a myriad of other criteria. If you use miles flown no helicopter would rate very high. If you use hours flown the Bell 206 is probably the safest aircraft ever produced. Definitely the safest helicopter.

Some of the posters have said they didn't enjoy their helo tour because of the aerobatic antics of the pilot. For that I sincerely apologize on behalf of all the professionals in the industry. A pilot should always tailor the flight profile to the mission. Airline pilots do not simulate staffing runs while landing, that's not what the folks in the back are paying for. As an EMS pilot the Paramedic wanted a nice stable flight so they could tend to the patient. On the other hand as a military pilot sometimes the pax, military jargon for passengers, wanted a more interesting experience. I've never worked in the tour industry but I don't think it's much different from EMS or VIP transport missions.

The helicopter involved in the Hawaii crash referenced in the article was a Robinson R44, I believe, not a Bell 206.

I do believe the chopper that crashed in NYC this week was a 206.

 

[JIMinNC]

Now, the FAA admits the pilot should never have been flying. His certification, completed just days earlier, was signed off by the company’s owner — someone not even authorized to do so.

This is where non-aviation media often gets so confused reporting on aviation, and gets the facts wrong.

The Hawaii pilot was a fully FAA-licensed and certified commercial helicopter pilot. However, for certain FAR Part 91 and Part 135 commercial operators, they are required to give their employed pilots periodic flight checks, just like the airlines do. These check flights are rarely, if ever, done by FAA inspectors, but are done by FAA-approved check pilots. In the airlines, these check pilots are generally senior captains employed by the company, and in the same way, many Part 91 and Part 135 charter/sightseeing operators use more senior pilots within their organization for this check pilot role. As I understand the Hawaii accusations made by the whistleblower, the helicopter company's check pilot (the company owner) was improperly signed-off by the FAA for the check pilot role. So, while the accident pilot was technically "not certified" because he was signed off by a non-qualified check pilot, it was the check pilot's certification that was the issue, not the pilot himself.

Similar sloppy reporting is going on now in connection with the NYC crash. I've seen screaming headlines from several major media organizations claiming the pilot radioed he was low on fuel, incorrectly implying that may have caused the crash. As I understand it, the radio call was actually the pilot just letting the ground crew know he would need some fuel after the completion of the current tour and that he would need a quick fuel/turn because he had another ride flight waiting. I any event, fuel starvation by itself would not cause the helicopter's main rotor and gearbox to separate, as well as the tail boom and tail rotor. Something catastrophic happened onboard that hopefully the NTSB will be able to sort out.

I'm not sure why today's media organizations consistently make so many factual errors when reporting on aviation.

 

[davidvel]

Can someone point me to the article that says the pilot, Sean Johnson, wasn't certified? The NTSB has not released any information on him except to say he had 788 logged flight hours and was a licensed commercial pilot with an instrument rating.

It is a bit complicated. The pilot was, in a sense, certified, but the person who certified him (company owner) was improperly given the authority to certify him by the FAA, as she allegedly lacked the ability to properly do so. Her authority was later revoked. This is part of an FAA employee's whistleblower claim. See this article for details. .

 

[JIMinNC]

Here is what the official NTSB report said about the pilot in the April 29, 2019 Oahu crash and the probable cause of the crash (my comments are in italics. Other text is straight from NTSB):

Pilot Ratings and Certification:
Helicopter Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor
Helicopter Instrument Rating
FAA Class 2 medical without limitations or waivers

Pilot Flight Time:
540 hours (Total, all aircraft), 340 hours (Total, this make and model), 470 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 135 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 6 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Last Flight Review or Equivalent:
April 19, 2019

Additional Information:
The operator reported that the pilot was hired by the company about 2 1/2 weeks before the accident. The pilot completed company training for Part 135 operations on April 19, 2019, then completed one week of tour-specific training. He began taking passengers on tours about 3 days before the accident. The accident flight was the pilot's first flight on the day of the accident.

So the pilot had all of the proper licenses and ratings to fly as pilot in command of a Part 135 tour operator. Based on the statements made in the Beat of Hawaii article, the "certification" issue was the person who did his Part 135 flight check on April 19 was later shown to be improperly approved by the FAA as a check pilot.

This was the NTSB Probable Cause finding for that accident:
The helicopter’s encounter with a strong downdraft or outflow boundary while operating at a higher than recommended airspeed in turbulence which resulted in a low-G condition, excessive main rotor flapping, and an in-flight breakup when the main rotor contacted the cabin area.

These are the pure facts, uncolored by uninformed media reporting.

 

[davidvel]

Here is what the official NTSB report said about the pilot in the April 29, 2019 Oahu crash and the probable cause of the crash (my comments are in italics. Other text is straight from NTSB):

Pilot Ratings and Certification:
Helicopter Commercial Pilot, Flight Instructor
Helicopter Instrument Rating
FAA Class 2 medical without limitations or waivers

Pilot Flight Time:
540 hours (Total, all aircraft), 340 hours (Total, this make and model), 470 hours (Pilot In Command, all aircraft), 135 hours (Last 90 days, all aircraft), 6 hours (Last 24 hours, all aircraft)

Last Flight Review or Equivalent:
April 19, 2019

Additional Information:
The operator reported that the pilot was hired by the company about 2 1/2 weeks before the accident. The pilot completed company training for Part 135 operations on April 19, 2019, then completed one week of tour-specific training. He began taking passengers on tours about 3 days before the accident. The accident flight was the pilot's first flight on the day of the accident.

So the pilot had all of the proper licenses and ratings to fly as pilot in command of a Part 135 tour operator. Based on the statements made in the Beat of Hawaii article, the "certification" issue was the person who did his Part 135 flight check on April 19 was later shown to be improperly approved by the FAA as a check pilot.

This was the NTSB Probable Cause finding for that accident:
The helicopter’s encounter with a strong downdraft or outflow boundary while operating at a higher than recommended airspeed in turbulence which resulted in a low-G condition, excessive main rotor flapping, and an in-flight breakup when the main rotor contacted the cabin area.

These are the pure facts, uncolored by uninformed media reporting.

Correct. But the pertinent part to many was that he was certified by someone who was not qualified to do so, either by error or worse by the FAA (substantiated by FAA investigators in a report published in 2022. See the CivilBeat article link in my post above.) Her "authorization" was revoked by the FAA 10 days after the crash.

So his "certification" is at issue. It is analogous to someone passing their drive test given by a person unqualified to administer it. Technically they received their license, but not properly. Why the NTSB felt his was unnecessary to include in its report is also odd.

 

[JIMinNC]

Correct. But the pertinent part to many was that he was certified by someone who was not qualified to do so, either by error or worse by the FAA (substantiated by FAA investigators in a report published in 2022. See the CivilBeat article link in my post above.) Her "authorization" was revoked by the FAA 10 days after the crash.

So his "certification" is at issue. It is analogous to someone passing their drive test given by a person unqualified to administer it. Technically they received their license, but not properly. Why the NTSB felt his was unnecessary to include in its report is also odd.

All of my flight checks for my pilot’s certifications - my original Private Pilot license, my Instrument Rating, and my Commercial license were all administered by FAA-designated pilot examiners. The examiner for the Private license was the owner of the flight school I learned at.

If, at some time after I passed my check ride, one of the examiners had lost their certification, I don’t think my license would have been revoked, since they were all technically FAA approved when I took the check ride, but I’m not 100% sure on that.

They did say the FAA rechecked all of the company’s pilots after the owner’s Part 135 status was revoked. I assume they passed, so maybe the NTSB didn’t see that issue as relevant, since the pilot had the proper licenses and experience, and the FAA had not yet revoked the check pilot’s authority on the date of the accident.

It’s probably a legal gray area that you are more qualified to speak to than me. I’ll stick to the aviation facts.

 

[JohnnyO]

The helicopter involved in the Hawaii crash referenced in the article was a Robinson R44, I believe, not a Bell 206.

I do believe the chopper that crashed in NYC this week was a 206.

The R44 is a fine rotocraft. But I personally would not go on a tour (in Hawaii) in any potentially inclement weather conditions in an R44. But that's my personal discernment. I see an R44 fly by my house multiple times a day on tours ... its usually sunny with clear skies.

 

[ScoopKona]

I just wish we could push for a far higher level of standards for driving cars. We could cut the death toll by 90%. We would never accept hundreds of people dying in airplane crashes everyday. We shouldn't accept that level of carnage from driving cars.

Most fatal car crashes have the common thread of unsafe speed.

I'm looking forward to autonomous vehicles -- starting with tractor trailers (where there's massive savings to be had). Eventually, private car ownership will be for collectors, enthusiasts and those who need a "rolling shop" to work.

Most people will use an app and call for a ride. It will cost far less overall than vehicle ownership.

 

[artringwald]

DW is afraid of heights, but somehow decided to go on a helicopter flight in Alaska that landed on a glacier. She even decided to take a no-doors flight around Kauai. Those were the last two flights we'll take, but they were both amazing and we're really glad we did them. For some, I can understand that statistics don't matter. Everyone has to do their own risk assessment.

 

[jimf41]

The R44 is a fine rotocraft. But I personally would not go on a tour (in Hawaii) in any potentially inclement weather conditions in an R44. But that's my personal discernment. I see an R44 fly by my house multiple times a day on tours ... its usually sunny with clear skies.

I disagree. The R44 is not a fine rotorcraft. I can instruct in anything I've ever flown except an R44. I could fly it as a pilot with a transition but to instruct I'd need a special FAA endorsement. It does not have the same autorotational characteristics as other helicopters. If you ever decide to take a tour in one walk away. You will most likely be flying with a very inexperienced pilot. You don't want to fly in a helicopter with a low time pilot.

 

[JohnnyO]

I disagree. The R44 is not a fine rotorcraft. I can instruct in anything I've ever flown except an R44. I could fly it as a pilot with a transition but to instruct I'd need a special FAA endorsement. It does not have the same autorotational characteristics as other helicopters. If you ever decide to take a tour in one walk away. You will most likely be flying with a very inexperienced pilot. You don't want to fly in a helicopter with a low time pilot.

I highly doubt the pilots who fly the R44 near here are low time. What do you consider low time and inexperienced? I'll call and ask the tour company about the hours and experience their pilots have. I did not know about that restriction. Thanks for the info. It just reaffirms my discernment to avoid the R44. I've been in several R22's which was a training workhorse way back in the day. i don't know about now.

 

[artringwald]

I flew with that guy. He was really nice and a pretty smart guy. It was a great adventure. He was featured on one of those Real Estate reality TV series Buying on Kauai or something like that. I came to find out he was allegedly jerryrigging the fuel system to try and save fuel on his flights and that caused the crash he and a student died in. The fire allegedly destroyed his craft and the fail safes on board like the parachute system. Some don't believe he would do that but I do because he talked to me about what he was experimenting on with the same fuel system. I'm glad he didn't propose trying it during our flight. I think the final (FAA/NTSB/Sheriff?) report discusses all of this. So sad for his student, him and his wife. His actions also wound up restricting these craft even more throughout Hawaii. Our daughter flew on one on the way to Hana Maui with another well known operator.

He was on an episode of Hawaii Life. I remember him because he was also a good friend of the author of the Kauai Revealed book. Many of the pictures in the Revealed books were taken from an ultralight.

 

[jimf41]

I highly doubt the pilots who fly the R44 near here are low time. What do you consider low time and inexperienced? I'll call and ask the tour company about the hours and experience their pilots have. I did not know about that restriction. Thanks for the info. It just reaffirms my discernment to avoid the R44. I've been in several R22's which was a training workhorse way back in the day. i don't know about now.

My definition of a low time pilot may be different from other pilots. I've logged about 7-8000 hours in about 10 different helicopters. Most folks would consider me a high time experienced pilot. I've got two very good friends my age that have a lot more time than me. I asked one of them how much time he had. I'll never forget his answer. "I don't really know I stopped counting after 25,000." I was his IP in the Army giving him a HUEY transition. As far as Robinsons are concerned it's a strange aircraft. You can fly it under IFR rules but only in VFR weather. It's not certified to fly under IFR conditions. An instructor pilot only qualified in an R44 can teach you how to fly IFR but he's never actually done it himself. A Robinson is a trainer it was never designed to fly passengers for hire. I don't understand why the FAA allows that.

 

[davidvel]

My definition of a low time pilot may be different from other pilots. I've logged about 7-8000 hours in about 10 different helicopters. Most folks would consider me a high time experienced pilot. I've got two very good friends my age that have a lot more time than me. I asked one of them how much time he had. I'll never forget his answer. "I don't really know I stopped counting after 25,000." I was his IP in the Army giving him a HUEY transition. As far as Robinsons are concerned it's a strange aircraft. You can fly it under IFR rules but only in VFR weather. It's not certified to fly under IFR conditions. An instructor pilot only qualified in an R44 can teach you how to fly IFR but he's never actually done it himself. A Robinson is a trainer it was never designed to fly passengers for hire. I don't understand why the FAA allows that.

Thank you for your professional explanation based on real life experience and training. And for your service!

 

[WaikikiFirst]

I'm not sure why today's media organizations consistently make so many factual errors when reporting on aviation

Huh????? Here you go
I'm not sure (actually I am sure) why today's media organizations consistently make so many factual errors when reporting on everything
Take any topic in which you are well-versed (don't even have to be an "expert"). Read today's media.

 

[JIMinNC]

Huh????? Here you go
I'm not sure (actually I am sure) why today's media organizations consistently make so many factual errors when reporting on everything
Take any topic in which you are well-versed (don't even have to be an "expert"). Read today's media.

Probably true. As an aviation guy though, I notice the aviation errors more.

I also find it amazing, when watching Jeopardy on TV, how some of the smartest people in the country can miss the most basic questions on aviation and space. They can correctly answer some obscure question about the French Revolution, but they get stumped on basic airplane questions.

 

[1Kflyerguy]

We have done multiple helicopter tours on the Big Island and one on Kauai. For a while, it seemed like everyone we invited to the Big Island wanted to tour the volcano. I don't think I need to do anymore. They are fun but expensive, and there are other ways to see similar sights.