Even if the minimums were raised, that doesn’t stop airplane pilots from scud running and flying VFR into IMC. And basic Class G VFR minimums for fixed-wing aircraft is low enough that they too could cause a danger to IFR aircraft and people on the ground, so should those minimums be raised too?
I can’t say for certain why helicopter VFR minimums are lower than fixed-wing, but my guess is that it has something to do with the fact that helicopters can safely set down (and depart) almost any area that’s reasonably larger than the helicopter itself. All this pilot had to do was to find about a 100’x100’ area to set down, or turn back to the airport he just passed, and there wouldn’t have been an accident. His clients would have been inconvenienced, but they would be alive too.
“If there’s one takeaway for me — personally — here … I will take command of any situation that gets out of hand and not be afraid to exercise my right to FAR 91.3 .“ Yes…, in a big way…, yes…
The news media is having a feeding frenzy with this unfortunate event. The reality of it is a very competent and experienced pilot flying an extremely reliable aircraft legally in weather that was well within the regulations and experience level of the pilot, in the last couple minutes of the flight apparently made a mistake that ended tragically. The weather was reported at 1100 overcast and 2 1/2 miles, barely under Basic vfr for controlled airspace and well above the 1 mile (lower for Helicopters) clear of clouds in svfr or uncontrolled airspace below 700 agl, which at 1500 MSL he would have been. The ADSB readout shows somewhere in the last few minutes the altitude was as low as 1200 ft. The terrain in that area thru the pass on either side ranges up to 1400 ± feet. The question seems to be what was the weather thru the pass. I agree with the comment someone on here made that it is time to reassess the vfr minimums for 135 operations, even in helicopters. 1 mile visibility in that airspace is not much. As the media attacks the pilot, the controllers, the system all for ratings, due to a celebrity being involved, who if he had not been on board the accident would be forgotten news by now, the industry has to deal with how to prevent this from happening to others.
We all know what happened here; we can and should learn from this sad situation. Doesn’t matter if it was LOC or CFIT. It was the end result of get there itis which had many earlier facets. It was the quintessential series of wrong decisions that came together to result in a tragic ending. All WE here – collectively – can do is to promise ourselves to redouble our efforts to be careful as a result. Sometimes, a hard hit in the head serves to remind us that we ain’t 10’ tall and bullet proof. As a PIC, think twice … act once. Maybe run the situation through a second pilot if it’s dicey. Don’t let external pressures drive you to do something stupid. Have your backup plan in place too. Take command of a bad situation and make it right early. Sometimes, saying “No” is the right decision. It’s OK if you can’t complete your mission. Not much else can be said. As the saying goes, flying is pretty safe but is terribly intolerant of mistakes.
Bear in mind that the rate of descent was calculated from ADS-B and/or Mode C output, and may not be accurate. But even if it’s off by 50%, it’s quite a thing to be descending in hilly country when one cannot see.
IFR also has $$$ benefits: less weather dependence means more flying and a more dependable service means more customers. If the costs associated with IFR outweigh those benefits, maybe we should be looking at the FAA imposed costs of IFR to see if they are actually necessary. Because if they are preventing 135 heli operators from getting IFR capable then they just might be making helicopter aviation less safe overall.
Careful now…the newest form of virtue signaling is letting everyone know that you are willing to see unlimited US tax dollars and if necessary, nukes exploding around the world in order to support Ukraine. And…whatever you do, don’t EVER discuss the fact that pushing Baltic countries into joining NATO and the threat of NATO military bases on Russian borders played a role in the current Russian aggression. Just fly your Amazon purchased Ukrainian flag on the front porch and keep telling yourself that Finland has enormous strategic value to the US and is worth millions of US lives to protect if Russia invades now that Finland will be a NATO member.
The airspace will be contested and without adequate counter-air fighters, they will be chewed up and destroyed.
Surface counter air is not enough to protect A10’s from fighters.
Yes, Ukraine in known to be corrupt, but they choose their leaders and are mostly peaceful when left alone, if they want different leadership, they should have the right to choose not have that take from them.
As for the expansion of NATO, countries that join together for common defense may be enough to deter a country that is aggressive and expansionist. That is worth lives, when they came for my neighbor, I did nothing because it wasn’t my business or I didn’t like them, now they come for me, who will help me?
Again, the A10 will be wiped out in that conflict. If the Air Force doesn’t want them, give them to the Army. They know how valuable they really are.
Well, I don’t think protecting uninhabited Taiga forest on the border of Finland/Russia is worth Nuclear war. You really think we need Finland to protect our country? Any direct armed conflict between the US and Russia would end in mutual destruction.
Ridiculous argument. Should we or should we not launch a war with Russia if they invade Finland and claim 10 miles of forest land in Finland? Yes or no?
Stupid to get closer to a direct conflict with Russia by supplying them with aircraft and associated weapons. We invaded a sovereign country south of us because of small arms imports that we felt threatened us. What do you think Russia will do if we hand over A-10’s?
Hmm, USAF wants “modern” aircraft better suited to “modern” conflicts. Except that all conflicts since the early 90s (Gulf 1, Kosovo, Gulf 2, Iraq, Afghanistan, ISIS, Ukraine), the A-10 works perfectly. Oh, and the A-10 was designed based on lessons learned on the needs for ground attack aircraft learned in Korea and Vietnam. What “modern” conflicts have occurred where these “modern” aircraft do a better job?