
Months Before Deadly Crash, Helicopter Pilots Warned of Safety Issues - comex
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/nyregion/flynyon-crash-helicopter-east-river.html
======
kosei
If nothing else, this company seems to engage in a troubling number of blatant
lies.

> "Among its claims was the promise of a “proprietary eight-point safety
> harness system.” A pilot who has worked with FlyNYON said that the company’s
> most commonly used harness was actually not proprietary at all, nor was it
> intended for aviation use. Rather, it was merely a yellow nylon construction
> harness available on Home Depot’s website for $52, which came in only one
> size."

~~~
ploxiln
I'll bet seasoned pilots hear "proprietary eight-point safety harness" the way
a seasoned systems engineer hears "proprietary military-grade encryption
algorithm". Like, can we have the standard actually-works stuff, please ...

~~~
nasredin
Eh, shouldn't be

"actually-doesn't-trap-you-upside-down-submerged-in-the-river"?

------
rdl
I don't know how big a deal the harness really is. Even getting out of a
helicopter underwater with a regular 4 or 5 point harness with a single-point
twist buckle after a crash, especially if the vehicle isn't perfectly
vertical, if there's debris or gear inside, etc. is going to be very difficult
for anyone who hasn't trained in it. The military has simulators
([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsWGHfHg4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POsWGHfHg4M))
which are way simplified over a real crash, and even that is hard for
basically professionals in peak fitness.

~~~
lb1lf
-I've done this in simulator a few dozen times (mandatory training for anyone boarding a helicopter for going offshore, refresher courses every four years.)

It is difficult enough in the simulator - which, as you say, simplify matters
immensely over an actual crash:

a) The pool with the simulator is well lit. Many places, it is even heated, so
you don't get the added stress of being lowered into icy cold water.

b) Each participant has a dedicated rescue diver sitting opposite him, ready
to assist at any sign of trouble.

c) The simulator is lowered into the water in a controlled fashion, without
any jolts.

d) There's only one seat by each window, so you don't have to first help your
mate out, then exit yourself.

Incidentally, I've found it is much easier to get out after the cabin is
inverted - your buoyancy makes you pop from your seat like a cork the moment
you open the harness; being inverted, you are being pushed towards your seat,
and all you need to do is to pop out the window, grab the opening with one
hand, undo the buckle with the other and pull yourself out. Much simpler when
your buoyancy works with you than against you.

During my last refresher, we asked whether we could make it a bit more
realistic by putting out the lights and leaving a few newspapers and such in
the cabin (for floating around once it filled with water, further disorienting
you.)

We were told in no uncertain terms that wouldn't happen; it was deemed too
risky for the rescue divers - who were fully kitted out with oxygen an'all.

Note to self: I do not want to be in a helicopter emergency landing on water.
Ever.

~~~
downandout
Forgive me if this is a dumb question, as I have no experience with
helicopters or scuba diving. But wouldn't it be easier and dramatically safer
to just keep emergency scuba equipment onboard that might give you ~15 minutes
or so of breathable air to give you time to deal with the situation? Full
scuba tanks might be impractical, but something with a small supply of air
probably wouldn't take up that much space.

~~~
lb1lf
It is not a dumb question.

Depending on where you're embarking from, equipment like this may already be
available - though not with a 15-minute supply, more like a minute, perhaps.

When I've flown from Norway in latter years, our survival suits (worn
throughout the flight) have been equipped with a rebreather device - you bite
down on a mouthpiece connected to a plastic bag integrated in your suit, and
as you exhale into the plastic bag, you can then draw the same air back in
again - no CO2 scrubbing. The mouthpiece is equipped with a valve which lets
you breathe normally while above water; you then close it as you are submerged
and breathe into the bag until you've reached the surface again.

The idea being that this will do for a minute or two - and in that minute,
you're either out of the wreck or dead.

(I've asked the simulator instructor how long we spend underwater - he
shrugged and said 'On average, six to fifteen seconds' \- so a minute is a
long, long time.)

------
firasd
One of the top comments suggests that there's a problem with the fuel switches
in this model of helicopter that makes them prone to being accidentally moved.
The surviving pilot says that's what happened here:
[http://www.fox21online.com/2018/03/26/pilot-nyc-
helicopter-c...](http://www.fox21online.com/2018/03/26/pilot-nyc-helicopter-
crash-blames-passenger-restraint-harness/)

~~~
ams6110
The suspicion is that a passenger's harness belt got looped around and then
pulled the fuel cutoff handle, which is on the floor between the front seats.
The pilot thought he was dealing with an engine failure and didn't notice the
fuel handle until it was too late. Sort of surprised that it didn't register
some kind of alert such as a "FUEL OFF" indicator but I don't know anything
about helicopter instrumentation.

~~~
mveety
It probably did, but the pilot didn't have time to do the engine restart
procedure. Also when something like this happens if there's only you flying
the plane you need to prioritize getting on the ground. In a plane, depending
on altitude and where I was, I would land immediately or set up the most
efficient glide based on what the manual says then do engine restart
procedures.

------
franciscop
I have this feeling that for every horror story like this, there is a bunch of
workers who have voiced their concerns but were ignored. We only hear about
the ones that actually get published, but considering management/workers
knowledge about the security details for each implementation I would not be
surprised if this was true.

~~~
WillReplyfFood
Well, because its really easy to raise concern. On everything. So the really
concerning parts drown in the background noise of people protecting there
lifes against every single step they take.

Hierarchical systems, are mostly humming all day long with people trying to
save there asses. Which generates systems that are deaf to real dangers,thus
making hierarchical company structure a inherent source of risk and dangers.

------
duncan_bayne
There's some interesting discussion on pprune (a forum with a lot of
commercial pilot regulars) here:

[https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/606426-helicopter-down-
eas...](https://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/606426-helicopter-down-east-river-
nyc.html)

------
skookumchuck
Looks like I'm not getting in any vehicle that does not have quick release
belts.

------
wjnc
Pilots have a professional duty of ensuring safety. If the pilots deemed the
situation unsafe, there were enough avenues to pursue (FAA, local inspection).
Complaining afterwards and looking for whistle blower protection doesn't
absolve you of responsibility. It just suggests a good match between the lack
of ethics of the company and the pilots.

~~~
cmurf
The pilots were possibly subjected to intimidation by their employer, and this
aspect must be investigated. If true, intimidation will have distorted the
judgment of the pilots making them less liable than they otherwise would be.
Economic coercion, threats to career, may be more powerful than threats of
violence. And as soon as that happened, or the company didn't act on their
safety concerns, the pilots should have sought legal advice.

~~~
wjnc
I can relate to how hard it can be to do the right thing while being employed.
But ultimately I would say it rests on each of us to do the right thing. If
you work in a public safety facing job, that amplifies your responsibility.
For pilots and captains, that would count even more. I recently read the NTSB-
report linked to from HN regarding the sinking of the El Faro [1]. What struck
me was that each subordinate could have and should have (according to NTSB as
well) acted out more strongly. Same goes here, and that's why I'm harsh at the
whistle blowers. It's too little, too late.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16757343](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16757343)

~~~
cmurf
Corporate power structure is in direct conflict with FARs. FAR gives primary
decision making power to pilots, but corporate structure essentially makes the
CEO a dictator. And we have a culture and a legal system that defers to that
CEO when there's no accidents. And then there's all kinds of outcry and
hindsight if there's an accident. We really aren't creating fully trustworthy
conditions for timely whistleblowing as evidenced by the fact multiple pilots
expressed concerns, and now people are dead.

I've lost count how many NTSB reports, dozens, I've read where corporate power
dictated operational outcome to a pilot against the pilot's better judgment,
and everyone on board dies. And every time NTSB says the corporate dictate is
a contributing factor to the accident, but ultimately the accident itself was
due to pilot error.

So strictly blaming the pilot isn't eliminating accidents where the pilot's
judgment was perturbed by company pressure. If the company is shown to have
intimidated pilots, there needs to be accountability for it, and serious
consequences.

------
aetherspawn
Surprised there’s no troll reviews on the harness in question on the Home
Depot site yet.

