Helicopter Flights Over Hawaii Petition

[kalakoa]

Let's just mix in some "free market economics": set the overland-subdivision-fee just below the added-coastal-fuel-cost, thereby "encouraging" the tour operators to fly elsewhere.

Then, let's ask a random sampling of tourists: would you rather see the coastline, or fly over some schools and a 7-11?

[MarkP]

The glide ratio of the larger and sleeker helicopters is likely to be somewhat better than for the little R-22 but it still is not going to be great, maybe 5 or 6 to 1. Call it 5 to 1. From 3,000' up when you started to 500' when you get in the vicinity of your touchdown spot that gives you 2,500' of altitude to work with. You can't use the full 3,000' because you might have to get over 100' trees and you might need some altitude to circle around when you realize there are power lines, etc. One factor I have no experience with directly, having no helicopter time, but which I know from general use of the laws of physics is that there will be some loss at the moment of transition from powered flight to auto-rotation. If the pilot doesn't recognize the problem right away he may lose substantial rotor rpm. When he does recognize the problem he will do what it takes to get that rpm back in the safe zone even if it means settling straight down and landing off shore. I have no idea really but I know that there is the potential for using up altitude just establishing the safe glide. All this argues in favor of more altitude unless you are over a good spot already.

Imagine a cone with the helicopter at the apex and with a slope of 4 to 1. Generally speaking the helicopter can reach all the area beneath the cone. From 3,000' up a helicopter should be able to reach shore easily from 1/4 mile off but the portion of the cone that overlaps land is only about 1/4 of the total. The other 3/4 of the reachable area is over water and not useful unless you want to take the chances that the helicopter on Kauai took where several people drowned. Better than nothing certainly and perhaps better than piling up into 100' tall trees. I am not sure but I think some of the fatalities on Kauai might have been due to misuse or failure of the inflatable vests. Also to give credit where credit is due I read an article in which one pilot said that when flying cross country over the mainland he seeks out lakes and rivers in which to ditch because he thinks it is better than hitting trees. Two things about that theory. That pilot was talking about ditching a fixed wing plane (can't hover, guaranteed to hit trees at high speed) and rivers and lakes are almost flat compared to the ocean. I personally attended a class on shallow water egress in which one instructor said the following of ditching: "Expect it to be violent. Expect to have to push bodies out of the way to get out of the plane."

So that is covering old ground. Chances are better for the occupants of the aircraft if they land on solid ground. Altitude is good to allow the pilot to select and reach the most favorable crash site. Now, say I was an extra 6,000' up and 5 nm further from those schools? What might I do with that altitude? One thing a responsible pilot might do is turn around and fly back to the schools! From the air, schoolyards are big open spaces that a helicopter could set down in relatively easily. He would of course have to assess in the final moments whether there were kids out on the fields. If so he might have to consider trying the parking lot at that point or the roof of the building if it is flat, or going off and crashing in trees if nothing else works, but the idea that passing over a school at 1,500' guarantees blanketing the area in flaming shrapnel if the engine should quit is not statistically valid. Otherwise looking for parks and schoolyards in case of engine failure would not be one of the fundamentals of flight instruction.

Yes, sufficient altitude is one of the factors in a successful forced landing but it is not the only factor and in some cases it may not even be the most important factor. I once helped retrieve the wreckage of a glider that was landed out. The pilot had an airplane rating already but was a student in gliders. In the final moments he rejected a freshly plowed field in favor of a narrow dirt road. If he had been flying a high wing Cessna he might have been right. As it was he ripped the wingtip off of the glider when it caught brush along the side of the road. There was no such obstacle in the plowed field. Gliders land in plowed fields without incident. The pilot walked away uninjured. He didn't have enough altitude to make it back to the airfield but he actually stretched his glide over a field in which he could have landed without event. Too much altitude? No such thing, but he put the aircraft where he chose. He just chose poorly.

[TomK]

MarkP,

I appreciate your replies and the detail you go into. I have a question which is not entirely directed at you but I suspect you'll have a good answer.

Out of the following scenarios, which is likely to have the least chance of a fatality or serious injury? - This is helicopter related, not fixed wing and am assuming VFR:

A) Flying 3000 ft over Honolulu
B) Flying 3000 ft over Puna
C) Flying 1500 ft over Honolulu
D) Flying 1500 ft over Puna

My guess is B. I'm not a pilot and know next to nothing about helicopters, but have always wondered why some tour company helicopters fly relatively low over (lightly) populated areas when they could be flying higher.

Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/

[gogould]

I guess I should not be writing in yet on something like this. I would not hesitate to sign this petition. I spent several years working on drill crews in and out of helicopters daily. Often long flights and working as the hooksetter when slinging loads. I have huge respect for the skills of the pilots and used to willingly and literally place my life in their hands flying and working with them in a wide variety of mostly harsh weather conditions.
Does that mean I want to listen to the incessant whappity whappity of chopper blades beating up the sky all day long while at home? No. A thousand times no. Things are like the devils answer to people wanting some peace out in their rural homes. The tour companies will win because money talks and choppers are all about lots of money.
There is risk every single time anyone gets in a helicopter. The tourists know and are seeking the cool rush. This rush is increased by flying lower. Weather gets cloudy and they are flying lower. Low flying coastline flights just to sightsee? No. Assigned rigid flight corridors mostly over highways with a specified overall flight number and time limit with onerous high altitude flight requirements. Yes. Sound bad? Sorry they are helicopters and an obnoxious nuisance.

[Frank]

From 3,000' up a helicopter should be able to reach shore easily from 1/4 mile off but the portion of the cone that overlaps land is only about 1/4 of the total. The other 3/4 of the reachable area is over water and not useful unless you want to take the chances that the helicopter on Kauai took where several people drowned.

above is quoted from MarkP...thanks MarkP for taking the time and replying to my questions, that said, Sounds to me like 1/4 mi. off shore and 3000' is a good choice when talking possible fatalities from hilo failure. after all, tourist could be informed of the flight plan to be over water and make an informed decision to fly or not. folks on shore in puna would be minimally put at risk. although if its your time to punch out then its your time. mean while, MINIMAL HILO NOISE until its time to be punched out.

aloha again Mark

[MarkP]

I have somehow painted myself into a corner in which I seem to dispute that more altitude is better. That is not what I am trying to do. More altitude is never worse unless you have somehow gotten yourself stuck above clouds, but that is not really about altitude so much as about proper pre-flight planning. I am riled by what I perceive to be self-serving inconsistencies. For example, another way of saying what Frank just said is that he is willing for the helicopter occupants to do without 3 out of 4 potential life-saving landing sites so that he can enjoy more peace and quiet. Increased risk of death is a price he is willing to have them pay for his convenience. Meanwhile helicopter pilots cite the very real safety benefits of flying over land and leave it at that without acknowledging costs to those on the ground. The fact that there may be costs to those on the ground does not make me sympathetic to irrational knee-jerk arguments.

Altitude is better. Less stuff on the ground is better. 3,000' over Puna wins all else being equal. Why don't we have rules mandating minimum altitudes based on safety? We do. It's just that what the FAA thinks is safe is less than what some of the public would like for noise abatement.

The quote from a previous thread titled "Helicopters from Hell" below illustrates the general public's level of understanding of aviation. The poster proposes establishing numerous illegal and potentially lethal hazards to navigation. Barrage balloon. Google it and its history in warfare.

"Better yet... lets just put together an organized 2 month long airspace protest. With enough people, lighter than air (LTA) protest balloons and fishing line, we could send a big message all the way to Washington DC while littering Punas airspace with tethered LTA protest balloons.

It's our airspace too and last I checked we still retain the right to go fly balloons, kites, model rockets, rc aircraft, etc and peaceably demonstrate.

If one cannot afford helium gas for balloons here's an easy alternative for creating hydrogen gas to lift a balloon.
http://www.ehow.com/how_5005590_make-hyd...loons.html"

My point is that even biased towards aviation as I am I still think I am a long way from telling anyone to shut up and die.

[KeaauRich]

As someone who's house is apparently directly under the preferred helicopter flight path, I'd be happy with a compromise solution that would have the choppers take a variety of overland routes, which would at least reduce the disruptions a bit. Since the prevalent feeling among the powers that be is that noise is something local residents must tolerate in the name of the tourist-based economy, then that noise should be spread out over a larger universe of local residents.

edited to correct a typo/spelling error

[SBH]

We are also directly under the flight path and they often fly so low it shakes the whole house and you can't even carry on a conversation. Often we see two or three helicopters at the same time and way below the 1500' required altitude.

[sputnut]

isn't it a death sentence if the engine fails over land as well? I heard a pilot say once that if the engine fails, a helicopter has the aerodynamics of a grand piano.
As for green harvest, nice to know they annoy and endanger so many people while wasting millions trying to stop the unstoppable instead of making millions taxing it when they should go get real criminals like bankers and ceo's.

comin' your way soon!

[TomK]

MarkP - thanks for the response. I wasn't thinking about minimum altitudes etc. I was thinking why don't helicopters fly higher than they do when the sky is clear. At 3000 feet the noise would be so much less than 1500 feet yet on clear days I have helicopters fly over at altitudes which are clearly less than 3000 feet. Not all days, I grant you, but am wondering why a 3000 ft altitude over land might not be a better option or at least a compromise at least when conditions allow it.

Obviously weather comes into this and am only really talking about the tours rather than coast guard operations. I suspect fuel costs might come into this as well, but is there really a problem flying higher over subdivisions compared to current practice?

sputnut - if you have followed recent news a helicopter came down in Honolulu a couple of days ago and no-one was killed, so no, it's not a death sentence.

Tom
http://apacificview.blogspot.com/