How much more can we take, metro?

[MikeShannon914]

Speaking of Chip, what is the legality that keeps him and Fox4 out of the air at present? Does it relate to the last hard landing? I've asked Chip personally but he advised he couldn't comment for legal reasons. I respect that. But hey, I'm not asking Chip now. Anyone know?

The only reason that I've ever heard in regards to Chip being grounded is that Fox-4 did not budget the expense of a helicopter into their 08-09 plan. I would guess that it was decided just before the time that Todd Carruth left KDFW, which (coincidentally?) paved the way for Chip to be in the studio fulltime about a month later.

For Steve...I don't know the pull that Chip had with his pilot. I know that, normally, the reporter acts as a guide to the pilot...where to go next, etc, and the pilot will oblige if there's nothing hindering the route, and the pilot hammers out any potential issues directly with the tower. Now the oft-laughed-about incident when Chip had his pilot land the chopper next to a freeway so Chip could go and explain to police HIS take on how a particularly bad accident MAY have occurred? I don't think the pilot cooked that one up himself, but simply took direction from the reporter.

Perhaps some pilots are more comfortable with risk than others. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Britchesthedog]

Whew! Steve ,I saw ya a few years back, coat and Tie and at work
Second, Being in the "ownership" business has influenced you in your retort, We can argue about that all we want, but it will still be a tie.
As for the the New York WNBC incident Metro had connections with the pilot,as he flew for them on a few occasions.

Sorry kids let's look at the "recent" incidents,they are Metro connected. The more you merge and acquire , the more you cut payroll, and go for the cheap . The cheapness is rearing its head, and some paid for it with lives lost,or partially paralyzed. And Steve if a reporter didnt want to fly ,their boss said they had to fly, and the reporter still said no, then they report the following day to Texas Workforce. That has been the overhanging fear of many non management types in the last 12 years of wonderful consolidation,and in the last year year alone wit hthe wonderful economy. Its easier at the top to hold sway and make the decisions,but it doesn't mean common sense is in any amount of supply.

 

[pebcak]

Folks, please constrain your arguments to documentable facts, not your opinions, your personal biases or the 'inside information' that you learned because "you knew a guy, who knew a guy, who once . . "

Letterman1, to suggest that the helicopter vendor in the Houston crash was somehow deficient because the airthworthiness certificate was from 1997 is wrong. The FAA issues these certificates, typically when an aircraft is manufactured, to certify that it is type accepted and suitable for its intended purpose. These certs remain valid so long as maintenance and records are up to date, and the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. These certificates are also transferable when an aircraft is sold. The FAA can and does perform random ramp checks and reviews of maintenance. They do not reissue airworthiness certicates unless there is some compelling reason (i.e.: rebuild, etc). The Houston ship was HD, a very recent conversion. I have no personal knowledge of that ship, but I'd be willing to bet the work was done at Heli, Inc's facility in St. Louis. The ship would have been thoroughly inspected at that time.

Britches, to suggest Metro was somehow remotely complicit for the Dornacker crash because 'the pilot occaisionally flew for them' is just ridiculous. First, I'm not certain that your claim is correct, but more importantly, the fAA ruled that crash was the result of the mechanic putting the wrong clutch in the helicopter. The rotor system locked up in flight - nothing the pilot could do. The FAA tore up the mechanics ticket after that. Again, Metro had nothing to do with either the mechanic or the helicopter vendor.

Helicopters are in great demand. (Think Dubai, UAE, Venezuela, etc) Used helicopters frequently sell for as much or more as the new ones of the same model (no wait for manufacturer & delivery, etc). Why would any helicopter vendor risk a very saleable asset, worth close to a million dollars on a substandard business model. They wouldn't.

Oh, so use a better vendor, right? Folks you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of serious ENG helicopter vendors in the country. Most don't work nationwide, but confine themselves geographically. Frequently there are few choices.

Fly only multi engine helicopters? Great idea. First, when shown the price of flying a multi engine ship, 99.9% of all TV stations would say 'no thanks.' Plus, multi engine helicopters still can and do crash. Failure of control systems, pilot incapacity, fuel contamination are just some of the situations that come to mind in which an extra engine wouldn't make a difference.

There are dangers inherent with flying. There always have been, probably always will be. There was a medical helicopter crash this morning, killing 4. AP reports that is the 9th fatal medical helicopter crash in the last 12 months. To follow the line of reasoning some in this thread have used, they must somehow be related to Metro because they have a medical plan, right?

 

[BBontheRadio]

Folks, please constrain your arguments to documentable facts, not your opinions, your personal biases or the 'inside information' that you learned because "you knew a guy, who knew a guy, who once . . "

ROFL! Just... ROFL!

 

[scottythecynic]

All I know about helicopters os what I know from being a paratrooper years ago. For me I felt safer when we were jumping out of them, not landing or flying around in them. Then again, that was true of all military aircraft.

 

[1Letterman]

Folks, please constrain your arguments to documentable facts, not your opinions, your personal biases or the 'inside information' that you learned because "you knew a guy, who knew a guy, who once . . "

Letterman1, to suggest that the helicopter vendor in the Houston crash was somehow deficient because the airthworthiness certificate was from 1997 is wrong. The FAA issues these certificates, typically when an aircraft is manufactured, to certify that it is type accepted and suitable for its intended purpose. These certs remain valid so long as maintenance and records are up to date, and the aircraft is in a safe condition for flight. These certificates are also transferable when an aircraft is sold. The FAA can and does perform random ramp checks and reviews of maintenance. They do not reissue airworthiness certicates unless there is some compelling reason (i.e.: rebuild, etc). The Houston ship was HD, a very recent conversion. I have no personal knowledge of that ship, but I'd be willing to bet the work was done at Heli, Inc's facility in St. Louis. The ship would have been thoroughly inspected at that time.

Britches, to suggest Metro was somehow remotely complicit for the Dornacker crash because 'the pilot occaisionally flew for them' is just ridiculous. First, I'm not certain that your claim is correct, but more importantly, the fAA ruled that crash was the result of the mechanic putting the wrong clutch in the helicopter. The rotor system locked up in flight - nothing the pilot could do. The FAA tore up the mechanics ticket after that. Again, Metro had nothing to do with either the mechanic or the helicopter vendor.

Helicopters are in great demand. (Think Dubai, UAE, Venezuela, etc) Used helicopters frequently sell for as much or more as the new ones of the same model (no wait for manufacturer & delivery, etc). Why would any helicopter vendor risk a very saleable asset, worth close to a million dollars on a substandard business model. They wouldn't.

Oh, so use a better vendor, right? Folks you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of serious ENG helicopter vendors in the country. Most don't work nationwide, but confine themselves geographically. Frequently there are few choices.

Fly only multi engine helicopters? Great idea. First, when shown the price of flying a multi engine ship, 99.9% of all TV stations would say 'no thanks.' Plus, multi engine helicopters still can and do crash. Failure of control systems, pilot incapacity, fuel contamination are just some of the situations that come to mind in which an extra engine wouldn't make a difference.

There are dangers inherent with flying. There always have been, probably always will be. There was a medical helicopter crash this morning, killing 4. AP reports that is the 9th fatal medical helicopter crash in the last 12 months. To follow the line of reasoning some in this thread have used, they must somehow be related to Metro because they have a medical plan, right?

Having jumped through the hoops to gain military contractor status and less-than-public information regarding the AH-1Z (before its First Flight)--in addition to spending over 200 hours in the Bell Textron simulator (and no, I'm not a pilot yet), I feel I can comment with a certain degree of accuracy above the "I know a guy" status.

I won't even get into what I know about the V-22.

Your premise is based on current operational practices--and their direct link to the precious pennies Metro holds so dearly to their own pockets. My premise is based on the fact that ANY company putting its employees in the air needs to take the FULLEST measures for their safety.

I'm well aware of when the FAA issues airworthiness certifications. And this does not happen soley at the time of manufacture. Case in point--the aircraft in question was manufactured in 1993. Certified in 1997. An airworthiness certification may be completed any time someone requests. Yes, you can REQUEST an airworthiness certification. To make sure your own practices are solid, and that you have not implemented service practices which may overlook or miscorrect issues. BEFORE gravity brings one down. Ramp checks and surprise inspections are a given. What I suggest is to EXCEED the minimum requirements you hold so dear.

QUESTION: If you are taking the FULLEST measures to insure airworthiness, do you have your aircraft's airworthiness certified between 1997 and now--rather than relying on your own maintenance? FULLEST measures. EXCEEDING the bare minimum required.

Yes, you do. Again, there are helo companies out there who have never had a crash.

As for twin-engine aircrafts, this is a layup. Which is safer? A twin-engine or a single-engine? Answer: A twin-engine. Well, if you want your employees to have the FULLEST degree of safety possible, it's obvious you will put them in a twin-engine aircraft. Get rid of the around-since-the-60's aircraft methodology and buy twin-engines. As you claim, you should be able to easily sell your old aircraft at a good price, since they are in such demand.

Since Metro uses so many of Heli's aircraft, and has a longstanding relationship, they would be in a position to insist that this is the standard they expect. Doesn't guarantee that Heli will comply, but it does set a standard for SAFETY AND PEOPLE above PENNIES AND PROFITS.

As for stations saying, "No thanks" if the cost rises--did you ever stop to consider that if stations can't afford to put people in the sky WITH THE FULLEST SAFETY MEASURES POSSIBLE that they shouldn't be offering the service? Oops. Some station might miss out on a few bucks.

As for the medical crash, if they have not taken the FULLEST possible measures, they are just as guilty as Metro, although the two are not related.

I can tell you what Bell's position is. And the position of all the former military helo pilots who work there. FULLEST SAFETY MEASURES POSSIBLE AT ALL TIMES. I guess that's why Helo One has never crashed. And it's a Bell. Try putting that baby down in an 80 knot crosswind onto an aircraft carrier with The First Lady yammering about what kind of sweater to wear while you're fighting the stick.

You keep counting pennies for Metro. The rest of us will keep totaling the body count. Hope those pennies keep someone warm at night.