FlyNYON knew of safety concerns before fatal doors-off flight
- Thread starter I_Money
- Start date
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
Lawyers will be lining up to do just that. Exceptional piece of journalism! Expect Ch 11 or 7 for both these companies.
z987k
Well-Known Member
If the allegations in this piece are true, there should at least be manslaughter charges.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
Business 101 - never dismiss an employee’s concern via e-mail
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
On the other hand, as an employee, ALWAYS express a safety concern via email!!
JeppUpdater
Well-Known Member
Or legality concern. It's funny how companies don't like to reply to emails about illegal 135 schedules, they always want to call to "explain it to you".
Not just management, but the FAA, who also was generally aware of what was going on in these operations and had observed them first hand.
It's a bad idea to have untrained people (pax) having to utilize a harness or restraint system that they have not been fully trained on, manipulated many times, and are fully comfortable with. However, it's a double edged sword: at the same time, you cannot have a restraint system which is too easy to open or which can be accidentally opened, when doing operations such as this. IE- can't be using an airline-style seat belt. But any complex restraint system being used, for safety purposes, requires some serious repetitive training in its manipulation, in order so that it will be second nature to manipulate/open, in the event of an emergency. That just cannot be done with the casual passenger. Take for instance me, asI said before in the previous thread:
When I'm in the back of the Huey or Hawk on a rescue op, I'm in a single restraint that's clipped to the ceiling ring and sometimes to the floor rings, to allow freedom of movement around the cabin. In an emergency, I have to screw with a triple-motion carabiner to release myself, as there is no quick release.......you don't want a single-release system that could accidentally be activated. But....the location, orientation, and manipulation of the triple-motion on my carabiner is always the same, 100% of the time, every time. I always install it that way so that releasing myself will be nearly thoughtless motion in the severe stress of a ditching or accident. And I've trained with it, over and over, ad naseum
It's a bad idea to have untrained people (pax) having to utilize a harness or restraint system that they have not been fully trained on, manipulated many times, and are fully comfortable with. However, it's a double edged sword: at the same time, you cannot have a restraint system which is too easy to open or which can be accidentally opened, when doing operations such as this. IE- can't be using an airline-style seat belt. But any complex restraint system being used, for safety purposes, requires some serious repetitive training in its manipulation, in order so that it will be second nature to manipulate/open, in the event of an emergency. That just cannot be done with the casual passenger. Take for instance me, asI said before in the previous thread:
When I'm in the back of the Huey or Hawk on a rescue op, I'm in a single restraint that's clipped to the ceiling ring and sometimes to the floor rings, to allow freedom of movement around the cabin. In an emergency, I have to screw with a triple-motion carabiner to release myself, as there is no quick release.......you don't want a single-release system that could accidentally be activated. But....the location, orientation, and manipulation of the triple-motion on my carabiner is always the same, 100% of the time, every time. I always install it that way so that releasing myself will be nearly thoughtless motion in the severe stress of a ditching or accident. And I've trained with it, over and over, ad naseum
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
The reality is, riding with doors off should probably be left to the pros like SAR folks and professional photographers who do it a lot. Doing what’s essentially common carriage with it (regardless of the type of harnesses) is probably not a good idea.
As an aside, this is not the first time a pax has killed the engine on an AStar. As I’m sure you’re aware.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
You gotta be careful, though - I was terminated once early in my career (teaching) for just that - back when I was too young to know what whistleblower protection was.
Still better than knowing something, saying nothing and being held liable, though.
Daniel Comings
CFI
Thank you for sharing this. Very eye opening piece indeed.
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
I've been through this very thing on several occasions.
AFTER the conversation, I wrote a follow up email that restated the conversation. I worded it something along the lines of: "Thank you for calling me to discuss the issue of ___________. I just want to make sure I understand what was said. Fro you, I understood the resolution to ____________ to be that in the future we would _______________________. Thank you for your time, explanation, and understanding with this issue."
This has worked every time!!
z987k
Well-Known Member
Yup, or can you send that to me in an e-mail so that if I ever have confusion again, I can refer to your guidance.
FloridaLarry
Well-Known Member
As a society, we're only just getting to this method of addressing blame. Viz the amusement ride near Kansas City that decapitated a state legislator's son. Designer & builder of the ride and amusement park honcho have been indicted for manslaughter.
Serious consequences lead to corrected behavior.
z987k
Well-Known Member
There was a helicopter incident in Oregon years ago, had something to do with fire fighting. Where the problems were well known or something like this. @NickH knows more, but I do believe the CP of that operation is in jail.
It's one thing to make a mistake, or not know something. To design a bridge or ride that maybe you didn't do your due diligence, and someone was injured or hurt.
It's a very different thing to be told there is an issue, know there is an issue that is putting lives at risk and actively quash all concerns related to it just because money. If I were a Juror on that, you might be able to convince me it was more than manslaughter. When the problem is known and you actively choose to endanger, and ultimately kill those people anyways.
I mean, I think the guy has a wonderful business idea, but if there difference between $50 and $500 harnesses is what breaks the bank, I mean in Aviation Dollars, that's what 50 cents? You shouldn't be in business if that's your margin.
Last edited:
dustoff17
Still trying to reach the Top Shelf
Feel free to cut and paste. I'm telling you, this type of follow-up works like a champ......