4 ms·

I feel like the more useful thing here is helicopter risk. Helicopters are very unsafe in general as I understand things.

mlinhares 2y ago
Its mind boggling to me that people risk their lives and pay for "helicopter rides" here in Orlando, a city that is FLAT and there's nothing to be seen as you can't fly over Disney.
iancmceachern 2y ago
I have a buddy that grew up in Hawaii and he would never get on one. Looking it up briefly it looks like there are 1-2 crashes per year just in Hawaii, that seems like too many for me https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-sightseeing-tour-helicopters-crash-17302267.php https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-sightseeing-tou...
yawpitch 2y ago
Well, that’s certainly one way of saying you don’t understand things. Helicopters are, arguably, safer than fixed wing aircraft, simply because they can autorotate down to a soft landing from a complete engine failure and with loss of forward velocity. They’re also by nature VTOL, so you can more or less put them down on any flat surface big enough, while a fixed wing always requires a long enough path to lose energy on. The only reason helicopters appear at all riskier is the roles to which they’re put, and their ability to hover means they’re often put into situations that are much more likely to risk rotor blade strike and loss than any fixed wing aircraft is likely to risk an impact on its prop or fan blades.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Planes can glide in case of engine failures, something FAR easier than a successful autorotation... Of course they still need a place to glide to the ground, gliding capacity of a typical plane it's not those of a glider, but even if a chopper successfully autorotate finding a reachable place it's not simpler, the range around is far, far shorter than a high altitude gliding airplane. Also wings are fixed passive stuff in 99% of plain, of course thy can crack, but far less likely than a rotor mechanical failure...
  - vidanay 2y ago
    What's that saying? "A helicopter is 10,000 parts flying in close formation around an oil leak."
    - kkfx 2y ago
      Ehm, sorry I do not understand, maybe it's my limited English but I do not get what you are saying...
  - yawpitch 2y ago
    A fixed wing aircraft that loses power is automatically a glider, and a helicopter that loses power is automatically autorotating, what you’re talking about is successfully walking away from the resulting landing. Well, assuming loss of all engine power without the possibility of restart or the contribution of any secondary or emergency power systems, where the pilot’s ability to balance lift with gravity is the only concern, then I’d definitely take my chances in an autorotating commercial helicopter over a gliding commercial jet of the same weight and passenger count and starting at the same height and potential energy state over the same city any day.
dzhiurgis 2y ago
For certain geographies they are necessary (esp if you wanna flex). Equal trips in car+plane would take forever.

mlinhares 2y ago

Its mind boggling to me that people risk their lives and pay for "helicopter rides" here in Orlando, a city that is FLAT and there's nothing to be seen as you can't fly over Disney.

iancmceachern 2y ago

I have a buddy that grew up in Hawaii and he would never get on one. Looking it up briefly it looks like there are 1-2 crashes per year just in Hawaii, that seems like too many for me https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-sightseeing-tour-helicopters-crash-17302267.php https://www.sfgate.com/hawaii/article/hawaii-sightseeing-tou...

yawpitch 2y ago

Well, that’s certainly one way of saying you don’t understand things. Helicopters are, arguably, safer than fixed wing aircraft, simply because they can autorotate down to a soft landing from a complete engine failure and with loss of forward velocity. They’re also by nature VTOL, so you can more or less put them down on any flat surface big enough, while a fixed wing always requires a long enough path to lose energy on. The only reason helicopters appear at all riskier is the roles to which they’re put, and their ability to hover means they’re often put into situations that are much more likely to risk rotor blade strike and loss than any fixed wing aircraft is likely to risk an impact on its prop or fan blades.

kkfx 2y ago
Planes can glide in case of engine failures, something FAR easier than a successful autorotation... Of course they still need a place to glide to the ground, gliding capacity of a typical plane it's not those of a glider, but even if a chopper successfully autorotate finding a reachable place it's not simpler, the range around is far, far shorter than a high altitude gliding airplane. Also wings are fixed passive stuff in 99% of plain, of course thy can crack, but far less likely than a rotor mechanical failure...
- vidanay 2y ago
  What's that saying? "A helicopter is 10,000 parts flying in close formation around an oil leak."
  - kkfx 2y ago
    Ehm, sorry I do not understand, maybe it's my limited English but I do not get what you are saying...
- yawpitch 2y ago
  A fixed wing aircraft that loses power is automatically a glider, and a helicopter that loses power is automatically autorotating, what you’re talking about is successfully walking away from the resulting landing. Well, assuming loss of all engine power without the possibility of restart or the contribution of any secondary or emergency power systems, where the pilot’s ability to balance lift with gravity is the only concern, then I’d definitely take my chances in an autorotating commercial helicopter over a gliding commercial jet of the same weight and passenger count and starting at the same height and potential energy state over the same city any day.

dzhiurgis 2y ago

For certain geographies they are necessary (esp if you wanna flex). Equal trips in car+plane would take forever.