Work Safe: No Place for Recklessness

Work Safe: No Place for Recklessness

Bad aviation decisions hurt more than just the person who makes them.

By Zac Noble

How many times have you reminded yourself or others that just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do it? For me, in my life and my career, the answer is “a lot.”

In aviation, one bad decision can begin a chain of events that leads to an unwanted career change, the loss of one’s pilot or mechanic certificate, or, worse, tragedy.

“In aviation, one bad decision can begin a chain of events that leads to an unwanted career change, the loss of one’s pilot or mechanic certificate, or worse, tragedy.”

Lately, I’ve observed several instances of poor aeronautical decision-making that could have caused serious problems.

Taking Off in Confined Areas

In one case, a helicopter took off from a confined area at an airport. What made the area confined was the temporary placement of people, tents, and other aircraft in very close proximity to the running helicopter. Some people likely didn’t comprehend the power of the aircraft’s rotor wash and the hazards it presented.

Looking back, I think the person(s) who made the decision to take off under those conditions should review 14 CFR 91.13, Careless or Reckless Operation, a rule I’m sure most of us are familiar with. In simple terms, the regulation states that “no person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” Paragraph (b) of the rule extends that language to airport operations.

Other, safer options did exist at that airport. For example, to ensure everyone’s safety, authorities could have decided to tow the helicopter into another position for departure.
Did an emergency require the helicopter to lift off in that environment? I don’t know. I can say, however, that the aircraft wasn’t an air ambulance.

I can also say that the operator that day was very lucky. With them having forged the first link in the accident chain by taking off in a confined area with multiple hazards present, the rest of the accident chain didn’t materialize—that time.

Obstructing Other Aircraft Movement

On another occasion, I saw a helicopter pilot occupying the runway of an uncontrolled airport seemingly without concern for other aircraft needing to use it. Pilots who were attempting to land were forced to perform go-around maneuvers because the runway pilot failed to respond to radio calls on the local common traffic advisory frequency.

What made this behavior reckless? We have a regulation, 14 CFR 91.113, Right-of-Way Rules, that instructs pilots on what to do in this situation. It says in part that, except in water operations, “aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface.”

It’s not a requirement to talk on the radio—or even have a radio at many of our nation’s uncontrolled airports—but when there are other aircraft, especially fixed-wing aircraft, in the vicinity, “each pilot of a helicopter or a powered parachute must avoid the flow of fixed-wing aircraft,” per 14 CFR 91.126 (b)(2).

Setting the Standard

In aviation, we’re taught to think ahead and always consider the consequences of our decisions. That’s understandable. Some links in aviation accident chains are actions—like leaving behind an unsecured tool—that in other industries or situations do not lead to death and destruction.

However, aviation is the industry that we’ve chosen, and we must strive each day to meet its high standards.

We’re helicopter operators, pilots, and maintenance technicians. Let’s be the operator, pilot, or maintenance tech who sets the standard for others to follow.

Zac Noble is VAI’s director of flight operations and maintenance.