Их нравы. О долбоё-х из EASA.
Добавлено: 06 янв 2017, 17:18
Интервью ведущему изданию вертолетной индустрии данное CEO и одним из самых опытных горных пилотов швейцарской компании Air Zermatt, в которой он, с использованием неформальной лексики, дает адекватную оценку действиям европейского авиационного агенства EASA. Цирки разные, а клоуны одни и те же...
Оригинал здесь: http://www.heliopsmag.com/heliops-mag/article-heading
Face to Face with Gerold Biner
Air Zermatt's CEO Gerold Biner gives HeliOps a frank One on One.
Article by Leigh Neil - Photography by Ned Dawson
Gerold Biner has been with Air Zermatt since 1983, as a mechanical and flight engineer, helicopter pilot, safety officer and flight instructor. He became flight and operations manager in 2001 and then took over the CEO’s role in 2011. Biner is also a member of the Swiss government’s helicopter training study group (FOCA) and has logged over 12,000 flight hours, so his judgment on the Airbus H130 (previously the Eurocopter EC130-T2) comes from a background of extensive knowledge and expertise.
HO: Why did Air Zermatt decide to add the H130, when the AS350-B3 (H125) has been your fleet mainstay for such a long time?
GB: When the demonstrator did its tour in the central Alps we sent two pilots and developed high expectations of increased performance, as the engine has been uprated from the version fitted to the B3e. The main gearbox has been reinforced and we foresaw the H130 as being capable of taking the same loads as the B3 in the utility role. We felt this aircraft would be the natural progression from the B3 and suitable for commercial air transport, sling loading and EMS operations; a genuine multi-role helicopter.
HO: Did you only order the one example, or do you have more coming?
GB: We ordered one H130, with an option for one more. We decided to operate the first one for a year and then make a decision on whether to take up the option. The first machine has now been in service for just over a year and has accumulated around 650 hours, mainly on commercial air transport and with a little bit of sling loading, but no HEMS work as yet.
HO: Has the aircraft lived up to the expectations you developed during the demonstration tour and from the information you were supplied?
GB: You know, the H130 is not yet finished. We have found a few things that we didn’t know when we ordered the machine. The empty weight is significantly higher than the B3, about 200kg heavier. Big pluses though, are that it has the Active Vibration Control System (AVCS), which makes it very smooth and it has air conditioning, but that all means additional weight. The performance of the helicopter is excellent but the performance charts are based on the minimum spec’s on the engine. That means that if you do a performance check on the aircraft and are on the positive side for torque, you can add between 12kg and 18kg for each extra percent unit of torque. That’s actually the same with the B3 - which we didn’t know previously – and it was not mentioned in the AFM of the T2 before. We have discovered that for sling load operations you need to get used to flying the load from the left. Our pilots are used to flying vertical reference from the right, such as in the Lama, Ecureuil and the Bell models, so this requires some extra training and regular practice. Also missing is a bubble window for which Air Zermatt is working now with Swiss companies to produce a bubble window for the H130 named “Bubble Window Air Zermatt” and which should become an EASA STC, plus a remote controlled & heated mirror system for external load flights.
HO: Are you satisfied with the performance of the machine after the loads it has already done?
GB: The performance has been very good on a good engine. Even at 10,000ft it very nearly matches the B3 so we see that as very positive. However, because the fenestron is the same as on the EC135 we thought it would not be a major change but discovered that the lack of anti-torque hydraulic assistance means the pedal inputs are relatively much greater, so pilots unfamiliar with the H130 need more time to get used to it. It is very sensitive around the yaw axis.
HO: Is the H130 as good as the B3 on vertical reference?
GB: Actually, the B3 was not initially that easy to fly using vertical reference because you have to lean across so far. Only after industry and operators developed the collective extension , bubble window as well as the supersized vertical reference floor window did it become better for vertical reference flying. In my opinion, the best aircraft for vertical reference are the Lama and the Bell models 407 and 429 because you’re directly at the door and do not have to lean out too much. Of course, with time you get used to anything but it isn’t very easy on the pilot’s body. Each of our pilots carries out between five and eight thousand sling load operations per year and some pilots are having genuine problems with their neck and spine.
HO: Have you found any other negatives with the H130?
GB: One negative feature we have discovered is not an issue with the H130 but with the ski-basket, which makes it a Dart issue.(EASA STC) They came out with a ski-basket that incurs a 240kg weight penalty as soon as you fit the basket; I have no idea why. The basket itself weighs 54kg detachable plus 11 kg fixed provisions so using it incurs a total payload deficit of ~300kg. On top of that, Vne is restricted to 108 KIAS at sea level. That effectively makes this helicopter useless for heli-skiing or taxi flights with the Dart basket on. You’re better off to take the good old Lama, carry the same number of people and be faster!
HO: Are Dart responding to those issues with their basket?
GB: Yes, they have. We are working closely with Dart to see if we can resolve both the Vne which should become 120kt and second a new basket fixed on the landing gear, lighter and a little bit smaller.
HO: Why doesn’t Air Zermatt design its own basket for the H130?
GB: Simply because the killer of aviation is EASA. It makes it so difficult to get simple things certified when so often we have solutions for these simple problems. We get the impression that most people working in their offices have most probably never worked in this industry and hardly ever seen all different helicopter operations in their life. It is the most **(expletive deleted) useless organization I have ever encountered in my whole life. For example, we need a dual cargo hook or a hook backup system for rescue missions. Airbus indicated to us when we bought the H130 that we could get it, but we can’t and for now there is no solution from Airbus. We have developed our own system and Airbus has said they will help and support us, so now we just have to wait. Without the dual hook we simply cannot carry human external cargo during rescue missions and it’s a problem for us because we can have up to twenty five missions per day, six or seven per hour, so once the two twins (EC135 and Bell 429) are engaged on other missions we need to use a single-engine machine. The B3 is not the perfect tool for that because of its limited space and poorer access so we decided to get the H130, in which the doctor and paramedic can have access to the patient but the cost to certify EMS equipment for the 130 is just unrealistic, due to absolutely ignorant people at EASA. They have no clue! They are asking for sixteen ‘g’ sustainability in a crash, so that would mean the patient would remain in the stretcher but their head would be ripped off. These kinds of things make certification all but impossible and there is absolutely no common sense, just bureaucracy as its ‘best’.
HO: Do you think - after everything you were told about the H130 before you bought it and which were some of the reasons you bought it – that now you’ve discovered all those things you can’t actually do with it, buying it was a mistake?
GB: No. This is often the case when we’ve bought new helicopters. It was much the same with the AS350-B2 in the beginning. No bubble window, no dual cargo hook, no basket and no useable mirror system. I feel that the engineers design the helicopters with the big buyers in mind, such as the military. I have no doubt though, that 70 to 80 percent of B3s worldwide are used for some form of external load work in the utility role. That being the case, why the heck can’t they design and equip the helicopter right from the beginning as a sling load capable machine? We’ve told them, “You need bubble windows, dual cargo hooks, good mirror systems with skid mirrors and seating close to the side so the pilot is positioned for good vertical reference”. All these things that we now have were developed by industry, not by the manufacturers. I think that the design development teams do not talk to the right people, or do not properly analyze the market.
HO: What about Bell Helicopter? They seek input from their customer advisory board, consisting of about twenty operators from around the world.
GB: That’s a good point and the Bell 429 is the first product that comes out in a basic IFR version with autopilot that already includes the most important features for VFR operations. You can have it with the hoist, dual cargo hook, bubble window, searchlight and so on, all done by Bell and certified. I’d say this is the first helicopter actually made for the customers. So we are happy with Bell Helicopter. As for Airbus, let’s just say that they work with different people. But no, we are not happy with Airbus.
HO: In Switzerland do you have to operate under the Swiss or the EASA civil aviation rules?
GB: We are the most stupid country in the world because we didn’t join the EU but we strictly have to adopt 90 percent of their rules, while having no input into the making of those rules. These rules will kill European aviation, I am sure; particularly the helicopter industry. The number one risk to all the helicopter companies in Switzerland is the regulatory environment and there’s something seriously wrong when that is the case. They should be there to protect and come up with rules that genuinely improve the safety, instead of putting all the silly and unnecessary stuff under the umbrella of safety. EASA makes helicopter flying unsafe, that’s for sure!
HO: Does FOCA try to establish its own rules?
GB: They are brave guys doing an excellent job. Most of FOCA’s officers and inspectors come from within the industry and understand our needs; they try hard to find solutions. Unfortunately they always have to react, deal with a rule once it’s been implemented. One example is the PCDS – the personal carrying device or harness. EASA came out with a rule that every helicopter with a winch installed should only use a harness certified for that particular winch, on that particular helicopter. No kidding! That means that if someone at a mountain accident is wearing a harness certified for a different type of machine, what do you do? Say you can’t complete the mission because he’s wearing the wrong type of harness? This is stupid because all the harnesses on the market have to go through a process and fulfill European or international norms; otherwise they would not be able to be sold. We had to expend a lot of time and energy on this problem and finally, with the aid of FOCA and the International Commission for Alpine Rescue we got that taken out but the amount of work required to deal with the issue is tremendous; all because of some stupid guy at EASA.
HO: Do you think that EASA will change for the better?
GB: No, it’s not going to change. The only solution is the political route. National authorities should work because we’ve been functioning well for fifty years and have done a lot. The helicopter industries of New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland are very similar. The Kiwis and Canadians have had the best systems and why should we change an existing system that runs well – put everything in the garbage and invent something new? Why not just learn from them?
HO: Going back to the H130; aside from the basket issue, how happy are you with the machine? Are there any other issues that have come up with it?
GB: The 130 is a beautiful ship. It is an excellent helicopter for sightseeing flights because the passengers love it. There’s a lot of room, it’s very smooth and the visibility is fantastic. It’s also great on taxi flights, but that comes with the proviso that you can’t fill it with both passengers and baggage without limiting endurance to around just over an hour’s flight time.
HO: How much flying are you doing in the H130 and on what type of missions?
GB: In the tourist season it can be five or six hours per day. I would estimate we do around seventy percent tourist flights and twenty-five percent taxi flights, with the remaining five percent being a little sling work or aerial work with film shoots and the like. We’ve even done the occasional para-drop. The tourist flights vary from twenty to forty minutes but even a twenty-minute flight takes in the glaciers and the Matterhorn. I think it’s a great way to make the mountains accessible for people who may not be physically up to the challenge of climbing. Simon, one of our pilots and a mountain guide, is actually an extreme mountaineer - one of the best in the world – and now flies for us so our clients can have access to incredible knowledge of the mountains and climbing. For our tourist flights we can only land at one of our five designated landing sites, as out-landings are only permitted for rescues or aerial work, but that’s not a problem because those flights are usually helipad to helipad anyway.
HO: What about the new Marenco? Where does that fit in?
GB: We’ve had a good relationship with both Airbus and Bell. They both talk and listen to us, especially Bell, but they’re big companies and not always completely open to what a smallish company flying in the Alps might want, and that EASA doesn’t want to certify. Now Marenco have come to us and they really listen. They said to us before the design was finalized, “What you guys do here; it fits at sea level and from your experience it should also fit up on Everest. So how should we build this helicopter?” Now we are fully integrated into a partnership.
HO: Are you committed to buy the Marenco?
GB: We will definitely be buying at least one, maybe more. We’re convinced it is an excellent product; the biggest problem at the moment is EASA. Surprise, surprise. Even if they’re not making it too hard for Marenco, it’s a huge amount of work, although I do understand that it makes perfect sense when bringing a brand new helicopter design to the market.
HO: How does it look for capability? Will it lift as much as the H130 or B3?
GB: More. Well, this is difficult to answer accurately though. Until the certification is complete, nothing is certain. It looks good on paper though. They are flying already and we are kept updated on the test-flying program. Look at the visibility; this is a machine made for pilots. The seat is close to the door too, so it will be good for longline work. They will produce a bubble window and say they will be able to provide what is needed. I believe this will be a true multi-role helicopter.
HO: How long do you anticipate it will be before you get the first examples, and what will you use them for initially?
GB: It will be around two years. We will introduce the machine slowly because we’re going to be the launch customer. That means we will be working the helicopter together with Marenco’s technicians, pilots and engineers. So we’ll start with easy work like sightseeing flights, taxi flights as well as aerial work. Marenco will be the first single helicopter equipped with a dual cargo hook system as well. We certainly won’t be doing high-risk, demanding missions like alpine rescues in the early stages. It’s exciting to be a little bit on the edge and involved in such a big project.
HO: Does that mean the H130 is more of a fill-in until the Marencos are available?
GB: We expected the H130 to be the successor to the B3. It’s a beautiful helicopter but I’m not sure it’s going to play that role. We will do what we did with the B3 in the past because we are convinced it’s a good helicopter; we just need to find and adopt solutions for the issues we’ve encountered and the problems we have. The B3 is the single most versatile and capable helicopter we have and at the moment the H130 is not able to fulfill that role. It comes close but it’s not as good as the B3.
HO: How long until you can get the bubble window for the H130?
GB: The window could be ready in one or two months, but the problem is that the company doing it is not recognized by EASA as a certified supplier or manufacturer of aircraft equipment. To obtain that EASA approval certification will take more time. How can you ask so much, supposedly in the name of safety, for such a tiny, insignificant item? The people at EASA don’t seem to live in the real world. A rule-making sub-committee came here and we took them up to an alpine hut to give them an example of our work in a theoretical but likely scenario. We said, “Now, do we perform this rescue mission or shall we not do it, because we’re out of legal limits?” When rules are such that you are not allowed to perform a mission, I would like to collect the names of all those responsible for instituting that rule and distribute that list to all the relatives and families of those who lose their lives in a skiing or hiking accident, just because it’s forbidden to perform a rescue mission. Only with that metaphorical gun to their head did they change their minds and decide that local authorities could handle such situations. I have hundreds of examples but one of the latest of their silly bloody rules is that a pilot cannot carry out commercial air transport flights after the age of sixty. I have no idea why, but it appears that it is maybe based on medical concerns. It is ridiculous that now we have to get rid of a superbly skilled and immensely experienced pilot simply because he turns sixty, even though he is in excellent health. Plus, in Switzerland everyone has to work until they are 65; there is no pension before that, so what is a pilot supposed to do for those five years? Now, once again, we’re one step behind and it’s something else we have to spend massive energy and time fighting against. I can understand if a more stringent regime of medical checks is required after the age of sixty, but to just have to kick out some of your best pilots for no real reason? It’s ridiculous. You see the problem? This is typical EASA; they shoot and then they think.
HO: Does this affect you personally?
GB: Yes, in that the problem is left for the operators to deal with. The government’s not going to pay or look after them. EASA certainly isn’t going to. That means that we have to somehow find a solution for these pilots who can suddenly no longer work.
HO: Are you concerned about EASA’s reception if we report your comments?
GB: I’m fifty-three years old. I’ve got ten more years to go in this industry and I don’t give a hoot, I’ll criticize them whenever I can, fire at them every chance I get because someone has to. I’m just so fed up with these people at EASA who have no clue, showing up in their ties and spouting this kind of bullshit. It makes me so mad and costs us so much money to implement these rules.
HeliOps is extremely grateful to Gerold Biner for his unusually open, frank and courageous commentary that we know echoes the concerns of numerous operators throughout Europe and around the globe.
Оригинал здесь: http://www.heliopsmag.com/heliops-mag/article-heading
Face to Face with Gerold Biner
Air Zermatt's CEO Gerold Biner gives HeliOps a frank One on One.
Article by Leigh Neil - Photography by Ned Dawson
Gerold Biner has been with Air Zermatt since 1983, as a mechanical and flight engineer, helicopter pilot, safety officer and flight instructor. He became flight and operations manager in 2001 and then took over the CEO’s role in 2011. Biner is also a member of the Swiss government’s helicopter training study group (FOCA) and has logged over 12,000 flight hours, so his judgment on the Airbus H130 (previously the Eurocopter EC130-T2) comes from a background of extensive knowledge and expertise.
HO: Why did Air Zermatt decide to add the H130, when the AS350-B3 (H125) has been your fleet mainstay for such a long time?
GB: When the demonstrator did its tour in the central Alps we sent two pilots and developed high expectations of increased performance, as the engine has been uprated from the version fitted to the B3e. The main gearbox has been reinforced and we foresaw the H130 as being capable of taking the same loads as the B3 in the utility role. We felt this aircraft would be the natural progression from the B3 and suitable for commercial air transport, sling loading and EMS operations; a genuine multi-role helicopter.
HO: Did you only order the one example, or do you have more coming?
GB: We ordered one H130, with an option for one more. We decided to operate the first one for a year and then make a decision on whether to take up the option. The first machine has now been in service for just over a year and has accumulated around 650 hours, mainly on commercial air transport and with a little bit of sling loading, but no HEMS work as yet.
HO: Has the aircraft lived up to the expectations you developed during the demonstration tour and from the information you were supplied?
GB: You know, the H130 is not yet finished. We have found a few things that we didn’t know when we ordered the machine. The empty weight is significantly higher than the B3, about 200kg heavier. Big pluses though, are that it has the Active Vibration Control System (AVCS), which makes it very smooth and it has air conditioning, but that all means additional weight. The performance of the helicopter is excellent but the performance charts are based on the minimum spec’s on the engine. That means that if you do a performance check on the aircraft and are on the positive side for torque, you can add between 12kg and 18kg for each extra percent unit of torque. That’s actually the same with the B3 - which we didn’t know previously – and it was not mentioned in the AFM of the T2 before. We have discovered that for sling load operations you need to get used to flying the load from the left. Our pilots are used to flying vertical reference from the right, such as in the Lama, Ecureuil and the Bell models, so this requires some extra training and regular practice. Also missing is a bubble window for which Air Zermatt is working now with Swiss companies to produce a bubble window for the H130 named “Bubble Window Air Zermatt” and which should become an EASA STC, plus a remote controlled & heated mirror system for external load flights.
HO: Are you satisfied with the performance of the machine after the loads it has already done?
GB: The performance has been very good on a good engine. Even at 10,000ft it very nearly matches the B3 so we see that as very positive. However, because the fenestron is the same as on the EC135 we thought it would not be a major change but discovered that the lack of anti-torque hydraulic assistance means the pedal inputs are relatively much greater, so pilots unfamiliar with the H130 need more time to get used to it. It is very sensitive around the yaw axis.
HO: Is the H130 as good as the B3 on vertical reference?
GB: Actually, the B3 was not initially that easy to fly using vertical reference because you have to lean across so far. Only after industry and operators developed the collective extension , bubble window as well as the supersized vertical reference floor window did it become better for vertical reference flying. In my opinion, the best aircraft for vertical reference are the Lama and the Bell models 407 and 429 because you’re directly at the door and do not have to lean out too much. Of course, with time you get used to anything but it isn’t very easy on the pilot’s body. Each of our pilots carries out between five and eight thousand sling load operations per year and some pilots are having genuine problems with their neck and spine.
HO: Have you found any other negatives with the H130?
GB: One negative feature we have discovered is not an issue with the H130 but with the ski-basket, which makes it a Dart issue.(EASA STC) They came out with a ski-basket that incurs a 240kg weight penalty as soon as you fit the basket; I have no idea why. The basket itself weighs 54kg detachable plus 11 kg fixed provisions so using it incurs a total payload deficit of ~300kg. On top of that, Vne is restricted to 108 KIAS at sea level. That effectively makes this helicopter useless for heli-skiing or taxi flights with the Dart basket on. You’re better off to take the good old Lama, carry the same number of people and be faster!
HO: Are Dart responding to those issues with their basket?
GB: Yes, they have. We are working closely with Dart to see if we can resolve both the Vne which should become 120kt and second a new basket fixed on the landing gear, lighter and a little bit smaller.
HO: Why doesn’t Air Zermatt design its own basket for the H130?
GB: Simply because the killer of aviation is EASA. It makes it so difficult to get simple things certified when so often we have solutions for these simple problems. We get the impression that most people working in their offices have most probably never worked in this industry and hardly ever seen all different helicopter operations in their life. It is the most **(expletive deleted) useless organization I have ever encountered in my whole life. For example, we need a dual cargo hook or a hook backup system for rescue missions. Airbus indicated to us when we bought the H130 that we could get it, but we can’t and for now there is no solution from Airbus. We have developed our own system and Airbus has said they will help and support us, so now we just have to wait. Without the dual hook we simply cannot carry human external cargo during rescue missions and it’s a problem for us because we can have up to twenty five missions per day, six or seven per hour, so once the two twins (EC135 and Bell 429) are engaged on other missions we need to use a single-engine machine. The B3 is not the perfect tool for that because of its limited space and poorer access so we decided to get the H130, in which the doctor and paramedic can have access to the patient but the cost to certify EMS equipment for the 130 is just unrealistic, due to absolutely ignorant people at EASA. They have no clue! They are asking for sixteen ‘g’ sustainability in a crash, so that would mean the patient would remain in the stretcher but their head would be ripped off. These kinds of things make certification all but impossible and there is absolutely no common sense, just bureaucracy as its ‘best’.
HO: Do you think - after everything you were told about the H130 before you bought it and which were some of the reasons you bought it – that now you’ve discovered all those things you can’t actually do with it, buying it was a mistake?
GB: No. This is often the case when we’ve bought new helicopters. It was much the same with the AS350-B2 in the beginning. No bubble window, no dual cargo hook, no basket and no useable mirror system. I feel that the engineers design the helicopters with the big buyers in mind, such as the military. I have no doubt though, that 70 to 80 percent of B3s worldwide are used for some form of external load work in the utility role. That being the case, why the heck can’t they design and equip the helicopter right from the beginning as a sling load capable machine? We’ve told them, “You need bubble windows, dual cargo hooks, good mirror systems with skid mirrors and seating close to the side so the pilot is positioned for good vertical reference”. All these things that we now have were developed by industry, not by the manufacturers. I think that the design development teams do not talk to the right people, or do not properly analyze the market.
HO: What about Bell Helicopter? They seek input from their customer advisory board, consisting of about twenty operators from around the world.
GB: That’s a good point and the Bell 429 is the first product that comes out in a basic IFR version with autopilot that already includes the most important features for VFR operations. You can have it with the hoist, dual cargo hook, bubble window, searchlight and so on, all done by Bell and certified. I’d say this is the first helicopter actually made for the customers. So we are happy with Bell Helicopter. As for Airbus, let’s just say that they work with different people. But no, we are not happy with Airbus.
HO: In Switzerland do you have to operate under the Swiss or the EASA civil aviation rules?
GB: We are the most stupid country in the world because we didn’t join the EU but we strictly have to adopt 90 percent of their rules, while having no input into the making of those rules. These rules will kill European aviation, I am sure; particularly the helicopter industry. The number one risk to all the helicopter companies in Switzerland is the regulatory environment and there’s something seriously wrong when that is the case. They should be there to protect and come up with rules that genuinely improve the safety, instead of putting all the silly and unnecessary stuff under the umbrella of safety. EASA makes helicopter flying unsafe, that’s for sure!
HO: Does FOCA try to establish its own rules?
GB: They are brave guys doing an excellent job. Most of FOCA’s officers and inspectors come from within the industry and understand our needs; they try hard to find solutions. Unfortunately they always have to react, deal with a rule once it’s been implemented. One example is the PCDS – the personal carrying device or harness. EASA came out with a rule that every helicopter with a winch installed should only use a harness certified for that particular winch, on that particular helicopter. No kidding! That means that if someone at a mountain accident is wearing a harness certified for a different type of machine, what do you do? Say you can’t complete the mission because he’s wearing the wrong type of harness? This is stupid because all the harnesses on the market have to go through a process and fulfill European or international norms; otherwise they would not be able to be sold. We had to expend a lot of time and energy on this problem and finally, with the aid of FOCA and the International Commission for Alpine Rescue we got that taken out but the amount of work required to deal with the issue is tremendous; all because of some stupid guy at EASA.
HO: Do you think that EASA will change for the better?
GB: No, it’s not going to change. The only solution is the political route. National authorities should work because we’ve been functioning well for fifty years and have done a lot. The helicopter industries of New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland are very similar. The Kiwis and Canadians have had the best systems and why should we change an existing system that runs well – put everything in the garbage and invent something new? Why not just learn from them?
HO: Going back to the H130; aside from the basket issue, how happy are you with the machine? Are there any other issues that have come up with it?
GB: The 130 is a beautiful ship. It is an excellent helicopter for sightseeing flights because the passengers love it. There’s a lot of room, it’s very smooth and the visibility is fantastic. It’s also great on taxi flights, but that comes with the proviso that you can’t fill it with both passengers and baggage without limiting endurance to around just over an hour’s flight time.
HO: How much flying are you doing in the H130 and on what type of missions?
GB: In the tourist season it can be five or six hours per day. I would estimate we do around seventy percent tourist flights and twenty-five percent taxi flights, with the remaining five percent being a little sling work or aerial work with film shoots and the like. We’ve even done the occasional para-drop. The tourist flights vary from twenty to forty minutes but even a twenty-minute flight takes in the glaciers and the Matterhorn. I think it’s a great way to make the mountains accessible for people who may not be physically up to the challenge of climbing. Simon, one of our pilots and a mountain guide, is actually an extreme mountaineer - one of the best in the world – and now flies for us so our clients can have access to incredible knowledge of the mountains and climbing. For our tourist flights we can only land at one of our five designated landing sites, as out-landings are only permitted for rescues or aerial work, but that’s not a problem because those flights are usually helipad to helipad anyway.
HO: What about the new Marenco? Where does that fit in?
GB: We’ve had a good relationship with both Airbus and Bell. They both talk and listen to us, especially Bell, but they’re big companies and not always completely open to what a smallish company flying in the Alps might want, and that EASA doesn’t want to certify. Now Marenco have come to us and they really listen. They said to us before the design was finalized, “What you guys do here; it fits at sea level and from your experience it should also fit up on Everest. So how should we build this helicopter?” Now we are fully integrated into a partnership.
HO: Are you committed to buy the Marenco?
GB: We will definitely be buying at least one, maybe more. We’re convinced it is an excellent product; the biggest problem at the moment is EASA. Surprise, surprise. Even if they’re not making it too hard for Marenco, it’s a huge amount of work, although I do understand that it makes perfect sense when bringing a brand new helicopter design to the market.
HO: How does it look for capability? Will it lift as much as the H130 or B3?
GB: More. Well, this is difficult to answer accurately though. Until the certification is complete, nothing is certain. It looks good on paper though. They are flying already and we are kept updated on the test-flying program. Look at the visibility; this is a machine made for pilots. The seat is close to the door too, so it will be good for longline work. They will produce a bubble window and say they will be able to provide what is needed. I believe this will be a true multi-role helicopter.
HO: How long do you anticipate it will be before you get the first examples, and what will you use them for initially?
GB: It will be around two years. We will introduce the machine slowly because we’re going to be the launch customer. That means we will be working the helicopter together with Marenco’s technicians, pilots and engineers. So we’ll start with easy work like sightseeing flights, taxi flights as well as aerial work. Marenco will be the first single helicopter equipped with a dual cargo hook system as well. We certainly won’t be doing high-risk, demanding missions like alpine rescues in the early stages. It’s exciting to be a little bit on the edge and involved in such a big project.
HO: Does that mean the H130 is more of a fill-in until the Marencos are available?
GB: We expected the H130 to be the successor to the B3. It’s a beautiful helicopter but I’m not sure it’s going to play that role. We will do what we did with the B3 in the past because we are convinced it’s a good helicopter; we just need to find and adopt solutions for the issues we’ve encountered and the problems we have. The B3 is the single most versatile and capable helicopter we have and at the moment the H130 is not able to fulfill that role. It comes close but it’s not as good as the B3.
HO: How long until you can get the bubble window for the H130?
GB: The window could be ready in one or two months, but the problem is that the company doing it is not recognized by EASA as a certified supplier or manufacturer of aircraft equipment. To obtain that EASA approval certification will take more time. How can you ask so much, supposedly in the name of safety, for such a tiny, insignificant item? The people at EASA don’t seem to live in the real world. A rule-making sub-committee came here and we took them up to an alpine hut to give them an example of our work in a theoretical but likely scenario. We said, “Now, do we perform this rescue mission or shall we not do it, because we’re out of legal limits?” When rules are such that you are not allowed to perform a mission, I would like to collect the names of all those responsible for instituting that rule and distribute that list to all the relatives and families of those who lose their lives in a skiing or hiking accident, just because it’s forbidden to perform a rescue mission. Only with that metaphorical gun to their head did they change their minds and decide that local authorities could handle such situations. I have hundreds of examples but one of the latest of their silly bloody rules is that a pilot cannot carry out commercial air transport flights after the age of sixty. I have no idea why, but it appears that it is maybe based on medical concerns. It is ridiculous that now we have to get rid of a superbly skilled and immensely experienced pilot simply because he turns sixty, even though he is in excellent health. Plus, in Switzerland everyone has to work until they are 65; there is no pension before that, so what is a pilot supposed to do for those five years? Now, once again, we’re one step behind and it’s something else we have to spend massive energy and time fighting against. I can understand if a more stringent regime of medical checks is required after the age of sixty, but to just have to kick out some of your best pilots for no real reason? It’s ridiculous. You see the problem? This is typical EASA; they shoot and then they think.
HO: Does this affect you personally?
GB: Yes, in that the problem is left for the operators to deal with. The government’s not going to pay or look after them. EASA certainly isn’t going to. That means that we have to somehow find a solution for these pilots who can suddenly no longer work.
HO: Are you concerned about EASA’s reception if we report your comments?
GB: I’m fifty-three years old. I’ve got ten more years to go in this industry and I don’t give a hoot, I’ll criticize them whenever I can, fire at them every chance I get because someone has to. I’m just so fed up with these people at EASA who have no clue, showing up in their ties and spouting this kind of bullshit. It makes me so mad and costs us so much money to implement these rules.
HeliOps is extremely grateful to Gerold Biner for his unusually open, frank and courageous commentary that we know echoes the concerns of numerous operators throughout Europe and around the globe.