Recommendation Date
Recipient Name
CAA
Text
The adequacy of existing restraint systems installed in aerial work helicopters for the use of shooters be considered as a matter of urgency.
Reply Text
The activity of deer recovery is currently classed as Aerial Work and does not involve the carriage of passengers or goods for hire and reward or any other activity defined under Regulation 131 as Air Transport. There is no requirement for the State to comply with any ICAO standards with respect to deer recovery as it does not involve any international air Navigation and therefore the State is free to set its own regulations or Requirements.
The standard seat restraint that is utilised in the majority of helicopters is designed and constructed to internationally acceptable standards and works extremely well for the purpose for which it was actually designed. It was however not designed to be used for purpose of restraining deer shooters.
The issue here, it to establish what role the State has to plan the setting and application of standards relating to personal restrain systems for helicopter borne deer shooters. The recommendations of the report indicate that the State should take an active in-depth role in establishing what should be an appropriate restraint system to provide an appropriate degree of shooter safety during hunting operations, although it does not go on to suggest what an appropriate degree of safety actually is. The previous role of the State regulatory agency was paternal in nature and tended to regulate civil aviation activity in a manner that has since been recognised as over regulatory. Swedavia state "if individuals wish to fly and will not endanger the lives and property of others, they should be free to do so."
We all accept that shooting deer from a helicopter is an activity that presents an extreme risk to both the shooter and the pilot of the helicopter. There have been a multitude of accidents and incidents as a direct result of the high risk involved in deer recovery since the start of this activity in the early seventies. it is probably correct to say that incidents relating to the inadvertent uncoupling of passenger restraints are amongst the minority of incidents that have taken place.
Helicopter borne deer shooters are well aware of the risks that they undertake and are driven by the instinct of self preservation terms of the way they approach their tasks and in what they choose to wear as protective clothing and airborne restraint system, they are also there out of individual choice and, by the very nature of the activity being conducted in remote locations, they do not endanger the lives and property of others.
Regulating, through a consultative process, a standard for a deer shooter restraint system is typical of the paternal approach that was applied by the CAD prior to Swedavia. The CA Act 1990 clearly places the responsibility for safety operation upon any person undertaking aviation activities and there is sufficient equipment and information available today for deer shooters to establish appropriate safety restraint devices without requiring the State to undertake this research on their behalf.
Conclusion:
• The State does not have a responsibility or policy to regulate as recommended.
• Helicopter borne deer shooting does not present a danger to persons or property other than those undertaking the activity itself.
• In this kind of high risk activity people are driven by self preservation to utilise the correct equipment and they do not need to be regulated to do so. ...
The situation will be highlighted in the New Zealand Flight Safety.
The standard seat restraint that is utilised in the majority of helicopters is designed and constructed to internationally acceptable standards and works extremely well for the purpose for which it was actually designed. It was however not designed to be used for purpose of restraining deer shooters.
The issue here, it to establish what role the State has to plan the setting and application of standards relating to personal restrain systems for helicopter borne deer shooters. The recommendations of the report indicate that the State should take an active in-depth role in establishing what should be an appropriate restraint system to provide an appropriate degree of shooter safety during hunting operations, although it does not go on to suggest what an appropriate degree of safety actually is. The previous role of the State regulatory agency was paternal in nature and tended to regulate civil aviation activity in a manner that has since been recognised as over regulatory. Swedavia state "if individuals wish to fly and will not endanger the lives and property of others, they should be free to do so."
We all accept that shooting deer from a helicopter is an activity that presents an extreme risk to both the shooter and the pilot of the helicopter. There have been a multitude of accidents and incidents as a direct result of the high risk involved in deer recovery since the start of this activity in the early seventies. it is probably correct to say that incidents relating to the inadvertent uncoupling of passenger restraints are amongst the minority of incidents that have taken place.
Helicopter borne deer shooters are well aware of the risks that they undertake and are driven by the instinct of self preservation terms of the way they approach their tasks and in what they choose to wear as protective clothing and airborne restraint system, they are also there out of individual choice and, by the very nature of the activity being conducted in remote locations, they do not endanger the lives and property of others.
Regulating, through a consultative process, a standard for a deer shooter restraint system is typical of the paternal approach that was applied by the CAD prior to Swedavia. The CA Act 1990 clearly places the responsibility for safety operation upon any person undertaking aviation activities and there is sufficient equipment and information available today for deer shooters to establish appropriate safety restraint devices without requiring the State to undertake this research on their behalf.
Conclusion:
• The State does not have a responsibility or policy to regulate as recommended.
• Helicopter borne deer shooting does not present a danger to persons or property other than those undertaking the activity itself.
• In this kind of high risk activity people are driven by self preservation to utilise the correct equipment and they do not need to be regulated to do so. ...
The situation will be highlighted in the New Zealand Flight Safety.
Related Investigation(s)