Comprehensive Financial Plan: Fill & Download for Free

Robo advisors are automated platforms that allow an individual to assess their investment type and risk tolerance. They allow an individual to purchase funds that are automatically generated to fit the portfolio of the individual. They are used in order to save the fees investors charge in order to maintain the portfolios and financial plans done by humans.Independent investing is nothing new. People have been doing it for decades. But over the past few years, there has been a decline in the number of independent investors, and an increase in the number turning to professional advisors, and for good reason. Would you go to a restaurant that charges $20 more per dish but didn’t allow tips for servers, in order to save the $5-$10 you would have spent on the tip? Investing is a very complicated and diverse subject, and only a part of a person’s overall financial plan. Automated systems make it easy to access the product for the user, but they do not help the user to understand how to use them. Bruce Lee wrote a book, in which he detailed and outlined each of his self-defence moves. Yet, this wouldn’t be a sufficient substitute for a professional trainer, would it?While these robo-advisors may save a percent or two on the fees, that may not translate to additional returns for investors who do not utilize the proper investing strategies. Investing is emotional. Despite the advice of advisors, many still pull out when they see their funds dropping with a market, losing their savings. If market conditions change, a computer algorythm cannot sit down with you and help you understand how your emotions are working against your investments, and the strategies to allow you to either pull through, or even capitalize on the market changes. Many investment fund companies are also managed by some of the most experienced and knowledgeable investors. One wouldn’t expect a computer software program to understand the complex human relationships between CEOs of merging companies, marketing campaigns, and trends in human behaviour, nearly as well as someone like Warren Buffet. Stock prices change, often not due to market conditions, or recessions, but from the emotions of investors. Look no further than the last election in which people were divided and concerned over the election of Donald Trump, and the impact it would have. Many of my clients were concerned about what to do, and if they should pull out. Those with no expert advise will rely on neighbours who have no experience, or family and friends, just as irrational and unaware of the behind the scenes details. Furthermore, many of the investment funds that I offer are through companies that hold their investors accountable. One boutique investment company, QV, for example, requires that the investors for any fund must invest all of their savings in it as well. Thus, the claimed advantage of robo-advisors putting the client’s need before the sale, can easily be eliminated by actual professionals, who have more abilities to deal with the emotional rollercoaster of emotional creatures that do not always act on logic.Another major component of retirement planning, and saving, is income protection. If one becomes sick or disabled, and can no longer earn an income, they have nothing to invest. Having to dip into investments, or stop contributing, in order to deal with this, can destroy a retirement savings plan completely. How much more so, should the bread winner pass away, and leave the family with no income at all? Proper insurance coverage, and protection is necessary for any investment strategy to be successful. Many products exist that can complement, or add value to investment savings plans, but are not accessible by robo-advisors. The combinations of these different vehicles requires a comprehensive planning strategy to combine effective tax deductions, and prevent over taxation. A good financial advisor also affords their clients the opportunity to make sure that they are not underinsured, overinsured, or improperly insured, and thus eating up more investment income than needed. Many of our clients we have been able to save hundreds, to even thousands of dollars per month in money they were overspending. A DIY robo-advisor approach cannot achieve this.There are many other reasons that robo-advisors will not replace quality financial advisors, including estate planning, and accessing retirement savings. Tax sheltered savings can often be over taxed, and eroded despite the savings in them. At the end of the day, it isn’t necessarily how much you have earned in a portfolio that matters, but how much you keep. Here, we have “registered savings” that allow for tax free growth, as opposed to income growth that is taxed as it grows. Comparitively, these two can perform quite differently, for different advantages.Consider the following, very simplified example, to illistrate this point. Imagine we have a penny that doubles every day. At the end of 31 days, how much money would you have?Day1: $0.012: $0.023: $0.044: $0.085: $0.166: $0.327: $0.648: $1.289: $2.5610: $5.1211: $10.2412: $20.4813: $40.9614: $81.9215: $163.8416: $327.6817: $655.3618: $1,310.7219: $2,621.4420: $5,242.8821: $10,485.7622: $20,971.5223: $41,943.0424: $83,886.0825: $167,772.1626: $335,544.3227: $671,088.6428: $1,342,177.2829: $2,684,354.5630: $5,368,709.1231: $10,737,418.24Even if we withdrew this all at once, and paid 20% tax, we would have $8,589,934.59Now, let’s see what it would look like if we paid 20% tax on the investment:Day:$0.01$0.02$0.03$0.04$0.07$0.10$0.17$0.27$0.43$0.69$1.10$1.76$2.81$4.50$7.21$11.53$18.45$29.51$47.22$75.56$120.89$193.43$309.49$495.18$792.28$1,267.65$2,028.24$3,245.19$5,192.30$8,307.67$13,292.28Same amount invested, same growth rate…major difference in the end. Without an advisor to help you get the most, an investor is at the mercy of the limit of their knowledge in finance….knowledge not taught in banks, or schools, or anywhere else. How are they to know the best courses of action to take?The role of an advisor isn’t to just plug dollars into funds. It is to be the copilot of your financial trip to retirement. There will be turbulence…and sometimes it feels like the plane is coming apart and you want to bail out. But, your destination will not be reached by bailing out at the uncomfortable moments. A financial advisor is there to help you plan our your life, your way, and achieve the goals you set, not the gains an algorythm decides.

1959. A truly rich America.AT HIS SUMMER HOME, 60 miles northwest of Chicago, following a leisurely breakfast, a personable young executive gathers up his briefcase and bids goodbye to his wife and four children.He steps into the backyard, climbs into his helicopter, and is off to work.▲The "copier commuter" himself, Bob Galvin, facing camera, briefs William "Billy" Talbert, former Davis cup tennis star, on the intricacies of the Bell 47G helicopter which Galvin owns and uses daily in his business.Barely an hour later, having been spared a two-hour grind through auto traffic, he is in his office.Sound like the opening scene of a TV drama depicting suburban living in a future 1999?Actually it's the start of an average summer day in the life of the Robert W. Galvin family.Mornings during the season when he and his family occupy their Lake Geneva, Wis., summer home, “Bob” Galvin, the 35-year-old president of Motorola, flies his own helicopter to the rooftop landing pad at company headquarters on Chicago's West side.At day's end he flies home again.Galvin is Chicago's pioneer private copter commuter. Presently, he commutes regularly only during the summer.When the family returns to their regular home in Skokie, he reverts to surface transportation.With the purchase of a farm near Barrington, Ill., as a year-round residence, however, Galvin is preparing to expand his unique commuting method to a full time basis, weather permitting.He chose the helicopter as the solution to his commutation problem due to a dilemma familiar to thousands of American men—the demands of an executive career versus the demands of family life.As the chief executive of a large corporation (1957 sales: $226 million) and a devoted family man, Galvin found that business, civic and social obligations were encroaching more and more on the time he wanted to devote to his family.Along with a formidable increase in responsibility, Galvin assumed Motorola's presidency in 1956.The problem of “lost time” in traffic became increasingly irksome.Then came a day when, wedged tightly in a traffic jam, Galvin said to himself, “Why not get a Chopper?”The idea took hold of him, or perhaps more correctly, he took hold of the idea.He was already an airplane pilot. He began to explore the possibility of using a helicopter to commute, relying chiefly on the advice and counsel of Bob Roth, Chief Pilot of Chicago Helicopter Airlift.Since Motorola retained HAL for charter flights, Galvin had opportunity to experiment.When he flew with Roth, the latter would let him have the controls for short periods.Encouraged by this exposure to choppers and impressed with their utility, Galvin took instruction in 1956.“Bob was an excellent student. He was ideal to work with. He had those three magic qualities every flight instructor looks for in a student pilot—desire to learn, alertness, and a conscientious approach. I told him if he ever needed a job, I'd put him on the payroll as a pilot,” Roth recalls.Shortly after Galvin completed his instruction and had his pilot's license endorsed with a helicopter rating, Roth learned of a used Bell 47G helicopter for sale in Ft. Worth.He and Galvin flew south and purchased the machine.While the price of the helicopter was not disclosed, this type usually brings from $25,-000 to $30,000.The reaction of the Galvin clan to dad's whirlybird was joyous and exciting.Beautiful Mary Galvin, who looks more like an elder sister to her children than their mother, described it.“We were all excited about it,” she said. “At first the kids were always excited. Now they've accepted it as part and parcel of the family—they're almost blase about it. The younger ones, the two boys, seem to think all their friends' dads should have helicopters too.”Galvin seconds his wife's remarks, and goes on to add: “The primary value of the helicopter as far as I'm concerned is that it keeps me in circulation. While I’m a helicopter enthusiast, I can't classify our helicopter as being a family vehicle, like the car, for example.“A helicopter happens to suit the nature of our living. We bought the farm in Barrington because we enjoy the country and what it has to offer. The helicopter will make living on the farm convenient.”Galvin then enlarged on some of the problems a private helicopter entails.“First, and most important, even a small helicopter is extremely costly to own and operate. I've been fortunate in being able to lease my ship to Helicopter Air Lift, if they need an additional machine and I'm not using mine. In return for this, I receive a certain amount of maintenance. This has been a rare opportunity to defray operational costs.“Second, if you live in one of the suburbs adjoining Chicago, there is almost no way you can bring a helicopter down next to your home.This is the case at our home in Skokie—where about ten feet separates our house from the neighbor's.If you don't own a large lot—with good, safe approaches into and out of it—and you want to use a helicopter for commutation, you have to acquire separate property to meet your needs.Even when we rented our summer house at Lake Geneva, there were only ten or twelve places at most that lent themselves to helicopter operations.And remember, this was in the country.“To sum up, being realistic as possible, until someone comes along with some startling innovations in helicopter engineering, I'm afraid their use as a private commuter vehicle in a metropolitan complex like Chicago is definitely limited.”The expense of owning and operating a helicopter like Galvin's remains the chief drawback to their widespread adoption as a private aircraft.According to the Bell Helicopter Corporation, the yearly cost of operation for a Model 47G-2, flown an average of 400 hours a year for private use, would amount to approximately $14,300—in excess of $35 an hour.For the person bent on owning and operating a helicopter of his own, the first year's financial outlay would be:Initial Purchase (Bell 47G-2) $40,000 (New)Flight Instructions 1,600 (Approx.)Yearly Operating Cost (For 400 Hours) 14,285Total Outlay (First Year) $55,885.00Hardly less formidable than the expense involved is the problem of where to keep a chopper once acquired.Obviously, basing a helicopter at a distant airport limits its usefulness to a great degree.Part of the difficulty lies in the fact that few communities, large and small, have given any serious thought to planning, let alone building, commercial or communal heliports.Yet, despite the often maddening drawbacks to their ownership, the helicopters continue to capture the imagination of people like Bob Galvin by giving the three-dimensional mobility to which men have aspired since the dawn of time.But those were the good old days.Until the election of Donald Trump exposed the underbelly of the US — the poor, non-college educated blue collar types who saw manufacturing jobs go away and falling wages in the remaining ones because of Free Trade Agreements—every American President spread the myth of a rich America: a land of great opportunity for everyone.So, naturally, the rest of the world thought that flying private airplanes and helicopters was a common thing there.It hasn’t been like that. Not for a long time.Admit it. Who has not watched a helicopter fly overhead and wondered what it’s like to fly one? Who has not been glued to the spot by the sight of a helicopter hovering or flying straight up hauling an external load?That’s because helicopters are remarkable machines.They excite the imagination today just as much as they did 95 years ago in France when Louis Breguet and Professor Charles Richet’s four-rotored gyroplane and Paul Cornu’s twin-tandem rotorcraft achieved the first bursts of vertical flight.Pilots who choose to take advantage of the helicopter’s versatile capabilities get the best of two worlds: exhilarating flying and practical utility.Will the promise offered by helicopters ever be a reality? Certainly the dream of one in every garage that prevailed after the first successful helicopters flew, only 70-odd years ago, proved to be nothing but a phantasm, nurtured by zealous pioneers caught up in the magic of their creation.The short history of vertical flight has been one of a tightly knit family coping with the shortcomings of its difficult prodigy, hoping to gain acceptance for its pampered child until maturity comes.When man first sought realistic solutions to his desires for flight, he conceived the notion of a helicopter—a helix that would work like a screw and literally pull itself into the air.Some of the greatest minds of their day envisioned such a machine, from Leonardo da Vinci and Roger Bacon to Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell.Two primitive man-carrying helicopters flew for a few brief seconds in France in 1907, but the first helicopter to achieve sustained flight didn't do so until 1936—the German Focke Achgelis FW 61.The famous German aviatrix Hanna Reitsch became the world's first woman helicopter pilot aboard the twin-rotor FW 61, which was an experimental machine good for little more than thrilling anybody who stood too close at exhibitions and air shows.The first practical helicopter was developed by Igor Sikorsky, who had previously experimented with coaxial rotor designs as early as 1909 in Russia.In 1939, he completed the single-rotor VS-300 and flight-tested it with only limited success while it was tethered to the ground with 35-foot-long ropes.During 1940, Sikorsky removed the cyclic-pitch control, which varies the pitch angle of each blade as it rotates so that the helicopter can be maneuvered, and substituted two small horizontal rotors on outriggers for pitch and lateral control.The modifications proved successful, and in 1941, this version of the VS-300 established the world's endurance record for helicopters with a flight of one hour and 32 minutes.The inherent complication of four rotors—a three-blade main rotor, two outriggers and a tail rotor-was far from practical, however.Late in 1941, Sikorsky reverted to the now-conventional main-rotor/tail-rotor configuration, developed a satisfactory cyclic-control mechanism and produced the first truly workable single-rotor helicopter.That his rotor-hub design incorporated important features pioneered in the early 1920s by the Spanish engineer and inventor of the autogyro, Juan de la Cierva, was but another example of the fact that helicopter development has always been characterized by painfully slow progress, caused by the enormity of the dynamic and vibratory problems of rotating surfaces—wings, actually—that must not only lift but propel and control the aircraft.To a fixed-wing pilot, a helicopter is a marvel. No trundling down the runway to take off, no long roll on landing. The places helicopters go are limited primarily by local mainly by imagination. When disaster strikes, the helicopter can be the means of salvation—everyone remembers the television coverage of the courageous helicopter crew rescuing survivors of the Air Florida crash from the Potomac River.Most helicopters built now have turbine engines.The Bell 206 JetRanger is one that has both been around for a long time and been built in great quantity. The 206 is the generic light turbine helicopter, earning its keep hauling everything from pinstripers to heliskiers, lumberjacks to car-wreck victims, camera crews to police. It has also done everything it was asked to do during many a photo mission.▲The Bell 206 JetRanger, a family of two-bladed, single- and twin-engined helicoptersAlmost 7,300 civilian and military versions of the JetRanger (Model 206) have been produced. It is used for everything from executive transportation to hauling things around on a hook and can be approved for IFR operation (although Bell doesn't offer this as a factory option). The JetRanger is to helicopters what the 727 and DC-3 were to airliners.The JetRanger's price reveals that helicopters aren't so complex that their initial cost is out of proportion to that of fixed-wing airplanes. The JetRanger even has a direct kinship to a lot of fixed-wing airplanes: Beech builds its hull, under contract to Bell.A helicopter's direct operating cost is affected by limited-life parts. For example, the main rotor blades of the JetRanger must be replaced every 5,000 hours and the tail rotor blades every 2,400 hours. There are 15 other items on the limited-life list; the total tab adds $15.15 per hour to the direct operating cost.The limited-life items must be replaced, not overhauled as are items such as the transmission.Total cost of maintenance, overhaul and retirement is estimated by Bell to run just over $80 per flight hour in 1984.When you consider how everything must move and mesh for a machine to rise vertically and then fly forward at good speed, that cost isn't high.When the JetRanger was introduced in 1966, it replaced a four-place piston-powered model, the 47J Ranger.Everyone knows how much more turbines cost in aircraft than pistons. It wasn't so in helicopters back then: at $89,500, the original JetRanger cost but $22,000 more than the piston helicopter and, on a seat-miles per hour basis, it cost less to fly.The JetRanger has evolved over the years but few of its changes are flashy enough to have made it something other than a JetRanger.Looking at a list of the changes, and their benefits, it's apparent that Bell is sensitive to the operating cost of the ship.Reduced wear, doubled retirement life, reduced maintenance cost, faster maintenance, reduced noise and increased TBO are typical of the improvements.Bell has in-creased the horsepower and the fuel capacity since the first model, but most improvements are aimed at lowering the cost of operating the current JetRanger Ill.The word "styling" appears only once on the improvements list. Nevertheless, the JetRanger is not homely; in fact, it's pretty. Bell sought outside help on the original styling of both the interior and the fuselage shell. 50 years later the JetRanger looks as modern as any aircraft on the ramp.Helicopters don't have to look functional.The JetRanger has a good safety record, but there still have been accidents.Helicopters get busted for many of the same reasons that fixed-wing airplanes do—there are weather accidents and accidents where the pilot tried to operate the machine beyond his or its capability.Many of the helicopter pilots he sees fly as if nothing will ever go wrong.When something does, they are quickly in over their heads.If a tail rotor fails, for example, there are procedures that get a JetRanger down safely.If over a city, you wouldn't necessarily make an immediate landing ("might get mugged"); instead, there's a way to fly the helicopter to the outskirts.Many of the helicopter pilots have a more shallow knowledge of their ships, another safety problem helicopters have in common with fixed-wing airplanes.Endurance at normal cruise is 2.8 hours; if short haul is what you want, the Jetranger is for you.Some captains of industry use the Jetranger,or its big brother, the Longranger, for commuting to work.▲… and the noise. You’ve got to put up with the noise!Few private users and business customers are satisfied with such low endurance; therefore the private helicopter will always remain a niche product.When Frank Robinson left Hughes helicopter in 1973 to start his own company, his goal wasn’t to design a good training helicopter. It was simply to build a small, piston-powered helicopter that individual pilots could afford to own and operate. But as the Sorcerer’s Apprentice once found out, inventions have a way of taking on a life of their own.And for a machine that was never intended to be a trainer, the R22 has done a pretty darn good job of cornering the market.Twenty-two years after the first production R22 was delivered, the two-seat helicopters have become not only the second best-selling helicopters in the world (the Robinson R44 is the first), but also the leading classroom for new rotorcraft pilots, responsible for training an estimated 75-80 percent of helicopter pilots around the world.In making the R22 mechanically reliable and less expensive to purchase and operate than other helicopters, Robinson made the R22 an ideal training candidate.In addition, Robinson not only required that all his R22 dealers operate flight schools, he also started out mandating that they charge no more than $48 per hour for R22 time (in 1979), which made the R22 a popular choice for students.So it’s little wonder that the little helicopter soon took over the training market.But that success has been a double-edged sword for the company.Roughly 30 percent of R22 sales are to flight schools, and many R22 owners are relatively low-time helicopter pilots.So as early as 1982, Robinson began seeing an unacceptably high rate of accidents with the R22.“In 1982, we were seeing fatal accident rates of just under six per 100,000 flight hours,” says Tim Tucker, Robinson Helicopter’s chief flight instructor and a former Army helicopter pilot who flew Special Forces missions in Vietnam. “That may not sound like much, but to put it in perspective, that’s a higher accident rate than the U.S. Army had at the height of the Vietnam War.”After analyzing the circumstances surrounding those accidents, however, Robinson discovered that three-quarters of them were training accidents, and more than half had occurred with a certified instructor on board.He decided that if the R22’s safety record were going to improve, the company needed to do more than just build helicopters. It had to take a more active role in making sure the R22s were operated safely once they left the factory.Robinson at first tried to lobby the FAA to make training requirements stricter for both helicopter pilots and instructors.At the time, there was no minimum number of hours students had to have before they soloed, and helicopter pilots who already had a fixed-wing license could become instructors with as little as 35 or 50 hours of helicopter time, depending on what kind of flight school they attended.Robinson wasn’t successful in getting the FAA to change the official requirements, but he found allies in the insurance companies who were paying for the accidents.The insurance companies began requiring owners and operators of R22s to adhere to a new safety program that Robinson developed in order to qualify for coverage.Robinson’s safety program contained several elements.To qualify for insurance coverage, instructors in the R22 had to have between 150 and 500 hours of helicopter flight time, depending on how much of that time was actually in an R22.They also had to attend a three-and-a-half day safety course that the Robinson Helicopter Company started offering in 1982, which included some refresher flight training, and they had to use a flight training manual and curriculum developed by the factory.That curriculum also mandated that students could not be soloed until they had at least 20 hours of dual instruction.At the same time, Robinson started issuing “Safety Notices” to R22 owners, cautioning them about potentially dangerous maneuvers and situations.Through both its training manual and safety course, Robinson Helicopters addressed what the company saw as some of the most prevalent causes of training accidents, such as the techniques instructors were using to teach students how to hover.The R22 is a relatively “low inertia” helicopter, which means that if the engine quits, the rotor blades don’t retain a lot of inertia, or rotating energy. So an autorotation can be a more dramatic and challenging maneuver in an R22 than in some other designs with heavier main rotors, and thus more inertia in the rotor after a power loss.As a result, many instructors, fearful that they wouldn’t have enough energy to perform a successful autorotation if the engine quit while their students were hovering, were having the students practice hovering only a foot or so off the ground.In an effort to increase hover safety the instructors were actually creating a risky situation because almost a third of the R22 accidents in the early years were being caused by rollovers after catching a skid on the ground during hovering practice.“We had to convince them that it was safer to hover a few feet higher off the ground,” Tucker says. “We’d show them the relative risk of rollover versus engine failure. We’ve had 67 rollover accidents, but, even through today, we haven’t had a single engine failure during hover practice.”At the same time, Robinson has made several changes to the R22 to help improve its handling and safety record. In 1982. Robinson added 1.6 pounds to the tips of the R22’s main rotor blades to give the helicopter a better feel and to increase its inertial energy to cushion autorotation landings.In 1990, the company also began offering a governor that would automatically regulate the throttle and rotor rpm settings.The governor was designed to help eliminate one of the other big causes of accidents in the R22’s early days—low rotor rpm.If a helicopter pilot allows the rpm of the main rotor blades to get too slow, the blades can stall. To Robinson’s surprise, however, the majority of customers were electing not to purchase the optional governors.So Robinson took the decision out of his customers’ hands. In 1995, he began including the price of an improved rpm governor in the base price of his helicopters and installed them as standard equipment in all new machines.He also convinced the FAA to require the retrofit of the improved governor in all existing R22s.Since then, the number of low rotor rpm fatal accidents in R22s has dropped by more than half.While the addition of the rotor rpm governor was motivated primarily by safety concerns, it also made the R22 a much easier helicopter for students to fly.Flying a helicopter in IFR conditions is hardly different from flying an airplane in the clouds. The helicopter IFR pilot uses the same basic instruments, flies the same procedures, and has the advantage of being able to fly slowly on approach, which provides the pilot with more time to see the runway.Any instrument-rated airplane pilot with a VFR helicopter rating will do well under the hood in a rotary-wing craft the first time out.But actual IFR flight in a helicopter is still rare compared with the percentage of time airplanes spend in the IFR system.What’s more, you can’t fly a helicopter single pilot in IFR conditions unless it has a specific approval that almost always demands a complete and extremely sophisticated autopilot system.Why is it difficult to fit helicopters in the IFR system?There are actually two forces at work limiting helicopter IFR flying, one operational and one technical.The operational hindrance is that IFR routes and approaches are designed to guide an aircraft from airport to airport.But who needs a helicopter if you can only use airports?The very nature of the IFR system—developed to serve airplanes—restricts the point-to-point capability of the helicopter that for many owners is the primary reason to have a helicopter.The major technical challenge of helicopter IFR flight revolves around the flying qualities of the aircraft.The helicopter pilot’s workload is much greater under IFR than an airplane pilot’s workload.The helicopter operational limitations of the IFR system are being improved gradually.There are now a few instrument approaches to helipads, and more are in the works.But many dedicated helicopter approaches lead only to a point in space where the pilot must transition to visual reference to continue to the helipad.Obstructions generally prevent direct approaches to helipads.The microwave landing system (MLS) held great promise for helipad approaches because it could operate in congested areas where an ILS signal would be distorted by buildings, vehicles and shorelines.An MIS approach could provide precise guidance over steep glidepath angles and installation costs will be less than those for ILS.But MLS is dead now.It is legal to fly helicopters VFR in visibility of less than a mile, night or day, so the rules do little to force helicopter pilots into the IFR system.But a tragic series of emergency medical service crashes—mostly at night has also pushed more helicopters into the IFR system.Many of these accidents happened during the en route phase of flight, not during the actual landing and departure from the emergency site, so the capability to cruise IFR at a safe altitude at night in bad weather would greatly contribute to safety.Yet most helicopter pi-lots are closed out of the IFR system because most helicopters are not approved for IFR flight.Few of the popular rotorcraft such as the Bell JetRanger or McDonnell Douglas 500 series are IFR approved.The complex twin-engine helicopters such as the Sikorsky S-76 or Agusta A109 are approved for IFR and are the most common helicopters in the system.But no helicopter is protected from icing conditions, and the few that are approved for flight in icing have earned that approval by demonstrating that they can successfully carry a specific amount of ice on the rotor system and airframe and still fly safely, not by showing any efficient means for removing or preventing icing.The military pioneered helicopter IFR flight and demonstrated that it is safe with two pilots coordinating their efforts.The pilot flying devotes his attention to controlling the helicopter while his copilot tunes radios, flips approach plates, folds charts and performs all the nonflying chores inherent to IFR flight.The FAA has adopted the military's procedures and approved many large helicopters for two-pilot IFR, but remains adamant that a single pilot cannot hand-fly any helicopter other than a Bell 222 in the clouds.Simply because helicopters do not have the natural long-term stability of airplanes, the pilot cannot trim the machine for level flight and divert his attention from the instruments, or even take his hands off the controls, to tune radios and perform other necessary chores.The only way to convince the FAA I that a single pilot could fly a helicopter IFR was to design an extremely sophisticated autopilot that would do the flying while the pilot talked on the radio, dug out the approach plates and monitored the electronic pilot.Honeywell, then known as Sperry, earned the first single-pilot IFR approval in the Aerospatiale Gazelle in 1975.The Gazelle was selected to lead the way because it is one of the most stable and easy-to-fly helicopters ever built.And the Gazelle is a fast helicopter, which helps it to fit in better with the airplanes that dominate the IFR system.Because the FAA determined that the autopilot is an absolutely essential part of single-pilot helicopter IFR safety, redundancy requirements are comprehensive.Therefore, the autopilot system must have two of everything; that includes dual computers, dual sensors, dual actuators to move the controls, and dual electrical systems to supply power.It didn't matter that the Gazelle had only one engine; everything in the autopilot system had to be dual.Many other helicopters have since been certified for single-pilot IFR flight with full-authority autopilots, but only the Bell 222 demonstrated enough long-term stability to earn the single-pilot IFR approval without having an operational automatic flight control.Designers of autopilots and instrumentation, however, have not been able to solve the icing problem, a major helicopter IFR flight hazard.Severe icing is a more significant threat to a helicopter than to an airplane because of the serious vibration caused by uneven icing and ice shedding on the rotor blades.Also, the comparatively thin airfoil sections of the main rotor blades collect ice more efficiently than an airplane's relatively fat wing. Helicopter manufacturers and the military have experimented with various forms of ice-protection systems without complete success.Thermal systems that heat the rotor blades to prevent ice from forming work, but unfortunately demand huge amounts of power. Ice-removal systems, such as pneumatic boots, are unsatisfactory because they can cause uneven ice shed.An ice-protection system will certainly be perfected for new transport-category helicopters such as the EH Industries EH 101, but it will probably be many years before such effective anti-icing is available for smaller helicopters.When Bell, Hiller and Sikorsky began manufacturing the first commercial helicopters around 1947, they experienced some difficulty finding a market for their products.Salesmen crisscrossed the country trying agricultural spraying, helicopter rides and other assorted ways to build demand for their aircraft.They struck modest success in agricultural and forestry work, but hit the mother lode by convincing oil companies to use helicopters to support offshore work.Today offshore-support remains a staple occupation for helicopters, but it is far from the only job they perform.From sea to shore, field, mountain and cities, helicopters are busy at work.Carrying spray booms or dispensing buckets, helicopters are active in agriculture and forestry.Besides the ordinary job of applying fertilizer, herbicides or pesticides to crops, helicopters help save Florida citrus crops by protecting them from frost damage, halt the devastation of oaks and aspen caused by Gypsy moths, and kill mosquitoes to help prevent the West Nile Virus.Utility companies call upon helicopters to apply herbicide to vegetation below powerlines and along pipelines.Helicopters also per-form visual and infrared surveys of electrical lines, and use GPS mapping to plot the locations of trouble spots.Amtrak has hired operators for similar services along its rail lines.Helicopters also use specialized equipment to repair powerlines or clean electrical insulators.Some inventive operators also use high-pressure spraying gear to clean building exteriors. In the forests, helicopters sling in thousands of gallons of water to fight fires, help clear away the burned timber and help reforestation projects.Carrying a specialized tool, helicopters make harvesting seed-laden cones from towering pines look easy.Helicopters allow lumber companies to minimize the impact of logging; trees are removed without harming others nearby and fewer roads are needed.It’s likely a helicopter harvested the Christmas tree in your home last December.Another use is by wildlife agencies flying helicopters to track, count, transport or otherwise keep tabs on many species.They have helped scientists study hatching turtles in North Carolina, eagle aeries in Ohio and alligator nests in Florida.Helicopters restock rivers and lakes with fish, transporting such species as Alaskan salmon or rainbow trout. Helicopters also help protect the environment, flying aerial surveys and offering scientists quick access to various sites for ground or water sampling.Helicopters shave days off precise surveying projects.Using differential GPS navigation systems interfaced with mapping software, helicopters help create pinpoint-accurate maps for many geophysical needs.Equipped with a magnetometer, helicopters also help geologists sniff out veins of valuable minerals.With their unique external-load capabilities, helicopters can transport just about anything.From hauling air conditioners atop downtown skyscrapers to placing satellite dishes on remote mountainsides, helicopters are at work.If your local TV station is broadcasting digital signals, you can probably thank the helicopter that replaced the old analog transmitter on the station’s towering antenna with a digital transmitter.And, if you see aerial shots on the station’s six-o’clock news, thank a helicopter.The splendid images of New Zealand in the "Lord of the Rings" movies—or any movie?Thank a helicopter.Can you imagine what movies and television would be like if helicopters did not exist?For the ultimate experience, there is nothing like a sightseeing ride in a helicopter.If there’s a spot on Earth worth seeing from the air, you can bet that a helicopter operator will be nearby offering rides.For an extraordinary recreational experience, helicopters will transport you to remote mountains for heli-skiing or to pastoral hideaways for hiking or fishing.Helicopters also protect people, deterring crime and providing essential search and rescue operations.During the past 20 years, law-enforcement agencies’ use of helicopters has grown tremendously, and with new emphasis on Homeland Security, the number of law-enforcement helicopters and their uses are bound to rise.Helicopters save hundreds of lives every day.The United States is served by at least 400 airmedical helicopters operated by commercial operators.Add to this an untold number of police helicopters that fly airmedical as part of their law-enforcement mission.Equipped with top-notch medical equipment and crews, these helicopters are effectively flying emergency rooms.And, finally, helicopters offer excellent point-to-point transportation of people and cargo.Once considered a luxury, helicopters are increasingly regarded as necessary business tools for both large and small companies seeking to better serve customers and maximize time.