Talk:Erickson Inc.

S-64 civil split

I have split the information on the civil version of the S-64 from the CH-54 Tarhe page to the "Erickson S-64" page, which I then renamed S-64 Skycrane. The Erickson article was very skimpy in its coverage. I felt it would be better to cover the civil versions of the S-64 on one page than to have them split between two pages. I have also created the "Erickson Air-Crane" article to cover the company itself, tho at this point it is mostly a copy of the "Erickson S-64" page from before the merger. All 3 articles still need reworking and expansion, especially the company page. - BillCJ 19:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Katr! Good clean-up. - BillCJ 02:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, just wanted to make the connection to Oregon clear. It makes me want to go work on a fire crew again, though I don't think I ever saw one of these in action. Katr67 16:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. You sure found it fast, considering it was just created a few hours before! My folks are from the Pac-NW (Vanc WA area), so I appreciate the effort on Oregon's behalf. - BillCJ 17:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable Erickson helicopters

Good day all, as BillCJ noted there is many edits being performed on the notable helicopters section of this article. I highly suggest a discussion take place prior to it's removal --Trashbag 19:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was writing the comments below as you posted. Will that solution work for you? - BillCJ 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup, works for me. I just want to make sure that a consensus of some time was formed or at least some communication was had prior to large chunks being deleted. 207.55.231.132 seems to be taking a special interest in this article and so I wanted to make sure they have an opportunity to express what their thoughts are. --Trashbag 19:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, will wait a day or two for a response. If you have any suggestions on putting the notable helicopters in addtion to Elvis on the S-64 page, I'd welcome a discussion there. I was the one who split the origianl article up to cover the helicopter separately, and I probably should have moved the individual information with it at that time. - BillCJ 19:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, makes sense to me. Just an FYI I believe all aircraft listed there are/were owned by Erickson at the time of their notoriety (i.e. loss). --Trashbag 19:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources state the one that crashed in Italy was owned by European Aircrane. Is that an Erickson subsidiary? One reason I think we need to keep the list cut back, and on the actual helicopter page, is that it's not normal practice to cover individual aircraft owned by a company unless they are notable, and certianly not without verifiable sources. Can you see someone trying to list every plane owned by Delta or American? Oh, I think you were the one who put in the sources the other day, so thanks. - BillCJ 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC) - BillCJ 19:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention to this Bill. We at Erickson join most of the world in viewing Wikipedia as an ever-expanding storehouse of valuable knowledge that has become the first preference of millions of people looking to gather information on a wide variety of subject matter. We also appreciate the valuable contributions of yourself and others that make this site great.

In regards to the changes and deletions made recently, we feel the need to explain the situation further. There are quite a few of us Erickson employees who are perturbed that crash data is posted on a web site associated with our company, especially since the same type of data can't be easily found on other helicopter operator / manufacturer pages. We realize that the data is verifiable from outside sources and is therefore a valid addition, but if you or any other members or contributors feel you must add our aircraft crash data, then it would seem logical to create another category more appropriate to the listings, such as "Crashed Aircraft". I don't want to argue definitions, but "Notable" would seem to imply a reason to take note of a particular item, and no-one but an investigator would have any reason other than morbid curiosity to take note of crashed aircraft. That being said, we wouldn't mind if you took the data out entirely, as the crashed aircraft do not currently serve Erickson Air-Crane and as such, do not serve the mission of the company which is providing heavylift services to a worldwide market.

We appreciate your division of pages between Erickson Air-Crane and "Skycrane" for the reasons you've mentioned. It is important to note, however, that there is no such thing as an S-64F Skycrane. Sikorsky started with the CH-54A according to an order from the U.S. Army. It was at the same time that Sikorsky attained Standard Category Certification for the S-64E for civil marketing purposes. When the Army responded with needs for greater lift capacity, Sikorsky built the next generation CH-54B. That is how the designation stayed until Erickson Air-Crane, after purchasing the Type Certificate and obtaining a limited production certificate in 1992, built the first FAA, Part 29, Standard Category S-64F Aircrane from an existing CH-54B Airframe under our own type cert (#H6EA)in February, 1993. Also, Erickson Air-Crane does not currently build S-64 Aircranes from scratch, rather we tap from our supply of existing airframes and strip down, inspect, repair and rebuild to like new or "De Novo" status. Erickson is, however, capable of building S-64 Aircranes "from the rivets up" as of April 17th, 2007, when the FAA presented Erickson Air-Crane with a "Full Production Certificate" for manufacture of the S-64E and F Aircranes. Placing crash data under "incidents" on the Skycrane page may not be valid as well, because none of the listed aircraft are "Skycranes" This might sound confusing, but if you realize the Type Certificate is basically ownership of the blueprints and copyright of the design, Erickson has applied and certificated over 2,000 modifications over the Sikorsky blueprint which makes it a different model entirely. The Skycrane and the Aircrane may look alike, but that is where the similarity ends. I'll be reviewing the Skycrane page again with objectivity in mind as far as delineating the difference between the two models. It is only because of the millions of dollars and man hours spent in design, certification,and operation, that it may seem to favor Erickson Air-Crane. Truth is, the Skycrane is an increasingly extinct species and should be written about as such.

Let's continue this dialogue as we work together for an honest objective illustration of Erickson Air-Crane and the S-64 Aircrane as well as the venerable Skycrane.

Thanks

207.55.231.132 21:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Dennis Hubbard Erickson Air-Crane Incorporated

Dennis, I appreciate your input, and all the valuable information you've included, but I would like to present a mild, friendly caution: Wikipedia has some guidelines on conflict of interest, which some could see as being run afoul of here. While I appreciate you not wanting data on crashed aircraft associated with your company, and while I actually support the edits that have been made, I feel the need to point out that you removing such data could be seen as inappropriate. I would suggest that you register a personal account here and edit as yourself, rather than as a representitive of Erickson. Thanks! Akradecki 21:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Akradecki,thank you for the caution. It makes absolute sense. We'll be ceasing corporate responses from Erickson Air-Crane. Thanks.

207.55.231.132 21:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Dennis Hubbard, Erickson Air-Crane

• Dennis, Thanks for your detailed information. I totally understand your employees' concerns withthe crashes being listed on the company article, and have moved them to the S-64 page. No other manufacturer has incidents noted on its page, though operators pages sometimes do. In this case, however, it's definitely better to have them on the aircraft page. We will be reviewing hte incidents to determine if they meat Wiki's standards regarding notability, and if not, will remove each item accordingly.

• In regard to the Skycrane/Aircrane differences, thanks for clearing that up. I too noticed the item on building new Aircranes, and that it conflicted with my printed sources. However, you confirmation of the fact will enable me to cite the printed sources and know that the info is still current.

• Regarding the Aircrane/Skycrane being on the same page, it's a difficult choice when creating articles to know if their is enough content to sustain separate pages for each variant or companies type. In setting up the S-64 page separate from the CH-45 article, I am trying to cover the civilian and military versions separately, concentrating on usage and service, reather than exact airframe. FOr this reason, I placed the Skycrane and Aircrane together. I will be making changes to the article as soon as possible to clarify the differences between the Skycrane and Aircrane models, using your ifo as a guide, but not as my primary source. As to the title S-64 Skycrane, I'll make sure we clarify that the Aircrane is a different model. However, please remember tha the militray CH-54 "Tarhe" is also commonly called a "Skycrane", even tho, as you pointed out, the S-64E and CH-54B are not the smae aircraft. Because "Skycrane is a common name for the model, no matter the exact version, I felt it appropriate to include it in the title. At some point, as the article grows, it it seems prudent to separate the Aircrane to its own airticle, I will propoes that. At this time, however, due to their shared heritage and roles, I think it best they be covered together, but with the changes and clarifications you have requested.

• In the future, I think it's appropriate if you note your concerns on the talk page, whatever they are, and myself and the other experienced editors will do our best to address your concerns quickly. While we can't use your info as a primary source, I do think we can use it as a "fact-checker" and remove items to which you object for which we have no verifiable sources. That is in accordance with Wiki's Attribution/Verifiability policies. Thanks for your concerns, and I hope we can address them to your satisfaction. - BillCJ 22:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

To return to the question posed by BillCJ "Can you see someone trying to list every plane owned by Delta or American?" I can agree completely on not listing all aircraft for major airlines. In regards to the practice of listing aircraft involved in accidents many articles already do this: Pan American World Airways, New York Airways, British Airways even the Delta and American. So there is certainly precedence to have them listed. The study of accidents is a fascinating slice of aviation. I can agree to a seperation from the "notable" and the lost aircraft.

For those of us who have lived their lives in aviation it is an accepted, and yes painful, fact of our life style. No disrespect is meant toward Erickson or the great people that comprise the company. We truly love what you do. --Trashbag 22:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

In regards to all this, I believe that the notable helicopters list is a valuable source for identifying the short fleet of S-64s. Also, combining the Air-Crane and Skycrane in the same article although logical, I strongly disagree to. The "Skycrane" is only the A and B models, and there's a limited amount of those in use or even around anymore, as they are the civil version of the CH-54As and Bs. If the article is to be an all inclusive page on the helicopter crane its self, it must be noted that the former military versions and the A and B model S-64s can be converted to E or F models. Also, once the limited amount of airframes are used up, the company of Erickson Air-Crane can manufacture from scratch S-64Es and Fs. I wish to also clarify that the civil versions are powered by Pratt & Whitney JFTD12A- 4A for S-64Es, and -5A for S-64Fs. Thanks. --EAC AeroTech846 (talk) 06:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Helicopters list

I've removed the helicopters list from this article as it is far too contentious, and is borderline promotional for Erickson AirCrane. In addition, some of the helicopters were not owned by Erickson, and this article is about the company as a manufacturer and as an operator of the type.

I respectfully suggest that the proper place for Erickson to maintain a list of its own helicopters is on its own website. However, I see no problem providing a link in the EL section, as we already link to their site's home page.

I have added a "Incidents" section to the S-64 Skycrane page to cover the sourced items, though we may need to establish notability for those incidents. Also, the Elvis (helicopter) article is linked in both articles. I hope this can avoid any more problems regarding the list. Thanks. - BillCJ 19:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for input, so here goes - seems to mee that we don't list every aircraft other mfrs make, nor those that operators fly, so why list Erickson's? Only the most notable should be included, and such notabilty must be established by a ref that indicates the reason for its notability. Otherwise, this is nothing more than a collection of trivia. Akradecki 21:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Markets

Bad info: two instances of "first financially successful run of helicopter logging"; first two sentences directly conflict with next two. Alas, reference 8 link broken. Doug Grinbergs (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Erickson?

Uh, I think we may have taken the Portland Business Journal article a little too seriously. I believe the company's name is only "Erickson Incorporated" [1] [2]. Trashbag (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)