Emergency landing on rooftop

[skadi]

Yesterday a AS350 made an emergency landing on the roof of the VW factory in Hannover/Germany. They had engine problems during ext-load operations.

Hubschrauber in Hannover abgestürzt Fotostrecken Hannover Hannover / HAZ - Hannoversche Allgemeine (http://www.haz.de/Hannover/Fotostrecken-Hannover/Hubschrauber-in-Hannover-abgestuerzt/%28from%29/1000166/%28mode%29/full/%28offset%29/0)

skadi

http://www.haz.de/var/storage/images/haz/hannover/fotostrecken-hannover/hubschrauber-in-hannover-abgestuerzt/kt_elsner_polizei_1624_0001/14844661-1-ger-DE/KT_Elsner_Polizei_1624_0001_imagelarge.jpg

http://www.haz.de/var/storage/images/haz/hannover/fotostrecken-hannover/hubschrauber-in-hannover-abgestuerzt/kt_elsner_polizei_1633_0001/14844666-1-ger-DE/KT_Elsner_Polizei_1633_0001_imagelarge.jpg

http://www.haz.de/var/storage/images/haz/hannover/fotostrecken-hannover/hubschrauber-in-hannover-abgestuerzt/kt_elsner_polizei_1579_0000/14844676-1-ger-DE/KT_Elsner_Polizei_1579_0000_imagelarge.jpg

[Spanish Waltzer]

impressive emergency 'landing'! & lucky the roof took the weight. I guess that will be a challenging recovery job though.

[skadi]

I guess that will be a challenging recovery job though.

The only way to get it down is by another helicopter, so is the planning. A crane could not be used.

skadi

[alouette]

I must say that I have to pay respect to the pilot who had the imagination to park the aircraft the way he did. And he walked away from it. What more does one want? That is one unusual parking space.:ok:

[OvertHawk]

Very lucky that it did not go through the roof - it does not look like it's very strong. I think this shows that the pilot must have done a very good job of arresting the rate of descent for the landing.

It's interesting to note that the rotor RPM must have been very low (as you would expect) when the blades contacted the building - there is comparatively little damage to them.

I hope the pilot bought a lotto ticket that night!

OH

[skadi]

It's interesting to note that the rotor RPM must have been very low (as you would expect) when the blades contacted the building - there is comparatively little damage to them.

As you can see on the pics, the load ( 800kg ) is still attached to the helicopter and maybe that this fact slowed down the forward motion on the "slope" to give more time to bring down the RRPM?

skadi

[OvertHawk]

I'm utterly amazed that they did not go through that roof! :eek:

A good friend of mine had an engine failure at low level/airspeed in a 350 many years ago whilst load lifting. He too, did not get the load off before impact and it had the reverse role to what you suggest happened on this occasion (although i'm not saying you are incorrect) - the load hit the ground and acted like an anchor stopping all the horizontal movement and catapulting the helicopter vertically into the ground very hard.

Were they quite close to the roof when it happened do you know?

incredible escape!

[OvertHawk]

Skadi

Just read your post again properly - sorry.

You were asserting that the horizontal motion was stopped by the load - i think you are quite correct that this could have happened.

apologies
OH

[TeeS]

Roofus - I'm afraid you have competition ;)

[ross_M]

Design for snow and wind loads on a roof of that size is going to be on the order of hundreds of tons over the span.

Right. But those aren't point loads.

[Flyting]

who said you couldn't land a squirrel on a 45 deg down slope.....???

[hillberg]

One tire punched a hole in the roof,all 7600+ lbs on a flimsy metal roof. Nice landing,

[mickjoebill]

Must have hit "fairly" hard to bend the tail or was it glanced by the blades?


Mickjoebill

[Aesir]

who said you couldn't land a squirrel on a 45 deg down slope.....???

Yeahh I thought the limit was 6° :ok:

[Madbob]

Kudos to the pilot for a good outcome from a very nasty "event". :ok:

The only question I have is, surely this ought not to have been a task for a single-engined helo? Anyone tasking this must, when doing even a rudimentary risk assessment, have realised that a twin engined aircraft would have been the sensible option given the terrain and obsticales.....

MB

[krypton_john]

An AS355NP cannot sling the load an AS350B2 can with two engines let alone one, and there's twice the chance of an engine failure!

[John Eacott]

Kudos to the pilot for a good outcome from a very nasty "event". :ok:

The only question I have is, surely this ought not to have been a task for a single-engined helo? Anyone tasking this must, when doing even a rudimentary risk assessment, have realised that a twin engined aircraft would have been the sensible option given the terrain and obsticales.....

MB

I agree on the kudos to the pilot: I suspect he had the collective well under his armpit when he 'arrived', and a slightly elevated pulse rate when the pitot came to rest against the roofing. And as for the load not even cracking the glass :eek: :p

Being JAA land the issue of twin accountability seems to be a bit fuzzy, and we have a similar issue at times here in Oz. I won quite a few lifting jobs because I had a BK117: not due to CASA Regs but the good old Elfin Safety in the form of our WorkSafe Victoria and their oversight of JSA (Job Safety Analysis). Based on the premise that we would jettison the load over a safe area thus giving SE flyaway capability, I guess the rooftop in this example would have required a split second timing to dump the load!

Then again, with one engine still operating a twin should have hover capability once the load hits the roof? At which stage, if not done already, the load can be pickled off and a SE recovery made? Just thinking out loud, but something which is worth considering.

[zorab64]

Concur with John E - whilst there might be twice the chance of engine failure, there's a significantly higher chance of flyaway following a SINGLE engine failure, which is what we're really talking about. I can't remember ever reading or hearing about a double concurrent turbine engine failure - & before someone finds one, I mean not caused by severe icing or fuel starvation, neither of which would likely happen with this sort of operation, I'd suggest.

All in all, hats off to the pilot, for a skillful &/or lucky outcome. It's always heartening to see a positive outcome to what could, so easily, have been otherwise. :ok:

[Flyting]

Doesn't any one know what actually happened here yet ???
The guys in Germany must have heard something........

[Runway101]

According to various German news web sites, rumor #1 is engine failure while they wanted to set down the load on the roof (load consists of new fume outlets). According to the firefighters on site, rumor #2 is that the engine failure happened because they were low on fuel. Apparently the fire fighters wanted to pump the remaining fuel to avoid a fire, but there was no more fuel left in the tank.

Maybe they stuck the hose in the wrong hole, or maybe there was a fuel leak due to the post-"landing" damage, or maybe they are just all full of sh*t.

[Madbob]

I hope that someone is able to post a photo of the recovery effort. That will take some careful planning with something like a K-Max or Super Puma needed.

MB

[OvertHawk]

I'm pretty sure that if you take the blades off (which they pretty much already have :}) and strip out everything then a 350 can just about be lifted by a 350 B1 or B2.

They may have to take the tail boom off in case it snaps off in-flight due to the damage, in which case it would be easily within the capability of another 350 - especially for a very short lift.

Whatever lifts it, it will be an interesting sight.

OH

[GoodGrief]

My SWAG: It will be lifted by one of Agrarflug's B205.

[Spunk]

I don't want to turn this into a single vs twin engine issue but I prefer being in a a single engined helicopter equipped with a C47B operating at 90% of torque rather than operating in a light twin with two C20 engines operating at 110% when slinging.

[Spunk]

My SWAG: It will be lifted by one of Agrarflug's B205

It has already been lifted by another AS350 B3 (?) operated by KMN.

[Ready2Fly]

@Spunk
Exactly. Furthermore, in case the engine quit due to low/no fuel then a second engine is not worth anything.

[Spunk]

Pic of recovery (http://www.mt-online.de/lokales/regionales/4976038_Hubschrauber.html)

http://www.mt-online.de/_em_daten/_mt/2011/09/13/aufmacher/110913_2126_309274805_0_aufmacher.jpg

[skadi]

A nice pic from above with the whole scene, helicopter and attached EL.

Hannover: Hubschrauber vom Dach geborgen Hannover / NP - Neue Presse (http://www.neuepresse.de/Hannover/Uebersicht/Hannover-Hubschrauber-vom-Dach-geborgen)

http://www.neuepresse.de/var/storage/images/np/hannover/uebersicht/hannover-hubschrauber-vom-dach-geborgen/14875543-1-ger-DE/Hannover-Hubschrauber-vom-Dach-geborgen_ArtikelQuer.jpg

skadi

[Roofus]

Roofus - I'm afraid you have competition ;)

:ok:

Although the roof barely qualifies as 'u/s' ;)

Glad all were ok though! Cracking landing! :D

[oleary]

Concur with John E - whilst there might be twice the chance of engine failure, there's a significantly higher chance of flyaway following a SINGLE engine failure, which is what we're really talking about. I can't remember ever reading or hearing about a double concurrent turbine engine failure - & before someone finds one, I mean not caused by severe icing or fuel starvation, neither of which would likely happen with this sort of operation, I'd suggest.

****************
Actually, in the early days of the 76 we had numerous uncontained third stage bursts that took out the second engine, ...

... and the t/r driveshaft, ...

... and all the a/ & d/c electrics, ...

... and then caught fire.

But you didn't need to worry about the fire, because you couldn't fight it even if you knew about it, which you didn't.

Hence that goofy 180 lb "containment kit" in about 1983 or so.

[311kph]

Can someone tell me what actual type is the one that crashed, and what's the one that's carrying it. AS350 - D?, B?, BA?, B1?, B2?, B3?

I'm looking this pic of recovery... Amazing! :D
Besides MR blades, probably fuel, ... it's all there.

How many machines are there that can lift same weight as themselves?

PS. I don't see it in the recovery pic, but maybe there is cargo still hanging down below too :E

[skadi]

The crashed one was a B2 and it was lifted by a B3

skadi

[zorab64]

oleary - someone was of course going to point out occasion(s) where both engines had failed but, as a pilot who operates in the real world in 2011, I trust that early '80s problems have been learnt by all manufacturers such that, 30 years later, a similar incidence is extreemly unlikely!

[rotorspeed]

Pretty impressive to see a helo being able to lift it's own weight - and in practice with pilot and some fuel! Seems the B206L, 407 and Koala can't, so apart from dedicated lifters like the K-Max, is the B3 unique?

[Vertical Freedom]

yep they sure are 1,400 on the hook & 1,215 empty awesome machine in the hills plus 20,000' :ok:

[oleary]

zorab64,

I was simply responding to your comment,

... "I can't remember ever reading or hearing about a double concurrent turbine engine failure - & before someone finds one, I mean not caused by severe icing or fuel starvation, neither of which would likely happen with this sort of operation, I'd suggest.", ...

... by pointing out that it has happened in the past (numerous times) and it will again - or Murphy's not me uncle!:)

[FH1100 Pilot]

oleary:I can't remember ever reading or hearing about a double concurrent turbine engine failure - & before someone finds one, I mean not caused by severe icing or fuel starvation, neither of which would likely happen with this sort of operation, I'd suggest.

Uhh, isn't fuel starvation being bandied about as a possible cause of this event? With no fuel it doesn't matter how many engines you have.

[Hughes500]

Rotorspeed

i have lifted 500 with no blades on it with another 500, I weigh 210lbs and had about 45 mins of fuel on board

[zorab64]

oleary - yes, I accept your point :ouch:!

FH1100 - ditto. Re-reading my original post:

. . . not caused by severe icing or fuel starvation, neither of which would likely happen with this sort of operation, I'd suggest.",
I should possibly have added that, whilst icing would obviously not have been a cause, lack of fuel "should" not have been a cause either. If it does turn out to be the reason, what on earth will be the excuse for operating so close to fuel limits, especially if this were being run professionally, which was also an assumption, I'm afraid!

Your other point, however, With no fuel it doesn't matter how many engines you have is not quite true - the EC135, for instance, has different sized fuel supply tanks for just this purpose, i.e. if you are that inattentive/desparate/foolish to ever get that fuel critical, No 2 engine will always flame out first, rapidly focussing your attention on the dwindling fuel reserve in No 1 supply tank, but at least allowing you to get down (quickly) on the remaining engine! Clever design, but ECD have regularly shown that they try to account for all eventualities, including those less professional than they might wish to be/think they are (for instance the ones who try to get airborne with the cyclic lock attached - personally, I don't know how you even get into the seat without noticing that)! :ugh:

[kmax]

Lama can lift a Lama (:ok: for eurocopter)

[skadi]

Final report is out:

http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_030/nn_226462/EN/Publications/Investigation_20Report/2011/Report__11__3X148__EC-AS350__Hannover,templateId=raw,property=publicationFile.pdf/Report_11_3X148_EC-AS350_Hannover.pdf

The red Fuel Low Light was already on for 15min, when the engine quits...:=

skadi

[OvertHawk]

Wonder if the insurance company is going to pay out on that then! :eek:

OH

[Flyting]

"The fuel warning indicator (FUEL) had already lit up about 15 minutes"

"His total flying experience amounted to approximately 9408 hours, of which he flew more than 5000 on the affected type. His flight experience with external load transport was about 2 000 hours...."

"...registered for the training of private pilots" :ugh::ugh::ugh:



That's what you call early retirement.... :eek: :eek: :eek:

[John R81]

Apologies - I don't read German. Did it give any reason why he continued to fly the job with the fuel light on?

[Flyting]

No retirement plan. He's the owner of the aircraft as well as the company http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
I wouldn't call that a :ok:.... especially considering he's probably out the cost of a 350/the repairs there of, now with the insurance :D:D:D applauding his skills...
This guy knew where his fuel was...........don't mean: He knew where the fuel wasn't...... not in the tank :\

[Spunk]

That's what you call early retirement....

No retirement plan. He's the owner of the aircraft as well as the company :ok:

[skadi]

Apologies - I don't read German. Did it give any reason why he continued to fly the job with the fuel light on?

The report in the link above is in english...

skadi

[Dawdler]

This whole scenario brings to mind the Harrier that landed(?) on a container ship out at sea.

[John R81]

Slack

Noted. I looked when first posted and thought German. Must get eyes tested.

And the short answer is NO.

[MightyGem]

This whole scenario brings to mind the Harrier that landed(?) on a container ship out at sea.
Not really. That pilot didn't know where his fuel was and landed before it ran out. This guy knew where his fuel was and didn't land before it ran out.

[jymil]

.. should not be mistaken for a precision instrument.

[212man]

The report in the link above is in english

In fairness to John, the link seemed originally to open a German report!

[alouette]

Ahm,...excuse me, at 7%?!? Is this guy nuts? I mean we all make mistakes, but I always check on the fuel. It scares me just to think of it to continue operations once the warning light annunciates on the panel. :ugh:

[Nubian]

Ahm,...excuse me, at 7%?!? Is this guy nuts?

Not really. What makes him nuts, is the fact that he KNEW he had been flying for 15min with the light on... This gauge was incorrect, and he relied on that. After all the investigation showed that it was only 2 ltr left in the tank, (alot less than 7 % which is 37,5 ltr) and just about what is published as unusable fuel in the 350.

Everyone that have been flying external ops in the 350(any machine really) have been subject to on the limit liftjobs, and therfore use of limited fuel to be carried. There is nothing that prevent you from flying with the light on in short priods to get the job done, but you must know what you're doing and follow a procedure.... In short: TIME

Now, can you dispatch a helicopter with the fuel gauge inop?? According to my MEL I can, provided I have a way to figure out when to land. Known amount of fuel put in the tank, and TIMED operation.

So the conclusion is: when the light comes on, start the time and know exactly how long you can safely operate, and ofcourse in the perfect world, never even see the light come on..
This has been working for me for many years.

Or maybe I am just nuts?!:eek:

[Decredenza]

Everyone is different. I have flown 350's for more than 8000 hours and have never flown until the light came on.

[alouette]

@Nubian; fine as long as you know what to do. But I was told on more than one occasion that fuel is one of the easiest things where one can screw up. If you are nuts or not is left for you to decide. However, me thinks this guy is nuts. :} And he was lucky not to get killed based on that blunder.

[darrenphughes]

I thought most if not all countries regs require a minimum fuel amount that would be above the fuel light level. If I'm not wrong on that, then Nubian the lifts you're doing need to be done by a more capable aircraft in order for you to operate legally.

[Flyting]

Fuel quantity less than 60 -Avoid large attitude changes.litres (15.8 US.Gal) ~ :

Remaining usable fuel FUEL allows approximately 18 minutes level
fl ight at maximum continuous Dower.
He pushed his luck for 15min... slinging over building.........STUPID

I was taught, have taught, and have flown, NEVER to trust the fuel gauge, as is illustrated in this case, and if the little RED fuel light comes on, hit the stop watch and put your ass down on the ground immediately. In cases where you can't, be gentle and START LOOKING for a place..... Don't continue the job... This is an emergency situation, thus the RED LIGHT WARNING :ugh::ugh::ugh:



He had a total flying experience of about 9,408 hours; 5,000 hours of which were on the type in question.



Even though he had so much experience, makes me wander when this


type instructor

actually opened that little blue book full of information that is under the seat...:eek:

Do the maths:
Stop for a few minutes to do a hot refuel (which would have to be done any way), or.....
chop up a roof top and wreck a helicopter............difficult one!!!

If this is the owner of the aircraft...... Pwaaahahhahahaa.... you deserve your losses....
If it's not, good luck looking for another job.......

The last line of the report says it all............


Good fuel management during the flight will then allow the right decision at the right time: to divert or continue the flight.


.........................yet another case for the CRM classes......
.............................................Well Done :ok::ok::ok:

[Gordy]

darrenphughes

I thought most if not all countries regs require a minimum fuel amount that would be above the fuel light level.

Not quite... I the US, the FAR's state you may not BEGIN a flight unless you have enough fuel to fly to your first point of intended landed plus 20 minutes... FAR 91.151 (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/8333A51DA144CF9E852566CF00618289?OpenDocument) .

Firstly... It mentions NOTHING about ENDING the flight, there is no regulatory requirement to "land" with that 20 minutes worth of fuel....

Secondly... Each aircraft light is NOT set to 20 minutes.

You can legally LAND with zero fuel... Not that I recommend it....

Welcome to the real world outside of flight instruction.....

[Nubian]

aluette,
Did you miss my remark in the first sentence? "what makes him nuts"....
Yes, as I explained, you need to know what you're doing. Otherwise, you're as you said....nuts;)

Decredenza
As for flying 8000 hrs, without the light coming on, congrats to you. I'm not sure if we're doing the same type job then.

Flyting
As for the fuel-light in the 350, is yello (amber,across the pond) not red. So, no emergency.

Darrensphughes,
And for recalculating lifts, so you would be legal or use a more suitable aircraft. Yeah right!.... Call in the 214 to lift a load that is under the legal limit at altitude, but temperature is just a little high, and it's for one lift now and then inbetween 100's....yeah.

Gordy,
Spot on!

[Torque and temp]

Not judging anyone’s opinion here, I know the business and the kind of pressures that might force a pilot to get the job done. However, say that you’re operating with a solid fuel-low warning and a stopwatch that’s showing your estimated seconds to starvation, what if someone other than you screws up? Off course, it might be a simple A-to-B lift with no screw-up factors involved (and that’s fine), but some jobs are more than a one-man show. Are those few extra kilos/pounds really worth endangering the safety of the guys on the ground for?

Just for an example.. What if you’re mounting something... say a heavy mast section (with your seconds ticking), and suddenly one of the legs wont fit into its dedicated attachment? One of the guys in the mast has already attached his bolts on his leg, and you are stuck. “Stupid anxious guy!” It is going to take a few minutes to sort the situation out. With the seconds ticking, you have nowhere to go but to sit tight. If you drop it the mast might fall and the guys will be hurt/killed, if you haste it the guys in the mast might be hurt/killed by the section, and if you wait for your fuel to cut the engine the mast might fall and the guys will be hurt/killed.

Just saying... operating on the very limit to starvation might be forced upon from time to time, but you better think the whole scenario through a few times before you choose to accept the challenge. You might be confident to get the job done safely, but what if something unexpected happens?

I trust it that you guys that are doing this exception from time to time really knows what you are doing, and this is nothing new for you. But I just want to highlight the subject that sling loading (especially mounting operations) are a teamwork with more than the pilot’s skills and safety to take into consideration.

[Epiphany]

Excellent post T and T.

[darrenphughes]

Gordy,

Not quite... I the US, the FAR's state you may not BEGIN a flight unless you have enough fuel to fly to your first point of intended landed plus 20 minutes... FAR 91.151 .

I'm sure the FAA would totally agree with you on that, especially during an interview with them after spreading some skids with a dry tank.

Oh and I'm an offshore guy, haven't flight instructed in quite some time. I do renew my instructor certificate every 2 years. Maybe that's what you're referring to with your condescending tone.:ok:

[Gordy]

Hey Darren,

I'm sure the FAA would totally agree with you on that, especially during an interview with them after spreading some skids with a dry tank.

They would agree...Like I said, I would not recommend it, but technically legal.

Oh and I'm an offshore guy, haven't flight instructed in quite some time.

Good for you. I remember a few years ago when you were a student still. Glad you made it and did not get stuck in the hole like many others around your time.

condescending tone

Was not meant to be condescending.... We need a "sarcastic" font. But still, in the utility world, it is somewhat normal to run the aircraft on "less than perfect world" fuel amounts occasionally to complete a task.

[SASless]

You can legally LAND with zero fuel... Not that I recommend it....


I can assure you that when the fuel available becomes "ZERO"....you are going to land.....legal or illegally....the rules of Thermodynamics and Gravity are just that...Laws!

Gordy is quite correct (as usual)....the law does not address amount of fuel upon landing....just what the minimum, takeoff fuel is....and that is quite flexible by shear definition. The word "Intended" is the key. For day time VFR in excellent weather....Twenty minutes seems a lot....but can be very much not enough with just a few shifts in the weather or availability of landing spots.

Gordy's record of being correct risks termination early Spring 2012 from what I hear.

[darrenphughes]

Good for you. I remember a few years ago when you were a student still. Glad you made it and did not get stuck in the hole like many others around your time.

Yeah, got into tours & charter for 2-3 years after instructing, and then made the move to offshore. Better money & schedule.

So the FAA wouldn't violate you for running out of fuel then?

[SASless]

Running out of fuel....is a Mortal Sin!

Fuel Exhaustion warrants a violation.

Fuel Starvation due mechanical reasons is forgiveable.

[Gordy]

So the FAA wouldn't violate you for running out of fuel then?

They may violate you under 91.13, but cannot violate you for "running out of fuel" nope.... I had this verified by an FAA inspector a few years back---now bear in mind the different FSDO's may interpret it differently....but I would have no problem fighting it in court.

Gordy's record of being correct risks termination early Spring 2012 from what I hear.

I even have the "proverbial" encyclopedia set for sale too... :eek:

[SASless]

Gordy,

Despite your vast collection of Books of Knowledge, years of life experience, and extraordinary commonsense...upon uttering those infamous words..."I Do!".....all that is trumped by the results of that act. Your usual retorts, responses, and utterances shall all be narrowed down to a humble "Yes Dear!"

The one Law of Life that shall prevail is the one that states "If Mom ain't happy....ain't nobody happy!"

Beware the Ides of March!

[170']

Very good post T & T

[John R81]

Very good post, SASless.

(Don't ask, personal experience!!!!)

[Ready2Fly]

Obviously the pilot -with his experience- thought it was ok and he was proven wrong.

Luckily nobody got seriously hurt.

Now, would the same have happened to a pilot with less experience or simply not being the owner of the aircraft? Who knows...

I have the feeling, he will not continue again with a FUEL warning showing for 15 minutes...

[Torquetalk]

ICAO Law
FAA Regs
JAR-OPS ---> EASA
National Law...

The 20 minute VFR or 30 minute IFR reserve is common to most regs/air law. Contingency fuel is usually calculated on top of that and may be an operational or regulatory requirement. Discretionary fuel is just that.

If you're out of planned fuel; and you've used up your discretionary fuel (assuming you had any); and you've used up your contingency fuel (assuming you needed to carry any); then what's left is final reserve fuel. It isn't intended for operational use.

Depending on the aircraft type and the individual setting, some fuel lights come on with 20 mins fuel left, some with 12, some with about 8, some with less than that.

Of course, most of us know all of that and [almost] nobody here is saying flying with a low fuel light is operationally appropriate. But without debating the finer points of regs, surely flying routinely into the 20/30 minute reserve and not regarding this as at least a critical situation, if not legally an emergency, is cavalier.

Quite a few pilots run it real close at times and consider themselves good "commercial/real-world pilots". And some of them crash.

TT

[JimL]

Although not applicable in this case (non-CAT), JAR-OPS has additional protection built in for this very eventuality:


JAR-OPS 3.375 In-flight fuel management
(See Appendix 1 to JAR-OPS 3.375)

(a) An operator shall establish a procedure to ensure that in-flight fuel checks and fuel management are carried out.

(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to a heliport where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.

(c) The commander shall declare an emergency when the actual usable fuel on board is less than final reserve fuel.

Even when the calculation of fuel is simplified, for example for small types and non-complex operations, the amount of the final reserve fuel has to be established in the OM to permit this in-flight procedure to be applied.

Landing with reserve fuel intact, or the declaration of an emergency, appears to indicate the gravity of this provision.

Jim

[SASless]

(b) A commander shall ensure that the amount of usable fuel remaining in flight is not less than the fuel required to proceed to a heliport where a safe landing can be made, with final reserve fuel remaining.



Oh gosh.....does this mean a permanent "heliport" or just a temporary helipad, cow pasture, or pub parking lot?

Common sense would suggest some place where fuel can be obtained...but as in Ag Operations...that might be atop a Batch Truck in a cotton patch.


http://www.applebeeaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/085-2-165x135.jpg

Would there be a problem caused by mere "definition" as written there JimL?

Such as mentioned here?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP168.PDF

[JimL]

No, it means exactly what you'd like it to - i.e. for operations within a local area, the amount of reserve fuel can be reduced:

..."when operating within an area providing continuous and suitable precautionary landing sites."
Jim