PDA

View Full Version : Bear Grylls & Helicopters


Homsap
30th Jul 2017, 15:03
Here are a few questions for the Rotorheads as I am fixed wing.

Bear Grylls, personally can't stand the man. Actually I questioned the Scout Association a year ago, as to whether as Chief Scout he was a good role model. I say that an as experienced mountaineer. Examples include freeclimbing, abseiling on a single rope, climbing and paragliding without a helmet, abseiling from a single dubious belay. Oh and the diregard for his own son's safety.

So here is the lastest from his TV series, a AS355NP (G-DCAM), bunch of school children on board, the helicopter hovers at around 50 to 100 feet above a lake and they have to jump out, I really do not see the point, why not use a swimming pool, so here are my questions, based on and engine failure at 100 feet, and a boat and children already in the water below.

(a) I am aware that the AS335 has two engines, so what would be the height loss in a 100ft hover?
(b) Would FADEC if fitted make a difference?
(c) If there is height loss, at that stage could the pilot transition enough to clear the people in the water.
(d) Would I be right in thinking the CAA has to approve this type of operation in terms of the pilot and aircraft is approved for dropping persons.

I ask this having been a witness to a similar incident at Lyme Regis as a child, where a Wessex 3 or 5 had an engine failure during a demonstration of a transfer between a lifeboat and the Wessex, luckily the agile Atlantic 21, moved out of way just in time. Not sure if the Wessex 3 or 5 were twin or single turbine aircraft.

pilotmike
30th Jul 2017, 15:18
..the helicopter hovers at around 50 to 100 feet above a lake and they have to jump out, I really do not see the point, why not use a swimming pool...
It must be safer to drop them into the sea. Just imagine how bruised a child would be if they were dropped from that height over a swimming pool and missed. The concrete surround could really hurt a child falling 100' onto their head!:\

Also, it would be difficult to fit a boat as well as children into any normal size swimming pool.:ok:

30th Jul 2017, 16:06
I suspect the height they dropped in from was a good bit less than 50' - that is a bloody long way to fall and the water will hurt a lot.

We used to deploy RN SAR divers from about 20' which was quite high enough for them.

If they were as high as you say then moving away from the overhead in the event of a single engine failure would be quite easy - standard hover height for SAR Sea King was 50' and you would always go forward and down into the water in the event of an engine failure if not safe OEI in the hover. This was practiced regularly in the simulator or, if you were lucky, on a Canadian lake on the Waterbirds course.

Wessex 3 was a single, Wessex 5 was a twin.

Homsap
30th Jul 2017, 17:17
Pilotmike ... Sorry you pehaps missundertood me, I meant jumping off the high board, which in kit which is what we did at Cranditz.

Crab.... It was diificult to work out the drop height, I think it was more probably 20ft, but at a hover height of 50 ft, how much forward coluld you travel in the event of an engine failure before impacting.

I'm not sure if the Lyme Regis accident was a Wessex 3 or 5, but either way assuming an sile engine failure with one or two engines at say 50ft, spool up time, I guess you going down.

It would be interesting if anyone remembers the Lyme Regis accident, it was RN out of Portland, I have photos somewhere.

212man
30th Jul 2017, 18:36
A good example of using the wrong height and speed combination over water is here: http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/report-attachments/12867-REPORT_1999_008-0_0.PDF

Hughes500
30th Jul 2017, 20:03
Homsap

You obviously can't be an experienced mountaineer if you think one shouldn't
a. free climbing, often far safer and quicker than being roped together
b. abseiling on a single rope, very common practice while mountaineering
c single point belay not ideal, but often done e.g. bolts in the Alps.

I have done a lot of flying for his company all I can say that the H and S is taken very very seriously.
I am afraid to say we are all getting a bit to risk adverse:ugh:

Homsap
31st Jul 2017, 10:20
Hughes500

Safety culture changes for example these days common sense most people wear cycle helmets, seatbelts in cars, the point I was making I do not think BG demonstrates best practice, and why put children at risk purely to boost his ego and TV entertainment. It is only a matter of time before BG causes a fatality.

Thank you assuming my level of experience as a mountaineer, in relation to your points:

(a) I see no point in free climbing, why take the risk of death or spending the rest of your life in a wheel chair. Scrambling is another thing.

(B) & (C) I have to say many year ago in my university days, I recall abseiling down the Cinque Dita from a single belay on a 11mm rope, as it was the only the recover the rope. It's not something I would do these days. To add when I last took my tenage son climbing it was two 9mm and multiple two plus belays. It nothing to do with health and safety, its more about common sense, good practice and a duty of care to my son, his siblings and mother.

But, Hughes500 the question I was asking was with an engine failure on a twin trubine helicopter in a hover can you maintain height????

OvertHawk
31st Jul 2017, 12:45
To deal with the specific question.

It depends on the circumstances - weight and performance of the helicopter, conditions etc.

I"ve not seen the clip you describe but considering the way you describe it then it would certainly have been subject to at least one Permission from the CAA.

I'm certain that one of their requirements would have been the ability to safely fly away in the event of a single engine failure (taking into account the height above the water that was required for the task and any available drop-down), more likely it would require the helicopter to be flown at weights that allow single engine hover.

OH

Homsap
31st Jul 2017, 14:01
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.

I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.

albatross
31st Jul 2017, 16:21
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.

I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.

Well...Long time since I flew a 355 but as I recall if you had either 40mph or 40 feet (or combination thereof) you could fly it away..and that was with fixed floats! A friend lost an engine on skid gear while doing power line maint. He managed to hold it in the hover while the guy scrambled back aboard ( the failure occured while he was attached to both the aircraft and the power tower. The worst scenario. The good engine was heroic but overtemped just a bit! ( Well, a lot actually) they changed both.
Change of underwear for all concerned was also called for.

SARWannabe
31st Jul 2017, 16:37
Homsap - whats the axe to grind? If they're filming for broadcast then the operator would be mad to have not acquired the relevant CAA permission for dropping an article from an aircraft, and possibly low flying of sorts. One of which (for what you describe) would be the ability to hover on one engine, which the 355NP (the most powerful 355 variant), with a relatively light fuel load, and a handful of light kids should be capable of doing. The drop down with single engine hover performance would be minimal, far less than the height loss in a typical single engine fly away. In the order of 10-15ft, if that.

I would RATHER my kids jumped out of a twin engine helicopter with single engine hover performance, and a safety team/boat waiting by, than the frequented cliff jumps of Thailand from 20m dubious rocky outcrops, with rocks to clear, and no safety team. That said - I let them jump in Thailand, and jumped with them, and we all went home happy because it's a lot of fun, and sometimes we do things that we deem acceptable that others may not. Unless he made your kids jump which would be entirely different I say let them do so long as they're all consenting and aware of the risks. Some kids race motorcross, some ride horses, some ski/snowboard/skate/bmx. I'd suggest all the above are more likely to end in pain, and I'm sure their risk assessment would show that.

Flying Binghi
1st Aug 2017, 02:40
Looks to me that Hughes500 has already answered the question indirectly, though are there any credits listed at the end of the show? If shown they sometimes list relavent permissions, etc.





.

Hughes500
1st Aug 2017, 05:43
SAR

Well said
Homsap, wasn't trying to be personal just pointing out that unfortunately we are becoming too risk adverse. Been a long time since I have been mountaineering perhaps things have changed. In my day it was way safer in the Alps to free climb on the less technical sections, sometimes speed overrides things. Having said that spent a very pleasant week at the bottom of the N face of the Eiger ,but the risk assessment was a bit extreme ( well the weather was ****e for a week, well that was my excuse ! )
As to helicopters I am sure you will see on this site a huge debate on single v twins machines. Each argument has its points, but if you believe the accident stats then 92% of all heli crashes are pilot error.
All I can say his team are very professional but they do want to push things out there, which I believe is a good thing. There is a risk to everything we do, if there wasn't where would the fun be !

rotorspeed
1st Aug 2017, 07:59
Homespun

With your persistent belief about some height loss being inevitable in the event of an engine failure, it seems you might not understand the mechanics involved. If an engine failed in this AS355NP, height loss will not occur if the collective is not lowered - providing the remaining engine can produce enough power to maintain rotor rpm. And as others have said, it is very likely that it was operating at a weight that would allow this. So, if an engine failed and the pilot does nothing, all that would happen is that the other engine would double its previous power output to maintain the main rotor thrust. Now how long that much higher output can be maintained for is another matter, but it would typically be at least 10 seconds, which would give enough time for it to move away and gain airspeed to enable the collective to be lowered and the aircraft fly away.

FC80
1st Aug 2017, 09:20
Overhawk ... Thank you for your reply, I'm not convinced with CAA approval based on past experience, as a fixed wing pilot, I wondered could you keep a rotary wing in a hover with both engines at max power. I accept your comments on performance, but I am still doubtfull how quickly if under any circumstances in the event of any engine faiiling you could prevent height loss.

I suppose this also applies to SAR, but that's is an emergency.

This seems an odd crusade to embark upon for someone who freely admits they have no idea of the mechanics involved :zzz:

The calculation of single engine hover performance is of critical importance to any operation like this and will be carefully calculated every flight.

As has been pointed out, it is an almost infinitely variable feast and no one day or job is the same as the next.

Homsap
1st Aug 2017, 11:01
Rotorspeed... Thank you for your cogent explanation, and I would like to think any CAA approval was on that basis and I sure the operator would not not act in a negligent way. I feel sure that the Wessex that I saw almost crash onto a lifeboat was a Mk 3 (single turbine).

In respect of SARwannabe, I might have an axe to grind, probably yes like the RNLI, read below.

"Bear Grylls criticised by RNLI after he leaves own son stranded on island rocks, TV survival expert unwittingly enlists RNLI in training exercise by leaving 11-year-old off coast of private island before inviting lifeboat crews to save him" (The Telegraph).

Regarding jumping off into the sea off cliffs, I agree it's probably more dangerous, as there are alot of 'unknowns', yet BG still does it in TV shows, without pointing the dangers, again this would not fit with the RNLI and lifeguard safety culture, they advise against it.

Getting back to my axe to grind with BG, in a sense he is an ideal person to head the UK Scout Association, although I would prefer Ray Mears, but he needs to lead by example, in terms of safety, because I am aware that on a local level the Scouts, Guides and cadet forces have very good safety culture. He clearly thinks he is still a reserve in the SAS, and there is a difference when working with children to the SAS.

Thomas coupling
1st Aug 2017, 11:36
A normal AS355 wouldn't be able to hover on one engine above a certain weight - and that weight is not generous (from my 2000hrs on type "F2"). An "N" model is quite alot of grunt again, so the single engine capability is better. As mentioned before, it depends on the day and number of persons onboard.
Secondly it would need to stay outside its dead man's curve (even for twins).
Finally - if it was me running this particulr evolution, I would want to inform and educate the parents about the risk of a helicopter hovering over inhospitable terrain with their loved ones onboard and obtain their 'informed consent' before taking it further.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDj6oYaYrR8

You see, the problem with doing stunts like this is great if you have Bear Grylls outlook on life. But for Joe/Joanne public - they don't see the risk until their little one has been killed all for the sake of a TV stunt and some Zed list entertainer. Then the law suits start flying and someone gets sacked and the producer of the BBC says sorry in the Times and Bear Grylls skunks off radar for a few months and Mr and Mrs Smith try to understand (for the rest of their lives)where it all went wrong.

Two things in this order:
"Informed Consent" of all participants.
Aircraft Performance.

Nubian
1st Aug 2017, 13:42
The NP has FADEC and VEMD which is different from the other models of the 355. It has a 2,5 minute OGE, OEI (take-off power) at about 1500ft in ISA and at about 2200kg's.
An empty basic ship weigh in at about 1500kg's so you'll have something to play around with.... unless they are unusually fat kids. 5pax on board and an hour worth of gas, should leave you with an AUW well under 2000kg.

Now, what is a bit intrieging is the fact that you go after an operator and question this perticular operation, when you have an axe to grind with BG and should direct your attention directly to him instead.

JD Hill
1st Aug 2017, 17:49
I watched Bear Grylls extract water from elephant dung as a demonstration, he then drank it.

I went on a course with Ray Mears. We caught and smoked trout, ate a salad made from local leaves with the trout, drank a juice he siphoned off a UK plant (glorious) used utensils he taught us to make. Slept like gods in superb shelters he taught us to build.

If I ever have to survive in the wild again I'm going with the chubby bloke, not the **** drinker.

Wish survival courses in the army had been run by Mr Mears rather than the part trained nutters who ran them while I was serving.

John

Somewhere I've got a photo about this that explained it all, but can't find it now.

Hughes500
1st Aug 2017, 20:08
TC

A risk assessment would have been done for the job !
Quite frankly the chances of an engine going bang and everyone getting killed is pretty remote. Probably a greater chance of being killed in the mini bus to the helicopter.
I am afraid to say it is the bloody ridiculous H and S we are going down will shortly mean we can't go out of our house, oh no wait a minute I will become obese and die early, what are we to do TC ???:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Thomas coupling
2nd Aug 2017, 08:23
You know better than that Hughes'y.
A minority are aware of the risks around them, the majority believe what they see on TV therefore believe real life is like that too.
Have you lost a loved one? More specifically, have you lost someone close to you through sheer stupidity or ignorance. Have you thought "if only"?
Let me give you some examples:
White water rafting.
Paragliding.
Motor racing.
Base Jumping.
Free fall parachuting.
All of which are exciting, gung ho and every boy's dream adventure.
It's great entrhalling fun - until the wheel comes off.
It's when the parents, loved one, partner - turn round and start looking for someone to blame, to take their anger out on.
"No-one told us it would be THAT dangerous. No-one told us there was no safety rope/guide/exit.
All I am saying is that one should approach a hazard as one would approach anything worthwhile in life - responsibly. Look at the hazard, look at the risk, look at the frequency and outcome and THEN and only then consent (or otherwise) to proceed with that activity.
Then you have an idea of the true value of what you are about to do and no-one to blame if it goes horribly wrong.
I sincerely hope you don't lose anyone close - due to ignorance of an event or the risks it presents. A sad way to destroy one's life and the lives of all those who miss them, I guess.
I'm all for people like you and Grylls etc to 'flat line' at any time you so wish - fill your boots. Just don't take an innocent particiapnt with you, that's what "Informed Consent" is all about.

It's NOT about NOT doing anything dangerous, it's about being prepared and aware and weighing up the risk.

A handful of kids in the back of a small helicopter hovering over the water being thrown out - would that be a thrilling experience for my 12 year old boy - definitely. Would I allow it: probably not. Why not? I am a helicopter pilot by trade and know about the real risks and this mere fact outweighs the benefit my son will achieve. Would my wife allow it: You cannot be serious!

Bell_ringer
2nd Aug 2017, 08:54
Informed consent is important but so is common sense.
Whether you're tossing yourself off a bridge in a wing suit or have decided to have your little ones hurled out a hovering helicopter - you don't need to be a pilot to realise there is danger involved. And danger far beyond the number of engines or indeed OEI performance.
Risk averse types are unlikely to agree to little Johnny being pushed out the door of a helo irrespective of the twerp's name on the TV show.

The repercussions involved with an accident, in the UK anyway, will ensure as much risk has been mitigated as possible.
In reality you have a greater chance of dieing from a bad curry than there being a problem with the aircraft.

Hughes500
2nd Aug 2017, 10:30
TC

As a kid my parents allowed me to
1. Join the scouts
2. Join the CCF
3. go on mountaineering trips
4. race motor cross bikes
5. play rugby to a high level as a kid
6. go off with friends on our bikes and misbehave
7. go off camping with friends as a teenager
8. drive to the Alps for a month as a 17 year old in mothers car to go climbing( only discovered on return need to be 18 to drive in France ! )
9. In fact as 15 year old take a bus to Chamonix to go climbing
10. Plus loads of other things

I am a better person for all these things.
I have taught my kids to fly helicopters, ( sickeningly my daughter is a better pilot than I am) . Yes they go climbing, abseiling, diving etc etc with my blessing. Am I worried, of course I am, but life is a risk. No one wants to die early, but life is what it is, you have one go on the planet enjoy it.
As has been said you are more likely to die from a dodgy curry than having an engine fail in a twin.
Just wish we didn't live in a society where everyone has to walk round in cotton wool, the younger generation would be way better off !

aa777888
2nd Aug 2017, 11:36
"Fear of death will not prevent dying - but it may prevent living."

Bell_ringer
2nd Aug 2017, 11:46
Most people die in beds and they don't even have a single warning label! :E

Thomas coupling
2nd Aug 2017, 12:25
I say again, I'm not 'agin it'. I just like to weigh up the pro's and con's.
Me jumping out of that same helo - yep. Why? I have life insurance, am past it and enough money to keep the family accustomed to the life they lead if I snuff it.
Would my 8 or 10 yr old neice/nephew do it - not if I have anything to do with it.
Would my same relatives do - Disney World - of course. Probably more thrilling and a darn sight safer than some tin pot set up for a TV show with (of all people) Bear Grylls being involved.

Bellringer - I thought being dressed up in fancy dress on a bridge having a wafty crank was for pilot's only;);)

Homsap
2nd Aug 2017, 14:26
Hughes500... I would say most of the activities that you listed I did during my minority, and I woiuld say these activities are still available to children, but I would say with a better safety structure in place, particularly in terms of safety equipment and safeguarding.

To give an example, as I scout which was great, I was blindfolded and dumped into a wood in a Belgium forrest, and given twenty four hours to get back to camp, which was about thirty miles away, with verylimited resources. It was character building. On an another occasion with the scout troup of twenty, with the leader had to cross Lake Bassenthaite in the Lake District using two canoes, two GP 14's and the rest (14) had to swim, obviously we took in turns to swim. While is was great fun, these days it wouldn't be acceptable, not least in terms of insurance and liability of those leading the activity.

Going on to informed choice, by a parent or guardian, someone on here said he would probably not allow his children children to jump out of a helicopter and dragon ops (his wife definately would not. But in say in relation to air activities it is easier for a pilot to make and informed choise than a non pilot.

The next question should parents be warned of the risk, which would be the case prior to surgery. So by way of example should the parents of cadets flying G115 or Vigiliants be made aware or the risk of prop separation, maintenance issues or midairs and told there have been six fatalities, that is really difficult to answer. I am not sure what the RAF position on this is.

Hughes500
2nd Aug 2017, 16:30
TC

You really have no idea of what goes on, it is not a tin pot show, the organisers are all very professional. They are all ex military/SF guys. All qualified, they take constant refresher courses ( we did one last year with all his instructors, 25 of them, on helicopter ground handling )
At the end of the day the world is full of choices. The aircraft is suitable for the job, the pilot is professional,there are trained paramedics on site, risk assessments done. How do you know the parents weren't asked ?
As to nearest and dearest dying, yup experienced that, one of my son's mates tackled someone in an U14's rugby match, knocked out, died 24 hours later. Did it stop anyone playing at school ? Well parents were informed, everyone was happy for school to continue. Yes very sad and upsetting for everyone. Quite frankly one's child is more likely to be abducted than die in a helicopter crash over a lake while being filmed with BG

2nd Aug 2017, 21:38
Hughes - perhaps you should realise that the label 'military/SF' does not automatically confirm expertise in any field - only an ability to accept higher than 'normal' levels of risk without flinching.

212man
2nd Aug 2017, 22:37
Hughes - perhaps you should realise that the label 'military/SF' does not automatically confirm expertise in any field - only an ability to accept higher than 'normal' levels of risk without flinching. or to be BS and none of the above.....

Hughes500
3rd Aug 2017, 07:54
212
But it does mean they are very professional in what they do. The laugh of all this is that my company has worked for them, but no one seems to believe my opinion they are professional in what they do.

Homsap
3rd Aug 2017, 10:18
As the one who started this thread, essentially questiong and single engine failure in the hover. BG was just a red flag, and anything to do with him will continue to be, sooner or later, someone will die. I have no doubts that the operater and pilots under an AOC operate in a professional way. The CAA approval might be an issue, I say this having worked under an approval from the CAA which fell below a standard that I would work to, including droping of items and persons. you only have to look at CAA air display approvals to know they do not always think things through.

Regarding TC, I think he has made some valid points.

Again Crab has made a valid point regarding Military/SF types Through my career I have come worked with ex military types, and I do not question their professional ability, but the civilian world is very different in terms of risk. Most ex military transition well in the civilian, but not all do, what used to be called the 'wrong stuff' because they do not understand the difference between civil and miltary operations. I have never gone along just because someone is ex military/SF that makes the better in terms of safety. Case in point the airline captain who took his trousers off at security and on a later occassion saw nothing wrong in letter pax on the flightdeeck, then claimed unfair dismissel, he lost his case. While I do not question Special Forces professional ability, even the SAS lost three men in a day through hyperthermia during an exercise in Wales, incredible when you think some of the hot climates they have operated in.

As for BG, banging on about his SAS experience 1994 -1997, I guess that puts him somewhere between the Gulf War in 1991 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003, does this guy actually have any active military experience?

FlimsyFan
3rd Aug 2017, 12:07
Whether you're tossing yourself off

Snigger. I'll get my coat.

pants on fire...
3rd Aug 2017, 18:49
My top survival tip for helicopters in the wild is always to take a two crew machine, that ways there's more to eat if it all goes wrong. Oh, and take the young fat ones, not the old skinny ones - they're tough as old boots... ;)