EC120
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: topspot
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys sorry to Hijack the 120 thread but bare with me as I close the loop on some key issues with regards to NVD.
Eagle 86-Well put and very succint.
HF-Greg, don't recall you ever serving/working in Switzerland.
Wocka-Mate your a champ and the content of your post shows a very good understanding of what is around the corner.
Guys-The reason why I am big on 2 engs, 2 pilots, SAS/AP , a TSO 129 compliant GPS and a CIR is for the big "S"-SAFETY. I know this will ultimately cost some more $$$$ in the wash up, but what price do you place on safety?
Consider being single pilot with a goggle failure below LSALT and being instrument un-current or without a CIR in an ACFT like a 206 or B2 Squizza. If you planned for the event and maintained lotsa SA, and kept the IF skills up to date, then you might stand a good chance but recall when most of these missions occur (2 am, Cows Guts night, PIC tired and thinking about something else).
The EMS guys are on the right track with multi eng multi crew and good ACFT systems, good SOPs and TRG. Another set of trained eyes wearing the green toilet rolls is gold when it comes to goggle failure or some other emerg that distracts the pilot below LSALT at night.
What is of concern to me and others in the industry is the mind set of, Buy the stuff off the shelf, do a quick down and dirty NVG cse, launch in your 206 by yourself on a flight note at 2 am and hope for the best-Not a professional approach or worlds best practice.
NVD 's are around the corner no doubt about it, but as we all know NVD's DON'T turn night into day and we should crawl before we walk.
I'm all for the change and technology but lets make sure we have answered ALL the questions prior to approaching the regulator with our wish list.
Most humbly.
Give It Some!!!
Eagle 86-Well put and very succint.
HF-Greg, don't recall you ever serving/working in Switzerland.
Wocka-Mate your a champ and the content of your post shows a very good understanding of what is around the corner.
Guys-The reason why I am big on 2 engs, 2 pilots, SAS/AP , a TSO 129 compliant GPS and a CIR is for the big "S"-SAFETY. I know this will ultimately cost some more $$$$ in the wash up, but what price do you place on safety?
Consider being single pilot with a goggle failure below LSALT and being instrument un-current or without a CIR in an ACFT like a 206 or B2 Squizza. If you planned for the event and maintained lotsa SA, and kept the IF skills up to date, then you might stand a good chance but recall when most of these missions occur (2 am, Cows Guts night, PIC tired and thinking about something else).
The EMS guys are on the right track with multi eng multi crew and good ACFT systems, good SOPs and TRG. Another set of trained eyes wearing the green toilet rolls is gold when it comes to goggle failure or some other emerg that distracts the pilot below LSALT at night.
What is of concern to me and others in the industry is the mind set of, Buy the stuff off the shelf, do a quick down and dirty NVG cse, launch in your 206 by yourself on a flight note at 2 am and hope for the best-Not a professional approach or worlds best practice.
NVD 's are around the corner no doubt about it, but as we all know NVD's DON'T turn night into day and we should crawl before we walk.
I'm all for the change and technology but lets make sure we have answered ALL the questions prior to approaching the regulator with our wish list.
Most humbly.
Give It Some!!!
GIS,
I have never worked/served in Switzerland (as you know) and wonder what on earth bought that irrelevance out? And you probably also know that I am big on 2 donks, autopilots, gps, crewman, etc. So we can leave that bit out too.
Onto your scenario the dreaded goggle failure, I will use the proposed and or current Oz CMI to guide us through this, and I will go back through the weather requirements. There you are in your 206 single pilot on gogs. Firstly, I should add, you can do it right now, single pilot NVFR with no gogs.
Tonight you are on gogs, your cruise height will be NB 500 ft (Eagle86, see current CMI and CAR 157). Your weather minima will be NVFR, ie enroute will be 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at 500, and with alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination. If you are going to "a black hole" then your minimum area forecast must be ceiling of 1500 and viz of 8000m. Alternates must be made with respect to lighting, regardless of nitesun carriage.
If you really want to do the "black hole" then you are going to a non permanent or non lit helipad in which case the FAA, NZ and proposed Oz regs will require a second NVG equipped crewperson. The current CMI requires that second person in the front for ALL ops.
Now you suffer the NVG failure: firstly note that mean time between failure MTBF is around 10,000 hours. Better than nitesun, etc. Second, you have two tubes. Third you have an alternate power source. Fourth you can use the spare set of the other crewman's to divert back to base/alternate as a single pilot (though I would leave this option to autopilot equipped acft because changing and refocussing gogs in an unstabilised single pilot acft is just not cricket). Lastly, if all those fail you, revert to NVFR again especially considering you have had to adhere to NVFR rules for weather and equipment in the first place. After reverting to NVFR, simply continue the mission in the old fashioned blind way! That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair: someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!
Lets say, for your arguement's sake, that the 10,000 hour failure moment does happen during the 0.2% of the flying you do on approach to a black hole. You will have a NVG visible crewman to talk you away from obstcles if you elect to go around, or you degoggle (pilot only) and use the white searchlight that you were already using to finish the approach (Omnibus IV gogs cope well with white light). The difference between this and the nitesun failing on finals is subtle (what is the single globe, single power source nitesun MTBF?) . The NVG crew has a crewman still NVG visible with all obstacles and can call them, the unaided crew will only have that luxury with a hand held or third spotlight if you continue to the approach. Choosing the go around option, only the pilot will have a light in front and obstcles visible if he is quick enough to position that light, but he will be flying off into the unknown black. The NVG pilot will be flying off into the black too, but with a good mental model of where the obstacles are, which path to avoid them, and a crewman who can still see. I conceed that the NVG pilot may have an ill defined and unresearched likelyhood of transition difficulty from aided to unaided, but that's about it.
As for the fear of someone doing the down and dirty NVG course and launching into the gloop in their 206, why must we hamstring all other operators because of the "fear" of a renegade? We are never going to stop them, and we haven't during the day, night, or IFR. Why should NVG suddenly be so protected that we stop the significant safety benefits to 95% of the industry out of fear of 5%?
I will say it again, there will be a CFIT on or with NVG. But there will be tens of accidents averted in the meantime. As you say GIS, what price do you put on safety?
I have never worked/served in Switzerland (as you know) and wonder what on earth bought that irrelevance out? And you probably also know that I am big on 2 donks, autopilots, gps, crewman, etc. So we can leave that bit out too.
Onto your scenario the dreaded goggle failure, I will use the proposed and or current Oz CMI to guide us through this, and I will go back through the weather requirements. There you are in your 206 single pilot on gogs. Firstly, I should add, you can do it right now, single pilot NVFR with no gogs.
Tonight you are on gogs, your cruise height will be NB 500 ft (Eagle86, see current CMI and CAR 157). Your weather minima will be NVFR, ie enroute will be 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at 500, and with alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination. If you are going to "a black hole" then your minimum area forecast must be ceiling of 1500 and viz of 8000m. Alternates must be made with respect to lighting, regardless of nitesun carriage.
If you really want to do the "black hole" then you are going to a non permanent or non lit helipad in which case the FAA, NZ and proposed Oz regs will require a second NVG equipped crewperson. The current CMI requires that second person in the front for ALL ops.
Now you suffer the NVG failure: firstly note that mean time between failure MTBF is around 10,000 hours. Better than nitesun, etc. Second, you have two tubes. Third you have an alternate power source. Fourth you can use the spare set of the other crewman's to divert back to base/alternate as a single pilot (though I would leave this option to autopilot equipped acft because changing and refocussing gogs in an unstabilised single pilot acft is just not cricket). Lastly, if all those fail you, revert to NVFR again especially considering you have had to adhere to NVFR rules for weather and equipment in the first place. After reverting to NVFR, simply continue the mission in the old fashioned blind way! That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair: someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!
Lets say, for your arguement's sake, that the 10,000 hour failure moment does happen during the 0.2% of the flying you do on approach to a black hole. You will have a NVG visible crewman to talk you away from obstcles if you elect to go around, or you degoggle (pilot only) and use the white searchlight that you were already using to finish the approach (Omnibus IV gogs cope well with white light). The difference between this and the nitesun failing on finals is subtle (what is the single globe, single power source nitesun MTBF?) . The NVG crew has a crewman still NVG visible with all obstacles and can call them, the unaided crew will only have that luxury with a hand held or third spotlight if you continue to the approach. Choosing the go around option, only the pilot will have a light in front and obstcles visible if he is quick enough to position that light, but he will be flying off into the unknown black. The NVG pilot will be flying off into the black too, but with a good mental model of where the obstacles are, which path to avoid them, and a crewman who can still see. I conceed that the NVG pilot may have an ill defined and unresearched likelyhood of transition difficulty from aided to unaided, but that's about it.
As for the fear of someone doing the down and dirty NVG course and launching into the gloop in their 206, why must we hamstring all other operators because of the "fear" of a renegade? We are never going to stop them, and we haven't during the day, night, or IFR. Why should NVG suddenly be so protected that we stop the significant safety benefits to 95% of the industry out of fear of 5%?
I will say it again, there will be a CFIT on or with NVG. But there will be tens of accidents averted in the meantime. As you say GIS, what price do you put on safety?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well put HF although regarding CMI i still say softly, softly. I also believe, like Oz firearm laws, you should be required to show a "genuine reason" to possess nvg ie only Government/NGO should be authorised for use - if it becomes open slather then the "use" of nvg may well increase the night accident rate.
gags e86
gags e86
Fair enough e86. One thing on your well founded fear here though, the current NVG technology transfer restrictions from the USA are such that ONLY govt departments are expected to have access to it. Hopefully that will provide a bit of operating experience in Oz with which to better decide if NVG should be expanded to all ops, or restricted to EMS Law. Hope that meets your softly softly consideration.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: topspot
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys please excuse the discussion imbedded in the 120 thread. If we are to continue the NVG discussion, I move to start a thread on its own titled.
NVG's and NVFR-Your Say.
HF, E 86 and Wock............
My 2 cents......
Alternates-WX Minimas (NVFR, ie enroute 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at CRZevel, alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination).-Good stuff sounds robust and achievable and reflects current legislation.
Lighting-Also well covered by current legislation and regs. Again good stuff no discussion required.
NVD failure Below LSALT-If the CMI specifies two pilots in the front both aided and rear seaters as well then this changes significantly the nature of this emerg as it won't be a single pilot op-Again robust and very safe well thought out.
Technology-MTBF-Data is based on equipment being stored in a climate controlled sanatised environment, poor storage and poor servicing schedules will potentially cause equipment to fail earlier than spec. Could the storage and servicings/care of equipment be guaranteed in a GA environment when this will cost extra $$$$ and more infrastructure ( as well as security of the equipment). In a Govt Contract/EMS environment the $$$$ would probably be forth comming however this would have to be a requirement of the inclusion of the capability.
If the flying pilot (FP) had a single tube failure while conducting flight close to the ground (hover, hoist, rapel etc) then continuing to fly or recover ACFT would be difficult and require significant TRG. Try driving your car on the road with one eye closed, or flying an ACFT by day with one eye closed close to obstacles and try to judge closure rates , depth perception and height cues accurately. If you are already a jet at this please let me in on the secret. Again if both pilots in the front are on the tubes no problem as you simply call out "Goggle Failure, handing over" over the ICS hand over and become the NFP (Non Flying Pilot).
TRG-This is probably the most significant issue amongst all the items we have discussed. There is a high correlation between being a good NVG pilot and having good IF skills, ie If you are well skilled at IF you will most likely be good at NVG also. Since the discussions we have had focus on NVG assisting or replacing NVFR we need to make sure that users have the appropriate level of TRG. What would be undesirable would be to see a guy with a bare bones NVFR rating being also endorsed to use NVG.
As you know NVG is all about looking under the goggles unaided at power, attitude and perf gauges and then out to infinity through the goggles to see that what you saw inside matches up with the picture outside (plus the terrain, signicant obstacles, wires etc). HUD will obviously limit the head down time but this is a discussion for another time. Being good at interogating instruments only comes with practice, TRG and the requisite rating (CIR would be desireable). This may be regulated such that to conduct NVG ops you will require a CIR, however GA is all about $$$, especially saving $$$, so there may be pressure to skimp if not properly legislated.
Mate- I totally agree with you when you say "That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair, someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!"-Spot On.
NVG is around the corner and will definately enhance SA, mission succes and safety. I am in your court when it comes to this issue. NVFR has had its day and we need to re-think how to do business, but at the same time we need to cover as many of the bases so the regulator doesn't renig and take the capability away at the first sign of trouble. As for the renegade 5%, I think we all understand the "Darwin Awards" and well you just can't legislate against stupid c- - ts.
Down and dirty NVG courses are of concern as a robust NVG culture and system will require quality TRG. This quality TRG costs $$$$ and no one wants to spend it if they don't have to. Again a dilgent response to TRG is required to coverall aspects of operating with NVG.
The ultimate aim of all flying ops is safe and efficient operations. The big "S" SAFETY must come first. All of us are only as good as our TRG and experience.
Again IMHO
Give It Some
NVG's and NVFR-Your Say.
HF, E 86 and Wock............
My 2 cents......
Alternates-WX Minimas (NVFR, ie enroute 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at CRZevel, alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination).-Good stuff sounds robust and achievable and reflects current legislation.
Lighting-Also well covered by current legislation and regs. Again good stuff no discussion required.
NVD failure Below LSALT-If the CMI specifies two pilots in the front both aided and rear seaters as well then this changes significantly the nature of this emerg as it won't be a single pilot op-Again robust and very safe well thought out.
Technology-MTBF-Data is based on equipment being stored in a climate controlled sanatised environment, poor storage and poor servicing schedules will potentially cause equipment to fail earlier than spec. Could the storage and servicings/care of equipment be guaranteed in a GA environment when this will cost extra $$$$ and more infrastructure ( as well as security of the equipment). In a Govt Contract/EMS environment the $$$$ would probably be forth comming however this would have to be a requirement of the inclusion of the capability.
If the flying pilot (FP) had a single tube failure while conducting flight close to the ground (hover, hoist, rapel etc) then continuing to fly or recover ACFT would be difficult and require significant TRG. Try driving your car on the road with one eye closed, or flying an ACFT by day with one eye closed close to obstacles and try to judge closure rates , depth perception and height cues accurately. If you are already a jet at this please let me in on the secret. Again if both pilots in the front are on the tubes no problem as you simply call out "Goggle Failure, handing over" over the ICS hand over and become the NFP (Non Flying Pilot).
TRG-This is probably the most significant issue amongst all the items we have discussed. There is a high correlation between being a good NVG pilot and having good IF skills, ie If you are well skilled at IF you will most likely be good at NVG also. Since the discussions we have had focus on NVG assisting or replacing NVFR we need to make sure that users have the appropriate level of TRG. What would be undesirable would be to see a guy with a bare bones NVFR rating being also endorsed to use NVG.
As you know NVG is all about looking under the goggles unaided at power, attitude and perf gauges and then out to infinity through the goggles to see that what you saw inside matches up with the picture outside (plus the terrain, signicant obstacles, wires etc). HUD will obviously limit the head down time but this is a discussion for another time. Being good at interogating instruments only comes with practice, TRG and the requisite rating (CIR would be desireable). This may be regulated such that to conduct NVG ops you will require a CIR, however GA is all about $$$, especially saving $$$, so there may be pressure to skimp if not properly legislated.
Mate- I totally agree with you when you say "That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair, someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!"-Spot On.
NVG is around the corner and will definately enhance SA, mission succes and safety. I am in your court when it comes to this issue. NVFR has had its day and we need to re-think how to do business, but at the same time we need to cover as many of the bases so the regulator doesn't renig and take the capability away at the first sign of trouble. As for the renegade 5%, I think we all understand the "Darwin Awards" and well you just can't legislate against stupid c- - ts.
Down and dirty NVG courses are of concern as a robust NVG culture and system will require quality TRG. This quality TRG costs $$$$ and no one wants to spend it if they don't have to. Again a dilgent response to TRG is required to coverall aspects of operating with NVG.
The ultimate aim of all flying ops is safe and efficient operations. The big "S" SAFETY must come first. All of us are only as good as our TRG and experience.
Again IMHO
Give It Some
Well said mate.
The point I made about the CIR and IF training is that NVFR requires it more than NVG, so lets lobby to fix the problem there, lets not burden a safer technology with the training bill.
The point I made about the CIR and IF training is that NVFR requires it more than NVG, so lets lobby to fix the problem there, lets not burden a safer technology with the training bill.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: canada
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oring kit for the 120
just wondering if anyone has made a list up yet??of the commonly used ones.I see there is a new one needed on the fuel filter because of the service bulletin..So we had to order those up
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
brushes
Otter712
We had a set of brushes replaced at 340 hrs and then again at the scheduled 500hr maintenance.
The starter refused to turn over out in the field on one occasion, got around the problem by sticking fingers in the intake of the starter/gen and rotating by hand about half a turn (obviously with the electrics off!). Hit the start button and we were up and running and off to maintenance . Hope this helps
We had a set of brushes replaced at 340 hrs and then again at the scheduled 500hr maintenance.
The starter refused to turn over out in the field on one occasion, got around the problem by sticking fingers in the intake of the starter/gen and rotating by hand about half a turn (obviously with the electrics off!). Hit the start button and we were up and running and off to maintenance . Hope this helps
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low Battery on EC120
moosp
We had our battery drain down on us several times, even while leaving the GEN switch on, since then always disconnected battery for anything longer than a day. Complained to EC a few times, and then were told that a battery disconnect kit was being made available. Noticed that a local police EC120 delivered after ours had the battery diconnect switch kit installed up by the panel... believe it cost about $5k US.
We had our battery drain down on us several times, even while leaving the GEN switch on, since then always disconnected battery for anything longer than a day. Complained to EC a few times, and then were told that a battery disconnect kit was being made available. Noticed that a local police EC120 delivered after ours had the battery diconnect switch kit installed up by the panel... believe it cost about $5k US.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ec120 accident
http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/4729714/detail.html#
The 120 does not have Flight data recorder are they referring to the VEMD ? , how much does it save in non volatile memory ?
The 120 does not have Flight data recorder are they referring to the VEMD ? , how much does it save in non volatile memory ?
Gatvol
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: KLAS/TIST/FAJS/KFAI
Posts: 4,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As that part of the world is my old stomping grounds I was interested in the accident. Didnt know the guys but that does not make it any easier. I also understand its not the first EC-120 to have similar problems.
Whats ironic is the fact that I have heard from some who have seen factory demos of some serious training autorotations done by factory pilots, that the aircraft is normally quite survivable during engine out operations from a variety of speeds and altitudes. Would like to know more why this ended in such a tragedy.
Whats ironic is the fact that I have heard from some who have seen factory demos of some serious training autorotations done by factory pilots, that the aircraft is normally quite survivable during engine out operations from a variety of speeds and altitudes. Would like to know more why this ended in such a tragedy.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Early reports are that the free turbine wheel came apart in flight and most of it went out the tail pipe. The crew entered autorotation and it appears completed the auto to a hillside. It looks as if all survived the auto. Unfortunately the hillside was steep and they slid/ rolled down to a very steep cliff (looks like 100 feet or so) and then rolled down the cliff and came to rest at the bottom. It appears two of the crew were killed in the fall from the cliff and not the auto. The rear passenger survived and is still critical.
Link
Our prayers are with the families and crew members.
Link
Our prayers are with the families and crew members.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern Africa
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC120 engine chip light
Can anyone give me some advice?
We've had an ongoing problem with the engine chip light on one of our EC120's. When you pull the plug (on the module one) there are some times very fine chips, but other times it's only carbon.
The guys from Turbomecca said that the 120 plugs are "over" sensitive and they are actually trying to replace them.
Maybe some other 120 drivers have experience with the same set of problems and can give some pointers.
Regards and safe flying.
We've had an ongoing problem with the engine chip light on one of our EC120's. When you pull the plug (on the module one) there are some times very fine chips, but other times it's only carbon.
The guys from Turbomecca said that the 120 plugs are "over" sensitive and they are actually trying to replace them.
Maybe some other 120 drivers have experience with the same set of problems and can give some pointers.
Regards and safe flying.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Europe
Age: 46
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly the 120 and we have had the same problem. Lots of chip lights, both ENG and X-MSN and when we pull them out we usually find very small shavings or nothing at all. It still gets my blod pumping though, flying around and all of a sudden that light comes on. I fly over water and I find that a little less comfy than beeing over dry land when it comes on. Anyway...it seems to be a pretty common problem withthe 120.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Southern California
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We operate 3 120's with our highest time ship having around 4,500 hours on it. We rarely have chip lights. Usually after an engine overhaul we will get a couple for about the first week and then none untill the next overhaul. It is very common to get them right after the engine has been reworked. When we do get them they are very small "hairs" and are not a problem.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EC120 vs B206
Interested to compare the direct operating costs of an EC120 vs B206? Would it be true to say that the B206 has a DOC of about £200-£250/hr?
Also interested to hear what pilots think of both helicopters? I've heard that the EC120 has a lack of power?
Also interested to hear what pilots think of both helicopters? I've heard that the EC120 has a lack of power?