Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you think the FAA would need/want to issue specific approval for this operation?
as to "outside the box" and "innovative" thinking...blah blah blah. this may be exciting stuff to watch, but no way it's productive, nor economic. it's also an accident waiting to happen.
helos certainly have played important roles with other innovative ideas (longlines, crops, EMS, SAR, firefighting, etc), but those are far different than this. "because i can" shouldn't always be confused with innovation.
call me a Fool, but i take great pride in my 3500+ hours, accident free. and as a flight test pilot, i find it amusing to be called a Fool in an profession in which take great pride...improving safety.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 10 years ago they blew up the old Canberra hospital amoung much hype. The explosion went wrong and a young girl, watching on the other side of Lake Burley Griffen was killed, and many other people were injured by flying shrapnel. I think that in this situation the use of the helo was a great idea. As for not being productive, well the chimneys demolished isn't it? As for not being economic, well I assume the company got paid and surely the client went with the cheapest and easiest option (they always do). As for being "unsafe", for my money, much safer that blowing it up in a populated area and the pilot looked like he was doing a very delicate job taking small chunks at a time so what's the problem? Job done, client happy, work for the helo, should be more of it!
i think this is an idiotic use of a helicopter...and no doubt the FAA approved the operation (I'll assume N-registry for argument's sake!).
yet one can depart from a VFR airfield under 0-0. Go figure...
yet one can depart from a VFR airfield under 0-0. Go figure...
You state the operation was approved by the FAA thus I assume you mean it was "legal".
You assume it was an N-registered aircraft....but do not know that to be the case.
Some pretty weak logic for your building your argument there Chief!
Now as to departing an airfield VFR in Zero/Zero conditions....just how do you do that?
It would seem VFR would require the airfield to have 1000 feet Ceiling and 3 Statute Miles Visiblilty in order to be VFR.
Even SVFR requires sufficient visibility to see and avoid obstacles and remain clear of cloud....thus not even Zero/Zero for that can exist.
Not very empirical approach to your test flying.....and now I suspect who tutored our dear friend and colleague who figures Vy is about one half Vne.
Quote:
Fred Dibnah is rotating in his grave
That would be autorotating, I take it?
Fred Dibnah is rotating in his grave
That would be autorotating, I take it?
For those of you who don't know, How To Bring Down a Chimney: The Fred Dibnah Way
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somerset
Age: 81
Posts: 635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless - you are so right! Luteski is the sort of chap who I would not want around when things get exciting. Chucking in 3500 hours, no accidents blah lah blah blah says it all...................
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: England
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MightyGem,
Thanks for posting vid, I for one didnt know who people we're going on about. Can't believe how close they all stand! Did'nt seem that long ago looking at vid, we're Health & Safety nuts on holiday that day?
Suprised the tree huggers were not out in force there either!
Can't see the helicopter recking ball being any more dangerours than that.... like someone else said, it's being knocked down in bits, now Mr Fred Dibnah obviously knows what he's doing but his comment..... " well at least it fell the right way... ya knoooow" LOL, what if it didnt.....
Thanks for posting vid, I for one didnt know who people we're going on about. Can't believe how close they all stand! Did'nt seem that long ago looking at vid, we're Health & Safety nuts on holiday that day?
Suprised the tree huggers were not out in force there either!
Can't see the helicopter recking ball being any more dangerours than that.... like someone else said, it's being knocked down in bits, now Mr Fred Dibnah obviously knows what he's doing but his comment..... " well at least it fell the right way... ya knoooow" LOL, what if it didnt.....
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Variable
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing wrong with the wrecking ball operation, it was done slowly and deliberately, what exactly is unsafe and how is it supposed to be harming the helicopter? For those who don't like it, do a search for some videos on logging or slinging Christmas trees for a comparison.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAS:
What I assumed is IF the aircraft were N-registered, then the operation had to be approved by the FAA. You're right: I have no clue where it is registered. But the point is that some Authority had to approve it...and therefore it is "legal." But legal and silly and two different things. This operation is silly, in my opinion.
Simple: you file an IFR flight plan, and get a clearance, and away you go. Then you hope that you don't have a problem, like an engine failure on departure... This is an "innovative" way to fly, but not a smart one.
Note that I said "departing a VFR field" (meaning no instrument approaches)... I did not say "departing a field under VFR." My point here is that we have silly ops rules.
I take no issue with the other operations you cite...they are meaningful, productive, economically viable.
Empirical? My test flying is by the book, as was my time in the military. Not sure why you would belittle that. "Superior pilots are those who use superior judgement, so that don't have to rely on superior skills"...I'd like to believe there's a good reason why I have a good flying record.
Sorry for stating an opinion. I thought "professional" in PRUNE meant something. Guess I'll just lurk.
What I assumed is IF the aircraft were N-registered, then the operation had to be approved by the FAA. You're right: I have no clue where it is registered. But the point is that some Authority had to approve it...and therefore it is "legal." But legal and silly and two different things. This operation is silly, in my opinion.
Now as to departing an airfield VFR in Zero/Zero conditions....just how do you do that?
Note that I said "departing a VFR field" (meaning no instrument approaches)... I did not say "departing a field under VFR." My point here is that we have silly ops rules.
I take no issue with the other operations you cite...they are meaningful, productive, economically viable.
Not very empirical approach to your test flying.....and now I suspect who tutored our dear friend and colleague who figures Vy is about one half Vne.
Sorry for stating an opinion. I thought "professional" in PRUNE meant something. Guess I'll just lurk.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: USA (PA)
Age: 47
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My 2 cents:
If there are, let's say sensitive instruments in a building near by (not too far fetched on a campus?) preventing the demolition with explosives; then assuming just no room for heavy equipment to maneuver (crane) and the fire destruction (never seen it before - thanks for the vid) is not suitable either... it seems that the helicopter is/was the only way!?
Added in the cost of explosives and the man hours to pack 'em, plus to safeguard all the buildings (and the assumptive instruments), it appears to be even a economical way to take the chimney out. So why not!?
Lute: just take it easy man, all that rumble about pride and such, only to prove what?
BTW: I was less impressed by guys with more hours than you have - again, it proves nothing (not even that you are a good pilot - which I'm sure you are)!
If there are, let's say sensitive instruments in a building near by (not too far fetched on a campus?) preventing the demolition with explosives; then assuming just no room for heavy equipment to maneuver (crane) and the fire destruction (never seen it before - thanks for the vid) is not suitable either... it seems that the helicopter is/was the only way!?
Added in the cost of explosives and the man hours to pack 'em, plus to safeguard all the buildings (and the assumptive instruments), it appears to be even a economical way to take the chimney out. So why not!?
Lute: just take it easy man, all that rumble about pride and such, only to prove what?
BTW: I was less impressed by guys with more hours than you have - again, it proves nothing (not even that you are a good pilot - which I'm sure you are)!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Canada
Age: 41
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think lute is talking about something he doesnt understand. Military background, and now he's a "test pilot". I'd be surprised if hes ever flown with a longline on in his life. Some people don't understand the utility world of flying becuase they are so far removed from it.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: use
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball
The hook mounted in the belly of the helicopter has a 360 degree continous swival connection, so the ball and cable can twist and turn as much as it wants to
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: use
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball
Helicopter-mounted wrecking ball
The Kmax helicopter is capable of lifting about 6000 lbs. The owner of the Kmax on this job is a seasoned helicopter contractor who has done jobs all over the world, and the lead mechanic, a friend of mine, is a well trained Kmax mechanic. There was no chance of damaging the helicopter, and as you can see in the video, they did removed small sections of the chimney from the top down. Paret of the reason for using the helicopter was noise reduction (as opposed to an explosion), dust reduction, and no shock wave like you get from an explosion which may have damaged nearby stuctures.
The Kmax helicopter is capable of lifting about 6000 lbs. The owner of the Kmax on this job is a seasoned helicopter contractor who has done jobs all over the world, and the lead mechanic, a friend of mine, is a well trained Kmax mechanic. There was no chance of damaging the helicopter, and as you can see in the video, they did removed small sections of the chimney from the top down. Paret of the reason for using the helicopter was noise reduction (as opposed to an explosion), dust reduction, and no shock wave like you get from an explosion which may have damaged nearby stuctures.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russ1
The owner of that helicopter was not the person flying it.
The guy flying was leasing it.
The machine was overTq several times on that job and and had to have blades x rayed and Transmission inspected after that job
The pilot on that job would appear to have no operational respect for limits.
expensive for the owner as the pilot walked away from it, top notch outfit.
The owner of that helicopter was not the person flying it.
The guy flying was leasing it.
The machine was overTq several times on that job and and had to have blades x rayed and Transmission inspected after that job
The pilot on that job would appear to have no operational respect for limits.
expensive for the owner as the pilot walked away from it, top notch outfit.
See this one please:
Recently we have proposed the same on one heavy stone avalanche problem over approx 900 m long road section. Using Ka32A11BC
Unfortunately "wise" heads are considerng still after 3 months, what to do
and one of brave solution is dig out 200 m of new tunel,
in real remains 700 m of road still exposed to same problem.
Recently we have proposed the same on one heavy stone avalanche problem over approx 900 m long road section. Using Ka32A11BC
Unfortunately "wise" heads are considerng still after 3 months, what to do
and one of brave solution is dig out 200 m of new tunel,
in real remains 700 m of road still exposed to same problem.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: use
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My mistake then
That means I misunderstood my Kmax mechanic friend. I know him and I know the company that owns the helicopter, but I don't know who the pilot was. And you may be right that the company/owner leased the kmax out to a third party that actually had the contract to down the chimney.
But still, the Kmax was in no danger of damage on this job as long as the helicopoter is handled properly and the process of knocking down the chimney was done correctly.
But still, the Kmax was in no danger of damage on this job as long as the helicopoter is handled properly and the process of knocking down the chimney was done correctly.
Avalanche!
Don't know if this has been posted before, but here's a vid of a very interesting task:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56c_1401410154
Looks like it's LN-OBX, mentioned in the London lifting job thread.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=56c_1401410154
Looks like it's LN-OBX, mentioned in the London lifting job thread.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I misunderstood? Has the K-max marketing altered?
All I have read , so far on it, has stated the K-max remains the property of the manufacturer and is leased to the operator.
All I have read , so far on it, has stated the K-max remains the property of the manufacturer and is leased to the operator.
