AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
It's very common in the US to pick up a IFR flight plan beginning at a point in space, if departing from a LZ without a instrument approach. Call the TRACON, get your clearance. They may ask you if you can maintain VFR to the first waypoint if the VFR transition is in controlled airspace and you may need to request special VFR. Picking up a pre-filed IFR flight plan in flight is also common, depending on how busy the sector controller is. I've always found ATC to be be extremely helpful and accommodating. How does this compare in the the UK?
In over fifteen years of corporate RW aviation, I've only ever filed one IFR flight plan prior to flight and that was almost fifteen years ago, simply because the captain decided to try it from a major airport to another minor one. In practice, we never got to fly any of the planned route and were messed about so badly we became concerned about our fuel state.
Crab,
It may shatter your World View but that translated quite easily into Spam....perhaps it might prove difficult for those who are limited to a single "dialect" but that post came across plain as Day.
It may shatter your World View but that translated quite easily into Spam....perhaps it might prove difficult for those who are limited to a single "dialect" but that post came across plain as Day.
Ah, but you've been well trained SAS
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The RFM surely is a result of testing by manufacturer test-pilots?
If there was sufficient commercial pressure from operators saying they wanted to perform IMC hover takeoffs, then they would presumably test the helo under these conditions and approve a profile?
I can only assume that the profile is not there because there has not been the overt demand for it.
If there was sufficient commercial pressure from operators saying they wanted to perform IMC hover takeoffs, then they would presumably test the helo under these conditions and approve a profile?
I can only assume that the profile is not there because there has not been the overt demand for it.
You know what happens when you "assume"!
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.
Non-PCPlod - the Vmini will be mainly due to the inacuracies of thec pitot.static system since very few give IAS below 40 or so kts with any reliability and some airspeed tapes dont have any figures below 30 kts.
Since that speed is required to fly the aircraft accurately (notwithstanding what a good AP is allowed to do using other sensors), it is no surprise that they don't test or certify it in the low speed instrument regime.
It's not that the aircraft can't do it because we all know they can but no-one is going to risk the litigation when someone spears one in flying in cloud at 30 kts by saying it is safe to do so.
Since that speed is required to fly the aircraft accurately (notwithstanding what a good AP is allowed to do using other sensors), it is no surprise that they don't test or certify it in the low speed instrument regime.
It's not that the aircraft can't do it because we all know they can but no-one is going to risk the litigation when someone spears one in flying in cloud at 30 kts by saying it is safe to do so.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shy
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.
Thanks for bringing this CAA Safety Notice up. Overall I must say I think it is a good effort from the CAA, particularly as it is for guidance. As you say too, important that they clearly accept private site IMC departures. Whilst I'm with Crab (and probably you) that 0/0 departures are not a problem given training and a good AFCS, the issues ref Vmini in the RFM are valid and achieving Vmini is a much easier departure technique. One thing I would say ref their criteria for establishing suitable AOM, is the loading of the acft, which was not mentioned. Ultimately it is all about acceleration, and there is a huge difference in a mid weight acft, which may achieve Vmini in 250m, and one at MTOW when well over twice that may be required, with a much lower climb gradient subsequently.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Ban Don Ling
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorspeed, couldn't agree more. The Emmental lines up very quickly with 'it's in my tool bag' ... 'I was shown this once 3 years ago' .... instructors should be explaining this guidance to the pilot to allow him to challenge the customer, negotiate the payload deduction, point out lack of experience, refuse the flight - as they also say they have been brave enough to do, on their posts on this site.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Crab-
If they certify the SAR modes so that you can do a TU from the hover, it has kind of been proven that it is both possible and safe (if you have this phase of the software). Therefore, the Vmini should not be an issue. It kind of seems pointless having a TU mode if you can't use it IMC - e.g. at night over the oggin.
If they certify the SAR modes so that you can do a TU from the hover, it has kind of been proven that it is both possible and safe (if you have this phase of the software). Therefore, the Vmini should not be an issue. It kind of seems pointless having a TU mode if you can't use it IMC - e.g. at night over the oggin.
The SAR modes will use other sensors (GPS, accelerometers, inertial nav, even doppler) to give the speed which is why they are allowed to control TU/TD at low speed.
If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.
If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by [email protected]
The SAR modes will use other sensors (GPS, accelerometers, inertial nav, even doppler) to give the speed which is why they are allowed to control TU/TD at low speed.
If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.
If the aircraft had a low speed display (LVI or groundspeed on the PFD/ND) then it could be used by the pilot for low speed IF but whether such 'extras' would be specified during the certification process I don't know.
139s all display groundspeed, and provide a "hover display" as an HSI option, to show low speed vector (both direction and speed)
Yes, perhaps it should be 'Vmini when hand flown' or similar - it's all a bit of a nonsense.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am an average SARpilot (currently flying with AW139) and doing my best to follow your discussion. Just curious: how would You describe a SAFE 0/0 takeoff with coupled modes? Any suggestions?
No knowledge of the 139, but I assume there is Force Trim, Heading Hold, Attitude Hold, and the ability to Trim the Attitude Datum while the Pilot can control power setting via the Collective position?
Last edited by SASless; 22nd Mar 2017 at 17:11.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: on the cusp
Age: 52
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Yes, perhaps it should be 'Vmini when hand flown' or similar - it's all a bit of a nonsense.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: LOS
Age: 67
Posts: 580
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Somewhere by the Baltic Sea
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was just wondering if there is a procedure (published or not) which guarantees either safe landing or flyaway during 0/0 takeoff?
Is there a guarantee for such for any takeoff if one includes all contingencies?
Aviation is based upon accepting reasonable risks is it not?
Consider the 225 situation extant!
Aviation is based upon accepting reasonable risks is it not?
Consider the 225 situation extant!