PPRuNe Forums


Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Jun 2006, 11:11   #101 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: aberdeen
Age: 47
Posts: 3
Proactive & preventive

Brain Abraham and Speedbird, I agree with you all. I belive you read the report in full - A great Salute to you.

SIIS, the report was written by the CAD, be open mind and stop focusing on personal stuff.

Be proactive for god's sake. What did the top men do to prevent this accident before it was happend. The god dmn.. accident will repeat itself.
maxitorque2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Jun 2006, 13:06   #102 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: South of 60
Age: 53
Posts: 219
SayItIsntSo

"1. From the GFS base to Cheung Chau is effectively just down the road…it is a case of out through the pass a touch left and it is straight ahead…there was not a hell of a lot more that they needed to do, and I am sure that this route had been done by this pilot many times before."

Actually, there WAS a hell of a lot more this poor crew needed to do that night, namely, stop dwelling on this ridiculous performance pledge that was obviously foremost in their minds.

What they WEREN'T doing, unfortunately, was looking right at Tung Chung Pass and seeing it for what it was, which was totally obscured in cloud. They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.

You state you are sure this pilot had flown this route many times before. You're probably quite right in that assessment. So why then, on that night and in what were very obvious poor weather conditions, did the pilot elect to press on? What pressure was he feeling or subjected to that would literally drive him and a fellow crewman to their deaths???

I'm not trying to make light of this, rather, understand why the accident report really did nothing to address, in any amount of detail, the organisational aspect relating to this accident. If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope.

JW

Last edited by Joker's Wild; 14th Jun 2006 at 13:42.
Joker's Wild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Jun 2006, 04:28   #103 (permalink)

 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: In a glass house
Posts: 64
Joker’s Wild,

“If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope”

Agreed…and perhaps it was this tidying up that took so long and why the report was not submitted in its original format.

“They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.”

I am not so sure that this is the case. Why would a fully qualified and experience crew choose the impossible if it was an “obvious visual reality”.

The alternative route to the destination when flown at 140 kts can’t be more than 3 or 4 minutes longer.

I can’t help feel that too much weight is being allocated to ‘the pledge’. As with many ‘pledges’ by Government Agencies they are targets, but not something to die for.

Was it a mistake to choose that route? Absolutely, self evident.

Was it the first mistake made by a GFS aircraft in this and its previous incarnation the RHKAAF when conducting a Medevac? No.

Will it be the last? No. All they can do is increase the time interval to the next incident.

The political implication of restricting their current level of support to the various Government Agencies would be unacceptable given their large budget and manpower levels.
SayItIsntSo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jul 2006, 11:11   #104 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 46
Posts: 2
The Managment is to responsible to the accident - not the pilot

Quote:
Originally Posted by SayItIsntSo
Joker’s Wild,

“If you ask me, the accident report is just a little too tidy and confined in its scope”

Agreed…and perhaps it was this tidying up that took so long and why the report was not submitted in its original format.

“They had no business even considering attempting to navigate that pass that night and yet in spite of the obvious visual reality they faced, still elected to press on.”

I am not so sure that this is the case. Why would a fully qualified and experience crew choose the impossible if it was an “obvious visual reality”.

The alternative route to the destination when flown at 140 kts can’t be more than 3 or 4 minutes longer.

I can’t help feel that too much weight is being allocated to ‘the pledge’. As with many ‘pledges’ by Government Agencies they are targets, but not something to die for.

Was it a mistake to choose that route? Absolutely, self evident.

Was it the first mistake made by a GFS aircraft in this and its previous incarnation the RHKAAF when conducting a Medevac? No.

Will it be the last? No. All they can do is increase the time interval to the next incident.

The political implication of restricting their current level of support to the various Government Agencies would be unacceptable given their large budget and manpower levels.
Guys, please open your eyes on the Earth. Senior managments are responsible to the major accidents, not the poor chap in the front line.

If I were one of the senior guys, I would have resigned and donated all my grauity to the families of the poor scrape goat and the back sitter for inability managment, poor employee filtration, training, quality control and no preventive actions - which sadly caused two fatals.

Why given of this level of budget and power, the GFS cannot turn down some absurd call outs especially during the bad weather.

Why the accident report only pointing the finger to the poor front seat chap. Why in the accident report the managment is unbelievably "Clean" ? Should the CAD also share her part of fail to monitor GFS sucessfully.
Trial Marcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Jul 2006, 12:46   #105 (permalink)

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 10,709
It could be said that the management should shoulder some of the blame. However, it should be remembered that the response time pledge had been put in place some years previously. It was introduced as a measure of the effectiveness of the unit. The possible implication of such a pledge was discussed at the time, however the management always stood firmly behind the decisions of a captain who elected not to meet the target - and therein lay the safeguard. Hopefully this will now be reviewed - it's tragic that it apparently played a part in an accident of the worst kind.

As for the so-called "VFR" route to CLK - it cannot ever be sensible to put a VFR route over the highest ground in the area. However, as far as I can tell, this was not primarily a GFS management issue, the routes were "given" to the unit as a 'fait accomplis', prior to the opening of the new airport.

However, the pilot could have taken another route around Lantau. No-one forced him to attempt to go over the top of the hill and no-one could have criticised him had he tried the route, made a controlled abort / turnaround and either returned to base or asked ATC for another route.

Harsh as it may seem (I know how sensitive an issue this is) but correct and safe judgement was perhaps clouded (no pun intended) by other issues at many levels. Every pilot faces such difficulties from time to time and usually it is easier to say yes and get on with it - knowing when to say "no" is the difficult part. The one thing I try to remember is self preservation - whatever else happens, the pilot is always in the crash.
ShyTorque is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 6th Feb 2007, 07:54   #106 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 2
Question EC155 Problems

We are currently looking at an EC155.

Has anyone got some real operating experience of this aircraft and what are the problems, if any?
ReallyConfused is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Feb 2007, 02:07   #107 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Greater Dubach Metro Area
Posts: 59
It can't hover OGE at max gross ... does that count as a problem?

EC doesn't appear to be selling as many of those as they would hope. Seems the 365N3 is more popular these days.
andTompkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Feb 2007, 18:20   #108 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 513
Hi andTompkins,

its only not hovering, if you jerk around on the controls and disturb the airflow ;-)

O.K., on MTOW it's much more comfy to take off and land with a little forward speed, nevertheless, its doing around 150 kts at MTOW (once airborne).

It's not such a bad machine, as many say. You can have a lot of fun flying it - more fun as with most other helicopters ;-)

Greetings Flying Bull
flying the EC155
Flying Bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Feb 2007, 19:13   #109 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 61
Posts: 219
It requires about 8 zillion hours of servicing for every hour it flies, if you're in a hot country and don't have aircon, the forced ventilation is very poor, in a hot country it doesn't cruise as fast as FB says, and on a single engine at the temperatures we have in Nigeria it's performs about as well as a Nigerian bobsleigh team
TomBola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Feb 2007, 19:23   #110 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 513
Hi TomBola,

don't know, how fast your maintainers work ;-)
Nigeria - very hot - I guess sandy as well, which will hurt the engines anyway.
But having an operator, giving you there an EC 155 without clima says all - doens't it?
Saving on the work place for the pilot - guess the operator is saving on other hands as well...

Greetings Flying Bull

I have some nice videos from EC155 flying - unfortunatly they are confidential, because they cover tactics we use with the bird
Just don't refuel to the top (if possible)
Flying Bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Feb 2007, 20:18   #111 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Afrika sometimes
Age: 61
Posts: 219
FB,

The owner is actually Shell (you know, that little oil company) and all maintenance is carried out in accordance with the Eurocopter maintenance schedule.

Not a lot of dust. Except now during the Harmattan our climate is humid and tropical - though I'd guess we have fairly high air pollution levels. Maybe you don't fly your helicopters 4 or 5 hours a day like us?
TomBola is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th Feb 2007, 11:00   #112 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 513
Hi TomBola,

well, I'm lucky, we fly in a more moderate climazone :-)

4 to 5 hrs - not always, but sometimes.
Last year i.e. the soccer world championchip and on tactical training weeks, our birds had more hours than that on a day - but not on a regular basis.
Beeing parked outside - sometimes even at minus degrees with rime all over the birds.

All that went without any problems.

But sometimes ours stay for weeks - from 15hrs/7day check to 15hrs/7day check only with ground runs or powerchecks. Reason is not the helicopter, but pairing of pilots on duty and the normal flying job - which is normally done with BK117s.
If no special tactical task are due or called for - only currency training is done on the EC.
_______________________

Shell - wasn't that the company, with the Brent Spar, which they wanted to dump in the sea, without cleaning the platform first?

There are lots of news from nigeria, where money saving from part of the big companies seems more important than safety an enviromental conditions.
I guess, it's important to keep the plattforms running - but if I read, that you don't have clima on your birds - they don't seem to think much their pilots - and passengers.
I bet, it would be much more comfy and less stressing having a clima - I see that in summer flying BK without or EC with.....

I was very sceptic about the 155 - until I got the rating.
O.K., there are some shortcomings, but show me an helicopter without.
I'm quite happy by now flying the EC 155. Very smooth flying and reduced workload, once you have understood all the systems to use.

And we're lucky, mostly we don't have to operate at MTOW :-)

A littte bit more to think about doing outside landings so that you won't hit the ground with the belly or the tail, than with skidded helicopters,
more feel needed, when heavy, because the bird has the tendency to descend, when starting to accelerate - while our BK's start to accelerate and climb at that point - but knowing about that helps avoinding to hit things in the path ;-)


Greetings Flying Bull
Flying Bull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th Feb 2007, 10:44   #113 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Iceland
Age: 51
Posts: 779
Quote:
What are the icing limits for the EC155 (if any?)?
The 155 does not have anti-ice on rotor etc.. so I would assume the RFM says "flight into known icing conditions is prohibited".

Not that I know for sure!
Aesir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Mar 2007, 19:19   #114 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South of North and East of West!
Posts: 238
New EC155 with revolutionary fixed rotor head!

Eurocopter has just introduced a new prototype of the EC155. It has a revolutionary new fixed rotor head which they say improves lift.

The new prototype is being tested in the North sea by DanCopter.

More news to come.

This ground breaking new design can be see by following the link below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFCsFTnW5y4

cptjim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Mar 2007, 19:23   #115 (permalink)

Hovering AND talking
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Propping up bars in the Lands of D H Lawrence and Bishop Bonner
Age: 52
Posts: 5,719
A very safe design; Eurocopter are to be applauded for their innovation.

Cheers

Whirls
Whirlygig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Mar 2007, 19:50   #116 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Townsend,WA. USA
Posts: 440
Looks like they still have some work to get the tail rotor fixed.

To bad for Dave, they beat him with the first "absolutely rigid rotor"
slowrotor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Mar 2007, 01:53   #117 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: The Hague
Age: 50
Posts: 3,875
Fascinating: it's common to see slowly moving blades (even going backwards) but I've never seen totally stationary ones.

For those wonderring why the blades start turning after kanding and then stop again before take off, it's because the landing and take off will be with the Nr switch set at HI, giving 360 rpm. On deck the switch will be set to NORM, giving 342 rpm and hence the movement.
212man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Mar 2007, 03:36   #118 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 92
212man, you really must ask BSB to let you out more...
fkelly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Mar 2007, 09:59   #119 (permalink)

Avoid imitations
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 10,709
Unfortunately these aircraft can only fly in 120 kts of wind or more and the range is limited to the length of the kitestring.

I think it's rather pointless to start the rotors after landing.
ShyTorque is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26th Mar 2007, 13:21   #120 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 189
"I think it's rather pointless to start the rotors after landing."

...especially in reverse gear !
Three Blades is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
ec 155, ec-155 b1, ec155, ec155b1

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 07:18.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1