Guardis civil helicopter incident
Looks quite reasonable to me - the references are all on his side so he can best judge the clearances, he has an escape route to the left at all times in case of malfunction and it looks like the guys on the ground picked a bit of a ledge rather than a vertical cliff-face.
There appears to be a little turbulence judging by the tail movement but otherwise - if you don't have a winch fitted - a reasonable way to extract the climbers/rescuers. Possibly safer than nosing in to a snow covered slope which I believe is common practice in the Alps.
There appears to be a little turbulence judging by the tail movement but otherwise - if you don't have a winch fitted - a reasonable way to extract the climbers/rescuers. Possibly safer than nosing in to a snow covered slope which I believe is common practice in the Alps.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Lost, but often Indonesia
Posts: 652
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Novice question, how does one judge how much clearance you have between an obstacle and the tips of the rotor blades? Is it an intuitive thing that you learn with experience?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: uk
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Novice question, how does one judge how much clearance you have between an obstacle and the tips of the rotor blades? Is it an intuitive thing that you learn with experience?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crab - in Post 24 you state that balancing laterally on the skid is possibly safer than nosing in. Other than being able to 'fall'/peel away into the possible escape route, could you explain what inherent safety benefits the former technique has over the latter?
In my mind, the benefits of the "toe in" approach include being able to conduct an instrument scan more easily as the slope is directly in front of the panel (minimal head movement required), there is probably less chance of snagging a skid and the machine often feels more stable in the pitch axis rather than the roll axis, especially with CofG changes on entry/exit.
Furthermore, some machines effectively have a wider disc laterally than fore/aft so steeper ground may be achieved going nose first.
Saying all that, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
In my mind, the benefits of the "toe in" approach include being able to conduct an instrument scan more easily as the slope is directly in front of the panel (minimal head movement required), there is probably less chance of snagging a skid and the machine often feels more stable in the pitch axis rather than the roll axis, especially with CofG changes on entry/exit.
Furthermore, some machines effectively have a wider disc laterally than fore/aft so steeper ground may be achieved going nose first.
Saying all that, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
You'll understand the term Lock number no doubt. For an articulated rotor it's value lies between eight and ten generally. For hingeless, between five and seven.
So yes, there is coning, but the post was a slap at the ridiculous posts you continually put up, nothing more, nor less.
An expert no less, had the following to say
Thanks Nick for your erudite summation.
So yes, there is coning, but the post was a slap at the ridiculous posts you continually put up, nothing more, nor less.
An expert no less, had the following to say
There will come a time when you good ppruners will realize that AnFI is able to counter any argument with excellently phrased pap, and make it sound scientific.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks AnFI - I'd suggest that the proximity of the door depends on the type of helicopter being operated and how many people are getting in/out (front seat vs. rear) so I don't really see how it directly impacts safety.
I'd still like to hear from Crab as to why he feels using a 'nose in' technique is possibly more unsafe (this is a genuine query, aimed at learning from other people's experience).
I'd still like to hear from Crab as to why he feels using a 'nose in' technique is possibly more unsafe (this is a genuine query, aimed at learning from other people's experience).
I don't really see how it directly impacts safety
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've said it before and I'll say it yet one more time. More than 50% of the pilots I see in the course of my job cannot be described as competent. Maybe they have the potential to be competent but they would need a lot more 'input' to realise it. When will we wake up and understand that 'attending' a course is not the same as 'passing' a course. We are not served well by the way we are doing things in the world of licensing pilots.
Also the level of Base knowledge amongst many seems to be lower than it was, I was told of an example of a pilot with APTL/IR who was flying the AW139 offshore who when questioned didn't know the difference between altitude and height !
Also these same people are less willing than ever to serve an apprenticeship as a co-pilot, they think they deserve to go to captain almost immediately regardless of the fact that they don't know the job at all and walk straight into the simplest traps with there size 12's on and looked horrified when I tell them it took me 5 years to get command (many people I know it took 7 years), that's just how it was before!
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
I was told of an example of a pilot with APTL/IR who was flying the AW139 offshore who when questioned didn't know the difference between altitude and height !
Reminds me of the question:
Where's the science in the saying, 'i' before 'e' except after 'c'.
)
Helisdw - my main issue with the nose-in is the lack of options in the event of pretty much any malfunction but certainly engine failure. You are also poorly placed in your ability to flyaway if hit by a downdraught or a lowering cloudbase. You don't know what is happening in the mountains behind you (deteriorating weather).
An instrument scan that close to the rock face would not be top of my to-do list.
I agree with megan about being easier for the rescued to get in as well.
However your comment ref width of disc laterally compared to forwards is very valid. I'm not saying that it is a bad technique, there are clearly some scenarios where it is appropriate but it wouldn't be my first choice - that would be to have a winch and do it without needing to be in contact with the mountain.
An instrument scan that close to the rock face would not be top of my to-do list.
I agree with megan about being easier for the rescued to get in as well.
However your comment ref width of disc laterally compared to forwards is very valid. I'm not saying that it is a bad technique, there are clearly some scenarios where it is appropriate but it wouldn't be my first choice - that would be to have a winch and do it without needing to be in contact with the mountain.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that he has got his right skid on the ground I'm not convinced that he has retained any benefit from side-on as opposed to nose-in. With a skid in contact I reckon that his chances of flying away from a power loss malfunction or an encounter with down-draughting are drastically reduced.
I accept that I don't know the story behind the clip, but those embarking look un-injured and don't look to be in immediate peril. Risk vs benefit? I'd say no and wait for the winch-equipped aircraft or the MRT.
I accept that I don't know the story behind the clip, but those embarking look un-injured and don't look to be in immediate peril. Risk vs benefit? I'd say no and wait for the winch-equipped aircraft or the MRT.