Originally Posted by
AnFI
What outcome risk level is the criterion? There does not appear to be a 'target'. There is no case made for there being a greater or lesser risk by mandating engine redundancy.
Not only is it debatable that engine redundancy delivers reduced risk to these 3rd parties.
ALSO as you say the priority is to 3rd parties. For people on the ground that would entail you restricting (banning) PRIVATE HELICOPTERS from overflight of hosile congested areas. (and under your definitions hostile congested areas include playing fields, parks, rivers, car parks etc etc)
Is it justified? By what criteria in deaths per hour, say?
Did you look at post #97, how do you account for that, most death is not engines.
Crab, v personal again, some heli TR have hydraulics not does not equal MUST have hydraulics. The 'why' i answered.
Hey AnFI,
Here is links to 2 very recent accidents (and far from the only ones) with your favourite machine.... Both R-44's involved innocent dead 3rd partys
on ground....
Brazil:
Sao Paulo R44 crash
Florida:
R44 down killing a passenger in a passing vehicle
Now, I really look forward to see your explanation of these.....
When it comes to twin engine helicopters and the requirement for this. It has been produced twins long before it was seen as a requirement. (and HYD assisted flight controls as well)
I think helicopter designers around the world would know this better than a mere FI from England....
When you're on about the overcomplexity.... Why did your favourite brand introduce HYD for the R44?? It worked fine with the electrical trim..... (at least when it was working, but why did it need the trim in the first place??) Why did they had that big chunk of tungsten on the cyclic before the HYD was added? Feedback perhaps? On such a light machine?! Should be completely unnecessary!!!