Originally Posted by
JimL
Thanks for the paper Vidual.
An interesting paper (because it contains a great deal of information - albeit with some small errors and notable omissions) but, in my view, one that reaches the wrong conclusion.
It is unlikely that a Category A procedure for offshore operations (enforced PC1) will ever be practical for a number of reasons - which include: the necessity keep the landing surface in sight during the initial climb manoeuvre (to retain the ability to rejected without damage) and the lack of space to do other than initially to climb vertically - until losing sight of the deck (shown in the 1990s to be about 20ft - which has been stretched by the OEMs to 30ft); the requirement to miss the deck edge by 15ft during the continued take-off; the ability to remain 35ft above the surface of the water in all conditions; the small size of the FATO/TLOF; the 'obstacle environment'/'wind direction' issue; and, finally, the unrealistic expectation that the installed power will ever allow OEI hover performance in zero wind (which is required if PC1 is ever to be enforced).
Jim
I have some questions,
Almost all these requirements that you mentioned are already fulfilled when we operate Helideck no exposure in the S92. (Clear deck edge by 15ft, water by 35ft and possibility to calculate available droopdown). You can claim that sea state is an issue for the 35ft, but you can easily identify it and add it to the calculation.
The vertical ascent is already performed on CAT A ground level helipad procedure. Situation in which we also lost sight of the landing site when we climbed to TDP (in some situations higher than 100ft). The minimum helipad size limitation for CAT A Ground level helipad is 102 foot square. (I really don't know how anyone manages to reject a takeoff at a height of 100ft, descending vertically, on such a small helipad with a S92).
As for OEI hover performance, would it be IGE or OGE?
Why do helicopters like AW139 have CAT A procedures for elevated helideck in their RFMs?
And why didn't Sikorsky choose to call this procedure as PC2e or to fly test CAT A elevated helideck and put it on RFM part 1, section IV?