Originally Posted by
Vie sans frontieres
Why do manufacturers design a hoist facility on their helicopters and market them as SAR aircraft if they know that any normal winching height for SAR is within the avoid curve? Sounds a bit irresponsible putting a facility in place that might encourage users to spend extended periods of time loitering in an area considered unsafe. Should the guy hanging underneath the helicopter take out extra insurance?
Can it not be accepted that for the best to be got out of a helicopter's capability then sometimes its crew have to take the manufacturer's advice with a little pinch of salt?
I'm not sure if taking
"the manufacturer's advice with a little pinch of salt" is the best approach.
Helicopter operations (like many other modes of transport) have been subject to continuous development. Since the end of the Korean War in the early 50's (where the helicopter first 'proved' itself) helicopter development (both military and civilian) has been pursued in earnest.
With each new 'generation' there has been a constant and relative increase in performance and reliability resulting in today's models which allow professional SAR organisations (for example) to conduct winch operations in the knowledge that, if flown
within the manufacturer's prescribed parameters and in accordance with proven operating procedures, there is every reason to be confident that in the event of, say, a loss of a power from one engine, it remains possible to fly away.
Most (if not all) of the early helicopters (including the early twins) were woefully under-powered and (as with initial single-engine helicopter operations) pilots and operators had to do their best to mitigate as much of the risk as they could but .. this was played-out alongside the need to continue proving the helicopter as a viable vehicle in an increasing arena of activity.
That 'struggle' continues to this day in different parts of the world .. and for different reasons (primarily financial) where operators in regions where helicopter use is relatively new or where a new uses are being pioneered .. and where an operator is under pressure (often self-imposed as part of commercial endeavour) to prove the viability of helicopter use. That's where (for example) you could get a single-engine helicopter being sold to a country with a limited budget and the aircraft is fitted with a winch.
Safety (in broad strokes) is expensive and often it takes an operator and or client a little time develop adequate recognition of the value of 'helicoptering' before they will commit the resources necessary to raise the standard of their operation to the best that the market has to offer (I speak mainly of clients/operators with considerable budget limitations .. such as some of the developing nations .. but not
only the developing nations!).
These are just two considerations .. but there are several more.
What I can say is that the RFM limitations are there for a reason and I believe those reasons to be valid and for the benefit of all.