EC120 Down near Canberra

[MPT]

G'day All,

A little birdie told me that a nice shiny new EC120 isn't so nice any more after it went down near Canberra the other day. All aboard escaped without injury, with the pilot claiming "engine failure". Very lucky indeed, as the machine appears to be a write off!!

Cheers,

MPT

[bladebanger]

MPT

Give it up. Who was it? Not GL I hope.

Banger

[MPT]

G'day bladebanger,

My sources tell me that it was being flown by its owner JS, a well known Canberra businessman. I guess the whizz bang computer will be able to tell us the details of the "engine failure".

Cheers,

MPT

(edited to fix finger trouble)

[helmet fire]

MPT,
I guess by the inverted commas over "engine failure" that there is something more to the story?

This would be the first engine failure in a EC120 in Oz, have there been that many with this new tech engine and it's trend monitoring?

I ask here with a view to seeing if, and when, engines might be reliable enough for single engine IFR.

[MPT]

G'day helmet fire,

Wouldn't like to comment further on the "engine failure" until the download's completed and analysed. As a matter of interest, which machine would be used for the IFR ops? I understood that the EC120 was VFR only.

Cheers,

MPT

[helmet fire]

MPT,
I am not considering using one, I am just intrested in the future prospects. The Koala owned by CareFlight haas an autopilot, but only one donk, and there is an NZ B3 squirrel that was made IFR with an autopilot and extra hydraulic pack at Sydney EC.

[widgeon]

Where is the second generator driven from ?. The sole US IFR BA i think had something that took power from the TR drive. ( or was that where the AC drive came from )

[MPT]

helmet fire / widgeon,

Interesting discussion on single engined IFR looming here! I remember some mods being done on the ADF squirrels in Canberra. Didn't they modify the hydraulics to enable the "less muscled" to fly them after a couple of accidents during hydraulics off training?

I know of one 206B and one 206L IFR ships, and I had heard of the kiwi AS350 one. Are there any plans to offer an IFR Koala or 407? Would the addition of IFR capabilities to singles be useful to the EMS operators currently utilising these types with the possibility of NVG's becoming available in the near future?

Cheers,

MPT

[helmet fire]

Dont know about the second generator. The ADF Squirrels were AUW weight restricted following upgrade to BA wieghts and a HYD off bingle. I think the intent of Augusta was two fold: make the Koala as similar as possible as the twins to save on components, and set the Koala up way in front of any competition for certification if SE IFR became a reality in the US.

MPT, NVG is no substitute for IFR in any sense of the usage, nor is inadvertent IMC more likely on NVG, it is less likely. That said, an autopilot system was a reccomendation from the NVFR Mackay accident investigation, even though they identified no conclusive cause. Additionally, an autopilot is an excellent risk mitigation tool for night EMS and should be encouraged. As should NVG.

Back to the 120: anyone know of other engine failures in this type?

[SASless]

There we are in the middle of the night...over hostile terrain...IFR in our Bell 206.....clouds right down into the tree tops....

OH MY! Just woke up....it was all just a very bad dream! Must lay off the Anchovie Sandwiches!

You can take all your statistics about engine failures....and stick'em Sir....the ramifications of a single donk dying in those conditions suggest to me that some things are best left alone. (...and yes...I have flown a Cessna 208 Caravan IFR over hostile terrain IFR....)and had an anxiety attack in the middle of it one night. Bore sighting the only engine on that thing....and seeing the tippy tops of the "Alps-like" mountains around Levenworth, Washington poking up out of the clouds into the moonlit sky brought home what engine failures are all about. I have sinned too much to rely upon Heavenly Intervention to allow many exposures like that.

One man's opinion

:ugh:

[eagle 86]

Just a correction - the CareFlight Koala does not have an autopilot, it has a Stability Augmentation System - there is a great difference.
gags
E86

[helmet fire]

Appologies eagle.

SASless, I hear you, though I did mine in a Huey not a 206. Give me two every time!!!

zebeedee, your marine pilot example is indicative of a comment I made on the IFR Training confusion thread: what is legal Vs best practice? We all have a different view of best practice dont we?

and yes: burn me at the stake INADVERTANT IMC IS LESS LIKELY WITH NVG. And you can quote me!
:ok:

[justanothernumber]

INADVERTANT IMC IS LESS LIKELY WITH NVG :D :D

There's always one ... :rolleyes: :ok:

[helmet fire]

as I said, you can quote me.

Oh, and i would be very suprised to be the Lone Ranger on this one. you may find more than just one of us.

let the burning begin........

[eagle 86]

I'm with HF - my limited experience of NVG shows that, under certain circumstances, NVG can allow you to see cloud B4 you enter it. As a day/night VFR EMS pilot I have gone inadvertant IMC a couple of times - I would like to have seen these cloud banks and had some chance of avoiding entering them.
BTW I remain a huge fan of multi-engine ifr helos.
gags e86

[MPT]

G'day All,

Could someone explain to me the difference between an autopilot and a SAS. I've flown a 206 with a steam powered autopilot (there are a couple of NVFR machines around with them fitted) a while ago. Is that classed as an autopilot under IFR/NVFR MPT regulations?

Cheers,
MPT

[212man]

In simple terms, a SAS will give you short term rate damping but no long term attitude hold. A basic AP will give you long term Attitude retention e.g. you deflect the cyclic aft to raise the nose 10 degrees, then release it, and the a/c will return to the original pitch attitude.

A more sophisticated AP will give you 'outer loop', or 'upper mode' functions whereby it will couple to external references, such as Altitude, IAS, HDG, NAV and/or ILS (the number of discretes will depend on the sophistication of the AP). If very sophisticated, it will have full control of all 4 control axes and may allow transitions to the hover and other such SAR functions.

[Ogsplash]

"I am also familiar with how this has been done successfully from Port Hedland (WA) for more than 20 years without serious incident. Well done to everyone in that task!"

Um, B206 into the water at night a few years back (about 5 I think but happy to be corrected).

[giveitsome]

Thought I might chime in on this one fellas since I have some "time up" in this department.

NVG/NVD offers an increased capability below LSALT at night and that is gold, however as I have shown to many a trainee, this is a double edged sword. Yes you can see the cloud banks and manouvre to avoid them but you can also find yourself thinking that what you are seeing is not too bad or improving and then suddenly without too much warning you are in IMC without too much trouble. Now some of you may think, no probs If I get into too much touble I will simply land cancel SAR and wait for the wx to pass. Doesn't really work in an over water SAR or High and rugged mountainous terrain where there are few LZ ' or LP's. The trick is in all flying sequences is to have a plan and arm yourself with a CIR and a robust IF currency regime.

To launch into marginal VMC wx thinking you can see and avoid the fluffy stuff simply because you are aided (NVG equipped)without an escape route or access to an instrument recovery (notamed as serv) is a recipe for disaster and plain stupid.

Careful what you wish for when it comes to NVG's. They are an excellent tool and enhance SA and capability but like most things, You don't get something for nothing.

IMHO

Give it some.

:ok:

[Mark Six]

Og, are you thinking of the one off Dampier? More like 7 years ago. I filled in for a couple of weeks on the same job just before the accident. A real eye-opener. Would not want to do it without an IF background.
Have not heard from PR.

[helmet fire]

I wonder if we should start ANOTHER thread on the NVG thing?

giveitsome, are you claiming you have been inadvertant IMC with many a student, or that you have correctly educated them to be careful of poor weather? What was it in your training that makes it safe for you to avoid IMC, and can that not simply be passed on to others as it was passed on to you?

The question was wether it was easier to avoid inadvertant IMC or not. The answer is still a yes.

as for your statement that:

To launch into marginal VMC wx thinking you can see and avoid the fluffy stuff simply because you are aided (NVG equipped)without an escape route or access to an instrument recovery (notamed as serv) is a recipe for disaster and plain stupid.

a tad emotive perhaps, and certainly misleading. Who on earth said that we would be considering launching into marginal vmc? Wouldn't this be equally stupid during the day? Or do people suddenly loose their wits at night? Methinks you need to review the wx minima for civilian NVG ops.

What we are talking about here is replacing NVFR with NVG. Wx, equipment, crewing everything is roughly the same, just do it with NVG. We are not talking about 50ft with a TOT to a dusty pad un recce'd in formation! Why require a CIR, etc etc, when you are making NVFR safer? You dont need it for NVFR, so lets not get histerical by adding lots of requirements to do it on NVG. 10 plus years of civ ops in the USA and Switzerland is a relatively good yardstick.

We have had poor viz CFIT accidents during the day, the night, and even IFR, and we havent movd to ban those regimes. Eventually a CFIT will occur with NVG fitted. You get that. But should we ignore the tens of accidents that would not otherwise have occured NVFR and NIFR simply because we fear 1 accident? If so, and using the same rationale lets stop flying during the day too, because that has encouraged people to push the weather hasn't it?

On to the 120 (that is the thread isn't it?) a grapevine wisper is that the pilot has done a great job to get the aircraft down without serious injury. If so, well done that man!

[giveitsome]

Hey there HF.

Yes your right mate Iv'e been IIMC many a time with a trainee on NVD's as you can do that sort of stuff in a level 5 Full Flight and mission simulator with the wx set up for the just the sort of thing you are talking about with low risk and infinite training outcomes.

As for re-reading my wx minimas, think we'll save that for the "tad emotive punters". Sounds like you think ten years is a long time to be flying-There's always one.

Sorry to hijack your 120 thread.

Yes NVD would make NVFR much safer but this is not the only issue here. The industry needs to get serious when it comes to these missions. Along with the NVD's you need other bits and pieces such as Auto Pilots, SAS Systems, 2 Engines and another pilot to hold the sticks while you nav, and a GPS that is worth is extra AUW.

ACFT then need to be fitted with NVG compatible lighting and SOP's need to be drawn up to cover procedures (goggle up degoggle and goggle failure below LSALT), these need to be tied in with your own local rules and regs. NVG's require a fair amount of servicing and need to be stored in a climate controlled environment for best longevity.-Lots to think about.

The point is you can't just go and buy a pair off the shelf and then and expect you can operate in a similar vein to the way you operated yesterday.

NVGs sure help but lots of infrastructure required and robust training required to prevent the CFIT you were talking about.


Again IMHO

Give It Some


:cool:

[grenade]

What happened to the EC120?

[w_ocker]

You should know Grenade... :}

I too believe congrats are due to the driver for making it in, whatever the cause of the malfunction.

G.I.S. I agree with your points re the costs and dificulties of setting up and NVD program - as, in the whole, would HF I think. There are many difficulties involved and these are being looked at by industry discussion groups as we speak (groups involving HF, I'm pretty certain).

His point that NVD actually help in avoiding IIMC is, I believe, well put as long as it is qualified with the statement that we are talking about civil ops where we can have far more restrictive minima than for mil ops. Civ ops would not fly tactically lit, at min alt, flat out and in formation. In these situations, yes I agree completely that IIMC is a real consideration (been there myself actually). However, for civ ops, a more restrictive min WX and illum minima, coupled with non-tac environment and nothing even approaching NOE flight, would allow us to avoid the areas where IIMC become likely. I think you alluded to the thought process of "I think I can dodge that fuzzy patch or even make it though". Well, I reckon that it just takes us to set the pilot thought process to "looks a bit fuzzy over there, will avoid it now rather than waiting and seeing", much like avoiding the clear area under a CB anvil due to the likelyhood of hail that might or might not actually be there.

I for one want nothing more than the ability to see the hills and obstacles that the maps tell me are there every night job. I'd also love to be able to not turn down so many winter night jobs because of the likelyhood of ice that could be avoided if NVD allowed us a lower LSALT. Its the EMS driver's lot to understand that not all jobs can be achieved, but its hard knowing that people in trouble could have been helped if I could have used existing technology that I am already trained to use to go and help them.

Oops, there I go getting emotive. Appologies all. :yuk:

[helmet fire]

GIS,
you are spot on with the training and infrastructure part - it needs to be got right from day one for NVG. But the 2 engines, SAS/autopilots, CIR and second pilots to help you nav, well I can only refer you to the flight profiles intended. In Aust, the proposal is to go to the scene at 500 ft, spend a long time doing the recce, and land. We can do that right now (albeit at 1000ft) with a nitesun, single pilot, unstabilised and with only one donk. Why does the addition of NVG suddenly require all the extra's? Why add requirements to something that is SAFER?
Hint: if you think that is unsafe, lobby against NVFR rules, dont burden the introduction of a new technology with those issues.

And yep, I think that 10 years is a long time to be operating NVG (it's 15 now in Switzerland). Seems long enough to prove a concept to me, surely. Or maybe I am the only one as you so condescendingly put it.

[eagle 86]

It is my understanding that for Oz ems ops using nvg the proposal is to transit at present lsalt/cruising levels and only when the scene is identified descend into the black hole, as we can do now, only more safely utilising nvg technology. Lets crawl before we walk chaps - if it comes to pass this is going to be a steep learning curve for most of us!
gags e86

[giveitsome]

Hey guys sorry to Hijack the 120 thread but bare with me as I close the loop on some key issues with regards to NVD.

Eagle 86-Well put and very succint.

HF-Greg, don't recall you ever serving/working in Switzerland.

Wocka-Mate your a champ and the content of your post shows a very good understanding of what is around the corner.

Guys-The reason why I am big on 2 engs, 2 pilots, SAS/AP , a TSO 129 compliant GPS and a CIR is for the big "S"-SAFETY. I know this will ultimately cost some more $$$$ in the wash up, but what price do you place on safety?

Consider being single pilot with a goggle failure below LSALT and being instrument un-current or without a CIR in an ACFT like a 206 or B2 Squizza. If you planned for the event and maintained lotsa SA, and kept the IF skills up to date, then you might stand a good chance but recall when most of these missions occur (2 am, Cows Guts night, PIC tired and thinking about something else).

The EMS guys are on the right track with multi eng multi crew and good ACFT systems, good SOPs and TRG. Another set of trained eyes wearing the green toilet rolls is gold when it comes to goggle failure or some other emerg that distracts the pilot below LSALT at night.

What is of concern to me and others in the industry is the mind set of, Buy the stuff off the shelf, do a quick down and dirty NVG cse, launch in your 206 by yourself on a flight note at 2 am and hope for the best-Not a professional approach or worlds best practice.

NVD 's are around the corner no doubt about it, but as we all know NVD's DON'T turn night into day and we should crawl before we walk.

I'm all for the change and technology but lets make sure we have answered ALL the questions prior to approaching the regulator with our wish list.

Most humbly.

Give It Some!!!



:ok:

[helmet fire]

GIS,
I have never worked/served in Switzerland (as you know) and wonder what on earth bought that irrelevance out? And you probably also know that I am big on 2 donks, autopilots, gps, crewman, etc. So we can leave that bit out too.

Onto your scenario the dreaded goggle failure, I will use the proposed and or current Oz CMI to guide us through this, and I will go back through the weather requirements. There you are in your 206 single pilot on gogs. Firstly, I should add, you can do it right now, single pilot NVFR with no gogs.

Tonight you are on gogs, your cruise height will be NB 500 ft (Eagle86, see current CMI and CAR 157). Your weather minima will be NVFR, ie enroute will be 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at 500, and with alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination. If you are going to "a black hole" then your minimum area forecast must be ceiling of 1500 and viz of 8000m. Alternates must be made with respect to lighting, regardless of nitesun carriage.

If you really want to do the "black hole" then you are going to a non permanent or non lit helipad in which case the FAA, NZ and proposed Oz regs will require a second NVG equipped crewperson. The current CMI requires that second person in the front for ALL ops.

Now you suffer the NVG failure: firstly note that mean time between failure MTBF is around 10,000 hours. Better than nitesun, etc. Second, you have two tubes. Third you have an alternate power source. Fourth you can use the spare set of the other crewman's to divert back to base/alternate as a single pilot (though I would leave this option to autopilot equipped acft because changing and refocussing gogs in an unstabilised single pilot acft is just not cricket). Lastly, if all those fail you, revert to NVFR again especially considering you have had to adhere to NVFR rules for weather and equipment in the first place. After reverting to NVFR, simply continue the mission in the old fashioned blind way! That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair: someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!

Lets say, for your arguement's sake, that the 10,000 hour failure moment does happen during the 0.2% of the flying you do on approach to a black hole. You will have a NVG visible crewman to talk you away from obstcles if you elect to go around, or you degoggle (pilot only) and use the white searchlight that you were already using to finish the approach (Omnibus IV gogs cope well with white light). The difference between this and the nitesun failing on finals is subtle (what is the single globe, single power source nitesun MTBF?) . The NVG crew has a crewman still NVG visible with all obstacles and can call them, the unaided crew will only have that luxury with a hand held or third spotlight if you continue to the approach. Choosing the go around option, only the pilot will have a light in front and obstcles visible if he is quick enough to position that light, but he will be flying off into the unknown black. The NVG pilot will be flying off into the black too, but with a good mental model of where the obstacles are, which path to avoid them, and a crewman who can still see. I conceed that the NVG pilot may have an ill defined and unresearched likelyhood of transition difficulty from aided to unaided, but that's about it.

As for the fear of someone doing the down and dirty NVG course and launching into the gloop in their 206, why must we hamstring all other operators because of the "fear" of a renegade? We are never going to stop them, and we haven't during the day, night, or IFR. Why should NVG suddenly be so protected that we stop the significant safety benefits to 95% of the industry out of fear of 5%?

I will say it again, there will be a CFIT on or with NVG. But there will be tens of accidents averted in the meantime. As you say GIS, what price do you put on safety?

[eagle 86]

Well put HF although regarding CMI i still say softly, softly. I also believe, like Oz firearm laws, you should be required to show a "genuine reason" to possess nvg ie only Government/NGO should be authorised for use - if it becomes open slather then the "use" of nvg may well increase the night accident rate.
gags e86

[helmet fire]

Fair enough e86. One thing on your well founded fear here though, the current NVG technology transfer restrictions from the USA are such that ONLY govt departments are expected to have access to it. Hopefully that will provide a bit of operating experience in Oz with which to better decide if NVG should be expanded to all ops, or restricted to EMS Law. Hope that meets your softly softly consideration.

[giveitsome]

Guys please excuse the discussion imbedded in the 120 thread. If we are to continue the NVG discussion, I move to start a thread on its own titled.

NVG's and NVFR-Your Say.

HF, E 86 and Wock............

My 2 cents......


Alternates-WX Minimas (NVFR, ie enroute 5000m viz clear of cloud at your enroute NVFR LSALT: not at CRZevel, alternate minima of 1500 ft ceiling and 8000m viz forecast at destination).-Good stuff sounds robust and achievable and reflects current legislation.

Lighting-Also well covered by current legislation and regs. Again good stuff no discussion required.

NVD failure Below LSALT-If the CMI specifies two pilots in the front both aided and rear seaters as well then this changes significantly the nature of this emerg as it won't be a single pilot op-Again robust and very safe well thought out.

Technology-MTBF-Data is based on equipment being stored in a climate controlled sanatised environment, poor storage and poor servicing schedules will potentially cause equipment to fail earlier than spec. Could the storage and servicings/care of equipment be guaranteed in a GA environment when this will cost extra $$$$ and more infrastructure ( as well as security of the equipment). In a Govt Contract/EMS environment the $$$$ would probably be forth comming however this would have to be a requirement of the inclusion of the capability.

If the flying pilot (FP) had a single tube failure while conducting flight close to the ground (hover, hoist, rapel etc) then continuing to fly or recover ACFT would be difficult and require significant TRG. Try driving your car on the road with one eye closed, or flying an ACFT by day with one eye closed close to obstacles and try to judge closure rates , depth perception and height cues accurately. If you are already a jet at this please let me in on the secret. Again if both pilots in the front are on the tubes no problem as you simply call out "Goggle Failure, handing over" over the ICS hand over and become the NFP (Non Flying Pilot).

TRG-This is probably the most significant issue amongst all the items we have discussed. There is a high correlation between being a good NVG pilot and having good IF skills, ie If you are well skilled at IF you will most likely be good at NVG also. Since the discussions we have had focus on NVG assisting or replacing NVFR we need to make sure that users have the appropriate level of TRG. What would be undesirable would be to see a guy with a bare bones NVFR rating being also endorsed to use NVG.

As you know NVG is all about looking under the goggles unaided at power, attitude and perf gauges and then out to infinity through the goggles to see that what you saw inside matches up with the picture outside (plus the terrain, signicant obstacles, wires etc). HUD will obviously limit the head down time but this is a discussion for another time. Being good at interogating instruments only comes with practice, TRG and the requisite rating (CIR would be desireable). This may be regulated such that to conduct NVG ops you will require a CIR, however GA is all about $$$, especially saving $$$, so there may be pressure to skimp if not properly legislated.

Mate- I totally agree with you when you say "That is what I think is the highest risk of the whole affair, someone persisting with NVFR in the age of NVG!!!"-Spot On.

NVG is around the corner and will definately enhance SA, mission succes and safety. I am in your court when it comes to this issue. NVFR has had its day and we need to re-think how to do business, but at the same time we need to cover as many of the bases so the regulator doesn't renig and take the capability away at the first sign of trouble. As for the renegade 5%, I think we all understand the "Darwin Awards" and well you just can't legislate against stupid c- - ts.

Down and dirty NVG courses are of concern as a robust NVG culture and system will require quality TRG. This quality TRG costs $$$$ and no one wants to spend it if they don't have to. Again a dilgent response to TRG is required to coverall aspects of operating with NVG.

The ultimate aim of all flying ops is safe and efficient operations. The big "S" SAFETY must come first. All of us are only as good as our TRG and experience.

Again IMHO

Give It Some



:cool:

[helmet fire]

Well said mate.

The point I made about the CIR and IF training is that NVFR requires it more than NVG, so lets lobby to fix the problem there, lets not burden a safer technology with the training bill.

:ok: