Disgraceful!

[212man]

Here's a novel concept: I wonder if it will catch on? Maybe those regulation zealots over at the CAA and EASA will cotton on to this. Hey, maybe they already have, years ago!! Read that first line again: the FIRST time ever. Absolutely disgraceful!!!!!:mad:

"This accident is the first time that the National Transportation Safety Board has participated in a helicopter accident investigation in which a flight data recorder (FDR) was on board. Importantly, without the FDR data,2 investigators would not have been able to identify the airworthiness issue that resulted in three urgent safety recommendations made by the Safety Board on November 17, 2005 (A-05-33 through -35)."

Full text here (and also in their preliminary findings into the 76 CFIT on the other thread.) http://www.ntsb.gov/recs/letters/2006/A06_17_18.pdf

[topendtorque]

Cest la vie, re bloggs sleuth.

a good idea. inventors in NZ and OZ claim to be not far away from FDR's (not fire proof) for lighties, which was inspired by various,---many--- arguments about tamper proof time recorders.

but hey cost, projected 5k to 7k, politics!!! buracrats???? Tamper proof???

I wish them luck

[Hippolite]

212man

The full text is even more alarming. I am not identifying the S76 for any other reason than a statistical one here, 28 investigated accidents, 9 of which were fatal and the Copterline (not even in the USA) was the first with an FDR!!

When you look at the list of permanently excepted aircraft, it includes most of the twins operating in the GOM today with the exception of the newer types.

I my experience, GOM operators have fought very hard to stop the mandatory fitment of CVR and FDR or even a CVFDR combined recorder. Reasons, perceived customer reaction to payload reductions and cost.

HUMS is only just beginning to make an intro into the GOM (on the S-92 but not yet available on the 139) and the use of an FDM program is still some way off. Only when aircraft are fitted with HUMS, CQAR for FDM, CVRs and FDRs and both the helicopter and offshore industries commit to this type of equipment will there be equivalency in safety standards.

HH

[McGowan]

I'm all for FDR and CVR. (a little worried that what I said during an emergency may not be something you would want to publish) These devices would answer a hell of a lot of questions after an accident.
The thing that would worry me is the cost, not just of initial purchase but installing them. You can bet it wouldn't be cheap, even at 5-7k. I know safety never does come cheap, but for single aircraft operators or small fleets of training helicopters it would be cost prohibitive. Then CASA would want to be involved, then lawyers, then those who opposed it, then some civil liberties pain in the bum would say it was "big brother and an invasion of privacy" and then its twenty years before and decsion is make one way or the other.
As far as tamper proof time recorders goes, sorry, but I agree with topendtorque, never happen.

[widgeon]

Am i right that the proposed regulation would be for transport catagory aircraft ? , I'm a bit rusty is it Far 29 and Far 27 for Normal catagory ( under 6000 lbs and 9 seats ). So training aircraft would not be affected.
I am sure that the weight penalty is small .