ABZ pilots are we flying tomorrow?

[Ground flight]

As we all know the last few days haven't been the best ...snow, lightning, etc. What are the thoughts on tomorrow ? Personally I think it's a waste of time going to work in the morning , afternoon will probably be better .

[Wizzard]

I dragged 19 very grateful bears back to ABZ this morning although by a very scenic route I must admit. No, go in in the morning and be ready to lob into the luft when the conditions allow - it's the least we can do.












Did I mention I'm off tomorrow:ok:

[Special 25]

I always check the full 'Met' from home before I leave if I think here is any doubt. There is no point struggling in and putting more cars on the road in poor weather when there is no chance of flying. Ops always seem happy enough to accept that I have done the planning from home and will keep reviewing.

But if the flights can be done, obviously we have a duty to get the guys back especially at this time of year. I'm guessing there will be a lot of backlogged flights that won't get done over the next 2 days. A shame, but better to be safe offshore and enjoy your Xmas a bit late, than struggling to get home when the weather just isn't good enough.

[ab33t]

Lets put all the flying off until after xmas , that way we all know whats happening

[HOGE]

Suggest a better course of action tomorrow morning will be levelled out at 3 feet, IFR under the duvet.

[Ground flight]

It would be nice to get everyone home for Xmas but this weather is a bit extreme . I think HOGE has the best course of action !!
Wish we could do all the planning from home it would save a lot of time .

[ppng]

Ground Fight said "this weather is a bit extreme" so let's stay home under the duvet - so much for the reputation of North Sea pilots!

Aw, Didddums

Look back at the TAF and METAR for the local area over the past few days and we see unusual, but not extreme weather. Anyone from CYHZ care to give an example of a "normal" winter TAF/METAR? If the posts by Ground Flight are anything to go by it will make the EGPD boys wet their beds!

[SASless]

Next thing you know they will be wanting to fly the things like a UAV....tea and slippers at the house and mail the paycheck please!

[Ground flight]

Listen "Buddy" and i use that term loosely , if i knew "Special" people were on this site I would have explained it in further detail .
PPNG its very easy to jump to conclusions but if you ever watched the news or actually lived in Aberdeen you might realise that the major problem is actually getting too work in one piece (not the flying) since the roads are so bad and having an airport thats snow closed doesn't help your flights . Thats extreme
This isn't a pissing contest :ok:

[P1V1T1]

PPNG I just checked Halifax wx and it's official your talking crap:D

[farsouth]

I see on the Bristow website that the answer to the question in the original post (ABZ Pilots -are we flying tomorrow?) was clearly - YES (at least at Bristow)
They completed 58 flights today between 0730 and 2130.
Congratulations on getting the job done.........

(PS Sure the other companies were doing a great job as well, just that I only looked at Bristow, so regards to all......)

[ppng]

So, P1 says that because the weather in Halifax yesterday was way better than Aberdeen has been recently my comments are crap? Could it be that you misunderstood my post P1? The fact is that the guys in Halifax could look back and post examples of what "extreme" really means and this week's weather in Aberdeen doesn't come close. Do they have a cosy lie-in under their duvet? No.

[Droopystop]

Groundflight,

How long have you lived in Aberdeen for? This isn't extreme weather. This is Northern Scotland. I drove in from Aberdeenshire - no problem on the roads at all. I know Aberdeen City council are not the best at getting roads clear, but having lived in Aberdeen for nearly 20 years I have never failed to get to work. If you don't like it here, go and find somewhere else to work. There are plenty who would take your place.

And if you were flying yesterday, I hope you weren't too fatigued having been Pruning into the wee small hours.

[Bondu121]

Droopystop - You have it spot on, Aberdeen is in the North of Scotland, it gets cold and snows a bit (infrequently) See ABZ engineers thread.

Sits back and waits for indignant responses! :E

[DeltaNg]

When I worked in Aberdeen I bought myself a cheap 4x4 with good tyres. I was always amazed to see people careering into work in a rear-wheel drive BMW, sliding all over the place !

Of course, if you know the weather is going to be crap, you can always stay in the Skean-Du or whatever it was called.

If you live up there, then you have to be equipped and be prepared for it every year.

[Overt Auk]

Ah yes,

4X4 cures all ills.

It is always entertaining to travel the back routes into ABZ at this time of year. Almost every bend has a 4X4 in the ditch, where some new owner has fallen into the trap of believing that it will stick to the road no matter what. You may be able to get going when others can't but you have the same number of points of contact for braking and cornering.

OA

[PlasticCabDriver]

You may very well have a 4x4, and know how to drive it properly, and check the weather before you go out, and carry the right stuff in the car etc etc, but when the tw@t in the "rear-wheel drive BMW, sliding all over the place" gets stuck sideways on the hill in front of you, and the lorry behind can't get started again now he's had to stop, that's you fecked. (BTW I've got a rear wheel drive BMW and while its normally great, its truly sh1t in the snow and ice, I just leave it in the drive when the wx is like it has been for the last few days).

Aberdeen city is a nightmare in the snow, it's easier to come in from the country, at least those who live there seem to have a little more common sense.

[SASless]

Have you folks discovered things called studded tires or effective devices known as Tire Chains? Even BMW's benefit from such devices.

As to 4x4's.....just because you can go like stink doesn't mean you can turn or stop!

You ain't lived until you experience an inch of ice on Dallas or Atltanta roadways, or seen cars towing U-Haul trailers in the snow......Yeehaw!

Whoopee Ty Ri Yo, Cowboy!

[Bladestrike]

Having flown out of YHZ for ten years, I can certainly claim to have flown in some crap, icing-kit-on-full ILS's in full-on blizzards with tower calling 1/8th and 100 with 80 knots quartering headwinds come to mind, but I can quite happily claim we are moving away from that. It seems the customer doesn't want their personell driving in some of the crap we can fly in, so if it's that nasty, we often watch the weather from home nowadays. Just put snow tires on my Forester just in case.....

[newfieboy]

Mmmmm,

Aberdeen weather, yeah right, try Newfoundland in the winter......Was also out last week moving drills in Ontario, -35C with wind chill of -47C and didn;t hear the boys on ground bitch or whine once.And they were out in it for 8hrs with no shelter.:DMerry Xmas to all.

[Bladestrike]

I don't think any Halifax guys will argue that Newfoundland gets worse weather far more often than we do. Alot of those storms that miss us nail you guys on a regular bases.

[ppng]

Bladestrike spoke about "icing-kit-on-full ILS's in full-on blizzards with tower calling 1/8th and 100 with 80 knots quartering headwinds"

I expected Diddums (sorry, Ground Flight) to comment on what defines "extreme" for a North Sea pilot but there has been no response. Has anyone looked under the duvet?

[sox6]

Which makes it all the more strange that SS6 floats were not specified for the Newfoundland S92s until after their accident this year.

ppng - is their a culture of pressing on in bad weather in Newfoundland? (asking not accusing)

[Bladestrike]

I don't think it's a case of pushing on in bad weather, we have our minimum departure and arrival criteria, we need to have a legal alternate, we need to have the legal requirement for fuel on board....those conditions being met, if there's no freezing precipitation, or severe turbulence, line of thunderstorms, what-have-you, away you go. What typically keeps us on the ground is not having a legal alternate, or not being able to carry enough fuel due to high winds, and of course freezing precipitation (of course there are many other considerations, but those are the main ones). Thunderstorms are not too common here. We just have a great deal of fog and poor weather, often accompanied by high winds, as low level jets often rip through here, and 80 knots of wind down to 500 to 1000 feet or so not overly uncommon. And there's always the unforecast crap you run into. Tower calling 100 and an 1/8 isn't uncommon, but with RVRs fluctuating above and below 1200, we can continue and at the speeds we fly, I can honestly claim I've always had lights at 200' (we have 100 feet DH but I haven't needed it yet, some have). I don't think anyone would hesitate to turn around in bad weather, or to decide to not launch, but I do know that my definition of bad weather has changed significantly after flying here. Personally the most difficult thing I think we do is the transition to visual on a mins ILS in heavy snow, hence the aforementioned scenario, but it actually doesn't happen that often.

[sox6]

Bladestrike - thanks for a balance and factual view.

Merry Christmas to all!

[DeltaNg]

What has keen got to do with it?

And how can anybody question anybody else over the decision to fly or not?

You don't know anything about their destination for a start. They might have been tech for all you know.

Didn't realise Aberdeen had turned into a flying competition. Glad I left the place.

<ducking for cover>:eek:

[Leaky Valve]

TV,

Have another look at the limitations section of your RFM (that's the only clue you get). Only one company complied this morning!

LV

[TTFD]

Sad to see todat that only two of the Aberdeen EC225 operators were prepared to fly today. One firm just had their aircraft parked-up til lunchtime.Good to see today that one Aberdeen EC225 operator complied with the limitations of the Flight Manual and stayed on the ground until conditions met the Flight Manual requirements. Two firms should have left their aircraft parked-up until lunchtime!

Just as well some of us 225 operators are keen to flySuch a shame that some EC225 operators are prepared to exceed Flight Manual limitations under the excuse of "keen to fly"! :ugh:

[helimutt]

TV, a first-post troll perhaps? Should have called himself Richard Cranium !:ok:

[Special 25]

What were the conditions that precluded flying today ? I know in the last few weeks there have been days even within the same crew room where some pilots were willing to fly and others not. Wouldn't want to see this become a bravado thing - There shouldn't be any doubt in these matters, and its a pity rules aren't a bit more black and white, but I guess thats just the nature of weather, rules and interpretation.

We're all flying the same aircraft in the same airspace - Perhaps it should be up to the CP's at each company to assess the situation and together make a decision whether it is a fly or 'no fly' day. That way, no company gets a competitive advantage in the eyes of the clients and secondly, pilots taking an objective look a the conditions don't feel pressure when they see another operators aircraft taxying out.

Obviously all pilots must always get the final say as to whether they are willing to fly, but if the rules prohibit flying, then this vague 'shall we / shan't we' mentality just looks unprofessional.

[HeliComparator]

Those that took off today from Abz before late morning were in breach of the EC225 Flight Manual limitations section - the limitation on density altitude is there as a result of the risk of divergent oscillation in the cyclic control, which could probably lead at best to overstressing the transmission mountings, and at worst to main transmission detachment.

Its not something that you would nearly get and "whoops - felt it going but just managed to avoid it". You would either get it and not know what hit you, or not get it by the skin of your teeth but have no idea how close you were to disaster. In this case, fortunately it seems to be the latter scenario.

Pilots would not intentionally exceed Vne, torque limits etc, why do they exceed flight envelope limits? I suspect the answer is "out of ignorance of the limits". Its true that some limits are there just because no-one has bothered to test any further, but in the case of this limit, it was tested and found to be potentially catastrophic outside the limit.

Unprofessional is an understatement!

HC

[malabo]

RFM density altitude limit is -2000'. Aberdeen got below that?

And you are only at sea level. What happens when someone tries to fly an EC225 in middle-asia from below sea level in the wintertime?

[Special 25]

Ignorance is bliss, but did those in the smug knowledge of these facts bother to telephone the other operators to advise them of this 'impending disaster' ? Surely it is every pilots responsibility to watch everyone elses back. Just watching them fly outside of the Specified Flight Envelope and not advising them of the fact is worse than the original error.

Hopefully you will strengthen my belief in our 'system' and advise me that you did make all efforts to communicate with the other operators.

[HeliComparator]

malabo - actually rfm min density altitude for those aircraft with FADEC v11 (I suspect the entire N Sea fleet) is -3500'. Abz was -3800' until mid morning, caused by fairly high pressure and -14C.

Hopefully this is the last winter that we will have this problem, we are promised V12 with new temperature probes, AFCS and VMS software that I think will allow -6000' density altitude. Its supposed to be arriving in the Spring!

HC

[DeltaNg]

Nice 1 TV. As 1st posts go, that was a corker :D

[HeliComparator]

Special - I resent you use of the word "smug". Horrified more like. Unfortunately the other operators are not in the habit of advising us before they fly. The problem with the DA limit is that it is (of course!) worst near the ground because as you go up both the pressure altitude and (on days like these) the temperature go up. Having just seen a 225 take off, the worst thing to do would be to call it back down into the low density altitude air again. Better for it to fly around for a few hours whilst the air warms up.

And do you think we should telephone the other operators every time we see one of their's taking off to remind them not to exceed Vne etc? Or should we assume that they are professional type-rated pilots who are familiar with the basic limitations of their aircraft.

Personally I was at home but I dispute the fact that its another operator's responsibility to supervise an operator's flying. That should be the job of the CAA and perhaps those of the oil companies that understand aviation!

HC

[JimL]

HeliComparator et al,

Avoidance of the exceedance of RFM limits (under specific environmental conditions) is not the responsibility of the CAA or the oil companies, it is matter of 'dispatch criteria' and 'operational control' and is completely within the competence of the operator.

I find it quite bizarre that anyone should suggest that management of operations should be part of some informal system of communication. It is good that such matters are discussed openly but it is no substitute for the appropriate procedures in the operations manuals.

Those who fly types with this limitation should be looking at the OM and, if the dispatch criteria is not specified, bring it to the attention of the operational management or, better still, file an ASR. Any operator worthy of the title will immediately rectify this omission and bring it to the attention of its staff.

Jim

[HeliComparator]

Jim

Avoidance of the exceedance of RFM limits (under specific environmental conditions) is not the responsibility of the CAA or the oil companies

I didn't quite say that, I said operational supervision (on a general level) was, and I stick by that. Surely that is what we have FOIs for? Isn't that why some oil companies have aviation divisions?

We have no "despatch criteria" in our OM. Some time ago the CAA forced us to align our OM with JAR-OPS 3 (even to the extent of labelling the paras with the corresponding JAR-OPS para number) and there is no requirement in JAR-OPS for a specific section on despatch criteria. My view is that was done to make the matter of compliance with JAR-OPS easy for the CAA to audit, rather than to make the OM a useful document. "Despatch criteria" in terms of weather minima etc are scattered around the OM in a very user unfriendly way, but we were forced into that format.

Anyway, I think pilots should be familiar with the RFM. What is the point in repeating RFM limitations in the OM?

HC

[sox6]

JimL I'm not sure you have grasped the situation and the banter in the last few posts. It would appear the people who realised the apparent significance of the days DA required a pause in operations belong to one operator who didn't fly. Those who didn't realise belong to the other two and did fly.

People don't stop doing (or ASR) what they don't realise is wrong.
No doubt this thread will cause some reflection and study in two operators.

Incidentally, isn't it the job of the CAA to regulate the current rules and requirements? I assume that means something more than just writing nice rules. Or is it CAA policy to bury their heads in the sand (snow?) and forget who granted the AOCs?:E

Added: I'm shocked that a CAA inspector would meddle with an OM to make it simply match a generic model and remove safety related information. What sort of irresponsible, lazy, third world regulation is that? Could this explain why the UK CAA's new safety head is an experienced safety / HF professional brought in from outside?

On the subject of rules, by the way, a happy 2010 to all of JARland from the Netherlands!;)

[cyclic]

Which temperature are you using for this envelope calculation? Is it the temperature as stated on the actual taken at about 4' above the ground, or the temperature displayed in the aircraft? If it is an in-flight calculation then I would assume you use the aircraft temperature.

[Fareastdriver]

The calculation must be from the actual.. You would not know the temperature displayed in the aircraft until you have committed yourself to fly.

[Droopystop]

Cyclic,

The implications of your post are rather worrying. It seems that you are suggesting that planning of flights should be done once airbourne. It's a bit like saying I don't know for sure what the wind is at cruising altitude, so I will go and find out so that my plan is accurate. I am sure you don't mean that.

[cyclic]

Of course not. What I am saying is that an actual in these circumstances can be a little misleading as it very much depends exactly where the temperature is measured. Yesterday by anyone's admission was a very unusual day. No need to worry about me either, I have flown all over Northern Europe (and a few hot places) for the past 25 years and have managed to make well judged decisions so far in a variety of unusual circumstances! There again, I have never worked for the Aberdeen company who invented helicopter flying...

[JimL]

The responsibility for operational supervision does not rest with the regulator but with the operator.

The regulator, before issuing an AOC, makes an assessment on whether qualified staff (post-holders etc) and appropriate systems (procedures) are in place so that operational control can be maintained. In the system of continuing oversight, the regulator periodically samples the product to establish whether adequate control is being exercised within the system.

If Helicomparator's contention is correct, then all operations manuals will be generic and have identical text. Yes JARs do have an OM template for the operators to use but you should not infer from that the text of the template is that which should appear in the OM.

For example the paragraph 'Operational Control and Supervision' merely says "A description of the system for the supervision of the operation by the operator..."; it is expected that the operator's system will be described here.

When it says in a later paragraph ..."Operational control. A description of the procedures and responsibilities necessary to exercise operational control with respect to flight safety"; I would expect to see a description of the system (and the person responsible for that system) of providing a serviceable aircraft on the ramp; the system for ensuring that the aircraft are dispatched within precise criteria (and the person responsible for that system).

Later in the template where it requires "Flight Preparation Instructions. As applicable to the operations."; I would expect to see precisely the information that is being discussed in this thread.

Sox6, yes I have understood the banter and appreciate the situation in Aberdeen. Clearly, the understanding of the limitation on the DA was part of the culture of one of the companies but not of the others. It would also appear that this is not part of the written procedures in that company but one of adherence to the limitations of the RFM.

My view is that a company culture that relies upon the memory of pilots is not an adequate safety culture - these high pressure and low temperature regimes occur very infrequently in the North Sea, and that should be recognised by the operators. Why is it do you think that before every winter, most fixed wing companies issue a reminder about cold weather operations?

I also take issue with your contention that the CAA should (in your words) 'regulate current rules and requirements' (in fact I am not sure what that statement means). As part of its SMS, each company should have quality assurance procedures that ensure that its product is (re)produced as described. It is for the CAA to ensure that the product described is, in their opinion, adequate for purpose.

I have to say that I see similarities in this thread to discussions that we had following the EC225 ditching. It is not good enough to rely upon the judgement (memory) of the crew members; there have to be adequate SOPs in place to ensure that the frailty of the human is not exposed.

Jim

[Special 25]

Well, some good lessons learned. I think it is fair to say that yesterday at Aberdeen was a pretty extreme day, and with a million rules to remember, it is hardly surprising that pilots are not in the habit of calculating Density Altitude.

Thank you P3 Bellows for confirming that someone from Bristow did try to contact the other operators. I accept that there is no standard procedure for this, but given what HC says regarding the seriousness of this issue, it is good to know that pilots from all companies do look out for each other - As I would expect.

Kudos to Bristow for spotting this issue and I guess that comes from having the greatest experience on the type - I seem to remember there was a similar issue when the 225 first arrived on the North Sea - I do find it amazing however that such issues can be fixed in the latest 'Service Pack 4' or whatever its called !! Thank goodness for steam driven aircraft !

[HeliComparator]

Jim

My view is that a company culture that relies upon the memory of pilots is not an adequate safety culture

But how else could it be? Whether or not the relevant info is in the OM or the RFM is surely irrelevant. Pilots cannot reasonably trawl through all 200 pages of the OM part A and then the 100 pages of the OMB then the hundreds of pages of the RFM before each takeoff. And what about reading through the entire ANO and AIP sections relating to the area of operations?

Sorry but pilot knowledge and memory has to be a key factor in safety culture. That is why we have ground training.

There have on occasion been some attempts to produce flow charts (normally by line trainers for some reason!), in particular relating to weather issues, but they either become ridiculously complicated or only cater for a subset of possibilities.

Sorry Jim but I am not one to subscribe to the view that safety can be created with bits of paper. Safety has to rely on the knowledge, skill and good judgement of the pilots (and of course the other supporting staff)

HC

[HeliComparator]

Special

I do find it amazing however that such issues can be fixed in the latest 'Service Pack 4' or whatever its called !! Thank goodness for steam driven aircraft !

A bit of a non-sequeter there and your ludditism is showing!

The issue of control instability is (as with any control system) that if the gain of the control loop is greater than unity at the frequency where there is 180deg phase shift in the feedback, divergent instability results.

Gain in this case is related to "control power" which for a helicopter varies with rotor speed and with air density - ie slow rotors = little control power, fast rotors = lots of control power, thin air = little control power etc.

So with very thick air, control power/gain can be reduced back to below unity by slowing down the rotors. This is what your SP4 will give us - the FADEC will reduce the Nr when thick air is detected. At the moment it only takes it down to 100% but with SP4 it will go down to 97.7% (I think) thus allowing ops down to -6000'DA

So I say "thank goodness for software driven aircraft" - the software can be tweaked to fix an inherent structural/control problem.

HC

[JimL]

HC,

I'm not sure I am asking for (more) bits of paper; it would be nice to have a system with flags so that when envelope limits are approaching (or for any other occasion), an alert is signalled.

Really no different to that you are describing for software improvements for the control problems - i.e. it could be part of your computerised planning/dispatch system.

It doesn't really matter how its done provided it's not left to an individual pilot's memory - i.e. a systematic approach. After all, it sounds important enough to have some control in place.

Jim

[HeliComparator]

Jim

Yes I suppose there could be something on our base Flight Planning system, however that would only cater for takeoffs from Base. Takeoffs from offshore back to base, or to an alternate could not be covered since surface temperature and pressure are not forecast in TAFs etc. (I am discounting density altitude offshore since it never gets that cold)

I suggest that (just like EGPWS obstacle data) its better to have no electronic system than one that only covers half our flight sectors. That way the pilot is in no doubt that he is responsible for compliance with flight envelope limits. Not all operators have electronic flight despatch systems anyway.

One of our complaints about this limit (which you may remember was introduced a couple of years after we started operating the aircraft) is that its not really possible for the pilot to predict the density altitude at his destination at the end of a long flight. Experience and good judgement are the only weapons available. If you don't like the sound of that you are not alone, but what is the alternative?

HC

[MrR]

Did the guy with the Lama helicopter in his altitude record get this? Did he know about it?
The Indian and Pakistani rescues in the Himalayayas never mention 'divergent oscillation in the cyclic control'.
Appreciate we don't all fly the 225, but what on earth causes 'divergent oscillation in the cyclic control' ?
Sounds horrible.

[HeliComparator]

MrR

I think you need to read my previous expanation again - the problem is not with high density altitude (ie the Lama pilot) its quite the opposite, low density altitude below -3500'. (note that low density altitude = high air density! confusing!)

The problem is an old one that surfaced on the AS332L back in 1982. I think the primary cause is that the flight controls are "anchored" at one end (the pilot's end) by the AP Hydraulics etc, at the other end they are attached to the servos that are mounted on the main transmission. The main transmission is mounted on the fuselage by a slightly flexible mounting system. The problem is that forces generated by changing the disc attitude (ie cyclic input) cause the transmission to move slightly, which changes the distance from the servo to the AP hydraulics thus effectively makes a slight cyclic control input, which in turn modifies the disc attitude, which in turn causes the transmission to move slightly etc etc. If this "control loop" has a gain of more than unity, it rapidly diverges (ie the forces and movements mentioned above rapidly increase in magnitude). The natural frequency of this (ie the frequency where the phase shift is 180 degrees) was about 12 Hz for the 332L and 14 Hz for the 225.

It was fixed on the 332L by adding a bellcrank and rod to the forward servo control run. The other end of the rod was attached to the MGB and had the effect of nulling out the effect of transmission movement on the forward servo position.

On the 225 this reappeared due to the more powerful rotor system. Initial attempts to add more bellcranks on the other servos etc didn't seem to work, but reducing the Nr did work and that is the line EC have taken, for the time being at least.

So with current FADEC version the Nr is reduced according to the measured density altitude. Only problem is that its not easy to accurately measure the density altitude at low speed IGE - exhaust gas recirculation can artificially raise the temperature around the probes and then the system could calculate that the density altitude is higher than it is, increase the Nr and go into the oscillation. So a large margin has to be built in that causes the Nr to be lower than optimal - so there is less thrust in the hover etc.

The new FADEC version will have additional temperature sensors in the tail - the system will use the lower of the sensors to calculate the DA and having the more appropriate Nr allows them to have a minimum Nr lower than 100%, hence moving the limit from -3500' to -6000'.

HC

[malabo]

HC - good analysis and description. Appreciated.

[albatross]

Jeez I guess we'll not be seeing any 225s flying in certain part of Canada -

-30C at Sea level = -5900 Density alt.

[HeliComparator]

albatross

After Q1 2010 we should be able to go down to -6000' DA, however I agree that the aircraft will still have a problem in places like Canada in winter. EC realise this as well and its their stated intention to address the issue in a more fundamental way (ie modifying the control run geometry etc). But this is not going to happen quickly so I think you are right, there will not be many EC225s in N Canada, Siberia etc for some time!

HC

[DOUBLE BOGEY]

HELICOMPARITOR

I applaud your massive brain. Although I have very little understanding of the concepts you have described here on this thread your descriptions have re-inforced my belief that as pilots, beyond a certain necessary basic undertsanding, we probably know very little about the machines we operate. A bit like the Iceberg, we know the bit at the top!!!

I with you on the memory thing though. I think ground training should produce an awareness of issues such that when the right memory hooks are triggered we know which book, and with prcatice, which part of the book to look in for the guidance and answers.

I also think Jim has a valid point as well. When it comes to more obscure issues, or just generally operating outside our comfort zones such as the WX this last fornight has afforded, the Operator's management should kick in and do a bit of research and re-inforcement training.

Remember the old days when we had a "Winter Flying" FSI or some such!!

DB

[Leaky Valve]

Double Bogey,

"Remember the old days when we had a "Winter Flying" FSI or some such!!"

Our company, specifically the Line Training department, continues to provide lectures and/or produces a comprehensive precis of the relevant limitations, etc., regarding operations in winter conditions every year, and has done for many years.

LV

[212man]

It suggests that performance planning should be done more systematically, regardless of the day-to-day outcome always being "MCTOM" - because one day the answer might be "outside the flight envelope!" It also suggests that, if electronic performance planning is being done, that the software needs changing to flag up the breach of envelope.

HC, is there no onboard indication on the PFD to highlight this - particularly given the consequences you describe? The IAS tape goes red above Vne, you could imagine that the ALT tape could also go red when below (or above) the RFM envelope.

[HeliComparator]

212 - No, there is no onboard indication, I think for 2 reasons:

1) This limit was not known about when the aircraft was first designed/certified/sold and

2) As was alluded to earlier in this thread, any helicopter struggles to accurately measure OAT until its in OGE forward flight.

All helicopters have ultimate OAT limits but as far as I am aware they don't have any cockpit warning when you are outside those limits.

By comparison IAS is easy to measure especially when you are going fast!

HC

[Fareastdriver]

I have been following this with interest. IIRC the 330 gearbox mounting is the same as the early 332 before the strut. In 1978 we used to, and I believe they still do, wrack our Pumas around Northern Norway in the middle of solid high pressure systems at minus 26 degrees. We lost a Puma at Bodo in an in-flight break up with three fatalities. The reason was put down to a main door detaching and colliding with the tail rotor plus all that entails. The door concerned was suspect before the accident but one wonders whether a divergent ocsillation was ever set up which may have caused the door to detach.