IMC for choppers coming at last

[nigelh]

More accessible Instrument Rating is now a reality.....I have argued for this for years and put off my own full IR for years waiting to do a sensible course without 500 hrs of study of complete nonsense !!
Next stop will be to make EIR legal in singles subject to certain equipment and well overdue ...but better late than never .
This will save lives ......I am certain .


The long-awaited new regulation for a more accessible instrument rating is now a reality. The regulation, EU No 245/2014, comes bundled with several other other significant improvements for GA. Jacob Pedersen of AOPA Denmark reports that the new package contains:
1) The introduction of the new Enroute Instrument Rating (EIR)
2) Theoretical knowledge requirements for the IR adapted to what is relevant for flying non-complex aircraft with a PPL
3) A competency-based path to earn a full instrument rating
4) Holders of a third country ICAO compliant IR can be credited IN FULL for both the theoretical knowledge course and the practical training requirements
5) Possibility for third country license holders with residence in the EU to continue flying till April 8 2015 before an EASA license is mandatory
6) The privileges of PPL and LAPL licenses are extended so it is clear that the holder can make use of the new rules for cost-sharing for up to six individuals
7) The UK IMC rating can continue to be issued until at least 2019
The Enroute Instrument Rating (EIR), as the name suggests, allows the pilot to fly IFR during the enroute phase of the flight. It only requires a minimum of 15 hours of instrument flight instruction, but comes with significant limitations compared to the full IR. It has no approach privileges, and both the take-off and arrival must be flown VFR. The transition must take place et the minimum IFR enroute altitude which is typically 1,000 ft above the highest obstacle within 5nm. In other words, it is not a rating that will get you in or out of an airport in marginal conditions – you will be better off arriving VFR. The EIR can, however, allows you to enter class A airspace.
The theoretical knowledge curriculum has been reduced significantly and the required number of hours has been cut from 200 to 80, of which most can be done as distance learning. Physical classroom presence can be as little as eight hours if you are good at home study. The items that have been removed from the curriculum relate to flying high-performance aircraft at high altitudes. Should you later want to fly such an aircraft you will need to cover these subjects, but for a PPL holder wishing to fly a typical GA aircraft the new theoretical course will make the path to the instrument rating more simple.
The new competency-based route to the full instrument rating is another opening especially for the PPL holder who might already have some instrument experience or training from either the enroute instrument rating or from flying IFR on an instrument rating issued outside the EU. The competency-based path to the instrument rating requires 40 hours of instrument instruction. Of these, up to 30 hours can be credited based on prior experience and training.
Holders of an FAA issued instrument rating, or other ICAO-compliant third-country rating, with a minimum of 50 hours of IFR/PIC time will find that their rating can give them full credit for both the theoretical knowledge course and the practical training requirements. If they can pass an instrument skill test and during this test demonstrate that their theoretical knowledge is adequate, they can have the European full IR issued.
Third country license holders can also fly for another year. As part of the new regulation every European member state now has the option to postpone the deadline of the new rules that requires residents in the EU holding a third country license to convert to an EASA license. They can now continue flying within the EU until April 8, 2015 if the individual member state so decides after April 3 but before April 8 this year.
Many of the affected pilots hold an FAA license and use their FAA instrument rating to fly N-registered aircraft in Europe. These pilots now have a year to use the new competency-based path to pass an IR skill test and get a full European instrument rating. Alternatively they can hope that the bilateral safety agreement (BASA) between Europe and the US will be extended in time to allow them to keep flying in Europe. An effort is certainly being made, and there is pressure from IAOPA in both Europe and the US, but no guarantees for this strategy.
The UK IMC rating can continue to be issued till 2019. This rating, which follows a 15-hour minimum flying course and has a rigorous revalidation schedule which is designed to give pilots the ability to save their own lives in IMC by maintaining control of an aircraft and returning it to the ground by whatever instrument landing system is available, has been obtained by tens of thousands of British pilots despite conferring no additional access privileges – and in 40 years, only one IMC rating holder has been killed in actual IMC. The UK has fought hard to keep the IMC rating, the case for which it believes to be self-evident, and is likely to pursue its continuation before the five-year stay of execution. As always, the IMC rating will continue to be valid only in UK territory.
Altogether the new regulation opens up a future for GA where an instrument rating is now realistically achievable for the typical private pilot. Until now less than two percent of European private pilots have obtained a European instrument rating. In the US, the level is well over 40 percent. With the new more achievable path to a European instrument rating the hope is that we will start to see more instrument proficient private pilots getting more benefits from their license and with skills allowing them to fly even safer.

[Boudreaux Bob]

In Altogether the new regulation opens up a future for GA where an instrument rating is now realistically achievable for the typical private pilot. Until now less than two percent of European private pilots have obtained a European instrument rating.the US, the level is well over 40 percent. With the new more achievable path to a European instrument rating the hope is that we will start to see more instrument proficient private pilots getting more benefits from their license and with skills allowing them to fly even safer.

Guess that really sums it up.

[TimTooWindy]

Very Interesting post.......groundbreaking stuff.

Regards.
TTW

[nigelh]

I know its early days but still surprised at the lack of response .....This is THE BIGGEST STEP IN HELICOPTER SAFETY definitely in my lifetime !!!
I am sure that some of you who sweated and paid a fortune for an IR may be cursing but its potentially a great move forward . The IMC was a wonderful thing for the fixed wing community and they would now be utterly lost without it . Give it a few years and we will be the same . From this i guarantee to you that 90 % of singles will be able to do part of their route in cloud rather than grovelling around at 200ft ....that has got to be good .
( So long as they have ModeC Xponder on and dont take the piss trying to do ILS for a breakaway etc ). Now also it will be worth fitting new generation kit into singles such as SAS , synthetic vision etc etc and these will all plummet in price due to the new volume .
As a fairly high hr ppl flying regularly why would you NOT want an EIR ????

I just find it amazing that for once it appears that a PILOT has had some influence in the dealings of the men in white coats :D

[JimL]

...but the aircraft still has to be certificated for flight in IMC. This change applies only to licence privileges and not to the helicopter.The difference between aeroplanes and helicopters is that, whilst aeroplanes arrive with clearance to fly in IMC under normal certification, helicopters do not.

Jim

[nigelh]

Yes obviously that is the case for now , but i believe that will all change in due course .....just like the single FW flying AOC work ....it happens eventually .
I dont think a twin VFR heli will be worth much soon now it will be so simple to get an EIR .....

[Bravo73]

I've tried reading through the original post but the lack of spacing is making it a bit tricky.

Can somebody please point out the bit which refers specifically to helicopter licences? :confused:

[Boudreaux Bob]

A while back I posted my thoughts on Single Engine Helicopter IFR.

It was in the UK Twin Mentality Thread if I recall correctly.

In essence what I opined was I supported Single Engine IFR for Helicopters provided adequate Viz and Ceiling existed to facilitate a "safe" landing in the event of an engine failure.

If one incorporates the IMC Rating limitations, VFR Take Off and Approach to Landing with just the enroute phase in actual IMC, was I not describing pretty much what Nigel posted about. Granted, I was referring to Weather Minimums while his post concerns Pilot Rating.

All we need to do now is get the Technical side to set forth a minimum standard for Single Engine Helicopters (which with the exception of a second engines and its related components would comply as well) for Enroute IFR in IMC conditions.

At a minimum I would like to see at least a basic Autopilot and Stand By Attitude Indicator.

What's the chance of that happening in the UK?

[JimL]

Bob,

As was stated before, this has nothing to do with the UK; certification requirement for flight in IMC is contained in FAR 27/29 - it applies equally to the US as well as Europe (and anyone else who builds to that standard).

Jim

[Boudreaux Bob]

Jim,

Nigel is discussing the UK and Europe.

The proposed License change affects the UK.

If the UK License changes then it does have some effect in the UK.

Our FAA is well known for giving totally accurate but totally useless responses.

Did the CAA adopt that practice as well as Part 27/29?

I repeat the question.

What is the chances we shall see Single Engine Helicopters flying IMC in the UK?

As you have posted in the past you said the Authorities can add requirements to ICAO conventions. Thus, the USA, UK, and EASA could do just that and allow Single Engine Helicopters to fly IMC.

Rub your hands over your Crystal Ball and tell us what you see?

[nigelh]

I think Jims point is to do with the manufacturers getting the certification . That may take some time but i sometimes fly a 500 IFR with certification so its obviously not impossible !! If the demand is there it will happen .
The 109 i fly is not a good vfr machine so it makes sense to encourage pilots to get the EIR and go up !!

[Thomas coupling]

I think it could be a double edged sword:
For people like you Nigel who are very experienced GA drivers, I agree - this is another string to your bow...AND...your likes would probably use it to good effect. BUT I wonder how the less blessed PPL / GA driver would see this? Will it offer them another escape route into (possibly) worse IMC conditions? Would they be tempted to get airborne in much worse weather thinking they can simply 'pop' up EIR and alls well, forgetting or not bothering to consider the prospects the other end - ie - getting down below MSA to recover?
The sticking point is and still will be configuring the cab - too cost prohibitive for the lower end of the market, so I wonder how many could take this on?
Finally BOb - UK single engine IFR - NOT in your lifetime buddy!:(

[Boudreaux Bob]

Which I knew long before asking the question!

I was just trying to get some folks on record that know very well what the "Reality" is in the lofty perches in the Hallowed Halls of the House!:E

The Crats shall never accept the personal and career liability that would come along with making such a decision.

[nigelh]

TC ... For anyone like myself lucky enough to own or fly an IFR twin , but who hasnt been through the pain of getting a full IR , it is absolutely brilliant news ......although the thought of being totally legal takes some of the fun out of it !!
I also sadly think you are probably correct about singles and ifr but for the life of me i cant see a proper valid reason ....but weve been through all of that before havent we :rolleyes:

[misterbonkers]

There seems to be some confusion here.

The majority of the new rules are aimed at (A) holders.

The bit that applies to helicopters is that if you hold an ICAO IR(H) then you only need to pass a skills test to gain an EASA IR(H).

This is all subject to you finding at ATO that doesn't require any training before undertaking the test.

NigelH - it's exactly the same situation you find yourself in with regards to obtaining an EASA 109 Type Rating...

[[email protected]]

And how many single engine or light/medium twin helicopters actually have an icing clearance that would allow you to fly en route IFR for much of the year in UK?

Chances are we would have lots more GA pilots operating IMC below SAlt and ignoring things like quadrantals because they can't get above the zero degree isotherm.

[nigelh]

Crab .....i dont see your point at all !!! Effectively none of us have icing clearance regardless of what rating s we may have .
Anyway i have a horrible feeling that my reaction on hearing this " I cannot believe that CAA or EASA or whatever you are today ...have actually come up with a really sensible idea that will increase GA , making it easier for people to actually use their aircraft properly rather than not being able to do a trip just due to a narrow band of low cloud across their route . Safer also as they will pop up to MSA for a few minutes in this case and then go VFR again rather than clawing low level ( which most of us do ) knowing we have only 20 nm before it gets better ." may be premature . I think this helps people get an IR from another country which is great but i dont think the EIR is relevant to us . I was told it was but now i am not so sure , there is no mention of helicopters just aircraft ....... Sorry if i got your hopes up but you will just have to carry on illegally for the time being !!!!
I

[Tandemrotor]

The idea of popping up into IMC, without a capability to fly an instrument approach to sensible minima, never mind have the endurance for a diversion, isn't one that would have me cheering! In a single OR a twin.

Just keep them out of Class 'A' airspace please. That's where the professionals have every right to be safeguarded from the unqualified. Other than that, fill your boots.

[nigelh]

Tandem . You really are a " glass half empty " man aren't you !!!
Nobody said the planning of a flight would be any different to you
" professionals " .
There is no problem with switching from vfr to ifr if you have it as a planned option .... It's quite normal !!
Sorry to ruin your day but you may not have realised ...... The idiotic ppl brigade already swim in your waters .... And have done , virtually incident free , for quite some years . It's called an "IMC" rating and is basically the same as an EIR I guess .
Anyway don't panic , the idiot helicopter pilots are not going to be allowed to do the same as idiot FW pilots for the time being !!

[Tandemrotor]

The idiotic ppl brigade already swim in your waters .... And have done , virtually incident free , for quite some years . It's called an "IMC" rating and is basically the same as an EIR I guess .
You sure about that nigelh? I thought the IR(R) is broadly similar to the UK IMC rating? As far as I can tell the IR(R) enables those so desiring to:
flight in IMC outside controlled airspace, (in Class G) and IFR flight in Class D or E controlled airspace with appropriate permission

So like I said. Keep this outside of Class 'A' airspace thanks.

[Ascend Charlie]

We've had this in Oz for about 15 years, the Private IFR Rating.

You get tested on the aspects you want to fly, the most basic is just enroute IFR with VFR at departure and arrival ends, and at the other end of the scale you can do everything that a CIR allows, except for a commercial operation.

I held one for many years, because of a couple of advantages - the machine I flew was the only one in country, and it was ridiculous trying to find a testing officer every year for the renewal - the PIFR lasts for 2 years.
The renewal was also categorised as a "Review", not a test, so if any sequence is not up to speed, it was repeated with instruction until satisfactory, rather than an instant fail and go home.

The PIFR copped flak because it wasn't recognised by ICAO, but now it just might be.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Oh My! The folks in Oz have been doing this horrid thing for almost two decades and there has not been mass mayhem and disaster as a result? However can that be I wonder?

Care to offer up an explanation for us TR?

[John Eacott]

BB

The PIFR has been available since 2000, and is explained in CAAP 5.13-1: Private IFR Rating. (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.casa.gov.au%2Fdownload%2Fcaaps%2Fops%2F 5_13_1.pdf&ei=IlRDU9PKMMiAkQWc44GYAQ&usg=AFQjCNHOXsgmnddSQeVWJQ7zS52fVAZTsQ&bvm=bv.64367178,d.dGI)

It hasn't been taken up very much by the rotary fraternity, but is very popular amongst the starched wing mob. When I asked if my last CIR renewal could also be signed off as a PIFR I was firmly told that it would have to be a separate test: covering all that we would check on the CIR. The mind boggles :ugh:

[Boudreaux Bob]

The Rules are the Rules!:mad:

[handysnaks]

TR, only class A airspace, are there no professionals in class B, C, D etc?
I have always felt that the main reason that IIMC events tend to end really badly is because those pilots who get into those situations are so unused to actually being in IMC that they suffer all of the physiological problems we associate with IMC flight in a very short space of time. I think we all regard IF flying as a very perishable skill but I think that the experience of being in actual IMC is an even more perishable 'experience' (for want of a better word). Anything that enables a practising pilot whether professional or private, to not have to deal with the feeling of panic that must surely occur when they go inadvertent, can only be a good thing, surely?
It always occurred to me after I left my previous IFR role for the VFR role that I have had for the last 19 years, that when the cloud base is solid at 2 or 3 thousand feet, that would be a perfect opportunity to be able to experience actual conditions in a safe manner. I still feel that regular straight and level in IMC would do me far more good than an hour of climbing or descending turns 'under the hood'.
Finally, the idea that we shouldn't allow that sort of thing because pilots will always stretch the law is a similar line of thinking to the idea that WW1 pilots should not have been given parachutes because it might encourage them to bale out!
I appreciate that there ought to be a number of 'hurdles' before that could happen (training, aircraft fit, fuel planning, etc), but as a principle it ought to be encouraged.

[QTG]

As previously stated, the EIR appears to be for aeroplanes only. Converting an ICAO IR to a Part-FCL one has always been based on the recommendation of an ATO (but, in the UK - see CAP 804 Section 4 Part Q). No-one, for example, with few hours and an IR gained on a light single in benign conditions, is going to pass a Part-FCL ME IRT without considerable extra training. Whether you think it should be necessary or not, there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.

[Boudreaux Bob]

there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.

Care to rank the Best Five or Ten for us as you seem to have a unique view of the situation? You have any Statistics to corroborate your statement?

It is not the License/Rating that matters but the recency, currency, and proficiency that matters in the real World.

Jumping through a bunch of expensive hoops doesn't make one a capable instrument pilot six months later. Instrument flying skills are very perishable.

Planned Instrument flying is fairly safe, it is the IIMC events that kill folks even those with European Ratings.

[QTG]

Sorry Bob - no dice. I rest my case.

[GoodGrief]

...there can be little doubt that European (most states anyway) standards of instrument flying are among the highest in the world.

That's what these arrogant bureaucratic ar$es in the authorities think.
First thing I got when it came to converting my FAA to Euro was "Americans can't fly" and they showed me "their way".
Oh, dear!:ugh:

[Boudreaux Bob]

QTG,

How many Nation's Instrument Ratings you hold? Just the UK?

[SARWannabe]

Instrument procedures can be taught to a high standard in any country and any fw/rotary/sim/single/twin. The biggest difference comes when becoming proficient at IFR in the air. Actual IMC is entirely different to time on the hood/foggles, sim IFR time whilst helpful is absolutely no replacement for flight in IMC. You simply don't get the illusions to anywhere near the same degree, and can easily be lulled into a false sense of ability.

It matters little whether you are training in a single or twin for the IR so long as you are gaining experience flying IN IMC, and with the considerations of temperature/icing, turbulence, CB's, instrument errors (NDB's homing to nearest CB) etc... There are a few places that offer SE IR IN IMC, and the conversion to a ME IR is very easy. The only actual difference in the test is a single engine failed approach, and single engine go around. Thats all.

Back to the thread - it's good to see EASA being pragmatic and not just tightening everything up, but there is very limited application for an EIR in helicopters, in the UK anyway. How often are you going to be in conditions where you need to climb into cloud, and can guarantee that you'll find a safe cloud break without having to use an instrument let down (which you won't be allowed to do). And if you don't have to why would you want to (possibly without TCAS etc)? I don't accept the argument that it's safer than stooging low level because if the weather is bad enough to force you that low then it's almost certainly bad enough to prohibit your guarantee of breaking cloud at/above minimum enroute alt given the small ranges of most heli's. One exception - if you have a narrow ridge line to cross - but this will hardly keep you current and proficient. If you want to fly IFR do an IR and fly instrument procedures regularly, to my mind this is the only safe way ahead. The EIR is entirely different to the IMC rating, or IR(R) which does teach instrument approaches and absolutely makes it worthwhile. IFR enroute ONLY? No added safety in my opinion.

[handysnaks]

QTG, I can think of at least three recent accidents that leaves your assertion about instrument flying skills (in the UK anyway), open to question!:confused:
Whilst there is no immediate plan for either helicopter EIR or CB IR, part of the consultation process is/was to consider whether there was any merit in exploring the issue.

So (even though it will probably never happen for helicopters), I personally raise a glass to EASA for giving the whole thing positive consideration.

SARwannabee. Although in an ideal world everyone knocking around with an IR would be the gold standard, the IMC rating has served the private fixed wing community in the UK well for quite a few years. I can actually see the point in a 'professional version' of the IMC rating in my current role with the police. (Some bases are so far away from an airfield with an approach aid that pilots at those bases would be hard pressed to maintain the required number of approaches to keep a full IR current). However, I accept that such a thought is considered a bit heretical within our community.

[krypton_john]

So... EIR is not all that practical for helicopters as far as transport from A to B goes, is it? After all, unlike FW, in a helicopter if it starts to close in you can much more easily stop, turn around or land just about anywhere if you need to and it is also safer and more practically to crawl along under it at 500' AGL if the conditions allow it?

But... it would allow for legally engaging in IMC flying for the purpose of up-skilling should one find oneself in IIMC?

[Torquetalk]

Sorry Bob - no dice. I rest my case.

You haven't made one.

[Thomas coupling]

Krypton:
So let me get this right - you are saying it would be good to use the qualification just incase one went IIMC?
So, one inadvertently enters cloud and then decides - hmmmm, I can practice flying in this now I'm here because I am legal? Fascinating....:ugh:

Ohh I forgot the other dicotomy - When one has refreshed one's perishable skill to an appropriate level, does one then pop 'ou' of IIMC and continue with the trip or.......
Get to where one is going and then orbit until the rules change again allowing an EIR pilot to shoot an approach to recover?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Case Made?

In his own Mind perhaps but not in any other way.

I have to assume he only has the UK Rating and has no experience with other systems and has not flown with any Pilots other than his fellows.

His response is so typical of a few who attend here.

We have a saying over here in Bubba Land about such folk, "Teach a Brit to fly Today and Tomorrow he will tell You how to do it.".

[homonculus]

I went quite some way along the IR route but stopped because I realised nobody was going to employ me to fly IR, that I would never afford to fly IR on my own account, and that I rarely wanted to go anywhere near anywhere with an instrument approach. However, I regret not one penny of the cost as the experience I believe made me a better and more cautious pilot.

I certainly don't think it would be any value in IIMC when my survival would like anyone else in an unstabilised ship be mere minutes. I do however worry about those who seem to believe extra training is bad.

EIR would be of value. I lose count of the number of times I have scurried across the channel when there has been good weather either side. The number of times when VFR on top would be far safer except for the lack of a hole big enough to get up there. And it is not that unusual to have low cloud over certain areas such as the Chilterns with VMC either side

Low cost autopilots are now a reality. The CAA objections whenever I have engaged them has been the risk of engine failure which doesn't meet the statistics. So if it is feasible and safe to allow some pilots to have additional training and additional equipment which could in some occasions extend their ability to fly safely, it is a rum do for us to argue over it

[krypton_john]

No TC, you didn't get that right at all. Try reading it again and if necessary I will rephrase it for you. :rolleyes:

[nigelh]

Homonculous . I totally agree with you . I also see exactly where TC is coming from as well . The problem is that one piece of clothing does not fit everyone ....you have to legislate to the lowest common denominator .
IF , and its a big IF , you could pick out the pilots who keep current and would be prepared to keep instrument flying current , possibly even have a 6 month quicky check ride ....then i think it would work fine . The moment some guy with 500 hrs and no idea uses his EIR to fly to a destination that is NOT forecast to be VFR , and then has to do a Radar let down etc etc it will all fall apart .
We all talk about how diffficult flying IMC in a non SAS machine is and how perishable the skill is .......well why not do something to make it a whole lot easier ??
When you see what model helicopters can do now with autopilot linked to satnav ( GPS ) ...ie get out of any attitude / weather and fly back to where they took off and land ..................it makes you wonder why we all fly with instrumentation that is out of the dark ages !!!! Why would that same technology not work on full size ....even if it just flew you back on a reciprocal heading and height ....?
I am hoping to do an experiment one day by getting a low hour ppl with NO instrument flying experience and put him into IMC and see how he flies using synthetic vision . If , and i suspect he will , he is able to fly a circuit just using that , and get out of unusual attitudes as well .....will that become an invaluable piece of equipment especially for vfr machines ??
Has anyone done this ?

[Boudreaux Bob]

Nigel,

Consider the USMC uses Kaman K-Max's to do underslung resupply flights in Afghanistan using pilotless aircraft. I am sure the cost of equipping the aircraft to carry out that tasking is substantial but as you point out, the technology to do it without Pilots exists so why should it not be feasible to do it with pilots monitoring the process.

I guess the big hurtle would be to find a way to keep the Pilot from interfering with the Auto Pilot system.:E

[nigelh]

Interestingly i have since heard from 2 pilots who have flown IMC with sole reference to Synth Vision and they both said it was "EASY" . Not saying this should be the approved method but surely as a get out of jail card it could be very useful , especially for non ifr competent pilots who find themselves iimc.
While we have non ifr pilots flying vfr machines we will always have iimc followed by cfit .
With ref to the Chinook accident and also more recently the one in London , i would say that both would have been avoided if synth vision had been available ....and how many more ??? I am also told it is now not an expensive option .
A bit like cars now adopting HUD , infra red cameras , forward looking radar with auto braking , auto parking ..................they seem to be fast to adopt technology to make their cars safer . We however in a much more high risk environment have done very little over the past 20 years :ugh:

[John R81]

I have a Flymap L as a removable device, and 2 years back I opted to add Synthetic vision. It is a GPS-based system (no FLIR camera for real-time). I have not flown inadvertent IMC but the system is fantastic, particularly when flying around the Scottish Highlands below the peak tops.

It is clear to me that this would be a very, very useful tool for IFR / inadvertent IMC.

The system would be even better if it were fully integrated into the aircraft avionics package - which it can be - but that option proved far too expensive so my system remains as a stand-alone running power from an auxiliary outlet. I did check, but (for example) to add airspeed indication you need to break-in to the pitot vacuum line and that is a no-no without soooooo much paperwork and cost. So I don't have a single screen which includes airspeed (I do have groundspeed), and I have no engine data (which can be shown) and the sensor for the AH is not mounted in the best place (under the mast) because that would require the running of an additional wire back to the box, so the sensor is further forward than is ideal for the unit.

Unfortunately, the system of regulation designed to keep aircraft safe is one of the reasons why development of safety features proceeds so slowly.

[nigelh]

John . IF all else failed do you believe you could do a 180 and fly for a few minutes using this screen ? I am told it is totally intuitive , just like looking out of a small screen . If you could hook it up to give engine data , airspeed , VSI etc without having to spend a fortune on CAA/EASA arse covering , would you do it ? Also do you believe you could/would fly straight into a hill or building if you had it or would it make that scenario almost impossible if its working ?
We have been bumping into hard things in fluffy clouds consistently now for around a century . We know that pilots are human so if systems are complex (ifr) they will sometimes mess up . Even just as an extra comfort , who would not like to look out front and see the ground where you think it should be ??????
If the heli industry was like the auto industry we would have all this safety kit AND more by now . In the last few years they have fitted , to mention just a few
1) All around airbags
2) Ifrared cameras for the dark
3) Radar with auto braking
4) auto parking
We however are just beginning to use .....GPS !!!!!!!!!!!!! And even then not properly :ugh:

[John R81]

Nigel

As I said, I have bought / fitted and I did look into having it added completely to the avionics package but the process / time / cost was prohibitive. If it had been less problematic I would have a secondary glass-cockpit using the kit I already bought but can't switch-on.

What's it like to fly based on this? Take a look at the left screen picture in this link and you will see that it is very simple http://ikarus-ulm.com/portal/sites/dklairlight.com.portal/files/Synthetic%20Vision%20-%20Flymap.pdf Not the same system as I have but you can run mine split-screen if you want; I just find 7" screen a little small for that.

Of course, your primary instruments are still available but on the Flymap you can have AH, DI, Alt, Speed superimposed on the (rather accurate, I might add) terrain representation together with engine data at the bottom of the screen (including Fuel).

There is also 'highway in the sky' as an option which gives you a GA glideslope to runway. Runways are marked as grey strips and (again) remarkably accurate.

Could I 180 and fly a few minutes on this? In turbulent IMC an unstabilised helicopter will still be a handful (I guess, having never been IMC) but I think it would be easier to 'believe' your instruments over your senses when both the AH and the synthetic terrain show you pointing at the ground than just your AH alone.

In practice, flying the remote Glens in W Highland with this mode selected you could navigate safely without reference to outside view if you had to. That would include a 180 and a let-down to a runway. Over towns? there is not sufficient detail in the terrain map to show buildings, etc so if you are THAT low it's not going to help keep you from playing 'wrecking ball'. Fit a Rad Alt in that case.


We would need a simplified process to approve kit of this kind. I understand the potential for unforeseen interaction and disturbance of other aircraft systems so I would not advocate 'fit what you want' but when we are talking about bolting a screen to the cockpit (instead of having it removable), taking power through a fuse (without the addition of a very expensive auxiliary plug) and running a single wire through a wire duct in order to best site the gyros it does begin to look like the safety rules get in the way of aircraft becoming safer in practice.

John