Flying loads out from between power lines

[Agile]

got impresssed by the precision of this job, lifting loads from between power lines while negociating suport wires. check at 36:00
great video editing and voice over, learned a lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teoi0dSf4YM

[The Sultan]

Why take the risk?

[[email protected]]

So when something goes wrong and he takes himself out, the guy underneath and the newly installed wires - what is the defence?

Could the poles have been moved to a position clear of the wires? Clearly yes and the lifting job would have been far quicker and without those spine tingling periods of being attached to the pole with nowhere to go waiting for the guy on the ground to release the pole from the support..

Something of an ego trip for a pilot with no idea about risk assessments..........

[Non-PC Plod]

Risk assessment must have been done - he was wearing a helmet! :-]

[Heliflyger]

Nice and smooth handling, the video pretty much describes the life of a utility pilot in Norway

[Langball]

I'm not a pilot, but I did notice that he appeared to be sitting on the thumb of his left hand (thus restricting the movement on the collective). Never seen that technique before.

[heliduck]

Great flying, great video. I’d love to know how they get the video so smooth & to transition from looking down to up.
A lot of VR work involves having very few options if the noise stops, nothing unusual in that.

[aa777888]

I'm not a pilot, but I did notice that he appeared to be sitting on the thumb of his left hand (thus restricting the movement on the collective). Never seen that technique before.
He's not sitting on his thumb, he's resting his thumb on the edge of the seat. This can allow one to have more precise control of the collective position by using the fine motor skills in one's hand and finger muscles, rather than the more gross motor skills available in the arm muscles. For small changes, one just squeezes between thumb and fingers with more or less pressure. Not everyone has large enough hands and not every helicopter has the right geometry to allow this method, but it seems to be quite common.

[aa777888]

Great flying, great video. I’d love to know how they get the video so smooth & to transition from looking down to up.
He is using a so-called "360 camera" on the long line, and he mentions this at the beginning of the video. There are quite a few "action cam's" on the market now that, by using two 180 degree spherical field-of-view lenses back to back, capture a 360 degree view in both azimuth and elevation. Perhaps the most famous examples are the GoPro Fusion and the GoPro Max, but there are many others. One then processes the captured video through the camera software, typically on a PC, to obtain whatever view one wants. The software will allow panning, zooming, stabilization, and other effects. The GoPro software even includes "selfie-stick removal", so if you hang the camera out at the end of a stick it will magically remove the stick from the video and make it appear as if the camera is floating in space. Using video editing software you can even mix together multiple, simultaneous views. It's really cool technology that is surprisingly mainstream at this point.

[212man]

Risk assessment must have been done - he was wearing a helmet! :-]
Yes, complete with 1 inch gap around the chin strap to prevent tightness/chaffing, and any subsequent distration and fatigue that may result.......

Question for 350 (or any) VR pilots - is he looking directly at the load or via the mirror I can see on a bracket? I ask not being a VR pilot but having done the training with a well known school in Penticton, using an EC120, and the only way to see the load from the RHS was to hang out the door! He appears to barely lean right.

[206Fan]

212man,

He has a floor window on the right side along with the mirror. If you watch a few more of his videos you can see the floor window in use!

[212man]

212man,

He has a floor window on the right side along with the mirror. If you watch a few more of his videos you can see the floor window in use!

Thanks - I see it now in this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-mgiLowltg

[[email protected]]

A lot of VR work involves having very few options if the noise stops, nothing unusual in that. But he has none at all for extended periods

[EEngr]

Could the poles have been moved to a position clear of the wires?
I suspect that what we are watching is the removal of old poles from the right of way. The terrain is steep, the cleared right of way narrow and any moving of poles on the ground would have to be done by hand. If they could have gotten a tractor in to clear more land and move poles, they could have used it to drag them to the nearest road. Far cheaper than using a chopper.

[roundwego]

An excellent piece of video which shows the skills required for this sort of work. He recognises when he is beginning to overcontrol which is a sign of tensing up and a need to relax a bit. I am however surprised he is not wearing a flame retardant flying suit. It won’t save his live in a major impact crash but it could save him from significant burns in the event of a survivable crash with post impact fire.

[Hughes500]

Guys
I m sure risk assessments were done for this sort of work, happens all over the world. If there was a more economical way then that would have ben used.
Like any longline utility work if the noise stops then there are very few options, like any job there is a risk but engines don't stop that often
The 350 has a lifting window through the floor. View is limited but useable unless you are big. It is much easier out of a 500 where you can lean out of the window, but she won't lift what a 350 will !

[heliduck]

But he has none at all for extended periods

That’s the reality of life on top of a longline.

[JimEli]

Did anyone catch the overtemp on start?

[[email protected]]

That’s the reality of life on top of a longline. pretty dumb life choice for an intelligent pilot.

[[email protected]]

Did anyone catch the overtemp on start? which gauge is the ITT/T4? If he did overtemp perhaps he should concentrate on one thing at a time instead of strapping in and talking to the camera - aviate, navigate communicate

[TWT]

perhaps he should concentrate on one thing at a time instead of strapping in and talking to the camera - aviate, navigate communicate

Except that's not what he did. In the video linked to in the OP, the voice over is done during editing. No talking to the camera while strapped in.

[212man]

Did anyone catch the overtemp on start?

What time? I don't see the FLI going anywhere to limit

[gipsymagpie]

Ha! If you baulk at that, the French dangle a basket with people in it down between the wires. Admittedly it's from a twin engined 135 and Airbus UK (Capt Ormshaw) did extensive trials to confirm the max weight to allow a vertical climb, translation sideways and vertical descent to put the basket on the ground safely following an engine failure. Now that would focus the mind. Anyone got a video of that?
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/325x217/h135_basket_6425266d6b62368ae404279f42e6b49c300721f1.jpg

[jimf671]

But he has none at all for extended periods

Quite.

This is nuts compared to the utility stuff I have been involved in as the ground guy with Bond/PLM-PDG/Specialist on a variety of jobs in the Highlands across the last 35 years. I cannot imagine why one would not organise to avoid having the aircraft remain in the hover that long. All that ratchet strap stuff: why would you not have a quick release system for that retainer? Benefits the ground guy too because he is working at height. Bonkers.

[Hot and Hi]

OK, but it seems the power lines are not live. The thread title makes it sound so dramatic. If the lines were live, I guess that would add some "tension".

Surprised that the ground crew (on the poles), at least some of them, don't wear gloves nor eye or ear protection.

[[email protected]]

Yes, it's a very macho version of working safely - looks great and heroic on video right up until someone ends up in hospital or worse.

[roundwego]

Yes, it's a very macho version of working safely - looks great and heroic on video right up until someone ends up in hospital or worse.


Im sure if you had been tasked with that work in the military you would have jumped at it.

[[email protected]]

Im sure if you had been tasked with that work in the military you would have jumped at it. in a twin-engined helicopter, below AUM for OEI hover and with a sensible plan for emergencies or failures - yes.

Taking risks like this to save lives or fight wars is very, very different from doing it to make a few quid because safety is the easiest cost to cut.

[rudestuff]

So what's your take on this?
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/860x645/1553395_orig_7bd16340a85c42a25d42474a12a69753742f66a9.jpg

[[email protected]]

Practice Engine Failure - GO...........

[Bksmithca]

[QUOTE=rudestuff;11113467]So what's your take on this?
Here a video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DHnrOBnvO7Q that shows crews doing live line work which is normally only done one the outside phases. It's completely different work than lifting things out next to the center phase of the power lines. I do question parts of this work as the video showed a crane on track next to where he was lifting things. Why not take it out on a rail car.

[[email protected]]

Again, the flying skills are good but they are only using single engined helicopters because it is cheap, not because it is safe. The boss at the beginning acknowledges the aircraft is almost permanently in the HV curve - who agreed the safety case for that?

Yes, there are other failures that would doom any helicopter regardless of the number of engines but why tempt fate? Oh yes, to make money - which seems to be an excuse for disregarding many people's safety and easy to 'justify' until you are on the wrong end of an accident that didn't need to happen.

I've managed nearly 40 years of some challenging flying, generally by not putting myself in a place where I didn't have a plan B if something went wrong - not always, but when I did it was for a very good reason (lifesaving for example) - and then with limited exposure time.

Spending your working day knowing that you might not walk away if a failure or loss of attention happens might be fine for some - I just don't need to be that macho.

[Bell_ringer]

And yet, how many accidents and fatalities actually happen each year and how many of those are related to the engine?
Considering the number of hours flown - precious few.
Yes singles are cheaper to run, but if they were being wrecked often and crew lost then it would rapidly become more expensive for the operators.
It is the nature of any commercial venture to only change once cost justifies it.
The reality of risk, in this environment, is that it extends far beyond engine reliability.

There are trade-offs in every environment and safety is never first, more often it is a strong third.
!00% safety does not exist, and if it were the absolute requirement, no one would ever venture outdoors.

[[email protected]]

It is the nature of any commercial venture to only change once cost justifies it. True but it is the mind of the businessman that prefers to look at the profit of the cheaper option against the vast costs of having an accident.

A famous quote - I think from aviation - If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident.

I've been lucky enough not to have to continually take the risks that these pilots clearly accept as the day to day reality of having a job - in safety terms I think they call that risk normalisation and risky shift.

All activity carries risk - it is just how much and for how long you are willing to expose yourself to it that varies between individuals.

How does that other saying go? There are old pilots and there are bold pilots but there are very few old, bold pilots.

[hookes_joint]

Having done line construction work for a number of years, and seen the introduction of a number of safety organizations and more modern aircraft, not much has really changed in the Powerline construction world

We still use the same methods of moving the linemen. just added some HEC regs
Class A HEC Lineman on Skid or Platform
Class B HEC Lineman underslung
Class D Hoist Ops with Cat A Twin

As a pilot is the risk factor more or less being in a twin or a single in the HV curve. Simple if I have a true CAT A Twin.
Is the risk more or less in that twin trying to get into the tight spaces required to perform line maintenance. Most certainly has an increased risk factor with the larger aircraft.
Unless it’s 345KV plus probably not going to happen so we will used Class B HEC or Class D Hoist.

From a Lineman's perspective, Is it riskier to sit 100 foot tethered below a Bell 429 or EC145 etc for 8 hours a day while the pilot struggles with vertical reference mid span work or be on the skid or platform of a 500 for 8 hours a day which has easier references for the pilot. the risk is higher for the aircraft next to the wires however mid span vertical reference can be a serious workout for pilot and linemen. These all carry there own inherent risks.

As far as pulling in new line which is Class C loads the aircraft of choice is still the 500 due to side pull capability. The more modern astar has a side pull kit but again it’s too much aircraft in a tight area. Could you make this safer by using a Cat A twin and a headache ball. Yes. Downside with the headache ball and long line is being so far above the dollys or blocks that you may struggle getting the rope where it needs to go or damage the insulators with the headache ball.At this point in time you would probably be removed from the project.
Have accidents occurred with the 500 pulling in ropes. Plenty such as ropes hitting main and tail rotor blades, fuel starvation from the pulling angle, hitting towers with the aircraft, mid span needles snapping and recoiling back at the aircraft etc.

We can all agree, no individual or company wants to be involved in a accident or incident. Just like anything else in life the safest way would just be not to fly. Park all the machines and stay home. But we are aviation professionals in our different industry’s and have chosen those paths. We can all weigh the pros and cons of what we do and nobody is forced. At least here in the US if you don’t like what you do there are plenty of other flying jobs that will satisfy your personal risk assessment

I believe over the next 10-15 years the utility industry will continue to evolve alongside everything the drones will do. Most power company’s have gone full circle and are now again buying there own medium twins for line patrols leaving only construction and maintenance to contractors. Introduction of the black hawks is pushing the Hueys out and seeing a lot more chinooks popping up also taking over the heavy loads with the Cranes.

At some point in time underslung Human External Cargo will require a CAT A twin. Will any of this have positive safety results? At least on the risk assessment paper on the safety guys desk it’ll look good..

[rudestuff]

There's a reason the 500 is the aircraft of choice. It's also insurable in the most litigious country on earth. I'm sure someone's done the maths and come to the conclusion that an engine failure in an agile single is less likely than a wire strike in a larger twin. And cheaper of course.

[aa777888]

They've done the maths, all right. Because at the end of the day it all comes down to cost of insurance. That's what makes it affordable/unaffordable. And underwriters are very good at math. Very, very good.

Actual risk to human life doesn't actually come into play. You can always find people willing, more than willing, indeed training their entire life to get a job like this. Not just happy with the risk, but ecstatic about it. There is nothing more heroic than beating the odds and being better than everyone else. Especially in 'murica. And I write that in all seriousness as an American. Helicopter lineworker? Helicopter live line op's? Can't think of too many things that top that on the pinnacles of skill and daring. People are lining up for it, if you'll pardon the pun :} About the only thing sexier than that is being a pilot for the 160th, but then people might actually be shooting at you!

Property damage doesn't matter, either. Ball up a few helicopters? Bang up some power lines? No problem, insurance will pay. Because again it's all about the insurance. Underwriters don't mind losses as long as they are making money. And they don't want to price themselves out of a lucrative market. And there's little danger to the public or risk of other property damage given how there's very little in and around most of these sort of power lines. So it's all very low visibility stuff, and accidents can actually happen without too much in the way of media exposure.

No doubt it's rough on the families of the pilots and lineworkers, but the families always say "They were doing something they loved."

Probably the only real sin is an accident that causes a power interruption, and thus interrupts the flow of public utility revenue.

It's a good bet that only way you are going to see twins in this job in America is if it becomes a regulatory requirement, because twins are likely to make the entire process unaffordable. Insurance rates will substantially increase given the much higher hull values involved, because it's probably not engine failures that are causing the vast majority of accidents. Power companies will abandon helicopters at that point and develop other technology.

And remember this is the real world, not military or public service. In the latter there is an infinite tank of money that allows things to be as safe as it is possible to be and still get the job done. Or maybe not get the job done! No insurance to be paid. Ball up that big twin? No problem, the taxpayers will get you another. The real world runs on a substantially different cost/risk basis. The economic "laws of physics" are different, very different! You can't expect the things you did or didn't do in the military to necessarily apply, no matter how "correct" you think they are.

Now if you want to talk about something really dangerous, how about night helicopter crop dusting?

[rudestuff]

I couldn't agree more. There was a time when I would have cut my own arm off for that job.

[Gordy]

I am one of the primary instructors for Pacific Gas and Electric for their "Flying in the Wire Environment" class, (the largest utility provider in California and in the top 10 in the US). I have been teaching this class weekly for the last year. The risk in this type of work is NOT the engine failure, it is wire strikes or mis-judging distance. Our class revolves around CRM and having two persons up front, not two engines.

For those spouting the "single engine is bad theory", how many engine failures have occurred in the past 25 years in the wire environment vs other incidents....? I'll wait.....

[hookes_joint]

Powerline Construction and Maintenance is very different from your basic picking up a pole and setting it somewhere else. I do it on a day to basis and have for a lot of years. There are a lot of moving parts where you operate your helicopter as a bucket truck for the linemen in fairly crappy environments.
Nobody ever plans to go out and have an accident however over the past 30 years
There have been a lot of incidents accidents due to both aircraft failures and pilot / line crew failures in the industry.

I could make this list extremely long but just to name a few,
A good friend of mine Paul Ruppert who everybody flying the Powerline industry would know as he was 20,000 line pilot for Air2, Wilson, Rogers, Source and Rotorblade died in Madison Wisconsin in a 500 engine failure 5 years back on American Transmission Property on his way to move two linemen HEC
In California Brim 600N had an Engine Out on Utility property in the last year. Same weekend Mountain Power 600N had engine out on Utility Property in Thompson Falls Montana returning from HEC flight. Haverfield are the pioneers along with a few others of this type of work and probably where you can get the best training and actual energized work experience. They have 24 MD500s, BK 117s, Hueys and Blackhawks. Over the years a lot of **** has happened unfortunately. Their Chief Pilot had a very serious engine out some time back that left the lineman dead unfortunately. This year a 500 doing board work in New Jersey ended up in the trees. Three years ago a 500 in West Virginia had an engine out pulling rope, and last year 500 had an engine out in New York returning from HEC flight. I’ve seen plenty low end governor failures over the years for Air2, Winco, Wilson in ****ty spots bringing in hot cross arms etc that could have ended extremely poorly but good work from the pilots and linemen got it down flat and needed an A&P rather than a NTSB report
I have seen less incidents accidents from Twins in the Powerline world however that is just due to the number of hours flown. Most Recently I recall a Duke Energy 429 in North Carolina go in the trees and in New York a Twin Star from Andalar Aviation hanging upside down from a 230KV with pilots and linemen jumping 100feet to there death. Just as common are crew failures such as the 600 in Pennsylvania that the linemen forgot to safety the fiber when clipping and fell out of the block on the skid. Rolling the aircraft killing both linemen. Or the lineman in Puerto Rico riding on a grapple hook rather then clipping into the AFrames and falling a hundred foot or so.
Plenty accidents from pilots too, hitting structures, wires etc and sometimes just really tragic accidents such as the 530 in Iowa that the needle fractured when pulling and took out the rotor system.

To expand a little further I have seen some crazy stuff from the heavys on construction projects, with two to three pilots up front wiping out wires, releasing poles before they are tied off etc. The mentality that’s involved in setting a 10,000lbs pole in the mountains is very different than that of a logging or fire mentality.

As a community we don’t seem to qualify our candidates correctly to work in the environment. Most utilities now have an audit similar to PGE that you need to hold a dummy 6 off the ground in a 10 foot circle and touch different elevated cones with the dummy and a certain hour requirement. Then your good to go…..
now that pilots goes off to his first job hanging marker balls at 1000feet AGL over moving water or snow or anything mid span and can’t figure out why he can’t do it and the linemen send him down the road.
At that early stage he/she would probably be fine for moving men and materials to/ from the towers over solid terrain.

I agree CRM for every worker is extremely important especially with Helicopter companies that fly external linemen or observers ie work for the contractors, where you work with different individuals every day. There’s nothing worse than showing up to an LZ and having to show your lineman how to put his fly harness on.

[[email protected]]

There you go Gordy - all seems perfectly safe, can't see why anyone would worry.............

[Gordy]

Powerline Construction and Maintenance is very different from your basic picking up a pole and setting it somewhere else.
There have been a lot of incidents accidents due to both aircraft failures and pilot / line crew failures in the industry.
The mentality that’s involved in setting a 10,000lbs pole in the mountains is very different than that of a logging or fire mentality.

Could not agree more.... I can only talk for what I teach and work---but yes, we discuss that a 10,000 hour logging pilot may be useless in the powerline industry initially---totally different mindset and skill set.


As a community we don’t seem to qualify our candidates correctly to work in the environment. Most utilities now have an audit similar to PGE that you need to hold a dummy 6 off the ground in a 10 foot circle and touch different elevated cones with the dummy and a certain hour requirement. Then your good to go…..
now that pilots goes off to his first job hanging marker balls at 1000feet AGL over moving water or snow or anything mid span and can’t figure out why he can’t do it and the linemen send him down the road.
At that early stage he/she would probably be fine for moving men and materials to/ from the towers over solid terrain.

Agreed, PGE has some pretty strict requirements now, (2,500 HOURS pic, approved training etc just to fly patrols), and in most cases there is a mentorship side to it also where it takes 6 months of working with an experienced line pilot in the other seat on long line work before you are let loose by yourself.


I agree CRM for every worker is extremely important especially with Helicopter companies that fly external linemen or observers ie work for the contractors, where you work with different individuals every day. There’s nothing worse than showing up to an LZ and having to show your lineman how to put his fly harness on.

You and I are on the same page, safety is paramount and this is not work for new people right out of the gate. I suspect we have met at the power line symposiums or at UPAC meetings.... The main point I was making was that in many accidents/incidents would not have been prevented by having twin engines, but "may" have been prevented by having two persons in the front seats.

[Gordy]

There you go Gordy - all seems perfectly safe, can't see why anyone would worry.............
I will admit it has "risk associated" with it---all because it has different risks than what you feel it "safe" or "mitigated to an acceptable level", does not mean it is un-safe.

I personally would not like to fly offshore at night in the weather that you have done so in the past---that risk is not acceptable to me with my skill set.

Therefore.....different horses for different courses.......

[krypton_john]

There's a reason the 500 is the aircraft of choice. It's also insurable in the most litigious country on earth. I'm sure someone's done the maths and come to the conclusion that an engine failure in an agile single is less likely than a wire strike in a larger twin. And cheaper of course.

Q: How do you double the chance of engine failure in a helicopter operation?

A: Fly a twin.

[[email protected]]

Q: How do you double the chance of engine failure in a helicopter operation?

A: Fly a twin. Which makes it twice as unlikely to suffer a complete power loss that would put you into the scenery.

[RVDT]

Which makes it twice as unlikely to suffer a complete power loss that would put you into the scenery.

For some proportion of the flight regime and in others it will at least shift the location of the crash site. Economic full accountability for an engine failure in smaller multi-engine machinery is a fairly recent thing.

Most opinions on Pprune do have significant "cultural differences" based on geography and thankfully they do come to light and some need to realise that.

In this operation "engine failure" is only part of the equation. For a comparison look at the fixed wing ETOPS where an "engine failure" can put you in a single a long way from the beach yet engine failure is not at the top of the list of items that need to be addressed by any stretch of the imagination.

With a risk assessment based on empirical data it is easy to see that it is not exactly "raining helicopters" out there due to engine failure.

If you use the analogy of "signal to noise ratio" and this very same forum I think you may find the biggest signal involved some apparently sophisticated types - EC135, EC225, S92 - none of which had "engine failures".

For the Luddites out there - you do realise that most of the main rotor components on the AS350 are made of plastic?

[212man]

Where’s AnFI when you need him?

[[email protected]]

Where’s AnFi when you need him? Noooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:)

[[email protected]]

The stats regarding 1 v 2 engines and safety generally can be argued in different ways and yes, of course there are other failures that can bring down a helicopter - not least the seat/stick interface.

BUT, in the context of this thread where we are looking at hovering a helicopter for extended periods over obstacles, deep in the HV curve, with people either working directly under or attached to the aircraft - if you only have one engine and it fails, you are going in hard - no matter how good a pilot you are.

If you fly the same profile in a twin, below OEI hover max weight, you will have options and, more importantly, time to safely extricate yourself and protect the workers.

Does it cost more for a twin? yes, of course but the power companies, like oil companies, rely on operators cutting each others throats to get the contract and driving down safety margins to the minimum.

[rudestuff]

I'd be interested to know what the actual stats are for causes of power line accidents. Because if 20% are engine failure and 80% are 'other' - then even if all engine failure crashes were 'saved' by a second engine, the overall safety would only increase by 25%. But the cost would triple.

If insurance covers the difference and the flights are generally operated in remote locations by willing pilots - then who cares? Why not put safety third for once 😜

[Bellrider]

crab
I always read between your lines that an old pensioner explains the world how to fly helicopters.
​​​​​​…… And love your heroic stories, how you used to fly in the army. All times totally save, i‘m sure….. doing risk assessment bevor flying over areas where Taliban or other bad boys will shot you from the sky….for shure pretty much saver
And of course I learned one important thing after 20 years of flying.
Only old army, SAR and Offshore guys…..these are the only ones who invented flying….
But keep up the good work, turn on your office chair, judge the world, and explain to all the fools out there how it really works

[[email protected]]

Bellrider - as you may have realised with generations - each new one thinks they invented sex.

With pilots, each generation only learns that the old boys might know a thing or two when one of the younger ones screws something up and then they vaguely remember being warned about it by some old codger in the corner.

For clarity - I flew with the Army in a non-operational role as a QHI, I am ex-RAF SAR pilot by trade but I have flown a lot of hours in a variety of environments so if you feel that has no value then that's up to you.

I don't care if pilots feel they want to take additional risks to get the job done - just don't pretend it is safe to do so.

[hoistop]

I wonder if there is a statistic of engine failures on twins.
And, engine failure in a twin does not take away 50% of available power-in modern twins it is considerably less, for 30 seconds might be even almost the same as running both engines, as transmission limits kick in.
Since I had long discussions with Mike Melia (the man that reinvented Massachusetts police Air support unit after tragic engine failure on their AS-350), I am clear about single vs. twin - I just cannot accept to spend days and days within H-V betting my life on a single RR250.
I did a lot of work on that engine so I think I know a few things about it and I would bet my life to it only occasionally and briefly (as I did in my 15 years of flight ops duties). Singles are used in this job primarily because they are affordable - and risks of decreasing profit against risks of losing the company in the aftermath of an accident are the driving force, with option of having an accident felt remote enough to be pushed aside. The tragedy of loss of life is not in the books/numbers. Only when it is experienced from up close and personal, minds sometimes change. Been there, seen that.

[Non-PC Plod]

There is always argument to be had in this forum about risk, and it is often focused on the old single vs twin thing. The fact is, every pilot and every operation has his/its own individual appetite for risk, and this can change with time.
A younger me spent plenty of time in the hover 1000-1500' AGL over a city centre at night in a single ( where, in the event of an emergency landing off-base, the locals would have relished the opportunity of kicking the crap out of me and putting a bullet in my head).
Would I do that now? Probably not. Not because I know better, but as the years pass I am in a different situation, and my assessment of acceptable risk vs return is different.

Its not productive to criticise others who see acceptable risk differently - only the ones who are deliberately breaking rules or playing fast & loose with other peoples lives through greed or negligence.

[helimo]

https://helihub.com/2021/09/22/airbus-helicopters-starts-flight-tests-with-engine-back-up-system/

This article is a good addition to the discusion.

[[email protected]]

And would a major manufacturer be doing that and investing in the tech if there wasn't a real problem with using singles in high risk environments?

[212man]

And would a major manufacturer be doing that and investing in the tech if there wasn't a real problem with using singles in high risk environments?
I suspect this is the true driver: "The project opens the way to a future hybridised propulsion system for light helicopters ..."

[Bell_ringer]

I suspect this is the true driver: "The project opens the way to a future hybridised propulsion system for light helicopters ..."

Not only, it will reinvigorate the stagnating twin market by providing a lower cost 1.5 powered ship. Allows operators around cumbersome regs forcing twin ops (in some circumstances) which equals more sales $$$ for the manufacturers.
Much like the Bell with the electrical multi-fan yaw control - improved redundancy, lower complexity, lower cost.

[helisdw]

Some airframes that are optimised for external load work (for example, K-Max / Eagle Single 212) are single engine by design / modification.

Does this make them inherently unsafe or does the improved power / weight ratio make them better suited to their intended task and potentially safer if they can maintain an increased thrust margin?

True twin engine ‘safety’ for external load ops only exists when you are assured single engine OGE performance - the weight penalty to achieve this is probably so restrictive as to frequently make it functionally impractical (as well as economically unattractive).

Cost is undoubtedly one aspect of the equation, but actually being able to complete the task at hand is surely a consideration too?

[[email protected]]

You can have as big a thrust margin as you like on a single engine but when it quits your thrust margin is still zero, just like any other single.

I agree with 212man that hybrid is probably the way they will go - and if that offers options in an otherwise hazardous hover regime then great, safety has actually been increased rather than ignored.

[albatross]

One thing to keep in mind when long lining with a twin is that when the donkey resigns and you punch off the load, if not the long line too, you are left with a helicopter that has I person aboard, probably a small fuel load and that’s all. Hence your mass is pretty low and you’ll probably have very reasonable OEI performance.
We had one fellow lose an engine in a AS335 in such circumstances and it was a non event he did pull full OEI temp limits as it was a very hot day.
Another in a 212 with -3B engines and he didn’t even need to pull OEI power to recover and return to base with his 200’ LL still attached. He was working over jungle with 180’ trees and the long line was about 10’ feet from the jungle floor when it happened. 500 ASL, 0 wind, 30 C. It was “Calm, cool and collective” that day as the “Stud Duck” AKA the chief pilot said.

[retoocs]

Looks like a Calfire Blackhawk lost an engine during a hoist operation but couldn't maintain a hover.

https://www.safecom.gov/safecom/21-0993

[[email protected]]

Questions I have:

1. Why were they conducting live winching/hoisting TRAINING when they didn't have OEI hover performance?

2. Why were they descending to a 150' hover with the rescuer already deployed on 125' of cable?

Before deploying a rescuer on a hoist, you should be in a stable hover having conducted a power assessment and confirmed whether you are Safe OEI, Flyaway, or Committed so the winch/hoist operator knows exactly what his actions need to be in the event of an engine malfunction. You should always be Safe OEI for training.

Everyone thinks winching is easy and just posh hovering until something goes wrong.

[Gordy]

Questions I have:
1. Why were they conducting live winching/hoisting TRAINING when they didn't have OEI hover performance?

This is not your world. CalFire have been doing hoist work from their single engine Hueys for many years. We do HEC and rappel from single engines here, we also fly over cities at night in single engines. Why is it everyone complains about the "rules" y'all have to deal with over there and then try impose them on us over here.

Just accept we do things different and again, all because it does not fit into your "box" does not mean it is wrong.

[blackdog7]

2 sets of eyes when performing patrols is good practice. 2 sets of eyes crashing to the ground when performing vertical reference work is just plain stupid unless you are flying some old equipment that needs an extra 200 lbs to function properly.
ie - SCE used to use 2 pilots in their 135 when the AFM requires one. They should have learned to longline from the right seat.
429 is likely a better fit for them.

[[email protected]]

Gordy, I guess you just don't like the guys on the wire then.

Is it wrong in the US to have concerns for the safety of your workmates?

If the rescuer in this case had sustained more than light injuries and ended up in a wheelchair, would you have such a cavalier attitude to his welfare?

The point is that it was an avoidable accident.

[aa777888]

Far be it for me to agree with crab, because you know I'm Mr. Live Free & Die, fly a single, fly a Robinson, we are all big boys and girls, etc., etc., but in this case I have to say it doesn't make a lot of sense, if you do have a twin, to train in a regime where OEI performance is limited. When a single is what you've got well, it's what you've got. No getting around it. But in this case it doesn't make sense. Especially in a public machine, where money is not as big an object as it is for a private machine. Spend the ferry time to go somewhere lower/cooler, etc.

On the other hand it's still funny how everyone's risk envelope is so different. Here I am agreeing with crab about this, but not about something like auto's to grass. How much of that is how you were trained, how you operated and how much contempt familiarity bred? And how much is pure science, engineering and statistics? Always a good discussion :)

[jimf671]

Year after year we sit in ICAR Air Commission meetings saying we have to do something about HEC accidents and year after year some territories tell us how the end of the world will come if they have to be as fussy as the stupid Brits. (Probably still the safest country in the world in spite of BJ.)

[Hughes500]

Jim WTF has BJ got got to with it, grow up