What's more important Public or Flight Safety?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handy: First here's a link to the specs of the R44 Police : http://www.robinsonheli.com/R44Police.htm
Second: no I am not saying that the current crews are too expensive. I am trying to open up a debate about how we can adopt some of the excellent standards seen elsewhere and assisty the cause of police aviation in the UK.
Let me, for now, leave the military training to one side. Because that's the most obvious no-brainer - the 44 would be an excellent mil trainer (and is used as such in some parts of the world).
As I understand it, every ASU is under immense financial pressure and can only afford a minimal amount of flying. The £3m machine sits rotting for most of its life. The crews get frustrated.
Whilst the 44 cannot be a direct replacement for a twin, my argument is that it would make an excellent replacement for many tasks - flown by the same crews. But - only pilot and observer if you want to use the full 3 hrs endurance. Why do you have 2 observers ? Is it a CPS thing ?
It's worth looking at, isn't it ? Otherwise we are going to see a crisis point reached in ASU work - they are going to have all the toys but no money to use them.
Take a look at the spec and tell me if I'm running down the wrong alley. TC still around ? Appreciate your thoughts.......
Second: no I am not saying that the current crews are too expensive. I am trying to open up a debate about how we can adopt some of the excellent standards seen elsewhere and assisty the cause of police aviation in the UK.
Let me, for now, leave the military training to one side. Because that's the most obvious no-brainer - the 44 would be an excellent mil trainer (and is used as such in some parts of the world).
As I understand it, every ASU is under immense financial pressure and can only afford a minimal amount of flying. The £3m machine sits rotting for most of its life. The crews get frustrated.
Whilst the 44 cannot be a direct replacement for a twin, my argument is that it would make an excellent replacement for many tasks - flown by the same crews. But - only pilot and observer if you want to use the full 3 hrs endurance. Why do you have 2 observers ? Is it a CPS thing ?
It's worth looking at, isn't it ? Otherwise we are going to see a crisis point reached in ASU work - they are going to have all the toys but no money to use them.
Take a look at the spec and tell me if I'm running down the wrong alley. TC still around ? Appreciate your thoughts.......
Tightgit
Heads
We have two observers because that (for us) is the optimum crew complement. The pilot drives. The front Observer operates the camera and the rear observer is the 'tactical co-ordinater' (that's my description not official). The aircraft is on call for many tasks (and to counter your point we feel here in the west mids that we have exactly the right amount of flying hours for one aircraft per year.). The most obvious situation where two observers are necessary is in a pursuit. As you will be aware from the national press police pursuits are a hot topic at the moment. The West Mids are at the forefront of attempts to find safer ways of conducting pursuits. The helicopter is of course a major tool in this activity. The pilots job is to fly the aircraft. The front observers job is to operate the camera system. The rear observers job is to provide a commentary and suggest tactical deployment of resources. The rear observer is the only one who can do this, and believe me it is probably the hardest job in the aircraft, in an urban area the commentary is given by reference to an A to Z and we tend to move across the pages of one of those fairly rapidly, (none of us have a complete gazeteer of a major metropolitan area in our heads, a street plan is the only tool). The front observer has too narrow a field of view when he is on the camera and very little situational awareness because he is heads down. The pilot can't do it because he has to safely operate the aircraft and follow visually the target vehicle (and his primary radio is of course ATC).
The attempt to open up the debate is fine but we don't sit here fat, dumb and happy, we are constantly looking at our costs and effectiveness (and so is the rest of the force!). Whether you like it or not, the current regulations are the ones we have to operate within. They are unlikely to change (in fact they will probably get more onerous). We do not consider any of our equipment as 'toys', if we don't need it, we don't have it. The whole of the Police Service is under financial pressure (Council Tax Setting time always brings it into the public eye), air operations are no exception to that.
As a pilot (how pompous!), I too would like to see more helicopter pilot jobs around. But the function of Police air operations units is not to provide jobs for pilots. It is to provide a cost effective airborne platform to assist the officers on the ground to carry out their role. In the current environment a small to medium sized twin is that platform.
We have two observers because that (for us) is the optimum crew complement. The pilot drives. The front Observer operates the camera and the rear observer is the 'tactical co-ordinater' (that's my description not official). The aircraft is on call for many tasks (and to counter your point we feel here in the west mids that we have exactly the right amount of flying hours for one aircraft per year.). The most obvious situation where two observers are necessary is in a pursuit. As you will be aware from the national press police pursuits are a hot topic at the moment. The West Mids are at the forefront of attempts to find safer ways of conducting pursuits. The helicopter is of course a major tool in this activity. The pilots job is to fly the aircraft. The front observers job is to operate the camera system. The rear observers job is to provide a commentary and suggest tactical deployment of resources. The rear observer is the only one who can do this, and believe me it is probably the hardest job in the aircraft, in an urban area the commentary is given by reference to an A to Z and we tend to move across the pages of one of those fairly rapidly, (none of us have a complete gazeteer of a major metropolitan area in our heads, a street plan is the only tool). The front observer has too narrow a field of view when he is on the camera and very little situational awareness because he is heads down. The pilot can't do it because he has to safely operate the aircraft and follow visually the target vehicle (and his primary radio is of course ATC).
The attempt to open up the debate is fine but we don't sit here fat, dumb and happy, we are constantly looking at our costs and effectiveness (and so is the rest of the force!). Whether you like it or not, the current regulations are the ones we have to operate within. They are unlikely to change (in fact they will probably get more onerous). We do not consider any of our equipment as 'toys', if we don't need it, we don't have it. The whole of the Police Service is under financial pressure (Council Tax Setting time always brings it into the public eye), air operations are no exception to that.
As a pilot (how pompous!), I too would like to see more helicopter pilot jobs around. But the function of Police air operations units is not to provide jobs for pilots. It is to provide a cost effective airborne platform to assist the officers on the ground to carry out their role. In the current environment a small to medium sized twin is that platform.
Headsethair / tombola / shawn:
I don't know where to start really, so this response is going to be all over the place
2 x R44 running costs will never and can never ever cost $65,000/yr. If you believe that Shawn, you're definitely not an accountant to put it politely! To put 2 a/c into service takes 2.8 crews. (1.4 times the running costs of 1 a/c!!!) That alone will cost the unit 1.4 pilots, observers. How much EXTRA is that going to cost?
2 x insurance.
2 x training
additional maintenance costs
etc etc.
I would hazard a guess that running 2 x R44 police a/c would cost in the region of $500/flying hour.
Which brings me onto the next issue, actual physical flying time of US units. I read a post that said that some US units fly between 10 and 12 hrs per SHIFT
. I cannot believe this for a second. For 2 reasons:
(a) It exceeds the pilots (FAA) shift allowance.
(b) It works out to about 4000 hours a year (which for the R44 example above would mean an annual bill of about $2,000,000. No way hose!! They would be replacing airframes every 3-4 years!!! The yanks are like us, they fly when they HAVE TO with maybe a sprinkling of proactive patrolling if they have spare cash in their coffers.
R44's which are obviously the love of headsethair (where did you get that handle from?), used by the mil for ab initio trng:
Might I respectfully suggest that when decisions like military procurement on this level, are discussed; it isn't a bunch of spotters sitting around a crewroom table reading a few handouts from manufacturers. [Admittedly they leave a lot to be desired on many a political decision, but ON THE WHOLE they come up with the goods (Dont throw Commanche/EH101/Nomrod at me either )
]
So when the decision to kit out RAF Shawbury, to train the tri service ab initio programme, was made, might it dawn on you that 35 AS350's sold as a job lot, together with the support infrastructure which is essential to maintaining a robust training pipeline, coupled with the need to train students on gas turbines for continuity, might, just might, be the controlling factor.
Most of these pilots are going to fly Puma's/EH101's/Chinooks. Atleast give them some insight into the turbine/fadec world of flying...as early as possible.
Having taught ab initio's, I would also suggest that a very forgiving and robust airframe is also a prerequisite. The AS350 is unrivalled in this dept.
Where are we now.....................
R44 (again!) Payload: Someone stated that the main police role was 'observing'. Last time I responded to this, the US interpretation of observing was quite apparently different ot the Uk version. If I am pursuing a vehicle/chasing someone/taking piccies etc then these are all clasified as 'observing' in the US.
I cannot argue the case for 'numbers' on board. All I know is that for us to do our job properly, we need x,y,z equipment and a,b,c persons on board. The R44 can't carry that and as mentioned somewhere else, the CAA will never allow singles at night. Quite rightly in my opinion too
Finally: twin Vs single for public transport. It happens eslewhere: Buses need specially qualified drivers licences and safety rules to carry passengers. Its all to do with duty of care blah blah. If you crash your piddling R44 into a hill while swanning around on your own, then (a) who cares, and (b) are your estate going to sue your estate for damages?
If you do the same with pax on board....guess what?
Common sense. SO now can you see why there are twins for public transport and singles for sport, in the UK?
Duty of Care is the magic statement.
In summary:
Yanks fly singles because that is their ethos. They are 'foreigners they even have their own foreign language. They live 3000 miles away, they think differently to us (Sense of humour springs to mind). They are lovely people (I ate one once) but they are DIFFERENT and do things differently. If they had started out along another route, then they would be flying Balloons for all I care and swear by them!
We offer a better air support service because we can do more than they can whilst airborne. Fact
R44 for mil flying is like trying to become a rally driver after qualifying in a reliant robin!
Public flying attracts massive protective legislation, one of them in this country is to equip with twins. Same for trans atlantic flights on 1 engine being a non starter - ever
Damn...you've sucked me into another vicious time consuming circle..................
As JFK said on TV today....bring it on!
I don't know where to start really, so this response is going to be all over the place
2 x R44 running costs will never and can never ever cost $65,000/yr. If you believe that Shawn, you're definitely not an accountant to put it politely! To put 2 a/c into service takes 2.8 crews. (1.4 times the running costs of 1 a/c!!!) That alone will cost the unit 1.4 pilots, observers. How much EXTRA is that going to cost?
2 x insurance.
2 x training
additional maintenance costs
etc etc.
I would hazard a guess that running 2 x R44 police a/c would cost in the region of $500/flying hour.
Which brings me onto the next issue, actual physical flying time of US units. I read a post that said that some US units fly between 10 and 12 hrs per SHIFT
. I cannot believe this for a second. For 2 reasons:(a) It exceeds the pilots (FAA) shift allowance.
(b) It works out to about 4000 hours a year (which for the R44 example above would mean an annual bill of about $2,000,000. No way hose!! They would be replacing airframes every 3-4 years!!! The yanks are like us, they fly when they HAVE TO with maybe a sprinkling of proactive patrolling if they have spare cash in their coffers.
R44's which are obviously the love of headsethair (where did you get that handle from?), used by the mil for ab initio trng:
Might I respectfully suggest that when decisions like military procurement on this level, are discussed; it isn't a bunch of spotters sitting around a crewroom table reading a few handouts from manufacturers. [Admittedly they leave a lot to be desired on many a political decision, but ON THE WHOLE they come up with the goods (Dont throw Commanche/EH101/Nomrod at me either )
]So when the decision to kit out RAF Shawbury, to train the tri service ab initio programme, was made, might it dawn on you that 35 AS350's sold as a job lot, together with the support infrastructure which is essential to maintaining a robust training pipeline, coupled with the need to train students on gas turbines for continuity, might, just might, be the controlling factor.
Most of these pilots are going to fly Puma's/EH101's/Chinooks. Atleast give them some insight into the turbine/fadec world of flying...as early as possible.
Having taught ab initio's, I would also suggest that a very forgiving and robust airframe is also a prerequisite. The AS350 is unrivalled in this dept.
Where are we now.....................
R44 (again!) Payload: Someone stated that the main police role was 'observing'. Last time I responded to this, the US interpretation of observing was quite apparently different ot the Uk version. If I am pursuing a vehicle/chasing someone/taking piccies etc then these are all clasified as 'observing' in the US.
I cannot argue the case for 'numbers' on board. All I know is that for us to do our job properly, we need x,y,z equipment and a,b,c persons on board. The R44 can't carry that and as mentioned somewhere else, the CAA will never allow singles at night. Quite rightly in my opinion too
Finally: twin Vs single for public transport. It happens eslewhere: Buses need specially qualified drivers licences and safety rules to carry passengers. Its all to do with duty of care blah blah. If you crash your piddling R44 into a hill while swanning around on your own, then (a) who cares, and (b) are your estate going to sue your estate for damages?
If you do the same with pax on board....guess what?
Common sense. SO now can you see why there are twins for public transport and singles for sport, in the UK?
Duty of Care is the magic statement.
In summary:
Yanks fly singles because that is their ethos. They are 'foreigners they even have their own foreign language. They live 3000 miles away, they think differently to us (Sense of humour springs to mind). They are lovely people (I ate one once) but they are DIFFERENT and do things differently. If they had started out along another route, then they would be flying Balloons for all I care and swear by them!
We offer a better air support service because we can do more than they can whilst airborne. Fact
R44 for mil flying is like trying to become a rally driver after qualifying in a reliant robin!
Public flying attracts massive protective legislation, one of them in this country is to equip with twins. Same for trans atlantic flights on 1 engine being a non starter - ever
Damn...you've sucked me into another vicious time consuming circle..................
As JFK said on TV today....bring it on!
Last edited by Thomas coupling; 3rd Mar 2004 at 18:16.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good stuff! Glad you've got the time to share your thoughts.
TC "Same for trans atlantic flights on 1 engine being a non starter - ever"
Well, isn't that what was said about twin engine jets a few years ago ?.......then along came the 767, 777 etc.
"Crashing my piddling 44". Take it you've never flown one - but your duty of care argument goes off down an insurance alleyway. We should all be insured, whether PT or private. If my piddler goes down privately, there's compulsory 3rd party to cover pax and persons/structures on the ground. That is duty of care.
Don't think your "bus drivers" example stands up. Are they the same drivers I see listening to their MP3 players and using a phone whilst driving? Over-regulation does not solve problems - it causes more to pop up.
I hear what you both say about what you need to do the job. But shouldn't you, couldn't you at least try a different method if it it can be proven to work successfully ?
Mil training on 44s - I observe pilots training on 44s and 22s the whole time. The machine can take what's thrown at it just as well as any AS 350. And when it does get donged, it doesn't cost a fortune to repair. Glass cockpits ? Computers ? Let's get the b*ggers flying first.
And more of them.
I think we better end this here. We all have better things to do. But I would love to chew the fat if either of you have the time. Happy to meet on your territory - so long as you don't mind seeing an R44 close up.
Then you'll find out where I got the handle.
TC "Same for trans atlantic flights on 1 engine being a non starter - ever"
Well, isn't that what was said about twin engine jets a few years ago ?.......then along came the 767, 777 etc.
"Crashing my piddling 44". Take it you've never flown one - but your duty of care argument goes off down an insurance alleyway. We should all be insured, whether PT or private. If my piddler goes down privately, there's compulsory 3rd party to cover pax and persons/structures on the ground. That is duty of care.
Don't think your "bus drivers" example stands up. Are they the same drivers I see listening to their MP3 players and using a phone whilst driving? Over-regulation does not solve problems - it causes more to pop up.
I hear what you both say about what you need to do the job. But shouldn't you, couldn't you at least try a different method if it it can be proven to work successfully ?
Mil training on 44s - I observe pilots training on 44s and 22s the whole time. The machine can take what's thrown at it just as well as any AS 350. And when it does get donged, it doesn't cost a fortune to repair. Glass cockpits ? Computers ? Let's get the b*ggers flying first.
And more of them.
I think we better end this here. We all have better things to do. But I would love to chew the fat if either of you have the time. Happy to meet on your territory - so long as you don't mind seeing an R44 close up.
Then you'll find out where I got the handle.
Tightgit
Heads, of course we have time to reply, we spend most of our time sat on the ground!!
If you have to land at BHX, feel free to knock on the door and ask if I'm in. I will happily offer you a coffee and chat! (however, if I'm not in don't be surprised if the crew don't let you in!). If you want to arrange a specific time pm me and I'll see if I can set it up.
Handy
By the way, I did look at the Robbo site and with our basic equipment I don't think it will get off the ground (I am trying to be open minded and non-confrontational!).
On a personal note....I think americans are great, particularly when it comes to helicopters, if they hadn't done it first, we wouldn't be doing it now!! I certainly wouldn't say we do a better job than them, we just do a similar job differently!
If you have to land at BHX, feel free to knock on the door and ask if I'm in. I will happily offer you a coffee and chat! (however, if I'm not in don't be surprised if the crew don't let you in!). If you want to arrange a specific time pm me and I'll see if I can set it up.
Handy
By the way, I did look at the Robbo site and with our basic equipment I don't think it will get off the ground (I am trying to be open minded and non-confrontational!).
On a personal note....I think americans are great, particularly when it comes to helicopters, if they hadn't done it first, we wouldn't be doing it now!! I certainly wouldn't say we do a better job than them, we just do a similar job differently!
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The quote for the price of operating the R-44 was one that was given to me - it is probably 20% of the total cost for the operation, but that is all that was paid by that one, small community.
This gives that group of communities one R-44 airborne from 6pm to 3am Monday through Wednesday, and two R-44s airborne during the same time frame from Thursday through Sunday evenings. They are there to support the ground units, and don't do air ambulance, or SWAT stuff.
They fly in some pretty crappy weather, and get 100 hour maintenance done on a pretty regular (try nearly every two weeks) basis.
Do they do things differently? I was convinced having flown with them that it's easier to teach a policeman to fly than to teach a helicopter pilot how to be a policeman, but then again maybe it's old age creeping up on me.
As far as the main theme of this thread- Public Safety or Flight Safety - these guys have got both of 'em with no apparent compromise. And it's being done pretty cheaply.
Evidently in the USA, all the piston engine power police departments are having no trouble meeting or staying under their budgets, and all the turbine powered ones are having trouble. As there won't be any pistons in the UK police, we'll never know if the first part of this is true, but we certainly know the second part is.
This gives that group of communities one R-44 airborne from 6pm to 3am Monday through Wednesday, and two R-44s airborne during the same time frame from Thursday through Sunday evenings. They are there to support the ground units, and don't do air ambulance, or SWAT stuff.
They fly in some pretty crappy weather, and get 100 hour maintenance done on a pretty regular (try nearly every two weeks) basis.
Do they do things differently? I was convinced having flown with them that it's easier to teach a policeman to fly than to teach a helicopter pilot how to be a policeman, but then again maybe it's old age creeping up on me.
As far as the main theme of this thread- Public Safety or Flight Safety - these guys have got both of 'em with no apparent compromise. And it's being done pretty cheaply.
Evidently in the USA, all the piston engine power police departments are having no trouble meeting or staying under their budgets, and all the turbine powered ones are having trouble. As there won't be any pistons in the UK police, we'll never know if the first part of this is true, but we certainly know the second part is.
Shawn, as you have been there and seen it with your own eyes, can you confirm for me:
They fly 1 x R44 for 9 hours every day for a week? It is physically up in the air for that same length of time?
Assuming this is correct, that would mean an annual flying budget of about 3000 hours (accepting maintenance downtime etc).
What is the running cost for apoliceR44? I'll hazard a guess: $300???
That means the unit is costing: $900,000/year just for the a/c alone. (Not including their other R44).
Your average twin unit here in the UK costs about $1000/hr to run, and on average because it is mainly reactive, utilises 1000 hours /year. That means $1,000,000/year for the a/c alone.
BUT to fly their rate would require at least twice probably three times the manpower to sustain such a programme.
Whereas we are reactive and target specific activities, the yanks seem to devote most of their time burning avgas/tur
Who would appear to be providing best value, then?
Statisticians would have a field day!
Could you enlarge, please on Brit turbine operators having trouble meeting their financial budgets?????
They fly 1 x R44 for 9 hours every day for a week? It is physically up in the air for that same length of time?
Assuming this is correct, that would mean an annual flying budget of about 3000 hours (accepting maintenance downtime etc).
What is the running cost for apoliceR44? I'll hazard a guess: $300???
That means the unit is costing: $900,000/year just for the a/c alone. (Not including their other R44).
Your average twin unit here in the UK costs about $1000/hr to run, and on average because it is mainly reactive, utilises 1000 hours /year. That means $1,000,000/year for the a/c alone.
BUT to fly their rate would require at least twice probably three times the manpower to sustain such a programme.
Whereas we are reactive and target specific activities, the yanks seem to devote most of their time burning avgas/tur
Who would appear to be providing best value, then?
Statisticians would have a field day!
Could you enlarge, please on Brit turbine operators having trouble meeting their financial budgets?????
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charlie: That's the question I asked 4 days ago on p1 of this thread.
So - you're in a fat twin with full tanks etc etc over a suburb at night at less than 500' and one donk goes. What next ?? Something tells me it would be an auto like a single.......certainly wouldn't be a steep descent with little airspeed and a "controlled" landing would it ?
And there have been no answers. It would be good to hear.....
So - you're in a fat twin with full tanks etc etc over a suburb at night at less than 500' and one donk goes. What next ?? Something tells me it would be an auto like a single.......certainly wouldn't be a steep descent with little airspeed and a "controlled" landing would it ?
And there have been no answers. It would be good to hear.....
Tightgit
Another simple one
Fly back to base single engine and carry out a textbook (I hope) single engine landing)
For your information it was not totally unheard of to bring an AS 355 back to base on one engine following a chip warning.
Next question.
Oh, an addition!
we would never be full tanks in an AS355 because we wouldn't have been Perf A (which for us over the city is a requirement.!)
In the MD 902 (and I'm sure the EC135) we can operate with full tanks most of the year (if a, we can be bothered to fill up the last 190 lbs and b, we haven't got a particularly lardy crew on board!)
But the same would apply, so far, thanks to P&W's quality engineering, we haven't had to find out for real.
Remember, we have to operate to performance A standards all the time (and I'm pretty sure that at 500 ft above the highest obstacle in my vicinity the 902 would fly away quite nicely).
Fly back to base single engine and carry out a textbook (I hope) single engine landing)
For your information it was not totally unheard of to bring an AS 355 back to base on one engine following a chip warning.
Next question.
Oh, an addition!
we would never be full tanks in an AS355 because we wouldn't have been Perf A (which for us over the city is a requirement.!)
In the MD 902 (and I'm sure the EC135) we can operate with full tanks most of the year (if a, we can be bothered to fill up the last 190 lbs and b, we haven't got a particularly lardy crew on board!)
But the same would apply, so far, thanks to P&W's quality engineering, we haven't had to find out for real.
Remember, we have to operate to performance A standards all the time (and I'm pretty sure that at 500 ft above the highest obstacle in my vicinity the 902 would fly away quite nicely).
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunrise, Fl. U.S.A.
Posts: 467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Gang,
I just wanted to touch on PPHELI's question: Are pistons any more reliable now than 30 years ago?
Tim Tucker covered this while I was in robbie School the second week of Feburary.
Yes, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think. Only speaking for the 22, it is more reliable because of the derating of power. The engine is never stressed (hehehe ... right. In sofla, hot, two people .....
) as it might be.
As Tim put it, early on they took engines from planes and still ran them like they were in planes, asking for the same power, with not as efficient cooling, etc (due to how one cools a heli recip ...)
Hope that helps.
As for single vs. twin, I'm up for either. It is a culture difference UK vs USA, here in the US we'll accept singles over the city to begin with.
But as others have said, really depends on the situation, as having the second engine is not automatically a lifesaver in all situations, you may still have to set down somewhere.
On that note, sometime back I recall a thread on single engine pilots transitioning to twins, and having issues, specifically the single engine mentality, knowing when one can use that other engine, or just entering autorotation for the emergency, anyway it was something along those lines ....
I just wanted to touch on PPHELI's question: Are pistons any more reliable now than 30 years ago?
Tim Tucker covered this while I was in robbie School the second week of Feburary.
Yes, but perhaps not for the reasons you might think. Only speaking for the 22, it is more reliable because of the derating of power. The engine is never stressed (hehehe ... right. In sofla, hot, two people .....
) as it might be.As Tim put it, early on they took engines from planes and still ran them like they were in planes, asking for the same power, with not as efficient cooling, etc (due to how one cools a heli recip ...)
Hope that helps.
As for single vs. twin, I'm up for either. It is a culture difference UK vs USA, here in the US we'll accept singles over the city to begin with.
But as others have said, really depends on the situation, as having the second engine is not automatically a lifesaver in all situations, you may still have to set down somewhere.
On that note, sometime back I recall a thread on single engine pilots transitioning to twins, and having issues, specifically the single engine mentality, knowing when one can use that other engine, or just entering autorotation for the emergency, anyway it was something along those lines ....
Tightgit
csc, yup
I am definitely saying that if I have an engine failure at any time (so that includes the 5 mins after take off) then I can return to base on a single engine.
I am definitely saying that if I have an engine failure at any time (so that includes the 5 mins after take off) then I can return to base on a single engine.
Tightgit
CsC
The P&Ws in our current aircraft are excellent engines and very reliable.
As to comparative stats, someone else will have to give you those ( and I can guess where you're going with the current line of enquiry ), remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics.
Frequency of engine failures:
During the short time I flew gazellicopters I can't recall a single engine failure occurring in the fleet. (that doesn't mean there weren't any, but I can't remember any!). However, during the equally short time I flew 355s I can recall a number of pilot induce engine shutdowns due to engine chip warnings. Now from that you can work out a number of things
astazous are better than alison/RR250s
the 355 should have been powered by astazous
singles suffer less engine failures than twins
my memory is s**t..
If I had to auto anything I would rather it was a bell 47 or a huey
(and I've flown neither). The fact is, that if your only method of propulsion fails over a built up area you are better off in an airship! (with a very small leak, and light winds, and a long rope ladder).
The P&Ws in our current aircraft are excellent engines and very reliable.
As to comparative stats, someone else will have to give you those ( and I can guess where you're going with the current line of enquiry
), remember there are lies, damn lies and statistics.Frequency of engine failures:
During the short time I flew gazellicopters I can't recall a single engine failure occurring in the fleet. (that doesn't mean there weren't any, but I can't remember any!). However, during the equally short time I flew 355s I can recall a number of pilot induce engine shutdowns due to engine chip warnings. Now from that you can work out a number of things
astazous are better than alison/RR250s
the 355 should have been powered by astazous
singles suffer less engine failures than twins
my memory is s**t..
If I had to auto anything I would rather it was a bell 47 or a huey
(and I've flown neither). The fact is, that if your only method of propulsion fails over a built up area you are better off in an airship! (with a very small leak, and light winds, and a long rope ladder).
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The police unit I flew with kept the helicopters up all the time. They were used to support the ground units, and covered a wide area. They could be anywhere in their area within about 5 minutes. It is unlikely they could respond that quickly from a ground alert, and the only additional cost is the direct operating cost of the aircraft (officers there, getting paid, etc.)
Yes, they did fly 7 to 8 hours per machine per day, and had to put a second machine up during the 'weekend' because of increased business.
I don't know the direct operating costs of the R-22, but it is probably much less than $300 per hour. These people are the only ones who fly it, they probably get very good insurance rates, etc.
I don't know about any UK operations and their budgets, but if you look at the costs of even one unscheduled turbine engine overhaul, it's going to put a pretty big hole in your budget.
We need to make sure that we don't let emotion get in the way of logic and facts.
I understand that the UK is finally going to let single engine turbine aircraft like the Caravan and PC-12 operate at night and IFR (only carrying cargo to begin with). Same thought process needs to apply to helicopters.
Yes, they did fly 7 to 8 hours per machine per day, and had to put a second machine up during the 'weekend' because of increased business.
I don't know the direct operating costs of the R-22, but it is probably much less than $300 per hour. These people are the only ones who fly it, they probably get very good insurance rates, etc.
I don't know about any UK operations and their budgets, but if you look at the costs of even one unscheduled turbine engine overhaul, it's going to put a pretty big hole in your budget.
We need to make sure that we don't let emotion get in the way of logic and facts.
I understand that the UK is finally going to let single engine turbine aircraft like the Caravan and PC-12 operate at night and IFR (only carrying cargo to begin with). Same thought process needs to apply to helicopters.
Shawn, I can't let this one go without reminding you that ever since you divulged these figures of between 7 - 10 hours per shift physically flying singles, that this MORE THAN equates to the running costs for our units here in the UK.
Their hourly costs annihilate ours because of the obsessive and excessive flying they do. [And I'm not being emotional about this either
)
You dont have an insight into the running costs of a police unit. We ALL get 'good' quotes on fuel/insurance/multiple equipment procuremnet programmes, the yanks aren't any different.
When you talk "DOC's" that is a very very grey area.
I can quote you 3 DOC's for our a/c dependent on which way you look at it.
The ECD production leaflet for an EC135 states that its DOC's are about $186/hour
Who worked that one out!!!!!
Do you include salaries / insurances/ base admin costs/ base maintenance costs / additional equipment repairs / bolt on insurances etc etc etc.
Now that you've told me these guys are running at roughly 3600hrs /year, their costs will be at the very least similar to our average 1000hrs. All other costs are common ground. Therefore US police units are just as expensive as ours!!!
I would hesitate to suggest they take a cold hard look at the quality of work they are pushing out whilst airborne 'waiting for the next job'...what an inefficient waste of taxpayers money
My one turbine overhaul equals their 6 or 7 minor overhauls they must need throughout the year?
I am staggered that US police units fly for that length of time day in day out year on year.....someone needs to get a grip over there
[If this is normal practice]. So far it seems only one is advertised as doing it, perhaps someone from over the pond will tell us otherwise???
C Charlie: That is the CAA's whole purpose of allowing the flying of twins over built up areas; so that they can remain airborne with a power unit failure. Class1 / Clear area.
The EC135 I fly will remain in the hover with 1 engine failed 90% of the time.
Their hourly costs annihilate ours because of the obsessive and excessive flying they do. [And I'm not being emotional about this either
)You dont have an insight into the running costs of a police unit. We ALL get 'good' quotes on fuel/insurance/multiple equipment procuremnet programmes, the yanks aren't any different.
When you talk "DOC's" that is a very very grey area.
I can quote you 3 DOC's for our a/c dependent on which way you look at it.
The ECD production leaflet for an EC135 states that its DOC's are about $186/hour
Who worked that one out!!!!!Do you include salaries / insurances/ base admin costs/ base maintenance costs / additional equipment repairs / bolt on insurances etc etc etc.
Now that you've told me these guys are running at roughly 3600hrs /year, their costs will be at the very least similar to our average 1000hrs. All other costs are common ground. Therefore US police units are just as expensive as ours!!!
I would hesitate to suggest they take a cold hard look at the quality of work they are pushing out whilst airborne 'waiting for the next job'...what an inefficient waste of taxpayers money
My one turbine overhaul equals their 6 or 7 minor overhauls they must need throughout the year?
I am staggered that US police units fly for that length of time day in day out year on year.....someone needs to get a grip over there
[If this is normal practice]. So far it seems only one is advertised as doing it, perhaps someone from over the pond will tell us otherwise???
C Charlie: That is the CAA's whole purpose of allowing the flying of twins over built up areas; so that they can remain airborne with a power unit failure. Class1 / Clear area.
The EC135 I fly will remain in the hover with 1 engine failed 90% of the time.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T.C., how could your twin turbine cost less then a R-22/44 each year? Even if the got 3,000 hours on each, although I do not know the TBO, can't be more then maybe one to two overhauls a year. Or the MD500 that goes a year+ before overhaul. The police helicopters over here are used a police cars in the air in a sense. They do not just fly around blindly waiting for a call, they look for crime. Also they do get used alot. You may not respond to "minor" stuff, where we do. It works very well for us. And as a former ground pounder, I know the value of it from both sides. Many times I have had crooks tell me that they avoid the area when they know the helicopter may be around.
Before you go bashing how police helicopters are used on the this side of the pond, come vist several agency's and get an understanding of them. There is a number of studies done showing that crime is decreased around 10% because of the helicopters being up. We both do a great job for our respective methods.
Before you go bashing how police helicopters are used on the this side of the pond, come vist several agency's and get an understanding of them. There is a number of studies done showing that crime is decreased around 10% because of the helicopters being up. We both do a great job for our respective methods.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Marlow UK
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mil training etc
Re the UK military training on Turbines, cos thats what they are going to fly, please explain why the Fixed wing guys train on Piston Powered Grobs etc when they are going to fly fast jets.
Are military helicopter pilots so different. I believe the mil helicopter pilots do some fixed wing training on piston single planks before they go rotary anyway, so why not go to R44's after planks, oh yeah I forgot its OPM (Other peoples money) they're spending. Some of it mine actually as a UK taxpayer.
As regards the US doing 3000 hrs in Single Pistons costing as much as the UKs 1000 hrs in Twin Turbines, yeah but they get 3000 hrs of air cover, so I guess if we used them in the UK we get a choice, either 3 times as much cover for the same cost or reduce the costs by 2/3rds for the same coverage.
You're right it won't change as the UK heirarchy are generally ex military anyway so the same mindset prevails. Common sense doesn't seem to enter the UK system, otherwise why is a US Registered aircraft allowed to have reduced maintenance levels than the same aircraft on the G Reg. The safety argument doesn't stack up otherwise why is the aircraft allowed to fly in our airspace if it is so unsafe to maintain to FAA standards.
(sorry for going off topic but its kinda related as its part of the same reasoning)
Eddie
Are military helicopter pilots so different. I believe the mil helicopter pilots do some fixed wing training on piston single planks before they go rotary anyway, so why not go to R44's after planks, oh yeah I forgot its OPM (Other peoples money) they're spending. Some of it mine actually as a UK taxpayer.
As regards the US doing 3000 hrs in Single Pistons costing as much as the UKs 1000 hrs in Twin Turbines, yeah but they get 3000 hrs of air cover, so I guess if we used them in the UK we get a choice, either 3 times as much cover for the same cost or reduce the costs by 2/3rds for the same coverage.
You're right it won't change as the UK heirarchy are generally ex military anyway so the same mindset prevails. Common sense doesn't seem to enter the UK system, otherwise why is a US Registered aircraft allowed to have reduced maintenance levels than the same aircraft on the G Reg. The safety argument doesn't stack up otherwise why is the aircraft allowed to fly in our airspace if it is so unsafe to maintain to FAA standards.
(sorry for going off topic but its kinda related as its part of the same reasoning)
Eddie
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: floating around
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EddieHeli
You are saying exactly word for word what I am thinking.
The term "more bang for your buck" springs to mind in comparing the differences between the 2!
In relation to the military training on Turbines, that doesn't really hold water, Commercial operators are going to be far more cost efficient then the military (Cause its their money!), yet when given the chance they carry out all there basic training out on Pistons single engine aircraft!
IT DOES NOT take a couple of hundred hours to get used to a Fadec system!
People in the CAA who make these decisions have never had to count there own pennies, and have been so busy spending other peoples money there whole working life, they have forgotten how important it is for other people to earn a living.
I always hope when a topic like this is arises here, that somebody who makes these decisions will see logic, and notice the benefit of helicopters. And make or reverse decisions accordingly.
That will always be the dream
You are saying exactly word for word what I am thinking.
The term "more bang for your buck" springs to mind in comparing the differences between the 2!
In relation to the military training on Turbines, that doesn't really hold water, Commercial operators are going to be far more cost efficient then the military (Cause its their money!), yet when given the chance they carry out all there basic training out on Pistons single engine aircraft!
IT DOES NOT take a couple of hundred hours to get used to a Fadec system!
People in the CAA who make these decisions have never had to count there own pennies, and have been so busy spending other peoples money there whole working life, they have forgotten how important it is for other people to earn a living.
I always hope when a topic like this is arises here, that somebody who makes these decisions will see logic, and notice the benefit of helicopters. And make or reverse decisions accordingly.
That will always be the dream
T. Coupling says :
"I would hesitate to suggest they take a cold hard look at the quality of work they are pushing out whilst airborne 'waiting for the next job'...what an inefficient waste of taxpayers money"
Bong! Wrong! Take off all your clothes.
The waiting around, as stated above, is a factor in criminal control in itself. It is difficult (if not impossible) to show how many crimes didn't get committed, simply because the baddy saw the Polair machine and thought we were watching him. But interviews with villains were full of statements like that, when they had delayed their actions for a few days out of paranoia.
Add to that the number of stolen and dumped cars in bush areas we reported, the sly marijuana plots, the number of cars behaving in a suspicious manner that we organised to be pulled over, the times we were right overhead when something broke out, the car chases we intercepted and took over, the rescues we got involved in just by listening to the radio.
All these were while we wasted the taxpayer's money, waiting for the next Official Job. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Sitting on the ground 30 miles away, waiting for a Scramble, and getting there 20 minutes later, isn't my measure of efficiency.
"I would hesitate to suggest they take a cold hard look at the quality of work they are pushing out whilst airborne 'waiting for the next job'...what an inefficient waste of taxpayers money"
Bong! Wrong! Take off all your clothes.
The waiting around, as stated above, is a factor in criminal control in itself. It is difficult (if not impossible) to show how many crimes didn't get committed, simply because the baddy saw the Polair machine and thought we were watching him. But interviews with villains were full of statements like that, when they had delayed their actions for a few days out of paranoia.
Add to that the number of stolen and dumped cars in bush areas we reported, the sly marijuana plots, the number of cars behaving in a suspicious manner that we organised to be pulled over, the times we were right overhead when something broke out, the car chases we intercepted and took over, the rescues we got involved in just by listening to the radio.
All these were while we wasted the taxpayer's money, waiting for the next Official Job. Sounds like a good deal to me.
Sitting on the ground 30 miles away, waiting for a Scramble, and getting there 20 minutes later, isn't my measure of efficiency.