Helicopter Cfit
Thread Starter
Helicopter Cfit
CFIT – Helicopters a.k.a CFI TOW (Terrain , Obstacles and Water)
Would rather that we restrict this thread to multi engine mediums and heavies otherwise it gets off the particular area I am interested in. I would also see it mainly being offshore IFR orientated. That would not exclude operations such as those similar to Helijet in Vancouver or the various IFR operations in and out of New York , for example.
Nick do I have this correct…in another thread , you are saying that we are looking at 30-40% of (IFR) helicopter accidents attributable to CFIT with one possible solution , the fitment of EGPWS……pardon my ignorance. I know what the GPWS is but what does the E stand for ?
Education is another part of the solution and one of my colleagues just handed me a note to say that Transport Canada mandates CFIT training (CAR 724.115(27)) for helicopter pilots…shame on me that I did not know this as I hold a Canadian licence !
There is a huge amount of material available sighting fixed wing accidents but I would prefer we try as much as possible to stay with helicopters.
By extending the definition to controlled flight into TERRAIN , OBSTACLES and WATER…..I am also interested in an area that is unique to Rotorheads and that is our exposure at the rig to putting our T/R , M/R and other parts into the solid bits as well as flying the aircraft into the water…
My next post I will list the accidents / near misses that I have collected..and their sources etc.
OK …your turn
Would rather that we restrict this thread to multi engine mediums and heavies otherwise it gets off the particular area I am interested in. I would also see it mainly being offshore IFR orientated. That would not exclude operations such as those similar to Helijet in Vancouver or the various IFR operations in and out of New York , for example.
Nick do I have this correct…in another thread , you are saying that we are looking at 30-40% of (IFR) helicopter accidents attributable to CFIT with one possible solution , the fitment of EGPWS……pardon my ignorance. I know what the GPWS is but what does the E stand for ?
Education is another part of the solution and one of my colleagues just handed me a note to say that Transport Canada mandates CFIT training (CAR 724.115(27)) for helicopter pilots…shame on me that I did not know this as I hold a Canadian licence !
There is a huge amount of material available sighting fixed wing accidents but I would prefer we try as much as possible to stay with helicopters.
By extending the definition to controlled flight into TERRAIN , OBSTACLES and WATER…..I am also interested in an area that is unique to Rotorheads and that is our exposure at the rig to putting our T/R , M/R and other parts into the solid bits as well as flying the aircraft into the water…
My next post I will list the accidents / near misses that I have collected..and their sources etc.
OK …your turn
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GPWS = Ground proximity warning system; older systems use RADALT to provide the signal - combined with approach algorithms.
EGPWS = Ehanced GPWS has the addition of a forward looking function (a terrain database).
TAWS = Terrain Awareness Warning System has both altitude alerting and a forward looking function.
Later and cheaper (TAWS) systems can have all functions in a single box with GPS providing the position and geometric height information (it is not necessary to have a RADALT).
All regulations mandating these systems also have requirements for training.
Offshore helicopters in Europe also have a system for setting the height and voice alerts - Automatic Voice Alerting Device (AVAD).
It is likely that TAWS, with a forward looking function, will be recommended in any proposal to amend Annex 6 Part III.
EGPWS = Ehanced GPWS has the addition of a forward looking function (a terrain database).
TAWS = Terrain Awareness Warning System has both altitude alerting and a forward looking function.
Later and cheaper (TAWS) systems can have all functions in a single box with GPS providing the position and geometric height information (it is not necessary to have a RADALT).
All regulations mandating these systems also have requirements for training.
Offshore helicopters in Europe also have a system for setting the height and voice alerts - Automatic Voice Alerting Device (AVAD).
It is likely that TAWS, with a forward looking function, will be recommended in any proposal to amend Annex 6 Part III.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter, other than "what does E stand for?", I'm not really sure what you're looking for.
True that CFIT is a concern. Also true that EGPWS would help in many of the incidents. However, I'm not convinced that the lack of EGPWS is the cause. Whenever possible we should look to solve the problem rather than find a way of living more comfortably with it (inclusion of EGPWS still does not prevent 60-70% of CFIT accidents).
Offshore operations have little to hit if you fly high enough. I believe icebergs are the only thing that is not on the map that can't always be seen by a weather radar. Eventually, you must decend. The only way of avoiding things that can only be seen with your eyes is to fly slowly enough that you can react and manoevre in time. Cockpit discipline is highly critical, for if you're both looking at the dials, then you have no chance of detecting and avoiding.
As far as hitting hard things in the hover, judgement is paramount. If the clearances are less than you can maintain, then you should expect that you'll hit something. If a sudden unpredicted gust should throw you into an object, then I don't think that would qualify as controlled flight. Mind you, if the weather is known to be extremely gusty then...
I don't have any specific stories for you, but all the CFIT incidents I've studied could have been avoided with sound judgement, CRM, and discipline.
EGPWS sounds good, but without proper training then I'd fear that complacency would set in, with the attitude that the computer will save you.
True that CFIT is a concern. Also true that EGPWS would help in many of the incidents. However, I'm not convinced that the lack of EGPWS is the cause. Whenever possible we should look to solve the problem rather than find a way of living more comfortably with it (inclusion of EGPWS still does not prevent 60-70% of CFIT accidents).
Offshore operations have little to hit if you fly high enough. I believe icebergs are the only thing that is not on the map that can't always be seen by a weather radar. Eventually, you must decend. The only way of avoiding things that can only be seen with your eyes is to fly slowly enough that you can react and manoevre in time. Cockpit discipline is highly critical, for if you're both looking at the dials, then you have no chance of detecting and avoiding.
As far as hitting hard things in the hover, judgement is paramount. If the clearances are less than you can maintain, then you should expect that you'll hit something. If a sudden unpredicted gust should throw you into an object, then I don't think that would qualify as controlled flight. Mind you, if the weather is known to be extremely gusty then...
I don't have any specific stories for you, but all the CFIT incidents I've studied could have been avoided with sound judgement, CRM, and discipline.
EGPWS sounds good, but without proper training then I'd fear that complacency would set in, with the attitude that the computer will save you.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Enhancement is actually a set of smart logic that does a bunch of things, using the terrain data base, obstruction data base, inserted obstructions from a ground station, and air data, attitude, GPS position, heading etc:
1) The EGPWS predicts where you will be in 30 and 60 seconds, and looks to see if something is in the way. It warns you if so, aurally and visually.
2) It displays a continuous display of terrain and obstructions as if there were weather radar tuned to dirt and towers. On the ground prior to takeoff, you would see a field of small circles that are all the towers (masts?) in your area, for example. Nice stuff.
3) The system also looks at your profile to see if you are entering the classic traps, such as descent after takeoff. If so, it warns you. It also does this for normal approaches, and also for nose up tail strikes. There are about 30 situations that are programmed in as possible blunders that it attempts to see before you do.
While we can do lots with crew coordination and training, it is actually nice to have a device that "sees" the dirt that you can't see, and tells you about it.
I will try to post a few slides on it in a few hours, and update this post with the link.
if it seems like I am selling EGPWS, I am, in a way. I was the program manager on the Sikorsky push to get the first helo EGPWS certified, on an S-76, and worked with the FAA and Allied Signal (now Honeywell) on it. This was not an effort borne out of selling helicopters, but actually an effort to keep them flying longer! We held no rights to the work we did, and at least one other manufacturer is flying the system that we developed.
1) The EGPWS predicts where you will be in 30 and 60 seconds, and looks to see if something is in the way. It warns you if so, aurally and visually.
2) It displays a continuous display of terrain and obstructions as if there were weather radar tuned to dirt and towers. On the ground prior to takeoff, you would see a field of small circles that are all the towers (masts?) in your area, for example. Nice stuff.
3) The system also looks at your profile to see if you are entering the classic traps, such as descent after takeoff. If so, it warns you. It also does this for normal approaches, and also for nose up tail strikes. There are about 30 situations that are programmed in as possible blunders that it attempts to see before you do.
While we can do lots with crew coordination and training, it is actually nice to have a device that "sees" the dirt that you can't see, and tells you about it.
I will try to post a few slides on it in a few hours, and update this post with the link.
if it seems like I am selling EGPWS, I am, in a way. I was the program manager on the Sikorsky push to get the first helo EGPWS certified, on an S-76, and worked with the FAA and Allied Signal (now Honeywell) on it. This was not an effort borne out of selling helicopters, but actually an effort to keep them flying longer! We held no rights to the work we did, and at least one other manufacturer is flying the system that we developed.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
76 egpws
The Toronto Air Ambulance dudes have EGPWS and TAS systems installed and certified in their a/c. My good friend did some of the Transport Canada acceptance flights for them.
Check with CHL EMS, Peter, for any more info!
D.K
Check with CHL EMS, Peter, for any more info!
D.K
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Pete, it has been a long time. I read with amusement some one taking you to task in this forum re your lack of experience some time ago. It is over 30 years ago when we first shared a cockpit - I think by now we do have a bit of an idea.
Nick, I did not mean to infer that CFIT was not something to worry about, it's one of the many things that we need to be mindful of. As you say, it's not something you can train for as re engine failures.
Walked into work an hour ago to find an article in the crewroom from the November 2003 "Professional Pilot" - Nonprecision approaches and CFIT.
Quote "Since 1931, CFIT has reportedly claimed 30,000 lives. Over the years, CFIT has been considered a factor in more than half of all fatal accidents. Also, when a CFIT event occurs, the chance of survival is minimal. Two thirds of all CFIT accidents result in the death of all occupants.
To truly grasp CFIT avoidance, it's a good idea to focus on the two main causes of this type of accident - improper procedures and lack of situational awareness. Ignoring company or regulatory requirements is only asking for trouble. Continuing below the MDA without visual reference is another unacceptable technique that has led to CFIT.
In addition, failing to execute a missed approach when visual cues are lost after leaving the MDA has led to CFIT." End quote
The trouble with data or statistics in this area is that no one own's up when they have a "near miss". We all as likely as not have knowledge of a number of "near misses". The statistics deal with cases where metal has been bent more often than not. Cases which come imediately to mind are 76 in GOM some years ago, KLM 76 North Sea, Puma North Sea, 76 in China, 76 in Africa.
Regards to all, Brian
Nick, I did not mean to infer that CFIT was not something to worry about, it's one of the many things that we need to be mindful of. As you say, it's not something you can train for as re engine failures.
Walked into work an hour ago to find an article in the crewroom from the November 2003 "Professional Pilot" - Nonprecision approaches and CFIT.
Quote "Since 1931, CFIT has reportedly claimed 30,000 lives. Over the years, CFIT has been considered a factor in more than half of all fatal accidents. Also, when a CFIT event occurs, the chance of survival is minimal. Two thirds of all CFIT accidents result in the death of all occupants.
To truly grasp CFIT avoidance, it's a good idea to focus on the two main causes of this type of accident - improper procedures and lack of situational awareness. Ignoring company or regulatory requirements is only asking for trouble. Continuing below the MDA without visual reference is another unacceptable technique that has led to CFIT.
In addition, failing to execute a missed approach when visual cues are lost after leaving the MDA has led to CFIT." End quote
The trouble with data or statistics in this area is that no one own's up when they have a "near miss". We all as likely as not have knowledge of a number of "near misses". The statistics deal with cases where metal has been bent more often than not. Cases which come imediately to mind are 76 in GOM some years ago, KLM 76 North Sea, Puma North Sea, 76 in China, 76 in Africa.
Regards to all, Brian
Thread Starter
ZEBEDEE….loved your controlled flight into THINGS. That sums it up for we Rotorheads. We fly into many things , not just terrrain. Thanks for the URL’s to OGP and CAA.
Thanks MARS. I used AVADS years ago in Brunei and it does address ONE facet of the CFIT problem. I suspect it would be a lot cheaper than EGPWS but from what Nick is saying , that all important forward looking information is absent.
Nick...thanks. Any idea of the unit cost of EGPWS ?
Thanks HEEDM
What I am looking for is discussion and that is what is happening. I am a bit remote out here , having no access to a crewroom of pilots views or a big company with a Directors of Flight Operations/Chief Pilot digging into such issues as CFIT.
We should all be mindful that this written form of communication is sometimes not as good as verbal face to face. It does not allow that twinkle in the eye or tone of voice that can add a whole different meaning to a remark…..so if I appear to slip , please forgive.
I have tasked myself with setting up a CFIT mini ground school for a group of young pilots we have here. These lads are extremely gifted , very capable IFR offshore copilots…..the best I have ever flown with. The tragedy is that we have one rig at
55 nm and are averaging just 3-4 trips a week. They are accumulating their career’s experience in an agonizingly slow way. I wish to hell I could place them in a situation where they were doing a 100 hours a month. They would lap it up. Anyhow this CFIT project will educate me as well as them and hopefully provide a bit of a diversion from sitting around.
keep the comments rolling in...and again ...thanks
Thanks MARS. I used AVADS years ago in Brunei and it does address ONE facet of the CFIT problem. I suspect it would be a lot cheaper than EGPWS but from what Nick is saying , that all important forward looking information is absent.
Nick...thanks. Any idea of the unit cost of EGPWS ?
Thanks HEEDM
What I am looking for is discussion and that is what is happening. I am a bit remote out here , having no access to a crewroom of pilots views or a big company with a Directors of Flight Operations/Chief Pilot digging into such issues as CFIT.
We should all be mindful that this written form of communication is sometimes not as good as verbal face to face. It does not allow that twinkle in the eye or tone of voice that can add a whole different meaning to a remark…..so if I appear to slip , please forgive.
I have tasked myself with setting up a CFIT mini ground school for a group of young pilots we have here. These lads are extremely gifted , very capable IFR offshore copilots…..the best I have ever flown with. The tragedy is that we have one rig at
55 nm and are averaging just 3-4 trips a week. They are accumulating their career’s experience in an agonizingly slow way. I wish to hell I could place them in a situation where they were doing a 100 hours a month. They would lap it up. Anyhow this CFIT project will educate me as well as them and hopefully provide a bit of a diversion from sitting around.
keep the comments rolling in...and again ...thanks
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: 48 Deg South
Posts: 764
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter - If you want a good speaker about CFIT then get in touch with Sue who flies for the Rescue helicopter operation in Hamilton, New Zealand. She was the one that flew the BK into the top of the hill and got away with it, one of the few that have had CFIT and survived.
If you want contact numbers let me know. Would be an eye opener and since she doesnt work for Airwork anymore doubt she would have any heartburn in maybe making a presentation.
Autorotate.
If you want contact numbers let me know. Would be an eye opener and since she doesnt work for Airwork anymore doubt she would have any heartburn in maybe making a presentation.
Autorotate.
Mars, the only problem with relying on GPS for height information (over the water) is that it relies on the WGS84 data that only gives an average sea level - therefore tides could really catch you out. A Rad Alt with a visual and audio warning is no substitute for proper planning and procedures but it has saved a lot of lives.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t want to rain on Nick L’s parade but EGPWS in a lot of places helicopters operate aren’t worth the money.
We fitted at an oil company expense EGPWS.
The system worked as advertised, predictive path and all the bells and whistles that bitching betty could muster.
There was one significant factor that the manufacturers overlooked. The terrain database (Honeywell) in this case was incomplete, so much so that for remote area ops, Betty was Bitch’n all the time, and we flew with “Terrain Inhibit” engaged most of the time because the system did not believe that there was a landing area in that location. Thus negating the E part of the system.
In PNG it was even more ridiculous, earning the name “Great Papuan Railways” ie: constant calls of Train Train.
If you are remote, serious off strip and places without ground based aids, in other words where you find Helicopters and their support aircraft it is not worth it IMHO.
Newer systems suited to helicopter ops will be forthcoming that are more prepared to deal with remote locations.
Hoggie
We fitted at an oil company expense EGPWS.
The system worked as advertised, predictive path and all the bells and whistles that bitching betty could muster.
There was one significant factor that the manufacturers overlooked. The terrain database (Honeywell) in this case was incomplete, so much so that for remote area ops, Betty was Bitch’n all the time, and we flew with “Terrain Inhibit” engaged most of the time because the system did not believe that there was a landing area in that location. Thus negating the E part of the system.
In PNG it was even more ridiculous, earning the name “Great Papuan Railways” ie: constant calls of Train Train.
If you are remote, serious off strip and places without ground based aids, in other words where you find Helicopters and their support aircraft it is not worth it IMHO.
Newer systems suited to helicopter ops will be forthcoming that are more prepared to deal with remote locations.
Hoggie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hog,
The Honeywell folks who we worked with were committed to develop the data base where the customers flew, did anyone ask them for updated data around where you operate? What type machine was it in? What model EGPWS? I only know of approvals in S-76 and AS-365 so far, could you have the older GPWS?
Here are some slides that talk about the concept:
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EGPWS.htm
The Honeywell folks who we worked with were committed to develop the data base where the customers flew, did anyone ask them for updated data around where you operate? What type machine was it in? What model EGPWS? I only know of approvals in S-76 and AS-365 so far, could you have the older GPWS?
Here are some slides that talk about the concept:
http://www.s-92heliport.com/EGPWS.htm
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aircraft it was fitted to was a DHC6 Twin Otter, which as you know has all the characteristics of a helicopter…. (gimmie a good head wind and I’ll show ya) 
The only thing we could not do that the helicopters we supported could was hover.
We all used the same strips, fuel, food, beer lifes essentials.
A few of the crew flew both rotary and plank across the same terrain day in day out, and we all have the same response.
In a non-aid / remote area doing the stuff oil companies like. The cost of "E"gpws was wasted due to having to inhibit Betty most of the time because of the data base.
Having said all of that, If you are in a support aircraft at 250kts (say a Dash or King Air), going into a black hole area... it has already saved a few of my mates butts already.
The enhanced terrain awareness it gives (data base issues again) is great. If you dont know the area.
The local airworthiness authority got onto us and asked about our operational use and we told them strait. There only comment was that the local regional operator using 30 seaters was having the same porblems.
Now this was a few years back and i do not know if Honeywell have corrected the problems since then.
Once bitten twice shy on our part maybe
Fly safe
Hoggie
The only thing we could not do that the helicopters we supported could was hover.
We all used the same strips, fuel, food, beer lifes essentials.
A few of the crew flew both rotary and plank across the same terrain day in day out, and we all have the same response.
In a non-aid / remote area doing the stuff oil companies like. The cost of "E"gpws was wasted due to having to inhibit Betty most of the time because of the data base.
Having said all of that, If you are in a support aircraft at 250kts (say a Dash or King Air), going into a black hole area... it has already saved a few of my mates butts already.
The enhanced terrain awareness it gives (data base issues again) is great. If you dont know the area.
The local airworthiness authority got onto us and asked about our operational use and we told them strait. There only comment was that the local regional operator using 30 seaters was having the same porblems.
Now this was a few years back and i do not know if Honeywell have corrected the problems since then.
Once bitten twice shy on our part maybe
Fly safe
Hoggie
Thread Starter
....the poor man's EGPWS = moving map display....this is from another post
"moving map displays , as far as I am concerned , are the BEST aid to SITUATIONAL AWARENESS in IMC that I have ever come across.
If you are in the soup and the world is going crazy and you get confused.....switch your GPS to moving map display and ..hey presto.....not only do you know where you are but where you are pointing...of course it all depends on your GPS. Don't get the idea that I am trying to advertise Garmin but that is the box I have used most with a moving map display, specifically the 400 series. Not only that but they give you a free simulator to get up to speed on...unlike other manufacturers."
The VERY poor man's moving map display is the weather radar. We spend 95 % of our flight time over water. When we do return to land , particularly for the ILS , after everything is set up , we cross reference the radar picture that we should see which delineates the shape of our particular stretch of coastline. We do that twice. Once prior to turning onto the LLZ and again once established.
yes...I will get that list up
"moving map displays , as far as I am concerned , are the BEST aid to SITUATIONAL AWARENESS in IMC that I have ever come across.
If you are in the soup and the world is going crazy and you get confused.....switch your GPS to moving map display and ..hey presto.....not only do you know where you are but where you are pointing...of course it all depends on your GPS. Don't get the idea that I am trying to advertise Garmin but that is the box I have used most with a moving map display, specifically the 400 series. Not only that but they give you a free simulator to get up to speed on...unlike other manufacturers."
The VERY poor man's moving map display is the weather radar. We spend 95 % of our flight time over water. When we do return to land , particularly for the ILS , after everything is set up , we cross reference the radar picture that we should see which delineates the shape of our particular stretch of coastline. We do that twice. Once prior to turning onto the LLZ and again once established.
yes...I will get that list up
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter,
I fully agree, a moving map, displayed "course up" or "heading up" is great, and a digital map with colored terrain height is just about perfect, probably equal to or better than an EGPWS. The two together is the way to go.
I have flown these on one Hawk model, and the change in your situational awareness is enormous. The terrain above you is shown as red, and that below is pale green. In a heart beat you can tell what to do.
I fully agree, a moving map, displayed "course up" or "heading up" is great, and a digital map with colored terrain height is just about perfect, probably equal to or better than an EGPWS. The two together is the way to go.
I have flown these on one Hawk model, and the change in your situational awareness is enormous. The terrain above you is shown as red, and that below is pale green. In a heart beat you can tell what to do.
Thread Starter
CFIT – Helicopters
Case Studies
As one wag said , CFIT for helicopters means controlled flight into THINGS !
In this list , I am trying not to use the numerous fixed wing case studies although some of them can be very relevant. As much as possible I will stay with IFR offshore multi engine helicopter CFIT but want to range out to flight into TERRAIN (usually associated with onshore in the IFR approach mode) WATER (usually associated with offshore night or IMC approach mode) and OBJECTS (namely putting one’s tail rotor , main rotor or other part into a part of the rig/boat/barge/platform)
Near miss = control lost but regained and collision avoided.
6/12/94 – B214ST – Offshore – Night – AAIB ? – near miss
1996 – S76A – on approach from Offshore – Night – FSF Vol 22 No.4 – CFIT/Water
20/12/97 – S76B – Offshore – Night – FSF Vol 28 No.1 – CFIT/Water
12/12/02 – S76C – Offshore – Night – AAIB 7/2003 refEW/G2002/12/09 – near miss
These are case studies for which I have a reasonably comprehensive accident reports.
I am awaiting material for other accidents which I hope will be useful. One of which is the 76 in Africa.
Brian.
You mentioned a “Puma in the North Sea” Do you have a website address that you can direct me to for this one. You also mention a “76 in China” Do you have a similar website address or copy of an accident report….yes yes , I know this one is probably a bit “close to home” but sure would like to see a report.
Case Studies
As one wag said , CFIT for helicopters means controlled flight into THINGS !
In this list , I am trying not to use the numerous fixed wing case studies although some of them can be very relevant. As much as possible I will stay with IFR offshore multi engine helicopter CFIT but want to range out to flight into TERRAIN (usually associated with onshore in the IFR approach mode) WATER (usually associated with offshore night or IMC approach mode) and OBJECTS (namely putting one’s tail rotor , main rotor or other part into a part of the rig/boat/barge/platform)
Near miss = control lost but regained and collision avoided.
6/12/94 – B214ST – Offshore – Night – AAIB ? – near miss
1996 – S76A – on approach from Offshore – Night – FSF Vol 22 No.4 – CFIT/Water
20/12/97 – S76B – Offshore – Night – FSF Vol 28 No.1 – CFIT/Water
12/12/02 – S76C – Offshore – Night – AAIB 7/2003 refEW/G2002/12/09 – near miss
These are case studies for which I have a reasonably comprehensive accident reports.
I am awaiting material for other accidents which I hope will be useful. One of which is the 76 in Africa.
Brian.
You mentioned a “Puma in the North Sea” Do you have a website address that you can direct me to for this one. You also mention a “76 in China” Do you have a similar website address or copy of an accident report….yes yes , I know this one is probably a bit “close to home” but sure would like to see a report.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: TI
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter,
Check out Bendix/King EGPWS from USD 12K up to 40K for the box. Be aware that you need something to display the data on which is optional. Garmin 530 is or is about to be TAWS B compliant. Upgrade existing box is about USD8K.
If you have a glass room the display can be easier but be aware that avionics people rarely use a common language.
Possibly the smartest thing I have seen recently is enhanced vision systems. Low cost, low weight (2.5kg), and the real picture long before the Mark 1 kicks in. Uses a microbolometer (uncooled IR). No I don't work for them, it just looks very promising. Get your glass box to look at this with your AI and FD over the top as a layer. Gulfstream G550 has something similar using a HUD.
Gulfstream EVS
Max Viz
Check out Bendix/King EGPWS from USD 12K up to 40K for the box. Be aware that you need something to display the data on which is optional. Garmin 530 is or is about to be TAWS B compliant. Upgrade existing box is about USD8K.
If you have a glass room the display can be easier but be aware that avionics people rarely use a common language.
Possibly the smartest thing I have seen recently is enhanced vision systems. Low cost, low weight (2.5kg), and the real picture long before the Mark 1 kicks in. Uses a microbolometer (uncooled IR). No I don't work for them, it just looks very promising. Get your glass box to look at this with your AI and FD over the top as a layer. Gulfstream G550 has something similar using a HUD.
Gulfstream EVS
Max Viz
