Hoist fitted cutters
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Hoist fitted cutters
I'm hoping the wide and varied nature of the forum will provide me with some insight into what other operators think. This is not meant to get into a slanging match but rather to engender some healthy discussion and understand how others view an issue. I hope to write an article on the issue very soon.
In Australia, some operators have gained the regulator's approval to remove the hoist fitted pyrotechnic cutters and instead rely on hand held ballistic cutters carried by the crewman in the cabin. Essentially, this has come about over concerns about inadvertant firings caused by external electro-magnetic induction (EMI) or problems with installation (electrical grounding).
Now I have a personal view on this but thought I would see what you all thought.
Have any operators experienced inadvertent firings caused by external EMI?
Do operators in other countries do the same?
Does the regulator in any other country permit the removal of these cutters?
Has anyone experienced inadvertent firings that could not be explained?
Many thanks everyone!
In Australia, some operators have gained the regulator's approval to remove the hoist fitted pyrotechnic cutters and instead rely on hand held ballistic cutters carried by the crewman in the cabin. Essentially, this has come about over concerns about inadvertant firings caused by external electro-magnetic induction (EMI) or problems with installation (electrical grounding).
Now I have a personal view on this but thought I would see what you all thought.
Have any operators experienced inadvertent firings caused by external EMI?
Do operators in other countries do the same?
Does the regulator in any other country permit the removal of these cutters?
Has anyone experienced inadvertent firings that could not be explained?
Many thanks everyone!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
From: Gold Coast, Queensland
Og
I'm very surprised to hear that CASA has granted approval to disconnect cable cutters. They have always knocked that back for all the companies I have flown for.
It is a known problem with some hoists and I thought that various remedies had been found?
In Oz I can only recall one incident, albeit serious, in Sydney and I believe the cause was found.
Manual cable cutters are often too small and pretty useless, so I would not like to have my cable cutter disconnected.
I'm very surprised to hear that CASA has granted approval to disconnect cable cutters. They have always knocked that back for all the companies I have flown for.
It is a known problem with some hoists and I thought that various remedies had been found?
In Oz I can only recall one incident, albeit serious, in Sydney and I believe the cause was found.
Manual cable cutters are often too small and pretty useless, so I would not like to have my cable cutter disconnected.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
From: Lowlands
We've done hoist cycles in the tens of thousands for the Dutch pilot service over the past 15 years and never had a problem with the Breeze cable cutting system. We wouldn't think of making the request but I am quite sure the authorities would not allow disabling it. On the other hand carrying a manual cable cutter seems an overkill, because if it gets that urgent the hoist operator probably would not be quick enough. We have had our cable or static line tangled on deck at times, but a little patience works wonders... Having the luxury of OEI hover capability also gives some peace of mind!
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Hi Nigel and Wavewatcher. Thanks for your response. I too was surprised when I first heard of it but there are several operators in Australia who do it. CASA has permitted it, albeit, reluctantly. I know Breeze do not recommend it. I don't know about Goodrich or Air Equip.
The problem came to a head several years ago and there were a series of ADs that addressed the problem. As far as I know, since those ADs have been incorporated, there have been no further problems...but, again, I am more than prepared to be proved wrong. If there is still a problem, then the authorities and manufacturers should do something about it...if there is still a problem.
Again, thanks for the responses so far.
The problem came to a head several years ago and there were a series of ADs that addressed the problem. As far as I know, since those ADs have been incorporated, there have been no further problems...but, again, I am more than prepared to be proved wrong. If there is still a problem, then the authorities and manufacturers should do something about it...if there is still a problem.
Again, thanks for the responses so far.
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: Aircrew (non-pilot)
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Some years ago I had the misfortune to be cut off the wire via the ballistic cable cutter. The aircraft suffered a problem during a fairly basic winching operation and the pilots had no choice but to perform a emergancy run on landing (Do you remember that flight Nigel??? 
). Due to the suddeness and nature of the problem the aircraft (a 212) was throw around and the Crewman (winch operator) was throw off his feet. He got up just in time to cut me off on the second bounce (thanks Geoffro) and I have no doubt that this saved me from major injury at the very least.
My point is that without the ballistic cable cutter I would have been seriously injured, if not killed, as the aircraft ran on about 80 to 100 meters. There is no way the crewman could have used the manual cutters in time.
This being the case I still think there is a case for the manual cutters to be carried. An example would be during, say, boat winching where the hook is inadvertantly attached to the boat. It may be able to be cut off manually and the rescue continued with the help of a temparary hook attached to the wire via a "stitch" plate.
I also know of at least two occasions where people have been boat winching and the hook has attached to the boat (on one occasion a deck hand thought it would be a good idea to attach it to an eye bolt on the deck). On both occasions the aircraft pitched so badly that it was the pilots, not the crewman, that cut the cable as the crewman, understandably, was throw away from the proximity of the cable cut switch. If the cable had not been cut on these occasions the consequences could have been disasterous and there was no way the crewman could have cut the 3/16 cable with the parrot jawed manual cutters in time.
As an aside, I am aware that there are manual ballistic cable cutters on the market. These can be used with one hand rather that with two hands like the conventional "bolt cutter" type manual cutters that are in wide use. That's great if you can get to the cable in time but this may not always be the case. Personally I would not winch or be winched if a ballistic cutter was not fitted and armed.
). Due to the suddeness and nature of the problem the aircraft (a 212) was throw around and the Crewman (winch operator) was throw off his feet. He got up just in time to cut me off on the second bounce (thanks Geoffro) and I have no doubt that this saved me from major injury at the very least.My point is that without the ballistic cable cutter I would have been seriously injured, if not killed, as the aircraft ran on about 80 to 100 meters. There is no way the crewman could have used the manual cutters in time.
This being the case I still think there is a case for the manual cutters to be carried. An example would be during, say, boat winching where the hook is inadvertantly attached to the boat. It may be able to be cut off manually and the rescue continued with the help of a temparary hook attached to the wire via a "stitch" plate.
I also know of at least two occasions where people have been boat winching and the hook has attached to the boat (on one occasion a deck hand thought it would be a good idea to attach it to an eye bolt on the deck). On both occasions the aircraft pitched so badly that it was the pilots, not the crewman, that cut the cable as the crewman, understandably, was throw away from the proximity of the cable cut switch. If the cable had not been cut on these occasions the consequences could have been disasterous and there was no way the crewman could have cut the 3/16 cable with the parrot jawed manual cutters in time.
As an aside, I am aware that there are manual ballistic cable cutters on the market. These can be used with one hand rather that with two hands like the conventional "bolt cutter" type manual cutters that are in wide use. That's great if you can get to the cable in time but this may not always be the case. Personally I would not winch or be winched if a ballistic cutter was not fitted and armed.
Last edited by trimpot; 24th April 2004 at 12:02.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Tasmania and High Wollemi
inbuilt pyro cable cutters
Ogsplash,
In short for Oz,
- about 10 uncommanded firings confirmed across a range of winch/airframe combinations.
- hazard analysis shows required for maritime ops. Not required for overland ops
- pyrotechnic hand held ( single Hand ) cutters are available. Most signed off on 600 lb hoists due to single hand cutters not effective on the 3/16th cable. 300 lb hoists generally using parrot beak cutters with enhanced entry assistance hook mounted on boom.
- number of operators have alternate systems risk analysed and signed off
- various risk mitigators in place for operational and training requirments using both hand held and pyro cutters.
- most winches now at latest mod state for EMI and pyrocharge now requires significant current to fire. (5 amps I think)
- equivalent levels of safety have been demonstrated to CASA's engineering and operational satisfaction.
- some govt agencies staff refuse to be winched over land with pyro cutters installed. They (DTWM and aircrew) accept the hand held situation as being the best compromise.
What's the background to the question? Fish heads had another incident ?
The eye.
In short for Oz,
- about 10 uncommanded firings confirmed across a range of winch/airframe combinations.
- hazard analysis shows required for maritime ops. Not required for overland ops
- pyrotechnic hand held ( single Hand ) cutters are available. Most signed off on 600 lb hoists due to single hand cutters not effective on the 3/16th cable. 300 lb hoists generally using parrot beak cutters with enhanced entry assistance hook mounted on boom.
- number of operators have alternate systems risk analysed and signed off
- various risk mitigators in place for operational and training requirments using both hand held and pyro cutters.
- most winches now at latest mod state for EMI and pyrocharge now requires significant current to fire. (5 amps I think)
- equivalent levels of safety have been demonstrated to CASA's engineering and operational satisfaction.
- some govt agencies staff refuse to be winched over land with pyro cutters installed. They (DTWM and aircrew) accept the hand held situation as being the best compromise.
What's the background to the question? Fish heads had another incident ?
The eye.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Thanks Trimpot, much appreciated. I remember a Sea King tried to lift a destroyer out of the water but the cable snapped before the crew had a chance to cut....bent a couple of frames.
Hey there Cats...no, the fish heads have not had another incident. In fact, the safety standards, reporting regime and review processes are the most comprehensive I have seen in any organisation and, believe me, I seen a few over the past few years.
This comes as a result of looking at some operators who use the hand held ballistic cutters and as an ex-investigator, I want to make sure I have all the facts and opinions. I am not convinced, at this stage, that the risk mitigation is adequate because there is now only one method of cutting. I can see circumstances where a cut may need to be made from the front or made using a fixed position (handgrip or pendant).
But that is my opinion and I'm looking for more background and what operators around the world are doing before coming to a conclusion. The manufacturer build the hoists to a certification standard...the manufacturer has made it very clear it does not recommend relying on the hand held ballistic cutter as a primary device...only as a secondary or backup.
I'm no lawyer but have been monstered in court enough to know that it is certainly a game person who steps away from design standards or manufacturer's recommendations. Maybe I'm wrong, and am willing to admit that if there's a good argument.
I'm expecting a spirited discussion on this....at least I hope so!
Hey there Cats...no, the fish heads have not had another incident. In fact, the safety standards, reporting regime and review processes are the most comprehensive I have seen in any organisation and, believe me, I seen a few over the past few years.
This comes as a result of looking at some operators who use the hand held ballistic cutters and as an ex-investigator, I want to make sure I have all the facts and opinions. I am not convinced, at this stage, that the risk mitigation is adequate because there is now only one method of cutting. I can see circumstances where a cut may need to be made from the front or made using a fixed position (handgrip or pendant).
But that is my opinion and I'm looking for more background and what operators around the world are doing before coming to a conclusion. The manufacturer build the hoists to a certification standard...the manufacturer has made it very clear it does not recommend relying on the hand held ballistic cutter as a primary device...only as a secondary or backup.
I'm no lawyer but have been monstered in court enough to know that it is certainly a game person who steps away from design standards or manufacturer's recommendations. Maybe I'm wrong, and am willing to admit that if there's a good argument.
I'm expecting a spirited discussion on this....at least I hope so!
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
Ogsplashwrote:
"Essentially, this has come about over concerns about inadvertant firings caused by external electro-magnetic induction (EMI) or problems with installation (electrical grounding)."
Ogsplash, the switch to a manually crew-activated system and disabling of the primary, pilot-controlled system is wonderful! If the aircraft picks up a vibration, do we hack off a foot or two of the rotor blades to fix it?
It is my opinion that to deny the pilot control of a suspended load is foolish and dangerous. Furthermore, to permanently fix a problem of poor installation (improperly designed, installed, tested) by disabling the system is disturbing.
"Essentially, this has come about over concerns about inadvertant firings caused by external electro-magnetic induction (EMI) or problems with installation (electrical grounding)."
Ogsplash, the switch to a manually crew-activated system and disabling of the primary, pilot-controlled system is wonderful! If the aircraft picks up a vibration, do we hack off a foot or two of the rotor blades to fix it?
It is my opinion that to deny the pilot control of a suspended load is foolish and dangerous. Furthermore, to permanently fix a problem of poor installation (improperly designed, installed, tested) by disabling the system is disturbing.
Last edited by NickLappos; 24th April 2004 at 14:23.
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 362
Likes: 0
From: Australasia
Oggie,
Heard that the Red Sea Rig had been a Siren's song...
I reckon Nick has got it to a tee. Obviously the Cat has the inside oil - I have some problems with the "not needed for land" result as I saw it more as a way of detaching myself from the load or an obstruction so that I might manaoeuvre without restriction, even on land!
Maybe a non-commercial agency might be made privvy to the risk analysis and accepted mitigators with a view to an independent assessment?
Disabling the pilot-controlled cable-cutters should only have ever been a temporary mitigator awaiting investigation, analysis and a lasting solution.
Stay Alive,
Heard that the Red Sea Rig had been a Siren's song...
I reckon Nick has got it to a tee. Obviously the Cat has the inside oil - I have some problems with the "not needed for land" result as I saw it more as a way of detaching myself from the load or an obstruction so that I might manaoeuvre without restriction, even on land!
Maybe a non-commercial agency might be made privvy to the risk analysis and accepted mitigators with a view to an independent assessment?
Disabling the pilot-controlled cable-cutters should only have ever been a temporary mitigator awaiting investigation, analysis and a lasting solution.
Stay Alive,
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: Karratha
I have been a crewman for five years & in that time, the company I work for, have had only 1 uncommanded cutting of the cable. This was 1 too many.
We use 2 types of Aircraft, which use different types of winches. Our 332 Super Puma's use an Hydraulic winch, with we have had no problem with. But our Sikorsky S76's use an Electric winch, which we have had no end of trouble with & the incident I mentioned.
Before any mission weather it be training or the real thing we always do a no volts check of the cable cutting squib & it was during this mandatory check that the squib fired. The winch was removed & sent back to the manufactures for investergation & overhaul.
The job that we do is very very dangerous & until a better system of cutting the cable is in place I feel we cannot remove the cable cutters, as trying to cut the cable by hand in most of the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in would be impossible.
We use 2 types of Aircraft, which use different types of winches. Our 332 Super Puma's use an Hydraulic winch, with we have had no problem with. But our Sikorsky S76's use an Electric winch, which we have had no end of trouble with & the incident I mentioned.
Before any mission weather it be training or the real thing we always do a no volts check of the cable cutting squib & it was during this mandatory check that the squib fired. The winch was removed & sent back to the manufactures for investergation & overhaul.
The job that we do is very very dangerous & until a better system of cutting the cable is in place I feel we cannot remove the cable cutters, as trying to cut the cable by hand in most of the difficult circumstances we find ourselves in would be impossible.
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
From: Tasmania and High Wollemi
part du
Well'
Og,
thought that may have been the case. Keep in mind one of the best defences is a documented hazard analysis based on AS 4360 ( think that is the number ), conducted by suitably experienced and briefed individuals with the hazards, threat levels and mitigators duly documented. Also things like not operating near search radar, suitable training heights and areas etc all come into play.
Take a complete systems approach with the over riding question being do we really need to be doing this being rule 2 behind rule 1, don't become a victim.
In terms of numbers I know of one operator who conducts more than 600 real and practice hoists PER YEAR and NONE of those involved wanted the balisitic cutter installed for their operation. It is a major industrial issue for them. The hand shears have been demonstrated to provide an equivalent level of safety. The standard is gone in 5 seconds if I recall.
Nick,
Done a lot of winching have you????????? Similar comments came out of the Oz CASA until it was asked who in the discussion had actually been winched or operated the winch.
You really need to work on a professionally crewed winch helicopter. In most instances the pilot is completely reliant on the winch operator and probably can't see what is going on below anyway as I would hope they are holding some sort of lateral and vertical reference. The crewman ( crewperson for those wishing political correctness ) co-ords the show unless the fan winds down.
Get the CRM going Nick, a SAR or winch operation involves ALL the crew and it had better been thought out, documented and practiced until it all just flows.
Round 3....
The EYE.
Og,
thought that may have been the case. Keep in mind one of the best defences is a documented hazard analysis based on AS 4360 ( think that is the number ), conducted by suitably experienced and briefed individuals with the hazards, threat levels and mitigators duly documented. Also things like not operating near search radar, suitable training heights and areas etc all come into play.
Take a complete systems approach with the over riding question being do we really need to be doing this being rule 2 behind rule 1, don't become a victim.
In terms of numbers I know of one operator who conducts more than 600 real and practice hoists PER YEAR and NONE of those involved wanted the balisitic cutter installed for their operation. It is a major industrial issue for them. The hand shears have been demonstrated to provide an equivalent level of safety. The standard is gone in 5 seconds if I recall.
Nick,
Done a lot of winching have you????????? Similar comments came out of the Oz CASA until it was asked who in the discussion had actually been winched or operated the winch.
You really need to work on a professionally crewed winch helicopter. In most instances the pilot is completely reliant on the winch operator and probably can't see what is going on below anyway as I would hope they are holding some sort of lateral and vertical reference. The crewman ( crewperson for those wishing political correctness ) co-ords the show unless the fan winds down.
Get the CRM going Nick, a SAR or winch operation involves ALL the crew and it had better been thought out, documented and practiced until it all just flows.
Round 3....
The EYE.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Hey Cats, would love to see that risk assessment for my own edification. Care to contact me on email? The 600 winches in a year is a good figure but the number of winches done by the org I currently work with would likely exceed that by 10 times ... but I'll check on that tomorrow to make sure I'm not blowing gas. I don't mean to sound like 'mine is bigger than yours' but just to provide a comparison and maybe a larger sampling of an organisation that does have the installed cable cut.
I just can't see how the removal of one of the two firing points actually provides an equivalent level of safety. I'm thinking a loss of control...say a tail rotor into a tree or even a tail rotor shaft fail...helicopter has large yaw rate...someone on the winch cable...crewman unable to operate hand held cut due to being thrown across the cabin....pilot still has hands on the controls but can't cut due no capability to do so...
The argument then arises, how likely is such an event? Well accident statisitics reveal that tail rotor failures (for varieties of reasons), for example, happen a lot more often than cable cuts caused by EMI or even poor design or maintenance (especially since the incorporation of the ADs). My concern is that if, on the balance of probablities if it is possible to foresee a real, not remote, risk that the planned action (manual cutting) may not effectively deal with, then someone maybe exposed to litigation following an accident.
It is likely that to say the activity is "CASA approved" is not a strong defence. Equally although the manufacturer's recommendations will be persuasive as a defence, they are not binding. (anyone with a legal background, please feel free to comment)
So, if there is a rigorous risk assessment that takes into account the foreseeable real risks vs the remote unlikely, then it may be worth publishing that assessment because it should be taken into consideration by the certifying authorities and manufacturers, and by other operators.
Enjoying the discussion Cats...keep it coming please.
I just can't see how the removal of one of the two firing points actually provides an equivalent level of safety. I'm thinking a loss of control...say a tail rotor into a tree or even a tail rotor shaft fail...helicopter has large yaw rate...someone on the winch cable...crewman unable to operate hand held cut due to being thrown across the cabin....pilot still has hands on the controls but can't cut due no capability to do so...
The argument then arises, how likely is such an event? Well accident statisitics reveal that tail rotor failures (for varieties of reasons), for example, happen a lot more often than cable cuts caused by EMI or even poor design or maintenance (especially since the incorporation of the ADs). My concern is that if, on the balance of probablities if it is possible to foresee a real, not remote, risk that the planned action (manual cutting) may not effectively deal with, then someone maybe exposed to litigation following an accident.
It is likely that to say the activity is "CASA approved" is not a strong defence. Equally although the manufacturer's recommendations will be persuasive as a defence, they are not binding. (anyone with a legal background, please feel free to comment)
So, if there is a rigorous risk assessment that takes into account the foreseeable real risks vs the remote unlikely, then it may be worth publishing that assessment because it should be taken into consideration by the certifying authorities and manufacturers, and by other operators.
Enjoying the discussion Cats...keep it coming please.
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 1
From: USA
catseye,
Yes, in fact I have done lots of everything, thank you! More of some than others, and way too much of way too much.
I think next time you see the cat that gave you the eye, take the other one. That way you would see that I did not say that the crew is not important (it is a team, and a good crewman is better than a good beer, almost) and nowhere do I say that a crewman should not have a means to cut the cable (he/she must, and within easy reach).
But nowhere will you find me saying that my helicopter can be inadvertantly tethered to the earth while I have no say in the matter. That is even if the Lord himself was my winchman! And HE invented CRM.
I do think that no one should just defeat normal design features because of poor design/maintenance or wive's tales. If you can't stand electric emergency cutters, get ready for sad times, mate. In a modern helo, the FADEC controls your engine, GPS finds your victim, Fly By Wire controls your helicopter, and electrons have your b**ls.
Yes, in fact I have done lots of everything, thank you! More of some than others, and way too much of way too much.
I think next time you see the cat that gave you the eye, take the other one. That way you would see that I did not say that the crew is not important (it is a team, and a good crewman is better than a good beer, almost) and nowhere do I say that a crewman should not have a means to cut the cable (he/she must, and within easy reach).
But nowhere will you find me saying that my helicopter can be inadvertantly tethered to the earth while I have no say in the matter. That is even if the Lord himself was my winchman! And HE invented CRM.
I do think that no one should just defeat normal design features because of poor design/maintenance or wive's tales. If you can't stand electric emergency cutters, get ready for sad times, mate. In a modern helo, the FADEC controls your engine, GPS finds your victim, Fly By Wire controls your helicopter, and electrons have your b**ls.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Hey Deeper....it was a gut feel. Am checking the figures now but many of the single aircraft flights at sea would likely do several hundred in a deployment. But as I said, I am checking to see and will let you know with some accuracy. Just did 12 today myself!
Cats...I'm afraid I'm with Nick on this one. I know that the certification standard for hoist equipment has been significantly raised in recent years, so if operators have concerns about the older equipment, then maybe they should consider upgrading rather than feel they have to use work-rounds to address perceived or real shortcomings.
Cats...I'm afraid I'm with Nick on this one. I know that the certification standard for hoist equipment has been significantly raised in recent years, so if operators have concerns about the older equipment, then maybe they should consider upgrading rather than feel they have to use work-rounds to address perceived or real shortcomings.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Hi Cats,
I had some good feedback privately and I asked the FAA, manufacturer, operators in the US and Europe and manged to get a general legal opinion on the issue. Overall, it seems that it is not recommended to remove the cutters based on a hazard that has no record of existing...especially as the ADs issued a few years ago appeared to have solved the problem. There have been incidents where the installed cutter has been necessary over land. Legal opinion was that just because CASA said it was okay, that is no defence. The opinion also said that the manufacturer's recommendations/certification basis holds greater weight (although not absolute).
The article will be appearing soon and I have tried to present both sides of the story but I basically conclude that if there is a perceived problem with the old winch then rather have a work around that may shift the burden of resposibility onto the operator, then maybe the winch should be replaced with a modern unit.
My personal belief is that the removal of the cutter is not a good idea as it goes against the basis of certification and the manufacturer's recommendations, and there are likely scenarios. where the hand held cutter is unlikely to be effective, for example, a tail rotor failure (tree induced or otherwise). Having been in a helicopter that had one, I can personally attest to the fact that the lateral forces are so large that it is unlikely that a crewman could work a handheld cutter. A pilot using the cockpit mounted switch has a better chance as does a crewman holding onto a control (pendant or otherwise). There have been cases (one quoted in the article) where the cutter has been needed overland.
What was good about the discussion was that no-one got personal about it....unlike some other forums I've seen. May we hkeep it like that and I look forward to more discussions in the future!
I had some good feedback privately and I asked the FAA, manufacturer, operators in the US and Europe and manged to get a general legal opinion on the issue. Overall, it seems that it is not recommended to remove the cutters based on a hazard that has no record of existing...especially as the ADs issued a few years ago appeared to have solved the problem. There have been incidents where the installed cutter has been necessary over land. Legal opinion was that just because CASA said it was okay, that is no defence. The opinion also said that the manufacturer's recommendations/certification basis holds greater weight (although not absolute).
The article will be appearing soon and I have tried to present both sides of the story but I basically conclude that if there is a perceived problem with the old winch then rather have a work around that may shift the burden of resposibility onto the operator, then maybe the winch should be replaced with a modern unit.
My personal belief is that the removal of the cutter is not a good idea as it goes against the basis of certification and the manufacturer's recommendations, and there are likely scenarios. where the hand held cutter is unlikely to be effective, for example, a tail rotor failure (tree induced or otherwise). Having been in a helicopter that had one, I can personally attest to the fact that the lateral forces are so large that it is unlikely that a crewman could work a handheld cutter. A pilot using the cockpit mounted switch has a better chance as does a crewman holding onto a control (pendant or otherwise). There have been cases (one quoted in the article) where the cutter has been needed overland.
What was good about the discussion was that no-one got personal about it....unlike some other forums I've seen. May we hkeep it like that and I look forward to more discussions in the future!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
From: Oz
Cable cutters
Ogsplash,
I did a Risk Analysis on this subject a couple of years ago for one of the EMS operators in Sydney. I will try to find it if you would like me to send you a copy.
The interesting thing is that pilots always say they need the cutter, yet none of my research showed any cases where the aircraft was put in a situation that could not be solved by manual cutting. (I had some interesting replies to a similar question to yours that I posed on this forum while doing my research. None of them stated a valid case for ballistic cutters; the best was from a pilot who said he had "almost had to use the cutters" during a flight)
The greatest risk is to the crew on the cable. In a professional EMS operation, the crew train as a team and winching is not an emergency procedure, but an access tool, used regularly and safely. With everyone in the chain maintaining situational awareness at all times, risk is very low of a winch related incident. Risk of a catastrophic aircraft malfunction during the short winch time is negligible.
Greatest proven risk is inadvertent cable cutter firing (I have personal experience of two) or activation by crew, or failure of the cable cutter to fire or sever the cable when needed. The former poses lethal risk to the winchees, the latter equal risk to all parties while the manual option is used.
I will check my files tonight and get back to you on private message.
I did a Risk Analysis on this subject a couple of years ago for one of the EMS operators in Sydney. I will try to find it if you would like me to send you a copy.
The interesting thing is that pilots always say they need the cutter, yet none of my research showed any cases where the aircraft was put in a situation that could not be solved by manual cutting. (I had some interesting replies to a similar question to yours that I posed on this forum while doing my research. None of them stated a valid case for ballistic cutters; the best was from a pilot who said he had "almost had to use the cutters" during a flight)
The greatest risk is to the crew on the cable. In a professional EMS operation, the crew train as a team and winching is not an emergency procedure, but an access tool, used regularly and safely. With everyone in the chain maintaining situational awareness at all times, risk is very low of a winch related incident. Risk of a catastrophic aircraft malfunction during the short winch time is negligible.
Greatest proven risk is inadvertent cable cutter firing (I have personal experience of two) or activation by crew, or failure of the cable cutter to fire or sever the cable when needed. The former poses lethal risk to the winchees, the latter equal risk to all parties while the manual option is used.
I will check my files tonight and get back to you on private message.
Thread Starter
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
From: New South Wales
Many thanks Jacques....have sent you a private message. In the interests of continuing the discussion on this forum. I had a couple of responses from people where it was needed...and a firing was conducted that probably saved the life of down-the-wire-man. I also had evidence of control malfunctions where IF there had been someone on a wire, the ONLY way of cutting the wire would have been by the pilot because of the lateral forces involved. These control malfunctions (for a great variety of reasons) are not rare although having someone on the winch at the time is rare.
There is a discussion that those helicopters being used overland dont' really need it but everyone agrees that over water, especially working with ships or boats, it is. Now, do we ban helos cot fitted with cutters from doing over water work? Sometimes we need every helicopter we can find (such as the Sydney to Hobart race) so limiting which ones could be used might cause an unnecessary problem.
Inadvertent firings....well, procedures and systems should be in place to minimise the chances of those happening. How far do we go down the line of removing certified systems to address a failure in procedures or violations of procedures? Ideally, a system should be designed to be resilient to human failure but sometimes, the only defence we have is adherence to checklist procedures. This, I believe is a case in point. Do we remove one safety system because the occassional person fails to adhere to a checklist OR the operator does not have an adequate checklist procedure in place. Considering the number of winches conducted around the world, the number of inadvertent firings, and the number of problems that have been had with the cutters, are we over reacting to something that has such a small chance of happening.
One other thing, the discussion most people have given me in support of removing cutters has been in relation to EMI-induced firings and not finger trouble.
No, sorry, I have to disagree at this stage (although I do look forward to seeing your study).
There is a discussion that those helicopters being used overland dont' really need it but everyone agrees that over water, especially working with ships or boats, it is. Now, do we ban helos cot fitted with cutters from doing over water work? Sometimes we need every helicopter we can find (such as the Sydney to Hobart race) so limiting which ones could be used might cause an unnecessary problem.
Inadvertent firings....well, procedures and systems should be in place to minimise the chances of those happening. How far do we go down the line of removing certified systems to address a failure in procedures or violations of procedures? Ideally, a system should be designed to be resilient to human failure but sometimes, the only defence we have is adherence to checklist procedures. This, I believe is a case in point. Do we remove one safety system because the occassional person fails to adhere to a checklist OR the operator does not have an adequate checklist procedure in place. Considering the number of winches conducted around the world, the number of inadvertent firings, and the number of problems that have been had with the cutters, are we over reacting to something that has such a small chance of happening.
One other thing, the discussion most people have given me in support of removing cutters has been in relation to EMI-induced firings and not finger trouble.
No, sorry, I have to disagree at this stage (although I do look forward to seeing your study).
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
From: Australia
I have worked for an organisation that had ballistic cable cutters removed as well as organisations with both electric & manual cutters. I would never return to the organisation which had the ballistic cutter removed from the breeze hoist which it was utilising at the time, over concerns for my own safety. It is simply a matter of risk versus gain. There are a number of circumstances where both ballistic & manual cutters may have their practical uses, as has been described by posters to this forum.
Another area that is often over looked is the ability of the crewman on the wire to remove himself at his own discretion. Some groups in Australia use a cable winch release (basically a parachute release system) attached to the crewman down the wire. I wouldn't think to operate ever again without this system. There are numerous scenarios where I would consider banging myself off the wire before the pilot or crewman upstairs could even think about ( or perhaps be unable too) reaching for the cutters.
Sarbe
Another area that is often over looked is the ability of the crewman on the wire to remove himself at his own discretion. Some groups in Australia use a cable winch release (basically a parachute release system) attached to the crewman down the wire. I wouldn't think to operate ever again without this system. There are numerous scenarios where I would consider banging myself off the wire before the pilot or crewman upstairs could even think about ( or perhaps be unable too) reaching for the cutters.
Sarbe