Hard Core Category A?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Total 19,500 Offshore 16,000 S76(A & C) 11,500
Least anyone thinks that the above experience level endows me with any particular wisdom I wish them to think otherwise. The number of hours are not necessarily an indication of an aviators ability or knowledge. It has been said before “Does he have a thousand hours experience, or one hours experience repeated a thousand times”. I have to say I probably fall into the latter category as all my offshore time has been gained flying out of the same geographical point for the same operator. I read the postings on these pages with some envy at times at the professional lives some of you lead (the grass is always greener).
If I were to have a wish list it would be for more power, both dual and OEI, a boot double its current size, means to avoid CFIT, and the ability to make a zero/zero landing. The 76 is a great helo in the temperate climate in which I fly, but the performance bleeds too quickly once the OAT starts to get up. To have OEI hover would be outstanding, as I would be able to use all those rigs I fly over as an alternate, instead of having to carry the emergency to the beach (which may well be clamped, as we don’t bother with planning to have an alternate in our operation). Our individual personal history and experiences is what colours our thinking and having had two catastrophic engine failures with the Turbomeca in the C model (only engine failures I’ve had in my career – one at CDP on a rig takeoff, the other in the hover prior to departing a runway) you can guess where my sympathies lie. I recognise all that Nick says re the engineering trade offs required as relevant, and there is no such thing as being able to make the business risk free, even by regulation. The Concorde, for example, was only required by regulation to be able to handle a single (as are all multi airline transports), not a double engine failure on one side, but we all saw in graphic detail what happens when it happens. Likewise the DC-10 at Sioux City landing with no hydraulics – what chance that, finding yourself with no hydraulics and having to control the aircraft purely by manipulation of the throttles? I’m reminded also of a young lad making his first night solo IFR trip in a S-2 Tracker in my navy days. He had a total electrical failure due to a compounding series of mechanical problems in each engine. He got down OK but the investigators write up asked the question “Twin reliability or double trouble?” At times the dog of fate simply lifts its leg and pisses on the pillar of science.
I detect a level of frustration in some postings that the author is not getting his message across. Once again we look at things based on our past experiences, training (or lack of) and it can be quite difficult at times to see the light. Those of you with an instructing background (which I do not) would be able to tell some stories. Our operation has a Cat A takeoff procedure to use from our home base which has 2,000 feet of runway. The only trouble is that the procedure makes no allowance for the accelerate distance required for when the failure is after CDP. Ten years of trying to get management to see the light has been for nought, so it says nothing for my abilities as an educator. An old saying has it that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Similarly the only stupid opinion is the one not given. Every one is entitled to an opinion, but he is not entitled to be wrong in his facts. The following philosophers say it all.
John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism. Liberty. Representative Government. London 1960 says:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error…….We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
Von Hayek
To deprecate the value of intellectual freedom because it will never mean for everybody the same possibility of independent thought is completely to miss the reasons which give intellectual freedom its value. What is essential to make it serve its function as the prime mover of intellectual progress is not that everybody may be able to think or write anything, but that any cause or idea may be argued by somebody. So long as dissent is not suppressed, there will always be some who will query the ideas ruling their contemporaries and put new ideas to the test of argument and propaganda.
This interaction of individuals, possessing different knowledge and different views, is what constitutes the life of thought. The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of such differences
A rambling old man with too much time on his hands best go.
Blue Skies to all,
Brian.
Least anyone thinks that the above experience level endows me with any particular wisdom I wish them to think otherwise. The number of hours are not necessarily an indication of an aviators ability or knowledge. It has been said before “Does he have a thousand hours experience, or one hours experience repeated a thousand times”. I have to say I probably fall into the latter category as all my offshore time has been gained flying out of the same geographical point for the same operator. I read the postings on these pages with some envy at times at the professional lives some of you lead (the grass is always greener).
If I were to have a wish list it would be for more power, both dual and OEI, a boot double its current size, means to avoid CFIT, and the ability to make a zero/zero landing. The 76 is a great helo in the temperate climate in which I fly, but the performance bleeds too quickly once the OAT starts to get up. To have OEI hover would be outstanding, as I would be able to use all those rigs I fly over as an alternate, instead of having to carry the emergency to the beach (which may well be clamped, as we don’t bother with planning to have an alternate in our operation). Our individual personal history and experiences is what colours our thinking and having had two catastrophic engine failures with the Turbomeca in the C model (only engine failures I’ve had in my career – one at CDP on a rig takeoff, the other in the hover prior to departing a runway) you can guess where my sympathies lie. I recognise all that Nick says re the engineering trade offs required as relevant, and there is no such thing as being able to make the business risk free, even by regulation. The Concorde, for example, was only required by regulation to be able to handle a single (as are all multi airline transports), not a double engine failure on one side, but we all saw in graphic detail what happens when it happens. Likewise the DC-10 at Sioux City landing with no hydraulics – what chance that, finding yourself with no hydraulics and having to control the aircraft purely by manipulation of the throttles? I’m reminded also of a young lad making his first night solo IFR trip in a S-2 Tracker in my navy days. He had a total electrical failure due to a compounding series of mechanical problems in each engine. He got down OK but the investigators write up asked the question “Twin reliability or double trouble?” At times the dog of fate simply lifts its leg and pisses on the pillar of science.
I detect a level of frustration in some postings that the author is not getting his message across. Once again we look at things based on our past experiences, training (or lack of) and it can be quite difficult at times to see the light. Those of you with an instructing background (which I do not) would be able to tell some stories. Our operation has a Cat A takeoff procedure to use from our home base which has 2,000 feet of runway. The only trouble is that the procedure makes no allowance for the accelerate distance required for when the failure is after CDP. Ten years of trying to get management to see the light has been for nought, so it says nothing for my abilities as an educator. An old saying has it that the only stupid question is the one not asked. Similarly the only stupid opinion is the one not given. Every one is entitled to an opinion, but he is not entitled to be wrong in his facts. The following philosophers say it all.
John Stuart Mill in Utilitarianism. Liberty. Representative Government. London 1960 says:
The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error…….We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.
Von Hayek
To deprecate the value of intellectual freedom because it will never mean for everybody the same possibility of independent thought is completely to miss the reasons which give intellectual freedom its value. What is essential to make it serve its function as the prime mover of intellectual progress is not that everybody may be able to think or write anything, but that any cause or idea may be argued by somebody. So long as dissent is not suppressed, there will always be some who will query the ideas ruling their contemporaries and put new ideas to the test of argument and propaganda.
This interaction of individuals, possessing different knowledge and different views, is what constitutes the life of thought. The growth of reason is a social process based on the existence of such differences
A rambling old man with too much time on his hands best go.
Blue Skies to all,
Brian.
Onya Brian. Hours may not be the whole measure but it is a fair indication that you are doing something right ie keeping self , pax and machine , out of the water.
( …having worked within many multi cultural situations may I offer this small snippet to help enlighten some of the Pprune audience…...boot = baggage compartment = trunk….they know to whom I refer ! Sorry Brian , I could not help myself)
We all wrestle with our particular (operational) demons but as Xnr says
“Now the guy caught in the middle is the pilot. Surprise surprise.”
..and this is what I find annoying. We are at the bottom of the “food chain”. As pilots , we must make the operation work after the manufacturer presents his machine , the regulator does his bit , the auditor/oil company lays down their creed and our management tries to sell the whole shebang. We are not caught in the middle , we are caught at the end and this is where Nick’s involvement in Pprune is worth a million dollars. I know you are expressing private opinions , Nick. Fair enough , but you are also in a position to take in what you hear from this far wider audience of pilots and allow it to effect outcomes at the beginning of that “food chain”
My parting remark is borrowed from a good Canadian buddy of mine who once said..
”take any helicopter (single or multi ), remove x% of seats and you have a half decent performer”
I believe that a lot of our performance woes are directly attributable to ignorance (or head burying or economics) on the part of the end user. In the offshore patch , that is the oil companies. I should really get a Pprune pseudonym before I blast the oil companies but ………
Peter
( …having worked within many multi cultural situations may I offer this small snippet to help enlighten some of the Pprune audience…...boot = baggage compartment = trunk….they know to whom I refer ! Sorry Brian , I could not help myself)
We all wrestle with our particular (operational) demons but as Xnr says
“Now the guy caught in the middle is the pilot. Surprise surprise.”
..and this is what I find annoying. We are at the bottom of the “food chain”. As pilots , we must make the operation work after the manufacturer presents his machine , the regulator does his bit , the auditor/oil company lays down their creed and our management tries to sell the whole shebang. We are not caught in the middle , we are caught at the end and this is where Nick’s involvement in Pprune is worth a million dollars. I know you are expressing private opinions , Nick. Fair enough , but you are also in a position to take in what you hear from this far wider audience of pilots and allow it to effect outcomes at the beginning of that “food chain”
My parting remark is borrowed from a good Canadian buddy of mine who once said..
”take any helicopter (single or multi ), remove x% of seats and you have a half decent performer”
I believe that a lot of our performance woes are directly attributable to ignorance (or head burying or economics) on the part of the end user. In the offshore patch , that is the oil companies. I should really get a Pprune pseudonym before I blast the oil companies but ………
Peter
Last edited by peter manktelow; 29th Aug 2004 at 02:01.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peter,
tell me about pseudonyms! I am considering stopping posting in my name, as it appears some folks think it is fair game to pin the thoughts onto a particular manufacturer, and even take pot shots from that view point.
Brian, those are not ramblings, they are well thought out positions! I do like the philosophical quotes, too. I too think the opinions of all are valuable, for those reasons.
The issue we face is that the performance margin rubs directly against the profit margin because the payload can be reduced to permit better performance. This is not a statement of greed vs good, it is physics.
What I see is that as pilots we want the CHOICE removed, so that the reduced payload is hidden in a lower MGW, sort of removing the hobson's choice from the field of consideration. An interesting problem!
I will say this, many posters have considered the law's requirement of hard Cat A as proof enough. I do not.
The European law cannot get off their duffs and approve IFR approaches for helos (by IFR for helos I mean to heliports, of course)! (I know of many operators who do their own thing, because of this!) The law can't even find it to insist on CFIT protection devices. I have asked several times for someone to show that safety and hard Cat A are connected, and all the responses simply list the regulations, as if that were proof. All the while 30% of our crashes are completely correctable with EGPWS, and 0% of the twin crashes are due to insufficient OEI performance!
That rant now having passed, I do welcome all the ideas posted here!
tell me about pseudonyms! I am considering stopping posting in my name, as it appears some folks think it is fair game to pin the thoughts onto a particular manufacturer, and even take pot shots from that view point.
Brian, those are not ramblings, they are well thought out positions! I do like the philosophical quotes, too. I too think the opinions of all are valuable, for those reasons.
The issue we face is that the performance margin rubs directly against the profit margin because the payload can be reduced to permit better performance. This is not a statement of greed vs good, it is physics.
What I see is that as pilots we want the CHOICE removed, so that the reduced payload is hidden in a lower MGW, sort of removing the hobson's choice from the field of consideration. An interesting problem!
I will say this, many posters have considered the law's requirement of hard Cat A as proof enough. I do not.
The European law cannot get off their duffs and approve IFR approaches for helos (by IFR for helos I mean to heliports, of course)! (I know of many operators who do their own thing, because of this!) The law can't even find it to insist on CFIT protection devices. I have asked several times for someone to show that safety and hard Cat A are connected, and all the responses simply list the regulations, as if that were proof. All the while 30% of our crashes are completely correctable with EGPWS, and 0% of the twin crashes are due to insufficient OEI performance!
That rant now having passed, I do welcome all the ideas posted here!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: AB, Canada
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been busy and haven't been following this thread lately, but even still, I'm going to cut into this based on one point.
Nick said, "0% of the twin crashes are due to insufficient OEI performance!".
I know of three crashes in twins that if they had sufficient OEI performance, then the crashes wouldn't have happened. Did you need details of these crashes or have I missed what your point actually is?
Nick said, "0% of the twin crashes are due to insufficient OEI performance!".
I know of three crashes in twins that if they had sufficient OEI performance, then the crashes wouldn't have happened. Did you need details of these crashes or have I missed what your point actually is?
To psuedonym or not to psuedonym , that is the question.
Hang in there Nick. I far prefer to know , the party to whom I am speaking. Unfortunately “pot shots” are part of the deal. In Australia we call it the “tall poppy syndrome” and it is a particularly nasty side of our Aussie psyche. When/if opportunity ever permits , I can better explain over a beer or three.
I guess the main issue I was trying to get across in my last post was that in my experience , the people who should know , don’t know. I am referring to the various client companies who use our multi engine helicopters , fully believing that they have 100% Cat A…or worse believing that Cat A gives them , as one previous post said , a 100% single engine capability on par with the airlines. And this ignorance also extends into other areas of performance as mentioned by Brian with his lack of suitable “accelerate distance required for when the failure is after CDP”. I was once reprimanded by a “goose” of a manager for questioning the company’s OEI definitions/performance and whether in fact the client was aware of what they were getting or not getting. So OEI performance is a subject “dear to my heart” so to speak.
The whole multi engine OEI situation is a very confusing subject. Just ask any keen young copilot who has recently been pouring thru the books. I thought I knew a few things about the issue but am continuing to learn , especially thru this medium. Not helping is changing and differing regulatory rules. Staggeringly ,within one regulatory group , there can be differing company rules..AND within a single company at different bases , there are different rules. Talk about the tower of Babel !!
You have convinced me that your argument is sound and statistically watertight. The only problem that still exists is that my “pucker meter” is still inordinately affected as I land and takeoff from the rig. Whether I am flying Brand X or Brand Y helicopters , THE CLIENT wants every fitted seat occupied and the boot , trunk , baggage compartment stuffed to bursting…..and they want to believe that no matter what happens…we can fly em home if it all turns wobbly.
Perhaps organizations such as OGP should be paying a bit more attention to the subject of educating their members on this subject.
Peter
Hang in there Nick. I far prefer to know , the party to whom I am speaking. Unfortunately “pot shots” are part of the deal. In Australia we call it the “tall poppy syndrome” and it is a particularly nasty side of our Aussie psyche. When/if opportunity ever permits , I can better explain over a beer or three.
I guess the main issue I was trying to get across in my last post was that in my experience , the people who should know , don’t know. I am referring to the various client companies who use our multi engine helicopters , fully believing that they have 100% Cat A…or worse believing that Cat A gives them , as one previous post said , a 100% single engine capability on par with the airlines. And this ignorance also extends into other areas of performance as mentioned by Brian with his lack of suitable “accelerate distance required for when the failure is after CDP”. I was once reprimanded by a “goose” of a manager for questioning the company’s OEI definitions/performance and whether in fact the client was aware of what they were getting or not getting. So OEI performance is a subject “dear to my heart” so to speak.
The whole multi engine OEI situation is a very confusing subject. Just ask any keen young copilot who has recently been pouring thru the books. I thought I knew a few things about the issue but am continuing to learn , especially thru this medium. Not helping is changing and differing regulatory rules. Staggeringly ,within one regulatory group , there can be differing company rules..AND within a single company at different bases , there are different rules. Talk about the tower of Babel !!
You have convinced me that your argument is sound and statistically watertight. The only problem that still exists is that my “pucker meter” is still inordinately affected as I land and takeoff from the rig. Whether I am flying Brand X or Brand Y helicopters , THE CLIENT wants every fitted seat occupied and the boot , trunk , baggage compartment stuffed to bursting…..and they want to believe that no matter what happens…we can fly em home if it all turns wobbly.
Perhaps organizations such as OGP should be paying a bit more attention to the subject of educating their members on this subject.
Peter
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been trying to keep up with all the experts on this tread but to be honest, I am some what bemused at what should not be a problem.
In Oz cat A has a very straight forward requirement. Before CDP you must have the ability to land back. After CDP you must have the ability to fly away. It does not matter if you are on a rig platform 200 ft above sea level, on a work boat 15 ft above sea level, on a mountian pad, in a jungle clearing or a 10000ft runway. You simply adjust your take off weight to suit the cat A requirement; this of course means that you will have different take off weights to suit the differing conditions.
All twins flown at the correct weight must be able to maintain level in the cruise on one engine at specified heights. So if you take off at sea level to fly over mountains, you must use a weight that is suitable.
After CDP from a helipad, you must reach VTOSS and started climbing by 35 ft, no reject area is required. If you can't do that, you are too heavy.
So I just don't see the problem. Fly at the correct weight and your company should pass those weights on to the customer if necessary.
In OZ we rarely use cat A unless the customer requires it.
In Oz cat A has a very straight forward requirement. Before CDP you must have the ability to land back. After CDP you must have the ability to fly away. It does not matter if you are on a rig platform 200 ft above sea level, on a work boat 15 ft above sea level, on a mountian pad, in a jungle clearing or a 10000ft runway. You simply adjust your take off weight to suit the cat A requirement; this of course means that you will have different take off weights to suit the differing conditions.
All twins flown at the correct weight must be able to maintain level in the cruise on one engine at specified heights. So if you take off at sea level to fly over mountains, you must use a weight that is suitable.
After CDP from a helipad, you must reach VTOSS and started climbing by 35 ft, no reject area is required. If you can't do that, you are too heavy.
So I just don't see the problem. Fly at the correct weight and your company should pass those weights on to the customer if necessary.
In OZ we rarely use cat A unless the customer requires it.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole multi engine OEI situation is a very confusing subject. Just ask any keen young copilot who has recently been pouring thru the books. I thought I knew a few things about the issue but am continuing to learn , especially thru this medium. Not helping is changing and differing regulatory rules. Staggeringly ,within one regulatory group , there can be differing company rules..AND within a single company at different bases , there are different rules. Talk about the tower of Babel !!
I have struggled with this topic for well over a year now. Seeking the advice of those far more knowledgeable than I.
Under Canadian regs some helipads (80'x80') which are located within built up areas are "restricted to helicopters than can maintain 4.5 m (15ft.) above the highest obstacle within the approved approach and departure path when operated in accordance with the approved aircraft flight manual with one engine inoperative."
I fly an S76A model. Do you feel that I can legally land at or depart from this helipad?
Conversations with Transport Canada, Flight Safety and management have only yielded politcal bullsh*t.
In frustration I ask you. Please be as direct and to the point as you can as I consider your opinion invaluable.
Cheers
Last edited by Xnr; 30th Aug 2004 at 04:08.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Xnr
Any twin has a certain capacity with 1 engine out. From the flight manual you can calculate what your weight should be to achieve single engine performance. This then becomes the weight you use from that helipad to give full engine out capability.
For example when we did marine pilot transfers to LNG tankers in a S76A++, we had to have full single engine capability from beginning to end. Sikorsky recommended an approach & take technique & weight which we stuck to. We had 2 pilots, about 500-600 lbs fuel, sometimes less on very hot windless days, and took 1 or 2 marine pilots. At the weights we used, I could have done the whole flight on 1 engine.
So it just depends what rules exist in your area and then adjust the weight accordingly.
Any twin has a certain capacity with 1 engine out. From the flight manual you can calculate what your weight should be to achieve single engine performance. This then becomes the weight you use from that helipad to give full engine out capability.
For example when we did marine pilot transfers to LNG tankers in a S76A++, we had to have full single engine capability from beginning to end. Sikorsky recommended an approach & take technique & weight which we stuck to. We had 2 pilots, about 500-600 lbs fuel, sometimes less on very hot windless days, and took 1 or 2 marine pilots. At the weights we used, I could have done the whole flight on 1 engine.
So it just depends what rules exist in your area and then adjust the weight accordingly.
Nick et al,
I think that Nigel has hit the nail on the head - I am only aware of one poster in this whole discussion who was asking for PC1 Operations, at MCTOM (MGM), from any site!
Nick, you have a company representative on the ICAO WG that is proposing amendments to Annex 6 to include recommendations for TAWS and ACAS; you should be aware that this was accepted by all of the regulators on the WG and only opposed (initially) by non-regulatory members (no names no pack drill). Why a recommendation? Because Annex 6 is (almost) a one size fits all document and to apply a Standard to all helicopters which are operating in CAT would have been universally opposed. For reasons that you are well aware of, the remark about European regulators smarts a little. Be prepared to see extensive improvements in the approval of Approach Procedures now that EGNOS is being used to add integrity to GPS (which was the basis of the conservatism).
Nigel, a great deal of cooperation has been achieved with OGP and they are kept aware of all the performance arguments; those members who have operations in a hostile environment are enthusiastic about PC2e because it has the potential for zero exposure to-and-from Rigs without the formality of Cat A, and without requiring the greater than 1D sizes that are presently contained in Cat A elevated heliport/helideck procedures.
Xnr, I am not intimately aware of Canadian Regulations but the obstacle clearance that you quote is built into ICAO (in fact you have omitted the divergence factor) and most other operational regulations (and of course FAR 27/29); it is not just a feature of Cat A, or related to the helipad size that you have quoted. PC1 & 2 both require this but only where an obstacle cannot be avoided laterally.
By the way, in an earlier post Helmet Fire intimated that Australia were not yet involved in the ICAO debate; not true you have had an active representative on the ICAO WG since it started its work.
I think that Nigel has hit the nail on the head - I am only aware of one poster in this whole discussion who was asking for PC1 Operations, at MCTOM (MGM), from any site!
Nick, you have a company representative on the ICAO WG that is proposing amendments to Annex 6 to include recommendations for TAWS and ACAS; you should be aware that this was accepted by all of the regulators on the WG and only opposed (initially) by non-regulatory members (no names no pack drill). Why a recommendation? Because Annex 6 is (almost) a one size fits all document and to apply a Standard to all helicopters which are operating in CAT would have been universally opposed. For reasons that you are well aware of, the remark about European regulators smarts a little. Be prepared to see extensive improvements in the approval of Approach Procedures now that EGNOS is being used to add integrity to GPS (which was the basis of the conservatism).
Nigel, a great deal of cooperation has been achieved with OGP and they are kept aware of all the performance arguments; those members who have operations in a hostile environment are enthusiastic about PC2e because it has the potential for zero exposure to-and-from Rigs without the formality of Cat A, and without requiring the greater than 1D sizes that are presently contained in Cat A elevated heliport/helideck procedures.
Xnr, I am not intimately aware of Canadian Regulations but the obstacle clearance that you quote is built into ICAO (in fact you have omitted the divergence factor) and most other operational regulations (and of course FAR 27/29); it is not just a feature of Cat A, or related to the helipad size that you have quoted. PC1 & 2 both require this but only where an obstacle cannot be avoided laterally.
By the way, in an earlier post Helmet Fire intimated that Australia were not yet involved in the ICAO debate; not true you have had an active representative on the ICAO WG since it started its work.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nigel Osborn said:
“For example when we did marine pilot transfers to LNG tankers in a S76A++, we had to have full single engine capability from beginning to end. Sikorsky recommended an approach & take technique & weight which we stuck to. We had 2 pilots, about 500-600 lbs fuel, sometimes less on very hot windless days, and took 1 or 2 marine pilots. At the weights we used, I could have done the whole flight on 1 engine.”
Have readers realised that we are talking about a performance enhanced helicopter (from the original Cat A “A model”) that is designed to carry 14 people, with a range of 400 nm, but operating with 4 people and 120ish nm range to achieve “hard core Cat A”. This from a helicopter that, as GLSNight Pilot says “the A++ is, IMO, far superior to the B model” when referring to performance/payload.
I realise that this discussion isn’t about aircraft types but the requirement, or otherwise, of “hard core cat A”. The example just highlights the problems we face when operating to the regulations.
I understand the manufacture’s frustration with the regulatory authorities regarding engine risk profiles for helicopters, but isn’t it their remit to convince them that Cat A is unnecessary or produce something that will accommodate the regulations in realistic operating conditions?
JimL says,
“I am only aware of one poster in this whole discussion who was asking for PC1 Operations, at MCTOM (MGM), from any site!”
The definition of PC1 that was given by JimL at the beginning of the thread was,
“Performance Class 1 operations are those with performance such that, in the event of failure of the critical power unit, the helicopter is able to safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, unless the failure occurs prior to reaching the Take-Off Decision Point or after passing the Landing Decision Point in which cases the helicopter must be able to land within the take-off or landing area”
I have not been asking for PC1. We already operate to this requirement most of the time, but, at a huge disadvantage to payload.
I have been advocating a realistic “hard core Cat A” (Fly away OEI with no reject required).
If one reads through the thread one will see that I am not a lone voice.
“For example when we did marine pilot transfers to LNG tankers in a S76A++, we had to have full single engine capability from beginning to end. Sikorsky recommended an approach & take technique & weight which we stuck to. We had 2 pilots, about 500-600 lbs fuel, sometimes less on very hot windless days, and took 1 or 2 marine pilots. At the weights we used, I could have done the whole flight on 1 engine.”
Have readers realised that we are talking about a performance enhanced helicopter (from the original Cat A “A model”) that is designed to carry 14 people, with a range of 400 nm, but operating with 4 people and 120ish nm range to achieve “hard core Cat A”. This from a helicopter that, as GLSNight Pilot says “the A++ is, IMO, far superior to the B model” when referring to performance/payload.
I realise that this discussion isn’t about aircraft types but the requirement, or otherwise, of “hard core cat A”. The example just highlights the problems we face when operating to the regulations.
I understand the manufacture’s frustration with the regulatory authorities regarding engine risk profiles for helicopters, but isn’t it their remit to convince them that Cat A is unnecessary or produce something that will accommodate the regulations in realistic operating conditions?
JimL says,
“I am only aware of one poster in this whole discussion who was asking for PC1 Operations, at MCTOM (MGM), from any site!”
The definition of PC1 that was given by JimL at the beginning of the thread was,
“Performance Class 1 operations are those with performance such that, in the event of failure of the critical power unit, the helicopter is able to safely continue the flight to an appropriate landing area, unless the failure occurs prior to reaching the Take-Off Decision Point or after passing the Landing Decision Point in which cases the helicopter must be able to land within the take-off or landing area”
I have not been asking for PC1. We already operate to this requirement most of the time, but, at a huge disadvantage to payload.
I have been advocating a realistic “hard core Cat A” (Fly away OEI with no reject required).
If one reads through the thread one will see that I am not a lone voice.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Nigel
Thanx for your input. It echoes most of the answers I receive on this topic.
Later in your post you state when you required full Cat A capability, Sikorsky came up with profiles and weights that you stuck to.
Why would you not have consulted the flight manual as you recommended above.
To my knowledge there is no provision within the rotorcraft flight manual to operate a S76A to or from a helipad Cat A. I am not familiar with the A++.
As the restriction states "when operated in accordance with the aircraft flight manual".
Cheers
Thanx for your input. It echoes most of the answers I receive on this topic.
Any twin has a certain capacity with 1 engine out. From the flight manual you can calculate what your weight should be to achieve single engine performance. This then becomes the weight you use from that helipad to give full engine out capability.
Why would you not have consulted the flight manual as you recommended above.
To my knowledge there is no provision within the rotorcraft flight manual to operate a S76A to or from a helipad Cat A. I am not familiar with the A++.
As the restriction states "when operated in accordance with the aircraft flight manual".
Cheers
In looking at my previous post I see that, when answering Xnr's point about obstacle clearance, I have committed Nick’s heinous sin of quoting regulations.
What I might have said was if an Authority wishes to ensure engine failure accountability (particularly in a built up area) it must specify the minimum obstacle clearance standard - not to do so would be to ensure that the twin is less safe than a single as it has double the probability of an engine failure with the same consequence.
FLI - then you have to turn to the AB139 within its present MCTOM (MGW) or fly one of the FAR 27 twins. I personally would accept PC1 where it includes a variable FDP with or without a modified RTOD. As has been said in previous posts, without OEI HOGE, a set of flexible procedures that give a continuum from the helipad through the confined area (short field) to the clear area would be a goal for the manufacturers to aim at.
What I might have said was if an Authority wishes to ensure engine failure accountability (particularly in a built up area) it must specify the minimum obstacle clearance standard - not to do so would be to ensure that the twin is less safe than a single as it has double the probability of an engine failure with the same consequence.
FLI - then you have to turn to the AB139 within its present MCTOM (MGW) or fly one of the FAR 27 twins. I personally would accept PC1 where it includes a variable FDP with or without a modified RTOD. As has been said in previous posts, without OEI HOGE, a set of flexible procedures that give a continuum from the helipad through the confined area (short field) to the clear area would be a goal for the manufacturers to aim at.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL,
Surely quoting regulations is a very minor sin... ;-)
I guess "getting off duffs" was a bit strong, eh? Sorry, but I do think there was a point there somewhere, in that one would think the accident record should have some correlation to the regulatory activity. Perhaps in another life!
Surely quoting regulations is a very minor sin... ;-)
I guess "getting off duffs" was a bit strong, eh? Sorry, but I do think there was a point there somewhere, in that one would think the accident record should have some correlation to the regulatory activity. Perhaps in another life!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL
Nick seems to be away, although, as of late hurricanes may be the priority right now. You seem well versed on this topic so to you I pose the same question.
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
posted 30th August 2004 02:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole multi engine OEI situation is a very confusing subject. Just ask any keen young copilot who has recently been pouring thru the books. I thought I knew a few things about the issue but am continuing to learn , especially thru this medium. Not helping is changing and differing regulatory rules. Staggeringly ,within one regulatory group , there can be differing company rules..AND within a single company at different bases , there are different rules. Talk about the tower of Babel !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have struggled with this topic for well over a year now. Seeking the advice of those far more knowledgeable than I.
Under Canadian regs some helipads (80'x80') which are located within built up areas are "restricted to helicopters than can maintain 4.5 m (15ft.) above the highest obstacle within the approved approach and departure path when operated in accordance with the approved aircraft flight manual with one engine inoperative."
I fly an S76A model. Do you feel that I can legally land at or depart from this helipad?
Conversations with Transport Canada, Flight Safety and management have only yielded politcal bullsh*t.
In frustration I ask you. Please be as direct and to the point as you can as I consider your opinion invaluable.
Cheers
Nick seems to be away, although, as of late hurricanes may be the priority right now. You seem well versed on this topic so to you I pose the same question.
A simple yes or no answer will suffice.
posted 30th August 2004 02:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The whole multi engine OEI situation is a very confusing subject. Just ask any keen young copilot who has recently been pouring thru the books. I thought I knew a few things about the issue but am continuing to learn , especially thru this medium. Not helping is changing and differing regulatory rules. Staggeringly ,within one regulatory group , there can be differing company rules..AND within a single company at different bases , there are different rules. Talk about the tower of Babel !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have struggled with this topic for well over a year now. Seeking the advice of those far more knowledgeable than I.
Under Canadian regs some helipads (80'x80') which are located within built up areas are "restricted to helicopters than can maintain 4.5 m (15ft.) above the highest obstacle within the approved approach and departure path when operated in accordance with the approved aircraft flight manual with one engine inoperative."
I fly an S76A model. Do you feel that I can legally land at or depart from this helipad?
Conversations with Transport Canada, Flight Safety and management have only yielded politcal bullsh*t.
In frustration I ask you. Please be as direct and to the point as you can as I consider your opinion invaluable.
Cheers
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: USA
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xnr,
I am not sure what you mean by a "bull" answer. What did they say?
The rules that you fly under are part of your ops manual. I assume you are a 135 operator or its equivilent. Does this manual list the helipads and procedures that you are authorized to use? If so, you are covered. If not, then how are you authorized to land there?
Every now and then someone with too much time on their hands comes across an inconsistency that seems overpowering. A few years ago a NY city pilot discovered that if he landed at a helipad in Manhatten, he might actually be violating the flight manual HV curve for some obscure reason. This made its way around and around, and was never really resolved, but folks kept operating, and eventually it was forgotten.
Nobody will publicly advocate breaking any rules, especially TC, and neither can your management. If you ask a question that requires them to assume your risk, or that tells them to stop your operations, you will not get a yes or no answer, because they're not that dumb.
There are Cat A procedures for every transport helo, of course. If you must use them at your heliport, and the heliport is too small (or the procedure needs too much room) then you should find a new place, or a new helo, a new job or a new hobby to keep you occupied.
I am not sure what you mean by a "bull" answer. What did they say?
The rules that you fly under are part of your ops manual. I assume you are a 135 operator or its equivilent. Does this manual list the helipads and procedures that you are authorized to use? If so, you are covered. If not, then how are you authorized to land there?
Every now and then someone with too much time on their hands comes across an inconsistency that seems overpowering. A few years ago a NY city pilot discovered that if he landed at a helipad in Manhatten, he might actually be violating the flight manual HV curve for some obscure reason. This made its way around and around, and was never really resolved, but folks kept operating, and eventually it was forgotten.
Nobody will publicly advocate breaking any rules, especially TC, and neither can your management. If you ask a question that requires them to assume your risk, or that tells them to stop your operations, you will not get a yes or no answer, because they're not that dumb.
There are Cat A procedures for every transport helo, of course. If you must use them at your heliport, and the heliport is too small (or the procedure needs too much room) then you should find a new place, or a new helo, a new job or a new hobby to keep you occupied.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squirrel
Thanx for your candid reply....as ususal the **** roles downhill.
TC won't enforce their own regulations and because of that operators see it as the green light. But you are right, if noone else has the backbone to do the right thing, the pilot is the last hope.
Its much easier for everyone else that way isn't it?
Cheers
P.S. only in aviation can the word "dumb" and the word "responsible" be used interchangeably......and I have a new hobby
Thanx for your candid reply....as ususal the **** roles downhill.
Nobody will publicly advocate breaking any rules, especially TC, and neither can your management. If you ask a question that requires them to assume your risk, or that tells them to stop your operations, you will not get a yes or no answer, because they're not that "dumb".
Its much easier for everyone else that way isn't it?
Cheers
P.S. only in aviation can the word "dumb" and the word "responsible" be used interchangeably......and I have a new hobby
Last edited by Xnr; 12th Sep 2004 at 17:27.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 38 South
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S 76A
Hi All,
I don't have access to a S76A flight manual. Can anyone tell me if the S76A is capable of VTOL Category A performance from a ground level helipad at sea level/15c day?
Thks
I don't have access to a S76A flight manual. Can anyone tell me if the S76A is capable of VTOL Category A performance from a ground level helipad at sea level/15c day?
Thks
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North America
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also do not have access to an S-76A Flight Manual, but I know there is one S-76A Category A VTOL procedure that is actually certified by an Airworthiness Authority. The operating weights are given in Supplement 3 to the CAA Approved S-76A Flight Manual. The takeoff uses a vertical climb to a 120 ft TDP. But because vertical landback from 120 ft is not possible, the rejected takeoff must be performed with forward speed, so there is an associated rejected takeoff area (possibly 400-500 ft?). I think it’s called a Vertical Procedure, but it’s actually a Short Field Procedure. Don’t know how to get a copy of Supplement 3; perhaps Nick Lappos (who started this thread) can help.
If I remember right on this procedure, the landing (if loosing an engine) is vertical up to 70 ft, and between 70 and 120 ft there is a short forward area (400 ft) required.
Max TO weight is not much more than 9 000 - 9 500 lbs I think.
CB
Max TO weight is not much more than 9 000 - 9 500 lbs I think.
CB