EC120
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the second generator driven from ?. The sole US IFR BA i think had something that took power from the TR drive. ( or was that where the AC drive came from )
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helmet fire / widgeon,
Interesting discussion on single engined IFR looming here! I remember some mods being done on the ADF squirrels in Canberra. Didn't they modify the hydraulics to enable the "less muscled" to fly them after a couple of accidents during hydraulics off training?
I know of one 206B and one 206L IFR ships, and I had heard of the kiwi AS350 one. Are there any plans to offer an IFR Koala or 407? Would the addition of IFR capabilities to singles be useful to the EMS operators currently utilising these types with the possibility of NVG's becoming available in the near future?
Cheers,
MPT
Interesting discussion on single engined IFR looming here! I remember some mods being done on the ADF squirrels in Canberra. Didn't they modify the hydraulics to enable the "less muscled" to fly them after a couple of accidents during hydraulics off training?
I know of one 206B and one 206L IFR ships, and I had heard of the kiwi AS350 one. Are there any plans to offer an IFR Koala or 407? Would the addition of IFR capabilities to singles be useful to the EMS operators currently utilising these types with the possibility of NVG's becoming available in the near future?
Cheers,
MPT
Dont know about the second generator. The ADF Squirrels were AUW weight restricted following upgrade to BA wieghts and a HYD off bingle. I think the intent of Augusta was two fold: make the Koala as similar as possible as the twins to save on components, and set the Koala up way in front of any competition for certification if SE IFR became a reality in the US.
MPT, NVG is no substitute for IFR in any sense of the usage, nor is inadvertent IMC more likely on NVG, it is less likely. That said, an autopilot system was a reccomendation from the NVFR Mackay accident investigation, even though they identified no conclusive cause. Additionally, an autopilot is an excellent risk mitigation tool for night EMS and should be encouraged. As should NVG.
Back to the 120: anyone know of other engine failures in this type?
MPT, NVG is no substitute for IFR in any sense of the usage, nor is inadvertent IMC more likely on NVG, it is less likely. That said, an autopilot system was a reccomendation from the NVFR Mackay accident investigation, even though they identified no conclusive cause. Additionally, an autopilot is an excellent risk mitigation tool for night EMS and should be encouraged. As should NVG.
Back to the 120: anyone know of other engine failures in this type?
There we are in the middle of the night...over hostile terrain...IFR in our Bell 206.....clouds right down into the tree tops....
OH MY! Just woke up....it was all just a very bad dream! Must lay off the Anchovie Sandwiches!
You can take all your statistics about engine failures....and stick'em Sir....the ramifications of a single donk dying in those conditions suggest to me that some things are best left alone. (...and yes...I have flown a Cessna 208 Caravan IFR over hostile terrain IFR....)and had an anxiety attack in the middle of it one night. Bore sighting the only engine on that thing....and seeing the tippy tops of the "Alps-like" mountains around Levenworth, Washington poking up out of the clouds into the moonlit sky brought home what engine failures are all about. I have sinned too much to rely upon Heavenly Intervention to allow many exposures like that.
One man's opinion
OH MY! Just woke up....it was all just a very bad dream! Must lay off the Anchovie Sandwiches!
You can take all your statistics about engine failures....and stick'em Sir....the ramifications of a single donk dying in those conditions suggest to me that some things are best left alone. (...and yes...I have flown a Cessna 208 Caravan IFR over hostile terrain IFR....)and had an anxiety attack in the middle of it one night. Bore sighting the only engine on that thing....and seeing the tippy tops of the "Alps-like" mountains around Levenworth, Washington poking up out of the clouds into the moonlit sky brought home what engine failures are all about. I have sinned too much to rely upon Heavenly Intervention to allow many exposures like that.
One man's opinion
Appologies eagle.
SASless, I hear you, though I did mine in a Huey not a 206. Give me two every time!!!
zebeedee, your marine pilot example is indicative of a comment I made on the IFR Training confusion thread: what is legal Vs best practice? We all have a different view of best practice dont we?
and yes: burn me at the stake INADVERTANT IMC IS LESS LIKELY WITH NVG. And you can quote me!
SASless, I hear you, though I did mine in a Huey not a 206. Give me two every time!!!
zebeedee, your marine pilot example is indicative of a comment I made on the IFR Training confusion thread: what is legal Vs best practice? We all have a different view of best practice dont we?
and yes: burn me at the stake INADVERTANT IMC IS LESS LIKELY WITH NVG. And you can quote me!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with HF - my limited experience of NVG shows that, under certain circumstances, NVG can allow you to see cloud B4 you enter it. As a day/night VFR EMS pilot I have gone inadvertant IMC a couple of times - I would like to have seen these cloud banks and had some chance of avoiding entering them.
BTW I remain a huge fan of multi-engine ifr helos.
gags e86
BTW I remain a huge fan of multi-engine ifr helos.
gags e86
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day All,
Could someone explain to me the difference between an autopilot and a SAS. I've flown a 206 with a steam powered autopilot (there are a couple of NVFR machines around with them fitted) a while ago. Is that classed as an autopilot under IFR/NVFR MPT regulations?
Cheers,
MPT
Could someone explain to me the difference between an autopilot and a SAS. I've flown a 206 with a steam powered autopilot (there are a couple of NVFR machines around with them fitted) a while ago. Is that classed as an autopilot under IFR/NVFR MPT regulations?
Cheers,
MPT
In simple terms, a SAS will give you short term rate damping but no long term attitude hold. A basic AP will give you long term Attitude retention e.g. you deflect the cyclic aft to raise the nose 10 degrees, then release it, and the a/c will return to the original pitch attitude.
A more sophisticated AP will give you 'outer loop', or 'upper mode' functions whereby it will couple to external references, such as Altitude, IAS, HDG, NAV and/or ILS (the number of discretes will depend on the sophistication of the AP). If very sophisticated, it will have full control of all 4 control axes and may allow transitions to the hover and other such SAR functions.
A more sophisticated AP will give you 'outer loop', or 'upper mode' functions whereby it will couple to external references, such as Altitude, IAS, HDG, NAV and/or ILS (the number of discretes will depend on the sophistication of the AP). If very sophisticated, it will have full control of all 4 control axes and may allow transitions to the hover and other such SAR functions.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: New South Wales
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I am also familiar with how this has been done successfully from Port Hedland (WA) for more than 20 years without serious incident. Well done to everyone in that task!"
Um, B206 into the water at night a few years back (about 5 I think but happy to be corrected).
Um, B206 into the water at night a few years back (about 5 I think but happy to be corrected).
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: topspot
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NVG's and Stuff
Thought I might chime in on this one fellas since I have some "time up" in this department.
NVG/NVD offers an increased capability below LSALT at night and that is gold, however as I have shown to many a trainee, this is a double edged sword. Yes you can see the cloud banks and manouvre to avoid them but you can also find yourself thinking that what you are seeing is not too bad or improving and then suddenly without too much warning you are in IMC without too much trouble. Now some of you may think, no probs If I get into too much touble I will simply land cancel SAR and wait for the wx to pass. Doesn't really work in an over water SAR or High and rugged mountainous terrain where there are few LZ ' or LP's. The trick is in all flying sequences is to have a plan and arm yourself with a CIR and a robust IF currency regime.
To launch into marginal VMC wx thinking you can see and avoid the fluffy stuff simply because you are aided (NVG equipped)without an escape route or access to an instrument recovery (notamed as serv) is a recipe for disaster and plain stupid.
Careful what you wish for when it comes to NVG's. They are an excellent tool and enhance SA and capability but like most things, You don't get something for nothing.
IMHO
Give it some.
NVG/NVD offers an increased capability below LSALT at night and that is gold, however as I have shown to many a trainee, this is a double edged sword. Yes you can see the cloud banks and manouvre to avoid them but you can also find yourself thinking that what you are seeing is not too bad or improving and then suddenly without too much warning you are in IMC without too much trouble. Now some of you may think, no probs If I get into too much touble I will simply land cancel SAR and wait for the wx to pass. Doesn't really work in an over water SAR or High and rugged mountainous terrain where there are few LZ ' or LP's. The trick is in all flying sequences is to have a plan and arm yourself with a CIR and a robust IF currency regime.
To launch into marginal VMC wx thinking you can see and avoid the fluffy stuff simply because you are aided (NVG equipped)without an escape route or access to an instrument recovery (notamed as serv) is a recipe for disaster and plain stupid.
Careful what you wish for when it comes to NVG's. They are an excellent tool and enhance SA and capability but like most things, You don't get something for nothing.
IMHO
Give it some.
Og, are you thinking of the one off Dampier? More like 7 years ago. I filled in for a couple of weeks on the same job just before the accident. A real eye-opener. Would not want to do it without an IF background.
Have not heard from PR.
Have not heard from PR.
I wonder if we should start ANOTHER thread on the NVG thing?
giveitsome, are you claiming you have been inadvertant IMC with many a student, or that you have correctly educated them to be careful of poor weather? What was it in your training that makes it safe for you to avoid IMC, and can that not simply be passed on to others as it was passed on to you?
The question was wether it was easier to avoid inadvertant IMC or not. The answer is still a yes.
as for your statement that:
a tad emotive perhaps, and certainly misleading. Who on earth said that we would be considering launching into marginal vmc? Wouldn't this be equally stupid during the day? Or do people suddenly loose their wits at night? Methinks you need to review the wx minima for civilian NVG ops.
What we are talking about here is replacing NVFR with NVG. Wx, equipment, crewing everything is roughly the same, just do it with NVG. We are not talking about 50ft with a TOT to a dusty pad un recce'd in formation! Why require a CIR, etc etc, when you are making NVFR safer? You dont need it for NVFR, so lets not get histerical by adding lots of requirements to do it on NVG. 10 plus years of civ ops in the USA and Switzerland is a relatively good yardstick.
We have had poor viz CFIT accidents during the day, the night, and even IFR, and we havent movd to ban those regimes. Eventually a CFIT will occur with NVG fitted. You get that. But should we ignore the tens of accidents that would not otherwise have occured NVFR and NIFR simply because we fear 1 accident? If so, and using the same rationale lets stop flying during the day too, because that has encouraged people to push the weather hasn't it?
On to the 120 (that is the thread isn't it?) a grapevine wisper is that the pilot has done a great job to get the aircraft down without serious injury. If so, well done that man!
giveitsome, are you claiming you have been inadvertant IMC with many a student, or that you have correctly educated them to be careful of poor weather? What was it in your training that makes it safe for you to avoid IMC, and can that not simply be passed on to others as it was passed on to you?
The question was wether it was easier to avoid inadvertant IMC or not. The answer is still a yes.
as for your statement that:
To launch into marginal VMC wx thinking you can see and avoid the fluffy stuff simply because you are aided (NVG equipped)without an escape route or access to an instrument recovery (notamed as serv) is a recipe for disaster and plain stupid.
What we are talking about here is replacing NVFR with NVG. Wx, equipment, crewing everything is roughly the same, just do it with NVG. We are not talking about 50ft with a TOT to a dusty pad un recce'd in formation! Why require a CIR, etc etc, when you are making NVFR safer? You dont need it for NVFR, so lets not get histerical by adding lots of requirements to do it on NVG. 10 plus years of civ ops in the USA and Switzerland is a relatively good yardstick.
We have had poor viz CFIT accidents during the day, the night, and even IFR, and we havent movd to ban those regimes. Eventually a CFIT will occur with NVG fitted. You get that. But should we ignore the tens of accidents that would not otherwise have occured NVFR and NIFR simply because we fear 1 accident? If so, and using the same rationale lets stop flying during the day too, because that has encouraged people to push the weather hasn't it?
On to the 120 (that is the thread isn't it?) a grapevine wisper is that the pilot has done a great job to get the aircraft down without serious injury. If so, well done that man!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: topspot
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey there HF.
Yes your right mate Iv'e been IIMC many a time with a trainee on NVD's as you can do that sort of stuff in a level 5 Full Flight and mission simulator with the wx set up for the just the sort of thing you are talking about with low risk and infinite training outcomes.
As for re-reading my wx minimas, think we'll save that for the "tad emotive punters". Sounds like you think ten years is a long time to be flying-There's always one.
Sorry to hijack your 120 thread.
Yes NVD would make NVFR much safer but this is not the only issue here. The industry needs to get serious when it comes to these missions. Along with the NVD's you need other bits and pieces such as Auto Pilots, SAS Systems, 2 Engines and another pilot to hold the sticks while you nav, and a GPS that is worth is extra AUW.
ACFT then need to be fitted with NVG compatible lighting and SOP's need to be drawn up to cover procedures (goggle up degoggle and goggle failure below LSALT), these need to be tied in with your own local rules and regs. NVG's require a fair amount of servicing and need to be stored in a climate controlled environment for best longevity.-Lots to think about.
The point is you can't just go and buy a pair off the shelf and then and expect you can operate in a similar vein to the way you operated yesterday.
NVGs sure help but lots of infrastructure required and robust training required to prevent the CFIT you were talking about.
Again IMHO
Give It Some
Yes your right mate Iv'e been IIMC many a time with a trainee on NVD's as you can do that sort of stuff in a level 5 Full Flight and mission simulator with the wx set up for the just the sort of thing you are talking about with low risk and infinite training outcomes.
As for re-reading my wx minimas, think we'll save that for the "tad emotive punters". Sounds like you think ten years is a long time to be flying-There's always one.
Sorry to hijack your 120 thread.
Yes NVD would make NVFR much safer but this is not the only issue here. The industry needs to get serious when it comes to these missions. Along with the NVD's you need other bits and pieces such as Auto Pilots, SAS Systems, 2 Engines and another pilot to hold the sticks while you nav, and a GPS that is worth is extra AUW.
ACFT then need to be fitted with NVG compatible lighting and SOP's need to be drawn up to cover procedures (goggle up degoggle and goggle failure below LSALT), these need to be tied in with your own local rules and regs. NVG's require a fair amount of servicing and need to be stored in a climate controlled environment for best longevity.-Lots to think about.
The point is you can't just go and buy a pair off the shelf and then and expect you can operate in a similar vein to the way you operated yesterday.
NVGs sure help but lots of infrastructure required and robust training required to prevent the CFIT you were talking about.
Again IMHO
Give It Some
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: dunnunder
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should know Grenade... 
I too believe congrats are due to the driver for making it in, whatever the cause of the malfunction.
G.I.S. I agree with your points re the costs and dificulties of setting up and NVD program - as, in the whole, would HF I think. There are many difficulties involved and these are being looked at by industry discussion groups as we speak (groups involving HF, I'm pretty certain).
His point that NVD actually help in avoiding IIMC is, I believe, well put as long as it is qualified with the statement that we are talking about civil ops where we can have far more restrictive minima than for mil ops. Civ ops would not fly tactically lit, at min alt, flat out and in formation. In these situations, yes I agree completely that IIMC is a real consideration (been there myself actually). However, for civ ops, a more restrictive min WX and illum minima, coupled with non-tac environment and nothing even approaching NOE flight, would allow us to avoid the areas where IIMC become likely. I think you alluded to the thought process of "I think I can dodge that fuzzy patch or even make it though". Well, I reckon that it just takes us to set the pilot thought process to "looks a bit fuzzy over there, will avoid it now rather than waiting and seeing", much like avoiding the clear area under a CB anvil due to the likelyhood of hail that might or might not actually be there.
I for one want nothing more than the ability to see the hills and obstacles that the maps tell me are there every night job. I'd also love to be able to not turn down so many winter night jobs because of the likelyhood of ice that could be avoided if NVD allowed us a lower LSALT. Its the EMS driver's lot to understand that not all jobs can be achieved, but its hard knowing that people in trouble could have been helped if I could have used existing technology that I am already trained to use to go and help them.
Oops, there I go getting emotive. Appologies all.
I too believe congrats are due to the driver for making it in, whatever the cause of the malfunction.
G.I.S. I agree with your points re the costs and dificulties of setting up and NVD program - as, in the whole, would HF I think. There are many difficulties involved and these are being looked at by industry discussion groups as we speak (groups involving HF, I'm pretty certain).
His point that NVD actually help in avoiding IIMC is, I believe, well put as long as it is qualified with the statement that we are talking about civil ops where we can have far more restrictive minima than for mil ops. Civ ops would not fly tactically lit, at min alt, flat out and in formation. In these situations, yes I agree completely that IIMC is a real consideration (been there myself actually). However, for civ ops, a more restrictive min WX and illum minima, coupled with non-tac environment and nothing even approaching NOE flight, would allow us to avoid the areas where IIMC become likely. I think you alluded to the thought process of "I think I can dodge that fuzzy patch or even make it though". Well, I reckon that it just takes us to set the pilot thought process to "looks a bit fuzzy over there, will avoid it now rather than waiting and seeing", much like avoiding the clear area under a CB anvil due to the likelyhood of hail that might or might not actually be there.
I for one want nothing more than the ability to see the hills and obstacles that the maps tell me are there every night job. I'd also love to be able to not turn down so many winter night jobs because of the likelyhood of ice that could be avoided if NVD allowed us a lower LSALT. Its the EMS driver's lot to understand that not all jobs can be achieved, but its hard knowing that people in trouble could have been helped if I could have used existing technology that I am already trained to use to go and help them.
Oops, there I go getting emotive. Appologies all.
GIS,
you are spot on with the training and infrastructure part - it needs to be got right from day one for NVG. But the 2 engines, SAS/autopilots, CIR and second pilots to help you nav, well I can only refer you to the flight profiles intended. In Aust, the proposal is to go to the scene at 500 ft, spend a long time doing the recce, and land. We can do that right now (albeit at 1000ft) with a nitesun, single pilot, unstabilised and with only one donk. Why does the addition of NVG suddenly require all the extra's? Why add requirements to something that is SAFER?
Hint: if you think that is unsafe, lobby against NVFR rules, dont burden the introduction of a new technology with those issues.
And yep, I think that 10 years is a long time to be operating NVG (it's 15 now in Switzerland). Seems long enough to prove a concept to me, surely. Or maybe I am the only one as you so condescendingly put it.
you are spot on with the training and infrastructure part - it needs to be got right from day one for NVG. But the 2 engines, SAS/autopilots, CIR and second pilots to help you nav, well I can only refer you to the flight profiles intended. In Aust, the proposal is to go to the scene at 500 ft, spend a long time doing the recce, and land. We can do that right now (albeit at 1000ft) with a nitesun, single pilot, unstabilised and with only one donk. Why does the addition of NVG suddenly require all the extra's? Why add requirements to something that is SAFER?
Hint: if you think that is unsafe, lobby against NVFR rules, dont burden the introduction of a new technology with those issues.
And yep, I think that 10 years is a long time to be operating NVG (it's 15 now in Switzerland). Seems long enough to prove a concept to me, surely. Or maybe I am the only one as you so condescendingly put it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Dark Side
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is my understanding that for Oz ems ops using nvg the proposal is to transit at present lsalt/cruising levels and only when the scene is identified descend into the black hole, as we can do now, only more safely utilising nvg technology. Lets crawl before we walk chaps - if it comes to pass this is going to be a steep learning curve for most of us!
gags e86
gags e86