Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
Your very good friend Alan Bristow may be calling you shortly, and not from beyond the grave! Not only is he alive and well but he's still flying. I am sure that he is proud that professional pilots like HC work for the company he founded.
Rather than just personal abuse of HC, why not a technical explanation of why you think he not correct. He seems to have done his homework, so please tell us uneducated plebs what is incorrect in what he has said so we may be better educated.
I know that AVAD has drawn my attention to something not being quite right in the past and I wonder if EGPWS would have done the same in that situation.
AVAD may be a relatively cheap and cheerful solution but I am astonished that it has not been made compulsory in the GOM after having proved itself so many times on the North Sea over the years. Is it available as an option on the S92?
Your very good friend Alan Bristow may be calling you shortly, and not from beyond the grave! Not only is he alive and well but he's still flying. I am sure that he is proud that professional pilots like HC work for the company he founded.
Rather than just personal abuse of HC, why not a technical explanation of why you think he not correct. He seems to have done his homework, so please tell us uneducated plebs what is incorrect in what he has said so we may be better educated.
I know that AVAD has drawn my attention to something not being quite right in the past and I wonder if EGPWS would have done the same in that situation.
AVAD may be a relatively cheap and cheerful solution but I am astonished that it has not been made compulsory in the GOM after having proved itself so many times on the North Sea over the years. Is it available as an option on the S92?
Last edited by vertalop; 5th Nov 2006 at 05:34.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well argued HC! The splutterings of abuse from across the pond demonstrate the correctness of your position. The EGPWS on the A330 is really great - for our enviroment but of really little application in the rotary area of operation. I can really imagine all the mobile rigs having a position on every AIRAC 28 day cycle in the EGPWS database! The last database update we had was about 8 months ago and it has to be really big to get an amendment. We have a specific statement from Honeywell that the database does not include man made structures so it would be interesting to see in the fixed platforms would even be included. I would also be interested in how a Terrain Cleararance Floor would be constructed for an IFR approach into the ESB with multiple but maybe not accounted for man-made obstructions.
Regards
TOD
Regards
TOD
Nick - So I take it you have no disagreement with my comments on EGPWS? I think EGPWS has a future but not with the current software. Hopefully one day Honeywell will make a useful helicopter version, not a fudged fixed-wing version, that adds terrain awareness to the simplicity and effectiveness of AVAD, with maybe a "sink after takeoff" that works from elevated helidecks.
I'll just take issue with one item of your desperate post - EGPWS is not the first system to be certified to prevent helicopters from CFIT/W - AVAD is, but of course how typical of the Americans to re-invent something already extant because it was not invented by them, and to then botch it up.
But I am going to be a nice chap and not rub your nose in it, and allow the topic to drift back to the relative cabin sizes etc which your mate Mike (assuming its not one of your handles!) posted to save you. Though I do note that the famous person decided to fly in the 225 not the 92!
On S92 sales you are out of date again - Bristow Group has decided to buy a lot more than 2 S92s and many are destined for the UK. From the pilot's point of view this is a shame but the hard facts are that the S92 is cheap and available whereas the EC225 is more expensive and running on about a 2 year delivery - I suppose you get what you pay for, and good things only come to those who wait!
I expect they will come with EGPWS as well, but hopefully our pilots can cope with the reduced safety margins from not having AVAD. If I were ordering it I would pay Sikorsky to retrofit AVAD and take out EGPWS (as you can't really have both systems - too many voice warnings at once)
But its to Sikorsky's credit that they have made aircraft before they sell them, whereas EC don't fit a rivet until the aircraft is sold.
The cabin pictures are interesting. Putting aside the fact that one is taken with a bit of zoom whereas the other is bit wide-angle, there is of course a lot more headroom in a 92 - we don't need photos to know that! But there is adequate headroom in the 225 when seated so the extra space is only useful when getting in and out, and perhaps adding to a perception of extra space. As we know, in terms of floor size the 92 has about 4" extra length on the 225 but that space is wasted by having no seats at the front where the door is. On the 225 the doors are in the middle and that allows the space to be divided up more evenly with some backward facing seats, so I think the seat pitch is slightly less in the 92.
Width-wise the 92 has about 6 inches on the 225 which is why the aisle looks a lot wider. The 225 shot doesn't show the aisle clearly, as the front row of seats is a different arrangement from the next row so its not quite as narrow as it might otherwise look. But its not quite as simple as that - the photos clearly show that the folk sitting in the front row right and left in the 92 have their shoulders crushed against the wall. Looks to me like they are saying their prayers as well - praying that there is not another engine failure I guess. On the 225 shot the guy on your left shows a relaxed poise with arm resting on the wide window ledge and shoulder in the window aperture. All the seats are like that - you can put your arm and shoulder into the window or door aperture. So although its narrower across the floor, you gain effective space so that effectively, the 92 is only about 2" wider than the 225.
So its certainly is a little bigger, but it ain't no S61. On the other hand, the 225 is smooth as silk whereas the 92 is rough as xxxx. Apparently in the Norwegian sector the rear left 92 seat is known as the "naughty seat" as it has exceptionally high vibration. Comments we received via the Norwegians indicate that the passengers really don't like the 92 because of the vibration, and because the seats aren't very comfortable (but then they are a hard lot to please!). Because of the vibration CHC fly their's quite slowly - barely any faster than a 332L. Meantime the 225 is creaming past at 150+.
I will be interesting when we get the 92 into service in the UK to see just how it does stand up to the 225 in terms of reliability and passenger satisfaction. I'll keep you posted...
HC
ps TOD - I am pretty sure that offshore platforms are in the database but of course not the semi-subs. You would have to use the terrain inhibit function when approaching platforms to avoid the obstacle warnings.
I'll just take issue with one item of your desperate post - EGPWS is not the first system to be certified to prevent helicopters from CFIT/W - AVAD is, but of course how typical of the Americans to re-invent something already extant because it was not invented by them, and to then botch it up.
But I am going to be a nice chap and not rub your nose in it, and allow the topic to drift back to the relative cabin sizes etc which your mate Mike (assuming its not one of your handles!) posted to save you. Though I do note that the famous person decided to fly in the 225 not the 92!
On S92 sales you are out of date again - Bristow Group has decided to buy a lot more than 2 S92s and many are destined for the UK. From the pilot's point of view this is a shame but the hard facts are that the S92 is cheap and available whereas the EC225 is more expensive and running on about a 2 year delivery - I suppose you get what you pay for, and good things only come to those who wait!
I expect they will come with EGPWS as well, but hopefully our pilots can cope with the reduced safety margins from not having AVAD. If I were ordering it I would pay Sikorsky to retrofit AVAD and take out EGPWS (as you can't really have both systems - too many voice warnings at once)
But its to Sikorsky's credit that they have made aircraft before they sell them, whereas EC don't fit a rivet until the aircraft is sold.
The cabin pictures are interesting. Putting aside the fact that one is taken with a bit of zoom whereas the other is bit wide-angle, there is of course a lot more headroom in a 92 - we don't need photos to know that! But there is adequate headroom in the 225 when seated so the extra space is only useful when getting in and out, and perhaps adding to a perception of extra space. As we know, in terms of floor size the 92 has about 4" extra length on the 225 but that space is wasted by having no seats at the front where the door is. On the 225 the doors are in the middle and that allows the space to be divided up more evenly with some backward facing seats, so I think the seat pitch is slightly less in the 92.
Width-wise the 92 has about 6 inches on the 225 which is why the aisle looks a lot wider. The 225 shot doesn't show the aisle clearly, as the front row of seats is a different arrangement from the next row so its not quite as narrow as it might otherwise look. But its not quite as simple as that - the photos clearly show that the folk sitting in the front row right and left in the 92 have their shoulders crushed against the wall. Looks to me like they are saying their prayers as well - praying that there is not another engine failure I guess. On the 225 shot the guy on your left shows a relaxed poise with arm resting on the wide window ledge and shoulder in the window aperture. All the seats are like that - you can put your arm and shoulder into the window or door aperture. So although its narrower across the floor, you gain effective space so that effectively, the 92 is only about 2" wider than the 225.
So its certainly is a little bigger, but it ain't no S61. On the other hand, the 225 is smooth as silk whereas the 92 is rough as xxxx. Apparently in the Norwegian sector the rear left 92 seat is known as the "naughty seat" as it has exceptionally high vibration. Comments we received via the Norwegians indicate that the passengers really don't like the 92 because of the vibration, and because the seats aren't very comfortable (but then they are a hard lot to please!). Because of the vibration CHC fly their's quite slowly - barely any faster than a 332L. Meantime the 225 is creaming past at 150+.
I will be interesting when we get the 92 into service in the UK to see just how it does stand up to the 225 in terms of reliability and passenger satisfaction. I'll keep you posted...
HC
ps TOD - I am pretty sure that offshore platforms are in the database but of course not the semi-subs. You would have to use the terrain inhibit function when approaching platforms to avoid the obstacle warnings.
Last edited by HeliComparator; 5th Nov 2006 at 09:12.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Global
Posts: 460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EGPWS & Helicopters.
I was fortunate (no really) to operate one of the first Twin Otters fitted with EGPWS, (at the oil companies request and purchase I must add).
We had exactly the same issues that you find in the helicopter world and it all had to do with the database (Honeywell). Otters in support of helicopters operate to and from every goat track on the planet and you think that their in the db???
Bitching betty would be bleating and moaning so eventually the crews simply left it in Terrain Inhibit all the time negating the “Enhanced” part.
The aviation managers from the oil companies did not believe our protests until they actually audited flights and sat in the seat behind us. So much so that after departure on a clear VMC day we flew directly at a 1200ft peak and “ridge rode” with the auditors to prove it did not work as advertised. Simply because in the remote areas the db did not even have the 1200ft mountain!
After this the companies concerned suspended the introduction of EGPWS in the helicopter fleet until assurances were made that the db was to be corrected and there would be some way of inserting rigs as a type of user waypoint (rigs do move, I know I lost one once when the GPS of one machine in the fleet had not been updated and we flew off to la la land). To the best of my knowledge this has yet to happen.
We all know the real world limitations of the existing equipment (in an offshore or remote area environment) in the current configuration. If we are really to make progress it needs to be truly adapted for the environment with user input to db updates in a similar manner that we have data card updates every month for FMS/GPS data bases.
Now back on thread……
S92….. vibration, noise & power……. Yes please!
We had exactly the same issues that you find in the helicopter world and it all had to do with the database (Honeywell). Otters in support of helicopters operate to and from every goat track on the planet and you think that their in the db???
Bitching betty would be bleating and moaning so eventually the crews simply left it in Terrain Inhibit all the time negating the “Enhanced” part.
The aviation managers from the oil companies did not believe our protests until they actually audited flights and sat in the seat behind us. So much so that after departure on a clear VMC day we flew directly at a 1200ft peak and “ridge rode” with the auditors to prove it did not work as advertised. Simply because in the remote areas the db did not even have the 1200ft mountain!
After this the companies concerned suspended the introduction of EGPWS in the helicopter fleet until assurances were made that the db was to be corrected and there would be some way of inserting rigs as a type of user waypoint (rigs do move, I know I lost one once when the GPS of one machine in the fleet had not been updated and we flew off to la la land). To the best of my knowledge this has yet to happen.
We all know the real world limitations of the existing equipment (in an offshore or remote area environment) in the current configuration. If we are really to make progress it needs to be truly adapted for the environment with user input to db updates in a similar manner that we have data card updates every month for FMS/GPS data bases.
Now back on thread……
S92….. vibration, noise & power……. Yes please!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While its more potogenic that in the S92 photo there are two women in the front row, could this possibly creat the false impression of more room compared the burly oilies in the other seats? Still at least there are no midgit HLOs. I believe it is they who are responsible for breaking the airstair steps beause you have to be a giant to reach the upper half of the door to pull it down to close without jumping up and down on the steps.
Whats the drag penalty of all that fresh air above the heads in the 92?
Whats the drag penalty of all that fresh air above the heads in the 92?
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
widgeon,
Yes, and precious little room yet for HC's ego!
Here is a short presentation that discusses the EGPWS, which is available on several helicopters. Although Sikorsky spent good money to help develop the helo rules, they claimed no part of the license so that it could be sold to all comers, since its features are so important to helos everywhere.
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/frame.htm
Yes, and precious little room yet for HC's ego!
Here is a short presentation that discusses the EGPWS, which is available on several helicopters. Although Sikorsky spent good money to help develop the helo rules, they claimed no part of the license so that it could be sold to all comers, since its features are so important to helos everywhere.
http://webpages.charter.net/nlappos/frame.htm
Yup, nice presentation Nick - I am sure it sold lots of boxes to people who didn't understand how it worked - you can't blame them as it really contains no substance. You just never learn when to quit do you.....
Slide 1: Yes there are a number of offshore CFITW but that's because on your side of the pond you haven't heard of AVAD. For offshore flights EGPWS gives nothing extra, and I am sure that a chunk of those 7 accidents were hitting bits of the oil rig on landing / takeoff - neither EGPWS nor AVAD will fix those.
Slide 2: Sure, it will tell you that you are flying towards rising ground with look-ahead - great if you are flying VFR with the windows misted up!
Slide 3: So it prevents flight into mountains - wasn't that slide 2? No indication of how it might stop the offshore driftdown into water etc.
Slide 4: I take that as an admission that the "classic" modes 1-6 are barely-tweaked fixed-wing algorithms. Was there more? Oh yes, its got a database!
Slide 5: (getting bored now) more mountain flying
Slide 6: Ditto..................zzzzzzzzzzzz..........oops - nearly asleep
Slide 7: Ah -those old favourites the "classic" (aka fixed-wing) modes. Do they have a built in string quartet playing Frank Sinatra numbers?
Slides 8 & 9 - too dull to mention
So out of that lot I deduce that its quite good for flying up a mountain valley on a day when you should have gone IFR. But there is not much for the offshore oil support pilot is there?
HC
Slide 1: Yes there are a number of offshore CFITW but that's because on your side of the pond you haven't heard of AVAD. For offshore flights EGPWS gives nothing extra, and I am sure that a chunk of those 7 accidents were hitting bits of the oil rig on landing / takeoff - neither EGPWS nor AVAD will fix those.
Slide 2: Sure, it will tell you that you are flying towards rising ground with look-ahead - great if you are flying VFR with the windows misted up!
Slide 3: So it prevents flight into mountains - wasn't that slide 2? No indication of how it might stop the offshore driftdown into water etc.
Slide 4: I take that as an admission that the "classic" modes 1-6 are barely-tweaked fixed-wing algorithms. Was there more? Oh yes, its got a database!
Slide 5: (getting bored now) more mountain flying
Slide 6: Ditto..................zzzzzzzzzzzz..........oops - nearly asleep
Slide 7: Ah -those old favourites the "classic" (aka fixed-wing) modes. Do they have a built in string quartet playing Frank Sinatra numbers?
Slides 8 & 9 - too dull to mention
So out of that lot I deduce that its quite good for flying up a mountain valley on a day when you should have gone IFR. But there is not much for the offshore oil support pilot is there?
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC has lots of comments, but his theoretical issues are addressed in the fact that the EGPWS works as advertized, is delivered in many North Sea aircraft, and in fact, many of those same customers are buying more of them. I think the hidden agenda he has is that the French thing he loves so unabashedly does not offer the EGPWS, so he HAS to denegrate it, I guess. I don't know why the Fench thing doesn't have it, as I said, Sikorsky gave up all rights to the helicopter concepts that theyd eveloped just so it could be fitted on any helo.
Why HC don't you either lead, follow, or just get out of the way?
Why HC don't you either lead, follow, or just get out of the way?
Last edited by NickLappos; 6th Nov 2006 at 02:59.
I could list some of HC's contributions, but that would give him away and I'm not sure if he wishes to remain anonymous or not (contrary to belief, not all of us using nom de plumes are seeking anonymity.)
Frankly I think neither Nick or HC are doing themselves any favours as they seem to see red whenever they clash! Nick; perhaps you could address some of HC's specific concerns, HC, perhaps you could think a little broader than a 20 year old rudimentary system that is far from perfect.
Some comments about AVAD;
is it really desirable to let the pilot inhibit the system before it goes off?
100 ft is too low to warn a pilot who is obviously so situationally unaware (to be there) that he is probably unable to assimilate (or even register) the warning by that stage. It didn't help much in the Fulmar S-76, the Cormorant 332 or the BHL Australia 330J.
For an interesting lesson in CRM, SOPs (or lack of) in automated aircraft, and GPWS saving the day have abrowse through this; some interesting point arise.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RW%2010-06.pdf
Frankly I think neither Nick or HC are doing themselves any favours as they seem to see red whenever they clash! Nick; perhaps you could address some of HC's specific concerns, HC, perhaps you could think a little broader than a 20 year old rudimentary system that is far from perfect.
Some comments about AVAD;
is it really desirable to let the pilot inhibit the system before it goes off?
100 ft is too low to warn a pilot who is obviously so situationally unaware (to be there) that he is probably unable to assimilate (or even register) the warning by that stage. It didn't help much in the Fulmar S-76, the Cormorant 332 or the BHL Australia 330J.
For an interesting lesson in CRM, SOPs (or lack of) in automated aircraft, and GPWS saving the day have abrowse through this; some interesting point arise.
http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...RW%2010-06.pdf
Last edited by 212man; 6th Nov 2006 at 03:58.
Nick
In fact EC do offer EGPWS as an option on the EC225 but we chose not to take it, not for any financial reasons but because at the time v24 of the software was not available and it therefore didn't satisfy JAR-OPS 3.660.
I note you still refuse to comment on the technical points. You say it must be good because its delivered in many N Sea aircraft. But that is only the S92. On which its standard... So kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy I would say!
212
AVAD is pretty effective considering its simplicity - at least pilots can understand exactly how it works, whereas its unlikely that most pilots will be familiar with the intricasies of modes 1-6, hence understand what protection it does and doesn't give.
There is of course room for improvement with AVAD but the problem with EGPWS at the moment is that the "check height" equivalent message is not present. This is represents a big hole in the system. For example you could be doing your ARA (rather badly!) and get a "minimums" callout, to which you react and climb back to the correct height. But after that there will be no more callouts until "100'". That is a big retrograde step from AVAD.
Once the system is designed properly so there is no loss of safety compared to AVAD, I will support it. But that is not yet.
Your comment on supressing warnings is interesting. The idea behind AVAD is that you shouldn't routinely hear the "check height" and thus when you do hear it, you are more likely to react. With EGPWS bleating its "minimums" on every landing, surely the chances of ignoring a real warning are much higher? I know I portray myself as anti- American but that is largely to wind up NL, however I do find the EGPWS voice irritating and perhaps there is a risk of setting radalt bugs to zero to avoid hearing it? Is there any reason why Honeywell could not offer a choice of voices? Surely its technically trivial.
Regarding the 3 accidents you mention, can you explain how EGPWS would have made a difference? I can't see how, though I am not familiar with the 76 accident.
Anyway, thankyou for bringing some sensibility to the argument!
HC
ps Yes I would prefer to remain anonymous otherwise Nick will send the Sikorsky men in black suits round to sort me out!
In fact EC do offer EGPWS as an option on the EC225 but we chose not to take it, not for any financial reasons but because at the time v24 of the software was not available and it therefore didn't satisfy JAR-OPS 3.660.
I note you still refuse to comment on the technical points. You say it must be good because its delivered in many N Sea aircraft. But that is only the S92. On which its standard... So kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy I would say!
212
AVAD is pretty effective considering its simplicity - at least pilots can understand exactly how it works, whereas its unlikely that most pilots will be familiar with the intricasies of modes 1-6, hence understand what protection it does and doesn't give.
There is of course room for improvement with AVAD but the problem with EGPWS at the moment is that the "check height" equivalent message is not present. This is represents a big hole in the system. For example you could be doing your ARA (rather badly!) and get a "minimums" callout, to which you react and climb back to the correct height. But after that there will be no more callouts until "100'". That is a big retrograde step from AVAD.
Once the system is designed properly so there is no loss of safety compared to AVAD, I will support it. But that is not yet.
Your comment on supressing warnings is interesting. The idea behind AVAD is that you shouldn't routinely hear the "check height" and thus when you do hear it, you are more likely to react. With EGPWS bleating its "minimums" on every landing, surely the chances of ignoring a real warning are much higher? I know I portray myself as anti- American but that is largely to wind up NL, however I do find the EGPWS voice irritating and perhaps there is a risk of setting radalt bugs to zero to avoid hearing it? Is there any reason why Honeywell could not offer a choice of voices? Surely its technically trivial.
Regarding the 3 accidents you mention, can you explain how EGPWS would have made a difference? I can't see how, though I am not familiar with the 76 accident.
Anyway, thankyou for bringing some sensibility to the argument!
HC
ps Yes I would prefer to remain anonymous otherwise Nick will send the Sikorsky men in black suits round to sort me out!
Last edited by HeliComparator; 6th Nov 2006 at 07:51.
HC,
you are quite correct that EGPWS would not have given any warning other than "Altitude" based on the descent through the RA setting and "One Hundred" on passing 100 ft rad-alt in the cases I mentioned, as a pure EGPWS function. The AVAD would have (and did) anounce "100 ft" (plus the little fanfare which I can't type!). The "minimums" call is not an EGPWS function but uses the same voice synthesiser. Whether this call would have been triggered would have depended on the settings made at the time (hypothetical). It is, of course a BAR Alt triggered warning, not rad-alt.
My point was that AVAD hadn't helped in those cases, not that EGPWS would have.
That is precisely the point you make that Nick could attempt to defend, as I agree that many of the thresholds and IAS/ALT slopes are not going to catch the likely CFIT scenarios that we have seen occur offshore. The ones that are real, and have happened, not supposed scenarios.
Regarding the grating voice; I'm in favour of it. That's the whole point; it should grab you and demand a response. Clear SOPs should address this, so that rather than inhibiting the voice, you give a positive response to it: "visual landing" or "expletive deleted, going around."
I suspect the reason the algorythms are as they are, is that the motivation for Sikorsky developing EGPWS for their aircraft was driven by the S-76 accident statistics, which were about 75% CFIT. However, a very large proportion of the S-76 fleet are EMS and Corporate, so that statistic is not entirely surprising. More importantly, their operating regime is not the same as offshore. (As I say, that's my theory, but obviously Nick can, and no doubt will, correct it as required)
you are quite correct that EGPWS would not have given any warning other than "Altitude" based on the descent through the RA setting and "One Hundred" on passing 100 ft rad-alt in the cases I mentioned, as a pure EGPWS function. The AVAD would have (and did) anounce "100 ft" (plus the little fanfare which I can't type!). The "minimums" call is not an EGPWS function but uses the same voice synthesiser. Whether this call would have been triggered would have depended on the settings made at the time (hypothetical). It is, of course a BAR Alt triggered warning, not rad-alt.
My point was that AVAD hadn't helped in those cases, not that EGPWS would have.
That is precisely the point you make that Nick could attempt to defend, as I agree that many of the thresholds and IAS/ALT slopes are not going to catch the likely CFIT scenarios that we have seen occur offshore. The ones that are real, and have happened, not supposed scenarios.
Regarding the grating voice; I'm in favour of it. That's the whole point; it should grab you and demand a response. Clear SOPs should address this, so that rather than inhibiting the voice, you give a positive response to it: "visual landing" or "expletive deleted, going around."
I suspect the reason the algorythms are as they are, is that the motivation for Sikorsky developing EGPWS for their aircraft was driven by the S-76 accident statistics, which were about 75% CFIT. However, a very large proportion of the S-76 fleet are EMS and Corporate, so that statistic is not entirely surprising. More importantly, their operating regime is not the same as offshore. (As I say, that's my theory, but obviously Nick can, and no doubt will, correct it as required)
Last edited by 212man; 6th Nov 2006 at 13:00.
212
I was interested to note your comment about "minimums" callout - you say its not part of EGPWS but just for the clarity of other readers it is an EGPWS Mode 6 callout, though I agree its triggered by an external (pilot-set) source. According to Honeywell's product spec (downloadable from their website) its triggered by DH - which I took to mean the pilots radalt bug setting. However I see that the product spec goes on to mention that on the S92 its triggered by the pilot's MDA bug.
This brings up another point which is that the design of the software in the box is one thing, but the way in which the manufacturer chooses to configure, install and integrate the system into their aircraft is another very important factor in determining the usefulness of the kit. You have to get both right for it to be any good.
Grating voice? No, as a safety aid I still think its best if only heard if you end up where you shouldn't be, rather than as a routine indication that you are at MDA on an approach. Out of interest where do CHC etc set the MDA bug for a VFR approach?
HC
I was interested to note your comment about "minimums" callout - you say its not part of EGPWS but just for the clarity of other readers it is an EGPWS Mode 6 callout, though I agree its triggered by an external (pilot-set) source. According to Honeywell's product spec (downloadable from their website) its triggered by DH - which I took to mean the pilots radalt bug setting. However I see that the product spec goes on to mention that on the S92 its triggered by the pilot's MDA bug.
This brings up another point which is that the design of the software in the box is one thing, but the way in which the manufacturer chooses to configure, install and integrate the system into their aircraft is another very important factor in determining the usefulness of the kit. You have to get both right for it to be any good.
Grating voice? No, as a safety aid I still think its best if only heard if you end up where you shouldn't be, rather than as a routine indication that you are at MDA on an approach. Out of interest where do CHC etc set the MDA bug for a VFR approach?
HC
HC,
One error above (now corrected) made in haste after a long day, was that, in fact, in addition to the "Minimums" call based on bar-alt using the MIN bug, you get both the "One Hundred" and "Altitude" calls from the rad-alt. The latter is set using the 'RA' bug. These in effect are the AVAD functions and the MIN is an additional setting primarily used for IF approaches. MIN is normallly set to 0 for VFR, once assured. RA is normally used in the same convention as the DH bug for an AVAD, but company dependent. We will use RA set to DH-50, MDH-100 ala BHL, though flying to DA and MDA (non of that QFE nonsense!), and the MIN set to DA and MDA.
One error above (now corrected) made in haste after a long day, was that, in fact, in addition to the "Minimums" call based on bar-alt using the MIN bug, you get both the "One Hundred" and "Altitude" calls from the rad-alt. The latter is set using the 'RA' bug. These in effect are the AVAD functions and the MIN is an additional setting primarily used for IF approaches. MIN is normallly set to 0 for VFR, once assured. RA is normally used in the same convention as the DH bug for an AVAD, but company dependent. We will use RA set to DH-50, MDH-100 ala BHL, though flying to DA and MDA (non of that QFE nonsense!), and the MIN set to DA and MDA.
Now, now my friend, HC will get very crinkly if he's been challenged on two fronts 
I think I shall have to mention the lack of EGPWS on the Bristow 225s to one of their major contractors! Me thinks (7-1)/7 doesn't equal 1 any more, does it?
Oh well, at least the Bristow 155s in Nigeria will be following PC2e profiles. Or perhaps not.....?
Anyway, I'll put away my wooden spoon now.
Back to the debate. I'm sure any pilot that has experienced EGPWS, TCAS (even if it's just TCAS1, but TCAS2 would be great) and a fully de-iced machine in cold weather will appreciate the safety enhancements the technology brings. I personaly don't care what airframe they are fitted to, the systems should be applauded not ridiculed. Not to accept this is akin to saying that fully coupled autopilots are a step back because they erode pilot skills. Superficially this may seem reasonable, but in terms of overall risk reduction it simply doesn't hold up to much challenge.
I think I shall have to mention the lack of EGPWS on the Bristow 225s to one of their major contractors! Me thinks (7-1)/7 doesn't equal 1 any more, does it?
Oh well, at least the Bristow 155s in Nigeria will be following PC2e profiles. Or perhaps not.....?
Anyway, I'll put away my wooden spoon now.
Back to the debate. I'm sure any pilot that has experienced EGPWS, TCAS (even if it's just TCAS1, but TCAS2 would be great) and a fully de-iced machine in cold weather will appreciate the safety enhancements the technology brings. I personaly don't care what airframe they are fitted to, the systems should be applauded not ridiculed. Not to accept this is akin to saying that fully coupled autopilots are a step back because they erode pilot skills. Superficially this may seem reasonable, but in terms of overall risk reduction it simply doesn't hold up to much challenge.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Variable,
Thanks for that!
It does seem to me that we take each risk, and kill it the best way we have, with the technology we've got. To reject EGPWS because the software does not yet reach "perfection" is really not wise, IMHO, especially when the later fit of the kit will be hundreds of thousands, since it has so many inputs wired into it.
I presented the top 6 algorithyms, there are (from memory) 32 in the latest mark, and more coming as the state of the art advances. If the 225 does not have EGPWS, that is too bad, because I am sure Honeywell will actually put it in for almost no cost to EC, since they stand to gain from every sale, and they just price in the engineering cost as an incremental cost on the first few units.
When Sikorsky began the effort, I was asked to find a way to fix CFIT. Frankly, I have no idea how to do it better than EGPWS, and I had surveyed the known world at that time. It is frustrating to see how quickly HC made this a mugging in an alley, and an S92 thing, when I truly would hope there was no competitive issue. I did receive some push back from a few at Sikorsky when I signed the agreement where Sikorsky gave up rights to the helo laws, but I did then and still now feel very strongly about it (as does Sikorsky's curent senior management).
I am sure the laws will get better as time goes on, I know that there is no charge for the software drops that evolve the capabilities and reduce the nuisence alerts, and also that the data base will get larger. It should be obvious to all except HC that the data base will not expand if nobody buys it. It should also be obvious that having no EGPWS is not as safe as having one. Duh.
Thanks for that!
It does seem to me that we take each risk, and kill it the best way we have, with the technology we've got. To reject EGPWS because the software does not yet reach "perfection" is really not wise, IMHO, especially when the later fit of the kit will be hundreds of thousands, since it has so many inputs wired into it.
I presented the top 6 algorithyms, there are (from memory) 32 in the latest mark, and more coming as the state of the art advances. If the 225 does not have EGPWS, that is too bad, because I am sure Honeywell will actually put it in for almost no cost to EC, since they stand to gain from every sale, and they just price in the engineering cost as an incremental cost on the first few units.
When Sikorsky began the effort, I was asked to find a way to fix CFIT. Frankly, I have no idea how to do it better than EGPWS, and I had surveyed the known world at that time. It is frustrating to see how quickly HC made this a mugging in an alley, and an S92 thing, when I truly would hope there was no competitive issue. I did receive some push back from a few at Sikorsky when I signed the agreement where Sikorsky gave up rights to the helo laws, but I did then and still now feel very strongly about it (as does Sikorsky's curent senior management).
I am sure the laws will get better as time goes on, I know that there is no charge for the software drops that evolve the capabilities and reduce the nuisence alerts, and also that the data base will get larger. It should be obvious to all except HC that the data base will not expand if nobody buys it. It should also be obvious that having no EGPWS is not as safe as having one. Duh.
212 - Again some difference between the EGPWS installed on the 92 and the standard offering - on the standard Mk XXII v24 the "altitude altitude" callout is only active with the gear up or in low altitude mode, but it does say that on the 92 its permanently active - again its all down to how the manufacturer decides to install the kit.
VL - I too would love to have TCASII, I would quite like de-iced rotor systems, but the oil companies see no need to pay for it and there is no business or safety case for it. If I were American and had never heard of AVAD I would really like EGPWS - my problem is that, whilst it adds a whole lot of bells and whistles that are not much use in my environment, it doesn't fully cover the ground left by removing AVAD. That is my fundamental objection to it. I am sure the problem is fairly easily fixed but until it is I would prefer to stick to AVAD.
And that Nick, is my response to your comment about not fitting it because the software isn't perfect. It will never be perfect but it should at least be better than what you are replacing it with, within the context of the specific operating environment, and so far EGPWS is not. Eurocopter do offer it on the 225 and we have provision for its fitment but until the holes are filled I hope we don't get it.
What in particular raised my attention in the first place was that a whole bunch of people (not pilots) were clamouring for its introduction without having spent any time looking into how it actually worked and what holes there were in it. This was the result of clever marketing by Sikorsky (Yes, they are fantastic marketeers even if their products are not so well blessed) and Honeywell - viz the presentation that Nick linked to earlier - it all sounds great but there is no substance to it.
HC
VL - I too would love to have TCASII, I would quite like de-iced rotor systems, but the oil companies see no need to pay for it and there is no business or safety case for it. If I were American and had never heard of AVAD I would really like EGPWS - my problem is that, whilst it adds a whole lot of bells and whistles that are not much use in my environment, it doesn't fully cover the ground left by removing AVAD. That is my fundamental objection to it. I am sure the problem is fairly easily fixed but until it is I would prefer to stick to AVAD.
And that Nick, is my response to your comment about not fitting it because the software isn't perfect. It will never be perfect but it should at least be better than what you are replacing it with, within the context of the specific operating environment, and so far EGPWS is not. Eurocopter do offer it on the 225 and we have provision for its fitment but until the holes are filled I hope we don't get it.
What in particular raised my attention in the first place was that a whole bunch of people (not pilots) were clamouring for its introduction without having spent any time looking into how it actually worked and what holes there were in it. This was the result of clever marketing by Sikorsky (Yes, they are fantastic marketeers even if their products are not so well blessed) and Honeywell - viz the presentation that Nick linked to earlier - it all sounds great but there is no substance to it.
HC
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC you said, "there is no substance to it." that is clearly only in your deservedly humble opinion. All the others who are buying EGPWS are clearly bumbling fools. Were those dunderhead engineers, test pilots, customer chief pilots and safety officers only so wise as you, what a wonderful world it would be!
How about you work on brain surgery next?
How about you work on brain surgery next?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NL HC
Now, now guys let's keep our hair on - assuming we have some left!!
I had the same concerns about the EGPWS and when I tackled my contact at the factory (Sikorsky that is) they kindly sent me a video that showed what a great tool it is - over land -!!!
My questions about offshore ops never were satisfactorily answered. Particularly how do you square away the fact that in order to account for mobile drilling units that can reach 500 feet into the sky if they are in transit (Rowan Gorillas etc) their positions must be loaded into the volatile memory by (fallible) humans!!
The 'terrain map' needs to be perfect or it's no good to man, beast or even helicopter pilots. Anybody have the inside track on this gritty problem??
As an AVAD user I too have my concerns about it's possible demise. As to the wisdom or otherwise of the esteemed group of possible EGPWS users I have just two questions:-
1. How many 15 sector, 5 hour night shuttles have you done recently - I was there last night how about you?
2. Have you any experience of AVAD?
I have NO experience of EGPWS so I am not going to condemn what I don't know but what I have seen and heard doesn't quite convince me. But, hey! I'm not going to be dog-in-the manger about it. Let's try it and then make a judgement based on facts rather than opinions.
G
PS - Just had a thought. How do you account for a mobile 'mobile drilling unit'? ie. one that is actually on the move.
I had the same concerns about the EGPWS and when I tackled my contact at the factory (Sikorsky that is) they kindly sent me a video that showed what a great tool it is - over land -!!!
My questions about offshore ops never were satisfactorily answered. Particularly how do you square away the fact that in order to account for mobile drilling units that can reach 500 feet into the sky if they are in transit (Rowan Gorillas etc) their positions must be loaded into the volatile memory by (fallible) humans!!
The 'terrain map' needs to be perfect or it's no good to man, beast or even helicopter pilots. Anybody have the inside track on this gritty problem??
As an AVAD user I too have my concerns about it's possible demise. As to the wisdom or otherwise of the esteemed group of possible EGPWS users I have just two questions:-
1. How many 15 sector, 5 hour night shuttles have you done recently - I was there last night how about you?
2. Have you any experience of AVAD?
I have NO experience of EGPWS so I am not going to condemn what I don't know but what I have seen and heard doesn't quite convince me. But, hey! I'm not going to be dog-in-the manger about it. Let's try it and then make a judgement based on facts rather than opinions.
G
PS - Just had a thought. How do you account for a mobile 'mobile drilling unit'? ie. one that is actually on the move.
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 6th Nov 2006 at 16:52. Reason: post script added
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goeff,
It is hard to keep one's hair on whan such dunderheaded judgements are floated around as if they are thought out!
To your point, clearly moving obstacles are a problem. How is AVAD helpful there?
The update of the permanent data base is obvious, put them into the base at HW, monthly. The data base update in the operations room for transient rigs (if they are in a single spot for the duration of the flight) might be OK, and it would also be possible to cook up an operations protocol where a moving rig is assumed to be inside a large box for the duration of the day, and that box is programmed into the data base. This is one way to make it work, mostly. I agree that human error might creep in here, but nobody is saying to abandon what we do now and just trust the EGPWS with full responsibility for obstruction clearance.
What I see as the issue here is that NOBODY is running into mobile rigs, but yet some will reject the EGPWS until we somehow depict them. Why dont we fix what we are currently doing wrong. We are descending into the water or running into terrain, yet people like HC are rejecting EGPWS because they have some very nice need to perfect that last 1%.
It is hard to keep one's hair on whan such dunderheaded judgements are floated around as if they are thought out!
To your point, clearly moving obstacles are a problem. How is AVAD helpful there?
The update of the permanent data base is obvious, put them into the base at HW, monthly. The data base update in the operations room for transient rigs (if they are in a single spot for the duration of the flight) might be OK, and it would also be possible to cook up an operations protocol where a moving rig is assumed to be inside a large box for the duration of the day, and that box is programmed into the data base. This is one way to make it work, mostly. I agree that human error might creep in here, but nobody is saying to abandon what we do now and just trust the EGPWS with full responsibility for obstruction clearance.
What I see as the issue here is that NOBODY is running into mobile rigs, but yet some will reject the EGPWS until we somehow depict them. Why dont we fix what we are currently doing wrong. We are descending into the water or running into terrain, yet people like HC are rejecting EGPWS because they have some very nice need to perfect that last 1%.