Sikorsky S-92: From Design to Operations
Nick - you are right these are my opinions but do you expect me to portray someone else's opinions? Sikorsky marketing ones by any chance?
I did mention that the bunch of people clamouring for it were not pilots. At least on this side of the Atlantic. Were they engineers? - certainly - and a good few others who were impressed by the presentations and even perhaps the colour of the shiny box it comes in. But these are people who with the best intentions may not understand what the actual issues are. They have never been out over the ocean on a dark night in the driving seat.
Regarding the mobile rigs thing I think you are missing the point. At the moment we have no display of rigs other than radar. What is added by EGPWS is a very alluring picture of the installations. The trouble is that it is only some of them, not all of them. Human nature being what it is, the concern is that this could result in over-reliance on the system for obstacle avoidance, with the result that someone runs into one that "shouldn't be there" according to the EGPWS. ie the very act of fitting it has generated a new hazard.
What I seek is a review of the safety issues involved in the replacement of AVAD by EGPWS for offshore ops, and a fixing of the holes in the algorithms that I know to exist. As I have said before, once that process is complete I will be delighted if the empty space on our 225s gets filled.
Geoffers - commendable post as usual but can I just pick up on one point - you say "Let's try it and then make a judgement based on facts rather than opinions." but here I must disagree. I would not wish to be responsible for fitting the equipment and exposing our pilots to added risk, as the worst case scenario would be "Oops, HC was right, we had a ditching that would have been prevented by AVAD". Surely its better to closely analyse the pros and cons, perhaps make changes to the system, before coming to a decision to fit it or not. Surely this should be the procedure with the fitment of any new piece of equipment, especially when it replaces a long-standing and well regarded piece
HC
I did mention that the bunch of people clamouring for it were not pilots. At least on this side of the Atlantic. Were they engineers? - certainly - and a good few others who were impressed by the presentations and even perhaps the colour of the shiny box it comes in. But these are people who with the best intentions may not understand what the actual issues are. They have never been out over the ocean on a dark night in the driving seat.
Regarding the mobile rigs thing I think you are missing the point. At the moment we have no display of rigs other than radar. What is added by EGPWS is a very alluring picture of the installations. The trouble is that it is only some of them, not all of them. Human nature being what it is, the concern is that this could result in over-reliance on the system for obstacle avoidance, with the result that someone runs into one that "shouldn't be there" according to the EGPWS. ie the very act of fitting it has generated a new hazard.
What I seek is a review of the safety issues involved in the replacement of AVAD by EGPWS for offshore ops, and a fixing of the holes in the algorithms that I know to exist. As I have said before, once that process is complete I will be delighted if the empty space on our 225s gets filled.
Geoffers - commendable post as usual but can I just pick up on one point - you say "Let's try it and then make a judgement based on facts rather than opinions." but here I must disagree. I would not wish to be responsible for fitting the equipment and exposing our pilots to added risk, as the worst case scenario would be "Oops, HC was right, we had a ditching that would have been prevented by AVAD". Surely its better to closely analyse the pros and cons, perhaps make changes to the system, before coming to a decision to fit it or not. Surely this should be the procedure with the fitment of any new piece of equipment, especially when it replaces a long-standing and well regarded piece
HC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
AVAD cannot deal with the problem of moving platforms or for that matter any platforms/rigs/vessels. My point is that EGPWS has huge potential but what we should be cautious about is glorifying it's arrival as a 'cure-all' without some careful thought about those curved balls that nip round and bite you in the ass! (excuse the mixed metaphors).
I like the idea of EGPWS. I have lost some close friends in CFIT accidents and welcome its potential. If it has the angles covered by AVAD covered too then we are in business. maybe it is there already maybe not - I don't know. It offers great potential for the future but before we slap the software guys on the back and say 'job well done' let's look carefully at where we may be solving one problem and creating potential for another. Remember the 'Swiss Cheese' model for flight safety and think in terms of changing it to a good bit of Cheddar - ie, no holes.
My aviation 'law book' has the following basic tenets:
1. Murphy's Law - If you design something so that it can be put together the wrong way then someone will do just that.
2. Sods Law - If it can happen then it will .
and finally
3, The Jammy Side Down Syndrome - (If you drop a slice of jammy toast it will always land jammy side down) Which is just anothet way of saying that if you trust to luck don't be surprised if you are disappointed.
If EGPWS is designed to be the answer to our prayers then it needs to be as good as possible.
G
PS _ HC our posts crossed but hope you approve of my cautious approach. Sometimes you cannot determine the 'failure modes' until you put the kit in the hands of Joe Pilot and see what happens. Having done all you can to de-bug it first of course!
I like the idea of EGPWS. I have lost some close friends in CFIT accidents and welcome its potential. If it has the angles covered by AVAD covered too then we are in business. maybe it is there already maybe not - I don't know. It offers great potential for the future but before we slap the software guys on the back and say 'job well done' let's look carefully at where we may be solving one problem and creating potential for another. Remember the 'Swiss Cheese' model for flight safety and think in terms of changing it to a good bit of Cheddar - ie, no holes.
My aviation 'law book' has the following basic tenets:
1. Murphy's Law - If you design something so that it can be put together the wrong way then someone will do just that.
2. Sods Law - If it can happen then it will .
and finally
3, The Jammy Side Down Syndrome - (If you drop a slice of jammy toast it will always land jammy side down) Which is just anothet way of saying that if you trust to luck don't be surprised if you are disappointed.
If EGPWS is designed to be the answer to our prayers then it needs to be as good as possible.
G
PS _ HC our posts crossed but hope you approve of my cautious approach. Sometimes you cannot determine the 'failure modes' until you put the kit in the hands of Joe Pilot and see what happens. Having done all you can to de-bug it first of course!
Last edited by Geoffersincornwall; 6th Nov 2006 at 18:17. Reason: add post script
Sometimes you cannot determine the 'failure modes' until you put the kit in the hands of Joe Pilot and see what happens. Having done all you can to de-bug it first of course!
HC
Last edited by HeliComparator; 6th Nov 2006 at 18:39. Reason: spelling!
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK.
As a "joe pilot" I have had experience of both AVAD and EGPWS both offshore and on shore.
I also remember that Aberdeen and Sumburgh bases sent messages to each other by telex - I'll bet it's by e-mail now. Likewise the brick-sized first mobile phone I had - you could easily say the modern ones are more of a nuisance because you can't remember which pocket it's in!!
The whole point is that you can pretend that you're King Canute and watch the tide coming in or you can embrace the technology and use it to your advantage as another help to you getting home to your family after a challenging day's flying.
As a "joe pilot" I have had experience of both AVAD and EGPWS both offshore and on shore.
I also remember that Aberdeen and Sumburgh bases sent messages to each other by telex - I'll bet it's by e-mail now. Likewise the brick-sized first mobile phone I had - you could easily say the modern ones are more of a nuisance because you can't remember which pocket it's in!!
The whole point is that you can pretend that you're King Canute and watch the tide coming in or you can embrace the technology and use it to your advantage as another help to you getting home to your family after a challenging day's flying.
So Reflex, as someone who has experience of both, can you tell us exactly what the advantages of EGPWS over AVAD for offshore ops are? I am all for new technology but only if its better than the old technology!
HC
By the way Nick, when I said "no substance" in my post that only seems moments ago but is in fact on the previous page, I meant "no substance" to the presentation, not no substance to the equipment.
HC
By the way Nick, when I said "no substance" in my post that only seems moments ago but is in fact on the previous page, I meant "no substance" to the presentation, not no substance to the equipment.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since you asked HC.
If you had a Decca Roll map (or even an RNAV2) and an all-singing and dancing FMS with GPS what would you choose. I'm sure both systems would get you from A to B but I'm equally sure you wouldn't choose the old system.
I don't have enough brain cells left to remember all the call-outs from both systems but what I do know is that the EGPWS is a step in the right direction. At the end of a long day you do end up coming back onshore and having the extra situational awareness that the EGPWS brings has got to be good.
BTW, unless it's changed, the voice on the EGPWS comes from a chap called Noel. If you think that's bad, you should hear the voice that emanates from the system in our S76.
If you had a Decca Roll map (or even an RNAV2) and an all-singing and dancing FMS with GPS what would you choose. I'm sure both systems would get you from A to B but I'm equally sure you wouldn't choose the old system.
I don't have enough brain cells left to remember all the call-outs from both systems but what I do know is that the EGPWS is a step in the right direction. At the end of a long day you do end up coming back onshore and having the extra situational awareness that the EGPWS brings has got to be good.
BTW, unless it's changed, the voice on the EGPWS comes from a chap called Noel. If you think that's bad, you should hear the voice that emanates from the system in our S76.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reflex
Glad that you chose to mention that fantastic tool - the FMS. Yep, great piece of kit - unless you are doing multi-sector shuttles.
The guys playing with their new 139 toy find it a pain to use. Taken from a fixed wing and transplanted directly into an offshore chopper - how much thought went into that I wonder? How much research?
If you think our nervousness is a sign of Luddite-tendancies then you're wrong. We've just been there before and been stitched up by well meaning (highly qualified) guys with no street-smarts. In the helicopter world we have grown so use to being promised the world and then left in the poo. Think Hamilton Standard (the only reason they didn't fit the cheaper alternative was because the cheaper AFCS was none at all), think Ferranti (Bo105) No matter what the lights said it made no difference to the stability of the machine), GNS 500 (a nav system to end all nav systems - if you lost one VLF ground station en route then that was you stuffed, back to DR).
The most embarassing piece of nav kit I have so far come across was the Garmin LCD Screen GPS fitted to our Daphne in Cameroun. When you fired it up it asked if you wanted to use the 'anchor monitoring facility'. Heap of sh*******e.
God save us from those ticking the boxes in the sales brouchure.
G
The guys playing with their new 139 toy find it a pain to use. Taken from a fixed wing and transplanted directly into an offshore chopper - how much thought went into that I wonder? How much research?
If you think our nervousness is a sign of Luddite-tendancies then you're wrong. We've just been there before and been stitched up by well meaning (highly qualified) guys with no street-smarts. In the helicopter world we have grown so use to being promised the world and then left in the poo. Think Hamilton Standard (the only reason they didn't fit the cheaper alternative was because the cheaper AFCS was none at all), think Ferranti (Bo105) No matter what the lights said it made no difference to the stability of the machine), GNS 500 (a nav system to end all nav systems - if you lost one VLF ground station en route then that was you stuffed, back to DR).
The most embarassing piece of nav kit I have so far come across was the Garmin LCD Screen GPS fitted to our Daphne in Cameroun. When you fired it up it asked if you wanted to use the 'anchor monitoring facility'. Heap of sh*******e.
God save us from those ticking the boxes in the sales brouchure.
G
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reflex
The point that screams at me is that in the US in particular they are not yet in the telex age offshore! The real debate should not be the fit for new helicopters but the retrofit for old ones.
Geoffers
It is always interesting to see how manufacturers become experts in offshore design AFTER they design their latest helicopters...
The point that screams at me is that in the US in particular they are not yet in the telex age offshore! The real debate should not be the fit for new helicopters but the retrofit for old ones.
Geoffers
It is always interesting to see how manufacturers become experts in offshore design AFTER they design their latest helicopters...
Glad that you chose to mention that fantastic tool - the FMS. Yep, great piece of kit - unless you are doing multi-sector shuttles.
The guys playing with their new 139 toy find it a pain to use. Taken from a fixed wing and transplanted directly into an offshore chopper - how much thought went into that I wonder? How much research?
The guys playing with their new 139 toy find it a pain to use. Taken from a fixed wing and transplanted directly into an offshore chopper - how much thought went into that I wonder? How much research?
Now seriusly I'd like to hear why they find it a pain, it isn't so bad.
It's a shame that the waters get muddied and a more factual discussion can't take place.
HC, I think you have to accept that the S-92 EGPWS has all the functionality of an AVAD: It has a 'hard wired' 100 ft call ( "One Hundred" ) plus a variable Rad-alt based call ("Altitude") as well as a variable bar-alt based call "(Minimums"). The latter can usefully be set to MEA (or MESA or whatever you call it these days) for en-route IFR navigation.
Nick, I think you have to accept that in the specific context of offshore flying (agreed, not the be all and end all, but the dominant market for the Civil S-92) the EGPWS does not provide protection in many of the scenarios that have resulted in CFIT. To list the main ones that involve mediums/large types that spring to mind and the assistance the EGPWS would give:
1987 BIH S-76 on a Night Shuttle- unlikely
1992 BHL AS332 on a Night Shuttle - unlikely
199? BH(A)L SA330J Night aproach to ship - unlikely
1997 KLM S-76B on a Night Shuttle - unlikely (had no AVAD either btw)
2004 ERA S-76 night en-route - very probably would have helped
2006 PHI S-76 on a day low vis approach - unlikely
The ERA 76 may also have been helped if a fundamental flaw, which I'm saddened to see carried over to the S-92, had not been present: the flight director command annunciator on the PFD is green regardless of the coupled state. Surely to goodness manufacturers can agree on some convention accross the board. Here's a suggestion:
If it's green it coupled
If it's not green, it's not coupled (might be blue, white, amber whatever)
By all means have a little CPL on the side too, but let's go for more attention grabbing stuff!
HC, I think you have to accept that the S-92 EGPWS has all the functionality of an AVAD: It has a 'hard wired' 100 ft call ( "One Hundred" ) plus a variable Rad-alt based call ("Altitude") as well as a variable bar-alt based call "(Minimums"). The latter can usefully be set to MEA (or MESA or whatever you call it these days) for en-route IFR navigation.
Nick, I think you have to accept that in the specific context of offshore flying (agreed, not the be all and end all, but the dominant market for the Civil S-92) the EGPWS does not provide protection in many of the scenarios that have resulted in CFIT. To list the main ones that involve mediums/large types that spring to mind and the assistance the EGPWS would give:
1987 BIH S-76 on a Night Shuttle- unlikely
1992 BHL AS332 on a Night Shuttle - unlikely
199? BH(A)L SA330J Night aproach to ship - unlikely
1997 KLM S-76B on a Night Shuttle - unlikely (had no AVAD either btw)
2004 ERA S-76 night en-route - very probably would have helped
2006 PHI S-76 on a day low vis approach - unlikely
The ERA 76 may also have been helped if a fundamental flaw, which I'm saddened to see carried over to the S-92, had not been present: the flight director command annunciator on the PFD is green regardless of the coupled state. Surely to goodness manufacturers can agree on some convention accross the board. Here's a suggestion:
If it's green it coupled
If it's not green, it's not coupled (might be blue, white, amber whatever)
By all means have a little CPL on the side too, but let's go for more attention grabbing stuff!
Last edited by 212man; 7th Nov 2006 at 06:42.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Haiti
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212man,
Three risks flying offshore: hitting a rig when low level in poor viz IFR, solved by looking at your radar; hitting the ground back at your landbase, solved by the EGPWS showing you the shoreline; hitting the water, EGPWS will turn your primary display red and give you lots of warning. EGPSW has other good functions too, like excessive bank angle at low altitude, etc.
Of course hitting the water used to be avoided in other ways before, like setting a rad alt to get a light and audio, setting the altimeter and watch the clock or ribbon wind down, some EFIS displays have an orange warning bar beside the altimeter ribbon to warn of impending doom, AVAD calls etc. Now with EGPSW if both pilots manage to ignore all those lights, dials, and voices, we can only hope that the EGPWS comes through to save them. Will it or won't it, after all they've ignored all the other signs, what's one more?
Now the EGPSW mapping doesn't give you a lot of other information such as airspace boundaries, it doesn't show rigs unless they are in the database. How do you add an obstacle to the EGPSW database? How current is it. Suppose the rig moves the next day, how many days, weeks, months before the position is updated? What process or procedure do you have for adding obstacles - do you pick up the phone and call Sikorsky? How is the EGPWS database updated and how often?
Even the shi***te little moronic handheld GPS described by Geoffincornwall (maybe not as moronic as a pilot that can't go into the setup menu to turn off the boating alarm) has the ability to maintain a rig location database from your base computer and then display the rig locations accurately on a day to day basis. Perhaps why the Cameroon crowd was fond of it enough not to leave it behind despite all the ADF and VOR receivers installed on the aircraft.
I'm curious to know how you find the spatial orientation in your S92 compared to the information you get from to a handheld Garmin (which in the 296 also has a built in EGPWS function): When you're told to report an airspace boundary are you doing it from the map display or do you have to get all stone-aged and look at a distance on a paper map and then work out a distance in DME or FMS. Also curious when you are flying to a rig how you know where other rigs are in relation to it. I think the only waypoints coming up on your EFIS display are the ones in your active flight plan, not everything in your user database. Does your EGPWS display any obstacles at all for your part of the world?
Like Nick says, the S92 was primarily developed for offshore, these seem like the normal sort of things an offshore pilot would like to see.
charon
Three risks flying offshore: hitting a rig when low level in poor viz IFR, solved by looking at your radar; hitting the ground back at your landbase, solved by the EGPWS showing you the shoreline; hitting the water, EGPWS will turn your primary display red and give you lots of warning. EGPSW has other good functions too, like excessive bank angle at low altitude, etc.
Of course hitting the water used to be avoided in other ways before, like setting a rad alt to get a light and audio, setting the altimeter and watch the clock or ribbon wind down, some EFIS displays have an orange warning bar beside the altimeter ribbon to warn of impending doom, AVAD calls etc. Now with EGPSW if both pilots manage to ignore all those lights, dials, and voices, we can only hope that the EGPWS comes through to save them. Will it or won't it, after all they've ignored all the other signs, what's one more?
Now the EGPSW mapping doesn't give you a lot of other information such as airspace boundaries, it doesn't show rigs unless they are in the database. How do you add an obstacle to the EGPSW database? How current is it. Suppose the rig moves the next day, how many days, weeks, months before the position is updated? What process or procedure do you have for adding obstacles - do you pick up the phone and call Sikorsky? How is the EGPWS database updated and how often?
Even the shi***te little moronic handheld GPS described by Geoffincornwall (maybe not as moronic as a pilot that can't go into the setup menu to turn off the boating alarm) has the ability to maintain a rig location database from your base computer and then display the rig locations accurately on a day to day basis. Perhaps why the Cameroon crowd was fond of it enough not to leave it behind despite all the ADF and VOR receivers installed on the aircraft.
I'm curious to know how you find the spatial orientation in your S92 compared to the information you get from to a handheld Garmin (which in the 296 also has a built in EGPWS function): When you're told to report an airspace boundary are you doing it from the map display or do you have to get all stone-aged and look at a distance on a paper map and then work out a distance in DME or FMS. Also curious when you are flying to a rig how you know where other rigs are in relation to it. I think the only waypoints coming up on your EFIS display are the ones in your active flight plan, not everything in your user database. Does your EGPWS display any obstacles at all for your part of the world?
Like Nick says, the S92 was primarily developed for offshore, these seem like the normal sort of things an offshore pilot would like to see.
charon
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks charron! Seems like some folks would toss back the life ring, with comments and suggestions for improvement while they still tread water.
And sox6, regarding expertise in offshore operations- Oh, I wish I had met you earlier, then I would have known true expertise! I just came across the photo of Rene Van der Harten that I have from when he showed me the radar approaches to rigs he perfected 40 years ago. The photo was taken in 1974, right after I checked him out in the S-58T. It was 2 years before Alan Bristow and I flew in a prototype S76 where he showed me what he wanted in that aircraft. I wish they had met you, too!
And sox6, regarding expertise in offshore operations- Oh, I wish I had met you earlier, then I would have known true expertise! I just came across the photo of Rene Van der Harten that I have from when he showed me the radar approaches to rigs he perfected 40 years ago. The photo was taken in 1974, right after I checked him out in the S-58T. It was 2 years before Alan Bristow and I flew in a prototype S76 where he showed me what he wanted in that aircraft. I wish they had met you, too!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
You seem to have mastered scarcasm. Very well done.
Meeting one or two pilots is nothing - be that me or Rene VdH . I suggest meeting dozens, talking to them, watching them and working with them.
Did any of the S92 team fly the line with an offshore operator of heavey helicopters in , say, the last 10 years?
I would very much like to meet AB, especially the next time you do, from what I hear he might not be too amused that you think he's dead!
You seem to have mastered scarcasm. Very well done.
Meeting one or two pilots is nothing - be that me or Rene VdH . I suggest meeting dozens, talking to them, watching them and working with them.
Did any of the S92 team fly the line with an offshore operator of heavey helicopters in , say, the last 10 years?
I would very much like to meet AB, especially the next time you do, from what I hear he might not be too amused that you think he's dead!
212 you said
Before our dialogue started I was adamant that EGPWS did not replicate AVAD, specifically that, according to Honeywell's product spec, the Altitude callout was only active with the gear up or in low altitude mode, and the mimimums callout was only active with the gear down but suffered from only triggering once unless you landed or climbed 200' to rearm. However from your comments and a closer inspection of the spec it does seem that the 92 is set up differently. Putting aside the fact that the altitude callout is misnamed (should be height) if other aircraft can be set up that way then perhaps it does replicate AVAD albeit with no attensons and no ability to surpress expected warnings. Perhaps there is a Sikorsky-specific part number that is different or perhaps its just a configuration setting, though I can't find mention of this in the spec.
In my defence I will say that I am not alone in finding this confusing - Eurocopter decided that "minimums" and/or "altitude" were not a viable alternative to "check height" so reverted back to the basic aircraft tones on descending below bugged radalt height. I have to go to work now but will study the spec further!
HC
HC, I think you have to accept that the S-92 EGPWS has all the functionality of an AVAD: It has a 'hard wired' 100 ft call ( "One Hundred" ) plus a variable Rad-alt based call ("Altitude") as well as a variable bar-alt based call "(Minimums"). The latter can usefully be set to MEA (or MESA or whatever you call it these days) for en-route IFR navigation.
In my defence I will say that I am not alone in finding this confusing - Eurocopter decided that "minimums" and/or "altitude" were not a viable alternative to "check height" so reverted back to the basic aircraft tones on descending below bugged radalt height. I have to go to work now but will study the spec further!
HC
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear!
Charron -
I guess if you are economical with words then you will always find somebody who gets the wrong end of the stick - not your fault - the problem is all mine.
The sh*****t GPS - we left the 'anchor mode' in the set-up to remind us that we were using an antique that wasn't specifically designed for the aviation world alone. The problem was that 800 km in the bush there are no VORs and NDBs and this little piece of sh***t was all we had. The screen was so poor that in the midday sun you could barely read it. Eventually we replaced it with a Trimble 2000 and then added a Garmin 300 (from memory) which was mind blowingly cost-effective - moving map and all.
Rigs and radar - radar will tell you there is a contact but not how high it is. It could be a 50' supply boat or a 500' Gorilla and in busy waters you could do with knowing which is which. I'm going to suggest that time will tell how good the EGPWS is and the experience of the guys with the new toy will be interesting. I know what HC would say to that but sometimes politics and economics prevents you covering all the angles. Fingers crossed we don't learn the hard way.
G
I guess if you are economical with words then you will always find somebody who gets the wrong end of the stick - not your fault - the problem is all mine.
The sh*****t GPS - we left the 'anchor mode' in the set-up to remind us that we were using an antique that wasn't specifically designed for the aviation world alone. The problem was that 800 km in the bush there are no VORs and NDBs and this little piece of sh***t was all we had. The screen was so poor that in the midday sun you could barely read it. Eventually we replaced it with a Trimble 2000 and then added a Garmin 300 (from memory) which was mind blowingly cost-effective - moving map and all.
Rigs and radar - radar will tell you there is a contact but not how high it is. It could be a 50' supply boat or a 500' Gorilla and in busy waters you could do with knowing which is which. I'm going to suggest that time will tell how good the EGPWS is and the experience of the guys with the new toy will be interesting. I know what HC would say to that but sometimes politics and economics prevents you covering all the angles. Fingers crossed we don't learn the hard way.
G
Charron,
when the screen goes red it means you are doing submarine impressions; it will be amber as you hit the water! (Red means terrain 500+ ft above you
)
To answer your question about waypoints displayed; the FMS will 'throw' up way points (be they VORs, Airports) as you set it up to (avionics engineers). So you can fly along with all the rigs displayed on your ND/PFD regardless of the route entered. Generally these will coincide with blobs on the RADAR and the red obstacle blocks on the EGPWS. If not, then the EGPWS database doesn't have them and the RADAR is showing ships, mobiles etc.
Not sure where the thread creep about mobile rigs has come from; it's akin to moaning that a road map doesn't have road works marked on it. I don't recall that bumping into mobile rigs was a particular hazard.
Glad that HC has conceded that the EGPWS fulfils the AVAD requirements, certainly the UK CAA were satisfied that it complied with JAR OPS 3.660 with V24.
Sorry that no one has shown how EGPWS (or in fact a GPWS as no E required) would have helped in the cases I listed, other than the ERA 76 A++.
I'm not against EGPWS at all; I think it's great. I do stand by my point immediately above, though, which in a round about way so was HC (I think.)
I'll try and get a photo posted that shows how much situational awareness is available; it truly is superb compared to conventional types.
Let's try and keep the arguments factual.
when the screen goes red it means you are doing submarine impressions; it will be amber as you hit the water! (Red means terrain 500+ ft above you
)To answer your question about waypoints displayed; the FMS will 'throw' up way points (be they VORs, Airports) as you set it up to (avionics engineers). So you can fly along with all the rigs displayed on your ND/PFD regardless of the route entered. Generally these will coincide with blobs on the RADAR and the red obstacle blocks on the EGPWS. If not, then the EGPWS database doesn't have them and the RADAR is showing ships, mobiles etc.
Not sure where the thread creep about mobile rigs has come from; it's akin to moaning that a road map doesn't have road works marked on it. I don't recall that bumping into mobile rigs was a particular hazard.
Glad that HC has conceded that the EGPWS fulfils the AVAD requirements, certainly the UK CAA were satisfied that it complied with JAR OPS 3.660 with V24.
Sorry that no one has shown how EGPWS (or in fact a GPWS as no E required) would have helped in the cases I listed, other than the ERA 76 A++.
I'm not against EGPWS at all; I think it's great. I do stand by my point immediately above, though, which in a round about way so was HC (I think.)
I'll try and get a photo posted that shows how much situational awareness is available; it truly is superb compared to conventional types.
Let's try and keep the arguments factual.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Playing devils advocate slightly, I would just like to remind the readers of the BHL CFIT in China which would certainly have benefited from some form of EGPWS. There is also an apocryphyl though plausible story of a S61 flying out of SUM at 1500' IMC and passed directly over Foula (1300' if I can recollect) they allegedly thought the RadAlt had spiked (must have been a stiff tailwind). This is what happens where we get enviromental capture and fail to properly anticipate the threats - though one could sensibly argue the same for any accident/incident to a greater or lesser degree.
I have just arrived in from a flight to Zurich, while it is not surrounded by the high Alps, it is very nice to have that big terrain awareness picture around you all the time with a strong visual impression of the most threatning bits of granite.
I rather think the issue is money as always - I do have to agree with a comment NL made some months ago when we got into a FW vs RW argument (discussion) that RW will always be the poorer cousin. Many of the systems used by FW would work in RW if the design parameters could take account of the considerable energy and envelope differences each mode of transport has. Sadly the proper R&D will not be undertaken because of the costs; or the liability issues of an accident force the expenditure. It is a fact that the public exposure of a B767 hitting mountains in Cali has a stronger financial motivation than an S76 running into the Gulf on a night NPA.
When you look at the accidents that 212man cites, it would be interesting to see what the result would have been if there was a 'Don't Sink' call every 5 seconds (never mind the accent). How would you design a reliable 'Don't Sink' warning that wouldn't be subject to abuse like the RadAlt bug being set below zero when AVAD is fitted? How does the helicopter know you are sinking because you are actually landing? In the FW world, these issues are relatively simple, we are on an approach on an IFR guidance of some kind and the EGPWS knows the Terrain Clearance Floor for the runway you are landing at. The configuration of the gear and flaps also lends weight to the aircraft intentions. These kinds of cues are not available to a terrain avoidance system in the RW enviroment.
TOD
I have just arrived in from a flight to Zurich, while it is not surrounded by the high Alps, it is very nice to have that big terrain awareness picture around you all the time with a strong visual impression of the most threatning bits of granite.
I rather think the issue is money as always - I do have to agree with a comment NL made some months ago when we got into a FW vs RW argument (discussion) that RW will always be the poorer cousin. Many of the systems used by FW would work in RW if the design parameters could take account of the considerable energy and envelope differences each mode of transport has. Sadly the proper R&D will not be undertaken because of the costs; or the liability issues of an accident force the expenditure. It is a fact that the public exposure of a B767 hitting mountains in Cali has a stronger financial motivation than an S76 running into the Gulf on a night NPA.
When you look at the accidents that 212man cites, it would be interesting to see what the result would have been if there was a 'Don't Sink' call every 5 seconds (never mind the accent). How would you design a reliable 'Don't Sink' warning that wouldn't be subject to abuse like the RadAlt bug being set below zero when AVAD is fitted? How does the helicopter know you are sinking because you are actually landing? In the FW world, these issues are relatively simple, we are on an approach on an IFR guidance of some kind and the EGPWS knows the Terrain Clearance Floor for the runway you are landing at. The configuration of the gear and flaps also lends weight to the aircraft intentions. These kinds of cues are not available to a terrain avoidance system in the RW enviroment.
TOD
Last edited by Thridle Op Des; 7th Nov 2006 at 11:15. Reason: My usual dire spelling
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aser said “Well... you won't find the "Orbit function" in a 767 FMS...
Now seriously I'd like to hear why they find it a pain, it isn't so bad.”
Just a few thoughts
The 139 makes a very fine ‘heli-liner’ (although the ergonomics don’t suit me – but that’s a whole other thread). The FMS data base is mind blowing to the average rotary pilot like me, all that data on runways, sids, transitions, airways, stars and approaches. Just amazing!
But does it make a good offshore multi sector shuttle aircraft? Which is how I am being asked to operate it. Well as it stands I’m not so sure.
I can only compare it with my experiences operating the S76 A+ and C models in the environment in which I currently operate.
Leaving single engine performance to one side, let’s just consider the 139’s HW Primus Epic FMS against Rnav 2 for say a four hour 20 sector oil/gas field shuttle.
I guess data input for both systems is as good as each other. Putting together a routing and therefore using either system for navigation is just fine.
But that is just part of the game for me as an offshore pilot. As important is the ability and reliability of each system to compute fuel figures around the route.
This is especially relevant when operating for one customer in the SNS who can only offer fuel on one platform while shuttling between four different gas fields with sectors varying from 2nm up to 115nm.
For many years S76 pilots have been working and trusting Rnav 2 backed up with gross error checks to offer payloads way down route to the nearest 10 lbs. And, it works well.
Now consider the FMS in the 139. With all the computing power of NASA on board the FMS can’t work to closer than the nearest 0.1 of a metric tonne! How useful is that? Great I guess if you are sitting at the pointy end of a 767. But 0.1 of a tonne (220lbs) is the weight of a man and his bags. Surly we can do better than that?
Also Rnav can accept that the helicopter may finish where it started (along a route), and so can compute groundspeeds in both (all) directions and therefore accurate fuel burns too. And, while I know I can programme a 139 flight plan to start and finish at the same place I get the feeling the machine is looking down its nose at me thinking what kind of an airline pilot are you? It strikes me that the 139 fuel management just isn’t accurate enough in either current ff/gs or pilot spd/ff. Well not for my purposes anyway.
Now I admit that I don’t have many hours under my belt on the 139, and I am happy to learn from those that know it better, but it really annoys me that with such amazing computers on board that I have to rely on my wiz wheel to work out my bingo figures and reserves. Its either that or I offer the customer c**p payloads.
I just hope that while we’re busy worrying about fuel figures that we don’t gently drift down towards the water (cos we don’t have the fourth axis of the auto pilot and we’re not allowed (limitation) to couple the other three axis’s below 1000ft offshore), missing our tiny DH “MIN” box on the PFD and the ladies 150ft call (the only real warning we have) before hitting the water.
So, I for one might choose Rnav over FMS i.e. old technology over new in this context.
Detach me to Bergen (or any strange, busy place) for a month an I’ll take FMS every time.
Now, how we got from the development of the S92 to me shuttling in a AB139, I’m not sure.
But in an attempt to move closer to this thread I’d love to have even a simple AVAD on my expensive new Italian toy. Or possibly EGPWS.
…Mornington Crescent!
So I guess we now get back to Nick’s other point. Here is an aircraft that has staggering performance for which someone pays handsomely, buy very little to help stop us flying it into the water on a inky night.
Long live CRM and SOPs!
Red
Now seriously I'd like to hear why they find it a pain, it isn't so bad.”
Just a few thoughts
The 139 makes a very fine ‘heli-liner’ (although the ergonomics don’t suit me – but that’s a whole other thread). The FMS data base is mind blowing to the average rotary pilot like me, all that data on runways, sids, transitions, airways, stars and approaches. Just amazing!
But does it make a good offshore multi sector shuttle aircraft? Which is how I am being asked to operate it. Well as it stands I’m not so sure.
I can only compare it with my experiences operating the S76 A+ and C models in the environment in which I currently operate.
Leaving single engine performance to one side, let’s just consider the 139’s HW Primus Epic FMS against Rnav 2 for say a four hour 20 sector oil/gas field shuttle.
I guess data input for both systems is as good as each other. Putting together a routing and therefore using either system for navigation is just fine.
But that is just part of the game for me as an offshore pilot. As important is the ability and reliability of each system to compute fuel figures around the route.
This is especially relevant when operating for one customer in the SNS who can only offer fuel on one platform while shuttling between four different gas fields with sectors varying from 2nm up to 115nm.
For many years S76 pilots have been working and trusting Rnav 2 backed up with gross error checks to offer payloads way down route to the nearest 10 lbs. And, it works well.
Now consider the FMS in the 139. With all the computing power of NASA on board the FMS can’t work to closer than the nearest 0.1 of a metric tonne! How useful is that? Great I guess if you are sitting at the pointy end of a 767. But 0.1 of a tonne (220lbs) is the weight of a man and his bags. Surly we can do better than that?
Also Rnav can accept that the helicopter may finish where it started (along a route), and so can compute groundspeeds in both (all) directions and therefore accurate fuel burns too. And, while I know I can programme a 139 flight plan to start and finish at the same place I get the feeling the machine is looking down its nose at me thinking what kind of an airline pilot are you? It strikes me that the 139 fuel management just isn’t accurate enough in either current ff/gs or pilot spd/ff. Well not for my purposes anyway.
Now I admit that I don’t have many hours under my belt on the 139, and I am happy to learn from those that know it better, but it really annoys me that with such amazing computers on board that I have to rely on my wiz wheel to work out my bingo figures and reserves. Its either that or I offer the customer c**p payloads.
I just hope that while we’re busy worrying about fuel figures that we don’t gently drift down towards the water (cos we don’t have the fourth axis of the auto pilot and we’re not allowed (limitation) to couple the other three axis’s below 1000ft offshore), missing our tiny DH “MIN” box on the PFD and the ladies 150ft call (the only real warning we have) before hitting the water.
So, I for one might choose Rnav over FMS i.e. old technology over new in this context.
Detach me to Bergen (or any strange, busy place) for a month an I’ll take FMS every time.
Now, how we got from the development of the S92 to me shuttling in a AB139, I’m not sure.
But in an attempt to move closer to this thread I’d love to have even a simple AVAD on my expensive new Italian toy. Or possibly EGPWS.
…Mornington Crescent!
So I guess we now get back to Nick’s other point. Here is an aircraft that has staggering performance for which someone pays handsomely, buy very little to help stop us flying it into the water on a inky night.
Long live CRM and SOPs!
Red
RedWhite&Blue: Thanks for your comments, I'm a "heli-liner" with the 139 so I don't have your problems with fuel but I agree with you in everything you said, we were instructed by agusta to NOT use fms fuel calcs.
I'd like if HELIPORT could move our posts to the 139 thread.
Regarding no AVAD/EGPWS I know that CHC is fitting EGPWS in the 139s and... surely DH “MIN” box on the PFD and the ladies 150ft call or LANDING GEAR (with landing gear up) it isn't enough.
I don't know if AVAD or EGPWS but we just need something.
Regards.
I'd like if HELIPORT could move our posts to the 139 thread.
Regarding no AVAD/EGPWS I know that CHC is fitting EGPWS in the 139s and... surely DH “MIN” box on the PFD and the ladies 150ft call or LANDING GEAR (with landing gear up) it isn't enough.
I don't know if AVAD or EGPWS but we just need something.
Regards.
TOD, I whole heartedly agree; those two incidents/accidents would be perfect EGPWS situations.
