Wessex loggers grounded
I don't know anything about the BV 234 0r Chinook. Never flown them, never been in one. All I was doing was repeating was what the Boeing reps and engineers were saying in Aberdeen.
As a long time helicopter logger and also involved with the Wessex before Bristow grounded them, the Wessex is probably the worst helicopter type I could imagine to log with. I have operated and been around most types involved in these operations and the learning curve for each model is immense as you figure out the weaknesses in airframe, drivetrain, engines, rotor systems, electrical and every other system on the machine. Much of this isn't necessarily safety issues if proper and adequate maintenance for the type of operation is developed and adhered to, but never ending maintenance, parts and downtime will rapidly render the operation uneconomical. As there is no history of logging with the Wessex, you will be developing it as you go - a very demanding situation.
I have watched a number of S58T's (and piston ships) logging, all with zero long term success - they were just perpetually broken down and suffered major structural issues. The easiest way to figure out the real world experience in this instance is to let them go and log with it and see how it works out, but I personally believe the outcome is entirely predictable.
Oh, and one last consideration from the history of this genus - just read this accident report, which was pretty much the END of helicopter logging activities with the S58T, after the Main Rotor Mast failed in the hover and the Head flew off. This is one of two pilots I personally know who suffered main rotor mast failures with head separations, that walked away and live to tell the tale.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=LA
I have watched a number of S58T's (and piston ships) logging, all with zero long term success - they were just perpetually broken down and suffered major structural issues. The easiest way to figure out the real world experience in this instance is to let them go and log with it and see how it works out, but I personally believe the outcome is entirely predictable.
Oh, and one last consideration from the history of this genus - just read this accident report, which was pretty much the END of helicopter logging activities with the S58T, after the Main Rotor Mast failed in the hover and the Head flew off. This is one of two pilots I personally know who suffered main rotor mast failures with head separations, that walked away and live to tell the tale.
https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...Final&IType=LA
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Wessex mk2 I have were put through a very intense testing program by GKN Aerospace here in New Zealand with the approval from NZCAA. We lifted some 3000 tonnes of logs and GKN requilified the Wessex mk 2 for HEAVY REPETITIVE lifting. A completely new maintenance program was approved by NZCAA for logging. The Wessex is safe for logging.
https://youtu.be/MxXKIc3NMyU Or go to YouTube and type in Westland wessex mk2
https://youtu.be/MxXKIc3NMyU Or go to YouTube and type in Westland wessex mk2
Yes, the HC2 was a good workhorse - I suspect people keep thinking they are the same beast as the S-58T, which they are not.
The Wessex is safe for logging
Much of this isn't necessarily safety issues if proper and adequate maintenance for the type of operation is developed and adhered to, but never ending maintenance, parts and downtime will rapidly render the operation uneconomical. As there is no history of logging with the Wessex, you will be developing it as you go - a very demanding situation.
TOTD - yes, but as you know the HC2 flew many thousands of hours in the RAF (and Mk5 in RN) with no major issues. One TR drive failure back in early 90s due to the disconnect coupling coming apart during a simulated ASE emergency but certainly nothing like the MR mast failing.
Plenty of pilots found ingenious ways of breaking them but they were inherently sound.
Spares were the only issue towards the end of its life so I don't know how Fordy.mat has got around that.
Plenty of pilots found ingenious ways of breaking them but they were inherently sound.
Spares were the only issue towards the end of its life so I don't know how Fordy.mat has got around that.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: dark side off the sea!!
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are they now..?
Maybe a bit of a silly question but going to ask anyway. Where are those helicopter now still in New Zealand.? Also in the corporate video they seamed to have very extensive stores in fact probably a treasure trove of Wessex goodies where did they go.?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Yes, the HC2 was a good workhorse - I suspect people keep thinking they are the same beast as the S-58T, which they are not.
We flew right alongside the Wessex doing the same work and they just fine!
Bristow sold Brown and Root a Bill of Goods on the Teeside to Ekofisk Contract as the Onshore Diversion fuel requirement gave us the choice of fuel or passengers.
That was not the aircrafts fault....but young Lawrence's bit of doing as I recall.
I dearly loved the piston engine version.....the H-34.......and the big brother the Moe-J-Vee!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: West Sussex
Age: 84
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was working at Redhill when the ex German H34s flew in, to be converted to S58Ts. There were a few misty eyes at the sound of the exhaust note of those double banked radials.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engines
Yeah, 1820 cu, 2800 RPM and 56 inches of MP, 62 with 115/145 gas. The sound was magnificent.
The -6 was quite a bit stronger....I stepped back to the -3 in Spain and surprised myself the first time I rolled the Throttle off simulating an Engine Failure to a young fellow doing his Conversion Course.
I never did like the Aux Tank set up.....where at some point you got to wondering what that Orange Light on top of the Glare Shield was doing shining at you.
More than once I got distracted and pumped my Onshore Diversion fuel over the side. The plus side was the aircraft was noticeably lighter and went a bit faster.
I once passed a Puma that was headed to the Ekofisk.....when asked how I managed to do that.....I just reminded them i was flying a 58-GT.
I never did like the Aux Tank set up.....where at some point you got to wondering what that Orange Light on top of the Glare Shield was doing shining at you.
More than once I got distracted and pumped my Onshore Diversion fuel over the side. The plus side was the aircraft was noticeably lighter and went a bit faster.
I once passed a Puma that was headed to the Ekofisk.....when asked how I managed to do that.....I just reminded them i was flying a 58-GT.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the issue is the fact that possibly the aircraft in question has no Type Certificate in the appropriate category?
It is not a "Restricted Category" machine but operates in the "Special or Experimental Category".
Special or Experimental category does not allow the type of work that is proposed or been carried out. Part 91.105
The occurrence that brought things to light - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT OCCURRENCE NUMBER 01/451 WESTLAND WESSEX HC MK 5C ZK-HVK
15KM SOUTH-WEST OF MOTUEKA 12 FEBRUARY 2001
Lets roll back to 2003 -
It is not a "Restricted Category" machine but operates in the "Special or Experimental Category".
Special or Experimental category does not allow the type of work that is proposed or been carried out. Part 91.105
The occurrence that brought things to light - AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT REPORT OCCURRENCE NUMBER 01/451 WESTLAND WESSEX HC MK 5C ZK-HVK
15KM SOUTH-WEST OF MOTUEKA 12 FEBRUARY 2001
Lets roll back to 2003 -
Here is a summary of action the CAA will take in order to raise the safety levels of ex-military helicopters:
General
• All restricted and special category aircraft must have an approved maintenance programme.
• Any variation to a maintenance programme must be approved.
• Design changes must use approved data.
• All special category helicopters will have limitations imposed on external load and agricultural operations until the level of safety is assessed as adequate for the intended purpose.
• CAA will work with operators to ensure that maintenance and continued airworthiness requirements for currently registered and certificated aircraft are raised to an acceptable level within two years.
Existing Types in New Zealand
• Additional imports of existing types must have adequate maintenance and continued airworthiness aspects addressed for an airworthiness certificate to be issued.
Future Imports
• Imports of new types must meet the type acceptance certification.
• Type certificates must address maintenance and continued airworthiness.
Future Directions
• Review restricted and special category airworthiness certificate categories in Part 21 to with a view to including specific purposes.
• Consider with industry the certification of commercial external lifting operations under Part 133.
• Develop, with industry, guidance and advisory material for heli-logging operations.
General
• All restricted and special category aircraft must have an approved maintenance programme.
• Any variation to a maintenance programme must be approved.
• Design changes must use approved data.
• All special category helicopters will have limitations imposed on external load and agricultural operations until the level of safety is assessed as adequate for the intended purpose.
• CAA will work with operators to ensure that maintenance and continued airworthiness requirements for currently registered and certificated aircraft are raised to an acceptable level within two years.
Existing Types in New Zealand
• Additional imports of existing types must have adequate maintenance and continued airworthiness aspects addressed for an airworthiness certificate to be issued.
Future Imports
• Imports of new types must meet the type acceptance certification.
• Type certificates must address maintenance and continued airworthiness.
Future Directions
• Review restricted and special category airworthiness certificate categories in Part 21 to with a view to including specific purposes.
• Consider with industry the certification of commercial external lifting operations under Part 133.
• Develop, with industry, guidance and advisory material for heli-logging operations.
Operating a special experimental category aircraft for the carriage of goods for hire or reward (6 charges)
Operating an aircraft without the appropriate and necessary aviation document namely a standard or restricted category certificate of airworthiness (6 charges)
Civil Aviation Act 1990 – 46(1)(a) Civil Aviation Rule 91.105(a) Nelson District Court – 10 July 2002
The defendant company was the operator of a Wessex helicopter used in heli-logging operations without the required documentation.
The court heard that the defendant company, which had since changed its name, had secured a contract in May 2000 to fell and extract logs by helicopter at the rate of $40 a tonne.The helicopter’s special experimental certificate meant it could not be operated for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
TheWessex continued flying almost daily until February 2001 when it crashed while on logging operations, killing the pilot. Documents were produced showing the company had received payment of $51,032.84 for work carried out between 2 November 2000 and 7 February 2001.
The defendant company pleaded guilty to 12 charges – six laid under section 46 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 for operating a helicopter knowing that it was required to have a standard airworthiness certificate or restricted category airworthiness certificate. The helicopter instead had a special experimental air- worthiness certificate.
Another six charges were laid under Part 91. They related to operating an aircraft with a special air- worthiness certificate for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
The company was convicted and fined $1000 on each of the six charges and ordered to pay court costs of $130 on each,bringing the total fines and costs to $6780. In addition the CAA investigation costs of $2000 and solicitors fees of $1500 were sought and granted,giving a total financial penalty of $10,280.The company was also convicted on the rule 91.105(a) charges, but as these charges were for the same activity as the other more serious charges, no penalty was either sought by the CAA or imposed by the court.
Operating an aircraft without the appropriate and necessary aviation document namely a standard or restricted category certificate of airworthiness (6 charges)
Civil Aviation Act 1990 – 46(1)(a) Civil Aviation Rule 91.105(a) Nelson District Court – 10 July 2002
The defendant company was the operator of a Wessex helicopter used in heli-logging operations without the required documentation.
The court heard that the defendant company, which had since changed its name, had secured a contract in May 2000 to fell and extract logs by helicopter at the rate of $40 a tonne.The helicopter’s special experimental certificate meant it could not be operated for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
TheWessex continued flying almost daily until February 2001 when it crashed while on logging operations, killing the pilot. Documents were produced showing the company had received payment of $51,032.84 for work carried out between 2 November 2000 and 7 February 2001.
The defendant company pleaded guilty to 12 charges – six laid under section 46 of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 for operating a helicopter knowing that it was required to have a standard airworthiness certificate or restricted category airworthiness certificate. The helicopter instead had a special experimental air- worthiness certificate.
Another six charges were laid under Part 91. They related to operating an aircraft with a special air- worthiness certificate for the carriage of goods for hire or reward.
The company was convicted and fined $1000 on each of the six charges and ordered to pay court costs of $130 on each,bringing the total fines and costs to $6780. In addition the CAA investigation costs of $2000 and solicitors fees of $1500 were sought and granted,giving a total financial penalty of $10,280.The company was also convicted on the rule 91.105(a) charges, but as these charges were for the same activity as the other more serious charges, no penalty was either sought by the CAA or imposed by the court.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now that its been bought up by RVDT, They rumours around the industry at the time of the accident were that they were operating single engine as the Number two engine needed to be repaired and they couldn't afford it. The rumours came from pilots that left the operator as they were worried that they had to fly a twin on logging with OEI!!
They were running around the country lifting logs at $40/tn stating that they could lift 100 tn/hr, which with simple maths gives $4000/hr revenue. We still have guys in the industry doing the same things with the same capacity machines....
Unfortunately a 4,000lb hook load machine in NZ can only move about 40tn/hr with the logging jobs that are available, and the speed that the machine can turn, if you want to have a flyable machine after a year.
40 tn / hr at $40 / tn is only $1600/hr and you go broke! There is no one in NZ that has survived logging because there is no money in it.
But good luck Fordy. lord knows you will need it. firstly going up against CAA, remember they have unlimited time and funds to fight against you, secondly, if you get to start again, its really hard to make money heli logging!
They were running around the country lifting logs at $40/tn stating that they could lift 100 tn/hr, which with simple maths gives $4000/hr revenue. We still have guys in the industry doing the same things with the same capacity machines....
Unfortunately a 4,000lb hook load machine in NZ can only move about 40tn/hr with the logging jobs that are available, and the speed that the machine can turn, if you want to have a flyable machine after a year.
40 tn / hr at $40 / tn is only $1600/hr and you go broke! There is no one in NZ that has survived logging because there is no money in it.
But good luck Fordy. lord knows you will need it. firstly going up against CAA, remember they have unlimited time and funds to fight against you, secondly, if you get to start again, its really hard to make money heli logging!
Now "What Iffing " here.....but as the Wessex had two of the same engines as did its single engine version (correct me if I am wrong).....why not remove one and all the kit associated with it and operate as a single engined aircraft?
We logged with surpluses Army UH-1 Huey's in the USA.....so single engines work for the task.
We logged with surpluses Army UH-1 Huey's in the USA.....so single engines work for the task.
Different engine types and drive train: Wessex HAS1/III/31 were single Gazelle powered while the HC2/HCC4/HU5/Mk 60 were twin Gnomes driving through a combining gearbox.
Quite different kettles of canaries.
Could one remove a Gnome and still fly the machine....and get a lighter empty weight....which would grant more payload.
Not talking about legality....just being able to physically do it.
We do have single engined Bell 212's flying such as Eagle's STC'd mod.
Not talking about legality....just being able to physically do it.
We do have single engined Bell 212's flying such as Eagle's STC'd mod.
I vaguely remember a limit on SE flying time to protect the coupling gearbox from sustained asymmetric loads.
The accident RVDT linked to really doesn't explain or suggest why - even if he had a SE failure in the hover - he then shoved the nose down 70 degrees to follow the terrain just to get ETL.....it smacks of something else but with little evidence remaining post-crash fire we will likely never know.
The accident RVDT linked to really doesn't explain or suggest why - even if he had a SE failure in the hover - he then shoved the nose down 70 degrees to follow the terrain just to get ETL.....it smacks of something else but with little evidence remaining post-crash fire we will likely never know.
Crab is right about SE TQ limits,and asymmetric loading.Also if you removed one,you compromise the g/box integrity(mounting),and the Cof G would go aft.Youd also have to start in `Main drive`,so you would not have any secondary hydraulics;this could be a lot of fun,unless the blades are all on the damper back stops...ground resonance is not unknown in the WX...ie unless the `Injuns ` are a`coming over the hill,runnn....