Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Rotorheads
Reload this Page >

Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos

Rotorheads A haven for helicopter professionals to discuss the things that affect them

Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos

Old 27th Sep 2002, 14:00
  #221 (permalink)  
Xnr
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick

I agree the brakes are the most effective way to stop the aircraft.

You also stated that a 20 degree flare is somewhat rediculous. I quote, "Even with ridiculous nose up attitudes, like 20 degrees,..."

It begs the question....For a cat A rejected take off, why does the flight manual call for that flare as opposed to placing the aircraft back on the ground with speed (less than 40 knots)and apply full braking.

Would this not minimize the stopping distance and be safer for passengers as well.

Cheers

Last edited by Xnr; 27th Sep 2002 at 20:27.
Xnr is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2002, 11:19
  #222 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
XNR,

Great questions, yet again! Some reasons:
1)The brakes are very effective, but they have energy limits. The max brake application speed is 34 knots
2) On anything but a very smooth surface, speeds above about 15 to 20 knots can be very bad on the gear, and on control while stopping (skidding, etc.)

Nick
 
Old 28th Sep 2002, 19:50
  #223 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
So let me see if I have this right:

If possible, stop in the air & touch down with little or no forward movement. If you don't have enough room, brake aerodynamically as much as you can, then touch down at or below 34 kts, & brake as hard as necessary. If you don't have enough room for this, touch down as soon as you can & brake as hard as possible, resulting in possible damage to the aircraft, but probably less damage than hitting obstacles with the blades.

Is that pretty much the logic you'd use?
GLSNightPilot is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2002, 21:13
  #224 (permalink)  
Xnr
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GLSNightPilot

If over anything but a firm smooth surface (asphalt) the less airspeed the better.

If over a firm smooth surface (asphalt), to do things as short as possible and be within the limitations of the flight manual, I think you hit the nail on the head.

Cheers

Last edited by Xnr; 28th Sep 2002 at 23:26.
Xnr is offline  
Old 28th Sep 2002, 21:51
  #225 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
XNR and GLS,
I think you have it right, although I admit I never thought about it all that much. The old NL comment follows, look at the accident statistics, and note how few engine failures there are, let alone those at critical points near takeoff or landing.

Be sure to devote about 100 times more energy on IFR procedures, night off field procedures and CFIT avoidance!

I would also say that if you are going to run into something, be on the ground, so the most you get is a traffic ticket ;-)
 
Old 29th Sep 2002, 03:31
  #226 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Be sure to devote about 100 times more energy on IFR procedures, night off field procedures and CFIT avoidance!
Nick, that's pretty much what I do. A single engine failure, even on takeoff, shouldn't kill you, especially from an elevated heliport with water underneath. Flying into the water or other obstacles at cruise speed or with no control just might. That's where most of my energy goes, especially in the dark.
GLSNightPilot is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2002, 14:01
  #227 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
GLS, that's cool, I fully agree.

My previous post was not ment as a shot, please take no humbrage (what ever that is!). Your attack on the engine failure siuation is exactly right, IMHO.

Nick
 
Old 29th Sep 2002, 21:32
  #228 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick, I take no umbrage. My pockets aren't big enough to hold much of it.

I think I was agreeing with you.......
GLSNightPilot is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2002, 00:50
  #229 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool energy better spent

Well said Nick!

Couldn't agree any more!

With all the technical stuff we deal with, sometimes we get tunnel vision and forget to PRIORITIZE( sp).
donut king is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 18:17
  #230 (permalink)  
wde
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question Looking for S76 Assistance

The company I work for is currently in a bit of upheaval/transition in its standards department. I am looking for anybody whose companies fly S76A models who may be willing to share SOP's and the Emergency Checklist with me.

I realize that SOP's are sometimes considered trade secrets but in the spirit of this forum, I need to ask. We have a large body of experienced pilots who come from a wide variety of backgrounds. Sometimes, it appears that the amalgamation of SOPs from an offshore op to an EMS op brings with it more turmoil than one might otherwise expect. After all, it is still an S-76!!

Any assistance to this matter would be greatly appreciated...and if you ever make it over to Canada, rewarded with the beverage of your choice.

Thanks
wde is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 19:12
  #231 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UKdom
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Sounds like you work for the CAA!!!!

ha!
misterbonkers is offline  
Old 11th Nov 2002, 22:24
  #232 (permalink)  
widgeon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
dya mean Canadian Automobile Association ?.
 
Old 11th Nov 2002, 23:30
  #233 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: UKdom
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Civil Aviation Authority (UK)

a.k.a.

Close All Airfields

a.k.a.

Cash And Agro.

Now, i do wish to point out that the above names are only what i've heard, not what I think. I never have any problems phoning any of the departments, the phones are always answered first time round.



However, I do believe that there is a reform going on, and, of late, the CAA seem to be really pushing GOOD things, so keep up the good work!!
misterbonkers is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2002, 01:00
  #234 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Gold Coast, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 4,381
Received 25 Likes on 15 Posts
Arrow

WDE,

Check your PM's.

Ski season's coming up in your neck of the woods, maybe I'll be by for that beer After we finish with these pesky fires, of course
John Eacott is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2002, 01:58
  #235 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick L......flight testing?

Here's one for you Mr. Lappos. ( from us lowly line pilots)

When I read the '76 flight manual cat A or cat B profiles, I attempt to fly my a/c as close as possible to them( given ideal/ favourable conditions...etc...)

When you and your colleagues WRITE those profiles, how intense is the testing? Different weights, temp's, ...etc...?

As I understand flight manuals, they are "legal documents" that a/c manufacturers must have certified along with the a/c.

Anyone's response is much appreciated( just directed to Nick L. as I fly the '76)

D.K
donut king is offline  
Old 6th Dec 2002, 21:47
  #236 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
donut king,

We do take lots of care in making the Cat A takeoff profiles, and the FAA/CAA do lots to check them too.

We determine the performance by trial and error, based on a core procedure that we have simulated. We vary the acceleration, cdp altitude and speed until we get something that works well, is repeatable, and doesn't need excessive skill. Then we test that procedure under varying weights and power levels, and also at the various altitudes that the aircraft is approved for. The testing is fairly extensive, it usually takes several weeks of flight test to get a workable procedure, then a few flights at each check point, and at each extra altitude.

The flight manual areas that describe the operating limits, normal and emergency procedures are all legal documents, and are written, tested and changed with great care.
 
Old 6th Dec 2002, 23:49
  #237 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: CA
Posts: 1,051
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Nick,
I understand you are off to Alaska soon for 2 years of winter trials with the S92. True or False?
Seems to me 2 years is a long long time in Alaska
Steve76 is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2002, 02:34
  #238 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have unfortunately been in Alaska several times in the winter, & 2 hours is a long time there, never mind 2 years!!
GLSNightPilot is offline  
Old 7th Dec 2002, 12:13
  #239 (permalink)  
Nick Lappos
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Steve76,

The #3 S-92 will go to Alaska next month for it cold wx certification which will take about 1 month. We have had a good spell in the climatic hangar at Eglin AFB (some unwritten rule of fligh test says that you go to the cold wx chamber in July in Florida!).

GLS is right, time gets kinda slow at -40C!

We also launch the snow tests in #4 in January, which are always interesting. We have to show no problems in snow warmer than -3C, with visibilities below 1/4 mile, which usually means indefinate ceiling below 100 feet. Interesting flying weather. In the 76, we were the only thing flying within 100 miles when we did those tests!
 
Old 7th Dec 2002, 13:43
  #240 (permalink)  
widgeon
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hope you have more luck then Eurochopper , 2 years ago they had the EC145 in Alaska for cold weather testing and did not get below zero for about 2 weeks , I think Agusta may have been there at the same time. We took the EC120 to Churchill Man at the same time and had plenty of cold.
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.