Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
MBB RFM's have the H/V diagram in performance sections...not in the limitations section. At least the BK-117 manual for sure....and I would assume the BO-105 would be the same. (operative word here is "assume"). Makes me wonder what the EC follow-on's to the 105/117 will do......the 145 being type certified as a 117-C2....should be the same.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah but!
To: Prune Fan #1
This same information is included in the CAA POHs for the Robinson helicopters and is mandatory which places operational restrictions on the pilots. If what you say is true then the American pilots place themselves and their machines in jeopardy by ignoring the instructions on the un-numbered page. It is my personal opinion that the reason the FAA did not make it mandatory was to do so would have placed them in an embarrassing position for granting certification.
To Lu: If there is a page in an AFM which is neither numbered nor FAA-approved, then it doesn't exist...officially. You are free to ignore it at your whim or peril.
Guest
Posts: n/a
For Lu,
If you think an unnumbered page that is not specifically signed is somehow unusual or an indication of some shady activity, you have my condolences, the world must look a dark and dirty place. Take care with the information panel on your box of Wheaties, it is neither numbered nor signed.
The RFM numbered parts I refer to are thaose that are in the recommended GAMA format, which is not required by FAA. All of the RFM must be submitted to the FAA, and all the Op Limits, Normal Procedures, Emergency Procedures, and Performance data must be specifically approved by the FAA.
For Sassless, et al,
Regarding H-V, the FAA was a mixed bag, with unifirmity imposed only recently, thanks to the guidence of the Rotorcraft Directorate in Ft. Worth. The HV is required information, but is now supposed to be put in the Performance section. The actual HV data is only a useful guideline, since it is dependant on the weight, altitude, wind and temperature, as well as the amount of engine power above spec that the aircraft has available. There is no absolute information on HV that would be useful to an operating pilot because the limiting behavior changes with small changes in the above criteria. It is useful in helping the pilot estimate the behavior of his machine, but that is all.
We were told to place the 76A HV in the limits section, and we obeyed, other regions were allowed to place their HV diagrams in the Perf section.
If you think an unnumbered page that is not specifically signed is somehow unusual or an indication of some shady activity, you have my condolences, the world must look a dark and dirty place. Take care with the information panel on your box of Wheaties, it is neither numbered nor signed.
The RFM numbered parts I refer to are thaose that are in the recommended GAMA format, which is not required by FAA. All of the RFM must be submitted to the FAA, and all the Op Limits, Normal Procedures, Emergency Procedures, and Performance data must be specifically approved by the FAA.
For Sassless, et al,
Regarding H-V, the FAA was a mixed bag, with unifirmity imposed only recently, thanks to the guidence of the Rotorcraft Directorate in Ft. Worth. The HV is required information, but is now supposed to be put in the Performance section. The actual HV data is only a useful guideline, since it is dependant on the weight, altitude, wind and temperature, as well as the amount of engine power above spec that the aircraft has available. There is no absolute information on HV that would be useful to an operating pilot because the limiting behavior changes with small changes in the above criteria. It is useful in helping the pilot estimate the behavior of his machine, but that is all.
We were told to place the 76A HV in the limits section, and we obeyed, other regions were allowed to place their HV diagrams in the Perf section.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I beg to differ.
To: Nick
What you say is probably true relative to your experience in the certification process however the Robinson POHs don’t comply with what you have stated.
On the first page of the R-22 POH it states that Sections 2,3,4, and 5 FAA approved by:
Chief, Flight test section
Engineering and Manufacturing Branch
Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region
Dated 3-16-1979
The next two pages contain the Log of Pages Approved by FAA Type Certificate No. H10WE.
These two pages were approved by:
Manager, Flight test branch, ANM-16OL
Federal Aviation Administration, LAACO
Transport Airplane Directorate
Date of approval February 4, 1993
The Un-numbered page was issued in 1995
See note below.
In the section 4 Normal procedures it shows approval for pages 1 through 11. The un-numbered page, which deals with main rotor stall and mast bumping, would have been page 12. At the bottom of the un-numbered page is a statement that it is issued per FAA Priority Letter AD dated 13 January 1995 yet there is no record of the page in the FAA approved list of pages.
This same material according to the UK CAA was to be made mandatory.
Note: It seems strange that the certification of the R-22 and R-44 was handled by the Transport Airplane Directorate instead of the Helicopter Directorate in Ft. Worth.
What you say is probably true relative to your experience in the certification process however the Robinson POHs don’t comply with what you have stated.
On the first page of the R-22 POH it states that Sections 2,3,4, and 5 FAA approved by:
Chief, Flight test section
Engineering and Manufacturing Branch
Federal Aviation Administration, Western Region
Dated 3-16-1979
The next two pages contain the Log of Pages Approved by FAA Type Certificate No. H10WE.
These two pages were approved by:
Manager, Flight test branch, ANM-16OL
Federal Aviation Administration, LAACO
Transport Airplane Directorate
Date of approval February 4, 1993
The Un-numbered page was issued in 1995
See note below.
In the section 4 Normal procedures it shows approval for pages 1 through 11. The un-numbered page, which deals with main rotor stall and mast bumping, would have been page 12. At the bottom of the un-numbered page is a statement that it is issued per FAA Priority Letter AD dated 13 January 1995 yet there is no record of the page in the FAA approved list of pages.
This same material according to the UK CAA was to be made mandatory.
Note: It seems strange that the certification of the R-22 and R-44 was handled by the Transport Airplane Directorate instead of the Helicopter Directorate in Ft. Worth.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRUNE FAN#1
The point that I was trying to make was that a limitation is indeed that..........
The wording in FMS 9.2 of the BHT system states some goobleygoook statement........"The HV in Sling Loading is not a Limitation if conducted under an appropriate operating certificate...........
Now what does that mean to the average bear.......particularly, as Nick states that the HV is a Legal Limitation....just an out for BHT???
The wording in FMS 9.2 of the BHT system states some goobleygoook statement........"The HV in Sling Loading is not a Limitation if conducted under an appropriate operating certificate...........
Now what does that mean to the average bear.......particularly, as Nick states that the HV is a Legal Limitation....just an out for BHT???
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Perhaps I can shed some light on the subject of HV diagrams. The most recent stuff I remember is that for Part 27 helicopters and Part 29 helicopters with less than 9 seats for passengers, the HV diagram is in the performance section. For more than 9 pax (all Part 29), the HV diagram is in the Limitations section. I believe there was a change for Part 29 to move the HV for less than 9 pax in Amendment 21...
We had an interesting exercise in Canada when an operator was routinely flying their Part 29, more than 9 pax helicopter into the Avoid area and we had to tell them to cease and desist. As the helicopter was operating as an air ambulance, we were able to work with the manufacturer to get a Flight Manual Supplement for less than 9 passengers and have the HV diagram moved to the performance section so it would all be nice and legal.
The dividing line is the number of passengers - I believe the BK117 has a supplement for a 10 passenger configuration that moves the HV diagram to the Limitations section.
We had an interesting exercise in Canada when an operator was routinely flying their Part 29, more than 9 pax helicopter into the Avoid area and we had to tell them to cease and desist. As the helicopter was operating as an air ambulance, we were able to work with the manufacturer to get a Flight Manual Supplement for less than 9 passengers and have the HV diagram moved to the performance section so it would all be nice and legal.
The dividing line is the number of passengers - I believe the BK117 has a supplement for a 10 passenger configuration that moves the HV diagram to the Limitations section.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Old Man,
........"The HV in Sling Loading is not a Limitation if conducted under an appropriate operating certificate........... "
Those words mean that if the helo is operating under Part 133, the HV is not a limitation. The reason why is fairly obvious, since the weight of the aircraft is very low once the load is dropped, or at least on the ground prior to aircraft touchdown.
........"The HV in Sling Loading is not a Limitation if conducted under an appropriate operating certificate........... "
Those words mean that if the helo is operating under Part 133, the HV is not a limitation. The reason why is fairly obvious, since the weight of the aircraft is very low once the load is dropped, or at least on the ground prior to aircraft touchdown.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,574
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Good article but they've got the photos mixed up.
I've seen the picture he posted of himself on this website a while back. He is actually far better looking, quite a few pounds lighter and about twenty years younger with a large moustache......
Seriously though, Nick, congrats on the S-92. Well done, want one please (especially with that nice APU to keep us warm).
Very well done too, to you also, Whirly. Merry Christmas to all!
I've seen the picture he posted of himself on this website a while back. He is actually far better looking, quite a few pounds lighter and about twenty years younger with a large moustache......
Seriously though, Nick, congrats on the S-92. Well done, want one please (especially with that nice APU to keep us warm).
Very well done too, to you also, Whirly. Merry Christmas to all!
Nick had to use the old pic....seems the photographer showed up without his wide angle lens! Must be the absence of adult malt beverages, eating better, and getting more bedrest is getting to Nick. Least ways that what someone said about the S-92 cockpit dimensions being so comfy for most folks.....had to fit Nick.
(Just kiddin' Nick!)
(Just kiddin' Nick!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've only just managed to get hold of the January issue of 'Pilot'.
Extremely interesting and informative profile written by Pat Malone (heli instructor, journo and Rotorheads contributor).
I know the title of the article "Sikorsky's Superman" will embarrass Nick but, when you read about the different types of flying Nick has done, and what he's achieved in his distinguished career from 20 year old Huey and Cobra pilot in Vietnam to his present position, it's not an unreasonable description.
Very well worth reading.
Extremely interesting and informative profile written by Pat Malone (heli instructor, journo and Rotorheads contributor).
I know the title of the article "Sikorsky's Superman" will embarrass Nick but, when you read about the different types of flying Nick has done, and what he's achieved in his distinguished career from 20 year old Huey and Cobra pilot in Vietnam to his present position, it's not an unreasonable description.
Very well worth reading.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Norway
Age: 56
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for Nick Lappos - S76D
Hi,
Rumours says that the D modell of the S-76 is under development. Is that a fact?
Will there be more Shaft Horse Power and /or add. gross weight, improvment of the Arriel 2S1? Improvements on the systems?
Nick, could you brief us about this?
Thank's!
ChopperIMC
Rumours says that the D modell of the S-76 is under development. Is that a fact?
Will there be more Shaft Horse Power and /or add. gross weight, improvment of the Arriel 2S1? Improvements on the systems?
Nick, could you brief us about this?
Thank's!
ChopperIMC
Last edited by ChopperIMC; 9th Feb 2003 at 11:01.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 A model Engine Fail Trg SOP's
Hello there...
I am looking for any input or feedback as to how various S76 A operators conduct engine Fail training in the S76. If any of you have Allison/Sikorsky recommendations, that would be great as well.
I am looking for any input or feedback as to how various S76 A operators conduct engine Fail training in the S76. If any of you have Allison/Sikorsky recommendations, that would be great as well.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Gold Coast, Queensland
Posts: 943
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sikorsky used to recommend trimming back one engine and not pulling back an engine lever in case it was not your lucky day and the other engine stopped! The difference in engine behaviour was not enough to effect the exercise. Obviously if at a decent altitude you would have time to push a lever forward, hence keep your hand ready.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Canada
Posts: 690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ChopperIMC
This week's Flight says that the 15 seat D is tentatively targeted for 2006, and that an major upgrade to the C announced in 2001 has been put off and may only feature an engine uprate.
One alleged reason suggested (other than a recent pick up in C+ sales) being that delays in the AB139 programme reduce the need for an upgrade in the short term.
But as the 139 got its FAA TIA (that allows FAA flight tests) only a few months behind the S-92, their entry into service (due early 2004 - same time frame as the 92) implies that suggestion may be marketing spin.
I suspect the real causes are the recent job losses at SAC plus the delivery of the first S-92 to Cougar being pushed a year later than originally announced (due to the tail redesign) have jointly eliminated the necessary design resource.
This week's Flight says that the 15 seat D is tentatively targeted for 2006, and that an major upgrade to the C announced in 2001 has been put off and may only feature an engine uprate.
One alleged reason suggested (other than a recent pick up in C+ sales) being that delays in the AB139 programme reduce the need for an upgrade in the short term.
But as the 139 got its FAA TIA (that allows FAA flight tests) only a few months behind the S-92, their entry into service (due early 2004 - same time frame as the 92) implies that suggestion may be marketing spin.
I suspect the real causes are the recent job losses at SAC plus the delivery of the first S-92 to Cougar being pushed a year later than originally announced (due to the tail redesign) have jointly eliminated the necessary design resource.
1977 - original S76 with Allison C30
1982 - S76 Mk II with around 40 modifications
1985 - S76 B. Airframe changes, PT6 engines 1033 hp per side
1988 - S76 A+ had Arriel 1S1 with 700 hp
1991 - S76 C - has the B airframe but Arriel 1S1 @723 hp
- S76 A++ which is a basic A with the 1S1 retrofit
1996 - S76 C+ with 2S1 @856 hp.
There were about 300 Allison machines made, and 100 of those have been converted.
About 100 B models
So far about 100 C and C+
1982 - S76 Mk II with around 40 modifications
1985 - S76 B. Airframe changes, PT6 engines 1033 hp per side
1988 - S76 A+ had Arriel 1S1 with 700 hp
1991 - S76 C - has the B airframe but Arriel 1S1 @723 hp
- S76 A++ which is a basic A with the 1S1 retrofit
1996 - S76 C+ with 2S1 @856 hp.
There were about 300 Allison machines made, and 100 of those have been converted.
About 100 B models
So far about 100 C and C+