Sikorsky S-76: Ask Nick Lappos
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the move!
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 Offshore profiles
All S76 pilots,
Our company is operating S76 helicopters offshore. I am seeking some additional information on the following aspects:
1. Offshore profiles (outlining distance and height from platform where decent is commence - highlighting the approach angle
2. Standard calls from the NFP on the descent and deprature
3. Approach and Departure briefings
4. Clarrification of the LDP/committal point (CP) and CDP/flyaway
5. Confirmation that the S76 is a Performance Class II helicopter operating offshore
Thank you for the input.
Regards,
Chopper Jog
Our company is operating S76 helicopters offshore. I am seeking some additional information on the following aspects:
1. Offshore profiles (outlining distance and height from platform where decent is commence - highlighting the approach angle
2. Standard calls from the NFP on the descent and deprature
3. Approach and Departure briefings
4. Clarrification of the LDP/committal point (CP) and CDP/flyaway
5. Confirmation that the S76 is a Performance Class II helicopter operating offshore
Thank you for the input.
Regards,
Chopper Jog
Yikes........how long is a piece of string ? I am not being smart. The problem is that the S76A , A+ and A++ have nothing in the RFM with regard to elevated helipad profiles (ie offshore rig helipads). That being the case , operators have had to come up with their own profiles.
I should add that this is the case for those operators using the FAA RFM. UK operators usually are subject to an RFM that is heavily supplemented by the CAA and they may have specific offshore profiles . I cannot really comment on this as I am too far out of date. The last time I flew a machine that was bound by a CAA RFM was in 1990. This was on the 61 and everything was then GROUP A or GROUP B....now with JAR's....???? Anyhow my point is that it would be worth getting hold of the CAA S76 RFM to see if they have more info on profiles than the FAA version.
CHC is a huge company and there are a lot of pilots who have been influenced (ie brought up on) by their methods of flying a particular helicopter. The offshore S76 is a case in point. If you are affilliated with that company then get in contact with their International Division (CHI) and ask for their 76 SOP. CHI has been flying (and improving on) these profiles since 1979.
If you are not affilliated with CHC then..........????
Good luck..............
sorry ..I forgot to mention....now that the search function is back...try doing a search on Rotorheads for your subject. We bashed "night rig 76 flying" some time back. You may get some interesting stuff there.
I should add that this is the case for those operators using the FAA RFM. UK operators usually are subject to an RFM that is heavily supplemented by the CAA and they may have specific offshore profiles . I cannot really comment on this as I am too far out of date. The last time I flew a machine that was bound by a CAA RFM was in 1990. This was on the 61 and everything was then GROUP A or GROUP B....now with JAR's....???? Anyhow my point is that it would be worth getting hold of the CAA S76 RFM to see if they have more info on profiles than the FAA version.
CHC is a huge company and there are a lot of pilots who have been influenced (ie brought up on) by their methods of flying a particular helicopter. The offshore S76 is a case in point. If you are affilliated with that company then get in contact with their International Division (CHI) and ask for their 76 SOP. CHI has been flying (and improving on) these profiles since 1979.
If you are not affilliated with CHC then..........????
Good luck..............
sorry ..I forgot to mention....now that the search function is back...try doing a search on Rotorheads for your subject. We bashed "night rig 76 flying" some time back. You may get some interesting stuff there.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South of the Equator
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yikes alright
There are only two companies in Oz using the S76 offshore. Bristows and Esso [with contract pilots]. Both companies have extensive exacting standards, so I'm puzzled as to why you wish to clarify anything??
Your Butt maybe on line here...be careful.
Your Butt maybe on line here...be careful.
no , I think he has a valid query , "High Nr"
I do hope there would be no "repercussions" from such a question.
I know how CHI arrived at their profiles. I would be curious to see how close they are to other operators. I mean the shame of it is , there is no data written in the RFM which is where it should be. Given that the 76 first came out as an "executive" machine , it was the offshore operators who turned it into a fairly successful oilfield support machine to replace and go a bit further than the 212. (talking of which , it also has NIL offshore profiles)
There are a lot of older CHI pilots that will remember the "hot take of technique" for the A model 76. (10,000 pounds nil wind and 30 degrees OAT ring a bell) Not much fun when you used it but it worked and you will find it nowhere , but in an old Okie's or CHI SOP. Not too many people still flying A models offshore these days........hmmmmmm
I will be interested to see how the likes of CHC and others , profile their C+'s offa the rigs. At least they have profiles written for elevated helipads using the "collective detent kit". Never flown the C+ with that system fitted so am again curious as to whether the offshore operators have it. If they dont , then once again they will have to come up with their own profiles.
I do hope there would be no "repercussions" from such a question.
I know how CHI arrived at their profiles. I would be curious to see how close they are to other operators. I mean the shame of it is , there is no data written in the RFM which is where it should be. Given that the 76 first came out as an "executive" machine , it was the offshore operators who turned it into a fairly successful oilfield support machine to replace and go a bit further than the 212. (talking of which , it also has NIL offshore profiles)
There are a lot of older CHI pilots that will remember the "hot take of technique" for the A model 76. (10,000 pounds nil wind and 30 degrees OAT ring a bell) Not much fun when you used it but it worked and you will find it nowhere , but in an old Okie's or CHI SOP. Not too many people still flying A models offshore these days........hmmmmmm
I will be interested to see how the likes of CHC and others , profile their C+'s offa the rigs. At least they have profiles written for elevated helipads using the "collective detent kit". Never flown the C+ with that system fitted so am again curious as to whether the offshore operators have it. If they dont , then once again they will have to come up with their own profiles.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 FCProcs - Quest for Nick and Others
Hi Guys,
A question for Nick and indeed you all - Do you consider the Flight Check Procedures Manual to be a legal binding document????
The basis of my question is - Are we allowed any variation to the FCP procs when conducting flight checks such as S76 FCP - 3.6 Autorotation where we are instructed to enter autorotation with full down collective - however no reference is made to reducing throttles to idle even though this is the way I have always done it and has been the case in all the companies that I have been involved.
Interested to hear your thoughts on throttles Fly or Idle and the reasons for and against.
Also it mentions - Gear Up, again whilst I understand the Gear Doors have an effect on the autorotational characteristics - surely this is minimal and in the actual case of an auto the gear will be coming down in the early stages anyway.
Certainly even during an Auto RPM check it would make more sense to put the gear down - right ????
Thanks guys looking forward to your comments.
A question for Nick and indeed you all - Do you consider the Flight Check Procedures Manual to be a legal binding document????
The basis of my question is - Are we allowed any variation to the FCP procs when conducting flight checks such as S76 FCP - 3.6 Autorotation where we are instructed to enter autorotation with full down collective - however no reference is made to reducing throttles to idle even though this is the way I have always done it and has been the case in all the companies that I have been involved.
Interested to hear your thoughts on throttles Fly or Idle and the reasons for and against.
Also it mentions - Gear Up, again whilst I understand the Gear Doors have an effect on the autorotational characteristics - surely this is minimal and in the actual case of an auto the gear will be coming down in the early stages anyway.
Certainly even during an Auto RPM check it would make more sense to put the gear down - right ????
Thanks guys looking forward to your comments.
Last edited by RoamingCyclic; 22nd Mar 2004 at 02:43.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
S76 FC PROCS
Yes, I reckon compliance with the Flight Check Procedures Manual is mandatory; it pertains to the aircraft's Certificate of Airworthiness and is not open to interpretation by lesser mortals like us.
By the way, are you doing autos to the ground? That's definitely not in the procedure (tails are expensive) but I can see how you might be concentrated on getting the gear down. Like all the best fun, I reckon it's not approved...
As for the whys and wherefores, we must all defer to Nick.
By the way, are you doing autos to the ground? That's definitely not in the procedure (tails are expensive) but I can see how you might be concentrated on getting the gear down. Like all the best fun, I reckon it's not approved...
As for the whys and wherefores, we must all defer to Nick.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roammingcyclic,
The only legally binding (as in do it or go to jail) is Section 1 Operating Limits and Maintenance Manual Chapter 4 retirement times. The rest are recommendations, believe it or not. That being said, if you decide to follow other paths than recommended ones, you are individually responsible for the outcome.
Regarding setting up autorotation rpm, if you are at higher gross weight, there is no need to pull back the levers, just observe a clean needle split. The gear is a contributor (extra drag makes the descent different) so follow the directions.
The only legally binding (as in do it or go to jail) is Section 1 Operating Limits and Maintenance Manual Chapter 4 retirement times. The rest are recommendations, believe it or not. That being said, if you decide to follow other paths than recommended ones, you are individually responsible for the outcome.
Regarding setting up autorotation rpm, if you are at higher gross weight, there is no need to pull back the levers, just observe a clean needle split. The gear is a contributor (extra drag makes the descent different) so follow the directions.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: SE ASIA
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Toad - No CERTAINLY NOT doing auto's to the ground - my idea of putting the gear down is a "Just In Case" theory.
Nick, Thanks for the info it is appreciated.
Best Regards...
Nick, Thanks for the info it is appreciated.
Best Regards...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recommended
Hello Nick.
So are you saying vtoss, vbroc, cat A proflies , ldp and cdp....etc....., are all " recommended".
Now I'm confused........( sorry, it doesn't take much!!)
D.K
So are you saying vtoss, vbroc, cat A proflies , ldp and cdp....etc....., are all " recommended".
Now I'm confused........( sorry, it doesn't take much!!)
D.K
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donut king,
Remember, the manufacturer has no powers to arrest, and the flight manual is a book that manufacturer writes (hopefully a non-fiction one!)
The law says you must obey the limitations, and you must perform the necessary performance calculations (see FAR 91 or its equivilent).
If you operate for hire, your company procedures manual is often required to be obeyed, so those might be mandatory, as well, and they often wrap up major parts of the flight manual into it. These procedures are sometimes mandatory. Thus, for hire there is some possibility that the recommendations are mandatory.
Regarding Vtoss, CDP, etc. these are needed to perform Cat A procedures, but I know of no operator who is required to fly them (help me here, ppruners!). Thus, you just takeoff, cruise and land as you should. Often, operators are required to load to Cat A enroute weights, so you are engine failure proof for 99.9% of the flight, and take a slight risk during takeoff and landing.
Remember, the manufacturer has no powers to arrest, and the flight manual is a book that manufacturer writes (hopefully a non-fiction one!)
The law says you must obey the limitations, and you must perform the necessary performance calculations (see FAR 91 or its equivilent).
If you operate for hire, your company procedures manual is often required to be obeyed, so those might be mandatory, as well, and they often wrap up major parts of the flight manual into it. These procedures are sometimes mandatory. Thus, for hire there is some possibility that the recommendations are mandatory.
Regarding Vtoss, CDP, etc. these are needed to perform Cat A procedures, but I know of no operator who is required to fly them (help me here, ppruners!). Thus, you just takeoff, cruise and land as you should. Often, operators are required to load to Cat A enroute weights, so you are engine failure proof for 99.9% of the flight, and take a slight risk during takeoff and landing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
recommended...pt 2
Nick,
So, can I write in my op's manual " LDP is 39kts @ 83 feet".( just an arbitrary position). VBROC...use 91 kts....so on and so on.
My main question is......how much can an operator "make up on their own"( outside of the limitations section, which I fully understand as LAW).
I ask this because I've come across op's manuals showing LDP as 35kts @ 100ft( A model). Is this "legal", if I can use that word, given the flyaway requirements after LDP.
You Sikorsky guys "recommend" 50@100ft ldp....and OEI go around as 52 @ 2.5 min power........etc.
Can I as an operator disregard these numbers just because they are not in the limitations section.
As a pilot, I go with what you guys "recommend"....period.
D.K
So, can I write in my op's manual " LDP is 39kts @ 83 feet".( just an arbitrary position). VBROC...use 91 kts....so on and so on.
My main question is......how much can an operator "make up on their own"( outside of the limitations section, which I fully understand as LAW).
I ask this because I've come across op's manuals showing LDP as 35kts @ 100ft( A model). Is this "legal", if I can use that word, given the flyaway requirements after LDP.
You Sikorsky guys "recommend" 50@100ft ldp....and OEI go around as 52 @ 2.5 min power........etc.
Can I as an operator disregard these numbers just because they are not in the limitations section.
As a pilot, I go with what you guys "recommend"....period.
D.K
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
Donut King,
I think Nick is saying that the baseline is this:
The manufacturer provides a procedure that has been shown to work to provide aircraft and occupant safety. If a company or individual see fit to operate outside the parameters provided, the buck stops there.
Seems to me that if an aviation authority requires a procedure or regulation (such as Cat A / Class 1) to be complied with it does becomes mandatory if the aircraft is flown under the auspices of that authority!
The best piece of advice I was ever given was "what would a board of inquiry think about that?"
At the end of the day, it might well be decided in court in the worst case.
Certainly the UK CAA have pursued a prosecution for perceived breaches of safety. I know of one case where a heli pilot was prosecuted and fined a considerable sum because he flew at night without navigation lights illuminated. This occurred because a circuit breaker had popped. The pilot was apparently reported, but not advised of the failure of his lights, by ATC at the heliport from where he departed! But that is another story.......
I think Nick is saying that the baseline is this:
The manufacturer provides a procedure that has been shown to work to provide aircraft and occupant safety. If a company or individual see fit to operate outside the parameters provided, the buck stops there.
Seems to me that if an aviation authority requires a procedure or regulation (such as Cat A / Class 1) to be complied with it does becomes mandatory if the aircraft is flown under the auspices of that authority!
The best piece of advice I was ever given was "what would a board of inquiry think about that?"
At the end of the day, it might well be decided in court in the worst case.
Certainly the UK CAA have pursued a prosecution for perceived breaches of safety. I know of one case where a heli pilot was prosecuted and fined a considerable sum because he flew at night without navigation lights illuminated. This occurred because a circuit breaker had popped. The pilot was apparently reported, but not advised of the failure of his lights, by ATC at the heliport from where he departed! But that is another story.......
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donut,
Let me be precise:
If you are flying a true Cat A profile, 52 knots as Vtoss is an intrinsic part of that profile. If you are flying any other profile, 52 knots might not be right for you. The idea that operations for every operator can be compressed into one set of procedures is a myth borne by those who believe that flying is a simple thing, just follow the numbers!
If you look at any company's procedures, you will see a healthy dose of common sense, and long experience that helps fill in the blanks.
The rig procedures that you see in the typical operator's procedures do not assure OEI capability from a rig, I don't think. Few helos are capable of it from a purely power to weight perspective. Look at the stats, the problems we have are seldom engine failure, we as pilots are clever enough to make sure other things get us first. We worry about engine failure to allow us to keep from worrying about the real things that get us. If we actually worried about the real things, it might make us actually change the way we behave, and so fix them.
That would be a real awakening.
Let me be precise:
If you are flying a true Cat A profile, 52 knots as Vtoss is an intrinsic part of that profile. If you are flying any other profile, 52 knots might not be right for you. The idea that operations for every operator can be compressed into one set of procedures is a myth borne by those who believe that flying is a simple thing, just follow the numbers!
If you look at any company's procedures, you will see a healthy dose of common sense, and long experience that helps fill in the blanks.
The rig procedures that you see in the typical operator's procedures do not assure OEI capability from a rig, I don't think. Few helos are capable of it from a purely power to weight perspective. Look at the stats, the problems we have are seldom engine failure, we as pilots are clever enough to make sure other things get us first. We worry about engine failure to allow us to keep from worrying about the real things that get us. If we actually worried about the real things, it might make us actually change the way we behave, and so fix them.
That would be a real awakening.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
explained
Appreciate your response, Nick! Couldn't agree with you more!!
I posted the question here so that some of my colleagues could view it. Those that have made up these profiles really believe they guarantee OEI performance. Why even write a profile if performance is not guaranteed.....but that's another debate!!
Hopefully YOUR response will enlighten them!!
D.K
I posted the question here so that some of my colleagues could view it. Those that have made up these profiles really believe they guarantee OEI performance. Why even write a profile if performance is not guaranteed.....but that's another debate!!
Hopefully YOUR response will enlighten them!!
D.K
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
donut said:
"I posted the question here so that some of my colleagues could view it."
The power of pprune!!
In fairness, those profiles might not guarantee the OEI performance, but they could make the exposure window smaller, a net plus. I only wish as much content on pprune was spent on CFIT as on OEI!
"I posted the question here so that some of my colleagues could view it."
The power of pprune!!
In fairness, those profiles might not guarantee the OEI performance, but they could make the exposure window smaller, a net plus. I only wish as much content on pprune was spent on CFIT as on OEI!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We worry about engine failure to allow us to keep from worrying about the real things that get us."
I worry obout engine failures. Have had two chew 'em up and spit 'em out failures in the 76C, one of which was right at the moment of CDP coming off a platform. Talk about exciting, not far below gross and got away with it
Brian
I worry obout engine failures. Have had two chew 'em up and spit 'em out failures in the 76C, one of which was right at the moment of CDP coming off a platform. Talk about exciting, not far below gross and got away with it
Brian
Hey Brian....long time no talk. I did see your post some months back. Unfortunately events here intervened and I never did respond. My apologies
This is starting to wander off the original thread from what "RoamingCyclic" first posted but interesting nonetheless.
I have just started my second year here in this part of China in a check and training capacity. Last year we concentrated heavily on honing manipulative skills with regard to handling the 76 during the many OEI scenarios that we can simulate. This year we will not drop OEI work but I want to focus on TRF (the Brit's acronym for tail rotor failures) and CFIT...which brings me to Nick's comments........I am formulating a mini ground school on CFIT-Helicopters or rather CFI/TOW as I will call it (TOW=Terrain , Obstacles and Water) I think what Nick is alluding to , is a heavy weighting of statistics which may point to our flying perfectly serviceable machines into solid objects in a similiar manner to our airline cousins. I know I am building up a decent number of examples to use as case material.
I have not lost a stove on the 76 but had my ideas of OEI sharpened many years ago with an engine failure on rotation in a 212 offshore Bombay. Very interesting experience , so I share your views about continuing to worry about engines quitting....and will continue to worry...and train. After all , the CFIT training is and can only really be a class room exercise.
Best regards.........Peter
This is starting to wander off the original thread from what "RoamingCyclic" first posted but interesting nonetheless.
I have just started my second year here in this part of China in a check and training capacity. Last year we concentrated heavily on honing manipulative skills with regard to handling the 76 during the many OEI scenarios that we can simulate. This year we will not drop OEI work but I want to focus on TRF (the Brit's acronym for tail rotor failures) and CFIT...which brings me to Nick's comments........I am formulating a mini ground school on CFIT-Helicopters or rather CFI/TOW as I will call it (TOW=Terrain , Obstacles and Water) I think what Nick is alluding to , is a heavy weighting of statistics which may point to our flying perfectly serviceable machines into solid objects in a similiar manner to our airline cousins. I know I am building up a decent number of examples to use as case material.
I have not lost a stove on the 76 but had my ideas of OEI sharpened many years ago with an engine failure on rotation in a 212 offshore Bombay. Very interesting experience , so I share your views about continuing to worry about engines quitting....and will continue to worry...and train. After all , the CFIT training is and can only really be a class room exercise.
Best regards.........Peter
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The emphasis I place on CFIT (and the other things that get us) is illustrated by your comment, Peter.
We do need to keep sharp on OEI procedures, but the reason why we ask all the pprune questions, and make demands for even more data and procedures for OEI is because it is something we can do something about.
Remember the joke about the guy who is wandering under a streetlamp, looking for his lost keys? The stranger comes by to help him, and asks exactly where he dropped them, and the guy tells him, "About 20 yards over there, but there's no light over there, so I'm looking over here!"
OEI TRF - We practice what we practice, and study what we do because that's what we do. Not because that's the only thing we need to do, or even because it is the most important. The stats on our accidents should be how we determine what to fix next. This does not mean we stop doing what we do now (because it works! Thanks Brian and Peter for reminding us!)
As long as we think CFIT (the cause of about 30 to 40% of our accidents) is not a subject for flight training, but rather a nice chalk talk concept, we are doomed to continue to lose aircraft to it.
I wish there were as many threads discussing CFIT concepts as there have been discussing (yet again!!) OEI procedures!
Peter and Brian, do you have the latest stats to help decide on what to focus on? If you did, TFR would not be No. 2!!
We do need to keep sharp on OEI procedures, but the reason why we ask all the pprune questions, and make demands for even more data and procedures for OEI is because it is something we can do something about.
Remember the joke about the guy who is wandering under a streetlamp, looking for his lost keys? The stranger comes by to help him, and asks exactly where he dropped them, and the guy tells him, "About 20 yards over there, but there's no light over there, so I'm looking over here!"
OEI TRF - We practice what we practice, and study what we do because that's what we do. Not because that's the only thing we need to do, or even because it is the most important. The stats on our accidents should be how we determine what to fix next. This does not mean we stop doing what we do now (because it works! Thanks Brian and Peter for reminding us!)
As long as we think CFIT (the cause of about 30 to 40% of our accidents) is not a subject for flight training, but rather a nice chalk talk concept, we are doomed to continue to lose aircraft to it.
I wish there were as many threads discussing CFIT concepts as there have been discussing (yet again!!) OEI procedures!
Peter and Brian, do you have the latest stats to help decide on what to focus on? If you did, TFR would not be No. 2!!