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

EC225

Old 5th Jan 2016, 21:25
  #641 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
1. I don't understand BUS TIE to OFF. The two positions for the BUS TIE are NORM and OPEN.

2. Is your engineer confusing a single TRU failure with a short circuit of the essential bus (involving TRU2) or a short circuit of the secondary bus (involving TRU1)?
Mustapha Cuppa is offline  
Old 5th Jan 2016, 21:40
  #642 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
The correct procedure for resetting a TRU is just to switch it off, then on again.

There are some "hidden" reset functions within the DC master box which involves switching the bus tie to Open, moving the battery master switch to OFF and then back to Reset. However that is not the sort of thing you want to be doing in flight!

I have on occasion done it when ground power has upset the DC master box such that the aircraft won't come to life at all. Moving the battery master switch to reset with bus tie to NORM is a "small reset" whilst doing same with the bus tie set to OPEN is a "mega reset" (my terminology!).
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 6th Jan 2016, 04:52
  #643 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry Mustapa...it was a mistake. Not Off but OPEN.

HC..thank you too. I think along the same line.
gnow is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 12:33
  #644 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Landing on Clear Area Distance from LDP

The distance shown on the PMV from LDP at 100 ft /40 kts to a 10 ft hover is 650 meters. This "looks" like a very flat approach descending 80 ft over such a long distance.
During my conversion (by Eurocopter instructor) this fact was not stressed upon me. Do most of the operators adopt such a shallow approach?
Also our HOMS had picked up a lot of pilots flaring more than 10 degrees nose up below 50 ft (just 2 degrees more for about 2 seconds) . I do not see any section in the PMV that restricts this attitude. Only restriction is nose attitude to be not more than 10 degrees prior to landing. Anyone else having such problems?
gnow is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 12:38
  #645 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
PC2 DLE for Offshore Operations

This PC2DLE procedure had been around for quite a while. On a daily basis I tend to be at the committal point about 50 to 60 ft instead of 40 ft as recommended as I feel that 40 ft is a little too low esp in nil wind high OAT days.
Also the speed of 10 kts at committal point...on hot days I have an additional few knots in my pocket just in case!
Does anyone out there have the same feelings as I do?
gnow is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 14:13
  #646 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Used to be God's own County
Posts: 1,719
Received 14 Likes on 10 Posts
Always makes me smile when I read of pilots adding a bit here and there for 'mum' etc - without any test-proven knowledge.
I bet the test pilots wonder why they bothered with all that Flight Manual stuff?
Let's face it PC2DLE and the other 'fudges' would never have been allowed in commercial fixed-wing operations but hey, it's ok for commercial O&G!
Consequently, rotary performance and safety margins are decades behind fixed-wing - but catching-up nicely with latest designs.
Fly the profile in the book then you can't have it thrown at you if it all goes pear shape.
EESDL is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 15:44
  #647 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
Distance to landing

This was always a bit fuzzy. Whilst the 225 does like quite a flat approach especially when landing hot/heavy, we eventually decided that the diagram you referred to was really about the required landing distance in the event of an engine failure / running landing. If you follow the profile as it seems to be shown it is ridiculously flat and places you poorly if you have an engine failure.

My suggestion therefore is to ensure you have the necessary space available but don't actually use it all up normally - so there is a bit left if you have to convert to a running landing due to OEI after LDP. What the official answer is, who knows!

Certainly in reality on line flights, no-one stuck to the very shallow profile, and there seemed no point in trying to enforce it.

Regarding the attitude triggering an exceedance, the problem lies with your monitoring programme, not the pilots. A programme shouldn't force pilots to do things a certain way (and in this case, risk landing too long) just for the sake of it. Such a programme should only be to detect habits where safety margin is reduced below normal. So the event might be > 10 degrees near the ground (say, below 15'), but at 50' clearly there is no danger of a tail strike and the event would more sensibly be 15 deg.
HeliComparator is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 19:08
  #648 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 76
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
HC

I thought you 225 guys had a freshly produced FCOM? surely all the questions are answered in that?

G.
Geoffersincornwall is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2016, 23:12
  #649 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: In the Orient
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It looks funny. Both the FCOM and Flight manual drawings for the clear area approach shows 650 m from LDP to a 10 ft hover. However what HC said makes sense.Maybe some Airbus instructors can explain.
gnow is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2016, 08:56
  #650 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 67
Posts: 2,095
Received 44 Likes on 23 Posts
Originally Posted by Geoffersincornwall
I thought you 225 guys had a freshly produced FCOM? surely all the questions are answered in that?

G.
I retired over 2 years ago so have never seen it. However you can imagine that it would be hard for the FCOM to contradict the certified portion of the RFM.
HeliComparator is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.