EC225
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)?
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)?
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!).
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!).
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
