212/412 Steep Approaches Offshore
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Age: 79
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212/412 Steep Approaches Offshore
Old Thread, But New Questions.
I have lurked and searched all threads.
Now I request knowledge, experience and relevent comments.
We are currently flying 212's and early 412's. We use the Bristow steep, steep approach. The local CAR's legally require single engine fly-away at all times. We go to restricted decks most often. The restriction is because of the small size of the decks and the living quarters on the right hand side of the deck. Winds are east or east of north 360 out of 365 days.
Problem:
Since we have to teach low time pilots, (300 hrs starting), they cannot see the deck clearly.
Two ways to get on the deck safely in a twin. Shallow and fast or steep and slow. I was trained 17 yrs ago that steep, steep was the way.
We do use a restricted deck weight. 10,850 for the 212 and 11,380 for the 412. As temp goes up, weight goes down.
Many of our newer pilots stick with the shallow, fast solution. I am trying to explain the PB way of safetey.
We use a 20-25 degree angle of approach. Disregard the airspeed, fly the "shudder" if relevant wind is low. Disregard, fly the angle, if wind is high.
412 has less inertial blade force than 212. We put the same weight in a 412 and practiced the same take-off and landings. Slightly more blade coning, but we have made it for many years.
Sorry, GOMERS, we used to practice single-engine approaches to the deck. Consistently and with full weight.
Now:
Relevent comments, critical reviews and advice.
I truely welcome advice since I may be wrong.
Former Snake Driver, WWNam
Charles Alexander
I have lurked and searched all threads.
Now I request knowledge, experience and relevent comments.
We are currently flying 212's and early 412's. We use the Bristow steep, steep approach. The local CAR's legally require single engine fly-away at all times. We go to restricted decks most often. The restriction is because of the small size of the decks and the living quarters on the right hand side of the deck. Winds are east or east of north 360 out of 365 days.
Problem:
Since we have to teach low time pilots, (300 hrs starting), they cannot see the deck clearly.
Two ways to get on the deck safely in a twin. Shallow and fast or steep and slow. I was trained 17 yrs ago that steep, steep was the way.
We do use a restricted deck weight. 10,850 for the 212 and 11,380 for the 412. As temp goes up, weight goes down.
Many of our newer pilots stick with the shallow, fast solution. I am trying to explain the PB way of safetey.
We use a 20-25 degree angle of approach. Disregard the airspeed, fly the "shudder" if relevant wind is low. Disregard, fly the angle, if wind is high.
412 has less inertial blade force than 212. We put the same weight in a 412 and practiced the same take-off and landings. Slightly more blade coning, but we have made it for many years.
Sorry, GOMERS, we used to practice single-engine approaches to the deck. Consistently and with full weight.
Now:
Relevent comments, critical reviews and advice.
I truely welcome advice since I may be wrong.
Former Snake Driver, WWNam
Charles Alexander
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Moved
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good Question!
I have my view, but first I would like to hear the justification for both types of approach. In my experience, the proponents of a steep & slow approach argue that it guarantees you will get to the deck. That's fine if you have only one engine but, in a twin, is trying for the deck your best option? The other camp will have you stay 'fast & low' so you always have a fly away option. OK in twins, but no use at all in singles. Neither is right for all circumstances, but let's think about it before we just 'do what we've always done'.
I have my view, but first I would like to hear the justification for both types of approach. In my experience, the proponents of a steep & slow approach argue that it guarantees you will get to the deck. That's fine if you have only one engine but, in a twin, is trying for the deck your best option? The other camp will have you stay 'fast & low' so you always have a fly away option. OK in twins, but no use at all in singles. Neither is right for all circumstances, but let's think about it before we just 'do what we've always done'.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I must admit I favour the steep approach, aiming for the edge of the deck nearest to you, with the H just forward of the end of the Pitot tube. The gate is 500 feet, half a mile and 60 kts. This means that you start off at around 500 fpm to keep the closure correct, but if you pull in power early and aim to cross the deck at around 250 fpm, there is very little collective movement at the end, and thus no flare so you won't hit the tail on the deck when you get into the 3 foot hover you need here. In short, I treat it just like a pinnacle approach, especially since you are going for the only good landing spot for miles around and you want to maximise your chances of geting in. Don't worry if you seem a little fast at the end - the ground effect will slow you down.
"Too Steep" is not an angle - to me it's where you don't have enough speed to fly away if you need to.
Coming in steep means you always have some momentum behind you if you have to make a dive for it, and you are not using as much collective as you would with a shallow approach, with which, if a donk stops you are going to go nowhere but down, and your collective is already high, and dumping it takes you down quicker. At least, that's what would happen out here on a hot day - the 212 may as well be a single for all the good the other engine will do. This is particularly important if the deck is only a few feet off the water.
Would be interested in hearing other peoples' comments - every Captain I meet seems to have a different opinion!
phil
"Too Steep" is not an angle - to me it's where you don't have enough speed to fly away if you need to.
Coming in steep means you always have some momentum behind you if you have to make a dive for it, and you are not using as much collective as you would with a shallow approach, with which, if a donk stops you are going to go nowhere but down, and your collective is already high, and dumping it takes you down quicker. At least, that's what would happen out here on a hot day - the 212 may as well be a single for all the good the other engine will do. This is particularly important if the deck is only a few feet off the water.
Would be interested in hearing other peoples' comments - every Captain I meet seems to have a different opinion!
phil
I don't think there is any reason to fly either fast and low, or steep and slow. Just fly the same approach you would with a heavily loaded single: steady deceleration with moderate approach angle and a loaded disk. GOM Longranger style. My call would be that you are introducing far more risk with the first two approaches than you would ever gain for that statistically improbable engine failure at a critical time. Look at where the problems are and engine failures at CDP isn't one of them.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Charlie
I am in complete agreement with you. If you are on the steeper side, with power set and your rate of closure acceptable for fly away and rate of descent is within 300-450 fpm (Phil's pitot tube scenario), you really don't have to be moving anything around except for gradually bringing in power crossing the deck.
If the you follow the procedure and have the aircraft pointing off deck, before LDP, if the engine fails, its a smooth nose over, set power for fly away. If it quits after LDP, you already have a level aircraft, power set and no need to be nosing over or flaring.
In my limited experience, the less you have to do, i.e. movements of the cyclic, collective etc, the less needs to be done and the more control you have of the aircraft, and the better chance you have. I think the fast and shallow mindset, with large collective/cyclic movements, with put you in trouble.
It has been proven by HAPS modelling, plus which Charlie didn't mention, he has proven it in sim.
BUt I guess until it actually happens to you, you won't know for sure.
I am in complete agreement with you. If you are on the steeper side, with power set and your rate of closure acceptable for fly away and rate of descent is within 300-450 fpm (Phil's pitot tube scenario), you really don't have to be moving anything around except for gradually bringing in power crossing the deck.
If the you follow the procedure and have the aircraft pointing off deck, before LDP, if the engine fails, its a smooth nose over, set power for fly away. If it quits after LDP, you already have a level aircraft, power set and no need to be nosing over or flaring.
In my limited experience, the less you have to do, i.e. movements of the cyclic, collective etc, the less needs to be done and the more control you have of the aircraft, and the better chance you have. I think the fast and shallow mindset, with large collective/cyclic movements, with put you in trouble.
It has been proven by HAPS modelling, plus which Charlie didn't mention, he has proven it in sim.
BUt I guess until it actually happens to you, you won't know for sure.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Swamps
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steep and slow
I Like the steep and slow approach, it requires less handling of the aircraft and losses in thrust due to cyclic inputs. If the cojos are having difficulty seeing the deck, offset to the right and make the approach to the edge of the deck until the last 40-50 feet. Slide gently across in the latter stages. this has the benefit of an uninterupted go-around should it be required. Fly safe Charlie..
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO the BEST approach technique to the deck is the one you are less likely to screw up, while completely ignoring the idea of an engine failure during the last several seconds of the approach. A slow approach is much easier to fly, and requires much less adjustment at the end to terminate at zero forward and zero downward speed (the whole idea of why we are shooting the approach).
If you look at the stats, the pilot screws up the bottom about 5 to 10 times more often than an engine quits (hard deck contact, slides off deck, hits obstructions, etc.), so making an approach that accounts for OEI but is harder to successfully fly is like screwing for chastity.
If you look at the stats, the pilot screws up the bottom about 5 to 10 times more often than an engine quits (hard deck contact, slides off deck, hits obstructions, etc.), so making an approach that accounts for OEI but is harder to successfully fly is like screwing for chastity.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Age: 79
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Appendix
I appreciate all the comments. Keep them coming, since we are all still learning.
Perhaps I should have added that the FO's sit in the left seat for the first two plus years. Company and customer requirements. Since the customer requires 4,000 hrs for Captains and 2,500 hrs for FO's and the local CAA states we must train locals to replace us, we get locals with few hours.
Most of the time the obstacles are on the right side. How could we train shallow fast approaches when they can see little?
I like the idea of holding a video camera out the left side so the non-aviators can see what we are dealing with at night. Even during daylight. Will run that by management.
War Story:
About three years ago we had a 412 on final approach to a small elevated deck. 50' by 50'. 300 hr Co-Pilot at the controls of the 412. One of the last graduates of the George Small School at Redhill. At approx. 100', the No1 engine went to idle. His personal abilities and training, steep, steep approach,
put it on the platrorm. The passengers never realized anything went wrong. Fuel control in manual, after consulting with engineering, and fly it back to base, which was the next planned stop.
That altitude would have caused a catastrophic, read unsanitorty, situation.
This is one of the very few times it happens, but had a happy ending.
I attended the last Heli-Expo Offshore Safety Seminar.
Shell offered a study on the fatal accidents for the last ten years in the North Sea and the GOM.
Main cause, Older Technologies.
Second cause: Pilots. Mainly, non-standard take-off and landing profiles.
Nick: Running into obstacles.
Presenter: We realize you can't have a check pilot in each aircraft.
Again:
I print this out for the reading of all interested pilots on this operation.
Keep the comments coming.
Regards again,
Charles Alexander
[email protected]
1.868.681.0052
Perhaps I should have added that the FO's sit in the left seat for the first two plus years. Company and customer requirements. Since the customer requires 4,000 hrs for Captains and 2,500 hrs for FO's and the local CAA states we must train locals to replace us, we get locals with few hours.
Most of the time the obstacles are on the right side. How could we train shallow fast approaches when they can see little?
I like the idea of holding a video camera out the left side so the non-aviators can see what we are dealing with at night. Even during daylight. Will run that by management.
War Story:
About three years ago we had a 412 on final approach to a small elevated deck. 50' by 50'. 300 hr Co-Pilot at the controls of the 412. One of the last graduates of the George Small School at Redhill. At approx. 100', the No1 engine went to idle. His personal abilities and training, steep, steep approach,
put it on the platrorm. The passengers never realized anything went wrong. Fuel control in manual, after consulting with engineering, and fly it back to base, which was the next planned stop.
That altitude would have caused a catastrophic, read unsanitorty, situation.
This is one of the very few times it happens, but had a happy ending.
I attended the last Heli-Expo Offshore Safety Seminar.
Shell offered a study on the fatal accidents for the last ten years in the North Sea and the GOM.
Main cause, Older Technologies.
Second cause: Pilots. Mainly, non-standard take-off and landing profiles.
Nick: Running into obstacles.
Presenter: We realize you can't have a check pilot in each aircraft.
Again:
I print this out for the reading of all interested pilots on this operation.
Keep the comments coming.
Regards again,
Charles Alexander
[email protected]
1.868.681.0052
SirVivr, the PB approach you refer to served me well on the 212 in what is probably a similar environment to yours (offshore Eket). I agree it is probably easier to teach low time pilots and also requires less control inputs at the end. It may be a myth, but I think having the power applied early helps with the subsequent ground cushion at the bottom too.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of zero
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I haven’t flown the type specifically mentioned by SirVivr, I must say my convictions are with Nick on this one. I fly a light, non-Cat-A-certified twin off-shore to smaller decks than SirVivr refers to.
My first priority on an approach is to fly it in such a manner as to preclude hitting something or losing control due to uncommanded yaw. This means no fast approaches, and only as shallow as absolutely necessary to see enough of the rig to fly an accurate approach. Wind speed and particularly direction are important factors to consider when planning the approach.
The second priority is to fly an approach in such a manner as to avoid overtorques / temps / speeds, which can be done (again) by playing to the wind and taking things slow.
After these considerations are satisfied, I will choose from the options available (if available) an approach path / profile combination that will allow in the case of a single engine failure, a nose-over to Vtoss and climb away (in the early stages of the approach) or (from short final, probably a hard) landing to the deck whether or not with an overtorqued transmission and/or burnt engine. In some cases (heavy load, no wind) this is not continuously possible, but the probability of losing one engine during such a short segment of the approach is far smaller than that of hitting something you can’t see, and so receives less consideration.
The end result may be a straight-in approach, an approach to a spot beside and above the deck followed by a slide over the deck, or an approach terminating in a curved segment of about 30 degrees. Often I fly the last 100-200 feet of the approach out of trim for better visibility – no problem if you keep in mind and anticipate pedal requirements.
The greatest asset of helicopters, to my mind, is their flexibility. But that requires an equal mental flexibility from the crew in order to get the most out of the machine.
If one’s SOPs require the LHS handling pilot to fly an approach in such a manner as to not be able to keep either deck or obstacles in sight, then the SOPs are setting one up for an accident. If this is because of a regulatory requirement, then the regulations are wrong. If this situation cannot be changed (why not?), then the SOPs should dictate that approaches to the decks in question may only be flown from the RHS.
My first priority on an approach is to fly it in such a manner as to preclude hitting something or losing control due to uncommanded yaw. This means no fast approaches, and only as shallow as absolutely necessary to see enough of the rig to fly an accurate approach. Wind speed and particularly direction are important factors to consider when planning the approach.
The second priority is to fly an approach in such a manner as to avoid overtorques / temps / speeds, which can be done (again) by playing to the wind and taking things slow.
After these considerations are satisfied, I will choose from the options available (if available) an approach path / profile combination that will allow in the case of a single engine failure, a nose-over to Vtoss and climb away (in the early stages of the approach) or (from short final, probably a hard) landing to the deck whether or not with an overtorqued transmission and/or burnt engine. In some cases (heavy load, no wind) this is not continuously possible, but the probability of losing one engine during such a short segment of the approach is far smaller than that of hitting something you can’t see, and so receives less consideration.
The end result may be a straight-in approach, an approach to a spot beside and above the deck followed by a slide over the deck, or an approach terminating in a curved segment of about 30 degrees. Often I fly the last 100-200 feet of the approach out of trim for better visibility – no problem if you keep in mind and anticipate pedal requirements.
The greatest asset of helicopters, to my mind, is their flexibility. But that requires an equal mental flexibility from the crew in order to get the most out of the machine.
If one’s SOPs require the LHS handling pilot to fly an approach in such a manner as to not be able to keep either deck or obstacles in sight, then the SOPs are setting one up for an accident. If this is because of a regulatory requirement, then the regulations are wrong. If this situation cannot be changed (why not?), then the SOPs should dictate that approaches to the decks in question may only be flown from the RHS.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212/412 Steep approaches offshore
The main problem I found doing training for many years was lack of currency, so it helped to reduce night or poor visability approaches to a formulae.
I agree with Paco that a "steep" approach is the way to go and I would teach an entry of 500 feet plus the deck height and 60 Knots plus the windspeed.
Fly in on a stabilised approach to let the attitude settle then when the deck or pad lights show a positive "split", that is you can clearly see the front and rear lights initiate a 400 to 500 feet/min rate of descent.
Aim for the side of the deck so that it is easier to keep confidence and speed up (so as not to hang up on short finals) and have a clearer go around path.Finally,try the approach as described during the day and you will find it works and is conservative.
Of course if you are shuttling or in training and practising regularily then the approach can be tightened and speeded up. Guess we know all about that 212man!!
Finally,Nick is right in stating that most mishaps occur with deck strikes.Engine failures are rare and with a steep approach you may spread the skids/ bounce in the event of one but at least you are down safely!!
I agree with Paco that a "steep" approach is the way to go and I would teach an entry of 500 feet plus the deck height and 60 Knots plus the windspeed.
Fly in on a stabilised approach to let the attitude settle then when the deck or pad lights show a positive "split", that is you can clearly see the front and rear lights initiate a 400 to 500 feet/min rate of descent.
Aim for the side of the deck so that it is easier to keep confidence and speed up (so as not to hang up on short finals) and have a clearer go around path.Finally,try the approach as described during the day and you will find it works and is conservative.
Of course if you are shuttling or in training and practising regularily then the approach can be tightened and speeded up. Guess we know all about that 212man!!
Finally,Nick is right in stating that most mishaps occur with deck strikes.Engine failures are rare and with a steep approach you may spread the skids/ bounce in the event of one but at least you are down safely!!
Ah, there you are, ZPringer; Wondered what your nom d' pleu was
The Veloceraptor of Lounge Lizards
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: From here the view is lovely
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not too sure about the idea of approaching the near edge of the deck. I was taught to aim for the far side. It tends to stop the waffling about that can occur in the very last stages as the power comes in. The guy who taught me said "imagine the aircraft's shadow on the deck and put the aircraft on it in one move."
The steep approach can lead to speed control problems at night or in poor viz, but does make the go round easier in the single engine case. I wasn't taught the Bristow system to start with and was uncomfortable with it when I first started using it. However experience showed me it was the better way to work, epecially with an inexperienced P2.
Zpringer is right about getting the lights to split and the rate of descent. I spent years shuttling and ended up using a combination of all sorts of approaches depending on the conditions.
VH
The steep approach can lead to speed control problems at night or in poor viz, but does make the go round easier in the single engine case. I wasn't taught the Bristow system to start with and was uncomfortable with it when I first started using it. However experience showed me it was the better way to work, epecially with an inexperienced P2.
Zpringer is right about getting the lights to split and the rate of descent. I spent years shuttling and ended up using a combination of all sorts of approaches depending on the conditions.
VH
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,149
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
Thanks for the tip about the shadow. My point about the near edge of the deck came is a modification of the AMCs in JAR OPS 3, which is reputed to be distilled from the experiemnces of many operators, but they say aim for the space in front of the near edge - not sure I'm comfortable with that. I can't help thinking you're boxing yourself in if you go for the far edge. You're leaving yourself less room to plonk it down if something else happens.
Phil
Phil
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also favor slow and steep, especially at night. Lots of things can hurt me down there, and an engine failure is near the bottom of the list. Pieces of iron and fiberglass sticking up around the pad are near the top. I don't worry much about engine failure, but I worry a lot about hitting something in the dark that I didn't see, and that also goes in the daylight.
I aim for the far edge of the deck, and at the angle which I use for the approach, that puts me near the center of the deck at a hover, which is right where I want to be. If I fall from there, I'll stay on the deck. If I aim for the near edge, I'll end up over the water, and I don't want to be there. I sometimes fly with pilots who want to approach fast and shallow, and that scares me. If you don't get slowed down exactly right, it can get really, really ugly on the bottom. A slow approach at about 250 fpm descent lets me come to a hover with very little extra collective needed, no hairy flare to stop, and a constant heartrate.
I aim for the far edge of the deck, and at the angle which I use for the approach, that puts me near the center of the deck at a hover, which is right where I want to be. If I fall from there, I'll stay on the deck. If I aim for the near edge, I'll end up over the water, and I don't want to be there. I sometimes fly with pilots who want to approach fast and shallow, and that scares me. If you don't get slowed down exactly right, it can get really, really ugly on the bottom. A slow approach at about 250 fpm descent lets me come to a hover with very little extra collective needed, no hairy flare to stop, and a constant heartrate.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is an interesting thread and the comments made all have validity given the broad experience base on show.
Of course there is always more than one way to skin a cat but I think the main point here is one of risk analysis. One needs to way up the pros and cons of any flying activity in terms of the risks associated with it versus the rewards of carrying it out.
With the above in mind and given the actual topic at hand, the actual profile flown will vary slightly as a result of all the variables experienced in any given situation. This would include things like the aircraft configuration, the met conditions, the size and orientation of the helipad, time of day, the experience of the operator etc.
Having said that, the basic approch profile shouldn't vary wildly from a 'norm'. The main consideration when conducting an approach has to be the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. With this in mind, a conservative approach is generally accepted as being the way ahead by considering all the risks involved and then designing an approach around them.
By examining the actual incident/accident statistics associated with conducting approaches to offshore platforms, only then will you know which risks should be prioritised and which can be considered less important if not irrelevant. From there, you'll have a sound basis from which to design an appropriate approach profile.
Most of the approaches endorsed in this thread have assumed that the possibility of engine failure is the predominant risk that needs to be considered when conducting an approach. Statistically (as has been pointed out previously), this has been proven not to be the case. The window of opportunity for an engine failure just prior to LDP is extremely small and therefore should be accounted for accordingly. What is a very real possiblity are threats such as hitting obstacles, reduced power margins, loss of tail rotor authority and the like.
A good example of when we appear to get our priorities right is at night. We quite rightly treat the possiblity of mis-handling the aircraft and hitting something as a considerable risk whilst putting the possiblity of an engine failure down the priority list somewhat. We go to great pains to keep the platform and the obstacles associate with it visible at all times, to keep the aircraft under control with respect to speed and ROD etc. As an engine failure is no more likely to occur during the day, the same approach to conducting an approach by day would appear logical.
Statistically, an especially steep, or shallow, approach has inherent dangers associated with it that cannot be justified given the actual risk of an engine failure. That is not to say you shouldn't consider the possibility of an engine failure but treat it in accordance with its actual risk. A 'normal' approach profile, rather than an especially steep or shallow one, allows for an approach to be flown by the pilot which would do more to reduce the real risks associated with flying to a rig than flying a potentially more hazardous approach profile in order to account for something that will in all likelihood never occur.
Cheers,
P68
Of course there is always more than one way to skin a cat but I think the main point here is one of risk analysis. One needs to way up the pros and cons of any flying activity in terms of the risks associated with it versus the rewards of carrying it out.
With the above in mind and given the actual topic at hand, the actual profile flown will vary slightly as a result of all the variables experienced in any given situation. This would include things like the aircraft configuration, the met conditions, the size and orientation of the helipad, time of day, the experience of the operator etc.
Having said that, the basic approch profile shouldn't vary wildly from a 'norm'. The main consideration when conducting an approach has to be the safety of the aircraft and it's occupants. With this in mind, a conservative approach is generally accepted as being the way ahead by considering all the risks involved and then designing an approach around them.
By examining the actual incident/accident statistics associated with conducting approaches to offshore platforms, only then will you know which risks should be prioritised and which can be considered less important if not irrelevant. From there, you'll have a sound basis from which to design an appropriate approach profile.
Most of the approaches endorsed in this thread have assumed that the possibility of engine failure is the predominant risk that needs to be considered when conducting an approach. Statistically (as has been pointed out previously), this has been proven not to be the case. The window of opportunity for an engine failure just prior to LDP is extremely small and therefore should be accounted for accordingly. What is a very real possiblity are threats such as hitting obstacles, reduced power margins, loss of tail rotor authority and the like.
A good example of when we appear to get our priorities right is at night. We quite rightly treat the possiblity of mis-handling the aircraft and hitting something as a considerable risk whilst putting the possiblity of an engine failure down the priority list somewhat. We go to great pains to keep the platform and the obstacles associate with it visible at all times, to keep the aircraft under control with respect to speed and ROD etc. As an engine failure is no more likely to occur during the day, the same approach to conducting an approach by day would appear logical.
Statistically, an especially steep, or shallow, approach has inherent dangers associated with it that cannot be justified given the actual risk of an engine failure. That is not to say you shouldn't consider the possibility of an engine failure but treat it in accordance with its actual risk. A 'normal' approach profile, rather than an especially steep or shallow one, allows for an approach to be flown by the pilot which would do more to reduce the real risks associated with flying to a rig than flying a potentially more hazardous approach profile in order to account for something that will in all likelihood never occur.
Cheers,
P68
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Aus, Europe & everywhere in between
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steep approaches are good but it requires vigilance of picking the correct sight picture - again, for the B412 the pitot tube method seems to work well.
The main thing for these types of approaches is the momentum from a too high rate of descent. 350 fpm max. IMO.
If you stuff up the angle and rate of descent then it could get nasty at the end (where it counts).
The B412 Classics will obviously react a little less spritely than the HP/EP.
The main thing for these types of approaches is the momentum from a too high rate of descent. 350 fpm max. IMO.
If you stuff up the angle and rate of descent then it could get nasty at the end (where it counts).
The B412 Classics will obviously react a little less spritely than the HP/EP.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bellingham, Washington, USA
Posts: 27
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
212/412 steep approaches
Chas,
Good comments all! Don't forget to advise those young female pilots that you are "mentoring" to think outside the proverbial box. Other things besides engines can and do fail at inopportune times....tail rotors, hydastics, and well, you know...blade grips!
When are you coming to Dallas? Where are you staying, mon?
Al
Good comments all! Don't forget to advise those young female pilots that you are "mentoring" to think outside the proverbial box. Other things besides engines can and do fail at inopportune times....tail rotors, hydastics, and well, you know...blade grips!
When are you coming to Dallas? Where are you staying, mon?
Al
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Republic of Trinidad and Tobago
Age: 79
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts