Mt Kelly R44 with sad loss of 4. Speculation thread
Arm,
The US Army proclaims itself to be the world's best operator of helicopters. I too believed that for a very short while after I got out of the Army. It did not take long to understand that Army concepts of flying and flying helicopters were sometimes very much removed from one another. Our Canadian friends understand mountain flying as well as anyone on this planet.....paying attention to them when they talk about it can prove beneficial. Picking up tips on bush flying techniques can go a long way towards keeping one from repeating someone else's mistakes.
One can talk charts all day long...but it is the application of the information in those charts and understanding the characteristics of the aircraft you fly and using tricks others have learned and passed on that will set you apart from the crowd. One can fly a helicopter using the charts as divine gouge or one can learn to fly and work the machine much better than the chart says. They are after all....approximations and not etched in stone.
If I do an engine health check in the morning...then fly all day....of what value is that engine check in the 7th or 8th flying hour?
The before landing performance check is of more value I would suggest....knowing what performance the aircraft is doing at that height and temp is of more value than a HIT check on the ground earlier that morning. Again the HIT check takes you to the chart....and the chart is theory.
If you can find still air....slow to Vbroc...pull power until you reach 500 fpm rate of climb....in a 205....will that not approximate the power required to hover IGE at any given weight? Assuming an into wind hover with "normal" strength of wind. That way you stay well above a HOGE, maintain a safe airspeed at or above Vtoss and assess your power/performance? No worry of LTE as well by being at the higher airspeed as compared to your technique of coming to a HOGE hover.
That is one trick I learned that seems to work for me....who has a trick they use to assess aircraft performance?
The US Army proclaims itself to be the world's best operator of helicopters. I too believed that for a very short while after I got out of the Army. It did not take long to understand that Army concepts of flying and flying helicopters were sometimes very much removed from one another. Our Canadian friends understand mountain flying as well as anyone on this planet.....paying attention to them when they talk about it can prove beneficial. Picking up tips on bush flying techniques can go a long way towards keeping one from repeating someone else's mistakes.
One can talk charts all day long...but it is the application of the information in those charts and understanding the characteristics of the aircraft you fly and using tricks others have learned and passed on that will set you apart from the crowd. One can fly a helicopter using the charts as divine gouge or one can learn to fly and work the machine much better than the chart says. They are after all....approximations and not etched in stone.
If I do an engine health check in the morning...then fly all day....of what value is that engine check in the 7th or 8th flying hour?
The before landing performance check is of more value I would suggest....knowing what performance the aircraft is doing at that height and temp is of more value than a HIT check on the ground earlier that morning. Again the HIT check takes you to the chart....and the chart is theory.
If you can find still air....slow to Vbroc...pull power until you reach 500 fpm rate of climb....in a 205....will that not approximate the power required to hover IGE at any given weight? Assuming an into wind hover with "normal" strength of wind. That way you stay well above a HOGE, maintain a safe airspeed at or above Vtoss and assess your power/performance? No worry of LTE as well by being at the higher airspeed as compared to your technique of coming to a HOGE hover.
That is one trick I learned that seems to work for me....who has a trick they use to assess aircraft performance?
Last edited by SASless; 24th Feb 2006 at 03:27.
No, not Army trained. You could tell, though. That's great.
What about if your power check is in the uprising air too? I'm aware of the variables.
Margins - 3 psi above IGE hover power required for an IGE arrival, minimum of 5 above OGE for an OGE approach from memory (more if you were heavier).
If anyone has good 206 rules of thumb I'd be keen to hear them, minus the attitude though.
What about if your power check is in the uprising air too? I'm aware of the variables.
Margins - 3 psi above IGE hover power required for an IGE arrival, minimum of 5 above OGE for an OGE approach from memory (more if you were heavier).
If anyone has good 206 rules of thumb I'd be keen to hear them, minus the attitude though.
Sasless, I wasn't talking about a HIT check, but being on the scene and pulling the collective until a limit was reached - Tq, egt or rpm bleed. Max torque available therefore established in those conditions, for that machine at that time.
Subtract the margin, go to the IGE or OGE chart using that Tq, getting an accurate representation of what weight can be lifted with what kind of approach. Could have the chart already looked up for the expected conditions, and if the OAT and PA were pretty close when you got there, no need to be looking in the chart while flying.
Took a minute and worked well, and a real-world representation of what the aircraft was capable of doing for that situation - no different to what you would be getting out of your power-at-a-given-airspeed check.
Subtract the margin, go to the IGE or OGE chart using that Tq, getting an accurate representation of what weight can be lifted with what kind of approach. Could have the chart already looked up for the expected conditions, and if the OAT and PA were pretty close when you got there, no need to be looking in the chart while flying.
Took a minute and worked well, and a real-world representation of what the aircraft was capable of doing for that situation - no different to what you would be getting out of your power-at-a-given-airspeed check.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NZ Southern Alps
Age: 58
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intrigued by this discussion . . .
When I was flying around fairly flat terrain at sea level for a good, early part of my career, thinking about power available vs. required didn't get the focus it should have.
I learned real quick just how important it is to be "on" this at all times when I started flying mountains and landing Robbies at 7,000' D/A. I have come across instructors in mountainous terrain who prove power available prior to an approach and do nothing to assess power required. This bothers me greatly.
When I started flying mountains I knew I needed something off the top of my head to assess whether I could go and do stuff or not, and it bothered me that maybe I had to refer to charts because I knew this would be rather impractical in the aircraft.
Very similar to Brian Abraham's 205 rule of thumb, which I like a lot, it goes like this: work out how much power you need IGE when you are first skids-off and make a mental note. On your climb out level off briefly at 500' AGL & best rate of climb speed. Note the power REQUIRED for S&L flight. The difference between the two - the power margin - is key here.
Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.
The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.
I also agree strongly with SAS . . . power assurance checks are fine to prove the engine is doing what it was designed to do. What's necessary is establishing that what you want to do is possible at the time you need to do it. It's absolutely possible the engine will perform as specified and the heli will not have hover capability, so working out what you've got and comparing this to what you're using is critical.
GP
When I was flying around fairly flat terrain at sea level for a good, early part of my career, thinking about power available vs. required didn't get the focus it should have.
I learned real quick just how important it is to be "on" this at all times when I started flying mountains and landing Robbies at 7,000' D/A. I have come across instructors in mountainous terrain who prove power available prior to an approach and do nothing to assess power required. This bothers me greatly.
When I started flying mountains I knew I needed something off the top of my head to assess whether I could go and do stuff or not, and it bothered me that maybe I had to refer to charts because I knew this would be rather impractical in the aircraft.
Very similar to Brian Abraham's 205 rule of thumb, which I like a lot, it goes like this: work out how much power you need IGE when you are first skids-off and make a mental note. On your climb out level off briefly at 500' AGL & best rate of climb speed. Note the power REQUIRED for S&L flight. The difference between the two - the power margin - is key here.
Now, you've arrived at your intended landing site, and it may be higher, hotter, windier or whatever. Fly past 500' above the site at best rate of climb speed noting power required. Now pull maximum power available and note the value. Determine the power margin and if it's equal to or greater than the one you assessed on take off and climb out from your departure point then your chances will be pretty good. If not, go and land somewhere else after repeating the procedure relative to the new landing site.
The thing I like about this is that you can take it out anywhere and it's so simple.
I also agree strongly with SAS . . . power assurance checks are fine to prove the engine is doing what it was designed to do. What's necessary is establishing that what you want to do is possible at the time you need to do it. It's absolutely possible the engine will perform as specified and the heli will not have hover capability, so working out what you've got and comparing this to what you're using is critical.
GP
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GP
I like the sound of that idea. We always check power available at the LS but probably underestimate the importance of power req'd, relying more on "judgement/experience". A tricky concept! Will try your method in some safe, controlled conditions and see if it's a flyer.
Sadly, unless your chopper's right new then the charts are probably only a guide anyway. Some Sea King stuff really refers to Wessex performance.
Speaking of not knowing weights, I've pitched up to LS's where it took a fork lift to put the load in the back - it was immovable by hand. As a youngster I actually remember chuckling about it at the time. There were pax in the back as well. They had to squeeze past the crate to get on the winch to be put on the back of a ship. With the benefit of HVG (Hindsight Vision Gog's) I can see that was a potentially huge error on our crews' part. We weren't quite cowboys but our youth/immaturity (flying wise) meant we thought we could hack anything. Now that a few years have passed, would I do the same again? Only to save life, and then I guess I'd have to tell a grown up about it.
To any young folks out there who are watching this debate/slanging match with interest/amusement, I will repeat the wisest of the adages, "There are old pilots and bold pilots but...." However tough you think you are I bet you'd prefer to live longer.
No comment on potential causes of this crash until more is known.
I like the sound of that idea. We always check power available at the LS but probably underestimate the importance of power req'd, relying more on "judgement/experience". A tricky concept! Will try your method in some safe, controlled conditions and see if it's a flyer.
Sadly, unless your chopper's right new then the charts are probably only a guide anyway. Some Sea King stuff really refers to Wessex performance.
Speaking of not knowing weights, I've pitched up to LS's where it took a fork lift to put the load in the back - it was immovable by hand. As a youngster I actually remember chuckling about it at the time. There were pax in the back as well. They had to squeeze past the crate to get on the winch to be put on the back of a ship. With the benefit of HVG (Hindsight Vision Gog's) I can see that was a potentially huge error on our crews' part. We weren't quite cowboys but our youth/immaturity (flying wise) meant we thought we could hack anything. Now that a few years have passed, would I do the same again? Only to save life, and then I guess I'd have to tell a grown up about it.
To any young folks out there who are watching this debate/slanging match with interest/amusement, I will repeat the wisest of the adages, "There are old pilots and bold pilots but...." However tough you think you are I bet you'd prefer to live longer.
No comment on potential causes of this crash until more is known.
Last edited by scottishbeefer; 24th Feb 2006 at 09:12.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very sad story. From the reports I've read it was her first job after getting her CPL at the school that gets some bad comments here tho thats probably just a coincidence.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Australasia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The accident machine was #0033 - an early Astro with the electric trim cyclic.
Hard work for a girl to row it around doing survey work at ISA +20! regardless of what might have happened.
Hard work for a girl to row it around doing survey work at ISA +20! regardless of what might have happened.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia (back to Europe soon)
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bronx
Very sad story. From the reports I've read it was her first job after getting her CPL at the school that gets some bad comments here tho thats probably just a coincidence.
The standards of Beckers are not good with emergency training, but surely not that this poor girl couldn't do properly the work she was assigned to do
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out West
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
l don't think we need to bring Beckers into this, that's been done to death!
GP, you talk about the power check method you described as a means of measuring power required as opposed to power available, power required to do what? Hover in or out of ground effect?
An update from the NAH CP from yesterdays 'Australian Newspaper', The helicopter in the crash was made in 1997 and had performed without incident since it's purchase.
No, it's not the first R44 to crash and no you wouldn't be the first CP to put a novice pilot out on a limb, nor the last!
GP, you talk about the power check method you described as a means of measuring power required as opposed to power available, power required to do what? Hover in or out of ground effect?
An update from the NAH CP from yesterdays 'Australian Newspaper', The helicopter in the crash was made in 1997 and had performed without incident since it's purchase.
"Something must have happened to the helicopter itself. She had finished all her surveying for the day, so had no reason to land...lt's not the first Robinson R44 that has crashed. When l first looked at the site l thought she was trying to land there and it was pilot error, but after speaking with the ground crew, she had finished surveying and was flying at a sensible height, so l don't know what happened".
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NZ Southern Alps
Age: 58
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
notnoz,
Gidday there. That's the beauty of this simplistic check - there's no reason it can't be used to assess capability for either. Think about it - when you first take off check your power IGE and OGE then do the 500' Vbroc assessment as well. You'll then know how much power margin is required in either circumstance. Do your flyby 500' above landing site. Check your power available and do the math . . . you'll know whether you got IGE or OGE capability.
GP
Gidday there. That's the beauty of this simplistic check - there's no reason it can't be used to assess capability for either. Think about it - when you first take off check your power IGE and OGE then do the 500' Vbroc assessment as well. You'll then know how much power margin is required in either circumstance. Do your flyby 500' above landing site. Check your power available and do the math . . . you'll know whether you got IGE or OGE capability.
GP
206 Power Checks
Arms out the window? reference 206 power checks, one that I have applied for a few years and works well in PNG at up to 12,000 PA (huge DA's) is as follows.
1. 90Kts straight and level, in balance (as always the setup is paramount), this represents your HOGE power to a reasonably accurate level.
2. Note Tq in the above profile, then;
3. Increase your collective (very gently) until you reach either N1, TOT, or Tq limit.
4. Note the Tq when you reach one of the limits as above.
If your Tq figure in point 4 is 3PSI greater than in point 2 then you have HOGE power with a good margin. Anything greater than 3PSI is a real bonus.
A nice margin to apply to the validity of the check is to ensure that you are within 200' alt of your pad and within 2 degrees of the pad temp (you can confirm these atmoshpheric conditions on final or on an overflight (depending on commercial req) and that your weight has not increased since your last power check.
As always, make sure you have got an out until you are committed to a clear landing area.
This is not written down anywhere, it was passed on to me by a wise old pilot. Feel free to disregard it, not telling you how to do things, just something that works for me.
Fly safe my friend.
1. 90Kts straight and level, in balance (as always the setup is paramount), this represents your HOGE power to a reasonably accurate level.
2. Note Tq in the above profile, then;
3. Increase your collective (very gently) until you reach either N1, TOT, or Tq limit.
4. Note the Tq when you reach one of the limits as above.
If your Tq figure in point 4 is 3PSI greater than in point 2 then you have HOGE power with a good margin. Anything greater than 3PSI is a real bonus.
A nice margin to apply to the validity of the check is to ensure that you are within 200' alt of your pad and within 2 degrees of the pad temp (you can confirm these atmoshpheric conditions on final or on an overflight (depending on commercial req) and that your weight has not increased since your last power check.
As always, make sure you have got an out until you are committed to a clear landing area.
This is not written down anywhere, it was passed on to me by a wise old pilot. Feel free to disregard it, not telling you how to do things, just something that works for me.
Fly safe my friend.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Melbourne/Australia
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great to hear
DOORS OFF
I was shown the same way but used 6%? Great to at least hear from someone who knows thse ways. Dont want to say to much as the idiot BELLFEST might get on here and tell us that he has been doing it for years and never heard this before and that it dosent matter as the R44 has more power than the 206.
I was shown the same way but used 6%? Great to at least hear from someone who knows thse ways. Dont want to say to much as the idiot BELLFEST might get on here and tell us that he has been doing it for years and never heard this before and that it dosent matter as the R44 has more power than the 206.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doors off,
The 90 KT S&L technique provides a good rule of thumb. Of course there are also some problems such as ensuring you are level and not climbing or descending and more importantly it is less accurate in turbulence/downdrafts/updrafts etc. Finally, it is not practical at high altitudes due to doors off (no pun intended) Vne. But otherwise I agree, a good tech.
Arm Out the Window has it spot on. You can easily determine power available – by applying power until you reach a limit (TOT/EGT, N1 or Tq). Power required seems to be the contentious issue here. The only way, I know of, to accurately determine power req (OGE or IGE) is through the charts (using accurate figures, DA, PA, Temp, weight) (or as AOTW suggested a hover power cx). With appropriate margins added (generally 3 psi/% or sometimes 5 psi/%)you are able to determine weather you can conduct an IGE or OGE approach /departure. The only slight confounding variable is RAM air effect on your full power check at high altitudes if conducted at high speeds (the Blackhawk power graphs takei not account RAM air, but unfortunately most other graphs don't).
Getting back on track. I don’t know the R44. What’s its basic weight (I know it will vary but I am guessing they are all similar)? How much fuel can it carry? What’s its MAUW?
The 90 KT S&L technique provides a good rule of thumb. Of course there are also some problems such as ensuring you are level and not climbing or descending and more importantly it is less accurate in turbulence/downdrafts/updrafts etc. Finally, it is not practical at high altitudes due to doors off (no pun intended) Vne. But otherwise I agree, a good tech.
Arm Out the Window has it spot on. You can easily determine power available – by applying power until you reach a limit (TOT/EGT, N1 or Tq). Power required seems to be the contentious issue here. The only way, I know of, to accurately determine power req (OGE or IGE) is through the charts (using accurate figures, DA, PA, Temp, weight) (or as AOTW suggested a hover power cx). With appropriate margins added (generally 3 psi/% or sometimes 5 psi/%)you are able to determine weather you can conduct an IGE or OGE approach /departure. The only slight confounding variable is RAM air effect on your full power check at high altitudes if conducted at high speeds (the Blackhawk power graphs takei not account RAM air, but unfortunately most other graphs don't).
Getting back on track. I don’t know the R44. What’s its basic weight (I know it will vary but I am guessing they are all similar)? How much fuel can it carry? What’s its MAUW?
Bladebanger,
If you would accept I would like to retract all of my past comments and insults and apolagise. I don't know who you are or what you have done and you don't know who I am and what I have done so there is no need to get into a slanging match over how and where we fly.
If you would accept I would like to retract all of my past comments and insults and apolagise. I don't know who you are or what you have done and you don't know who I am and what I have done so there is no need to get into a slanging match over how and where we fly.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Out West
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bellfest,
Ofcourse we need a slanging match, don't even think of apilagising!
With that kind of attitude you might as well look at changing to bellsux. Oooops, that's taken isn't it!
How bout: bellthat'sthelamestideal'vehadinalongtime, any others?
Ofcourse we need a slanging match, don't even think of apilagising!
With that kind of attitude you might as well look at changing to bellsux. Oooops, that's taken isn't it!
How bout: bellthat'sthelamestideal'vehadinalongtime, any others?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bellfest
Yes well, lots of gaff some real most blarney, one thing must be picked up, the unchallenged assumption that ATSB know their stuff.
That is definately a matter of challenged opinion amongst many pros in OZ.
We are a small community and nearly all know each other.
Trouble also is OZ regs allow ATSB voice an opinion in a protected manner, they take forever, after that the coroner takes forever, then depending on whats written most anywhere, except here (thank god) all of that maybe, or will be supoened by silks if any party especially rellies feel displaced and wish to then pursue legally. All that then must be examined in light of each states differing and prevailing rules of evidence, court cost payment etc
A cheif pilot could be defending something that happened ten years ago, where the crash scene evidence has never been gathered let alone protected by Legislation, I mean strike marks etc. Even the ATSB have big feet in this regard.
People who may have a greivance and therefore a common law right to have evidence examined professionlly are not allowed on site examination until after the whole machine may have been removed, and everything of use by way of ground evidence has been obliterated. ATSB opinion is not allowed to be challenged, but they publish freely their unchallenged opinion in the crash comic. Opinion which may give rise to severe apprehension to rellies, operators, or any old pros, etc.
Most of us agree that operationel experience (at the grunt end i mean not just as a straight line self opiniated line pilot either military or civil regardless of their hours) is the greatest aid in investigation. But we are suject to opinion of an ATSB agent who has been to some self serving reputational crash investigation school where lots of time is spent looking at gory pictures insted of walking around in the hot sun at looking marks on the ground. They may never have flown any sort of machine yet are allowed to make opinion. Often the first question by an investigator used to be where is the slip indicator? is it serviceable? sweet jesus!!
Pilot experience is talked about in the previous threads, we need to establish experience baselines for ASTSB investigators.
Yes I also feel deeply for all involved, I just wish that respect could flow through and be demonstrated professionally by OZ regs.
That is definately a matter of challenged opinion amongst many pros in OZ.
We are a small community and nearly all know each other.
Trouble also is OZ regs allow ATSB voice an opinion in a protected manner, they take forever, after that the coroner takes forever, then depending on whats written most anywhere, except here (thank god) all of that maybe, or will be supoened by silks if any party especially rellies feel displaced and wish to then pursue legally. All that then must be examined in light of each states differing and prevailing rules of evidence, court cost payment etc
A cheif pilot could be defending something that happened ten years ago, where the crash scene evidence has never been gathered let alone protected by Legislation, I mean strike marks etc. Even the ATSB have big feet in this regard.
People who may have a greivance and therefore a common law right to have evidence examined professionlly are not allowed on site examination until after the whole machine may have been removed, and everything of use by way of ground evidence has been obliterated. ATSB opinion is not allowed to be challenged, but they publish freely their unchallenged opinion in the crash comic. Opinion which may give rise to severe apprehension to rellies, operators, or any old pros, etc.
Most of us agree that operationel experience (at the grunt end i mean not just as a straight line self opiniated line pilot either military or civil regardless of their hours) is the greatest aid in investigation. But we are suject to opinion of an ATSB agent who has been to some self serving reputational crash investigation school where lots of time is spent looking at gory pictures insted of walking around in the hot sun at looking marks on the ground. They may never have flown any sort of machine yet are allowed to make opinion. Often the first question by an investigator used to be where is the slip indicator? is it serviceable? sweet jesus!!
Pilot experience is talked about in the previous threads, we need to establish experience baselines for ASTSB investigators.
Yes I also feel deeply for all involved, I just wish that respect could flow through and be demonstrated professionally by OZ regs.