WHATS UP WITH THE K-MAX
Let's ask a few other questions before we suggest there is something wrong with the K-Max type.
What were the causes of the two accidents?
Were they from the same or very similar causes?
Mechanical failures?
Engineering mistakes?
Training failures?
Pilot error?
Bad fuel?
Act of God?
What were the causes of the two accidents?
Were they from the same or very similar causes?
Mechanical failures?
Engineering mistakes?
Training failures?
Pilot error?
Bad fuel?
Act of God?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think they built 36 KMAX's. Its getting close to half the fleet destroyed, over a third anyway.
What ever the problem is SASless it is a bit of a worry. We certainly can't put all the blame on the pilots or the engineers.
What ever the problem is SASless it is a bit of a worry. We certainly can't put all the blame on the pilots or the engineers.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: South of the North Pole
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Deeper, your "over a third destroyed" got me researching, and I'm afraid you're being overly pessimistic and thus potentially libellous.
This website http://www.markusherzig.com/kmax/kmaxprod.htm chronicles the production history of the K-MAX, and lists 38 aircraft including 1 for ground trials. Of these 11 are recorded as written off, plus two others (#0014, #0025) have been repaired after accidents. Thus 13 accidents for 37 flying aircraft is greater than a third, although if you are looking at "destroyed aircraft" it's still less than a third, but admittedly not by much.
Clicking on the MSN on the left hand side, you get individual airframe details. For example, #0006 is noted with 16,500 airframe hours in 10 years - which suggests to me a couple more aspects for SASless' list - the hostile environment these aircraft work in, and the number of hours being flown per aircraft.
This website http://www.markusherzig.com/kmax/kmaxprod.htm chronicles the production history of the K-MAX, and lists 38 aircraft including 1 for ground trials. Of these 11 are recorded as written off, plus two others (#0014, #0025) have been repaired after accidents. Thus 13 accidents for 37 flying aircraft is greater than a third, although if you are looking at "destroyed aircraft" it's still less than a third, but admittedly not by much.
Clicking on the MSN on the left hand side, you get individual airframe details. For example, #0006 is noted with 16,500 airframe hours in 10 years - which suggests to me a couple more aspects for SASless' list - the hostile environment these aircraft work in, and the number of hours being flown per aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that the KMax works in two areas mainly - logging and fire fighting - both very unforgiving segments of this industry.
I know there have been issues with the aircraft itself, heck I had a long time friend killed in one of the Kmax crashes (Randy Harmon in the crash of Superior Helicopters machine) so yes the aircraft does have its faults.
But also look at the number of hours these aircraft fly in the dead mans curve, I dont know of many other types other than other logging aircraft that do so. I know posters here have focused on the number of crashes but it would be interesting to know just how many hours the Kmax fleet has flown to date and even per month per aircraft. I wouls assume the numbers would be pretty big.
Just my two cents worth. I have visited a number of Kmax operators around the world and I still think its an amazing aircraft.
Ned
I know there have been issues with the aircraft itself, heck I had a long time friend killed in one of the Kmax crashes (Randy Harmon in the crash of Superior Helicopters machine) so yes the aircraft does have its faults.
But also look at the number of hours these aircraft fly in the dead mans curve, I dont know of many other types other than other logging aircraft that do so. I know posters here have focused on the number of crashes but it would be interesting to know just how many hours the Kmax fleet has flown to date and even per month per aircraft. I wouls assume the numbers would be pretty big.
Just my two cents worth. I have visited a number of Kmax operators around the world and I still think its an amazing aircraft.
Ned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ned, it might be a great aircraft and may perform better than others would under the same conditions but isn't the question "is it good enough?" - knowing the conditions they work in predominantly.
(I'm no expert, just looking at it from the numbers)
(I'm no expert, just looking at it from the numbers)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: All The Places I Shouldnt Be
Posts: 1,009
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i4iq - The variables with that question would be substantial.
In my opinion you would have to take into consideration a lot of different factors before coming to a conclusion, such as:
* Whats the experience of the pilot, was he someone who looked after his machinery or abused it.
* Were the mechanics who looked after the helicopter good at their jobs and did they look after it.
* Were parts inspected when required.
* Did the aircraft get overstressed at all.
These are just some of the questions that you would have to have answers to before saying it was always an aircraft fault.
I am not saying that the Kmax is not at fault. I know for a fact that it was an aircraft fault that killed Randy, but before one can make an informed decision and blame it on the aircraft type there are so many questions that need to be answered.
Ned
In my opinion you would have to take into consideration a lot of different factors before coming to a conclusion, such as:
* Whats the experience of the pilot, was he someone who looked after his machinery or abused it.
* Were the mechanics who looked after the helicopter good at their jobs and did they look after it.
* Were parts inspected when required.
* Did the aircraft get overstressed at all.
These are just some of the questions that you would have to have answers to before saying it was always an aircraft fault.
I am not saying that the Kmax is not at fault. I know for a fact that it was an aircraft fault that killed Randy, but before one can make an informed decision and blame it on the aircraft type there are so many questions that need to be answered.
Ned
One might also review the Accident Record for the HH-43 Husky the Air Force operated for so many years. The KMax is just a variant of that aircraft.
Also, compare the accident record of the Kmax to UH-1's used in heli-logging and I would suggest the Kmax might actually look like a better machine to fly.
The pilot injured in the one crash is a very experienced logging pilot and well known in the industry. His input into the accident investigation will be very useful.
The Kmax rarely operates in a comfortable enviroment thus the crash rate will be higher than if it were used in a more mundane operation such as offshore or passenger hauling to/from the office and airport.
Put a longline under the machine and a heavy load of logs or water in the mountains over a forest....and have something go wrong....definitely a different kettle of fish than cruising about over the Oggin at several thousand feet in the air.
Also, compare the accident record of the Kmax to UH-1's used in heli-logging and I would suggest the Kmax might actually look like a better machine to fly.
The pilot injured in the one crash is a very experienced logging pilot and well known in the industry. His input into the accident investigation will be very useful.
The Kmax rarely operates in a comfortable enviroment thus the crash rate will be higher than if it were used in a more mundane operation such as offshore or passenger hauling to/from the office and airport.
Put a longline under the machine and a heavy load of logs or water in the mountains over a forest....and have something go wrong....definitely a different kettle of fish than cruising about over the Oggin at several thousand feet in the air.
Four KMax's and four accidents could of course suggest that the operator has supreme confidence in the capability of the airframe or that the insurance company insists on like for like every time!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: alaska
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
last of the kmax?
I was real sorry to hear about Grizzly - the kmax has some of the best pilot/mechanics crewing it - bottom line is the a/c will be going away after more of these events - when the operator pays 1 mechanic to do the work of two (same for the driver) seems greedy. Be careful , and when the fuel pump light comes on ,LAND.
A difficult question absolutely. The K-Max fleet is on the hardest business in helicopter ops.
But i believe the ship showed some really not to accept technical faults in history. At first the engine fuel pump problem and secondly the problems with the free wheeling units of different series. Both really deadly problems on a single engine helicopter working the whole day long in the dead man's curve. And both problems not to detect on line-maintenance. And both problems costed lives and health of collegues. The problem with the double cell (stage) fuel pump, but only a failure indication on a complete loss and the not detectable failure of one cell with one remaining, costed the life of a friend. He was without chance after the failure of the remained cell followed by a complete engine failure in high angle terrain. This problem seems solved today, but first after a deadly accident. The K-Max fleet ist to small to find out any technical problem first after accidents.
RIP my friend
But i believe the ship showed some really not to accept technical faults in history. At first the engine fuel pump problem and secondly the problems with the free wheeling units of different series. Both really deadly problems on a single engine helicopter working the whole day long in the dead man's curve. And both problems not to detect on line-maintenance. And both problems costed lives and health of collegues. The problem with the double cell (stage) fuel pump, but only a failure indication on a complete loss and the not detectable failure of one cell with one remaining, costed the life of a friend. He was without chance after the failure of the remained cell followed by a complete engine failure in high angle terrain. This problem seems solved today, but first after a deadly accident. The K-Max fleet ist to small to find out any technical problem first after accidents.
RIP my friend
Last edited by tecpilot; 30th Mar 2006 at 11:01.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: washington
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One must also look at the fatal's per crash. The Kmax does not seem to crash well by design. With a MR stike it will eat itself and go inverted.
Per crash, the logging Hueys have a much better record for the pilot survival rate. I have proof.
Per crash, the logging Hueys have a much better record for the pilot survival rate. I have proof.
