AS350 Astar/Squirrel
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Spain
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aser...
Rin: In basic form it's multiplying the amount of landings you make by a factor...The minimum factor being 2 ...This accounts for the high power setting for departure and arrival of a specific flight...These numbers are entered (should be) into the a/c maintenance record by the engineers and become part of timed life/RIN components histories...
Most components have a timed life as you know, this life being predicated on normal usage...If the mission requirement is, for example: logging or firefighting that gives you a demand for 15 to 60 high power events per hour, each demanding around the same requirements as a landing, but with no touchdown...The machine has worked a lot harder than say, charter ops...
So the maintenance dept will (should) factor each flight hour to simulate the additional WORK the a/c has done with all the additional power cycles...
The factor used , is variable around the world from my experience, and can be a point of serious contention between pilots and management
if you work the machines hard. Just because a component has a timed life of X hours in normal use (what's normal?) But if your mission requirement calls for 70 high/low power events per hour...The component shouldn't be expected to last the same time as if it had a comfortable 2 events per hour...
As a good example, the B747 shuttles that were tried in the LA basin years ago, failed in part from the 3 cycles (x2) per hour of RIN put on airframes designed for landings every 5.5 hours or so (that was the rumor at the time)
Hope this makes sense?
Rin: In basic form it's multiplying the amount of landings you make by a factor...The minimum factor being 2 ...This accounts for the high power setting for departure and arrival of a specific flight...These numbers are entered (should be) into the a/c maintenance record by the engineers and become part of timed life/RIN components histories...
Most components have a timed life as you know, this life being predicated on normal usage...If the mission requirement is, for example: logging or firefighting that gives you a demand for 15 to 60 high power events per hour, each demanding around the same requirements as a landing, but with no touchdown...The machine has worked a lot harder than say, charter ops...
So the maintenance dept will (should) factor each flight hour to simulate the additional WORK the a/c has done with all the additional power cycles...
The factor used , is variable around the world from my experience, and can be a point of serious contention between pilots and management
if you work the machines hard. Just because a component has a timed life of X hours in normal use (what's normal?) But if your mission requirement calls for 70 high/low power events per hour...The component shouldn't be expected to last the same time as if it had a comfortable 2 events per hour...
As a good example, the B747 shuttles that were tried in the LA basin years ago, failed in part from the 3 cycles (x2) per hour of RIN put on airframes designed for landings every 5.5 hours or so (that was the rumor at the time)
Hope this makes sense?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Asia
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are we making this too difficult? To me it is simple…do as the Flight Manual says. Anything else and somebody will nail your sensitive parts to the floor if there is an accident/incident, in flight or whilst doing the functional check.
As a Check Pilot I want to know that the candidate can fly for a given period of time without hydraulics (how long depends on the theatre of operations). I have known some ‘slightly built‘ pilots unable to fly certain AS 350 variants, as well as the SA 315B at max pitch, without hydraulics and I have assisted those individuals to find a less demanding machine.
The report on the New York A-star hydraulic failure highlights how serious this issue really is.
As a Check Pilot I want to know that the candidate can fly for a given period of time without hydraulics (how long depends on the theatre of operations). I have known some ‘slightly built‘ pilots unable to fly certain AS 350 variants, as well as the SA 315B at max pitch, without hydraulics and I have assisted those individuals to find a less demanding machine.
The report on the New York A-star hydraulic failure highlights how serious this issue really is.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,156
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I was working for a company that had a cyclic hardover during start up, and Transport Canada took it very seriously indeed. Make sure you follow the Flight Manual plus any amendments - there may be some new checks.
phil
phil
I have said earlier in the thread that I believe jack stall to be a negative in the 350 series, but less so than say the left pedal issues of the UH-1 series, the LTE issues apparent in the B206, teetering heads, etc etc etc. The aircraft will continue to exhibit these issues unless engineered out - ie unless big bucks spent. In the mean time, we have to fall back on warnings and training.
It is apparent from this thread that endorsement training is quite inadequate. I make that claim based on the amount of qualified AS350 pilots either hearing about jack stall, or finding out about recovery techniques for the first time here on this thread. Limitations of particular airframe types need to be demonstrated and explored during any type rating. Particualr recovery techniques for that airframe, things to avoid, and gotchas are all high on the list of MINIMUM things you need to cover in a type rating, yet that doesn't seem to be a prevalent theme. For example:
I am suprised that there are AS350 pilots out there that have not seen jack stall during type ratings.
Do we have a training issue in the industry?
It is apparent from this thread that endorsement training is quite inadequate. I make that claim based on the amount of qualified AS350 pilots either hearing about jack stall, or finding out about recovery techniques for the first time here on this thread. Limitations of particular airframe types need to be demonstrated and explored during any type rating. Particualr recovery techniques for that airframe, things to avoid, and gotchas are all high on the list of MINIMUM things you need to cover in a type rating, yet that doesn't seem to be a prevalent theme. For example:
Several pilots quoted in the report theorized Mezaki may have encountered the "jack-stall" phenomenon.
In 2000, another pilot dove into the canyon at about 120 knots. He lost control of the helicopter and the rotor nearly hit the side of the canyon. He thought he was going to die and gave up steering, which ironically returned the controls to normal.
In 2000, another pilot dove into the canyon at about 120 knots. He lost control of the helicopter and the rotor nearly hit the side of the canyon. He thought he was going to die and gave up steering, which ironically returned the controls to normal.
Do we have a training issue in the industry?
Do we have a training issue in the industry?
When is Training for Safety Not Enough?
Checked it? I posted on it! (Borrowed from a more popular expression!).
Fair enough, design should change - show me the money. But lets be realistic, it aint gonna. Especially for such a straight forward issue that occurs only during the harshest flying, is easily recognisable, and has a simple recovery technique. Easy to demonstrate and easy to train for.
Lets reserve the redisgn dollar for much bigger killers that are complex - like CFIT.
Fair enough, design should change - show me the money. But lets be realistic, it aint gonna. Especially for such a straight forward issue that occurs only during the harshest flying, is easily recognisable, and has a simple recovery technique. Easy to demonstrate and easy to train for.
Lets reserve the redisgn dollar for much bigger killers that are complex - like CFIT.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I was aware, itwas/is a very widely known phenomena. It was shown in training, with the obvious details being;
a. what it is,
b. how you get into it,
c. how you get out of it.
Generally speaking it requires a heavy hand to get into it, albeit that DA can obviously have a negative affect.
Main problem was encountering at low level, ie rolling and applying power. The techniques of low flying were based around this.
From memory the Ba and later models with the larger chord blades and extra tab on the tail rotore blades did not make life any better !! This was also as the hyd pump and servos were not upgraded from the B model.
Basically it aerodynamic loading past the ability of the servo's to control.
God knows what fatigue affects there is/was, but after having done it and taught it for many years, I haven't seen any negative fatigue effects.
Now vortex ring is a different topic and the AS350, but I won't start on that one................
a. what it is,
b. how you get into it,
c. how you get out of it.
Generally speaking it requires a heavy hand to get into it, albeit that DA can obviously have a negative affect.
Main problem was encountering at low level, ie rolling and applying power. The techniques of low flying were based around this.
From memory the Ba and later models with the larger chord blades and extra tab on the tail rotore blades did not make life any better !! This was also as the hyd pump and servos were not upgraded from the B model.
Basically it aerodynamic loading past the ability of the servo's to control.
God knows what fatigue affects there is/was, but after having done it and taught it for many years, I haven't seen any negative fatigue effects.
Now vortex ring is a different topic and the AS350, but I won't start on that one................
I have flown mine for the last 3 to 4 years and have never experienced Jack Stall !! Maybe if you keep your aerobatics for when you are not at MAU that helps, certainly you can throw it around as much and more , than any other i have flown. As for vortex, in mine it is hard to get into that state even when trying to demo ! Being fair if you compared it to Gazelle,206,EC120 etc it comes out well on top in most areas.
AS 350 BB CofG GRAPH
One of our students has asked a question which we don't know the answer to. On the 350 BB CofG graph there is a white triangle to the right of the graph with a number 1 in. There appears to be no reference to what this is for in the legend. Just to keep this student quiet, does anyone know the answer, please?
Dick
I rather confidently took out my flight manual copy from the bookshelf hoping to give you a quick answer, but...........
My best guess is that the first step to take when using the graph is to enter along the diagonal from the base line (and not the vertical).
Hope all are well at Shawbs
JJ
I rather confidently took out my flight manual copy from the bookshelf hoping to give you a quick answer, but...........
My best guess is that the first step to take when using the graph is to enter along the diagonal from the base line (and not the vertical).
Hope all are well at Shawbs
JJ
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as350 airworthiness directive
http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi...ction=retrieve
quote
the manufacturer of the console, has stated that it will supply left- and right-side cyclic sticks at no charge to current
owners of Geneva P132 consoles, regardless of when they purchased the console.
In my experience this is a first ( I am prepared to be corrected ) , most manufacturers charge for the mod kits .
quote
the manufacturer of the console, has stated that it will supply left- and right-side cyclic sticks at no charge to current
owners of Geneva P132 consoles, regardless of when they purchased the console.
In my experience this is a first ( I am prepared to be corrected ) , most manufacturers charge for the mod kits .
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: the hills of halton
Age: 71
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GCN I have read the entire AD , it was refreshing to see them ( Geneva ) paying for parts , nearly every AD I have seen ( including the eurocopter hydraulic belt ) has required the operator to purchase the parts . Were all the BELL parts required for the 407 tail rotor problems supplied free of charge ?
a couple of examples:-
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...E?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...1?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3?OpenDocument
a couple of examples:-
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...E?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...1?OpenDocument
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory...3?OpenDocument
Join Date: May 2006
Location: stateside
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah its strange how after years of use these ADs come up.
There was one a couple of years ago for the 350 where you had to check the cyclic floor stops because they found one aircraft at the factory without enough travel.
Turned out it wasnt an uncommon situation and once again had only shown up at extreme CG ranges.
Its not unusual to have manufacturers provide free kits before a certain date for things like this to assist operators.
On the 350 most Turbomeca major mods were provided free, ie TU208, TU 255/259 etc.
Good to see Geneva doing the right thing.
Its a great mod too, should be a factory fit.
There was one a couple of years ago for the 350 where you had to check the cyclic floor stops because they found one aircraft at the factory without enough travel.
Turned out it wasnt an uncommon situation and once again had only shown up at extreme CG ranges.
Its not unusual to have manufacturers provide free kits before a certain date for things like this to assist operators.
On the 350 most Turbomeca major mods were provided free, ie TU208, TU 255/259 etc.
Good to see Geneva doing the right thing.
Its a great mod too, should be a factory fit.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: oceanside
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tuktuk: correct a very popular mod. all the geneva products including the 132 panel are carried by Dart now.
aeronautical accessories also has a similar panel (less AD), originally offered by Van Isle avionics.
dr
aeronautical accessories also has a similar panel (less AD), originally offered by Van Isle avionics.
dr
Main Rotor sleeves for AS 350 BA
Does anybody know where i can buy part life ( say 50% or 1500 hrs ) upper and lower sleeves with all paperwork ? Mine are running out and there is no extension allowed, so i need them quick !! Thanks