Sikorsky S-76 [Archive Copy]
Except for being a Teetotaller...I would imagine ol' Nick would be fairly awash in Mr. Jamison's best anti-freeze during his stay in Alaska.
Mind the Snow Snakes, Nick....one should always have a jug handy in case of being bit while doing a one squat. Please to recall the Bush Company and Chilkoot Charlies have a very effective way of warming up the old internal heat level.....and remember to throw your empty goober shells on the floor at Chilkoots or you will be fined a small sum for that minor felony (not throwing them on the floor!). Also...encourage your engineer types to blow the old French Horn at the Birdcage.....on Turnagain Arm....gets them a free drink as I recall!
The Knee Dancing Champion of All Alaska now resides in Fort Worth, Texas.....but he might be willing to offer you some tips for improving on his record.
Mind the Snow Snakes, Nick....one should always have a jug handy in case of being bit while doing a one squat. Please to recall the Bush Company and Chilkoot Charlies have a very effective way of warming up the old internal heat level.....and remember to throw your empty goober shells on the floor at Chilkoots or you will be fined a small sum for that minor felony (not throwing them on the floor!). Also...encourage your engineer types to blow the old French Horn at the Birdcage.....on Turnagain Arm....gets them a free drink as I recall!
The Knee Dancing Champion of All Alaska now resides in Fort Worth, Texas.....but he might be willing to offer you some tips for improving on his record.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nicky baby,
When is the first prod ship suppose to be delivered and to whom.
Did I not read somewhwere that the first couple are going somewhere in Canada to a offshore outfit there.
Cheers
When is the first prod ship suppose to be delivered and to whom.
Did I not read somewhwere that the first couple are going somewhere in Canada to a offshore outfit there.
Cheers
Guest
Posts: n/a
The S-92 will be FAA Part 29 certified in a few days, scheduled for 20 Dec with virtually everything completed except for the last few component tests, which are running a full speed in the test lab. We have prepared over 1450 FAA approved reports, with less than 25 to go, and we have the final Type Cert Board meeting on 17 Dec. No glitches are expected.
The cert will be the first for Flaw Tolerant structures in helicopters, as well as full bird strike protection and turbine burst protection. All these things complicated the testing, but result in measurable safety enhancement.
Next year we do the cold, high altitude landings, JAA cert, rotor de-ice and snow. First deliveries are in the first quarter of 04, with a Canadian customer for the #1 aircraft.
Sasless,
Since I am the Program Manager (capitols denote a deepening of the voice as we say those words....) I get to decide if I go to Canada in the cold tests, and I think I am needed in West Palm Beach right about then!
The cert will be the first for Flaw Tolerant structures in helicopters, as well as full bird strike protection and turbine burst protection. All these things complicated the testing, but result in measurable safety enhancement.
Next year we do the cold, high altitude landings, JAA cert, rotor de-ice and snow. First deliveries are in the first quarter of 04, with a Canadian customer for the #1 aircraft.
Sasless,
Since I am the Program Manager (capitols denote a deepening of the voice as we say those words....) I get to decide if I go to Canada in the cold tests, and I think I am needed in West Palm Beach right about then!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: St. John's, Newfoundland
Age: 56
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So since it would appear that the Nickmister can not devulge who the first customer will be, maybe some one else may have a inside clue who will be driven the new ships over there.
And what is the address that should be on my CV.
Cheers chaps
And what is the address that should be on my CV.
Cheers chaps
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
If I can add my two cents worth to the discussion - the procedures and performance are checked pretty thoroughly by the certification agencies concerned - and not just once. It seems that each new country will want to spot check at least one or two of the Cat A procedures.
We also spend a lot of time going over the wording of the flight manual to make sure it is as idiot proof as possible. Unfortunately, sometimes lawyers get involved... But the end result should be a manual that a pilot can use to get the performance out of the machine if it is operated within the limits.
Nick, and guys like him do a great job of getting this right.
We also spend a lot of time going over the wording of the flight manual to make sure it is as idiot proof as possible. Unfortunately, sometimes lawyers get involved... But the end result should be a manual that a pilot can use to get the performance out of the machine if it is operated within the limits.
Nick, and guys like him do a great job of getting this right.
Mikila: If you're who I think you are, I don't think they have a booster seat this early in the S92 program, so you'll be stuck sitting on a pillow in the Puma for a while yet
And Nick, we didn't invent cold, we just perfected it.
And Nick, we didn't invent cold, we just perfected it.
Shawn....
Under the FAA system....which parts/sections of the approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual are required to be complied with as written? Which parts/sections are not mandatory but contain suggested procedures from the manufacturer?
Examples....H/V diagrams for one type of aircraft is in the limitations section which is one of the mandatory compliance sections....whereas a second type of aircraft has the comparable diagram in the performance section which is not mandatory compliance material.
One manual has emergency procedures that require memory items and refer to check list items specified whereas the other manual merely cites procedures without spelling out "memory" vs "refer to the checklist" items.
When must I obey the strictly worded manufacturers writing....procedures.....and when may an operator devise alternative procedures which in detail deviate from the rotorcraft flight manual but do not deviate from the intent or philosophy of that particular manual?
Nick might want to weigh in on this question as well......it would be enlightening to hear from those that write the manuals to explain the requirements they have to meet in order to comply with the FAA regulations as pertains to the technical writing aspects of approved flight manuals?
Under the FAA system....which parts/sections of the approved Rotorcraft Flight Manual are required to be complied with as written? Which parts/sections are not mandatory but contain suggested procedures from the manufacturer?
Examples....H/V diagrams for one type of aircraft is in the limitations section which is one of the mandatory compliance sections....whereas a second type of aircraft has the comparable diagram in the performance section which is not mandatory compliance material.
One manual has emergency procedures that require memory items and refer to check list items specified whereas the other manual merely cites procedures without spelling out "memory" vs "refer to the checklist" items.
When must I obey the strictly worded manufacturers writing....procedures.....and when may an operator devise alternative procedures which in detail deviate from the rotorcraft flight manual but do not deviate from the intent or philosophy of that particular manual?
Nick might want to weigh in on this question as well......it would be enlightening to hear from those that write the manuals to explain the requirements they have to meet in order to comply with the FAA regulations as pertains to the technical writing aspects of approved flight manuals?
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not always the same.
The Robinson pilots handbook has a section telling the pilot how to avoid mast separation or rotor incursion. These instructions are based on a FAA AD but are not officially entered into the handbook and are considered recommendations. Meanwhile(st) in the same POHs in the UK these same instructions are mandatory.
Guest
Posts: n/a
The Rotorcraft Flight Manual (RFM) is a very important document. The Operating Limits section is law, and it is a violation to breach these limits intentionally, and actionable in any case.
The rest of Part I - normal, emergency procedures, performance - is informational and recommended, but not per se required by law for the typical pilot, but is often referred to in the Part 135 manual as the company procedures, and thus becomes mandatory for commercial pilots.
Most manufacturers chose the words carefully, and do try to provide real procedures, not just cover-your-butt words. If in doubt, call your local rep for the manufacturer, and you will get the straight word.
By all means, do not treat the words as legal constructs, and try to sneak around them. Example - A ppruner once advocated working around the crosswind limits of a helo by pointing into the wind, beginning a takeoff then pedal turning to the cross wind to complete the takeoff - he argued that once in the takeoff, the hover restriction no longer applied. Such constructions work in Congress, but will get you a healthy fine, should the investigator who visits you in the hospital after the accident decide to violate you!
Generally, the accepted general procedures, training guides and advisory circulars that are out there are useful in supplanting RFM procedures, or in helping find suitable alternatives. Usually, the aircraft are not so very different that a typically common procedure will get you in trouble. If so, the RFM will usually tell you so, to help you avoid the problem.
The FAA reads the whole document, and specifically signs the Part I (Op limits, Normal, Emergency procedures, Performance) so they have "bought" every word. They read Part II, descriptions, but don't specifically approve it (they do comment, and a dumb manufacturer ignores these helpful suggestions!)
Nick
PS Hello Rick, how's the flyin? We are going up to NE Region next week, hoping to come back with an FAA Type Cert. JAR and Transport Canada next year. Snow and Cold in January, rotor icing next fall/winter.
The rest of Part I - normal, emergency procedures, performance - is informational and recommended, but not per se required by law for the typical pilot, but is often referred to in the Part 135 manual as the company procedures, and thus becomes mandatory for commercial pilots.
Most manufacturers chose the words carefully, and do try to provide real procedures, not just cover-your-butt words. If in doubt, call your local rep for the manufacturer, and you will get the straight word.
By all means, do not treat the words as legal constructs, and try to sneak around them. Example - A ppruner once advocated working around the crosswind limits of a helo by pointing into the wind, beginning a takeoff then pedal turning to the cross wind to complete the takeoff - he argued that once in the takeoff, the hover restriction no longer applied. Such constructions work in Congress, but will get you a healthy fine, should the investigator who visits you in the hospital after the accident decide to violate you!
Generally, the accepted general procedures, training guides and advisory circulars that are out there are useful in supplanting RFM procedures, or in helping find suitable alternatives. Usually, the aircraft are not so very different that a typically common procedure will get you in trouble. If so, the RFM will usually tell you so, to help you avoid the problem.
The FAA reads the whole document, and specifically signs the Part I (Op limits, Normal, Emergency procedures, Performance) so they have "bought" every word. They read Part II, descriptions, but don't specifically approve it (they do comment, and a dumb manufacturer ignores these helpful suggestions!)
Nick
PS Hello Rick, how's the flyin? We are going up to NE Region next week, hoping to come back with an FAA Type Cert. JAR and Transport Canada next year. Snow and Cold in January, rotor icing next fall/winter.
Iconoclast
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The home of Dudley Dooright-Where the lead dog is the only one that gets a change of scenery.
Posts: 2,132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T'aint necessarily so.
Nick
What you said above is not true for the Robinson POH. The page I alluded to above is in the normal procedures section and it is not only not numbered it is not signed off by the FAA as being an official entry in the POH. As a result most pilots assume it is a recommendation as opposed to being mandatory even though it effects flight safety.
What you said above is not true for the Robinson POH. The page I alluded to above is in the normal procedures section and it is not only not numbered it is not signed off by the FAA as being an official entry in the POH. As a result most pilots assume it is a recommendation as opposed to being mandatory even though it effects flight safety.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Above and Below Zero Lat. [Presently at least]
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick.......and others
Its an interesting observation.......and I am sure we all have purposely avoided the question and obvious answer for years and years.
In the case of the Medium BHT helicopters, the HV Diagram is indeed in the Limitations Section..........however in the same RFM the manufacture also provides supplements for "Hoists" and "Cargo Hooks"...
I forget where the S76 HV Diagram is........and I'm far to lazy to climb into the attic to look it up......
How can a manufacture supply the Hoist and Hook data knowing full well, that to use the equipment will have you violating the FAR??
In the case of the Medium BHT helicopters, the HV Diagram is indeed in the Limitations Section..........however in the same RFM the manufacture also provides supplements for "Hoists" and "Cargo Hooks"...
I forget where the S76 HV Diagram is........and I'm far to lazy to climb into the attic to look it up......
How can a manufacture supply the Hoist and Hook data knowing full well, that to use the equipment will have you violating the FAR??
Old Man Rotor.....try this one on..... The FAA made the following change to the FAR's for aircraft certified under part 29......such that they are exempt from the H/V limitations when departing from elevated helidecks offshore.
91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
(d) Any person taking off or landing a helicopter certificated under part 29 of this chapter at a heliport constructed over water may make such momentary flight as is necessary for takeoff or landing through the prohibited range of the limiting height-speed envelope established for the helicopter if that flight through the prohibited range takes place over water on which a safe ditching can be accomplished and if the helicopter is amphibious or is equipped with floats or other emergency flotation gear adequate to accomplish a safe emergency ditching on open water.
This begs some questions.....such as "define momentary flight", what about if the sea state is ugly....thus a safe "emergency" ditching isn't possible? Is any ditching other than "emergency"? If you can ignore the H/V....whatelse can we ignore while operating offshore?
Maybe this is an argument for going to all singles or avoiding certifying helicopters under Part 29?
What say you Professor Nick?
91.9 Civil aircraft flight manual, marking, and placard requirements.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section, no person may operate a civil aircraft without complying with the operating limitations specified in the approved Airplane or Rotorcraft Flight Manual, markings, and placards, or as otherwise prescribed by the certificating authority of the country of registry.
(d) Any person taking off or landing a helicopter certificated under part 29 of this chapter at a heliport constructed over water may make such momentary flight as is necessary for takeoff or landing through the prohibited range of the limiting height-speed envelope established for the helicopter if that flight through the prohibited range takes place over water on which a safe ditching can be accomplished and if the helicopter is amphibious or is equipped with floats or other emergency flotation gear adequate to accomplish a safe emergency ditching on open water.
This begs some questions.....such as "define momentary flight", what about if the sea state is ugly....thus a safe "emergency" ditching isn't possible? Is any ditching other than "emergency"? If you can ignore the H/V....whatelse can we ignore while operating offshore?
Maybe this is an argument for going to all singles or avoiding certifying helicopters under Part 29?
What say you Professor Nick?
Flight manuals...good grief.
It is interesting to see where different manufacturers place information. Aerospat put the H-V chart for the original Squirrel in "Section 1: Limitations," which did nothing to alter how we use the helicopter in the real world but instead created endless arguments among pilots about how we should. By the same token, why on earth would Bell put the H-V diagrams for their medium twins in "Limitations?" What were they thinking?
To Old Man Rotor: I'm sure the FAA-approved AFM supplements for hoists and cargo hooks include wording that exempts the pilots from the limitations in the H-V diagram.
For SASless: the conundrum you noted would not be eliminated if offshore operators went to an all-Squirrel fleet. Just out of curiosity, does anybody know in what AFM section are the H-V diagrams for the EC-120 and -130?
To Lu: If there is a page in an AFM which is neither numbered nor FAA-approved, then it doesn't exist...officially. You are free to ignore it at your whim or peril.
It is interesting to see where different manufacturers place information. Aerospat put the H-V chart for the original Squirrel in "Section 1: Limitations," which did nothing to alter how we use the helicopter in the real world but instead created endless arguments among pilots about how we should. By the same token, why on earth would Bell put the H-V diagrams for their medium twins in "Limitations?" What were they thinking?
To Old Man Rotor: I'm sure the FAA-approved AFM supplements for hoists and cargo hooks include wording that exempts the pilots from the limitations in the H-V diagram.
For SASless: the conundrum you noted would not be eliminated if offshore operators went to an all-Squirrel fleet. Just out of curiosity, does anybody know in what AFM section are the H-V diagrams for the EC-120 and -130?
To Lu: If there is a page in an AFM which is neither numbered nor FAA-approved, then it doesn't exist...officially. You are free to ignore it at your whim or peril.