Sikorsky S-76 [Archive Copy]
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
50@ 100!!
Hi XNR!
True...
50kts @ 100' is aggressive. I'm talking ideal conditions( into wind, no obstacles, within Cat A weights......and so on)
Works well within RFM landing distance graphs...
However, back in the real world, Steve76 has it correct. More cautious at night, LDP earlier than 100', slow down to 35kts earlier, manage risks....... An engine failure is not the only thing that could happen.
The odds are that I'll screw up with both stoves running, before experiencing an engine failure.
D.K
True...
50kts @ 100' is aggressive. I'm talking ideal conditions( into wind, no obstacles, within Cat A weights......and so on)
Works well within RFM landing distance graphs...
However, back in the real world, Steve76 has it correct. More cautious at night, LDP earlier than 100', slow down to 35kts earlier, manage risks....... An engine failure is not the only thing that could happen.
The odds are that I'll screw up with both stoves running, before experiencing an engine failure.
D.K
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.K.
I agree with you there...I try to fly all my approaches as you would fly yours at night.......seems to me that is your best chance of making the pad and staying on it......steep and controlled is the key.
Cheers
I agree with you there...I try to fly all my approaches as you would fly yours at night.......seems to me that is your best chance of making the pad and staying on it......steep and controlled is the key.
Cheers
Coyote!
Right on!!... good to hear the gospel according to SD is alive and well!
Gotta be the smartest man driving the C around.
Additionally (as you know...) a 180 degree turn should be started on a track offset the platform at 30 secs ETA; drop the power to 81% to save the cycles and hold the nose.
Parallel to the site roll on 30 degrees holding the 500agl and there is the profile.
Same for an appoach requiring a 90 degree turn, except the time of power reduction should be held until about 35 secs ETA.
If the GPS is US, then at 500ft AGL when the site is halfway to the horizon, that is about the correct distance.
Its all a matter of time and GS irrespective of the wind and remember ... time is money
Onya mate
Right on!!... good to hear the gospel according to SD is alive and well!
Gotta be the smartest man driving the C around.
Additionally (as you know...) a 180 degree turn should be started on a track offset the platform at 30 secs ETA; drop the power to 81% to save the cycles and hold the nose.
Parallel to the site roll on 30 degrees holding the 500agl and there is the profile.
Same for an appoach requiring a 90 degree turn, except the time of power reduction should be held until about 35 secs ETA.
If the GPS is US, then at 500ft AGL when the site is halfway to the horizon, that is about the correct distance.
Its all a matter of time and GS irrespective of the wind and remember ... time is money
Onya mate
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Can
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For you C drivers who use to have the "dot" on the windshield....can you give us an idea of where it was?
for example..... 6" from the bottom of the windscreen and 1.5 ft from the pilots door post.
for example..... 6" from the bottom of the windscreen and 1.5 ft from the pilots door post.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 5,197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve76 and the coyote
We don't mention full names when we're criticising people not here to defend themselves, but you both clearly admired 'SD'.
Tell us more about him and his 'gospel'.
Heliport
PS
Why not suggest he uses some of his retirement time contributing to discussions on this forum?
We don't mention full names when we're criticising people not here to defend themselves, but you both clearly admired 'SD'.
Tell us more about him and his 'gospel'.
Heliport
PS
Why not suggest he uses some of his retirement time contributing to discussions on this forum?
SD, well lets see..
Respectful - Cojoes were people first and cojoes second, not the other way round.
He was the smoothest and most consistent driver I reckon I have seen - I can't remember him ever ballsing up an approach - but he was humble enough to say "jeez didn't you see the last one I did?"
Whenever you asked a question, his explanation was clear, logical and just made good sense.
And to top it all off, just an all round nice bloke who knew his stuff, had 15K+ hours and didn't need to tell you how good he was.
Respectful - Cojoes were people first and cojoes second, not the other way round.
He was the smoothest and most consistent driver I reckon I have seen - I can't remember him ever ballsing up an approach - but he was humble enough to say "jeez didn't you see the last one I did?"
Whenever you asked a question, his explanation was clear, logical and just made good sense.
And to top it all off, just an all round nice bloke who knew his stuff, had 15K+ hours and didn't need to tell you how good he was.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Neither Nr Fairy
Just the eh proud owner of the SAS Book to Survival Skills by John Wiseman which has adorned my shelf for donks. All I was doing was quoting from thah. What's wrong with that?
I assume my little SAS friend didn't see it then, I went to an often lot of effort to compose it, personally I thought it was quite a little manuscript & merits publishing
Emerald
Just the eh proud owner of the SAS Book to Survival Skills by John Wiseman which has adorned my shelf for donks. All I was doing was quoting from thah. What's wrong with that?
I assume my little SAS friend didn't see it then, I went to an often lot of effort to compose it, personally I thought it was quite a little manuscript & merits publishing
Emerald
S76 Night Rig Operations
I will kick this off with the following .......interested to hear variations
Helicopter Night Rig Operations
PF = Pilot Flying PNF = Pilot Not Flying
A STABILIZED night rig approach , landing and take off presents special difficulties particularly with the Sikorsky S76 helicopter.
A single rig provides just one light source. Gone are the normal day time visual cues , except for this one light source surrounded by complete blackness. The single rig light source has little or no ¡°aspect¡± until less than 1 nautical mile from the helideck. By this , I mean that beyond 1 nm , the helipad lighting , normally in the shape of a circle (sometimes a square), will appear as a straight line of lights. At a half mile it will appear in the shape of an elipse as the pilot starts to see its aspect and at about ¨ù nm its true circular (or square)shape will appear.
Vertical depth perception is not available at all. The RADALT becomes paramount.
Closing speed (Ground Speed) is extremely hard to gauge until very close to the deck , usually less than half a mile and invariably pilots will approach too fast or too slow , often coming to the hover just short of the helideck or coming in too fast and pitching dramatically nose up to stop over the deck or even overshooting.
A successful night rig approach consists of either a successful STABLE approach and landing OR
a missed approach initiated by the PF.
The S76 cockpit , even during daylight operations , does not allow good visibility. That visibility problem is compounded at night and more so for the PNF sitting on the other side of the cockpit. At a critical point (not to be confused with CDP) , just short of the deck , the PNF will have lost visual contact with the deck , over the nose. He will have nothing but blackness out his side window or chin bubble. The only visual contact he will have with the rig is by straining forward and looking through the Flying Pilot¡¯s chin bubble window. Once he sees the deck environs he will shift his vision to outside his side window , EXPECTING to see the deck lights appear beneath him. There is a couple of seconds where the PNF is now 100% reliant on the PF being in a STABILIZED approach AND having the Helideck lights in sight. The PNF may well call for confirmation that he has the deck lights¡¦..
PNF: ¡°DO YOU HAVE THE LIGHTS ?¡±
PF: ¡°AFFIRMATIVE¡± >>>>>>>> continue the landing
The PF can alleviate this situation by aiming for the centre of the helideck AND kicking the nose 10 degrees or so , off the line of approach. This will assist him as well and is a common trick even during the day , to allow the PF to get better visibility of the helideck over the S76¡¯s very high instrument panel/nose.
A successful night rig approach consists of either a successful STABLE approach and landing OR
a missed approach initiated by the PF.
Remember that a night rig approach and landing is not like an ILS or NPA where there is a very clear cut INSTRUMENT phase , a marked TRANSITION point (at the M.A.P.) then a VISUAL phase of flight for the final landing. Unfortunately the Night Rig approach and landing tends to blurr those defined points as mentioned above.
There are two schools of thought regarding the approach. One school has the helicopter flown to a 1 nm gate at 500 feet above the helideck height. The helicopter then commences a visual descent using the formula:-
Radalt 500 feet @ 1nm
Radalt 400 feet @ ¨ú nm
Radalt 300 feet @ ¨ö nm
Radalt 200 feet @ ¨ù nm
This supposedly gives an approach angle similar to a normal daytime approach.
I don¡¯t like this approach style or school of thought.
I prefer instead that the initial approach is flown as an NDB/ARA. In China , the night NDB/ARA limits are Radalt 300 feet and M.A.P. at 1 nm. This fits very nicely with the approach I am going to describe which I first observed being used by experienced Chinese C+ crews.
So the aircraft is established on the final approach leg at radalt 500 feet usually around 5 nm. Descent is then re-commenced to radalt 300 feet.
Let us assume that the R.H. seat pilot has the rig/obstacles on his side and would be the PF for the Landing.
HOWEVER , in actual practice , we will have the L.H. seat pilot FLY the approach
( ON INSTRUMENTS) to a GATE at 1nm @ radalt 300 feet @ 60 knots IAS minimum. Up to this point , the R.H . seat pilot has been monitoring the approach (calling distance and ensuring Radalt minimums)¡¦.. he has ample time to start looking out visually (from 3 nm)¡¦.and will take over the controls at 1nm and carry out the final approach and landing. He should maintain radalt 300 feet until he starts to get the visual ¡°aspect¡± of the helideck lighting (around ¨ö nm) and only then , re-commence his descent. Deceleration of the helicopter can commence at this 1 nm gate and can be assisted by the LH seat pilot (now the PNF and still on instruments) calling Ground Speed from the GPS.
A good guide at Y13 is that as you pass the flare boom (if your approach is from that quarter) , your Ground Speed should be around 40 knots.
From the 1nm Gate , the PF should be moving his head from the 1.instruments [the critical instruments are ATTITUDE (wings level) AIR SPEED and RADALT] , to outside to the 2. helideck , to any 3. obstacles (flare boom) back to the 1. instruments.
The Night Rig Take off requires the following:-
FULL POWER vertical climb (in the A model that is 768¢ª T5 or 100% Tq)
ROTATION to a maximum 5¢ª nose down , at a nominal 20 feet.
At 35 knots , ROTATE , nose up to ¡°on the horizon¡± (0¢ª)
Confirm ¡°Positive Rate of Climb¡±¡¦.proceed as for normal day time take off.
To assist , in the event of an engine failure after rotation , the RADALT should be pre set or bugged to 50 feet.
Helicopter Night Rig Operations
PF = Pilot Flying PNF = Pilot Not Flying
A STABILIZED night rig approach , landing and take off presents special difficulties particularly with the Sikorsky S76 helicopter.
A single rig provides just one light source. Gone are the normal day time visual cues , except for this one light source surrounded by complete blackness. The single rig light source has little or no ¡°aspect¡± until less than 1 nautical mile from the helideck. By this , I mean that beyond 1 nm , the helipad lighting , normally in the shape of a circle (sometimes a square), will appear as a straight line of lights. At a half mile it will appear in the shape of an elipse as the pilot starts to see its aspect and at about ¨ù nm its true circular (or square)shape will appear.
Vertical depth perception is not available at all. The RADALT becomes paramount.
Closing speed (Ground Speed) is extremely hard to gauge until very close to the deck , usually less than half a mile and invariably pilots will approach too fast or too slow , often coming to the hover just short of the helideck or coming in too fast and pitching dramatically nose up to stop over the deck or even overshooting.
A successful night rig approach consists of either a successful STABLE approach and landing OR
a missed approach initiated by the PF.
The S76 cockpit , even during daylight operations , does not allow good visibility. That visibility problem is compounded at night and more so for the PNF sitting on the other side of the cockpit. At a critical point (not to be confused with CDP) , just short of the deck , the PNF will have lost visual contact with the deck , over the nose. He will have nothing but blackness out his side window or chin bubble. The only visual contact he will have with the rig is by straining forward and looking through the Flying Pilot¡¯s chin bubble window. Once he sees the deck environs he will shift his vision to outside his side window , EXPECTING to see the deck lights appear beneath him. There is a couple of seconds where the PNF is now 100% reliant on the PF being in a STABILIZED approach AND having the Helideck lights in sight. The PNF may well call for confirmation that he has the deck lights¡¦..
PNF: ¡°DO YOU HAVE THE LIGHTS ?¡±
PF: ¡°AFFIRMATIVE¡± >>>>>>>> continue the landing
The PF can alleviate this situation by aiming for the centre of the helideck AND kicking the nose 10 degrees or so , off the line of approach. This will assist him as well and is a common trick even during the day , to allow the PF to get better visibility of the helideck over the S76¡¯s very high instrument panel/nose.
A successful night rig approach consists of either a successful STABLE approach and landing OR
a missed approach initiated by the PF.
Remember that a night rig approach and landing is not like an ILS or NPA where there is a very clear cut INSTRUMENT phase , a marked TRANSITION point (at the M.A.P.) then a VISUAL phase of flight for the final landing. Unfortunately the Night Rig approach and landing tends to blurr those defined points as mentioned above.
There are two schools of thought regarding the approach. One school has the helicopter flown to a 1 nm gate at 500 feet above the helideck height. The helicopter then commences a visual descent using the formula:-
Radalt 500 feet @ 1nm
Radalt 400 feet @ ¨ú nm
Radalt 300 feet @ ¨ö nm
Radalt 200 feet @ ¨ù nm
This supposedly gives an approach angle similar to a normal daytime approach.
I don¡¯t like this approach style or school of thought.
I prefer instead that the initial approach is flown as an NDB/ARA. In China , the night NDB/ARA limits are Radalt 300 feet and M.A.P. at 1 nm. This fits very nicely with the approach I am going to describe which I first observed being used by experienced Chinese C+ crews.
So the aircraft is established on the final approach leg at radalt 500 feet usually around 5 nm. Descent is then re-commenced to radalt 300 feet.
Let us assume that the R.H. seat pilot has the rig/obstacles on his side and would be the PF for the Landing.
HOWEVER , in actual practice , we will have the L.H. seat pilot FLY the approach
( ON INSTRUMENTS) to a GATE at 1nm @ radalt 300 feet @ 60 knots IAS minimum. Up to this point , the R.H . seat pilot has been monitoring the approach (calling distance and ensuring Radalt minimums)¡¦.. he has ample time to start looking out visually (from 3 nm)¡¦.and will take over the controls at 1nm and carry out the final approach and landing. He should maintain radalt 300 feet until he starts to get the visual ¡°aspect¡± of the helideck lighting (around ¨ö nm) and only then , re-commence his descent. Deceleration of the helicopter can commence at this 1 nm gate and can be assisted by the LH seat pilot (now the PNF and still on instruments) calling Ground Speed from the GPS.
A good guide at Y13 is that as you pass the flare boom (if your approach is from that quarter) , your Ground Speed should be around 40 knots.
From the 1nm Gate , the PF should be moving his head from the 1.instruments [the critical instruments are ATTITUDE (wings level) AIR SPEED and RADALT] , to outside to the 2. helideck , to any 3. obstacles (flare boom) back to the 1. instruments.
The Night Rig Take off requires the following:-
FULL POWER vertical climb (in the A model that is 768¢ª T5 or 100% Tq)
ROTATION to a maximum 5¢ª nose down , at a nominal 20 feet.
At 35 knots , ROTATE , nose up to ¡°on the horizon¡± (0¢ª)
Confirm ¡°Positive Rate of Climb¡±¡¦.proceed as for normal day time take off.
To assist , in the event of an engine failure after rotation , the RADALT should be pre set or bugged to 50 feet.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
The approach sounds like it could use the Firefly night approach lighting system that was developed many years ago - adjustable angles of descent, would pan for different approach directions, had high and low descent angles clearly visible.
Developed by Richard Walker, who tells me they'll have it on display at Heli-tech this year.
A solution that no-one seemd to pick up on. What a shame.
Developed by Richard Walker, who tells me they'll have it on display at Heli-tech this year.
A solution that no-one seemd to pick up on. What a shame.
I agree that the 76 is not the easiest machine to do night deck landings in, though as with all night landings it's very much a function of familiarity and practice. However, I do feel that starting a deceleration from 60 kts whilst still a mile away is not ideal and may lead to problems. Combine this with the fact that 300 ft radalt is probably not very much above the deck height and so the sight picture will appear very late in the approach, and you compound the problem.
At the end of the day, the aircraft does not know it's dark and so the approach should mirror as closely as possible the day time landing, albeit a more cautious one. This also puts the aircraft at familiar speeds and heights rather than trying to learn a different set.
If you know the deck height and the angle of approach you want, why not use a to of descent gate to give you the sight picture? e.g. 100 ft deck, 8 degree approach, TOD equals 500 ft radalt at half a mile.
At the end of the day, the aircraft does not know it's dark and so the approach should mirror as closely as possible the day time landing, albeit a more cautious one. This also puts the aircraft at familiar speeds and heights rather than trying to learn a different set.
If you know the deck height and the angle of approach you want, why not use a to of descent gate to give you the sight picture? e.g. 100 ft deck, 8 degree approach, TOD equals 500 ft radalt at half a mile.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A STABILIZED night rig approach , landing and take off presents special difficulties particularly with the Sikorsky S76 helicopter.
Not sure of where you are at with this.
Surely the approach profile is the same as any other helo, only with the added problem of a little less visibility?
As for
To assist , in the event of an engine failure after rotation , the RADALT should be pre set or bugged to 50 feet.
Just a few thoughts
So far, landing is all that's been discussed. Check the AAIB website for a take-off related incident.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the takeoff incident, & can understand how the incident occurred. I consider every night takeoff from a platform, drilling rig, or ship to be an instrument takeoff. The PF flies on instruments from the initial rotation, & the PNF calls torques/N1, positive rate of climb, airspeed increasing, and then airspeed at Vtoss, Vmin, and Vbroc, and altitude in 100' increments, up to 500', then states "last call". Until above 500', no radio calls, checklists, or anything else occurs. For unannounced heading changes of 10 degrees or more, the PNF calls "check heading".
We don't do "towering" takeoffs. I consider that maneuver, at least as I understand it from the descriptions, as leading to disorientation. We do more or less a normal takeoff from the front edge of the helideck, & the nose only goes down to ~5 degrees. At 5 degrees nose down, airspeed increases satisfactorily, and descent doesn't happen if the power is kept in. I don't like maximum power, since it diverts attention from the flight instruments to watch the engine instruments so closely to avoid exceeding limits. It is critical that a positive rate of climb and Vbroc are maintained, however.
For approaches, I like a somewhat steep and slow approach. To me, the danger of an engine failure is lower than that of hitting an unseen obstruction in the dark. A night approach in any model is a 2-person maneuver. The PF sets up the approach, and the PNF monitors the flight instruments, & calls altitude in 100' increments, airspeed in 10 knot increments, & rate of descent in 100'/min increments. All this is important, since it's possible to become fixated during the approach, and not realize the descent or airspeed is going out of limits. Our maximum rate of descent at night is 500'/min below 500', & I aim for 200-250. I set the pitot tube on the far edge of the deck, & keep it there during the approach. And I agree with 212man, 300' to start the approach is too low - that's only 200' above the deck at a maximum, & we have lots of them 200' MSL. I start at 400'-500', depending on the rig. I usually set the radalt to 300' for the approach, because I want to know if I get that low. For takeoff, I set it to 500', because I want to know when I get above that.
Night operations vary greatly. Some nights are almost as bright as daylight, with clear skies & a full moon. OTOH, I've seen nights that were so dark any visual operation was out of the question until short final. Night approaches in these conditions can be very difficult - no visual cues for rate of closure, speed, descent, nothing. And it's very easy to get autokinesis, and the platform starts to move around - very uncomfortable. Anyone can get spatial disorientation under these conditions, no matter the experience level, & that's why a crew is necessary, and I mean a crew, not just 2 pilots. If the other pilot is just sitting there, we'll have a chat later. It hasn't been necessary yet, because he knows what's expected, & also that his life depends on his cooperation. A highly autocratic captain can get into very deep trouble at night, and I try to avoid that.
I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to fly, this is just the way I do it, trying to keep on staying alive.
We don't do "towering" takeoffs. I consider that maneuver, at least as I understand it from the descriptions, as leading to disorientation. We do more or less a normal takeoff from the front edge of the helideck, & the nose only goes down to ~5 degrees. At 5 degrees nose down, airspeed increases satisfactorily, and descent doesn't happen if the power is kept in. I don't like maximum power, since it diverts attention from the flight instruments to watch the engine instruments so closely to avoid exceeding limits. It is critical that a positive rate of climb and Vbroc are maintained, however.
For approaches, I like a somewhat steep and slow approach. To me, the danger of an engine failure is lower than that of hitting an unseen obstruction in the dark. A night approach in any model is a 2-person maneuver. The PF sets up the approach, and the PNF monitors the flight instruments, & calls altitude in 100' increments, airspeed in 10 knot increments, & rate of descent in 100'/min increments. All this is important, since it's possible to become fixated during the approach, and not realize the descent or airspeed is going out of limits. Our maximum rate of descent at night is 500'/min below 500', & I aim for 200-250. I set the pitot tube on the far edge of the deck, & keep it there during the approach. And I agree with 212man, 300' to start the approach is too low - that's only 200' above the deck at a maximum, & we have lots of them 200' MSL. I start at 400'-500', depending on the rig. I usually set the radalt to 300' for the approach, because I want to know if I get that low. For takeoff, I set it to 500', because I want to know when I get above that.
Night operations vary greatly. Some nights are almost as bright as daylight, with clear skies & a full moon. OTOH, I've seen nights that were so dark any visual operation was out of the question until short final. Night approaches in these conditions can be very difficult - no visual cues for rate of closure, speed, descent, nothing. And it's very easy to get autokinesis, and the platform starts to move around - very uncomfortable. Anyone can get spatial disorientation under these conditions, no matter the experience level, & that's why a crew is necessary, and I mean a crew, not just 2 pilots. If the other pilot is just sitting there, we'll have a chat later. It hasn't been necessary yet, because he knows what's expected, & also that his life depends on his cooperation. A highly autocratic captain can get into very deep trouble at night, and I try to avoid that.
I'm not trying to tell anyone else how to fly, this is just the way I do it, trying to keep on staying alive.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: On the move!
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting comments so far...
Let me add a few comments from both a CRM and Human Factors perspective to this discussion.
I am ex military and flew a variety of helicopters, including the AS332 and Sikorsky S70-A-9. Both these helicopters had very poor forward visibility during the final stages of an approach, especially at night.
A large part of our operations were conducted at night using NVGs. What a luxury!! However, there was the occasional task where we operated NVFR (also called night unaided) to a single light source. What a dark experience!! This is much more closely aligned to what I am doing now - flying S76 helicopters offshore.
Part 1: Arrival
What do these two above statements have in common? Firstly, regardless the helicopter type you fly, the night profile should not differ much from the day profile (regardless the use of NVGs). The other obvious and very important factor is that our visual cues are greatly reduced at night.
This is where CRM should play an important role to ensure the helicopter is stabilised (constant approach angle) in the descent from the Initial Approach Point. The Pilot Not Flying (PNF) needs to be 100% assertive to ensure that the Pilot Flying (PF) maintain the profile and meet certain target gates.
If this is not achieved by the PF (after two assertive statements by the PNF), a go-around should be initiated. I have studied many helicopter CFIT related accidents at night, and like our fixed wing colleagues, being unstabilised on the final descent segment has fatal consequences. My suggestion: 500ft above deck height at 1nm maintaining the side picture. Using the weather radar in conjunction with the GPS can provide valuable spatial awareness at night (or even IFR).
Part 2: The Departure
Here I do have agree with Peter Manktelow. We are flying twin-engine helicopters or close to with the S76A. There is no longer the need to be conservative with power. Use whatever margin (within take off limits) you have to get you away from this hazardous environment. Full power at lift off up to about 20ft or where visual cues start to disappear on the deck. Rotate 10deg Nose Down and accelerate to 35kts. Raise to flight a level segment and accelerate to 52kts-then climb away at 74kts. No checks until 500ft, accept for a fire.
This is one of the major reasons why I think the S76 is so unsuitable in offshore operations where performance margins become so limited, like in Australia and West Africa. It is time that the AB139 and S92 are introduced into the Industry, so that operators/pilots can experience the true sense of operating equipment 100% suitable for the job at hand. Perhaps I have been spoiled too much operating larger twins where you apply power and go towards blue sky and not doing the dive of death during day or night!!
Please provide any critique or feedback to improve the way we are doing business in an Industry where "Safety is Suppose to be a Priority" but the Oil Companies being reluctant to invest in new equipment.
Let me add a few comments from both a CRM and Human Factors perspective to this discussion.
I am ex military and flew a variety of helicopters, including the AS332 and Sikorsky S70-A-9. Both these helicopters had very poor forward visibility during the final stages of an approach, especially at night.
A large part of our operations were conducted at night using NVGs. What a luxury!! However, there was the occasional task where we operated NVFR (also called night unaided) to a single light source. What a dark experience!! This is much more closely aligned to what I am doing now - flying S76 helicopters offshore.
Part 1: Arrival
What do these two above statements have in common? Firstly, regardless the helicopter type you fly, the night profile should not differ much from the day profile (regardless the use of NVGs). The other obvious and very important factor is that our visual cues are greatly reduced at night.
This is where CRM should play an important role to ensure the helicopter is stabilised (constant approach angle) in the descent from the Initial Approach Point. The Pilot Not Flying (PNF) needs to be 100% assertive to ensure that the Pilot Flying (PF) maintain the profile and meet certain target gates.
If this is not achieved by the PF (after two assertive statements by the PNF), a go-around should be initiated. I have studied many helicopter CFIT related accidents at night, and like our fixed wing colleagues, being unstabilised on the final descent segment has fatal consequences. My suggestion: 500ft above deck height at 1nm maintaining the side picture. Using the weather radar in conjunction with the GPS can provide valuable spatial awareness at night (or even IFR).
Part 2: The Departure
Here I do have agree with Peter Manktelow. We are flying twin-engine helicopters or close to with the S76A. There is no longer the need to be conservative with power. Use whatever margin (within take off limits) you have to get you away from this hazardous environment. Full power at lift off up to about 20ft or where visual cues start to disappear on the deck. Rotate 10deg Nose Down and accelerate to 35kts. Raise to flight a level segment and accelerate to 52kts-then climb away at 74kts. No checks until 500ft, accept for a fire.
This is one of the major reasons why I think the S76 is so unsuitable in offshore operations where performance margins become so limited, like in Australia and West Africa. It is time that the AB139 and S92 are introduced into the Industry, so that operators/pilots can experience the true sense of operating equipment 100% suitable for the job at hand. Perhaps I have been spoiled too much operating larger twins where you apply power and go towards blue sky and not doing the dive of death during day or night!!
Please provide any critique or feedback to improve the way we are doing business in an Industry where "Safety is Suppose to be a Priority" but the Oil Companies being reluctant to invest in new equipment.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Off the Planet
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good discussion with excellent advice.
For a text that was produced by current and experience offshore pilots, you might consider the advisory material in JAR-OPS 3 (IEM OPS 3.517(b) - Pages 2-H-5 to 2-H-7) which is concerned with the landing and take-off phases. (If the moderator permits, the text could be cut and pasted.)
One point of issue in the thread so far - the amount of power pulled on take-off should be sufficient to establish a dynamic profile. Pulling full power might be problematical if an engine fails before the rotation and a landing back on the deck has to be undertaken (ballooning and visual cues being the issues).
The wind should also be taken into account; most twins will be at zero exposure weight when the wind is in excess of 35 kts. A delta torque of 10% - 20% will take account of this (and work in most other cases).
For a text that was produced by current and experience offshore pilots, you might consider the advisory material in JAR-OPS 3 (IEM OPS 3.517(b) - Pages 2-H-5 to 2-H-7) which is concerned with the landing and take-off phases. (If the moderator permits, the text could be cut and pasted.)
One point of issue in the thread so far - the amount of power pulled on take-off should be sufficient to establish a dynamic profile. Pulling full power might be problematical if an engine fails before the rotation and a landing back on the deck has to be undertaken (ballooning and visual cues being the issues).
The wind should also be taken into account; most twins will be at zero exposure weight when the wind is in excess of 35 kts. A delta torque of 10% - 20% will take account of this (and work in most other cases).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jog, the S76A++ is much, much better than the A. It's an A airframe, with A weight limits, but with the engines from a C. Plenty of power margin. Of course, if you're still stuck with an A, it's not much comfort.