Are single-engines safe over cities?
Headsethair
The weight of an R44 newscopter came straight from Robinsons web site, or is that wrong ?
As for never had an engine failure, I thought Q had one in the Antartic or was that running out of fuel ! Gosh as I get older my memory dims
The weight of an R44 newscopter came straight from Robinsons web site, or is that wrong ?
As for never had an engine failure, I thought Q had one in the Antartic or was that running out of fuel ! Gosh as I get older my memory dims
Hughes,
Expect about 760 - 775kg for a Newscopter, depending on the operator's kit. Fuel burn is significantly reduced as much of the work is done loafing around at 18-20" MAP (at least for our filming/traffic work). Obviously a judgement thing, if you're transitting to/from a location the fuel burn would be 'normal', against the reduced burn 'on task'.
Expect about 760 - 775kg for a Newscopter, depending on the operator's kit. Fuel burn is significantly reduced as much of the work is done loafing around at 18-20" MAP (at least for our filming/traffic work). Obviously a judgement thing, if you're transitting to/from a location the fuel burn would be 'normal', against the reduced burn 'on task'.
Apparently European air affects performance of all single engined helicopters, making then much more dangerous than anywhere else in the world.
Or was it global warming?
Or was it global warming?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is anyone ging to answer the origional question?
Could someone in New York, Tokyo and Paris let me know whether they can legally fly single-engine over the centre of these respective cities? If so, what altitude restrictions? Any other restrictions?
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: N20,W99
Age: 53
Posts: 1,119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly single engine over what could be considered the most densely populated city in the world, and if you go by habitants it's larger than Tokyo, NY, and Paris by a bunch, check this out:
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum31.html
As you will see there would be almost nowhere you could go in case the engine decided to quit, and so far there is nothing from keeping singles fly over the city.
http://homepage.mac.com/helipilot/PhotoAlbum31.html
As you will see there would be almost nowhere you could go in case the engine decided to quit, and so far there is nothing from keeping singles fly over the city.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Florida
Age: 52
Posts: 418
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some more fuel for the fire. Here are some shots flying microwave relay for the Los Angeles marathon. Perfectly legal to fly around downtown in a single engine. It's not even in controlled airspace.
What wires? - staging post in the Metro Transit bus depot near downtown.
Looking for my motorbike. The building in the top right of the picture is the US Bank building. It gets blown up in 'Independence Day'.
Runners.
Dowtown LA in the distance. Not too many landing spots.
What wires? - staging post in the Metro Transit bus depot near downtown.
Looking for my motorbike. The building in the top right of the picture is the US Bank building. It gets blown up in 'Independence Day'.
Runners.
Dowtown LA in the distance. Not too many landing spots.
May I relate the cameramans point of view in respect of shooting news over London,(for both Sky and BBC in AS355s) and also using the R44 news.
News values and cityscapes are different in London to other parts of the world.
Unlike LA or Melbourne, London has a law that excludes a large area for an emergency landing in the event of power failure of one engine, if the pilot is not to be prosecuted.
I often need to hover at 750ft to get best shots. Move as little as 100ft and you lose the subject behind a tree or building. So often orbits are out of the question. Worldwide most pilots dont want to hover at 750ft in a builtup area in a single on a regular basis.
The R44 is a great machine, but compromised at shooting closeups from height with its 42x zoom, when compared to a larger heli that can carry a long 72x or even a 84x zoom.
This equates to 2x to 3x bigger picture! Put the R44 news 100% higher to 1500 feet and then its is more like 4x to 6x difference in subject size!
If you are going to fly day in day out where the River Thames is meant to be an emergency landing site then floats would be prudent, but R44 news can't be fitted with floats.
When it comes to getting the news shot the R44 news over London is third best option ahead of a twin with long zoom, then single with long zoom and floats.
But no question it is the lowest cost option, the local guys charging £3800 for an 8 hour day.
So for non news shots/jobs ie scenic shots of London from 1500ft the R44 news is a good deal. Ditto countryside locations where its wider lens gives interesting perspectives and transit costs are lower. I enjoy working in it.
Most major broadcasters in Capital cites worldwide see the benifit of the long zoom lens for news. R44 news has been around for 4 years and is finding its niche. That Channel Nine in Australia recently went for three B3s with long zooms and yet others are choosing R44 News is an indicator that different markets have different environments and priorities.
Mickjoebill
News values and cityscapes are different in London to other parts of the world.
Unlike LA or Melbourne, London has a law that excludes a large area for an emergency landing in the event of power failure of one engine, if the pilot is not to be prosecuted.
I often need to hover at 750ft to get best shots. Move as little as 100ft and you lose the subject behind a tree or building. So often orbits are out of the question. Worldwide most pilots dont want to hover at 750ft in a builtup area in a single on a regular basis.
The R44 is a great machine, but compromised at shooting closeups from height with its 42x zoom, when compared to a larger heli that can carry a long 72x or even a 84x zoom.
This equates to 2x to 3x bigger picture! Put the R44 news 100% higher to 1500 feet and then its is more like 4x to 6x difference in subject size!
If you are going to fly day in day out where the River Thames is meant to be an emergency landing site then floats would be prudent, but R44 news can't be fitted with floats.
When it comes to getting the news shot the R44 news over London is third best option ahead of a twin with long zoom, then single with long zoom and floats.
But no question it is the lowest cost option, the local guys charging £3800 for an 8 hour day.
So for non news shots/jobs ie scenic shots of London from 1500ft the R44 news is a good deal. Ditto countryside locations where its wider lens gives interesting perspectives and transit costs are lower. I enjoy working in it.
Most major broadcasters in Capital cites worldwide see the benifit of the long zoom lens for news. R44 news has been around for 4 years and is finding its niche. That Channel Nine in Australia recently went for three B3s with long zooms and yet others are choosing R44 News is an indicator that different markets have different environments and priorities.
Mickjoebill
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back from a week flying a single around for 25 hours..and enjoying it!
Regarding the Composition of the CTR review body it was a bit light on Operators. From memory BHAB and GA did have a representative each.
Engine failure stats are interesting and I think its clear (IMHO) that the R44 is better than say, the Bell 206, in this respect. However, when an R44 has an engine failure in UK (..and we still don't know much more about the one in February) I hope it does it somewhere with plenty of green spaces.
My view, personally, is that opening R160 to whoever wants to be there in a single is not, ultimately, very bright and any of the authorities party to it are making brave career choices.
..and finally, Gaseous, I hope you bought David Voy a couple of beers after those Enstrom incidents!
Regarding the Composition of the CTR review body it was a bit light on Operators. From memory BHAB and GA did have a representative each.
Engine failure stats are interesting and I think its clear (IMHO) that the R44 is better than say, the Bell 206, in this respect. However, when an R44 has an engine failure in UK (..and we still don't know much more about the one in February) I hope it does it somewhere with plenty of green spaces.
My view, personally, is that opening R160 to whoever wants to be there in a single is not, ultimately, very bright and any of the authorities party to it are making brave career choices.
..and finally, Gaseous, I hope you bought David Voy a couple of beers after those Enstrom incidents!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJB,
Hi, I was 14 years old then. David Voy was indeed the pilot for the first incident which was a transmission failure. This incident is fully documented. I'd love to buy him a pint.
The second is much less clear, appears to have been another transmission failure and I dont know who the pilot was. The log book pages are missing.
Edit to add link to report of above incident.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenueden...DKDHackney.bmp
Hi, I was 14 years old then. David Voy was indeed the pilot for the first incident which was a transmission failure. This incident is fully documented. I'd love to buy him a pint.
The second is much less clear, appears to have been another transmission failure and I dont know who the pilot was. The log book pages are missing.
Edit to add link to report of above incident.
http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/avenueden...DKDHackney.bmp
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear that the "Specifoed Area" or EGR160 as it is now known is to get bigger, but the A/N/T (CTR W/C/E) bit may go, as well as the "020-140 degrees T" bit.
Fingers crossed.
As an ATCO - I really don't care. I just hope it becomes easier for us and our customers.
Fingers crossed.
As an ATCO - I really don't care. I just hope it becomes easier for us and our customers.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AlanM
As an ATCO - I really don't care. I just hope it becomes easier for us and our customers.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Medstead
Age: 82
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are single engines safe over cities?
This train was brought to my attention at a recent gathering so I thought I should add my bit.
I was flying the police Enstroms over London in the 1970's that suffered clutch failures on two occations. The first has been metioned by "Gaseous" when I was over Clapham Junction and did an engine off onto Battersea Heliport. The second was close to Stratford Railway Goods Yard in East London and involved another engine off under some pylon wires.
Both were achieved succesfully, in my view, because we constantly practiced autorotations - sometimes 5 or more per day. When the emergency occured I was completely confident that I could execute the engine off with total accuracy. That only comes with practive and training.
I was not aware that either of these incidents was the cause of the present restrictions as they were always present - we flew under a CAA exemption.
Flying over highly built up areas in singles, by definition, is not dangerous. It is the pilots ability to deal with an emergency that is critical. It appears that MBJ's comments were initially aimed at that question.
I have just come back from Sao Paulo were they fly singles all the time over the 3rd biggest city in the world. This includes landings on roof top helipads of which there are approximately 240!
The biggest problem in the UK is that if there ever was a serious accident in London then I can forsee all helicopters being banned which will do none of us any good. (I have now given up singles - 2 out of 2 may have used up my good fortune!)
I was flying the police Enstroms over London in the 1970's that suffered clutch failures on two occations. The first has been metioned by "Gaseous" when I was over Clapham Junction and did an engine off onto Battersea Heliport. The second was close to Stratford Railway Goods Yard in East London and involved another engine off under some pylon wires.
Both were achieved succesfully, in my view, because we constantly practiced autorotations - sometimes 5 or more per day. When the emergency occured I was completely confident that I could execute the engine off with total accuracy. That only comes with practive and training.
I was not aware that either of these incidents was the cause of the present restrictions as they were always present - we flew under a CAA exemption.
Flying over highly built up areas in singles, by definition, is not dangerous. It is the pilots ability to deal with an emergency that is critical. It appears that MBJ's comments were initially aimed at that question.
I have just come back from Sao Paulo were they fly singles all the time over the 3rd biggest city in the world. This includes landings on roof top helipads of which there are approximately 240!
The biggest problem in the UK is that if there ever was a serious accident in London then I can forsee all helicopters being banned which will do none of us any good. (I have now given up singles - 2 out of 2 may have used up my good fortune!)
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alderney or Lancashire UK
Posts: 570
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello David.
Just to let you know that the aircraft BDKD is still flying and still registered as BDKD after all these years. The way it was told to me is that the mechanical failures of BDKD featured in the Mets decision to move to twins. There was also some CAA pressure and threats of withdrawl of the exemption. Maybe they thought 2 succesful forced landings had used up the good fortune too. The fact they were clutch, rather than engine failures appears irrelevant to the people who make such decisions. Those people involved at the time, post on this forum so there may be more information out there.
Regards,
Phil Price, current owner of G-BDKD.
Just to let you know that the aircraft BDKD is still flying and still registered as BDKD after all these years. The way it was told to me is that the mechanical failures of BDKD featured in the Mets decision to move to twins. There was also some CAA pressure and threats of withdrawl of the exemption. Maybe they thought 2 succesful forced landings had used up the good fortune too. The fact they were clutch, rather than engine failures appears irrelevant to the people who make such decisions. Those people involved at the time, post on this forum so there may be more information out there.
Regards,
Phil Price, current owner of G-BDKD.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Apa, apo ndi kulikonse!
Posts: 1,757
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have had a couple of forced landings in Twins over London ironically enough - mostly chip warnings and engine shutdowns on traffic departing Battersea that couldn't get back in. Never experienced any singles.....
But then, as a completely rough estimate I would say that 70% of traffic are twins........
But then, as a completely rough estimate I would say that 70% of traffic are twins........
