Crashworthy pilot seats
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those who want some more insight on the user's opinion of crashworthy seating, I would recommend looking at Michael Durant's In The Company of Heroes. Durant is the US pilot who was shot down and captured in Somalia, and he describes in detail the stroking seat, which he believes saved his back. Yes, most of us do not risk being captured by enemy forces if we cannot exit our aircraft after a crash, but the benefits exist no matter what type of flying we do.
Thread Starter
Nick said
So, lets consider how many passengers have died on N Sea operations from drowning as a result of difficulty in getting out following a ditching (sadly more than I care to remember) versus how many passengers have died as a result of fire after a crash landing (no passengers, though unfortunately 2 pilots in the early 80's during a training flight in a 330J).
So Nick, if that point is the crux of your argument against my logic, I suspect that your credibility with N Sea pilots has reached another all time low.
Is it co-incidence that your former project decided to put their money into fuel crashworthiness instead of escapability. No wonder the 92 is such a dog if this is an example of the logical analysis you applied when the 92 design priorities were drawn up. Woof Woof
There was a long period of consultation when you did, to your credit, ask your customers including N Sea operators what they wanted in a new helicopter, but then to your discredit you ignored virtually everything they suggested.
MSP if I flew in a combat overland role, crashworthy seats would definitely be near the top of my priority list (after lead knickers and a teleport system) but different roles have different priorities.
HC
Note to self - next time you want to ask a question to judge the opinion of Joe Pilot, use a different username to avoid thread swamping by a xxx xxxxx xxxxxx
Remember, hc is the guy who told us that the size of the windows is more important that if the fuel cells are fire proof
So Nick, if that point is the crux of your argument against my logic, I suspect that your credibility with N Sea pilots has reached another all time low.
Is it co-incidence that your former project decided to put their money into fuel crashworthiness instead of escapability. No wonder the 92 is such a dog if this is an example of the logical analysis you applied when the 92 design priorities were drawn up. Woof Woof
There was a long period of consultation when you did, to your credit, ask your customers including N Sea operators what they wanted in a new helicopter, but then to your discredit you ignored virtually everything they suggested.
MSP if I flew in a combat overland role, crashworthy seats would definitely be near the top of my priority list (after lead knickers and a teleport system) but different roles have different priorities.
HC
Note to self - next time you want to ask a question to judge the opinion of Joe Pilot, use a different username to avoid thread swamping by a xxx xxxxx xxxxxx
Last edited by HeliComparator; 29th Apr 2007 at 23:00.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Neverland
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick & Helicomparitor
Obviously you two have issues, and I doubt whether you would even agree that the sun is shining on a given day but the main point for me is that manufacturers are causing pilots to lose their licences because of back problems. They may have the best intentions in providing seats that will save your back if you crash, but then they advertise such reliable aircraft that the chances of a crash are small unless your job is higher risk than aircraft failure. That is the basis on which we sell the aircraft to customers after all!
If I have an aircraft that is less likely than any other to kill my passengers, then I want a comfy seat and a quiet environment. I'll take my chances with the people in the back when it all goes wrong. Nick, I'm no chum of HC, but this is not naive, it's day-to-day life. I know people who are in wheelchairs because of unforgiving seats. I agree with HughMartin that a comfortable "stroking" seat is a great idea, but our S92 guys are moaning about their seats already, and they only do about 4 hours a day! I flew the '76 for years and I still suffer from sciatica as a direct result! One respondent suggested filing reports, but we all know that once something is installed, it will stay there and the pilots just have to live with it. Better to get it fixed at the start?
For the record, yes, I have had a bad back. It started after 2000 hours on the S76 and got much worse until I changed fleets (3000 hours later) - to a comfortable, adjustable, technically non-crashworthy seat. I came very close to losing my medical AND having to undergo painful surgery as a direct result of the seats I had to use - the same seats in service on that fleet today.
Crashworthy vs. comfort is not an issue in my mind and, Nick, it is by no means ludicrous. I agree with you that "a seat that breaks your back is a sub-standard seat", but what if it does this over hours of normal service?
Zeb
Obviously you two have issues, and I doubt whether you would even agree that the sun is shining on a given day but the main point for me is that manufacturers are causing pilots to lose their licences because of back problems. They may have the best intentions in providing seats that will save your back if you crash, but then they advertise such reliable aircraft that the chances of a crash are small unless your job is higher risk than aircraft failure. That is the basis on which we sell the aircraft to customers after all!
If I have an aircraft that is less likely than any other to kill my passengers, then I want a comfy seat and a quiet environment. I'll take my chances with the people in the back when it all goes wrong. Nick, I'm no chum of HC, but this is not naive, it's day-to-day life. I know people who are in wheelchairs because of unforgiving seats. I agree with HughMartin that a comfortable "stroking" seat is a great idea, but our S92 guys are moaning about their seats already, and they only do about 4 hours a day! I flew the '76 for years and I still suffer from sciatica as a direct result! One respondent suggested filing reports, but we all know that once something is installed, it will stay there and the pilots just have to live with it. Better to get it fixed at the start?
For the record, yes, I have had a bad back. It started after 2000 hours on the S76 and got much worse until I changed fleets (3000 hours later) - to a comfortable, adjustable, technically non-crashworthy seat. I came very close to losing my medical AND having to undergo painful surgery as a direct result of the seats I had to use - the same seats in service on that fleet today.
Crashworthy vs. comfort is not an issue in my mind and, Nick, it is by no means ludicrous. I agree with you that "a seat that breaks your back is a sub-standard seat", but what if it does this over hours of normal service?
Zeb
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZBD,
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your "2000 hours in S76 seats" were spent in a seat that is NOT crashworthy. Your point, that crashworthy means uncomfortable, isn't based on facts!
I find it so very silly that we are arguing about apples and oranges.
Points:
There is no correlation between crashworthy seats and comfort rating. NONE. Literally all the seats ppruners sit in are NOT crashworthy, because the requirement is too new to have affected many.
Sorry about your back, seriously. Is there any seat that works for you?
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your "2000 hours in S76 seats" were spent in a seat that is NOT crashworthy. Your point, that crashworthy means uncomfortable, isn't based on facts!
I find it so very silly that we are arguing about apples and oranges.
Points:
There is no correlation between crashworthy seats and comfort rating. NONE. Literally all the seats ppruners sit in are NOT crashworthy, because the requirement is too new to have affected many.
Sorry about your back, seriously. Is there any seat that works for you?
Last edited by NickLappos; 30th Apr 2007 at 04:01.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: By the A&P
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC,
Both the combat and overland aspects are irrelevant to the benefits of the seats. The fact of the matter is that one person believes that the seats allowed him to escape in a timely manner, something that is, if anything, more critical in an overwater flight.
Both the combat and overland aspects are irrelevant to the benefits of the seats. The fact of the matter is that one person believes that the seats allowed him to escape in a timely manner, something that is, if anything, more critical in an overwater flight.
Thread Starter
MSP
What you say is intrinsically true, however surely probabilities come into it? History has shown that the type of accident where crashworthy seats would have made a difference simply haven't occured on the North Sea, whereas its clearly a different answer for onshore single engine etc
HC
What you say is intrinsically true, however surely probabilities come into it? History has shown that the type of accident where crashworthy seats would have made a difference simply haven't occured on the North Sea, whereas its clearly a different answer for onshore single engine etc
HC
The crashworthly Martin-Baker seats in our new S76C++ are very comfortable.
I have noticed in a couple of aircraft, pilots putting items under the stroking seats which seems to defeat the object.
Can I add that most back problems are due to poor abdominal muscles so the correct posture is not held. So if you have a belly expect to have a bad back.
FNW
I have noticed in a couple of aircraft, pilots putting items under the stroking seats which seems to defeat the object.
Can I add that most back problems are due to poor abdominal muscles so the correct posture is not held. So if you have a belly expect to have a bad back.
FNW
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that keeping fit (torso wall) lowers the stress on the back and thus reduces the risk.
... actually most back problems come from a combination of a twisted spine and low left arm (due to poor collective position and often a poor cyclic) interacting with vibration (usually low level and minimised by design for the pilot's seat, but usually present during some of the flight regime). Trying to keep your feet near the pedals doesn't help either. Perhaps of Chief Designers spent a little more time on the ergonomics before fixing the flight control geometry ... and perhaps if there was up-to-date anthropometric data ....
IHMO, having evaluated seats for several projects and with many Test Pilots, comfort and crashworthiness are completely independent. Indeed the original Simula seat in WS-70 Blackhawk was rated by many as the most comfortable on-site (hats off nick
). The fully armoured, crashworthy design for the A129 LAH project (shows my age) outscored it though, even with the side panels fitted.
A comfortable design
is one of the first aims of a crashworthy seat. The better shape your back is in at intial impact, particularly disk spacing, the better able it is to absorb the shock load. Nick's right, there are loads of 'retired' pilots whose careers should have been much longer. We've many here doing desk jobs ...
I'm surprised that there isn't a better retrofit market for seat installations, given the awful standard of most seats and the fact that pilots (or ex-pilots in management) do tend to a say in buying aircraft and selecting mods.
Nimby
... actually most back problems come from a combination of a twisted spine and low left arm (due to poor collective position and often a poor cyclic) interacting with vibration (usually low level and minimised by design for the pilot's seat, but usually present during some of the flight regime). Trying to keep your feet near the pedals doesn't help either. Perhaps of Chief Designers spent a little more time on the ergonomics before fixing the flight control geometry ... and perhaps if there was up-to-date anthropometric data ....
IHMO, having evaluated seats for several projects and with many Test Pilots, comfort and crashworthiness are completely independent. Indeed the original Simula seat in WS-70 Blackhawk was rated by many as the most comfortable on-site (hats off nick
). The fully armoured, crashworthy design for the A129 LAH project (shows my age) outscored it though, even with the side panels fitted.A comfortable design
is one of the first aims of a crashworthy seat. The better shape your back is in at intial impact, particularly disk spacing, the better able it is to absorb the shock load. Nick's right, there are loads of 'retired' pilots whose careers should have been much longer. We've many here doing desk jobs ... I'm surprised that there isn't a better retrofit market for seat installations, given the awful standard of most seats and the fact that pilots (or ex-pilots in management) do tend to a say in buying aircraft and selecting mods.
Nimby
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seats needs adjustment features
HeliComparator, you bring up a difficult question.
AFAIK there are no crashworthy seats avilable that have adjustment possiblities that come close to the best non-crashworthy seats. Agreed, a given seat without adjustment features may be perfect for pilot X, but not likely so for a broad range of pilots. (The car industry seems to have drawn a similar conclusion, and offer seats with numerous adjustments.) I agree that in principle there is no reason a stroking seat should not be just as comfortable as a non-crashworthy seat, but unfortunately this is not the case today. IMHO selection of a non-crashworthy seats may therefor be the best (least poor) choise for some operators.
Note that there is a big difference between military and civilian "crashworthy" requirements.
AFAIK there are no crashworthy seats avilable that have adjustment possiblities that come close to the best non-crashworthy seats. Agreed, a given seat without adjustment features may be perfect for pilot X, but not likely so for a broad range of pilots. (The car industry seems to have drawn a similar conclusion, and offer seats with numerous adjustments.) I agree that in principle there is no reason a stroking seat should not be just as comfortable as a non-crashworthy seat, but unfortunately this is not the case today. IMHO selection of a non-crashworthy seats may therefor be the best (least poor) choise for some operators.
Note that there is a big difference between military and civilian "crashworthy" requirements.
Remember, hc is the guy who told us that the size of the windows is more important that if the fuel cells are fire proof
So, lets consider how many passengers have died on N Sea operations from drowning as a result of difficulty in getting out following a ditching (sadly more than I care to remember)
http://www.etribes.com/sites/etribes...31.preview.JPG
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: yeovil
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Note that there is a big difference between military and civilian "crashworthy" requirements
And as for the obstruction of windows ... too right! Try imagining what that handle look like upside down viewed from near the floor with estuary water and muck from the floor - in the dark.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rotorrookie took a few liberties with reality with that picture! The cabin has every window available as a push-out, and 4 big emergency exits in each corner, as well as a 6 foot ramp at the end. Those troop seats are removed with one hand pull, and are individually placed where the cew wants them, not mounted fully across the cabin in the SAR birds, so they are not a big deal. But when he shows one picture, it looks awful. Nice try.
Regarding the safety difference between civil and military stroking seats, the differences are small relative to the less safe non-stroking seats in grandfathered helos. Military stroking seats protect up to 20 g's, civil are 18 g's, and non--stroking are 4 to 6 g's (with no back protection at all).
The reason why hc must establish this seat mythology is that the stresses that an 18 to 20 g seat put on the airframe are so large that the floor structure simply cannot take swapping seats, and so the job of adding stroking seats is a lot more complicated and costly than just buying a seat. The floor redesign is eye-watering, about a 1200 pound penalty for the 225. Why? Because the 18 g's is about 4 times the load that the floor can take, so the seat won't stroke, it will simply tear a patch of floor off and merrily let the pilot bounce around the cockpit still strapped to the disconnected seat. Thus you get their chief salesman telling you that "you don't really need them" instead of a clear call for safety for passengers and crews!
This bizarro thread really scares me. When ppruners begin to debate if the earth is flat, and if we should take safety feaures out of new machines like the 139 and 92. It is the victory of rampant ignorance like this that makes me cynical about our plight - if pilots don't call for safety changes, don't expect regulators and manufacturers to line up to make changes.
If Luddite pilots like helicomparitor win their points, we will sit in pools of spilled fuel, unconscious in our seats waiting for the fire to reach us, while military pilots can walk away and help rescuers treat the passengers. Sad story, guys. Keep it up, weaken safety features, and close our market further, maki it better for our real customers, the passengers, to want another way to get to their destinations, and stop those checks from coming in!
Regarding the safety difference between civil and military stroking seats, the differences are small relative to the less safe non-stroking seats in grandfathered helos. Military stroking seats protect up to 20 g's, civil are 18 g's, and non--stroking are 4 to 6 g's (with no back protection at all).
The reason why hc must establish this seat mythology is that the stresses that an 18 to 20 g seat put on the airframe are so large that the floor structure simply cannot take swapping seats, and so the job of adding stroking seats is a lot more complicated and costly than just buying a seat. The floor redesign is eye-watering, about a 1200 pound penalty for the 225. Why? Because the 18 g's is about 4 times the load that the floor can take, so the seat won't stroke, it will simply tear a patch of floor off and merrily let the pilot bounce around the cockpit still strapped to the disconnected seat. Thus you get their chief salesman telling you that "you don't really need them" instead of a clear call for safety for passengers and crews!
This bizarro thread really scares me. When ppruners begin to debate if the earth is flat, and if we should take safety feaures out of new machines like the 139 and 92. It is the victory of rampant ignorance like this that makes me cynical about our plight - if pilots don't call for safety changes, don't expect regulators and manufacturers to line up to make changes.
If Luddite pilots like helicomparitor win their points, we will sit in pools of spilled fuel, unconscious in our seats waiting for the fire to reach us, while military pilots can walk away and help rescuers treat the passengers. Sad story, guys. Keep it up, weaken safety features, and close our market further, maki it better for our real customers, the passengers, to want another way to get to their destinations, and stop those checks from coming in!
Thread Starter
When ppruners begin to debate if the earth is flat
Just for the information of others (no point in trying to inform Nick of anything) the EC225s in service for oil and gas support all have crashworthy passenger seating which of course includes strengthened flooring to be able to take the g loads. Its true that this is an "optional extra" that does add weight (though not as much as Nick suggests) but even with that extra weight, the payload of a 225 is still greater than a 92.
HC
Howcanwebeexpectedtoflylikeeagles
whensurroundedbyturkeys
Nick, I notice you didn't answer my questions in my previous post
Do you wear a crash helmet when you drive to work in your car? Does your car have a 5 point harness? Have you fitted an automatic fire suppresion system? I suspect not - neither have I.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hugh,
Your question raises an interesting and important point - is the REQUIRED safety level enough?
First point: We are not talking about adding safety onto a helicopter, as in "should I install stroking seats?" We are talking about if our helicopter should meet the newest minimum safety standard, or should we ignore the latest safety rules.
Second Point: Is there value in seeking the newest, safest standards? I think so, and I do BUY my car by referencing the head injury index that is published in several sources, so that I know I don't have to wear a helmet. I also will be sure that the cars I buy have 6 airbags for front, side and glass protection for the occupant, ABS and side door structural protection. This means that my kids drive around in the reasonable safest car that can be bought.
Third Point: Do we trust the folks who set the minimum safety standards for our civil aviation authority, or do we listen to arrogance like helicomparitor, who thinks he knows better? What do I mean by arrogance? Helicomparitor would not last through three questions from those who have studied the ways to grow our industry's safety, engineers and regulators who agonize over the next step we must take, folks like JimL. These engineers who work for FAA and JAA use test and accident data, and knowledge of technical solutions to set the absolute minimum safety standard that should be met, rules that cannot be waived by new helicopters. This "debate" especially concerns me, I was the Chief Test Engineer for Sikorsky, and am intimately familiar with the percentiles of accident severity as well as the design methods to help save lives, and the economic tradeoffs that set the standards. This is NOT a competitive issue, I have repeatedly said that the AB-139 also meets this new standard, and is therefore a very worthy helicopter.
Your question raises an interesting and important point - is the REQUIRED safety level enough?
First point: We are not talking about adding safety onto a helicopter, as in "should I install stroking seats?" We are talking about if our helicopter should meet the newest minimum safety standard, or should we ignore the latest safety rules.
Second Point: Is there value in seeking the newest, safest standards? I think so, and I do BUY my car by referencing the head injury index that is published in several sources, so that I know I don't have to wear a helmet. I also will be sure that the cars I buy have 6 airbags for front, side and glass protection for the occupant, ABS and side door structural protection. This means that my kids drive around in the reasonable safest car that can be bought.
Third Point: Do we trust the folks who set the minimum safety standards for our civil aviation authority, or do we listen to arrogance like helicomparitor, who thinks he knows better? What do I mean by arrogance? Helicomparitor would not last through three questions from those who have studied the ways to grow our industry's safety, engineers and regulators who agonize over the next step we must take, folks like JimL. These engineers who work for FAA and JAA use test and accident data, and knowledge of technical solutions to set the absolute minimum safety standard that should be met, rules that cannot be waived by new helicopters. This "debate" especially concerns me, I was the Chief Test Engineer for Sikorsky, and am intimately familiar with the percentiles of accident severity as well as the design methods to help save lives, and the economic tradeoffs that set the standards. This is NOT a competitive issue, I have repeatedly said that the AB-139 also meets this new standard, and is therefore a very worthy helicopter.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The AB139 ... is ... a very worthy helicopter"
I am sure that the designers at Augusta, Bell will be very gratified by your gracious endorsement, Mr Lappos.
Seriously, though, crashworthy seats are important and I am sure that in time lives will be saved.
Seating is, however, not the only consideration when assessing the “worthiness” of a helicopter. There are two main contenders in the heavyweight class at the moment, the EC225 and the S92A. They each have their champion on this forum (although the level of debate at times leaves a little to be desired). Each has its merits and its faults. The passenger compartment and baggage area of the 92 are clearly superior in terms of space and, as has been stated, the crash resistance of the pilots’ seats in the 225 does not meet the highest standards. The 225’s deficiencies can mostly be explained by its derivation from a 1960s aircraft.
The shortcomings of the 92 are less easy to explain and one wonders whether they stem from a “not invented here” syndrome. The avionics are, to say the least, disappointing. Just as one cannot imagine someone preferring the cabin of the 225 (it’s so cosy!), no-one who has spent even an hour with a Eurocopter display would consider the Sikorsky version an improvement. The cockpit, while far more spacious, is poorly designed ergonomically, with much wasted space and many controls being out of reach for one pilot. The field of view from the cockpit is poor, especially in the hover, and will undoubtedly lead to problems, especially landing on small, moving, decks. My biggest concern, though, is with a linking of 3 factors. I cannot speak for the 225 but certainly with the 332l, zero/zero autorotations were possible. Again with the 332l and, I imagine, the 225 it was permitted to inflate the flotation in the air. This is prohibited on the 92. In a forced ditching it is therefore likely that the aircraft will arrive fast and heavy and roll before the floats can deploy. This is especially true if only the standard, fuselage mounted, floats are fitted. One then has the problem of an inverted helicopter with less than ideally sized windows. There are many offshore workers who would struggle to fit through one on a good day, let alone inverted, under water, in the dark and panicked, wearing a LAP jacket. I just hope that I will not be able to come back to this post in years to come and say “I told you so”
Seriously, though, crashworthy seats are important and I am sure that in time lives will be saved.
Seating is, however, not the only consideration when assessing the “worthiness” of a helicopter. There are two main contenders in the heavyweight class at the moment, the EC225 and the S92A. They each have their champion on this forum (although the level of debate at times leaves a little to be desired). Each has its merits and its faults. The passenger compartment and baggage area of the 92 are clearly superior in terms of space and, as has been stated, the crash resistance of the pilots’ seats in the 225 does not meet the highest standards. The 225’s deficiencies can mostly be explained by its derivation from a 1960s aircraft.
The shortcomings of the 92 are less easy to explain and one wonders whether they stem from a “not invented here” syndrome. The avionics are, to say the least, disappointing. Just as one cannot imagine someone preferring the cabin of the 225 (it’s so cosy!), no-one who has spent even an hour with a Eurocopter display would consider the Sikorsky version an improvement. The cockpit, while far more spacious, is poorly designed ergonomically, with much wasted space and many controls being out of reach for one pilot. The field of view from the cockpit is poor, especially in the hover, and will undoubtedly lead to problems, especially landing on small, moving, decks. My biggest concern, though, is with a linking of 3 factors. I cannot speak for the 225 but certainly with the 332l, zero/zero autorotations were possible. Again with the 332l and, I imagine, the 225 it was permitted to inflate the flotation in the air. This is prohibited on the 92. In a forced ditching it is therefore likely that the aircraft will arrive fast and heavy and roll before the floats can deploy. This is especially true if only the standard, fuselage mounted, floats are fitted. One then has the problem of an inverted helicopter with less than ideally sized windows. There are many offshore workers who would struggle to fit through one on a good day, let alone inverted, under water, in the dark and panicked, wearing a LAP jacket. I just hope that I will not be able to come back to this post in years to come and say “I told you so”
Crashworthy Seats
Not sure what a zero/zero autorotation was as referred to, but if one has a video of a zero groundspeed auto landing in the 225-AT MAX Weight, I'd love to view it. Also, with re to the S-92 float deployment question, that procedure was the subject of lively discussion, without unanimity of opinion ( but finally, with consensus ). Note the section of the flight manual that covers the inadvertant flat deployment speeds etc. We flew all of that, of course, and there were no flying or handling problems at all. Biggest excitement was the sound associated with deployment.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Up to my axles
Age: 61
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
Yes I would also like to know if it is possible! The zero/zero refered to was zero forward speed and zero vertical speed just before touchdown.
As to float deployment, I am aware that it is possible to continue flight with them out. I assume that the prohibition on deliberate deployment is to prevent a water landing with appreciable forward speed [because of strength considerations?]. Am I wrong?
Yes I would also like to know if it is possible! The zero/zero refered to was zero forward speed and zero vertical speed just before touchdown.
As to float deployment, I am aware that it is possible to continue flight with them out. I assume that the prohibition on deliberate deployment is to prevent a water landing with appreciable forward speed [because of strength considerations?]. Am I wrong?
Thread Starter
Massey / John
I am sure the 225 could do a zero/zero auto at max all up weight provided it never had to fly again! Is there is an issue with autos on the 92? The video certainly showed a fast touchdown speed - faster than one would like into water or rough ground - but it all depends on the wind, weight and how much its insured for
Float arming and inflation speeds have long been pilot-unfriendly on Sikorsky aircraft. But the most pilot-unfriendly limitation surely has to be the wipers!
On the 225 the limit is 150kts for arming or inflation, though I wouldn't like to try the latter. Recommended inflation speed is 80 kts.
So if I interpret correctly, no float inflation on the 92 until after ditching? Remind me why we bought them - Oh yes, it was to improve safety
HC
I am sure the 225 could do a zero/zero auto at max all up weight provided it never had to fly again! Is there is an issue with autos on the 92? The video certainly showed a fast touchdown speed - faster than one would like into water or rough ground - but it all depends on the wind, weight and how much its insured for
Float arming and inflation speeds have long been pilot-unfriendly on Sikorsky aircraft. But the most pilot-unfriendly limitation surely has to be the wipers!
On the 225 the limit is 150kts for arming or inflation, though I wouldn't like to try the latter. Recommended inflation speed is 80 kts.
So if I interpret correctly, no float inflation on the 92 until after ditching? Remind me why we bought them - Oh yes, it was to improve safety
HC