Where does the UK/JAR "twin only" mentality come from?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Bob;
If one was to cycle from Lands End to John O'Groats, or any long distance cycle ride of your choosing, on a unicycle, would the chance of a puncture on the journey be reduced by 50%?; Should one chose to complete the trip on a tricycle, would that increase the risk of a puncture by 50%?
Just asking'.
If one was to cycle from Lands End to John O'Groats, or any long distance cycle ride of your choosing, on a unicycle, would the chance of a puncture on the journey be reduced by 50%?; Should one chose to complete the trip on a tricycle, would that increase the risk of a puncture by 50%?
Just asking'.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sid, anyone knows the probability remains the same in your example.
Either you will get a Puncture or you will not. 50/50 old boy.
Now the better question is whether the Authority would allow you to make the trip at all using a Unicycle or would they require at least a Bicycle?
That is the analogous argument for you to ponder as it in the same vein of thought as the topic of this thread.
Ask yourself why the US FAA does not have the same standard as does the UK?
Why is that?
Results of a Safety Analysis?
Result of Political issues?
Result of Cultural differences re Aviation between Americans and Brits?
Give us the British view of things as compared to the American way.
Either you will get a Puncture or you will not. 50/50 old boy.
Now the better question is whether the Authority would allow you to make the trip at all using a Unicycle or would they require at least a Bicycle?
That is the analogous argument for you to ponder as it in the same vein of thought as the topic of this thread.
Ask yourself why the US FAA does not have the same standard as does the UK?
Why is that?
Results of a Safety Analysis?
Result of Political issues?
Result of Cultural differences re Aviation between Americans and Brits?
Give us the British view of things as compared to the American way.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Either you will get a Puncture or you will not. 50/50 old boy.
Give us the British view of things as compared to the American way.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Budget, Federal Money LOTS of Federal Money, and a willingness to spend it.
They also have Agusta 119's you know.....N318PD being one of them.
Last time I checked that was a single engine aircraft.
At one time they had eight of them, two 412's as well.
Why do Bell's and MD's and even R-44's get used by the vast majority of other PD's do you think?
http://www.oocities.org/floyd_bennett_field/nypd.html
They also have Agusta 119's you know.....N318PD being one of them.
Last time I checked that was a single engine aircraft.
At one time they had eight of them, two 412's as well.
Why do Bell's and MD's and even R-44's get used by the vast majority of other PD's do you think?
http://www.oocities.org/floyd_bennett_field/nypd.html
Last edited by Boudreaux Bob; 24th Mar 2014 at 19:25.
Bordeaux:
Perhaps it's down to the yanks outlook on life:
You fly singles over built up areas.
Your deaths on the road is (pro rata) nearly four times that of ours.
Your navy fly their helicopter approaches to ships from the stern (thus negating escape routes) we fly to the alongside.
Your EMS safety record is riddled with crashes and accidents but yet you do not change the culture.
You arm everyone to the teeth - men, women and children and then bitch and moan about high school shootings.
You invade third world countries losing thousands of troops and never learn. (Oooh that was a bit harsh - I'll withdraw that).
You kill criminals.
It's all about attitudes to life - or in your case the cessation of life, perhaps.
Perhaps it's down to the yanks outlook on life:
You fly singles over built up areas.
Your deaths on the road is (pro rata) nearly four times that of ours.
Your navy fly their helicopter approaches to ships from the stern (thus negating escape routes) we fly to the alongside.
Your EMS safety record is riddled with crashes and accidents but yet you do not change the culture.
You arm everyone to the teeth - men, women and children and then bitch and moan about high school shootings.
You invade third world countries losing thousands of troops and never learn. (Oooh that was a bit harsh - I'll withdraw that).
You kill criminals.
It's all about attitudes to life - or in your case the cessation of life, perhaps.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
Why are you so interested in what we do in the UK? Frankly I couldn't give a flying f@ck what you yanks do in the US of A. You have a system. We have ours. Your teenagers can't drink til they're 21, yet they may carry a concealed firearm at, what, 18??
Why would I 'ask myself' such a question, when I have absolutely no interest whatsoever in the answer? Why would I? I only fly British registered aircraft when I fly in US airspace.
We're different. You're different. I'm very happy with the country in which I live. I guess you might be too? We are compliant with the International Civil Aviation Organisation guidance. Whereas you 'know better', and choose not to be. Apparently due to lack of money?
What's your problem?
Why are you so interested in what we do in the UK? Frankly I couldn't give a flying f@ck what you yanks do in the US of A. You have a system. We have ours. Your teenagers can't drink til they're 21, yet they may carry a concealed firearm at, what, 18??
Ask yourself why the US FAA does not have the same standard as does the UK?
We're different. You're different. I'm very happy with the country in which I live. I guess you might be too? We are compliant with the International Civil Aviation Organisation guidance. Whereas you 'know better', and choose not to be. Apparently due to lack of money?
What's your problem?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
Boudreaux Bob;
Oh dear Bob, you're not really up with the times are you?
NYPD getting new helicopters that will be faster, cheaper to fly - NY Daily News
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/...7-c8bfc17bf059
… and why do they say they are doing that?
They also have Agusta 119's you know.....N318PD being one of them.
Last time I checked that was a single engine aircraft.
At one time they had eight of them, two 412's as well.
Last time I checked that was a single engine aircraft.
At one time they had eight of them, two 412's as well.
The NYPD currently uses the AgustaWestland A119 Koala helicopter. These will be traded in to help offset the cost of the department's new Bell 429s.
http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/...7-c8bfc17bf059
… and why do they say they are doing that?
The double engine Bell 429 is considered safer than the single-engine AgustaWestland helicopters being replaced.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps you might tell the FAA.
They still show the aircraft being registered to the NYPD.
Now it would appear all is not completely Lilacs and Rosewater in the UK with all the fatal accidents you have had in the past year or so.
You have lost a 109,135, 139, and the offshore bird with four fatalities, you just finished a Sheriff's Court on another Fatal Crash offshore, there is a CAA Review and Industry Review going on, and the CAA has just mandated some rather marked changes in the way you operate offshore.
Doesn't the Good Book say something about Sin and Stones that y'all might consider before pointing fingers our way?
All those were Twins engaged in Public Transport (less the 139) were they not?
They still show the aircraft being registered to the NYPD.
Now it would appear all is not completely Lilacs and Rosewater in the UK with all the fatal accidents you have had in the past year or so.
You have lost a 109,135, 139, and the offshore bird with four fatalities, you just finished a Sheriff's Court on another Fatal Crash offshore, there is a CAA Review and Industry Review going on, and the CAA has just mandated some rather marked changes in the way you operate offshore.
Doesn't the Good Book say something about Sin and Stones that y'all might consider before pointing fingers our way?
All those were Twins engaged in Public Transport (less the 139) were they not?
Bordeaux,
You're on the ropes buddy!
NONE of those crashes was as a result of an engine defect....not ONE.
109 - fuel.
139 - alleged fuel
139 - alleged CFIT
Offshore - gearbox and alleged pilot error.
You also got the NYPD fleet wrong.
You missed that comment they made about the 429 being safer.
Any facts to convey?
Ya'll better get your ducks in a row bud!
You're on the ropes buddy!
NONE of those crashes was as a result of an engine defect....not ONE.
109 - fuel.
139 - alleged fuel
139 - alleged CFIT
Offshore - gearbox and alleged pilot error.
You also got the NYPD fleet wrong.
You missed that comment they made about the 429 being safer.
Any facts to convey?
Ya'll better get your ducks in a row bud!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They all had two engines didn't they.
That is a fact.
That they all flew into the water, ground, building, or crane is a fact too. Less the one that had the catastrophic MGB failure.
The FAA still shows an active registration for the N318PD, so NYPD still owns it.
NYPD being one of how many hundred Police Operators seems to be a fact lost upon you guys.
I also pointed out that the LASO and Miami Dade also operate twins, so what's your point?
You folks sure enjoy running from the discussion when it gets around to problems on your patch. The must pinch when it is on the other foot, eh?
That is a fact.
That they all flew into the water, ground, building, or crane is a fact too. Less the one that had the catastrophic MGB failure.
The FAA still shows an active registration for the N318PD, so NYPD still owns it.
NYPD being one of how many hundred Police Operators seems to be a fact lost upon you guys.
I also pointed out that the LASO and Miami Dade also operate twins, so what's your point?
You folks sure enjoy running from the discussion when it gets around to problems on your patch. The must pinch when it is on the other foot, eh?
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
They still show the aircraft being registered to the NYPD.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
at least 3 of those 4 cases are related to being twins. (and possibly the 4th a daft Cat A takeoff profile would be an inappropriate assessment of the risk compared to a take off profile suited to climb into IMC) akin to the risk balance between chance of engine failure on takeoff against risk of collision with unseen object when the H-V curve is avoided.
As far as we can establish no-one has ever had an engine failure in a twin whilst climbing upwards backwards in a 'Cat A' t/o, being exposed to t/r failures and other critical components for longer.
Furthermore a twin profile does not have to result in an uncrashed helicopter merely a good chance of survival. Similar to the outcome of an engine failure for a single ofver a hostile (my arse) urban environment. (we have seen it is not so hostile from the relatively good results posted here).
regulatory required fuel systems so complex that they are more prone to Murphy are a consequence, as are ludicrous (critical component) complex gearboxes.
the stats promised are not in practice delivered (you can't deny it). Twin engined helicopter crashes, flown by professional pilots, are giving helicopters a bad name.
As far as we can establish no-one has ever had an engine failure in a twin whilst climbing upwards backwards in a 'Cat A' t/o, being exposed to t/r failures and other critical components for longer.
Furthermore a twin profile does not have to result in an uncrashed helicopter merely a good chance of survival. Similar to the outcome of an engine failure for a single ofver a hostile (my arse) urban environment. (we have seen it is not so hostile from the relatively good results posted here).
regulatory required fuel systems so complex that they are more prone to Murphy are a consequence, as are ludicrous (critical component) complex gearboxes.
the stats promised are not in practice delivered (you can't deny it). Twin engined helicopter crashes, flown by professional pilots, are giving helicopters a bad name.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 425 Likes
on
224 Posts
As far as we can establish no-one has ever had an engine failure in a twin whilst climbing upwards backwards in a 'Cat A' t/o, being exposed to t/r failures and other critical components for longer.
Furthermore a twin profile does not have to result in an uncrashed helicopter merely a good chance of survival.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
Although ANFIs logic is dubious his last statement rings true!
Too many accidents in very capable machines flown by professional pilots. We need to look inward because for majority of these accidents (bar 85N) we, the crew, seem to be the weakest link.
Just what are we doing wrong and how can it be improved. It does not matter how many engines we have if we operate so poorly that we run out of fuel, ideas and airspace, bust, ignore or are ignorant of limits.
Military pilots just as prone as civilian.
Too many accidents in very capable machines flown by professional pilots. We need to look inward because for majority of these accidents (bar 85N) we, the crew, seem to be the weakest link.
Just what are we doing wrong and how can it be improved. It does not matter how many engines we have if we operate so poorly that we run out of fuel, ideas and airspace, bust, ignore or are ignorant of limits.
Military pilots just as prone as civilian.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the whole twin thing has a lot to do with empire protection when you have bigger companies investing time and money and lots of paperwork so they can use twins and be more versatile , the last thing they want is someone in a much cheaper single moving in and stealing their work.
The fact is singles do fly in the uk at night and in and out of tiny confined areas a lot of the time with ppl's doing the flying so to say they are more dangerous is daft there is no evedence !
I fly both but have a lot more time in singles and have only ever had two occasion where I needed to put the machine down in a hurry both R22's , but when you have an engine problem or failure in a single the action is simple just land !
I find the complexity of a twin to be my biggest concern when flying them and the chance of taking the wrong action much greater , that may change with more time in them but I can't help but think under extreme pressure the wrong action would be easier . How many times has the wrong engine been shut down in a twin ?
CBS
The fact is singles do fly in the uk at night and in and out of tiny confined areas a lot of the time with ppl's doing the flying so to say they are more dangerous is daft there is no evedence !
I fly both but have a lot more time in singles and have only ever had two occasion where I needed to put the machine down in a hurry both R22's , but when you have an engine problem or failure in a single the action is simple just land !
I find the complexity of a twin to be my biggest concern when flying them and the chance of taking the wrong action much greater , that may change with more time in them but I can't help but think under extreme pressure the wrong action would be easier . How many times has the wrong engine been shut down in a twin ?
CBS
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Nova
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CRAZYBROADSWORD
PPLs aren't allowed to fly for hire and reward. Anybody else on board is simply a volounteer! As a professional, I have more respect for my own life than to sit in an R22 at night, in and out of a confined area with a PPL at the controls. Anyone doing that must be tired of living! But then again I was uncomfortable in a Wasp over the South Atlantic at night, out of sight of land and ships! I must just be a coward eh? But then I have managed to achieve a reasonable age.
As far as twins are concerned, yes they can be a little more complex. Try flying the Wessex! They are vulnerable to all the same accidents as singles EXCEPT engine failure/damage rarely requires an immediate landing!
Your chance of taking the wrong action in a twin is unlikely to change with more time in them, so never make that assumption. (However many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!) Only strict adherence to quality training, combined with incessant 'rehearsal' will protect you. So if you haven't had quality training, and you aren't prepared to be meticulous, don't ever strap one on, because like anything else, in the wrong hands they will (and frequently do) kill.
The fact is singles do fly in the uk at night and in and out of tiny confined areas a lot of the time with ppl's doing the flying so to say they are more dangerous is daft there is no evedence !
As far as twins are concerned, yes they can be a little more complex. Try flying the Wessex! They are vulnerable to all the same accidents as singles EXCEPT engine failure/damage rarely requires an immediate landing!
Your chance of taking the wrong action in a twin is unlikely to change with more time in them, so never make that assumption. (However many hours you have in your logbook, only the next one's important!) Only strict adherence to quality training, combined with incessant 'rehearsal' will protect you. So if you haven't had quality training, and you aren't prepared to be meticulous, don't ever strap one on, because like anything else, in the wrong hands they will (and frequently do) kill.
Last edited by Tandemrotor; 25th Mar 2014 at 09:27.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Do I come here often?
Posts: 898
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DB;
Take a bow! I don't often find myself in agreement with you, but your last post echoes a statement I made on the G-LBAL thread. We have a lot of new toys on aircraft these days, but I personally find the training in the use of them at best poor and at worst downright misleading.
We have also taken a large step backwards over the last 15 years IMHO, JAR/EASA seem to be trying to paper over a lot of cracks using SMS, when CAP 360 procedures were defined in a far tighter manner. I recently made a comparison of a current offshore JAR manual, against a 1999 CAP360 one, and I know which one I found to be the better.
JimL of this parish speaks a lot of sense on automation, when I flew with him we had basic RadAlt, Decca moving maps, monochrome radar and a basic SAS which would just about hold a heading, and flew in some pretty dire weather, I never once saw an altitude bust, never had a "Check height" warning (except when crossing a deck edge) and always felt very confident we all knew what we were doing. Now we seem to be teaching ourselves how the automatics work on the job, and that's no place to be experimenting.
On corporate machines there is a huge lack of knowledge on behalf of the owners, 6 years ago I took an aircraft under management at the point of delivery as the owner had lost faith in the man who had sold it to him. On his first day with us he exploded because his IFR aircraft couldn't fly into his garden in thick fog, he thought it would just come to the hover over his garden and let down vertically. After 3 years he was well into the groove, had a lit helipad, a weather reporting station in his garden and had spent 2 days with us learning how we operate, his PA spent 3 days learning about weights and very basic rules, now all new owners get a thorough brief and their PA's a 3 day course, most of which adds up to "phone us with the task, and don't try to second guess or interfere."
BUT, the aircraft now have systems I would not have believed possible on helicopters 26 years ago, and I do believe that those systems which are designed to make the aircraft more efficient and the job easier are being used to abuse limits by pilots who really aren't that conversant with either the systems, or the rules.
SND
Take a bow! I don't often find myself in agreement with you, but your last post echoes a statement I made on the G-LBAL thread. We have a lot of new toys on aircraft these days, but I personally find the training in the use of them at best poor and at worst downright misleading.
We have also taken a large step backwards over the last 15 years IMHO, JAR/EASA seem to be trying to paper over a lot of cracks using SMS, when CAP 360 procedures were defined in a far tighter manner. I recently made a comparison of a current offshore JAR manual, against a 1999 CAP360 one, and I know which one I found to be the better.
JimL of this parish speaks a lot of sense on automation, when I flew with him we had basic RadAlt, Decca moving maps, monochrome radar and a basic SAS which would just about hold a heading, and flew in some pretty dire weather, I never once saw an altitude bust, never had a "Check height" warning (except when crossing a deck edge) and always felt very confident we all knew what we were doing. Now we seem to be teaching ourselves how the automatics work on the job, and that's no place to be experimenting.
On corporate machines there is a huge lack of knowledge on behalf of the owners, 6 years ago I took an aircraft under management at the point of delivery as the owner had lost faith in the man who had sold it to him. On his first day with us he exploded because his IFR aircraft couldn't fly into his garden in thick fog, he thought it would just come to the hover over his garden and let down vertically. After 3 years he was well into the groove, had a lit helipad, a weather reporting station in his garden and had spent 2 days with us learning how we operate, his PA spent 3 days learning about weights and very basic rules, now all new owners get a thorough brief and their PA's a 3 day course, most of which adds up to "phone us with the task, and don't try to second guess or interfere."
BUT, the aircraft now have systems I would not have believed possible on helicopters 26 years ago, and I do believe that those systems which are designed to make the aircraft more efficient and the job easier are being used to abuse limits by pilots who really aren't that conversant with either the systems, or the rules.
SND
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK and MALTA
Age: 61
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
4 Posts
SND - I too remember those days ŵith JimL and Co in the S61N. Basic for sure and of course despite the vast improvement in avionics, displays, awareness tools and AFCS we still operate to the same limits we did then.
But before we swing too many lamps and try to convince ourselves things were safer we ought to remember the Penzance disaster, the Brent SPAR and Cormorant Alpha. All crew related fatals sadly! I have restricted to only three. There were many more, sadly.
I agree entirely on the subject of automation. It is worse than useless without comprehensive training, fully formed SOPs and competent crew. These, in my view, are the three hooded horsemen in our industry at the higher levels.
To get better the patient has to recognise they are sick. I think we are just about there now! The question though is what is the cure. How do we administer it and more importantly, ensure the patient takes his medicine.
DB
But before we swing too many lamps and try to convince ourselves things were safer we ought to remember the Penzance disaster, the Brent SPAR and Cormorant Alpha. All crew related fatals sadly! I have restricted to only three. There were many more, sadly.
I agree entirely on the subject of automation. It is worse than useless without comprehensive training, fully formed SOPs and competent crew. These, in my view, are the three hooded horsemen in our industry at the higher levels.
To get better the patient has to recognise they are sick. I think we are just about there now! The question though is what is the cure. How do we administer it and more importantly, ensure the patient takes his medicine.
DB
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: uk
Posts: 419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good points in the last few posts. My path from the military (after 3000+ Lynx 1/5/7/9) was a 6 1/2 hour R22 type rating for licence issue. Quite a sobering but rewarding experience after the relative complexity of a twin. Then straight on to a 3 1/2hr AS355 conversion, followed 100hrs later by a 3 1/2 hr EC135T1 conversion, each conversion/TR was accompanied by about 8 hrs of ground school. Was this enough? The Lynx conversion in the military was around 6 weeks, including groundschool, 30 hrs flying and around 10 hrs simulator. None of these aircraft had any form of AP or integrated/radio Nav to speak of.
The Military system seemed to say, we'll teach you everything we know, show you every component, practise every emergency, and when we say you're good enough we'll call you limited combat ready for a while under supervision before you're in charge of it.
The civi system said, we can't afford any more, you need to be out in this earning revenue, get your head in the books in between jobs and pray nothing serious happens in the first few hundred hours. Then I had a 1 hr briefing and 40 minute flight to 'convert' to the 135 T2 with its glass cockpit and 3 axis AP! Same again with the P2. It's all about the MONEY.
The Military system seemed to say, we'll teach you everything we know, show you every component, practise every emergency, and when we say you're good enough we'll call you limited combat ready for a while under supervision before you're in charge of it.
The civi system said, we can't afford any more, you need to be out in this earning revenue, get your head in the books in between jobs and pray nothing serious happens in the first few hundred hours. Then I had a 1 hr briefing and 40 minute flight to 'convert' to the 135 T2 with its glass cockpit and 3 axis AP! Same again with the P2. It's all about the MONEY.