Main reason for accidents?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: UK, US, now more ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Age: 41
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wouldn't bother buying Fatal traps for full listing price.
Use amazon UK instead. Bought Chickenhawk and Tales of Helicopter pilot for good money. I wouldn't buy anymore 'Nam heli books as it gets boring after a while. All the killing, explosions etc. Yeah, low level flying, night flying etc, but still pointless killing each other.
Main reason of accident in this kind of books' situations is having hydraulics,fuel tank or engine sieved by bullets.
As mentioned elsewhere here, I'd leave Robinson safety DVD and Fatal traps until after PPL.. Safety material that won't make us feel 'safer'. Funny irony.
Use amazon UK instead. Bought Chickenhawk and Tales of Helicopter pilot for good money. I wouldn't buy anymore 'Nam heli books as it gets boring after a while. All the killing, explosions etc. Yeah, low level flying, night flying etc, but still pointless killing each other.
Main reason of accident in this kind of books' situations is having hydraulics,fuel tank or engine sieved by bullets.
As mentioned elsewhere here, I'd leave Robinson safety DVD and Fatal traps until after PPL.. Safety material that won't make us feel 'safer'. Funny irony.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Greenland
Age: 57
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello KNEIVEL77,
The most common thing is SIFU; Self Induced **** Upp...
Putting yourself where you don't have control of the situation. Can be weather, technical, fuel, lack of skills or whatever..
You have to know your machine, your skills and the enviroiment you are flying in to minimize the risks..
It is all process, starting with the first flight and continues through your career. And it's great fun all the time, if you do it open minded and honestly.. It's just like some games; A minute to learn, a lifetime to master !
Fly safe !
The most common thing is SIFU; Self Induced **** Upp...
Putting yourself where you don't have control of the situation. Can be weather, technical, fuel, lack of skills or whatever..
You have to know your machine, your skills and the enviroiment you are flying in to minimize the risks..
It is all process, starting with the first flight and continues through your career. And it's great fun all the time, if you do it open minded and honestly.. It's just like some games; A minute to learn, a lifetime to master !
Fly safe !
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst poor weather is the most obvious big killer, I'd say the most likely cause of an accident if you're starting flying, especially in an R22, will be messed up engine offs then rolling the acft on landing, and loss of control in the hover. Then once you're off with your new licence, heavy landings or worse from misjudged take offs and approaches when you're too heavy, or lose (often translational) lift, usually through unrecognised tailwind components.
Just what seems to crop up the accident reports most!
Just what seems to crop up the accident reports most!
Poor Southerner
Re. your question on carb icing: it is certainly an important risk in carburetted piston helicopters. The requirement for the rotor to freewheel for autorotation means the engine is more likely to stop as ice builds, there being no windmill efect from the rotor to help turn the engine. Better no engine than no RRPM though...
TT
Re. your question on carb icing: it is certainly an important risk in carburetted piston helicopters. The requirement for the rotor to freewheel for autorotation means the engine is more likely to stop as ice builds, there being no windmill efect from the rotor to help turn the engine. Better no engine than no RRPM though...
TT
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Hitchin, Herts
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the Safety Tips in the back of the Robinson R22 Pilots Operating Handbook - pretty comprehensive coverage of the many ways of killing yourself in a helicopter (and how to avoid them).
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Wakefield
Age: 58
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main Reasons for accidents.....
As a fairly low (350) hourage pilot who managed (thank God!) to survive a 22 crash with "only" a broken pelvis, pubic bone and three ribs, I would say this:
The ground school and understanding of 'the principals of flight' etc. is as important (if not MORE important) than initally the actual flying. Alot of flying schools are happy to take your money, get you up in the air, then fix you up with the fancy student "flight bag" full of books and say INITIALLY, "get on and read them!". YOU NEED "BOARD WORK" before and after every flight!!!!!!!!!!!!
The "main reason for accidents...", I feel (as a guy who got his license 2 years ago) is PPLs with little real (true) understanding of the limitations of the heliciopters they choose to train in, and how those limitations then change so so much depending on other factors such as weather etc. etc. etc.
My Instructor once said to me....... when you get your Private Pilots License, you are then Licensed to kill yourself!!!!!
There is no greater feeling in the world than flying helicopters, enjoy your training, don't set an objective to try and get thru in the minimum number of hours, get thru when YOU are comfortable with all the professional instruction and training received enabling you to pass your test and exams.......and, fly safe!
Enjoy.
The ground school and understanding of 'the principals of flight' etc. is as important (if not MORE important) than initally the actual flying. Alot of flying schools are happy to take your money, get you up in the air, then fix you up with the fancy student "flight bag" full of books and say INITIALLY, "get on and read them!". YOU NEED "BOARD WORK" before and after every flight!!!!!!!!!!!!
The "main reason for accidents...", I feel (as a guy who got his license 2 years ago) is PPLs with little real (true) understanding of the limitations of the heliciopters they choose to train in, and how those limitations then change so so much depending on other factors such as weather etc. etc. etc.
My Instructor once said to me....... when you get your Private Pilots License, you are then Licensed to kill yourself!!!!!
There is no greater feeling in the world than flying helicopters, enjoy your training, don't set an objective to try and get thru in the minimum number of hours, get thru when YOU are comfortable with all the professional instruction and training received enabling you to pass your test and exams.......and, fly safe!
Enjoy.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 47
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok Bravo73, we all understand the redundant concept. Only that out of the 150 or so critical components in a helicopter, I rather use the extra weight of another engine into those components and make them redundant, instead of the engine.
This might be really difficult for a smart guy like yourself to understand, but the engine is not a critical component in an helicopter. If you are good enough a pilot, you should walk away from every engine failure you could possibly think of. Give it some thought before enlighten us with another one of your fast-smart comments, thanks very much
Safe flying
This might be really difficult for a smart guy like yourself to understand, but the engine is not a critical component in an helicopter. If you are good enough a pilot, you should walk away from every engine failure you could possibly think of. Give it some thought before enlighten us with another one of your fast-smart comments, thanks very much
Safe flying
To be fair there are twins and there are twins ....some, on one engine, can carry on flying , hovvering or climbing and some will take you the scene of the accident. Also some operations over water or forestry would make a second engine helpful !! For me though just normal ops in the uk i dont feel any safer in the AS 350 or the A109 as, as far as i am aware, statistically they are equally safe and we can do the same job with the single , apart from ifr. I also have to admit that night flying would feel better with 2 engines but have managed all these years with one quite happily
Fine, borjaracing.
Put yourself in IMC and have an engine failure. I know that I'm personally very happy that I've got a second engine which, hopefully, means that the original failure won't be critical.
It doesn't even have to be an engine. If you've only got one generator or one invertor, a failure of either of these isn't going to be very nice whilst in the gloop. Once again, it's nice to be carrying 'spares' of both.
In an ideal world, I'm sure that it would be great if we had complete redundancy throughout the aircraft ie extra gearboxes, drivetrains, tailrotors etc. It might even be technologically possible. But you're not going to be left with much effective payload left, are you? The designers have got to draw the line somewhere and two engines (and their related systems) is where that line is at the moment.
Anyway, these are concepts that manfromuncle doesn't seem to grasp when he keeps on moaning and whinging about twins. Which, by the way, was the reason for my original post.
Put yourself in IMC and have an engine failure. I know that I'm personally very happy that I've got a second engine which, hopefully, means that the original failure won't be critical.
It doesn't even have to be an engine. If you've only got one generator or one invertor, a failure of either of these isn't going to be very nice whilst in the gloop. Once again, it's nice to be carrying 'spares' of both.
In an ideal world, I'm sure that it would be great if we had complete redundancy throughout the aircraft ie extra gearboxes, drivetrains, tailrotors etc. It might even be technologically possible. But you're not going to be left with much effective payload left, are you? The designers have got to draw the line somewhere and two engines (and their related systems) is where that line is at the moment.
Anyway, these are concepts that manfromuncle doesn't seem to grasp when he keeps on moaning and whinging about twins. Which, by the way, was the reason for my original post.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I grasp all those concepts. I moan and winge because the UKs obsession with twins is what is holding a lot of people back in this industry. You don't need 500 hours twin to be able to do these 'decent' jobs, but that is what employers often ask. Who knows why, maybe it's the new version of "the old boys club", "the twin club".
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
manfromuncle
Having flown singles and twins extensively I have no doubt that for most business flying, twins both are safer, and importantly, feel safer for pilot and pax. Apart from anything else, you do have to give some credence to the views of the world's regulatory bodies.
Accident stats need to be viewed carefully to compare apples with apples. Don't forget many twins are actually used in more hazardous operations - especially night and IMC.
No question pilot error still heads the accident cause list, but when you consider the small number of mechanical failures that do occur, engine failure is quite significant. As Bravo 73 says, twins (esp IFR) come with a lot more redundancy than singles, apart from the engine.
When I'm flying at night, in IMC, over water and making congested/confined area approaches that second engine provides me - and my pax - with a lot more confidence. With justification.
Having flown singles and twins extensively I have no doubt that for most business flying, twins both are safer, and importantly, feel safer for pilot and pax. Apart from anything else, you do have to give some credence to the views of the world's regulatory bodies.
Accident stats need to be viewed carefully to compare apples with apples. Don't forget many twins are actually used in more hazardous operations - especially night and IMC.
No question pilot error still heads the accident cause list, but when you consider the small number of mechanical failures that do occur, engine failure is quite significant. As Bravo 73 says, twins (esp IFR) come with a lot more redundancy than singles, apart from the engine.
When I'm flying at night, in IMC, over water and making congested/confined area approaches that second engine provides me - and my pax - with a lot more confidence. With justification.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"High ground kills"
Once again, it's finger trouble.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Herefordshire
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoa.... hold on a moment guys (and Whirly!)
Knievel's question was about "accidents"... no mention of "fatal"..... and the general thrust of your replies is CFIT!
Checking AAIB statistics over the last few years shows basic mishandling accidents outnumber CFIT by a ratio of akmost 10:1!
Oh well, that's my 5 centsworth.... and I'll never ever have to fly a Robbo again (glad I did though).
Cheers bm
Checking AAIB statistics over the last few years shows basic mishandling accidents outnumber CFIT by a ratio of akmost 10:1!
Oh well, that's my 5 centsworth.... and I'll never ever have to fly a Robbo again (glad I did though).
Cheers bm
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Spain
Age: 47
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
to be twin or not to be
Bravo and cia,
Fair points raised about redundancy and "feeling" of security a twin has on pax and many pilots. However, twin are being given too much credit, and apparently jaa and the like are looking into the 2 engines solution the answer to all accidents...... WRONG!!!
Somebody said in previous posts that having another engine gave him a security feeling....
. That is what worries me, because we might be lulled into a false feeling of security wich invariably leads to the REAL main cause of accidents, i.e. pilot error. I am not implying that a good pilot is one that doesnt make errors, thatīs is uthopic at best. We are all prone to errors and sooner or later we will make them. It all depends on timing, situational awareness, how far from the safe envelope we are when that happens, etc, etc. And of course, how lucky we are!
For instance, an example I know well. Traffic police in Spain were using single turbine EC-120 and sometimes single Ecureil (b3 and the like). Well, no accidents and no close calls in a fair amount of years. Then JAR came into the picture and the goverment decided that everything had to be twin-engine (scary when politicians decided what is best for us....), so they upgraded to the twin EC-135. Not a single pilot from the company is happy about it, rather far from beeing happy, i should say. The margin they had on the single has become lessened now, and still they do the same kind of flights. Scary, very very scary. And the private operators, that is even worse. Because they have paid for a twin helicopter, ir training maybe and mcc, they assume they can do the same jobs as before, and even they reckon the limits should be puss even further than in the past. So you are left with less power, doing the same jobs than before, even worse. All of us know how close to the accident-limit line we get more often than not. Now, because you have two engines, you should be able to push the limits and make the deadlines still, but with less power available......... Very, very scary.
So, yes I agree twins (at least some) might be safer and more redundant on the engineering side and in theory, BUT, the understanding that JAA and every stateīs civil aviation authorities are getting, it is going to cause more accidents than prevent them, in my opinion. Aside the fact that is making new pilots really hard to make it, but that is another kind of subject.
My 0.5 pence worth
Safe flying every1
Fair points raised about redundancy and "feeling" of security a twin has on pax and many pilots. However, twin are being given too much credit, and apparently jaa and the like are looking into the 2 engines solution the answer to all accidents...... WRONG!!!
Somebody said in previous posts that having another engine gave him a security feeling....
. That is what worries me, because we might be lulled into a false feeling of security wich invariably leads to the REAL main cause of accidents, i.e. pilot error. I am not implying that a good pilot is one that doesnt make errors, thatīs is uthopic at best. We are all prone to errors and sooner or later we will make them. It all depends on timing, situational awareness, how far from the safe envelope we are when that happens, etc, etc. And of course, how lucky we are!For instance, an example I know well. Traffic police in Spain were using single turbine EC-120 and sometimes single Ecureil (b3 and the like). Well, no accidents and no close calls in a fair amount of years. Then JAR came into the picture and the goverment decided that everything had to be twin-engine (scary when politicians decided what is best for us....), so they upgraded to the twin EC-135. Not a single pilot from the company is happy about it, rather far from beeing happy, i should say. The margin they had on the single has become lessened now, and still they do the same kind of flights. Scary, very very scary. And the private operators, that is even worse. Because they have paid for a twin helicopter, ir training maybe and mcc, they assume they can do the same jobs as before, and even they reckon the limits should be puss even further than in the past. So you are left with less power, doing the same jobs than before, even worse. All of us know how close to the accident-limit line we get more often than not. Now, because you have two engines, you should be able to push the limits and make the deadlines still, but with less power available......... Very, very scary.
So, yes I agree twins (at least some) might be safer and more redundant on the engineering side and in theory, BUT, the understanding that JAA and every stateīs civil aviation authorities are getting, it is going to cause more accidents than prevent them, in my opinion. Aside the fact that is making new pilots really hard to make it, but that is another kind of subject.
My 0.5 pence worth
Safe flying every1