Realm of the Possible - What Do We Need?
Shawn,
Type ratings of any kind for helicopters is a sure fire way to complicate something that needs not be complicated.
The concept that led to type ratings for airplanes has some basis in logic whereas the same would not hold for helicopters. A four engine airplane sure operates differently on one engine vice four....or two on one side only.
Helicopters do not have that level of magnitude of change.
Setting hour and sylabus minimums for training and conversion to new "types" of helicopters makes far more sense than calling the very same training and testing a "type rating".....and getting the guvmint involved.
The UK practice of "type rating" is the best evidence of what is wrong with that notion. It is way too complicated and expensive.
Requiring instrument competence in IFR certificated helicopters....known as an ATP (....or Commerical Instrument Pilot) check ride is a good idea in my view as it is part and parcel of the capability of the aircraft that pilots can be expected to utilize.
Type ratings of any kind for helicopters is a sure fire way to complicate something that needs not be complicated.
The concept that led to type ratings for airplanes has some basis in logic whereas the same would not hold for helicopters. A four engine airplane sure operates differently on one engine vice four....or two on one side only.
Helicopters do not have that level of magnitude of change.
Setting hour and sylabus minimums for training and conversion to new "types" of helicopters makes far more sense than calling the very same training and testing a "type rating".....and getting the guvmint involved.
The UK practice of "type rating" is the best evidence of what is wrong with that notion. It is way too complicated and expensive.
Requiring instrument competence in IFR certificated helicopters....known as an ATP (....or Commerical Instrument Pilot) check ride is a good idea in my view as it is part and parcel of the capability of the aircraft that pilots can be expected to utilize.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: KPHL
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShyTorque,
I agree that a collective giving feedback is a great idea, but its 20 years old. Why have a helicopter tell you you're going to break a limit when the helicopter could instead protect you from breaking that limit?
I think we'll always want overrides, but lets make that the exception rather than the rule.
As far as the audio cues, when I ditched an H46 I was curious after the fact why I was listening to an ELT throughout the ditching. I was used to listening to ELTs as that was a SAR helicopter, but nothing during the fire should have set it off. Many months later, I realized that I was hearing the RadAlt tone. We prioritize all the information available, and audio cues can easily get packaged with low priority items. I fully agree with minimizing audio tones, and making the remaining ones unique (ie voice).
Matthew.
I agree that a collective giving feedback is a great idea, but its 20 years old. Why have a helicopter tell you you're going to break a limit when the helicopter could instead protect you from breaking that limit?
I think we'll always want overrides, but lets make that the exception rather than the rule.
As far as the audio cues, when I ditched an H46 I was curious after the fact why I was listening to an ELT throughout the ditching. I was used to listening to ELTs as that was a SAR helicopter, but nothing during the fire should have set it off. Many months later, I realized that I was hearing the RadAlt tone. We prioritize all the information available, and audio cues can easily get packaged with low priority items. I fully agree with minimizing audio tones, and making the remaining ones unique (ie voice).
Matthew.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
I agree that a collective giving feedback is a great idea, but its 20 years old. Why have a helicopter tell you you're going to break a limit when the helicopter could instead protect you from breaking that limit?
For example, some aircraft I've operated have engine rate stops, which obviously only limit the engine output. I can't think of a similar system for transmission torque, which can be the critical limit. Of course, if we had a transmission which could routinely absorb all engine power, this wouldn't be necessary. For example, the S-76A models can be critical on engine limits or transmission torque, depending on the ambient conditions. This requires the pilot to look at gearbox limits in addition to all the engine gauges at critical times, rather than outside where his eyes ought to be. The C model has the same engines but a better gearbox, so the pilot only had to look at the engine gauges in most circumstances.
Here we go loading up with even more expensive gizmos to fail, and they do either with help from humans or just plain gremlins. Stealth Bomber Crash Caught On Tape (VIDEO)
Good reliable design & ergonomics is the first thing to get correct, I agree that the transmission should be able to use ALL the power we have paid for, but surely this is part of good design?
These types of discrepancy are surely due to design creep and manufacturers trying to utilise legacy components without further R&D effort, or poor design criteria.
As pilots we might like\love all the bells and whistles, but the bottom line on most utility helios is it safe & fit for purpose, is maintenance without massive infrastructure costs & down time possible, or in one sentence ,can it be operated at a profit without AOG problems & associated cost.
I would suggest that stick shakers sophisticated computer programs etc. are secondary to GOOD BASIC design with input from the pilot as to ergonomics, & end users as to what is required to get the job done
Good reliable design & ergonomics is the first thing to get correct, I agree that the transmission should be able to use ALL the power we have paid for, but surely this is part of good design?
These types of discrepancy are surely due to design creep and manufacturers trying to utilise legacy components without further R&D effort, or poor design criteria.
As pilots we might like\love all the bells and whistles, but the bottom line on most utility helios is it safe & fit for purpose, is maintenance without massive infrastructure costs & down time possible, or in one sentence ,can it be operated at a profit without AOG problems & associated cost.
I would suggest that stick shakers sophisticated computer programs etc. are secondary to GOOD BASIC design with input from the pilot as to ergonomics, & end users as to what is required to get the job done
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 445
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three groups working together more closely
Pilots, engineers and accountants
From my experience in industry and the development of new avionics systems, these three groups seem to be independent and do not get together enough to work out problems, unless kicking and screaming.
- Pilots have some great ideas to put into cockpits - some of them that would be difficult to currently certify, if not impossible.
- Engineers try to specify systems to meet customer (I include pilots and accountants) requirements but also authority requirements. These requirements are sometimes in conflict with each other, especially where cert requirements are more than 30 years old.
- Accountants view the bottom line - how much will it cost me to develop a new system and how much revenue will it create. An avoided accident due to a requested design change is sometime impossible to determine an exact cost to an aircraft company.
In short, a closer cooperation between these groups would help them all better understand why things can or cannot be implemented for their own individual valid reasons.
Things are improving and the engineers and pilots do get together more than before but still a long way from ideal (design reviews are sometimes viewed as a minor inconvenience compared to a high work load of acceptance testing customer aircraft). However, the money men still seem to be out on there own, rejecting design improvements without consideration or consultation with the other two.
Maybe I have just worked for the wrong companies
NigD3
From my experience in industry and the development of new avionics systems, these three groups seem to be independent and do not get together enough to work out problems, unless kicking and screaming.
- Pilots have some great ideas to put into cockpits - some of them that would be difficult to currently certify, if not impossible.
- Engineers try to specify systems to meet customer (I include pilots and accountants) requirements but also authority requirements. These requirements are sometimes in conflict with each other, especially where cert requirements are more than 30 years old.
- Accountants view the bottom line - how much will it cost me to develop a new system and how much revenue will it create. An avoided accident due to a requested design change is sometime impossible to determine an exact cost to an aircraft company.
In short, a closer cooperation between these groups would help them all better understand why things can or cannot be implemented for their own individual valid reasons.
Things are improving and the engineers and pilots do get together more than before but still a long way from ideal (design reviews are sometimes viewed as a minor inconvenience compared to a high work load of acceptance testing customer aircraft). However, the money men still seem to be out on there own, rejecting design improvements without consideration or consultation with the other two.
Maybe I have just worked for the wrong companies
NigD3
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
SASless:
I don't want to hijack this thread onto the subject of type ratings - but FW has endorsements for turboprops, high performance singles, tailwheel, and so on. For a good reason.
It would be hard to argue that a piston engine helicopter and a turbine engine helicopter operate the same way. There are significant differences in performance and operation that are simply not covered in the US system. '
The same with twin engine helicopters - they are different in performance from singles when there is an engine failure. They also have significantly more complex systems.
I'm only suggesting that three ratings in the helicopter world might raise the level of technical awareness and improve safety.
I don't want to hijack this thread onto the subject of type ratings - but FW has endorsements for turboprops, high performance singles, tailwheel, and so on. For a good reason.
It would be hard to argue that a piston engine helicopter and a turbine engine helicopter operate the same way. There are significant differences in performance and operation that are simply not covered in the US system. '
The same with twin engine helicopters - they are different in performance from singles when there is an engine failure. They also have significantly more complex systems.
I'm only suggesting that three ratings in the helicopter world might raise the level of technical awareness and improve safety.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please make the seats comfy!
This may already exist in larger, more modern aircraft, but GPS (and other systems that rely on having up-to-date databases) should be remotely upgradable. My digital radio can upgrade itself over the internet; how about my GPS being able to grab the latest Jeppeson without having to unplug it and send it off to the manufacturer? This could be as simple as a 3G SIM card, allowing an internet connection via the cellular network.
This may already exist in larger, more modern aircraft, but GPS (and other systems that rely on having up-to-date databases) should be remotely upgradable. My digital radio can upgrade itself over the internet; how about my GPS being able to grab the latest Jeppeson without having to unplug it and send it off to the manufacturer? This could be as simple as a 3G SIM card, allowing an internet connection via the cellular network.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
Pandalet,
Your second wish is already granted. Garmin 530/430 series databases are upgraded exactly like that, via a removable card and a PC adapter (and a subscription package).
Your second wish is already granted. Garmin 530/430 series databases are upgraded exactly like that, via a removable card and a PC adapter (and a subscription package).
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to see a complete redesign of the human - helicopter interface.
First of all I would concur with contributors over the pilot seating position, this must be the weakest feature in all aircraft (17) I have flown.
No overhead panels
Heaters and Air Con
Seats
Intercom
VISIBILITY - I need to be able to see !
I would like to see two VDUs. One central in Display by Exception mode which only shows if something is not right. In front of me I would like a screen which I can customise to show important stuff where and when I want.
Minimum switches, no circuit breakers.
No vibration
First of all I would concur with contributors over the pilot seating position, this must be the weakest feature in all aircraft (17) I have flown.
No overhead panels
Heaters and Air Con
Seats
Intercom
VISIBILITY - I need to be able to see !
I would like to see two VDUs. One central in Display by Exception mode which only shows if something is not right. In front of me I would like a screen which I can customise to show important stuff where and when I want.
Minimum switches, no circuit breakers.
No vibration
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming that the objective is; A greater share of the aircraft market -
- the primary objective must be an improved Lift/Power ratio.
__________________
The following two excerpts from the 31 year old report, 'A review of Advanced Rotorcraft Research', might be of interest to some.
"At stage lengths of about 200 n. mi., where the maximum number of revenue flights occur, rotary wing cruise speeds of about 240 knots are required to produce the same block speeds as existing jet transports."
Dave
Promoting (or is it 'provoking'?) an expansion of the rotorcraft envelope.
__________________
The following two excerpts from the 31 year old report, 'A review of Advanced Rotorcraft Research', might be of interest to some.
"At stage lengths of about 200 n. mi., where the maximum number of revenue flights occur, rotary wing cruise speeds of about 240 knots are required to produce the same block speeds as existing jet transports."
Dave
Promoting (or is it 'provoking'?) an expansion of the rotorcraft envelope.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-pilot with only 23hrs in helicopters, I always thought certain things were rather silly on the 300 and R22. For instance:
1. The throttle on the collective was never a good solution. You invariably end up with the wrist-bent-as-much-as-it-can-and-hitting-the seat-and-braking-bones, without the power being fully off.
2. Why is the collective lock somewhere else but where you have your hand?
3. The cyclic could do with a lot more functions - you want all basic controls within reach there. This means radio frequency twirl knob, preset buttons, squawk knob, wheels up/down (I can imagine), landing lights etc.
1. The throttle on the collective was never a good solution. You invariably end up with the wrist-bent-as-much-as-it-can-and-hitting-the seat-and-braking-bones, without the power being fully off.
2. Why is the collective lock somewhere else but where you have your hand?
3. The cyclic could do with a lot more functions - you want all basic controls within reach there. This means radio frequency twirl knob, preset buttons, squawk knob, wheels up/down (I can imagine), landing lights etc.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Nick:
the result of a combination of too much wine tonight and watching 'The Longitude' was:
"provide us with the equipment to aviate without fear in this wonderful world..."
Combinations of sensors for enhanced vision, wire detection / avoidance and navigation to a precise spot in space in our unlimited flying machines.
the result of a combination of too much wine tonight and watching 'The Longitude' was:
"provide us with the equipment to aviate without fear in this wonderful world..."
Combinations of sensors for enhanced vision, wire detection / avoidance and navigation to a precise spot in space in our unlimited flying machines.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here's my idea:
a load sensing device somewhere in the tranny mounts/rotor system that senses how heavy the machine is, and works in conjunction with all the other fancy gadgets re: a/c config, temperature, etc, and displays performance limitations and hover ceilings at any given time.
and as for something a little more realistic, a computer that counts RINS for you.
a load sensing device somewhere in the tranny mounts/rotor system that senses how heavy the machine is, and works in conjunction with all the other fancy gadgets re: a/c config, temperature, etc, and displays performance limitations and hover ceilings at any given time.
and as for something a little more realistic, a computer that counts RINS for you.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Land of damp and drizzle
Posts: 608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ShyTorque
Your second wish is already granted. Garmin 530/430 series databases are upgraded exactly like that, via a removable card and a PC adapter (and a subscription package).
* anywhere I have a decent 3G signal, that is.
Nick,
Mission/Market: I think a larger and maybe equally important group to approach for input would be the clients and customers. After all, they are the end user who dictates where and how they need to go, along with what equipment we need aboard, plus more importantly they pay all the bills. We spend enough time and effort now trying to put round plugs in square holes to ensure they have self-deployable liferafts, Skywatch, or where to mount a Life Pac 10. Maybe these clients could let you know what they might want in the future, so this could be addressed now instead later. And don’t forget there a several clients starting to mention using Part 29 certified aircraft only.
Maintainability: With everything moving to the digital side, put all the diagnostic tools on-board and have it accessible/viewable through the installed screens. Also make the interface software user friendly so that anybody can work their way through a problem. Reducing the time to troubleshoot problems using an on-board system would greatly enhance the availability numbers and reduce downtime. But that will not happen if we have to continue to using the same software the engineers used to design system. It can be frustrating to download the fault files only to realize that you need 2 numbers out of the 20,000 in the file to figure out what’s wrong.
Support: Ideally if the aircraft does not break then we are good to go. However, since there is a chance that it might break – if I need a part have it in stock or at least deliverable within a realistic time frame. This is where you and Bell can really make some headway over the competition. I know it is strictly a business decision on how many spares to keep around, but it is also our business decision on which aircraft we can operate at a profit. I’ll pay more for service, but the service needs to be there.
There are probably a couple dozen other items I could list, but since you only wanted three items for now …. Personally, if I had my way I would maintain a fleet of 205’s or 212’s, with a couple L3’s and maybe a Lama or two. But I know this is just wishful thinking on my part. I think if Bell is going to survive they need to really get on the ball and fast, otherwise there will not be a slot for them to fit into. I hope the 429 will bridge the gap until you can get the XworKs to put out something revolutionary – and not just a 212 made from carbon fiber.
Good luck.
W1
Mission/Market: I think a larger and maybe equally important group to approach for input would be the clients and customers. After all, they are the end user who dictates where and how they need to go, along with what equipment we need aboard, plus more importantly they pay all the bills. We spend enough time and effort now trying to put round plugs in square holes to ensure they have self-deployable liferafts, Skywatch, or where to mount a Life Pac 10. Maybe these clients could let you know what they might want in the future, so this could be addressed now instead later. And don’t forget there a several clients starting to mention using Part 29 certified aircraft only.
Maintainability: With everything moving to the digital side, put all the diagnostic tools on-board and have it accessible/viewable through the installed screens. Also make the interface software user friendly so that anybody can work their way through a problem. Reducing the time to troubleshoot problems using an on-board system would greatly enhance the availability numbers and reduce downtime. But that will not happen if we have to continue to using the same software the engineers used to design system. It can be frustrating to download the fault files only to realize that you need 2 numbers out of the 20,000 in the file to figure out what’s wrong.
Support: Ideally if the aircraft does not break then we are good to go. However, since there is a chance that it might break – if I need a part have it in stock or at least deliverable within a realistic time frame. This is where you and Bell can really make some headway over the competition. I know it is strictly a business decision on how many spares to keep around, but it is also our business decision on which aircraft we can operate at a profit. I’ll pay more for service, but the service needs to be there.
There are probably a couple dozen other items I could list, but since you only wanted three items for now …. Personally, if I had my way I would maintain a fleet of 205’s or 212’s, with a couple L3’s and maybe a Lama or two. But I know this is just wishful thinking on my part. I think if Bell is going to survive they need to really get on the ball and fast, otherwise there will not be a slot for them to fit into. I hope the 429 will bridge the gap until you can get the XworKs to put out something revolutionary – and not just a 212 made from carbon fiber.
Good luck.
W1
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,576
Received 427 Likes
on
226 Posts
I'm sure there is scope for future improvements but I can visualise security and integrity concerns with a "live" system, if that's what you refer to.
Firmware upgrades are part of the nav system itself and should be recorded by the maintenance organisation. What happens if a system were to be corrupted due to a download/upgrade problem, or have an unseen integrity problem, or interfere with other systems on a particular aircraft type?
Firmware upgrades are part of the nav system itself and should be recorded by the maintenance organisation. What happens if a system were to be corrupted due to a download/upgrade problem, or have an unseen integrity problem, or interfere with other systems on a particular aircraft type?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: great north wet
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the last 3 days I have been on a similar seach. The Indian Govt. put out an RFP for light utility helicopters that could bring new requirements to designers. I know they want "off the shelf" but there is always a little more asked for. After a lot of effort I finaly spoke with a Colonel in the right dept. but the requirements are confidential.
Does anyone know what they are asking for? I did get ... need to deliver 75kg to 23,000 feet.
Thanks
Does anyone know what they are asking for? I did get ... need to deliver 75kg to 23,000 feet.
Thanks