Realm of the Possible - What Do We Need?

[NickLappos]

As I told my staff a few days ago, "The inmates are running the asylum", a ppruner is in a position to actually affect change. To that end, I solicit input from all quadrants of our field. I think there is much work remaining for us technically and operationally. Considering what we do, and how we do it, what should we expect in the next generation machine?

To discipline it, please try to state three things that are needed, either as new abilities, or fixes to existing shortfalls. Let the games begin!!

[Um... lifting...]

That's a mighty broad brush you're painting with, Mr. Lappos...

I think back to when the USCG Deepwater program started... it was envisioned as a total system performance specification, not as a hardware specification. Didn't quite work out as planned, but as a conceptual framework might be a starting point.

Should the industry step back from its categorization of light, medium, heavy for a minute (at least in the civil world, as an example) and see if there's another way to define performance categories? Perhaps as systems? EMS as a system of navigation, infrastructure, and a transport vehicle, as one example?

Much of what's been done in recent years, crashworthiness, modularization of components, advanced materials, failure rates, powerplants, and so on are all wonderful, but they're also incremental and evolutionary. I get the sense you're looking for revolutionary.

I suggest you order up a bunch of blank paper and pots of coffee.

[Swamp76]

Are you looking for airframe ideas Nick, or industry? Airframe first:

1. The information presented to the pilot should be as clear and unambiguous as possible. For instance: I am a fan of the 76C+ IIDS system in that I can use my peripheral vision to see the colours change and know what is happening while still keeping my eyes out.

2. Smarter TAWS/EGPWS/TCAD/TCAS/TAS/Radar/GPS/Moving Map systems that can portray important data, minimize the junk, and integrate into a single display vice several scattered around the cockpit.

3. (I know improvements have already been made but...) Make system reliability as important as component reliability. Not sure if I said that right. Let me explain my thinking here:

I have never had an "engine failure" in flight, which agrees with the statistics about engine (component) reliability that my employer, the customers, and the regulators keep quoting to me. Despite this I have autorotated to a highway in a 500, and done an OEI approach in a 76B and a 332L (ILS). (Engine failures during test flights/ground runs/ground operations are another topic) How is this possible?

The engine controls (FCU, power computer, EEC) have failed and left me in a position where I do not get normal power (maybe less, maybe more, not what I need). I care about the reliability of the entire system.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Enough airframe, industry.

1. Give someone, ANYONE, the balls to stick to their principles when pushed/threatened to do stupid things that have potential for catastrophic results. I know it probably won't go wrong on this flight but I'm still alive after many unlikely incidents because I survived the first one and learned that, statistically, it will happen to one of us.

2. Yes, we need to train. Train like helicopter pilots doing helicopter things and if the sim can't duplicate what we need then get back in the helicopter and do it there! I love the training switch.

3. Set a standard, train to it, test for it, and enforce it. Stop lowering the bar whenever too many people have trouble getting across it. People who lie or misrepresent should be removed from the industry. Period. No padded logbooks, bogus PIC time, defects left until it is convenient, or pencil whipped checks with no consequences.

[jellycopter]

Nick

A simple one and very close to my own heart at the moment! A failsafe undercarriage warning system. Why have something that tells me the wheels aren't down when I'm at 200ft and possibly busy doing something else? Why not when I'm at 10ft - similar to a reverse parking sensor on a car? My thinking is that the 'below 200ft' system is all too easily encountered, especially during departure and therefore I get used to cancelling it without conscious thought. A last-ditched system that you only ever hear when you REALLY need it would be great.

I know it's probably trivial in the big scheme of things but you did ask........

JJ

PS. The guy who owned the machine I scraped asked 'Why don't the wheels come down automatically below a certain speed or height?' Seems like a fair question to me.

[EN48]

"2. Smarter TAWS/EGPWS/TCAD/TCAS/TAS/Radar/GPS/Moving Map systems that can portray important data, minimize the junk, and integrate into a single display vice several scattered around the cockpit."

Swamp76 is right on with this one. And the good news is that its already available as a variant of the Garmin 1000 system. Comprehensive functionality and in volume production that will keep costs /prices in line in a helicopter appplication. Just a "smiple matter of certification!" Most light helos are flying with antique avionics - the Honeywell KCS 55 compass system/HSI is close to 30 years old and a real boat anchor yet I see this being spec'd in new, relatively expensive helicopters everyday. A huge disconnect. Even a simple Cessna 172 comes with Garmin 1000 from the factory.

Although probably not high on your list, the light end of the turbine helo range needs to be brought into the modern age wrt systems and equipment, especially Bell products. Many pilots are dual rated and routinely accept the risk of flying IFR in single engine airplanes. Some of us believe that the risk is no greater ( and maybe actually lower) to fly IFR in single engine helicopters. Lets see a reasonably capable 4-5 pax IFR helicopter at around $3mm - in other words, about 10X the cost of a Cessna Skylane with Garmin 1000 avionics, a quite capable aircraft. Something on the idea of a slighly smaller 429 (with a "modern" cabin layout, ie no broom closet, and Garmin avionics/AP) would do the trick and should be profitable if the design leverages COTS parts. To meet this price point, I am assuming single engine, and thats OK. THis would be a worthy sucessor to the more than 40 year old 206/407 series.

EN48

[Fareastdriver]

Performance.

If you were in a crowded airline departure lounge awaiting your flight that you had paid for you would be highly choked off if the captain came in and said. "Sorry folks, it's a bit hot today and there's not much wind. I'm going to have to offload about twenty of you." It would not be accepted in the fixed wing world so why do we in the rotor wing department put up with it.
A helicopter with 4, 9, 12 19, or 24 seats should be able to fill those seats, anytime, anywhere.
We have new helicopters launched wtih enormous fanfares powered by engines designed thirty years ago. It's about time our engine manufacturers stared to produce engines with the improvements in power and SFC that our fixed wing brethren have enjoyed.

[darrenphughes]

Seats that don't ruin pilots backs over the period of their career. Especially for the guys that have reach over and spend hours on end looking out the side window while flying utility. There has to be some smart guys out there that can figure out a way that these guys don't have to twist themselves into a knot to do their jobs.

[Ascend Charlie]

My $10,000 Korean car has a better, more comfortable seat than the $10m helicopter I drive - and yes, it's a Bell.

That same car has an air conditioner that works really well, keeps the whole interior cool, unlike the $40,000 air con that was in my previous ride, a Sikorsky. That air con was perfectly serviceable, it just couldn't do the job.

My little car has a cabin full of airbags. Ain't none in any helicopter i know of.

Use your cross-pollination, Nick, and take that heads-up display from the Gulfstream and put it in every helicopter possible. Obviously there are fewer places available for the cameras and sensors, and even less space for the display unit, but you are a smart guy, make a smaller unit and find a spot.

[Noiseboy]

Moving maps are all very well, but surely it's time to move onto a next generation system whereby you can see everything you need head up, something like flying with google earth airspace overlay...
It must be possible for airspace, terrain, obstacles, traffic etc to appear in your line of vision out of the aircraft in such a way to enhance your actual view.

[topendtorque]

Nick
Tamper proof time recording;
Either a memory chip or a visible clock. Having it visible is good and or electronically downloadable, it would save the onorous and duplicatory paper reporting that we do.
(M/r + Daily flight recording + pilot F/D sheets + personal log books) cut the middle two out.

Also, if it is linked to a yes / no of core value, would help greatly influence peoples decisions to cheat
tet

[biggles99]

realm of the possible

Hi Nick,

how about some simplicity?

scrap all the G-Reg, F-reg, D-reg,

for the sake of pragmatism start with EU-Reg and N-Reg, with a goal of WW-Reg for all countries that are obliged to participate.

Then, scrap all the individual maintenance programs that various countries insist upon, and follow the aircraft manufacturers' maintenance schedules instead.

Big Ls.

[bluesafari]

reply to nick lappos

Am not sure I'm ready to write an essay yet but this is something that has been in my mind for some time, basically are many of the developments that we seen recently really necessary?
For instance we have seen developments in engines and their control, but nothing has been done to airframes designed 30 + years ago. The same problems are there as when they were first developed, and don't tell me the manufacturer is not aware. My jaundiced eye will tell me that this is a way of generating income, as is many of the developments mentioned above. Is FADEC really necessary? Or are modern engine developments making control of those too difficult for operators to contend with? I don't know, but I do suspect that it isn't. Am sure that most crews can control an engine within the parameters required.
EFIS/IIDS cockpits are fine but what happens when one indicator in that display goes awry? That's new display ! And there goes 10s of thousands instead of the change of a single instrument costing some considerably smaller amount.
MELs get longer and more down time (and more expense) is the result.
Surely alongside the developments that have gone on we should be asking are they all going in the right direction.
I write the above because I am not sure that we are getting it right, I don't wish to appear a Luddite but to my mind developments have to be to the whole and not just to small parts of it. When we see complete new projects then many of them are thought through completely, but developments of existing products are often not thought about, which is really what i am talking about. I suspect many of our manufacturer friends will understand me.
Would like to hear argument on this subject, lets hear from pilots, engineers, bean counters ( ! ) manufacturers, who-ever !
Nick Lappos, can I say you have opened a very interesting debate. I might not have expressed myself well but I think you can see where I'm coming from as some people would say !

[Ian Corrigible]

Originally Posted by Farestdriver

We have new helicopters launched wtih enormous fanfares powered by engines designed thirty years ago

..or 50 years in the case of Robinson's latest, which is unlikely to offer much improvement in terms of safety over the JetRanger.

From an avionics perspective, the simple single-pane digital cockpits found in many of the new crop of low-cost LSAs makes interesting comparison with our offices.

I/C

[arismount]

COST - COST - COST

1. Reduce weight and manufacturing costs. Twenty years ago I read about teethless gears that would drive through pressure/temperature "morphing" fluids that would act as adhesives when in gear contact and as lubricants when not. I'm still waiting for this. But it could reduce gearbox weight and cut gear production costs substantially.

2. Reduce engine specific fuel consumption. Again, twenty years ago we were talking about 50 lb. engines that would produce 500 hp with internal ceramic components running temps close to 2000. This should be the primary focus of the entire industry. It could make possible a twin that weighs less than a single.

3. IFR improvements...increased stability and control and known icing capability.

[tottigol]

Here we go

Only three?

1) IFR: I believe and I hope that with your background of systems integration and experimentation at Sikorsky you are in a peculiar position to develop the ultimate low altitude IFR machine. As a machine I do not merely intend an airframe but a system including active obstacle warning and avoidance, integrated WAAS hands off GPS approaches, synthetic vision that would include night enhancement. These elements ought to be worked on with a team approach, where the team is also composed of the FAA, sadly as of today still completely in the dark (pun intended) regarding helicopter operations and their integration in the NAS structure.

2) ICING: not the sort that goes on the cake but rather the type that most affects flying in it, especially in a helicopter. Active deicing that can be reliably and affordably used all the way down to light twin airframes, thus giving us (almost) unrestricted IFR capabilities.

3) A PILOT-CENTRIC System: You've been there and you know as a pilot what a cockpit should be like, however here are my suggestion (even though someone has already presented some of them): seat alignment with flight controls and flight displays, FD and displays' controls within easy reach of pilot's hands and flight and systems information presented to the flight crew in an efficient fashion: right before you need it.

Everything else is evolution, unless you can come up with a 200+ kts airframe (one that we can fly with a helicopter rating) in which we can carry all the passengers how many those may be and no matter how much they weight, an ungodly amount of baggage and fuel for three days of flying or sorts.

Oh, did I forget to mention flight attendants, the cute and female type of course me being the stereotypical male helicopter pilot and latin on top...

But mainly thanks for giving us this opportunity.

[Ned-Air2Air]

Would be nice to see Bell come out with something that doesnt look like a bastardised version of something they built 50 years ago.

Bell 430 - Bastardised 222

Bell 412 - Bastardised UH1H

Bell 407 - Bastardised 206L

Good luck there Nick, its going to be a tough task to change their mentality

[NGPogue]

I would like to see a light utility/training helicopter to compete with the R-22/44. Something to replace the 206 designed using today's technology with simplicity, reliability, maintainability and (relatively) low cost of operation in mind.

[rotorrookie]

Seats that don't ruin pilots backs over the period of their career

Very important, and have somone like these guys .: RECARO :.do it
rather than trying to invent somthing new that cost $$$$$$$

[Um... lifting...]

Good point, Nick. Rather than look in all directions, I just looked in yours.

For the manufacturers:
i. Develop performance-based specifications for subcontractors and let 'em compete on an R&D and cost basis. It shouldn't much matter if those subs be for powerplants, drivetrains, airframes, avionics, or subsystems. Of course, it may change the way that engineering and specification is done at the manufacturer level. Since several folks have talked about seating, a company like Recaro, which has huge competencies in probably everything short of ejection seats probably is the way to go rather than the Bell model of a fiberglass box with a flotation cushion on the top as an afterthought.
ii. Return (in government programs... and good luck getting approval for this...) to a Skunk Works model for advanced R&D. Read Kelly Johnson's Bio FFI.
iii. Powertrain consumption efficiencies. I have no idea how or even if this can be done using turbines (or even if the engine is the place to look) because of specific fuel consumption, but something analogous to being able to reduce fuel consumption in the cruise while still having the reserve power to safely get off the ground with a full load of pax or cargo or a full hook. Good luck on this one too. I think of the automobile industry shutting down cylinders, though I know there is no direct parallel. Well, you asked for crazy ideas.

For operators:
i. Develop a better sense for the future of one's own industry. The manufacturers try to give the customer what is wanted, but when the customer isn't sure...
ii. In numerous segments, start treating your operators and maintainers as something other than interchangeable parts. Pay them as if they're professionals and give them a stake in the company. If someone has a financial interest in a company, they are more likely to seek operational and other efficiencies than someone who feels they could be kicked to the curb at any time.
iii. Invest in the education and development of operators and maintainers and develop a proportion of the company executives from within. A MBA, in and of itself, does not necessarily groom one to run a helicopter company (of whatever type).

For executives:
i. Take the long view. Develop corporate strategy that is less focused on quarterly earnings. Invest in R&D and education and envision the company's future after you're dead.
ii. Develop internships in cooperation with other segments of industry for promising employees. An operator employee who's experienced life at a manufacturer is more likely to make wise equipment decisions when in an executive position later.
iii. Broaden industrial diversity on boards of directors, collecting the best from other high-performing industries.

[slowrotor]

I think in the future we might see more powered lift fixed wings with extreme STOL.
A mix of helicopter and airplane design but much different and simpler than the tilt-wing.