True North 407 down in the Kimberleys
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Sh*t Im lost again!!!
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chook,
Don't get you knickers in knot
. Stop thinking all pilots are perfect. Just for you, I am currently flying a 407 off shore and have quite a few hundred hours on it. Resume on it's way, hopefully you can give me a job
It is a rumor web site. I am mealy offering a cause that may be in play why the floats did not inflate...not why the engine failed. Like others pointed out somethings do not go pop when you press the button, which is more than likely the case. I hope we get to know more. Seeing as you are close to the pilot maybe you can in-lighten me. If it was caught on video I am sure it will be on you tube soon enough.
I would also like to know what kind of FADEC failure would make him/her land in the water the time before. Sounds like (ooppps speculation coming)
If he was taking off the N1 would be around the high ninteis, so when the FADEC failed and went into manual it would have given him rotor droop when the N1 went to 90% where the throttle is set. Reason to put it in the water??? I don't know I was not there. I do not (like the recent event) know the details, like airspeed, Altitude, Weight, Weather etc etc. It has been a few years since that happened does anyone know where I can get the report on that one?
Come on Chook let it out
DT
Don't get you knickers in knot
. Stop thinking all pilots are perfect. Just for you, I am currently flying a 407 off shore and have quite a few hundred hours on it. Resume on it's way, hopefully you can give me a jobIt is a rumor web site. I am mealy offering a cause that may be in play why the floats did not inflate...not why the engine failed. Like others pointed out somethings do not go pop when you press the button, which is more than likely the case. I hope we get to know more. Seeing as you are close to the pilot maybe you can in-lighten me. If it was caught on video I am sure it will be on you tube soon enough.
I would also like to know what kind of FADEC failure would make him/her land in the water the time before. Sounds like (ooppps speculation coming)
If he was taking off the N1 would be around the high ninteis, so when the FADEC failed and went into manual it would have given him rotor droop when the N1 went to 90% where the throttle is set. Reason to put it in the water??? I don't know I was not there. I do not (like the recent event) know the details, like airspeed, Altitude, Weight, Weather etc etc. It has been a few years since that happened does anyone know where I can get the report on that one?Come on Chook let it out
DT
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: brisbane
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DT these are your words not mine ---"Sounds like a little complacency to me. You can not control when the donkey wants to quit, but you should be ready with the floats. especially in a single engine aircraft. I bet he will not be so complacent next time". With any due respect that is not 'an offer of a cause" that is you telling this forum that the pilot f--ked up. Yes indeed it is a rumour forum no doubt but where in that statement is that an offer of cause that a rumour network may find of assistance. From little things big things grow. Imagine if that was u here (the pilot) having the forum experts tell all and sundry that it was pilot error that the floats didn't inflate- how would you feel?? There is about 20 diferent maybes i would suggest that may have either prevented the pilot from punching off the floats or if he did that the floats actually activating but you say --' I bet he will not be so complacement next time!! You have no idea neither do i so why tell the forum that the pilot was complacement.
it appears my mate was not flying the machine but either way I will let the matter run its course and not insult him by ringing up asking his opinion (he wasn't there either). If you're a 407 driver why not instead of the previous ""expert"" opinion inform educate and not speculate (especially in a manner that is near libelous). Why not assist others who may end up in that situation or fly a 407 and list the possible reasons that may have led to the machiine going swimming. THATS what assists people, thats why people read crash comics (other than for the other dubious reasons)- to learn the whats and hows of helicopter bad things. Placing blame onto a pilot when nothing is known -whats that??
I am well qualifed in the field of aviation and other fields also but i have made many mistakes over time and realise fully that neither I nor anyone else are perfect as pilots but that does not mean that if my (or anyone elses ) machine goes pear shaped its mine or their fault automatically.
Just for a finish cause I am over it - just imagine its you who was flying that machine and imagine someone else wrote that and that someone from the media picked up that sentence (the complacency one) and suddenly the news said "industry sources say while the cause of the engine problem/ failure/ etc is not known, the pilots complacency during this phase of the flight nearly caused the deaths of the entire crew/ occupants of the helicopter" Do you reckon "Oh but its just a rumour forum" would placate you/ ya kids/ wife/ mum and dad/ company lawyers/ passenger lawyers etc.
Why would i want your resume?
it appears my mate was not flying the machine but either way I will let the matter run its course and not insult him by ringing up asking his opinion (he wasn't there either). If you're a 407 driver why not instead of the previous ""expert"" opinion inform educate and not speculate (especially in a manner that is near libelous). Why not assist others who may end up in that situation or fly a 407 and list the possible reasons that may have led to the machiine going swimming. THATS what assists people, thats why people read crash comics (other than for the other dubious reasons)- to learn the whats and hows of helicopter bad things. Placing blame onto a pilot when nothing is known -whats that??
I am well qualifed in the field of aviation and other fields also but i have made many mistakes over time and realise fully that neither I nor anyone else are perfect as pilots but that does not mean that if my (or anyone elses ) machine goes pear shaped its mine or their fault automatically.
Just for a finish cause I am over it - just imagine its you who was flying that machine and imagine someone else wrote that and that someone from the media picked up that sentence (the complacency one) and suddenly the news said "industry sources say while the cause of the engine problem/ failure/ etc is not known, the pilots complacency during this phase of the flight nearly caused the deaths of the entire crew/ occupants of the helicopter" Do you reckon "Oh but its just a rumour forum" would placate you/ ya kids/ wife/ mum and dad/ company lawyers/ passenger lawyers etc.
Why would i want your resume?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is a thought...
As most of us seem to know, the boat they fly off is a holiday haven for the very rich and well-to-do. Price for a week? - more than most of us mortals can save in a year!
So...
Why would you spend so much money on your luxury vessel, getting it thru survey, adhereing to every maritime safety standard in the western world, marketing, crew, etc etc,, and then expose all of your mega-rich clients to the unavoidable critical phase of flight in a single over water?
Surely this will have done irrepairable damage to the operation? The clients would all easily pay the extra cost of twin-engined flight (after all it's a captive market - most are doing a one off spend big holiday in Oz, before jetting off to their other normal holiday haunts the rest of the year). If you heard the bar tabs that many of the clients rack up, it would give you some idea.
I think it is a clear case of should have gone twin. (That company owns a 145 anyway). A towering take off to a safe CDP would have stopped the salt water stinging the eyes! I'm not suggesting for a moment that twins are cheap, but with a clientelle like this I think it would, in hind-sight, be a no-brainer.
I too, know one of the pilots very well. And I too, have put a single in the drink. No dispertions on their actions at all! It all happens very very quickly, and those of us who have been there will tell you no-one can predict how you will act until it happens. Very glad all are alive and well, and lets hope this lifts the bar in this part of the industry and gets another twin well employed.
So...
Why would you spend so much money on your luxury vessel, getting it thru survey, adhereing to every maritime safety standard in the western world, marketing, crew, etc etc,, and then expose all of your mega-rich clients to the unavoidable critical phase of flight in a single over water?
Surely this will have done irrepairable damage to the operation? The clients would all easily pay the extra cost of twin-engined flight (after all it's a captive market - most are doing a one off spend big holiday in Oz, before jetting off to their other normal holiday haunts the rest of the year). If you heard the bar tabs that many of the clients rack up, it would give you some idea.
I think it is a clear case of should have gone twin. (That company owns a 145 anyway). A towering take off to a safe CDP would have stopped the salt water stinging the eyes! I'm not suggesting for a moment that twins are cheap, but with a clientelle like this I think it would, in hind-sight, be a no-brainer.
I too, know one of the pilots very well. And I too, have put a single in the drink. No dispertions on their actions at all! It all happens very very quickly, and those of us who have been there will tell you no-one can predict how you will act until it happens. Very glad all are alive and well, and lets hope this lifts the bar in this part of the industry and gets another twin well employed.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
integrity, unfortunately the performance capabilities of a twin in the take off phase would still expose the occupants and aircraft to the risk of a ditching. Very few are capable of operating with full accountability, and they are of a size that would not be viable eg Puma, AB139. Helicopters such as the 212, 412 or S-76 don't even provide performance data on which to plan for accountability for a take off from a boat (unless things have changed). For the smaller twins forget it.
Brian,
You will forgive me if I disagree; several of the smaller and more modern twins are quite capable of providing such performance.
The Bell427/9, Grand, EC135, and MD 902 could provide this performance providing the deck was of ICAO Standard proportions.
Even if the deck was not compatible (or there were no performance graphs), the exposure would only be in the order of several seconds.
Jim
You will forgive me if I disagree; several of the smaller and more modern twins are quite capable of providing such performance.
The Bell427/9, Grand, EC135, and MD 902 could provide this performance providing the deck was of ICAO Standard proportions.
Even if the deck was not compatible (or there were no performance graphs), the exposure would only be in the order of several seconds.
Jim
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Back of Bourke
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JimL
The Bell427/9, Grand, EC135, and MD 902 could provide this performance providing the deck was of ICAO Standard proportions.
IIRC, originally purchased for the very safety reasons mooted here: but the lure of fire fighting contracts in NSW seem to have overruled all that, and the 407 was left to do the job for which it is (was?) not really suited.
Two ditchings in the same machine in 4 years off the same boat
Absolutely amazing, even more so that there were no fatalities
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said JimL, saves my big reply.
Good points Brian, but as we know, a good operator will apply their own limiting performance graphs to the particular operation (ambient conditions) to ensure fly-away accountability. (you don't use the same charts on an S76 out of Darwin, as you would on the same aircraft in Bass Strait.)
If the tour then only flys with five bums on board instead of seven, I'm sure no paying clients will complain when explained "why".
Brian, I'm guessing you are retired now. Hope it's going well. (We've shared a cockpit). Integrity.
Good points Brian, but as we know, a good operator will apply their own limiting performance graphs to the particular operation (ambient conditions) to ensure fly-away accountability. (you don't use the same charts on an S76 out of Darwin, as you would on the same aircraft in Bass Strait.)
If the tour then only flys with five bums on board instead of seven, I'm sure no paying clients will complain when explained "why".
Brian, I'm guessing you are retired now. Hope it's going well. (We've shared a cockpit). Integrity.
Things have changed. As an example -
EC135P2.
30 deg C
Sea Level
OEI/OGE Hover ~2630 kg
So that gives me 681 kg's available on the current aircraft.
Less pilot and 1 hour with reserves ~ 336 kg for pax. (/4 = 84 kg ea) Not bad.
It could be more but this aircraft is air conditioned, glass cockpit (dual), WSPS, SP/DPIFR, autopilot, pop out floats, FM radios, SatCom.....................
Engine failure - so what. 95% of the time we meet these conditions. The remaining 5% is flown Cat A. Why fly Cat A when you have OEI/OGE Hover performance?
It does operate off a boat and of course the reason you can't use Cat A procedures is that the deck doesn't meet the size required in the RFM Supplement. 15m x 15m is the minimum and it is 18 x 12. Apart from the deck dimensions everything else is Cat A (Engine Fire Ext, Rad Alt, AI and Search and landing light for night) and the performance would allow maximum weight for takeoff up to 36 deg C if the deck dimensions were 100% suitable in accordance with the RFM.
Cat A procedures can be simulated using "Training mode" where the analogue display simulates a failed engine. The digital indications show the real story and in fact both engines are operating normally. The procedure is very easy to fly and requires no great skill. Being able to do this without trying to break things or wear out engines instills a lot of confidence. Also the training mode will allow you to simulate "topping" the remaining engine and will allow the RRPM to droop to limits before automatically reverting to "normal". N1 Topping selection between 30 sec and 2.5 min power also functions in this mode.
Of course it goes without saying that this procedure must be closely adhered to with the RFM Supplement and the aircraft requires the correct engine software and modifications embodied. I think the aircraft in QLD had a spot of bother in this respect.
The 145 would probably have no more performance in the same conditions as the engines would not have the same reserves of power when OEI.
EC135P2.
30 deg C
Sea Level
OEI/OGE Hover ~2630 kg
So that gives me 681 kg's available on the current aircraft.
Less pilot and 1 hour with reserves ~ 336 kg for pax. (/4 = 84 kg ea) Not bad.
It could be more but this aircraft is air conditioned, glass cockpit (dual), WSPS, SP/DPIFR, autopilot, pop out floats, FM radios, SatCom.....................
Engine failure - so what. 95% of the time we meet these conditions. The remaining 5% is flown Cat A. Why fly Cat A when you have OEI/OGE Hover performance?
It does operate off a boat and of course the reason you can't use Cat A procedures is that the deck doesn't meet the size required in the RFM Supplement. 15m x 15m is the minimum and it is 18 x 12. Apart from the deck dimensions everything else is Cat A (Engine Fire Ext, Rad Alt, AI and Search and landing light for night) and the performance would allow maximum weight for takeoff up to 36 deg C if the deck dimensions were 100% suitable in accordance with the RFM.
Cat A procedures can be simulated using "Training mode" where the analogue display simulates a failed engine. The digital indications show the real story and in fact both engines are operating normally. The procedure is very easy to fly and requires no great skill. Being able to do this without trying to break things or wear out engines instills a lot of confidence. Also the training mode will allow you to simulate "topping" the remaining engine and will allow the RRPM to droop to limits before automatically reverting to "normal". N1 Topping selection between 30 sec and 2.5 min power also functions in this mode.
Of course it goes without saying that this procedure must be closely adhered to with the RFM Supplement and the aircraft requires the correct engine software and modifications embodied. I think the aircraft in QLD had a spot of bother in this respect.
The 145 would probably have no more performance in the same conditions as the engines would not have the same reserves of power when OEI.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Middle of the Pacific
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't mean to hijack the thread, but are your guys really still using electric floats in light helicopters ? Is the Apical system not very popular down under?
? Is the Apical system not very popular down under?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Out and About
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no doubt that a modern twin with cat a accountability would be the preffered option I think it is worth looking at this operation from a geographical and historical perspective.
Up until about 99 or 2000 this operation was run by an external helicopter operator using a tired old 206 that was flat getting airborne at all on a bad day. While the rest of the operators in that part of the world were still operating 1960's vintage KH4s North Star charters bought and crewed a brand new air conditioned float equiped 407. So while in hindsight in 2008 from the comfort of an east coast computer it may look a little under done they have shown in the past that they are prepared to spend money on equipment where other operators weren't.
I'm not suggesting that the twin argument isn't valid however I do think in this case it is worth taking a balanced view.
Up until about 99 or 2000 this operation was run by an external helicopter operator using a tired old 206 that was flat getting airborne at all on a bad day. While the rest of the operators in that part of the world were still operating 1960's vintage KH4s North Star charters bought and crewed a brand new air conditioned float equiped 407. So while in hindsight in 2008 from the comfort of an east coast computer it may look a little under done they have shown in the past that they are prepared to spend money on equipment where other operators weren't.
I'm not suggesting that the twin argument isn't valid however I do think in this case it is worth taking a balanced view.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps if they had used the local drivers to crew it, who would have been very respectful of the local ambient furnace conditions, then the 407 donk may hve lasted longer?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TET, thats a big call!
Do you have any infomation of the ATSB internal engine inspection that may have contributed to the reported power loss and hence your insightful correlation to pilot abuse?
Do you have any infomation of the ATSB internal engine inspection that may have contributed to the reported power loss and hence your insightful correlation to pilot abuse?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,957
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
only too happy to be corrected, i had heard that the machine was not a star performer in amongst the bucket brigade, down south. seriously struggled i heard.
no idea on atsb reports, i would think we would be waiting a while, it may still be soaking in fresh water?
no idea on atsb reports, i would think we would be waiting a while, it may still be soaking in fresh water?