Pilot charged for taking helicopter shopping
This whole thread seems a little silly - someone landed a helicopter, by the looks of it quite safely - and someone hurt his hand because he couldn't operate a door in windy conditions and had to have his mummy kiss it better... It seems to me that there are two types of rotorhead - the pilot type who thinks that this type of thing is perfectly normal and dare I say it a bit cool (and bugger what the neighbours think about the noise) - and theres the spotter type who like to talk about G-FART and which company which airframe worked for and when - and how we neeed to do something about these cowboys who fly at 490' and give us all a bad name.
But perhaps thats just me exhibiting a hazardous macho attitude?
But perhaps thats just me exhibiting a hazardous macho attitude?
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laois
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too bad the pillock let himself down with the 'lost' logbook.
I think you are off the mark, granted there are a few who do not see the seriousness of this report or may not view the reason for such a report. Helipolarbear made a very important point:
why the AAIU Investigator is apportioning blame to the pilot for this incident. Is that not the remit of the other agency known as the IAA???
Lipgo:
As a reprimand the best that the IAA could throw at the individual was ' poor airmanship' !!
Now, lets just think out of the box for a minute, might it be that the IAA intend to take people to court? Might it be that they are looking for a very public case to bring to the attention of other pilots, that are not acting within Irish Air Law, that they will be prosecuted?
This incident has good evidence, a photo of the helicopter on a roof top car park. Very difficult to argue against that point......
Do we all have our AOC stickers?? Do we all have our Aerial works Permits and manuals? If you don't, the next report may be about you.....
On a side note, where do the insurance companies stand on not complying with airspace law?
I come late to this argument.
It sounds like a case of mis-communication more than anything else.
The real question you lot should be discussing is why fire and rescue services have to be provided for landing a helicopter.
If one were to take off from an airport that was closed after normal business hours.....would you argue the operation was unsafe because there were no fire/rescue services available?
A second question would be why there are not more roof top heliports available for use in urban areas.
Why is it places like Los Angeles can have hundreds of roof top heliports and the UK/Ireland have none?
The third question that begs discussing is why anyone would call this a "nutter", describe him as having performed "poor airmanship" and immediately hang him from the town gate.
What is it that this fellow did that is so out of the norm that he belongs in the "near lunatic category"?
The concept single engine helicopters cannot operate safely over "congested" areas and only multi-engine aircraft can is yet another question to be argued.
Perhaps we should have Nick remind us of the engine failure rates for singles and explain the inherent risks to operating a "Twin" outside full CAT A performance standards?
The final question that needs to answered, as one of my friends suggested over a lovely curry in Horley, is why Brits seem to pounce on others and tear at them like dogs at a rag, when things like this occur? He wondered whether it was unique to the British as he had not seen such events amongst the Americans, Canadians, or the Australians.
It sounds like a case of mis-communication more than anything else.
The real question you lot should be discussing is why fire and rescue services have to be provided for landing a helicopter.
If one were to take off from an airport that was closed after normal business hours.....would you argue the operation was unsafe because there were no fire/rescue services available?
A second question would be why there are not more roof top heliports available for use in urban areas.
Why is it places like Los Angeles can have hundreds of roof top heliports and the UK/Ireland have none?
The third question that begs discussing is why anyone would call this a "nutter", describe him as having performed "poor airmanship" and immediately hang him from the town gate.
What is it that this fellow did that is so out of the norm that he belongs in the "near lunatic category"?
The concept single engine helicopters cannot operate safely over "congested" areas and only multi-engine aircraft can is yet another question to be argued.
Perhaps we should have Nick remind us of the engine failure rates for singles and explain the inherent risks to operating a "Twin" outside full CAT A performance standards?
The final question that needs to answered, as one of my friends suggested over a lovely curry in Horley, is why Brits seem to pounce on others and tear at them like dogs at a rag, when things like this occur? He wondered whether it was unique to the British as he had not seen such events amongst the Americans, Canadians, or the Australians.
As mentioned previously, the main risk to this landing is engine failure. If the engine keeps going, and you don't catch a skid on that railing, then the landing and take-off presents 'little' risk to the aircraft or people on the ground. If the engine decides to quit at the wrong time then things are going to turn nasty. Its a question of whether you simply want to take the (relatively small) risk. It would be interesting to know what the statistics say in relation to engine failure in the 250-C20 series engine per 100,000 flight hours. Other than that, it can be argued that the landing was a well-executed one.
Perhaps the comparison between this 500 pilot and AS350 Nutter is a little harsh.
Perhaps the comparison between this 500 pilot and AS350 Nutter is a little harsh.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Laois
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I read the following, this does not make any remark to 'one off' landings but only to permanent heliports. I do recall that the Radison in Galway was classed as an elevated heliport durring the races, but the Abbeyglen is not, nore would the top tee box in the Glenlo Abbey? Are these are elevated and congested? 
Extracts from OAM 08/00
2. DEFINITIONS
These definitions are taken from ICAO (Annex 14 Volume 2, Chapter 6) and refer
to ‘helicopter overall length’ being the helicopter length, including the tail boom and
the rotors. At surface level heliport sites, the corresponding levels of RFFS should
be used for the H2 RFFS STANDARDS (see Section 3 below) or H1 RFFS
STANDARD (see Section 4 below) as appropriate and these correspond to the
standards which meet the Authority’s requirements for the levels of RFFS at
permanent and temporary licensed surface level heliports. An operator is
encouraged to adopt these H1 or H2 standard levels whenever a safety case cannot
be made for employing the lower levels described in Sections 5 and 6 below. At
elevated heliports the level of extinguishing agents described in Section 7 are to be
regarded as the absolute minimum.
a) Helicopter Category H1: A helicopter with an overall length up to but not including 15
metres.
b) Helicopter Category H2: A helicopter with an overall length of 15 metres up to but not
including 24 metres.
c) There are currently no Category H3 helicopters on the Irish register.
d) Elevated Heliport: A heliport located on a raised structure on land.
2. International Standards and Recommended Practices
2.1. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is the organisation
responsible, inter alia, for compiling and disseminating information concerning
internationally agreed helicopter Operating Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPS). ICAO Contracting States are required to notify ICAO of any differences
between their national regulations and practices and ICAO SARPS. ICAO has been
notified that there are no differences in Irish regulations, relating to for ground level
or elevated heliports, from the SARPS in ICAO Annex 14, Volume 2 (Heliports) and
its associated Heliport Manual (Doc 9261- AN/903).
4. Elevated Heliports
4.1. By virtue of the siting of the vast majority of elevated heliports within congested
areas with the associated perceived risk to the heliport building, third parties and to
nearby structures, only helicopters with Performance Class 1 capability are
permitted to land at or take-off from elevated heliports. The helicopter type,
intended to be used, must possess a Flight Manual performance profile
demonstrating that, in the event of engine failure occurring at any time during the
take-off or landing manoeuvres, the helicopter can safely land back on to the
elevated heliport or safely fly away, avoiding all obstacles by a vertical margin of at
least 35 feet (see Aeronautical Notice 0.2).
4.2. The minimum acceptable dimensions of an elevated heliport must also be described
in the Flight Manual, the Flight Manual Supplement and/or in the Operations Manual
for the helicopter type under consideration. Elevated heliports which do not
conform to the required dimensions should not be considered for use.
Any proposed development for an elevated heliport for day or night use,
will always attract the need for IAA operational approval and licensing.
Factors considered will include, intended operations, heliport dimensions, obstacle
environment, lighting, approach path indicators; and visual cues and flight visibility
from the type of helicopter to be used; and pilot qualifications and training.
Thus, a heliport ‘proving’ flight test programme, undertaken by a helicopter operator
in conjunction with the IAA, will normally be required, and successful completion of
a special pilot training and checking programme to ensure pilot competency will also
be necessary before an IAA approval of helicopter operations to an elevated heliport
will be considered.
4.3. The provision of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) at elevated heliports is
mandatory and must be provided to the scales laid down in Chapter 6 of ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 2, (Heliports). Close liaison with the local Fire Brigade during the
heliport planning and construction stages must be established and maintained
thereafter to ensure a viable emergency plan is agreed, maintained and monitored.
4.4. In all cases, it is necessary that an elevated heliport developer consult in advance,
with the IAA and with the local planning authority before final development
committal is made to the project. Recent experience has shown that, where a
planning application is made, environmental considerations, such as possible noise
disturbance, fuel contamination, public access, etc., weigh heavily in the decision
making process.
4.5. When seeking guidance from the IAA, an architect's/engineer’s drawing/plan
together with a helicopter operational report from an appropriately qualified
consultant, including aerial photographs of the proposed heliport site taking in
nearby structures and obstacles should be forwarded to Authority for preliminary
evaluation. Site visits during the heliport development phase and thereafter by IAA
Inspectors will be required. Fees will be payable in respect of site visits and
licensing, as appropriate.
Extracts from OAM 08/00
2. DEFINITIONS
These definitions are taken from ICAO (Annex 14 Volume 2, Chapter 6) and refer
to ‘helicopter overall length’ being the helicopter length, including the tail boom and
the rotors. At surface level heliport sites, the corresponding levels of RFFS should
be used for the H2 RFFS STANDARDS (see Section 3 below) or H1 RFFS
STANDARD (see Section 4 below) as appropriate and these correspond to the
standards which meet the Authority’s requirements for the levels of RFFS at
permanent and temporary licensed surface level heliports. An operator is
encouraged to adopt these H1 or H2 standard levels whenever a safety case cannot
be made for employing the lower levels described in Sections 5 and 6 below. At
elevated heliports the level of extinguishing agents described in Section 7 are to be
regarded as the absolute minimum.
a) Helicopter Category H1: A helicopter with an overall length up to but not including 15
metres.
b) Helicopter Category H2: A helicopter with an overall length of 15 metres up to but not
including 24 metres.
c) There are currently no Category H3 helicopters on the Irish register.
d) Elevated Heliport: A heliport located on a raised structure on land.
2. International Standards and Recommended Practices
2.1. The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) is the organisation
responsible, inter alia, for compiling and disseminating information concerning
internationally agreed helicopter Operating Standards and Recommended Practices
(SARPS). ICAO Contracting States are required to notify ICAO of any differences
between their national regulations and practices and ICAO SARPS. ICAO has been
notified that there are no differences in Irish regulations, relating to for ground level
or elevated heliports, from the SARPS in ICAO Annex 14, Volume 2 (Heliports) and
its associated Heliport Manual (Doc 9261- AN/903).
4. Elevated Heliports
4.1. By virtue of the siting of the vast majority of elevated heliports within congested
areas with the associated perceived risk to the heliport building, third parties and to
nearby structures, only helicopters with Performance Class 1 capability are
permitted to land at or take-off from elevated heliports. The helicopter type,
intended to be used, must possess a Flight Manual performance profile
demonstrating that, in the event of engine failure occurring at any time during the
take-off or landing manoeuvres, the helicopter can safely land back on to the
elevated heliport or safely fly away, avoiding all obstacles by a vertical margin of at
least 35 feet (see Aeronautical Notice 0.2).
4.2. The minimum acceptable dimensions of an elevated heliport must also be described
in the Flight Manual, the Flight Manual Supplement and/or in the Operations Manual
for the helicopter type under consideration. Elevated heliports which do not
conform to the required dimensions should not be considered for use.
Any proposed development for an elevated heliport for day or night use,
will always attract the need for IAA operational approval and licensing.
Factors considered will include, intended operations, heliport dimensions, obstacle
environment, lighting, approach path indicators; and visual cues and flight visibility
from the type of helicopter to be used; and pilot qualifications and training.
Thus, a heliport ‘proving’ flight test programme, undertaken by a helicopter operator
in conjunction with the IAA, will normally be required, and successful completion of
a special pilot training and checking programme to ensure pilot competency will also
be necessary before an IAA approval of helicopter operations to an elevated heliport
will be considered.
4.3. The provision of Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) at elevated heliports is
mandatory and must be provided to the scales laid down in Chapter 6 of ICAO
Annex 14, Volume 2, (Heliports). Close liaison with the local Fire Brigade during the
heliport planning and construction stages must be established and maintained
thereafter to ensure a viable emergency plan is agreed, maintained and monitored.
4.4. In all cases, it is necessary that an elevated heliport developer consult in advance,
with the IAA and with the local planning authority before final development
committal is made to the project. Recent experience has shown that, where a
planning application is made, environmental considerations, such as possible noise
disturbance, fuel contamination, public access, etc., weigh heavily in the decision
making process.
4.5. When seeking guidance from the IAA, an architect's/engineer’s drawing/plan
together with a helicopter operational report from an appropriately qualified
consultant, including aerial photographs of the proposed heliport site taking in
nearby structures and obstacles should be forwarded to Authority for preliminary
evaluation. Site visits during the heliport development phase and thereafter by IAA
Inspectors will be required. Fees will be payable in respect of site visits and
licensing, as appropriate.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I'm not going to say that what this guy did was the smartest thing in the world, especially landing a very expensive piece of equipment for a couple dollars worth of keys...I fly commercially and have a natural tendency to think that way. BUT what was so reckless about it. Did he break the rules or no? He obtained permission, albeit from the wrong authority, and given that ignorance is no excuse his "pp" should be slapped a little. It's single engine but so what...cars have 4 tires and just one blowout can cause alot of problems. Does he need the city's approval? If he does then fine his ass. All in all I don't think he did anything too seriously wrong or dangerous. Hell, given where I land on a daily basis that looks like an airport to me.
As for the wind thing, well, I've done the Scotish/Irish thing and you can bet your royal behind that the winds off the coast of either country will definately put pale to anything a 500 can produce.
And by the way, is it Irish Law to be carrying your personal logbook, or were they talking about the A/C Journy Log Book
I have to fly commercially to tickle my flying fetish, but I would give my left nut to be able to go to the store like this bloke in my own personal helicopter. If the Prince can land a Chinook in his girlfriends backyard (of which I have read and don't have any problems with either as a guy does have to fly to stay current, and at least he didn't land that beast in my backyard LOL.
) and Tornadoes can continue to scare the ****e out of no brainer tourists trying to drive on the "right" side of the road, (yes that was me! LOL
) I think what this guy did deserves a little less attention than what some of you think it deserves.
BWB
As for the wind thing, well, I've done the Scotish/Irish thing and you can bet your royal behind that the winds off the coast of either country will definately put pale to anything a 500 can produce.
And by the way, is it Irish Law to be carrying your personal logbook, or were they talking about the A/C Journy Log BookI have to fly commercially to tickle my flying fetish, but I would give my left nut to be able to go to the store like this bloke in my own personal helicopter. If the Prince can land a Chinook in his girlfriends backyard (of which I have read and don't have any problems with either as a guy does have to fly to stay current, and at least he didn't land that beast in my backyard LOL.
) and Tornadoes can continue to scare the ****e out of no brainer tourists trying to drive on the "right" side of the road, (yes that was me! LOL) I think what this guy did deserves a little less attention than what some of you think it deserves.BWB
2. International Standards and Recommended Practices
"Recommended" is not an imperative where I come from.
ICAO Contracting States are required to notify ICAO of any differences
between their national regulations and practices and ICAO SARPS.
ICAO plainly expects some variations from their rules.
4.1. By virtue of the siting of the vast majority of elevated heliports within congested
areas with the associated perceived risk to the heliport building, third parties and to
nearby structures, only helicopters with Performance Class 1 capability are
permitted to land at or take-off from elevated heliports.
Isn't there a difference between known, provable risks and their "perceived risk" concept?
4.2. The minimum acceptable dimensions of an elevated heliport must also be described
in the Flight Manual, the Flight Manual Supplement and/or in the Operations Manual
for the helicopter type under consideration. Elevated heliports which do not
conform to the required dimensions should not be considered for use.
How many RFM's set forth Helipad dimensions? Does a Privately owned and operated helicopter have an OPS Manual?
a heliport ‘proving’ flight test programme, undertaken by a helicopter operator
in conjunction with the IAA, will normally be required, and successful completion of
a special pilot training and checking programme to ensure pilot competency will also
be necessary before an IAA approval of helicopter operations to an elevated heliport
will be considered.
Why pray tell does every helicopter pilot have to receive training on each helipad they are going to operate from? Does each pilot have to be "checked" by the IAA? If so that is simply ridiculous!
4.4. In all cases, it is necessary that an elevated heliport developer consult in advance,
with the IAA and with the local planning authority before final development
committal is made to the project. Recent experience has shown that, where a
planning application is made, environmental considerations, such as possible noise
disturbance, fuel contamination, public access, etc., weigh heavily in the decision
making process.
No problem with that.
4.5. When seeking guidance from the IAA, an architect's/engineer’s drawing/plan
together with a helicopter operational report from an appropriately qualified
consultant, including aerial photographs of the proposed heliport site taking in
nearby structures and obstacles should be forwarded to Authority for preliminary
evaluation. Site visits during the heliport development phase and thereafter by IAA
Inspectors will be required. Fees will be payable in respect of site visits and
licensing, as appropriate.
Who determines qualifications for a consultant? Why is a "consultant" required? Could not a layman interpret the rules and regs and related information and plan his own helipad without the need for a "consultant"? Sounds like a "make work" situation similar to private owners having to employ an engineering agent to oversee maintenance on a private aircraft.
"Recommended" is not an imperative where I come from.
ICAO Contracting States are required to notify ICAO of any differences
between their national regulations and practices and ICAO SARPS.
ICAO plainly expects some variations from their rules.
4.1. By virtue of the siting of the vast majority of elevated heliports within congested
areas with the associated perceived risk to the heliport building, third parties and to
nearby structures, only helicopters with Performance Class 1 capability are
permitted to land at or take-off from elevated heliports.
Isn't there a difference between known, provable risks and their "perceived risk" concept?
4.2. The minimum acceptable dimensions of an elevated heliport must also be described
in the Flight Manual, the Flight Manual Supplement and/or in the Operations Manual
for the helicopter type under consideration. Elevated heliports which do not
conform to the required dimensions should not be considered for use.
How many RFM's set forth Helipad dimensions? Does a Privately owned and operated helicopter have an OPS Manual?
a heliport ‘proving’ flight test programme, undertaken by a helicopter operator
in conjunction with the IAA, will normally be required, and successful completion of
a special pilot training and checking programme to ensure pilot competency will also
be necessary before an IAA approval of helicopter operations to an elevated heliport
will be considered.
Why pray tell does every helicopter pilot have to receive training on each helipad they are going to operate from? Does each pilot have to be "checked" by the IAA? If so that is simply ridiculous!
4.4. In all cases, it is necessary that an elevated heliport developer consult in advance,
with the IAA and with the local planning authority before final development
committal is made to the project. Recent experience has shown that, where a
planning application is made, environmental considerations, such as possible noise
disturbance, fuel contamination, public access, etc., weigh heavily in the decision
making process.
No problem with that.
4.5. When seeking guidance from the IAA, an architect's/engineer’s drawing/plan
together with a helicopter operational report from an appropriately qualified
consultant, including aerial photographs of the proposed heliport site taking in
nearby structures and obstacles should be forwarded to Authority for preliminary
evaluation. Site visits during the heliport development phase and thereafter by IAA
Inspectors will be required. Fees will be payable in respect of site visits and
licensing, as appropriate.
Who determines qualifications for a consultant? Why is a "consultant" required? Could not a layman interpret the rules and regs and related information and plan his own helipad without the need for a "consultant"? Sounds like a "make work" situation similar to private owners having to employ an engineering agent to oversee maintenance on a private aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near the Mountains
Age: 67
Posts: 345
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As pointed out, this, in some jurisdictions wouldn't raise an eyebrow! However, in his local situation, this was probably just a bit "in your face", as it were, with regard to the local populace who do seem to have a small tendency towards begrudgery!! Perhaps a little more circumspection would have been a better idea!
Other than that, perhaps this thought applies here:-
"Old men love to give good advice when no longer able to give bad example!"
Other than that, perhaps this thought applies here:-
"Old men love to give good advice when no longer able to give bad example!"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The IAA wants the OAM 08/00 being seen as rules. However the document state say they are only guidelines!
If you land in a confined area, something helicopters are made for, you might get a letter inviting you to talk about it. The IAA wants you to have at least 143 meters free take-off distance, behind that only minor obstacles for the remaining 350 meters (R44). For an AS350 even 200 meters.
Now as I understand from some JAA instructors here, they don't even train pilots for confined areas, because training has to be done at a licensed airfield, so they only train 'simulated' confined area's!!!! This guy was properly trained in the States so he had plenty of confined area training.
Ireland is very strict with the regulations and guidelines, and way more so then the UK or any other country in Europe (I flew in most of them).
If you land in a confined area, something helicopters are made for, you might get a letter inviting you to talk about it. The IAA wants you to have at least 143 meters free take-off distance, behind that only minor obstacles for the remaining 350 meters (R44). For an AS350 even 200 meters.
Now as I understand from some JAA instructors here, they don't even train pilots for confined areas, because training has to be done at a licensed airfield, so they only train 'simulated' confined area's!!!! This guy was properly trained in the States so he had plenty of confined area training.
Ireland is very strict with the regulations and guidelines, and way more so then the UK or any other country in Europe (I flew in most of them).
Last edited by wesp; 8th Oct 2008 at 20:02.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless.
You 'come late to the argument', but with good questions in both your posts.
Agree, it was a lovely curry - and good to put the world to rights at the end of a great day.
You 'come late to the argument', but with good questions in both your posts.
Agree, it was a lovely curry - and good to put the world to rights at the end of a great day.
Holy ****! What a nutter...... If this qualifies for being a "nutter", then I am probably in the insane-category as I have landed on quite a number of places a LOT worse and a goood number being single engine..
By the way, has any of the twinONLY-boys ever reflected over the fact that in a twin you have twice the chance of an engine-failure
By the way, has any of the twinONLY-boys ever reflected over the fact that in a twin you have twice the chance of an engine-failure
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe/US
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nubian....nice thought.......but it also means in a multi-engine, if you have an engine failure and have planned right, you get to fly away and land somewhere safe most of the time (99.99999%?)......, better odds than single operations anyway you factor it!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of the border
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car park landing
"He landed on the roof of the adjacent multi-storey car park. It is unclear to the investigation where the helicopter could have been safely force-landed in the event of an engine failure during landing or take-off."
Well he could always use the roof of the multi-storey car park !!!
Doh !
Well he could always use the roof of the multi-storey car park !!!
Doh !
Helipolarbear,
I think you should check your % figure of enginefailure in twins, as I don't think it is as high as 99,999999%
I will agree, that you'll have more power to control an emergency landing but it is a bit more complex than "engine failure!.....doesn't matter as we have another one....."
If you refer to new performance Class 1 helicopters, I agree, but if you say twin in general......then you must include all those 105's, 355F's, 109A, 222A, 76A and so on.
These helicopters my friend DON't have the neccesary performance when operated at GW in normal conditions (not to mention hot/high) to have a failure a the most critical point AND fly away and land somewhere nice as you say...
Until just some years ago, the only TRUE twin flying was the Bell 214ST which could loose one engine at GW, OGE, hot and still continue the take-off. All others have to in BEST case reduce GW and in most cases land back on before DP or Vtoss OR get the speed
Now, when you also include to engine failures the lack of fuel (flameouts of various fuel related nature), you can rest assured that twins will stop when they are not properly fed as well
I am not trying to say that twins are not safe or for that matter dosen't make a diffrence. Just saying that, just cause you have two engines on your back it is important NOT to become complaceant and think you'll never need to think about shooting an auto again in your life.
Well, I guess this was abit off topic of the thread, but initially the remark was ment as a joke
Regards
I think you should check your % figure of enginefailure in twins, as I don't think it is as high as 99,999999%
I will agree, that you'll have more power to control an emergency landing but it is a bit more complex than "engine failure!.....doesn't matter as we have another one....."
If you refer to new performance Class 1 helicopters, I agree, but if you say twin in general......then you must include all those 105's, 355F's, 109A, 222A, 76A and so on.
These helicopters my friend DON't have the neccesary performance when operated at GW in normal conditions (not to mention hot/high) to have a failure a the most critical point AND fly away and land somewhere nice as you say...
Until just some years ago, the only TRUE twin flying was the Bell 214ST which could loose one engine at GW, OGE, hot and still continue the take-off. All others have to in BEST case reduce GW and in most cases land back on before DP or Vtoss OR get the speed
Now, when you also include to engine failures the lack of fuel (flameouts of various fuel related nature), you can rest assured that twins will stop when they are not properly fed as well
I am not trying to say that twins are not safe or for that matter dosen't make a diffrence. Just saying that, just cause you have two engines on your back it is important NOT to become complaceant and think you'll never need to think about shooting an auto again in your life.
Well, I guess this was abit off topic of the thread, but initially the remark was ment as a joke
Regards
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: uk
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 % of stats are made up on the spot or something like that including that one
the single twin rules are something for the CAA/IAA's to come up with and those of us doing public transport simply have to follow them wether we think they are right or not. This guy was clearly flying private in his heli so if he wants to put the heli into a tight spot thats up to him, I fly MD500's and they are great and built tough the only thing that I think might need's looking at is wether or not he put the people on the ground at any risk?
I think landing in a carpark on a roof is fab it's what your ment to do with a helicopter along with all the other things you can't with a plane, but as the pilot or crew you know the risk's the poor sods on the ground don't but if their sorted then crack on
CBS
the single twin rules are something for the CAA/IAA's to come up with and those of us doing public transport simply have to follow them wether we think they are right or not. This guy was clearly flying private in his heli so if he wants to put the heli into a tight spot thats up to him, I fly MD500's and they are great and built tough the only thing that I think might need's looking at is wether or not he put the people on the ground at any risk?
I think landing in a carpark on a roof is fab it's what your ment to do with a helicopter along with all the other things you can't with a plane, but as the pilot or crew you know the risk's the poor sods on the ground don't but if their sorted then crack on
CBS
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Europe/US
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like downtown Ikeaja, Lagos....then it could be Conakry, Nouakashott, Dakar, et.al.........
Nubian, regarding those 'other; non Cat A twins.....then the assumption must include that the engine failure occurs inside the cruise envelope which would make up most of the time of operational exposure.....but I do see your point............!
Nubian, regarding those 'other; non Cat A twins.....then the assumption must include that the engine failure occurs inside the cruise envelope which would make up most of the time of operational exposure.....but I do see your point............!
Last edited by Helipolarbear; 18th May 2008 at 22:08.