Agusta AW139
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power
Nick
I do not agree with both of your conclusions. You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case.
How much power is too much?
Power is also associated to A/C controllability in hover conditions that is also a safety issue.
I agree with you as far as the penalties you have to accept when you "over design", but to me, this is going towards safety, even though this costs money (as always).
The future models of the 139 will address this issues and increase payload but without penalizing the big plus of this machine.
I do not agree with both of your conclusions. You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case.
How much power is too much?
Power is also associated to A/C controllability in hover conditions that is also a safety issue.
I agree with you as far as the penalties you have to accept when you "over design", but to me, this is going towards safety, even though this costs money (as always).
The future models of the 139 will address this issues and increase payload but without penalizing the big plus of this machine.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bpaggi,
You said, "You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case."
Nobody is arguing that power is not nice, and nobody is saying that a bunch of power is not good, but what I am saying is that a two-engined helo that doesn't need the second engine will burn 30% more gas to do its job, and is carrying transmissions, engines and shafting around that are much more expensive to buy and operate.
Regarding safety, do you have any statistics on what causes helo accidents? I do, and insufficient power is simply not an issue. Can you share your secret stash of data that shows how power is the real hidden cause of helo accidents?
You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts. Are you saying that the 139 does not burn 1000 pounds per hour? Are you contending that the 139 carries more passengers farther than its competitors? My point is that it has awsome power, and pays a big price for that. Do you disagree?
You said, "You perfectly know that power can be decisive in many occasions in getting out of troubles without considering the engine failure case."
Nobody is arguing that power is not nice, and nobody is saying that a bunch of power is not good, but what I am saying is that a two-engined helo that doesn't need the second engine will burn 30% more gas to do its job, and is carrying transmissions, engines and shafting around that are much more expensive to buy and operate.
Regarding safety, do you have any statistics on what causes helo accidents? I do, and insufficient power is simply not an issue. Can you share your secret stash of data that shows how power is the real hidden cause of helo accidents?
You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts. Are you saying that the 139 does not burn 1000 pounds per hour? Are you contending that the 139 carries more passengers farther than its competitors? My point is that it has awsome power, and pays a big price for that. Do you disagree?
spinwing... hours have nothing to do with tyres wearing out. operators who taxi alot will wear them out quickly, and vice versa 
jimma... i thnk it is about time pilots stop taking hot drinks on flights. Tea and coffee are diuretics, which help to pass fluid out of the body and accelerate dehydration. The only drink taken onboard should be water, and it should be in resealable containers. You want to see how much damage to avionics, and corrosion spilt coffee and tea can cause. Having the water in resealable bottles minimises that risk, and removes the corrosion risk associated with those drinks. Get over the lack of cup holder, modify your old (bad) habits!!!
Mamaput... actually, having seen a recent chart for range/payload over distance, the 139 easily outperformed a 76C. The C+ wasn't shown, and no, I don't know who produced the chart. It wasn't Agusta though. Also showed 'heavy' machines, and the 92 way outperformed the rest. Quite impressive.
helmet fire...
Doesn't that mean, that, comparing a 76 to the 139 for instance, the 76 would have to do 2 trips for every single 139 trip, if both were flown to full Cat A?? So, in the future, if/when full Cat A is mandatory, how would a 76 still be cost effective?? I agree, it does allow compromise, and I agree that full Cat A is not always necessary, convincing rulemakers however, is a different matter entirely. Interesting arguement though 
Nick... is the 76D going to be fully Cat A capable?? If so, would it not also be overpowered and under payload capable?? Your views are insightful.
For the record, I think the engine Agusta decided on for the 139 was a poor choice. Smaller, lighter engines of slightly less power (and shorter exhausts!!!!!) would have been far better. Perhaps Bell using the same engine (nearly the same anyway) in the BA609, had some influence. Shame really.
jimma... i thnk it is about time pilots stop taking hot drinks on flights. Tea and coffee are diuretics, which help to pass fluid out of the body and accelerate dehydration. The only drink taken onboard should be water, and it should be in resealable containers. You want to see how much damage to avionics, and corrosion spilt coffee and tea can cause. Having the water in resealable bottles minimises that risk, and removes the corrosion risk associated with those drinks. Get over the lack of cup holder, modify your old (bad) habits!!!
Mamaput... actually, having seen a recent chart for range/payload over distance, the 139 easily outperformed a 76C. The C+ wasn't shown, and no, I don't know who produced the chart. It wasn't Agusta though. Also showed 'heavy' machines, and the 92 way outperformed the rest. Quite impressive.
helmet fire...
The limited CAT A fits nicely in the middle BUT it allows compromise. If you want to have full CAT A, fit the aircraft with less seats and voila! You have it. If you then accept the exposure rate of 0.17% to a possible (not likely) consequence, you can load it up and operate cost effectively.
Nick... is the 76D going to be fully Cat A capable?? If so, would it not also be overpowered and under payload capable?? Your views are insightful.
For the record, I think the engine Agusta decided on for the 139 was a poor choice. Smaller, lighter engines of slightly less power (and shorter exhausts!!!!!) would have been far better. Perhaps Bell using the same engine (nearly the same anyway) in the BA609, had some influence. Shame really.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick,
I agree with your summary.
However, some customers (and their pilots) are happy to pay the 'penalty' for more power.
Most owners don't appreciate the OEI situation but they do notice when the helicopter is struggling to get airborne at well below gross weight! On both engines!!
This has been the case until the 109E and 139 came along.
At least Agusta listened.
FLI
I agree with your summary.
However, some customers (and their pilots) are happy to pay the 'penalty' for more power.
Most owners don't appreciate the OEI situation but they do notice when the helicopter is struggling to get airborne at well below gross weight! On both engines!!
This has been the case until the 109E and 139 came along.
At least Agusta listened.
FLI
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
noooby,
It sounds like we agree! I think Cat A is very important, it is the extreme OEI capability that I question, in that the range reduction is a steep price to pay for the vast power.
FLI,
there is a big difference between "full Cat A" and the 139. The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves. The 139 has to start offloading pax by 160 NM (I think - do you have better data?) That is the price it pays for the extreme power it has.
It sounds like we agree! I think Cat A is very important, it is the extreme OEI capability that I question, in that the range reduction is a steep price to pay for the vast power.
FLI,
there is a big difference between "full Cat A" and the 139. The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves. The 139 has to start offloading pax by 160 NM (I think - do you have better data?) That is the price it pays for the extreme power it has.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power
Nick
The AW139 burns 880 pph.
What do you mean "the S92 is full Cat A". At what OAT and how much wind??
The AW139, as I said previously, is full Cat A at max weight and ISA+25 at zero wind.
Based on complete figure and at the same conditions, you can then compare range.
Can S92 have 300 nm range at ISA+25 and be full Cat A? How many passengers on board?
The AW139 burns 880 pph.
What do you mean "the S92 is full Cat A". At what OAT and how much wind??
The AW139, as I said previously, is full Cat A at max weight and ISA+25 at zero wind.
Based on complete figure and at the same conditions, you can then compare range.
Can S92 have 300 nm range at ISA+25 and be full Cat A? How many passengers on board?
noooby and FLI, I think you have hit the dilemma on the head.
There is reality and there is perception; the reality being that a limited CAT A machine is much more cost effective, and can be operated CAT A by those prepared for the cost penalty of reducing load. The perception is that being not full CAT A is somehow dangerous and unacceptable.
Only we as professional pilots can help to change the perception amongst both our customers and regulators - and get them to consider the reality. The cost of increasing the engine power capabilities returns a NEGLIGIBLE payback in safety. Money spent in CFIT reduction strategies returns TANGIBLE paybacks in safety. The longer we as pilots continue to promote the obsession with full CAT A, the more of us and our customers will pay the financial and human costs.
Noooby, your comparison with the S76 and 139 is spot on. If you are prepared to accept a risk that is less than CFIT and drivetrain issues by operating with the 0.17% exposure, then it is a no brainer. If however, you want a risk exposure reduced from 0.17% to nearly zero, you are wanting (or required to) to stay locked into the full CAT A scenario. If you purchased the S76 you may be in trouble if the range and payload is excessive for that type, and the 139 will be your machine. But what if the range was not excessive? Then the S76 can still do the job and your point is flawed. The point is that now the 139 is overkill. The same arguement can be had from the AS355 to the S76 as you are using from the S76 to the 139. The AS355N can happily transport 4 VIPs and full fuel in a 0.17% exposure rate. The S76 can do that same load Full CAT A. How much money is saved flying it home empty?
There are too many variables I think. But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero.
FLI, I think the 109E is a great example of the dilemma. Looks great taking off at MAUW and going full CAT A. But if they had spent more money on that overly complex cockpit interface, antiquated electrical system, potentially dangerous fuel system, and even redesgning the scissor links we would have a greater safety return on our dollar. The 109E is also a good example of full CAT A driving people to singles. The Koala has been a direct beneficiary of the cost and range of the full CAT A 109E, and even in Australia, several high net worth people have gone the Koala for those very reasons. Both look fantastic, both are an absolute pleasure to fly, go like cut snakes, and take off vertically at MAUW, and what are the chances of the PT6 coughing? It's a lot cheaper.
So the safety outcome has been 80% plus exposure to the risk rather than 0.17% for the high net worth individuals who I am sure, do not appreciate these facts. Regardless how we may feel about the benefits of all that extra power, the outcomes are not the best possible for either us, nor our customers. And only we can help to change the perceptions.
I will, however, add that as an EMS pilot the full CAT A thing is not such an intangible benefit. There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power. We too could operate a larger machine at our normal load (which is a reduced load for the large machine) to achieve this. We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)
There is reality and there is perception; the reality being that a limited CAT A machine is much more cost effective, and can be operated CAT A by those prepared for the cost penalty of reducing load. The perception is that being not full CAT A is somehow dangerous and unacceptable.
Only we as professional pilots can help to change the perception amongst both our customers and regulators - and get them to consider the reality. The cost of increasing the engine power capabilities returns a NEGLIGIBLE payback in safety. Money spent in CFIT reduction strategies returns TANGIBLE paybacks in safety. The longer we as pilots continue to promote the obsession with full CAT A, the more of us and our customers will pay the financial and human costs.
Noooby, your comparison with the S76 and 139 is spot on. If you are prepared to accept a risk that is less than CFIT and drivetrain issues by operating with the 0.17% exposure, then it is a no brainer. If however, you want a risk exposure reduced from 0.17% to nearly zero, you are wanting (or required to) to stay locked into the full CAT A scenario. If you purchased the S76 you may be in trouble if the range and payload is excessive for that type, and the 139 will be your machine. But what if the range was not excessive? Then the S76 can still do the job and your point is flawed. The point is that now the 139 is overkill. The same arguement can be had from the AS355 to the S76 as you are using from the S76 to the 139. The AS355N can happily transport 4 VIPs and full fuel in a 0.17% exposure rate. The S76 can do that same load Full CAT A. How much money is saved flying it home empty?
There are too many variables I think. But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero.
FLI, I think the 109E is a great example of the dilemma. Looks great taking off at MAUW and going full CAT A. But if they had spent more money on that overly complex cockpit interface, antiquated electrical system, potentially dangerous fuel system, and even redesgning the scissor links we would have a greater safety return on our dollar. The 109E is also a good example of full CAT A driving people to singles. The Koala has been a direct beneficiary of the cost and range of the full CAT A 109E, and even in Australia, several high net worth people have gone the Koala for those very reasons. Both look fantastic, both are an absolute pleasure to fly, go like cut snakes, and take off vertically at MAUW, and what are the chances of the PT6 coughing? It's a lot cheaper.
So the safety outcome has been 80% plus exposure to the risk rather than 0.17% for the high net worth individuals who I am sure, do not appreciate these facts. Regardless how we may feel about the benefits of all that extra power, the outcomes are not the best possible for either us, nor our customers. And only we can help to change the perceptions.
I will, however, add that as an EMS pilot the full CAT A thing is not such an intangible benefit. There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power. We too could operate a larger machine at our normal load (which is a reduced load for the large machine) to achieve this. We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)
Last edited by helmet fire; 26th Oct 2006 at 02:42. Reason: adding the EMS bit!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said, again, helmet fire, "But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero."
Too bad it is so hard to achieve understanding, helmet fire! You can try with those guys but it won't work - made up minds are too hard to change.
The zero HV helicopter burns more fuel each hour, to the tune of two passengers lost for each 150 NM of cruise relative to its competition, but this is no problem to the guy who pays no bills. It carries around about 1000 horsepower it can only use if an engine quits, at a great cost in engines, gearboxes, shafts, rotors and other expensive hardware, hardware that costs about $2000 per pound to buy, but this is peanuts to the guys who don't care how much it costs. It weighs over 2000 lbs more than its competitors, weight that is actually lost payload, but this is of no significance to the guys who do not care how much it can carry or how much revenue it loses.
Too bad it is so hard to achieve understanding, helmet fire! You can try with those guys but it won't work - made up minds are too hard to change.
The zero HV helicopter burns more fuel each hour, to the tune of two passengers lost for each 150 NM of cruise relative to its competition, but this is no problem to the guy who pays no bills. It carries around about 1000 horsepower it can only use if an engine quits, at a great cost in engines, gearboxes, shafts, rotors and other expensive hardware, hardware that costs about $2000 per pound to buy, but this is peanuts to the guys who don't care how much it costs. It weighs over 2000 lbs more than its competitors, weight that is actually lost payload, but this is of no significance to the guys who do not care how much it can carry or how much revenue it loses.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmut Fire
You try to give the impression that you and Nick are singing from the same song but infact you are saying that OEI hover power does have real safety benefits. Quote “There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power.”
The very real returns that you allude to are also appreciated by paying passengers and especially by the ones who bought the helicopter. I appreciate that your exposure window is longer than for normal operations but there are many scenarios that corporate helicopters operate to that subject them to longer exposure times than airfield and oil rig take offs and landings.
Very rich people worry about their safety. It is one of those things that money can buy. They don’t want an exposure window no matter how long.
I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter! 2 engines, one to work and one as a spare. Not both working at 95 to 100% just to get airborne.
The issue of owners switching from 109E to Koala is not the fault of the helicopter being too powerful. I am sure the 109E corporate pilot would not advise his boss to switch to a Koala. Maybe operators who provide a charter service but not wealthy individuals. The regulations in many countries would hinder a Koala’s operation and reduce its flexibility (or revenue). I did hear that a very rich Australian dismissed a 76B for not going faster, not carrying more people, using more fuel and costing more to purchase than his 76A. An argument that even Sikorsky found hard to refute. The price of power was not worth it to him. Thankfully, he was the exception or we would all be flying around in old, under powered (but still Cat A) helicopters.
Nick,
The same corporate owners are the major purchasers of all the kit that helps prevent CFIT. Just look how their payload has reduced by having all this heavy and expensive equipment on board? They pay the price for safety.
How many offshore operators purchase this equipment? They do when the regulations demand it. As they will if FULL Cat A becomes the norm.
You, yourself, advocated a new type of heliport for true Cat A helicopters in congested cities. There is a commercial requirement for this power.
Can you also explain why, if the S92 is Cat A, the Presidential helicopter proposal was for a much more powerful variant? When is Cat A not enough?
FLI
You try to give the impression that you and Nick are singing from the same song but infact you are saying that OEI hover power does have real safety benefits. Quote “There is nothing quite like OEI power availability when hovering over a gorge full of gum trees with two of your mates on the winch cable 150ft below you. But this is a specialised role and there are some very real returns for the excess power.”
The very real returns that you allude to are also appreciated by paying passengers and especially by the ones who bought the helicopter. I appreciate that your exposure window is longer than for normal operations but there are many scenarios that corporate helicopters operate to that subject them to longer exposure times than airfield and oil rig take offs and landings.
Very rich people worry about their safety. It is one of those things that money can buy. They don’t want an exposure window no matter how long.
I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter! 2 engines, one to work and one as a spare. Not both working at 95 to 100% just to get airborne.
The issue of owners switching from 109E to Koala is not the fault of the helicopter being too powerful. I am sure the 109E corporate pilot would not advise his boss to switch to a Koala. Maybe operators who provide a charter service but not wealthy individuals. The regulations in many countries would hinder a Koala’s operation and reduce its flexibility (or revenue). I did hear that a very rich Australian dismissed a 76B for not going faster, not carrying more people, using more fuel and costing more to purchase than his 76A. An argument that even Sikorsky found hard to refute. The price of power was not worth it to him. Thankfully, he was the exception or we would all be flying around in old, under powered (but still Cat A) helicopters.
Nick,
The same corporate owners are the major purchasers of all the kit that helps prevent CFIT. Just look how their payload has reduced by having all this heavy and expensive equipment on board? They pay the price for safety.
How many offshore operators purchase this equipment? They do when the regulations demand it. As they will if FULL Cat A becomes the norm.
You, yourself, advocated a new type of heliport for true Cat A helicopters in congested cities. There is a commercial requirement for this power.
Can you also explain why, if the S92 is Cat A, the Presidential helicopter proposal was for a much more powerful variant? When is Cat A not enough?
FLI
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire and Nick
These perennial arguments about the benefits of all that installed power in helicopters like the AW139 have been chewed over many times and I have learnt a lot from my colleagues with more technical background than mine. However there are some points that have not yet seen daylight.
Bearing in mind that my views reflect those found in the major oil and gas companies I make the following points:-
1. You can argue pennies and cents about excess direct operating costs that derive from excess HP but don't forget that what gave us all the greatest heartache when the S76 appeared on the scene was not how much fuel we burnt but the maintenance costs and unscheduled down-time. 25 man-hours per flight hour actual compared with just one or two advertised by Sikorsky (it's testing my memory a bit but those are the numbers I recall from the 1980s). We would gladly have paid a bit more per flight hour if it translated into a reliable machine that delivered on our crew-change schedules. There is one base in Europe where 3 out of 5 S76s are out for major crack repairs because whilst a helo can take off at Max AUW and fly at VNo when you do it for 10 hours a day and cycle it through up to 30-40 take offs a landings per day it will eventually break and drop you in the poo big-time unless it has structual reserves and is operated at something less than balls-out all the bl
y time. In South America there is a 332L2 operator who did what the brochure said and flew the aircraft at VNe at Max GWt every day. The airframe cracked and was out of service for 3 months leaving the customer down yet another vital resource. If we followed Nick's design philosophy (and he is not alone) then we would have the lightest cheapest machine flying balls-out for short term economic gain. Me and mine would like the other option which is a machine capable of delivering agreed payload/range targets consistently - every day - day after day. This conservatism has a price but I often have only one window of opportunity to fix my offshore platform during a 'shutdown' period and NOT doing it has a cost too and that can be a lot more expensive.
2. Nobody has yet mentioned that one fatal accident can cost the oil company (not necessarily the operator) $150m. This number (and I have seen bigger numbers quoted in this context) covers litigations costs, loss of prestige, loss of employee confidence (remember the Boeing 234 Chinook). When you hunt around for risks that can be reduced by being more conservative then that's what we will do. Feed in $150m into the DOCs and it screws your numbers up just a wee bit. Of course we want to deal with CFIT - that's why having LOFT is vital and a sim or FTD is a vital part of that philosophy. (hence no-sim-no-buy in some quarters). There are those areas of the market where the operator decides what to buy and those where the customer makes that decision for the operator. Then there are those rich enough to do what the hell they like - and good luck to them but they do not have to deal with a regime that recognises the 'Duty of Care' implicit in an employer-employee relationship. When an oil company sends it's employees to work in a helo that it has hired for the purpose then they (the oil company) take the rap if they have not ensured that everything reasonable has been done to minimise the risk to its employees. Nick's focus is predominantly FAR 135 - can you imagine where the US would be if the offshore ops came under FAR 21? About where JARs are now I would hazard a guess. How can anybody justify the difference between the two when employees have little opportunity to vote on who to fly offshore with other than by voting with their feet - and many have done that with the oil companies loosing good people who are too scared to fly.
Sorry Nick, technical arguments translated into economic arguments MUST take into account all the other human elements otherwise you will be working in a meaningless vacuum.
Geoffers
Bearing in mind that my views reflect those found in the major oil and gas companies I make the following points:-
1. You can argue pennies and cents about excess direct operating costs that derive from excess HP but don't forget that what gave us all the greatest heartache when the S76 appeared on the scene was not how much fuel we burnt but the maintenance costs and unscheduled down-time. 25 man-hours per flight hour actual compared with just one or two advertised by Sikorsky (it's testing my memory a bit but those are the numbers I recall from the 1980s). We would gladly have paid a bit more per flight hour if it translated into a reliable machine that delivered on our crew-change schedules. There is one base in Europe where 3 out of 5 S76s are out for major crack repairs because whilst a helo can take off at Max AUW and fly at VNo when you do it for 10 hours a day and cycle it through up to 30-40 take offs a landings per day it will eventually break and drop you in the poo big-time unless it has structual reserves and is operated at something less than balls-out all the bl
y time. In South America there is a 332L2 operator who did what the brochure said and flew the aircraft at VNe at Max GWt every day. The airframe cracked and was out of service for 3 months leaving the customer down yet another vital resource. If we followed Nick's design philosophy (and he is not alone) then we would have the lightest cheapest machine flying balls-out for short term economic gain. Me and mine would like the other option which is a machine capable of delivering agreed payload/range targets consistently - every day - day after day. This conservatism has a price but I often have only one window of opportunity to fix my offshore platform during a 'shutdown' period and NOT doing it has a cost too and that can be a lot more expensive.2. Nobody has yet mentioned that one fatal accident can cost the oil company (not necessarily the operator) $150m. This number (and I have seen bigger numbers quoted in this context) covers litigations costs, loss of prestige, loss of employee confidence (remember the Boeing 234 Chinook). When you hunt around for risks that can be reduced by being more conservative then that's what we will do. Feed in $150m into the DOCs and it screws your numbers up just a wee bit. Of course we want to deal with CFIT - that's why having LOFT is vital and a sim or FTD is a vital part of that philosophy. (hence no-sim-no-buy in some quarters). There are those areas of the market where the operator decides what to buy and those where the customer makes that decision for the operator. Then there are those rich enough to do what the hell they like - and good luck to them but they do not have to deal with a regime that recognises the 'Duty of Care' implicit in an employer-employee relationship. When an oil company sends it's employees to work in a helo that it has hired for the purpose then they (the oil company) take the rap if they have not ensured that everything reasonable has been done to minimise the risk to its employees. Nick's focus is predominantly FAR 135 - can you imagine where the US would be if the offshore ops came under FAR 21? About where JARs are now I would hazard a guess. How can anybody justify the difference between the two when employees have little opportunity to vote on who to fly offshore with other than by voting with their feet - and many have done that with the oil companies loosing good people who are too scared to fly.
Sorry Nick, technical arguments translated into economic arguments MUST take into account all the other human elements otherwise you will be working in a meaningless vacuum.
Geoffers
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: aust
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helmet Fire,
You have to win the contract first!!
Fatty
We are about to do that very thing when we go from a BK117 to a 139 (as long as we can stop the medical equipment suddenly increasing to compensate!!)
Fatty
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Italy
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nick
I respect everyone's opinion and my was another one's opinion and not a vote.
I agree the 139 pays a price for having higher safety.
When you say such things, you also know that this statement itself does not mean anything. As I already stated, you should specify in what ambient conditions you can do that, helicopters do not limit themselvs to Sea Level and ISA conditions.
Assume you have to fly with an arliner that offers two fares.
Fare A for Airplane A; $1000.00
Fare B for Airplane B; $800.00
You ask what is the difference between them and you are told that Fare A gives you 100% safety during T.O. and Landings.
Fare B offer a reduced safety but only in a limited time of your flight. If during this time you have an engine failure, you CRASH. But do not warry, it is a very limited time of your flight during which this could happen.
What are the percentage of people that will choose Fare A and what are the ones for Fare B?
I wolud never go for Fare B, even if it is more expensive.
You don't have to agree, because we aren't asking for a vote, just the facts
I agree the 139 pays a price for having higher safety.
The S-92 is full Cat A from a rig with full pax and fuel for about 300 NM with reserves
But the point remains that all those extra dollars could be spent actually making our ops safer, not reducing an already negligible risk exposure to almost zero
Fare A for Airplane A; $1000.00
Fare B for Airplane B; $800.00
You ask what is the difference between them and you are told that Fare A gives you 100% safety during T.O. and Landings.
Fare B offer a reduced safety but only in a limited time of your flight. If during this time you have an engine failure, you CRASH. But do not warry, it is a very limited time of your flight during which this could happen.
What are the percentage of people that will choose Fare A and what are the ones for Fare B?
I wolud never go for Fare B, even if it is more expensive.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Philadelphia PA
Age: 73
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
A very interesting thread.
Nick makes some very good points about the cost for the all-round Category A performance and how we really don't have many engine failures any more.
There is another side to the equation that has been sort of hinted at, and that's the long-term effects of having over-powered, over-engineered airframes. What's the long term cost in terms of reduced maintenance, increased dispatch reliability and so on?
As an example, a certain Russian made co-axial machine was reported to have an airframe life of 6,000 hours. Now well past that, it has no signs of any airframe fatigue issues, despite being operated at maximum weight all the time while hauling logs. I remember seeing it in the hangar next to another type (nameless) used for logging that was stripped to the bones and undergoing the annual stop-drill every crack and replace certain airframe structural components dance.
I remember seeing the overhaul facility in St. Petersburg (Russia, not FL) for Mi-8 and Mi-17. They got overhauled every 1500 hours, and the comment from the workers was that if the helicopter hadn't crashed, they never ever saw any airframe damage or fatigue issues on them.
If your engines are used to the maximum all the time, what percentage of those engines make it to their TBO? If you let them work at reduced power settings, what is the savings if they routinely make TBO and don't require any maintenance?
Fuel burn is only part of the issue - the difference between 1,000 lb/hr and 800lb/hr in gallons is 30 gallons -at $4 per gallon, that $120 per hour in direct operating costs (maximum). That works out to less than 2 hours of maintenance / overhaul cost (perhaps even less than that), and doesn't even consider the cost of an airframe out of service...
Someone must have some idea of the relative cost of this sort of thing....
And for bpaggi:
It's OK to say you would never go for Airline B, but that assumes you have some say in which airline you are taking. If it's your company that books all the travel for you, and you have no say in the matter - what then?
Nick makes some very good points about the cost for the all-round Category A performance and how we really don't have many engine failures any more.
There is another side to the equation that has been sort of hinted at, and that's the long-term effects of having over-powered, over-engineered airframes. What's the long term cost in terms of reduced maintenance, increased dispatch reliability and so on?
As an example, a certain Russian made co-axial machine was reported to have an airframe life of 6,000 hours. Now well past that, it has no signs of any airframe fatigue issues, despite being operated at maximum weight all the time while hauling logs. I remember seeing it in the hangar next to another type (nameless) used for logging that was stripped to the bones and undergoing the annual stop-drill every crack and replace certain airframe structural components dance.
I remember seeing the overhaul facility in St. Petersburg (Russia, not FL) for Mi-8 and Mi-17. They got overhauled every 1500 hours, and the comment from the workers was that if the helicopter hadn't crashed, they never ever saw any airframe damage or fatigue issues on them.
If your engines are used to the maximum all the time, what percentage of those engines make it to their TBO? If you let them work at reduced power settings, what is the savings if they routinely make TBO and don't require any maintenance?
Fuel burn is only part of the issue - the difference between 1,000 lb/hr and 800lb/hr in gallons is 30 gallons -at $4 per gallon, that $120 per hour in direct operating costs (maximum). That works out to less than 2 hours of maintenance / overhaul cost (perhaps even less than that), and doesn't even consider the cost of an airframe out of service...
Someone must have some idea of the relative cost of this sort of thing....
And for bpaggi:
It's OK to say you would never go for Airline B, but that assumes you have some say in which airline you are taking. If it's your company that books all the travel for you, and you have no say in the matter - what then?
With all respect to your hypothesis, bpaggi, when push has come to shove and the dollars are on the table, very few will pay the kind of premium you are talking about for that last .017% of safety.
I flew for an exec charter operation with a mix of multi-engine IFR and singles.
Given the choice, the chairman for Toyota went cheap, so did the owner of Evergreen, just for example.
Funniest would be that the entourage would arrive in separate GIII's and Global Express for "safety" reasons, then all hop in the same 407.
malabo
I flew for an exec charter operation with a mix of multi-engine IFR and singles.
Given the choice, the chairman for Toyota went cheap, so did the owner of Evergreen, just for example.
Funniest would be that the entourage would arrive in separate GIII's and Global Express for "safety" reasons, then all hop in the same 407.
malabo
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nail on the head
Malabo
You have answered your own question. Rich people (or folk who don't end up paying the bills) don't always make rational decisions when it comes to their own safety. Money brings its own brand of immortality. Unfortunately there are many holes in the ground that point to a lack of wisdom in that department.
Shawn
Couldn't agree more with you pal.
I'm told that the design requirement of a formula one engine is that it should expire one lap after the race is finished (or the second race these days). The design requirements of the Mils that I have had the pleasure of flying are that they should not expire - ever. They are built like brick-sh1t-houses and never see the inside of a hangar save during their 1500 hour refurb. You can dig a Mil out of a snow-drift and just press the button, switch on the blade de-ice and away you go.
Whatever the design requirements set out by western manufacturers they seem to get sabotaged by the brochure writers and the con - sorry - salesmen. Oh yes, of course you can fill it up to Max Gross and fly at VNe - all day if you want - yea, in my dreams. I think I could make a fortune making doublers for western helicopters. They grow repair patches and reinforcements like it's going out of style. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". I would rather have the pain out front, day one, than go through all the agonies of multiple-ship downtime and pissed-off customers.
Over to you factory guys.
Geoffers
You have answered your own question. Rich people (or folk who don't end up paying the bills) don't always make rational decisions when it comes to their own safety. Money brings its own brand of immortality. Unfortunately there are many holes in the ground that point to a lack of wisdom in that department.
Shawn
Couldn't agree more with you pal.
I'm told that the design requirement of a formula one engine is that it should expire one lap after the race is finished (or the second race these days). The design requirements of the Mils that I have had the pleasure of flying are that they should not expire - ever. They are built like brick-sh1t-houses and never see the inside of a hangar save during their 1500 hour refurb. You can dig a Mil out of a snow-drift and just press the button, switch on the blade de-ice and away you go.
Whatever the design requirements set out by western manufacturers they seem to get sabotaged by the brochure writers and the con - sorry - salesmen. Oh yes, of course you can fill it up to Max Gross and fly at VNe - all day if you want - yea, in my dreams. I think I could make a fortune making doublers for western helicopters. They grow repair patches and reinforcements like it's going out of style. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". I would rather have the pain out front, day one, than go through all the agonies of multiple-ship downtime and pissed-off customers.
Over to you factory guys.
Geoffers
FLI, we have been around this carcass before haven't we mate?
You are right - the excess power has benefits, and if you look closely at my posts I have always said that. I also mentioned the enormous variables surrounding this argument and I like the "meaningless vacuum" simile of Geoff. When talking of the EMS mission hovering over the gorge full of gum trees with two mates on the wire I am purposely giving you a vivid picture of the exposure experienced in that scenario. If you review my post I stressed that given the risk is similar across the three types, exposure is the key to the assessment.
The EMS winch mission gives me far more exposure than the 0.17% typical CAT A passenger ops would. Recently on a BK 117 winch mission in the Blue Mountains I was exposed (with catastrophic consequences) to engine failure for 54% of the mission – not too far off a single actually. But if I was in my shiny new AW139 I would have reduced exposure to almost zero. I like that.
On the other hand, during a recent BK 117 hospital transfer to Nowra, I was not exposed at all to catastrophic consequences, although perhaps exposed to minor damage on landing should I suffer an engine failure in a 1 minute in 100 minute mission. In my shiny new AW 139 I achieve the same, less any probability of even minor damage. BUT – if I could spend even some of the money I saved by flying the BK 117 on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems, more sim trips to Sweden (how are you Inga?), more emergency training flights, live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats,……I think you get the picture. All these benefits have a greater return on the safety dollar than the reduction of the risk of minor damage to almost zero. Dont you think?
Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.
However, the point I am making here is that wherever possible I will be explaining to clients, customers, passengers, and fellow aircrew that dependant upon your exposure level money spent on power is a good thing when going from single to limited CAT A to reduce exposure from 80% plus, to 0.17%. Spending more is past the point of diminishing returns and would be far better spent taming the CFIT monster first. If I am out doing loads of winching during the VFR daylight hours as my primary mission – give me the full CAT A as priority over dollars for HUMS and synthetic vision and autopilot and weather downlinks and….etc.
Unless we talk in terms of exposure, then we will continue to hunt the full CAT A beast whilst being stalked by a far greater threat in the form of CFIT.
I am equally sure that they will have wished they spent sufficient money on training so that the pilot would operate the CAT A machine correctly so that they didn’t get wet.
Your S76 example hits the nail on the head. Extra power has a penalty and some people don’t accept that penalty for such a marginal increase in exposure. But forcing them into the overpowered machines by continuing the myth that the limited CAT A machine is somehow dangerous or underpowered is why they are going to singles instead. The argument is: if the limited CAT A machine is almost as bad as a single, why would I bother spending so much extra for the twin?
Geoff and Shawn. I agree wholeheartedly with your arguments about the operational and cost issues of continuous operations at max capacities. Well said. Such considerations should be thrown into the bag of variables that the “consultant” needs to consider when advising of aircraft buys – along with operating costs, airframe safety, range, payload, EXPOSURE, reliability, lead times, re-sale, etc, etc. The point we are trying to make is that the full CAT A thing is being weighted in this process far higher than reality requires because of a false perception of it’s penalties versus protection ratio.
Fatty: I thought I baited that hook so well they would be jumping into my boat! Alas, you were the only one and the ranger has asked me to throw you back for breeding purposes.
Eagle86; is anyone be an expert in those things? Or could anyone be an expert in them? Certainly not me, and you know who to call to find out I speak the truth!!!!
You are right - the excess power has benefits, and if you look closely at my posts I have always said that. I also mentioned the enormous variables surrounding this argument and I like the "meaningless vacuum" simile of Geoff. When talking of the EMS mission hovering over the gorge full of gum trees with two mates on the wire I am purposely giving you a vivid picture of the exposure experienced in that scenario. If you review my post I stressed that given the risk is similar across the three types, exposure is the key to the assessment.
The EMS winch mission gives me far more exposure than the 0.17% typical CAT A passenger ops would. Recently on a BK 117 winch mission in the Blue Mountains I was exposed (with catastrophic consequences) to engine failure for 54% of the mission – not too far off a single actually. But if I was in my shiny new AW139 I would have reduced exposure to almost zero. I like that.
On the other hand, during a recent BK 117 hospital transfer to Nowra, I was not exposed at all to catastrophic consequences, although perhaps exposed to minor damage on landing should I suffer an engine failure in a 1 minute in 100 minute mission. In my shiny new AW 139 I achieve the same, less any probability of even minor damage. BUT – if I could spend even some of the money I saved by flying the BK 117 on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems, more sim trips to Sweden (how are you Inga?), more emergency training flights, live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats,……I think you get the picture. All these benefits have a greater return on the safety dollar than the reduction of the risk of minor damage to almost zero. Dont you think?
Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.
However, the point I am making here is that wherever possible I will be explaining to clients, customers, passengers, and fellow aircrew that dependant upon your exposure level money spent on power is a good thing when going from single to limited CAT A to reduce exposure from 80% plus, to 0.17%. Spending more is past the point of diminishing returns and would be far better spent taming the CFIT monster first. If I am out doing loads of winching during the VFR daylight hours as my primary mission – give me the full CAT A as priority over dollars for HUMS and synthetic vision and autopilot and weather downlinks and….etc.
Unless we talk in terms of exposure, then we will continue to hunt the full CAT A beast whilst being stalked by a far greater threat in the form of CFIT.
I am quite sure that if some of the passengers taking off from the river heliports realised that they will get wet if an engine failed just after rotation they would voice real concern and surprise. They thought that they had bought a Cat A helicopter!
Your S76 example hits the nail on the head. Extra power has a penalty and some people don’t accept that penalty for such a marginal increase in exposure. But forcing them into the overpowered machines by continuing the myth that the limited CAT A machine is somehow dangerous or underpowered is why they are going to singles instead. The argument is: if the limited CAT A machine is almost as bad as a single, why would I bother spending so much extra for the twin?
Geoff and Shawn. I agree wholeheartedly with your arguments about the operational and cost issues of continuous operations at max capacities. Well said. Such considerations should be thrown into the bag of variables that the “consultant” needs to consider when advising of aircraft buys – along with operating costs, airframe safety, range, payload, EXPOSURE, reliability, lead times, re-sale, etc, etc. The point we are trying to make is that the full CAT A thing is being weighted in this process far higher than reality requires because of a false perception of it’s penalties versus protection ratio.
Fatty: I thought I baited that hook so well they would be jumping into my boat! Alas, you were the only one and the ranger has asked me to throw you back for breeding purposes.
Eagle86; is anyone be an expert in those things? Or could anyone be an expert in them? Certainly not me, and you know who to call to find out I speak the truth!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: USA
Age: 75
Posts: 3,012
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geffers,
You said, "I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". "
Good on ya, that is almost exactly what I tried to do daily in Sikorsky! One of the reasons why I post the thoughts about "too much power" is just because the weight wasted on unecessary power (yes, there is a max threshold!) robs payload that could be used to add safety!
You said, "I would like to visit with the design teams for any new western helicopter carrying a flight bag - say 20kg - full of metal and say to them "There you are please put 20 kgs of metal back in your helicopter where you think it will do most good". "
Good on ya, that is almost exactly what I tried to do daily in Sikorsky! One of the reasons why I post the thoughts about "too much power" is just because the weight wasted on unecessary power (yes, there is a max threshold!) robs payload that could be used to add safety!
BUT – if I could spend even some of the money I saved by flying the BK 117 on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems, more sim trips to Sweden (how are you Inga?), more emergency training flights, live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats,……I think you get the picture. All these benefits have a greater return on the safety dollar than the reduction of the risk of minor damage to almost zero. Dont you think?
Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.
Airframes are simply horses for courses and generally, economics determines my horse.
I'm not the one who is going to stop anybody from buying a 139 if they can afford it, then we can start asking for improvements, try to load your Bk117 with on WAAS GPS, 4 axis autopilot, IR enhanced vision equipment, synthetic vision equipment, Night Vision Goggles, enhanced pilot to cockpit interface systems,live weather updating service linked from the ground, HUMS, enhanced crashworthy seats, you will need "power" besides money.
The big discussion here is why spend money on the overpowered 139 instead of fighting the "CFIT monster". But I think there is no need to forget CFIT once we have the 139, if the operator can buy and operate a multimillion helicopter I'm pretty sure they can buy all the gadgets too...