Safety Record: Heli v Fixed
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly RW only so I am biased.
If I have a mechanical problem in flight - engine stops, electrical failure, hydraulic failure, etc - or a fire warning then usually I can be on the ground in 45 - 60 seconds. Hopefully that gets me out of the danger zone (height to fall, burning in the aircraft, etc) much more quickly than a fixed wing pilot could achieve.
When the weather deteriorates I can fly lower & slower without risk of stall and so keep safe.
When the weather really deteriorates I can put the machine down in any suitable field and wait for conditions to improve, then continue.
When I do need to put the machine down I need something the size of a football penalty area; not a Km of flat ground.
When a RW finally comes to the ground for an emergency landing it might have a a fwd speed at the point of contact of <20knt (anything down to zero) so no need to run into a ditch, tree, rabbit hole at 60knt.
But, I did say that I was biased
To this RW pilot uneducated in FW operation, the only advantages that a FW can claim are
1. less flight critical systems - which is overcome by maintenance (at a financial cost, admittedly); and
2. a longer glide time if the donk stops - which means to me that you get more time to find the Km of flat grass that does not exist
How about looking at accidents where something specific has happened. For example, when the engine stops, when there is an in-flight fire, when there is a control surface failure, etc. What is the likely out-turn for both RW and FW? order the data to show damage to the aircraft, injury, death and cross-reference to the experience of the pilot.
If I have a mechanical problem in flight - engine stops, electrical failure, hydraulic failure, etc - or a fire warning then usually I can be on the ground in 45 - 60 seconds. Hopefully that gets me out of the danger zone (height to fall, burning in the aircraft, etc) much more quickly than a fixed wing pilot could achieve.
When the weather deteriorates I can fly lower & slower without risk of stall and so keep safe.
When the weather really deteriorates I can put the machine down in any suitable field and wait for conditions to improve, then continue.
When I do need to put the machine down I need something the size of a football penalty area; not a Km of flat ground.
When a RW finally comes to the ground for an emergency landing it might have a a fwd speed at the point of contact of <20knt (anything down to zero) so no need to run into a ditch, tree, rabbit hole at 60knt.
But, I did say that I was biased
To this RW pilot uneducated in FW operation, the only advantages that a FW can claim are
1. less flight critical systems - which is overcome by maintenance (at a financial cost, admittedly); and
2. a longer glide time if the donk stops - which means to me that you get more time to find the Km of flat grass that does not exist
How about looking at accidents where something specific has happened. For example, when the engine stops, when there is an in-flight fire, when there is a control surface failure, etc. What is the likely out-turn for both RW and FW? order the data to show damage to the aircraft, injury, death and cross-reference to the experience of the pilot.
Last edited by John R81; 8th Jul 2012 at 08:27.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: New zealand
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, they are still recovering deer in the mountainous southern alps
Fortunately the pioneering days of "farmers" jumping into early model R22's and flying into rugged mountainous terrain and killing themselves with great regularity is well and truly behind us. Some of those pilots have some amazing stories and skills in a chopper that are truly phenominal.
My PPL flight testing officer was 70 a "legend" with over 25,000 hours - he scared the living daylights out of me during the flight test. I had no idea someone could be so skilled ..he danced this little 22 around the tree tops, in confined areas and up tiny creeks like it was on rails.
Last week we had one of the sons of legendary NZ aviator Sir Tim Wallis staying at a resort we own, we had a chance to talk all things RW. Sir Tim is the father of the chopper industry in NZ and by all accounts one of life's true gentleman and real characters ....anyone interested in seeing where the helicopter deer recovery industry all started can go to this web site; the company now operated by Sir Tim's sons and view the documentary on line called "Country Calendar"
Alpine Helicopters
Safe Flying
My PPL flight testing officer was 70 a "legend" with over 25,000 hours - he scared the living daylights out of me during the flight test. I had no idea someone could be so skilled ..he danced this little 22 around the tree tops, in confined areas and up tiny creeks like it was on rails.
Last week we had one of the sons of legendary NZ aviator Sir Tim Wallis staying at a resort we own, we had a chance to talk all things RW. Sir Tim is the father of the chopper industry in NZ and by all accounts one of life's true gentleman and real characters ....anyone interested in seeing where the helicopter deer recovery industry all started can go to this web site; the company now operated by Sir Tim's sons and view the documentary on line called "Country Calendar"
Alpine Helicopters
Safe Flying
To this RW pilot uneducated in FW operation, the only advantages that a FW can claim are
1. less flight critical systems - which is overcome by maintenance (at a financial cost, admittedly); and
2. a longer glide time if the donk stops - which means to me that you get more time to find the Km of flat grass that does not exist
3. Inherent stability. You let go of the controls and it will stabilise itself.
Try the same in a Heli.... No better don't.
It really takes some effort to crash a Cessna 172 or a Piper Cub. A Robbie not so much...
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,573
Received 422 Likes
on
222 Posts
You might want to add:
3. Inherent stability. You let go of the controls and it will stabilise itself.
Try the same in a Heli.... No better don't.
3. Inherent stability. You let go of the controls and it will stabilise itself.
Try the same in a Heli.... No better don't.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: England & Scotland
Age: 63
Posts: 1,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think my response would be "What idiot would let go?"
And if you want to those stability systems can be fitted to small helicopters like the R44.
And if you want to those stability systems can be fitted to small helicopters like the R44.
Last edited by John R81; 8th Jul 2012 at 15:54.
I was challenged for exact numbers - sorry for the slow reply, I've been "out" (and the end of RIAT party was excellent).
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap780.pdf is my source, the CAA's most recent aviation safety review.
Worldwide, large fixed wing, gives 1 reportable (not fatal) accident per 2,500,000 hours, roughly, and about 1 fatal accident per 5,000,000 hours, coming down to about 1 per 10,000,000 hours in the EU. The UK is about aligned with the worldwide (not lower) EU rate. But, still tiny numbers.
Exact numbers for everybody else for 1997-2008:
Turboprops: 1 per 714,000 hrs
Business jets: 1 per 119,000 hrs
Public Transport Helicopters: 1 per 323,000 hrs (so sorry, I gave the wrong number earlier)
Public transport balloons: nil.
Light fixed wing:1 per 85,000 hrs
Small (under 2730kg) helicopters: 1 per 69,000 hrs
Private balloons: nil
Microlights: about 1 per 100,000 hrs (data not very clear)
Gliders: about 1 per 100,000hrs (data not very clear)
Gyroplanes: about 1 per 3000 hrs.
So a few differences in this particular report from the rough "from memory" figures I gave earlier, but the same general pattern.
Gliders are probably a bit worse than it appears, because a large proportion of their fatals are mid-airs, and one mid-air = one fatal accident, even if two aircraft were involved, in the way CAA do their statistics.
I agree that number of movements is arguably more relevant, but that data doesn't seem to be available.
And don't fly gyroplanes!
G
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/cap780.pdf is my source, the CAA's most recent aviation safety review.
Worldwide, large fixed wing, gives 1 reportable (not fatal) accident per 2,500,000 hours, roughly, and about 1 fatal accident per 5,000,000 hours, coming down to about 1 per 10,000,000 hours in the EU. The UK is about aligned with the worldwide (not lower) EU rate. But, still tiny numbers.
Exact numbers for everybody else for 1997-2008:
Turboprops: 1 per 714,000 hrs
Business jets: 1 per 119,000 hrs
Public Transport Helicopters: 1 per 323,000 hrs (so sorry, I gave the wrong number earlier)
Public transport balloons: nil.
Light fixed wing:1 per 85,000 hrs
Small (under 2730kg) helicopters: 1 per 69,000 hrs
Private balloons: nil
Microlights: about 1 per 100,000 hrs (data not very clear)
Gliders: about 1 per 100,000hrs (data not very clear)
Gyroplanes: about 1 per 3000 hrs.
So a few differences in this particular report from the rough "from memory" figures I gave earlier, but the same general pattern.
Gliders are probably a bit worse than it appears, because a large proportion of their fatals are mid-airs, and one mid-air = one fatal accident, even if two aircraft were involved, in the way CAA do their statistics.
I agree that number of movements is arguably more relevant, but that data doesn't seem to be available.
And don't fly gyroplanes!
G
