AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
SASLESS
I think it all boils down to money - the 365N2 had a coupled ILS which in theory would take you down to 50ft but nobody would pay for it to be certified. If the companies can see no commercial advantage they won't pay. As HC says a 200ft DH at Aberdeen seems to be enough for 99% of Oil related flights so no need to pay for a lower DH!!
HF
I think it all boils down to money - the 365N2 had a coupled ILS which in theory would take you down to 50ft but nobody would pay for it to be certified. If the companies can see no commercial advantage they won't pay. As HC says a 200ft DH at Aberdeen seems to be enough for 99% of Oil related flights so no need to pay for a lower DH!!
HF
How would an approved 50" IlS minimum/reduced vis limits figure into Alternate Planning? Are there financial savings to be had there?
HC
The Sikorsky automated Rig Approach is not so much about bad weather as about getting the aircraft to the appropriate relative position in relation to the rig / platform every time, good, bad weather day or night.
If the pilot doesn't like what he sees, just leave it alone and the aircraft will perform a safe GA. As you know, it's the GA in bad weather or at night in good weather and the transition from visual to instrument that can and has (BLUN) go wrong.
I would have thought that an automated system which delivered you stable to the same (allowing for W/V) place each time would have met with your approval, even if the box didn't say made in France by Eurocopter.
The Sikorsky automated Rig Approach is not so much about bad weather as about getting the aircraft to the appropriate relative position in relation to the rig / platform every time, good, bad weather day or night.
If the pilot doesn't like what he sees, just leave it alone and the aircraft will perform a safe GA. As you know, it's the GA in bad weather or at night in good weather and the transition from visual to instrument that can and has (BLUN) go wrong.
I would have thought that an automated system which delivered you stable to the same (allowing for W/V) place each time would have met with your approval, even if the box didn't say made in France by Eurocopter.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my day we could only dream of using Aberdeen as an alternate from Sumburgh coming in from the Shetland basin
II if you read my posts you will see that I do approve, its to that I shall not be jumping up and down shouting that its the best thing since... whatever. Yes as I said it does help, but it helps with the bit that is already quite easy these days with very precise pilot driven upper modes such as HDG, IAS and ALT and a GA button which flies the heli up and away regardless. The step from your day on the S76A, to the automatic approach systems we are talking about, would be massive. But very much less for a modern heli.
That's Life!!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Out of the sand pit, carving a path through our jungle.
Age: 72
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can recall a 234 driver coming back to Aberdeen when the weather was a tad 'iffy'. As most of Scotland was the same, he declared his diversion was Paris!
HC,
If one sets the RadAlt but to 150/100/50 feet....pick your choice....does the helicopter know the difference between CAT 1, 2, 3 etc?
I should think that fancy 225 Autopilot you slavishly praise to us constantly would quite happily drive the machine to whatever height you selected.....would it not?
Would it not hold the Airspeed you select as well?
We know it would magically track the localizer to a gnats reared as well.
If one sets the RadAlt but to 150/100/50 feet....pick your choice....does the helicopter know the difference between CAT 1, 2, 3 etc?
I should think that fancy 225 Autopilot you slavishly praise to us constantly would quite happily drive the machine to whatever height you selected.....would it not?
Would it not hold the Airspeed you select as well?
We know it would magically track the localizer to a gnats reared as well.
So (and this directed to HF as well) it is not just about what tricks the heli can perform, it is what is allowed under the operational regulations and what has been certified. To certify such a system would have to take account of failure modes - ie if the heli was entering an auto-hover over the runway in IMC what would the pilots do if it stopped working - how would they even know if it stopped working until there was a crunch. So in all probability it is less about the money for certification, and more about whether such use is certifiable at all.
When flying an ILS in the 225, for Bristow it is SOP to leave the ILS coupled at DA if visual. The ILS system then takes the heli down to level flight at 80' on the localiser and the pilot beeps the speed well down. The aircraft handles this perfectly every time, and it eases workload in the sometimes tricky transition to visual flight with substantial speed reduction. BUT this can only be done if the pilots have the required visual references at and below DA. Thus they can monitor against visual references and take manual control if necessary (though it never is!).
HC.....so we in the helicopter industry are still playing by Rules put in place for Fixed Wing Aircraft are we not?
When I suggested a "Shields Down" review of how we have gotten to where we are.....a process of evolution in reality.....the amazing capability of modern technology is still limited by 1950's regulations.
Should the Authorities take a fresh view of the Rules and Regulations that pertain to Helicopters that evolved from those created for fixed wing aircraft?
How about Point in Space IFR Approaches.....could there not be a place for them and even Helicopter Only Low Level IFR airway routes?
A dear friend and colleague of yours has been advocating that for many years and laid out such a system to the FAA which like most authorities gave the concept scant attention.
Helicopters are very different in their handling abilities than are Airplanes. Why should there not be a separate set of Regulations and Infrastructure for us rather than trying to replicate fixed wing concepts?
When I suggested a "Shields Down" review of how we have gotten to where we are.....a process of evolution in reality.....the amazing capability of modern technology is still limited by 1950's regulations.
Should the Authorities take a fresh view of the Rules and Regulations that pertain to Helicopters that evolved from those created for fixed wing aircraft?
How about Point in Space IFR Approaches.....could there not be a place for them and even Helicopter Only Low Level IFR airway routes?
A dear friend and colleague of yours has been advocating that for many years and laid out such a system to the FAA which like most authorities gave the concept scant attention.
Helicopters are very different in their handling abilities than are Airplanes. Why should there not be a separate set of Regulations and Infrastructure for us rather than trying to replicate fixed wing concepts?
Ideally we would have separate routes and separate approach patterns for helicopters. They then could use their attributes and their unique equipment. However at the moment we use fixed wing certified approach aids and runways and we have to share them with our fixed wing brethren.
You cannot come down an approach at Vy and come to the hover at the threshold with a radar controller feeding fixed wing into the approach at two minute intervals behind you. You have to go with the flow. That's why we did 140 knot approaches at Hong Kong. (In a S76)
You cannot come down an approach at Vy and come to the hover at the threshold with a radar controller feeding fixed wing into the approach at two minute intervals behind you. You have to go with the flow. That's why we did 140 knot approaches at Hong Kong. (In a S76)
AT West Palm Beach one evening....Approach asked a 727 to increase speed on final as he had a Helicopter overtaking him.
The Airline Pilot said he would add ten knots......two minutes later he was asked if he could speed up a bit more.....and when the Controller again said it was because a Helicopter was overtaking him......he asked "What the hell kind of a helicopter is it?"
I chimed in and said ....." A very fast one!"
We were smoking down the chute at Vne.
Flying brand new 76's at the factory had its perks!
The Airline Pilot said he would add ten knots......two minutes later he was asked if he could speed up a bit more.....and when the Controller again said it was because a Helicopter was overtaking him......he asked "What the hell kind of a helicopter is it?"
I chimed in and said ....." A very fast one!"
We were smoking down the chute at Vne.
Flying brand new 76's at the factory had its perks!
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Aberdeenshire
Age: 76
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We sometimes used to call in at Longside on the way out for a top up of fuel, but that seemed to have stopped before I left. Is Longside still used as a fuel top-up or diversion airfield?
On the visibility issue, I worked in the North Sea for about 30 years, and it was a rare occasion that we were delayed due to weather.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aberdeen-Magnus-Aberdeen direct both ways loses its appeal very quickly!
And yes it was possible to use Paris as an alt from the basin, with full fuel, few or no pax, a strong following wind and flying at altitude nose bleed to keep the fuel flow down.
Anyway,enough reminiscing, back on topic you lot this is a very good informative thread with some excellent input.
Interesting that you need extra training to reduce the DH from 200ft to 150ft. If my brain is working today the RAF Seaking had a DH of 150ft for an ILS and PAR - this was due to the calculation of DH for various a/c which included an Aircraft Approach limitation (AAL) which was used in conjunction with the Obstacle clearance limit (OCL). This produced a DH for the Seaking of 150ft - we had no extra training for this - you just flew to that limit.
Crab may be able to confirm if this is still the case - the ILS was also manually flown as we had no coupler for approaches to airfields.
Crab may be able to confirm if this is still the case - the ILS was also manually flown as we had no coupler for approaches to airfields.
Unfortunately, after many many, years of safe operation of the SK, someone allowed a piece of work by a Navy TP to surface and we now have a variable HTA between 30' and 50' to add on
Oh and the same genius imposed a 100 kt GS limit on ILS as well - not very helpful when you have poorly people in the back and you are in a hurry!I believe that the S61s in Ireland (which had the SN 500 series autopilot like the SK 3A) were allowed, in extremis, to use the trans down SAR modes to runway which would get you to 40' fully coupled.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We flew the army gazelle down to 150 feet single pilot and no stick feel or autopilot just hands on.must admit when I started flying civvy flying I did question why with all the help and full autopilot and 2 crew we could only go down to 200 feet ?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I believe that the S61s in Ireland (which had the SN 500 series autopilot like the SK 3A) were allowed, in extremis, to use the trans down SAR modes to runway which would get you to 40' fully coupled.
Si
Fareastdriver
We flew the Wessex at 50ft agl on low level transits on Ex in Germany - there again the Pumas always were big P====ys
Just before my time on the Seaking somebody tried to demonstrate a trans down at RAF Chetwynd ( a grass airfield) - unfortunately I believe the rad alt unlocked over the waving long grass so the system thought it was higher than 50ft and planted the Seaking firmly!! onto the ground.
HF
Sorry about slight thread drift!!
We flew the army gazelle down to 150 feet single pilot
We did the same with Pumas, everywhere, anytime.
We did the same with Pumas, everywhere, anytime.
Just before my time on the Seaking somebody tried to demonstrate a trans down at RAF Chetwynd ( a grass airfield) - unfortunately I believe the rad alt unlocked over the waving long grass so the system thought it was higher than 50ft and planted the Seaking firmly!! onto the ground.
HF
Sorry about slight thread drift!!
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gossip I heard this week was that the PM -- who was the co-pilot-- said "airspeed" more than once. Please note that this is second or third hand gossip, but, if true, will put us in a run of incidents/accidents where quite inexperienced co-pilots are sitting watching experienced pilots crash aircraft.
I've got my doubts about the veracity of this as I would expect the commander to be PM given the poor weather there was at the time. Is this standard practice across all the companies?
I've got my doubts about the veracity of this as I would expect the commander to be PM given the poor weather there was at the time. Is this standard practice across all the companies?
I've got my doubts about the veracity of this as I would expect the commander to be PM given the poor weather there was at the time. Is this standard practice across all the companies?