AS332L2 Ditching off Shetland: 23rd August 2013
I can only speak for my company's version used on North Sea operations. That's my little world.
Perhaps I'll go and count seats again on Monday. These days we seldom carry a full load of pax, so the spare lifejackets get tied to the centre rear seat to discourage its use.
HC Far more likely that I've got it wrong. I'll crawl back into my hole.
Perhaps I'll go and count seats again on Monday. These days we seldom carry a full load of pax, so the spare lifejackets get tied to the centre rear seat to discourage its use.
HC Far more likely that I've got it wrong. I'll crawl back into my hole.
Last edited by Colibri49; 31st Aug 2013 at 10:47.
Colibri, when I left the 332L some years ago, I'm sure it only had 18 seats? Maybe we currently have a 332L or two in Abz that has been imported from somewhere where the pax are smaller, and still has the original 19? Or am I remembering wrong?
RJC - however, you can also be in a middle seat on an S92 with its much smaller windows - in fact there are more middle seats on an S92 I think. If this doesn't worry you, it is only because you perceive you are less likely to have to evacuate from an S92?
HC, you are right re #943. Si also uses the terms DH and Decision Pt. I was going to let it go, but he isn't describing CDFA. CDFAs with designated vertical profile have no MAPt, those with nominal vertical profiles do have a MAPt.
If there are any technical questions on CDFA, I have TGL 44 right here with me at home. Guess why I'm brushing up CDFAs...
If there are any technical questions on CDFA, I have TGL 44 right here with me at home. Guess why I'm brushing up CDFAs...
Last edited by keithl; 31st Aug 2013 at 10:53.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: West coast Australia :)
Posts: 238
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Helicomparator
Si, I believe your description of CDFA is not quite right. You describe a notional glide path approach. With CDFA there is no MDA, its a DA so no level sector and you go around on reaching DA ( if not visual). Someone who has actually done these will correct me if I'm wrong!
Si
P.S. I used MDH instead of MDA but not DH XD, nit picking I know cuz I fluffed it anyway
Last edited by bigglesbutler; 31st Aug 2013 at 11:13.
SEATING
An important point about the shorts and t-shirts territories is that many of these places are populated by smaller people.
Northern Europe is the home of some of the largest people on the planet (cf. L L Cavolli-Sforza, J Geipel). Stats for the size of the average human being can be unhelpful in the design of expensive hardware used mainly by large rich people. It would be nice to think that AS had the sense to design the SP to accomodate frenchmen rather than chinese but my Highland back and shoulders say other wise.
I have also sat in the design seat when dealing with very similar issues for land vehicles and it is close to impossible to justify extra space to the bean-counters when there is a large pile of statistics from reputable institutions backing the case for the smaller option.
Northern Europe is the home of some of the largest people on the planet (cf. L L Cavolli-Sforza, J Geipel). Stats for the size of the average human being can be unhelpful in the design of expensive hardware used mainly by large rich people. It would be nice to think that AS had the sense to design the SP to accomodate frenchmen rather than chinese but my Highland back and shoulders say other wise.
I have also sat in the design seat when dealing with very similar issues for land vehicles and it is close to impossible to justify extra space to the bean-counters when there is a large pile of statistics from reputable institutions backing the case for the smaller option.
Last edited by jimf671; 31st Aug 2013 at 11:00.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Where my life takes me
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CANPA
@HC
The most used acronym for constant angle approaches is CANPA, Constant Angle Non Precision Approach. (good for googling purposes anyway)
There is some good reading here from the Flight Safety Foundation:
http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_b...nprecision.pdf
I am a little surpised that no-one here has mentioned the tremendous work that the FSF has done with its excellent ALAR-toolkit (Approach and Landing Accident Reduction). If your companies are FSF members or have attended their seminars, your FSO's should have copies of the CD.
More here from Skybrary:
SKYbrary - Flight Safety Foundation ALAR Toolkit
Here's another one:
http://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rc...51495398,d.aGc
The most used acronym for constant angle approaches is CANPA, Constant Angle Non Precision Approach. (good for googling purposes anyway)
There is some good reading here from the Flight Safety Foundation:
http://flightsafety.org/files/alar_b...nprecision.pdf
I am a little surpised that no-one here has mentioned the tremendous work that the FSF has done with its excellent ALAR-toolkit (Approach and Landing Accident Reduction). If your companies are FSF members or have attended their seminars, your FSO's should have copies of the CD.
More here from Skybrary:
SKYbrary - Flight Safety Foundation ALAR Toolkit
Here's another one:
http://www.google.com.vn/url?sa=t&rc...51495398,d.aGc
Last edited by Jimmy 16; 31st Aug 2013 at 11:33.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Northern Lights
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HC
Not at all, my post said ALL types.
Edited to add: to expand on this a bit, if the pax are worried about full loads and underwater emergency egress the way you solve that is by giving them their own jettisonable window or sitting them beside a large jettisonable door. This would need to apply to all types. And I don't know why I am even bothering to type this because money will always trump marginal safety improvements and it will never happen.
Edited to add: to expand on this a bit, if the pax are worried about full loads and underwater emergency egress the way you solve that is by giving them their own jettisonable window or sitting them beside a large jettisonable door. This would need to apply to all types. And I don't know why I am even bothering to type this because money will always trump marginal safety improvements and it will never happen.
Last edited by Ray Joe Czech; 31st Aug 2013 at 11:21.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our passengers hate being in the back of an EC225. The EC175 has much more shoulder room. When you look at the EC225 and the EC175 side by side, the 225 looks very old and its cabin looks dark and cramped (perception?)
But, our pax don't hate the back of the S-92, maybe for the reason HC says. They "feel" safer.
But, our pax don't hate the back of the S-92, maybe for the reason HC says. They "feel" safer.
We can argue about bigger/smaller people, Tee's and Runners vs Survival Kit and rebreathers, Fat vs Skinny, but the issue is the cabin on the SP series is small and cramped for the passengers being carried on the North Sea. The situations is such that it causes at the very least, the perception of being dangerous and is causing a problem amongst the passengers.
This is a drop the Shield issue.
Either the Passengers are wrong....or they are right.....which is it?
In studies of this and previous fatal accidents that were "Survivable" and Passengers died....we should study those accidents to determine who survived, what seats they were in, what the passenger loading was, and any other factor that contributed to successful and unsuccessful exits from the aircraft.
This is a Safety Issue....not a mere "Comfort" Issue.
Why the passenger size has grown over time is immaterial....the fact is the passengers are larger than 30 years ago.....but then that is the situation all over the World. As we eat better....over generations...we get taller and broader. Ever been to a really old Pub with the original doorways? Wonder why you have to stoop down to get through....People were not as big then as we are now.
Listen to the Passengers folks....they are telling you they "fear" being in cramped conditions. As the size of the helicopter is not going to change....something else must to alleviate that cramped seating situation.
What is it to be?
CDFA Approaches have merit for Offshore Use.....a drastic change from decades of practice thus the change is not going to be welcomed with open arms.
The single most valuable aspect to the CDFA concept in my view is once the Descent is initiated....it is maintained until a unique Decision Point at which time the Descent is terminated and a CLIMB is initiated. No more cruising along at a very low height above the sea....with all the risks that creates. We have a habit of flying too low and plunking perfectly good helicopters into the water. At least with a CDFA approach there is but one defined point at which you are "close" to the water without having the Rig in sight.
DB has done good work improving Night Approaches.....and perhaps he might consider how to incorporate CDFA Approaches into his model.
That would be combining the best of both techniques.
This is a drop the Shield issue.
Either the Passengers are wrong....or they are right.....which is it?
In studies of this and previous fatal accidents that were "Survivable" and Passengers died....we should study those accidents to determine who survived, what seats they were in, what the passenger loading was, and any other factor that contributed to successful and unsuccessful exits from the aircraft.
This is a Safety Issue....not a mere "Comfort" Issue.
Why the passenger size has grown over time is immaterial....the fact is the passengers are larger than 30 years ago.....but then that is the situation all over the World. As we eat better....over generations...we get taller and broader. Ever been to a really old Pub with the original doorways? Wonder why you have to stoop down to get through....People were not as big then as we are now.
Listen to the Passengers folks....they are telling you they "fear" being in cramped conditions. As the size of the helicopter is not going to change....something else must to alleviate that cramped seating situation.
What is it to be?
CDFA Approaches have merit for Offshore Use.....a drastic change from decades of practice thus the change is not going to be welcomed with open arms.
The single most valuable aspect to the CDFA concept in my view is once the Descent is initiated....it is maintained until a unique Decision Point at which time the Descent is terminated and a CLIMB is initiated. No more cruising along at a very low height above the sea....with all the risks that creates. We have a habit of flying too low and plunking perfectly good helicopters into the water. At least with a CDFA approach there is but one defined point at which you are "close" to the water without having the Rig in sight.
DB has done good work improving Night Approaches.....and perhaps he might consider how to incorporate CDFA Approaches into his model.
That would be combining the best of both techniques.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Aberdeenshire
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not familiar with the limitations of the L2's auto pilot.
What I cannot understand it why there would be a need to decouple the automatics in a non precision approach.
In the S92 as you are approaching MAP you will call "I have control" if you have sufficient visual cues whilst the PM monitors. At this point in 3Q, as it's called in the S92 (I believe 4 axis in EC products) you have IAS, NAV/Heading and ALT coupled. You simply beep trim the IAS to the minimum 55 knots and beep down on the collective in Alt. You remain fully coupled whilst the aircraft descends.
Yes you may land longer than if you decouple decelerate and descend manually, but so what.
I have seen many times pilots decoupling at MDH, then decoupling and in my opinion, descending and decelerating too aggressively. In marginal conditions is not a position you want to be in.
With the 92 in 09 Sumburgh you would be able to remain coupled at 55kts, the minimum for the Autopilot (IAS), coupled to the localiser (NAV/HDG) and beep trim the aircraft onto the runway using the coupled collective (ALT) if you wished.
Is it not possible to do something similar in the L2, if not why is it not SOP?
What I cannot understand it why there would be a need to decouple the automatics in a non precision approach.
In the S92 as you are approaching MAP you will call "I have control" if you have sufficient visual cues whilst the PM monitors. At this point in 3Q, as it's called in the S92 (I believe 4 axis in EC products) you have IAS, NAV/Heading and ALT coupled. You simply beep trim the IAS to the minimum 55 knots and beep down on the collective in Alt. You remain fully coupled whilst the aircraft descends.
Yes you may land longer than if you decouple decelerate and descend manually, but so what.
I have seen many times pilots decoupling at MDH, then decoupling and in my opinion, descending and decelerating too aggressively. In marginal conditions is not a position you want to be in.
With the 92 in 09 Sumburgh you would be able to remain coupled at 55kts, the minimum for the Autopilot (IAS), coupled to the localiser (NAV/HDG) and beep trim the aircraft onto the runway using the coupled collective (ALT) if you wished.
Is it not possible to do something similar in the L2, if not why is it not SOP?
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Where my life takes me
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no need to disengage the upper modes in an L2 to fly a non-precision approach.
You can do this in a 4-axis configuration using APP/LOC-IAS-VS with ALT Acquire set. You can fly it down to the runway with this setup, of course you have to be visual after MAPt to be legal. If you need to go around, just press the button on the collective and the lady flies away nice and easy..
A fairly low intensity workload setting if you ask me.
You can do this in a 4-axis configuration using APP/LOC-IAS-VS with ALT Acquire set. You can fly it down to the runway with this setup, of course you have to be visual after MAPt to be legal. If you need to go around, just press the button on the collective and the lady flies away nice and easy..
A fairly low intensity workload setting if you ask me.
Last edited by Jimmy 16; 31st Aug 2013 at 14:35.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: In deep space, man.
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another perspective perhaps.
Hello, I would like to take this chance to add my thoughts and ideas to this already substantial discussion regarding North Sea helicopters.
As a quick explanation I am one of the SLF (great phrase). I claim no in depth knowledge of piloting techniques or politics etc although I would like to point out I do have a low hours fixed wing PPL (no sniggers please) and a lifelong interest in aviation so do have a reasonably good technical understanding of the discussions. I would like to make my comments as a regular passenger in these aircraft as invited by previous replies earlier in the discussion.
My primary reaction is to complement the recent suggestions for lower number of passengers per flight and would like to highly recommend to anyone with influence reading this that this is in my opinion a potential major point in influencing those offshore to return to flight on the SP class of aircraft.
There is obviously the as yet undetermined issue of the 332L2 ditching and the concerns over reliability etc. and I would not like to make any decision in my own mind on this airframe until the proper investigations have been completed or more conclusive explanations released.
Having said that I personally dislike the 332 (all variants) as a frequent passenger as simply they are cramped and uncomfortable and more importantly seem old simply based on condition (fixtures and fittings, noise and vibration levels etc.) and with the mechanical stresses that helicopters undergo - an old helicopter feels unsafe. I am well aware that these machines undergo some of the best maintenance possible (I sincerely hope) and cannot fly except in perfect condition but with so many parts subject to high stress then the airframe apparent age goes strongly against them.
Ignoring technical issues I would like to return to my previous comment of passenger comfort. There are 2 issues here, one of which is the day to day being jammed in like a sardine for hours on end (This is a very widespread opinion of travelling on this class of helicopter - and why the S92 is liked much more with its larger cabin and better seats) and the other of which is escape in the event of emergency.
Just as a thought, imagine what the HSE would say if you were to set up a replica of a 332 in the full environment dunker and put 18 people in it in normal offshore survival suits then even with safety divers run a night time storm dunking simulation. Would you sit on that chopper even in the pool?
My suggestion is (assuming proper human factor analysis) remove seats making the 332 a 14 seat helicopter.
From the laymans view this would help by
1. Better chance of escape - i.e. more room to move.
2. Better comfort during flight - any room to move is better than none.
3. More baggage capacity - not previously mentioned this is a bugbear amongst some offshore workers - particularly third party persons who travel between different rigs and have to carry more gear. There are still too many examples of having to leave a bag behind.
4. A lowering of the loading of the machine which would surely reduce stress and associated failures. If your horse was 15 years old would you still load it up with a weight and run it hard over jumps?
A few months ago I was informed that the client I was working for at a time had a 14 persons limit on the flights which seemed like an extremely good idea so why not formalise it by some means and take the other seats out.
I have not mentioned 225's here but would like to suggest they also have seats removed as despite being newer and if the comments on here are true, much better, they still suffer from nearly the same cramped positions. I suspect its quite possible that acceptance among the majority of passengers could be influenced by making it seem more safe while improving comfort.
I do appreciate in most cases this issue is one determined by the client as opposed to the operator but with the 'workforce getting larger' (as reported repeatedly over the years) is this possibly a regulatory issue now?
I apologies in advance if I have stepped on anyone's toes or caused upset in this post. I am just attempting to get across a different point of view - from someone sat offshore just now.
As a final comment, I imagine being asked how I would travel offshore and would probably respond as follows
1. Boat or chopper? - Boat definitely.
2. S92? Yes if necessary.
3. EC225? Maybe.
4. EC332? Nope thanks.
As a quick explanation I am one of the SLF (great phrase). I claim no in depth knowledge of piloting techniques or politics etc although I would like to point out I do have a low hours fixed wing PPL (no sniggers please) and a lifelong interest in aviation so do have a reasonably good technical understanding of the discussions. I would like to make my comments as a regular passenger in these aircraft as invited by previous replies earlier in the discussion.
My primary reaction is to complement the recent suggestions for lower number of passengers per flight and would like to highly recommend to anyone with influence reading this that this is in my opinion a potential major point in influencing those offshore to return to flight on the SP class of aircraft.
There is obviously the as yet undetermined issue of the 332L2 ditching and the concerns over reliability etc. and I would not like to make any decision in my own mind on this airframe until the proper investigations have been completed or more conclusive explanations released.
Having said that I personally dislike the 332 (all variants) as a frequent passenger as simply they are cramped and uncomfortable and more importantly seem old simply based on condition (fixtures and fittings, noise and vibration levels etc.) and with the mechanical stresses that helicopters undergo - an old helicopter feels unsafe. I am well aware that these machines undergo some of the best maintenance possible (I sincerely hope) and cannot fly except in perfect condition but with so many parts subject to high stress then the airframe apparent age goes strongly against them.
Ignoring technical issues I would like to return to my previous comment of passenger comfort. There are 2 issues here, one of which is the day to day being jammed in like a sardine for hours on end (This is a very widespread opinion of travelling on this class of helicopter - and why the S92 is liked much more with its larger cabin and better seats) and the other of which is escape in the event of emergency.
Just as a thought, imagine what the HSE would say if you were to set up a replica of a 332 in the full environment dunker and put 18 people in it in normal offshore survival suits then even with safety divers run a night time storm dunking simulation. Would you sit on that chopper even in the pool?
My suggestion is (assuming proper human factor analysis) remove seats making the 332 a 14 seat helicopter.
From the laymans view this would help by
1. Better chance of escape - i.e. more room to move.
2. Better comfort during flight - any room to move is better than none.
3. More baggage capacity - not previously mentioned this is a bugbear amongst some offshore workers - particularly third party persons who travel between different rigs and have to carry more gear. There are still too many examples of having to leave a bag behind.
4. A lowering of the loading of the machine which would surely reduce stress and associated failures. If your horse was 15 years old would you still load it up with a weight and run it hard over jumps?
A few months ago I was informed that the client I was working for at a time had a 14 persons limit on the flights which seemed like an extremely good idea so why not formalise it by some means and take the other seats out.
I have not mentioned 225's here but would like to suggest they also have seats removed as despite being newer and if the comments on here are true, much better, they still suffer from nearly the same cramped positions. I suspect its quite possible that acceptance among the majority of passengers could be influenced by making it seem more safe while improving comfort.
I do appreciate in most cases this issue is one determined by the client as opposed to the operator but with the 'workforce getting larger' (as reported repeatedly over the years) is this possibly a regulatory issue now?
I apologies in advance if I have stepped on anyone's toes or caused upset in this post. I am just attempting to get across a different point of view - from someone sat offshore just now.
As a final comment, I imagine being asked how I would travel offshore and would probably respond as follows
1. Boat or chopper? - Boat definitely.
2. S92? Yes if necessary.
3. EC225? Maybe.
4. EC332? Nope thanks.
... the issue is the cabin on the SP series is small and cramped for the passengers being carried on the North Sea. ... ...the perception of being dangerous and is causing a problem amongst the passengers.
The AW189 will be the same, as will the EC175, though both will be blessed with monster escape windows.
Add to that the stability on floats that is inevitably better with a lower aircraft.
What is it to be?
EC175 window: see page 9.
http://www.eurocopter.com/site/docs_...&Gas112011.pdf
Once you get beyond about a dozen pax, I think the escape situation is inevitably more complex and the space required for each person may need to rise. Headroom certainly has some value in that regard but I suggest it is not as valuable as floor-space.
I would be delighted if we could see a detailed study of what happens in the back. A bunch of fresh-thinking PhD types getting together with accident survivors and established aviation evacuation specialists might bring us substantial value.
Jimmy 16, rest assured FSF ALAR Briefing Note 7.2 formed part of my initial study of CDFA for helos and is now part of this weekend's revision homework.
SAS, while CDFAs may have merit offshore, (a) the derivation and presentation of a "nominal vertical profile" to decks at unique elevations may not be straightforward (I'm not saying impossible) and (b) it is an extension of the present NPA Onshore discussion and has the potential to muddy the waters.
... although this IS pPrune, of course.
SAS, while CDFAs may have merit offshore, (a) the derivation and presentation of a "nominal vertical profile" to decks at unique elevations may not be straightforward (I'm not saying impossible) and (b) it is an extension of the present NPA Onshore discussion and has the potential to muddy the waters.
... although this IS pPrune, of course.
Recently Sikorsky and the FAA reported certification of automated approaches in the S-92.
FAA Approves Sikorsky Aircraft?s New Platform Approach System for S-92® Helicopters ? Feature Offers Enhanced Safety Through Reduced Pilot Workload
At that time.....I suggested it was time for the CAA and North Sea Operators to consider that technique.
I find it interesting it was a Gulf of Mexico Operator, PHI, that was instrumental in the initiative....as we all know how backwards the GOM is....right?
HC as I recall said the 225 has the same capability although it is not used currently.
Should this be an area of operations that needs to be implemented on the North Sea?
How much more of a safety bonus would such approaches provide compared to existing techniques?
It would seem in the Localizer Approach being done by the crew in this latest crash.....had the "Automated Approach" technique been used.....an S-92 or EC-225 (or aircraft with comparable capability) could have used the technique to arrive at the Thresh Hold fully controlled by the Autopilot system with the pilots only having to monitor the autopilot.
The Technology is here.....when will the Authority acknowledge that by allowing the use of it in daily operations?
This is another Shield that needs dropping.....thus providing for timely acceptance of new but proven technology.
FAA Approves Sikorsky Aircraft?s New Platform Approach System for S-92® Helicopters ? Feature Offers Enhanced Safety Through Reduced Pilot Workload
At that time.....I suggested it was time for the CAA and North Sea Operators to consider that technique.
I find it interesting it was a Gulf of Mexico Operator, PHI, that was instrumental in the initiative....as we all know how backwards the GOM is....right?
HC as I recall said the 225 has the same capability although it is not used currently.
Should this be an area of operations that needs to be implemented on the North Sea?
How much more of a safety bonus would such approaches provide compared to existing techniques?
It would seem in the Localizer Approach being done by the crew in this latest crash.....had the "Automated Approach" technique been used.....an S-92 or EC-225 (or aircraft with comparable capability) could have used the technique to arrive at the Thresh Hold fully controlled by the Autopilot system with the pilots only having to monitor the autopilot.
The Technology is here.....when will the Authority acknowledge that by allowing the use of it in daily operations?
This is another Shield that needs dropping.....thus providing for timely acceptance of new but proven technology.
Last edited by SASless; 31st Aug 2013 at 12:42.
jimf671
You've obviously never flown out of Karratha, or Broome, or Truscott; and 85kgs Asians are getting quite common now.
An important point about the shorts and t-shirts territories is that many of these places are populated by smaller people.
Last edited by Fareastdriver; 31st Aug 2013 at 12:45.
Jimmy 16, rest assured FSF ALAR Briefing Note 7.2 formed part of my initial study of CDFA for helos and is now part of this weekend's revision homework
