Category A Takeoff: Background

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by megan

Statistics for the US FY 2018 – first % is fleet size, second % is accidents. To make it easy those in blue have zero accidents

There is still no correlation to hours/missions flown nor does it distinguish between accidents resulting from engine failure and other causes.
Like the stats ANFI used to push his cause, these are interesting but mostly meaningless.
It is obvious that singles make up the majority of the fleet so should represent the majority of accidents.
More data is required before any credible deduction can be made, until then stats can be used to justify any point of view.

[megan]

There is still no correlation to hours/missions flown nor does it distinguish between accidents resulting from engine failure and other causes

Correlation to hours or missions flown is rather pointless, it depends on the use to which the aircraft is being put. An R-22 doing an hour of endless autos with a student is far higher up the risk scale than a 206 used for commuting, or indeed a R-22 used for commuting. Figures I quoted in an earlier post cite engine failure being responsible for 16.7% of ALL accidents.

[Bell_ringer]

Originally Posted by megan

Figures I quoted in an earlier post cite engine failure being responsible for 16.7% of ALL accidents.

That does sound high, are they including loss (ie running out) of power in that statistic?
Robbies in particular seem to have many power loss accidents with fully operational engines.

[EESDL]

There was mention of the use of PC2DLE in Hems and O&G. Excused under the banner of Public service/use.
Can we just be very clear on one thing.
PC2DLE is used because the machine is simply not viable in whatever role it flies if flown PC1 - or can’t fly PC1. It is a marketing tactic, based on logic and data sets.
PC2DLE is a method to extract as much use as possible out of an ageing design.
It is a commercial consideration - not a safety-based one.
There is an air Ambulance Service in the North of England which is authorised to fly PC2 to rooftop hospital helipads - within congested areas (As365n2)
This is despite there finally being PC1-capable machines available for use.
We have seen the O&G sector slowly catching-up with reality and public opinion with the implementation of genuine PC1 machines.
Manufacturers clung onto grandfather rights and old designs for far too long as they had a ready market under the Public Service/use banner.
So who ‘carries the can’ where there is a readily-available PC1 option but the operator continues PC2 operations?
The Accountable Manager is covered by the National Aviation Authority and insurance policy?
The NAA is covered by lack of civil service accountability and bureaucracy?
So, when the Safety Plan is based on ALARP, and the CBA is based on a possible increase of insurance premium rather than genuinely mitigating the risk, you know that safety is rarely an operators’ first priority.
So have as many, or as few engines as you like - it is not the issue.
The ‘foot selfie’ 350 into NY waters would not have happened if same trip flown in a twin - simply because the fuel cocks are in the ceiling in the 355.
It would not have happened if the 350 was designed for such a role - ie, true protection of critical areas from ‘Joe Public’.
We all know that Helicopters are a compromise but can I suggest that it can not afford to be regarded as such. ‘Multi-role’ designs have no place in today’s market as we have discovered that ‘multi -role’ really does mean not truly fit for anything specific.
I am not a Kamax salesman ;-)
I further suggest that if the OEMs had designed and built a true O&G Helicopter all those decades ago then the world for a helicopter passenger would be a safer place today.
The ‘helicopter transport’ budget for O&G companies is minuscule in comparison to the rest of their spreadsheet and yet continuous ‘CBA’ pressure has helped to stifle technical and safety progress - and tolerated by NAAs.
Where there is a will, there is a way.
There has been little ‘will’ and therefore a lack of ‘way’.
This situation is markedly different to the airline industry.

[megan]

That does sound high, are they including loss (ie running out) of power in that statistic

No, it would be filed under one of the "Error" categories, which make up 38% of all accidents ie Accidents by error - Misassessment of weather 18.2%, Misjudgement of landing 8%, Not going around 4%, Flight below MSA 21%, Overload 2.8%, Not considering wind 2.8%, Inadequate pilot judgement 34.7%, Poor circumspection 8.5%

[[email protected]]

That does sound high, are they including loss (ie running out) of power in that statistic?
Robbies in particular seem to have many power loss accidents with fully operational engines.

Is that because pilots think if they can get under the line on the HOGE graph, they can do anything they like? Any OGE operations should have a power margin available to allow for pilot errors, wind, turbulence, imperfectly clean blades etc etc

Standard UK mil ops require a minimum of a 5% thrust margin - it is easy to calculate, you just reduce your AUM by 5% of the maximum HOGE graph value at your intended operating DA.