Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks I.I. all perfectly easy to provide that
I didn't think most of those points were in dispute.
Most of them acknowledged by Nick Lappos and JimL on this forum.
If you can't see what the downsides of the twin are then you don't have a balanced view - the upsides are obvious: it is possible to continue flight when ONE engine fails.
Engine failure rates need to justify the Gearbox/Freewheel/Tailboom deaths - maybe they do? Particularly with larger helicopters - perhaps.
BUT it is clear that the evidence of accident rates to twins are not inline with the maths which is used to justify that approach - 10^-9 !?
Most of them acknowledged by Nick Lappos and JimL on this forum.
When your arguments are substantiated by engineering design based fact regarding reduced critical component margin the AS355 against AS350 comparision example provides that 2700kg against 2250kg with the same gearbox, blades, pitch links etc SAME COMPONENTS/working harder - less margin.
or worse autorotation performance caused by having 2 engines which would you think was easier to autorotate an AS350 with 3SOB and 2 hrs fuel or an AS355 with 3SOB and 2hrs fuel?
confused pilots, do you think there is a shortage of examples of accidents to confused pilots ? Several examples of wrong engine shutdown - 902 in river in US
complicated fuel systems the evidence for the complication of the fuel system is the preceeding 200 posts attempting to clearly describe the intricate workings of the EC135 fuel system and the previous ACCIDENT to an A109 in snow in Wales due to not understanding the complications of the fuel system with one pump inop
or reduced payloads self evident also isn't it? , I may listen NO HARM IN LISTENING.
It is you who fails to provide any merit some merit above? for your "statements", they are not arguments because they lack any cogency.
Heard something I don't like? Not at all, I can hardly wait for the next installment. I don't want to piss on the gravy train, carry on, the public demands it - and they are well known for their expertise in helicopter design
or worse autorotation performance caused by having 2 engines which would you think was easier to autorotate an AS350 with 3SOB and 2 hrs fuel or an AS355 with 3SOB and 2hrs fuel?
confused pilots, do you think there is a shortage of examples of accidents to confused pilots ? Several examples of wrong engine shutdown - 902 in river in US
complicated fuel systems the evidence for the complication of the fuel system is the preceeding 200 posts attempting to clearly describe the intricate workings of the EC135 fuel system and the previous ACCIDENT to an A109 in snow in Wales due to not understanding the complications of the fuel system with one pump inop
or reduced payloads self evident also isn't it? , I may listen NO HARM IN LISTENING.
It is you who fails to provide any merit some merit above? for your "statements", they are not arguments because they lack any cogency.
Heard something I don't like? Not at all, I can hardly wait for the next installment. I don't want to piss on the gravy train, carry on, the public demands it - and they are well known for their expertise in helicopter design
Engine failure rates need to justify the Gearbox/Freewheel/Tailboom deaths - maybe they do? Particularly with larger helicopters - perhaps.
BUT it is clear that the evidence of accident rates to twins are not inline with the maths which is used to justify that approach - 10^-9 !?
Now don’t go throwing your toys out. I was just struggling with that consonant in AnFI or I might have said Freakin’ Idiot or Ferkin Idiot (but accepted, this also would be quite rude).
It’s Christmas and in that spirit I retract those names and am opting for something more seasonal/biblical. What about Holy Pontificator?
It’s Christmas and in that spirit I retract those names and am opting for something more seasonal/biblical. What about Holy Pontificator?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: N/A
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happy Christmas TT
and agree this thread shouldn't be about twin/single - but it's too much to sit back and hear the complexity of the fuel system and see how many don't undersatnd it yet and FAIL to make the hypothetical link to this FATAL and DISASTEROUS ACCIDENT....
... do I really need to PROVE that a twin delivers power to ONE common rotor system? are we in denial?
and agree this thread shouldn't be about twin/single - but it's too much to sit back and hear the complexity of the fuel system and see how many don't undersatnd it yet and FAIL to make the hypothetical link to this FATAL and DISASTEROUS ACCIDENT....
... do I really need to PROVE that a twin delivers power to ONE common rotor system? are we in denial?
FDR or CVR
Unless an aircraft is already wired up with the required sensors and possible instruments it would be quite a task to install a FDR but not impossible. However, a CVR or a Video Camera trained on the Instrument panel would suffice for an interim period. Back in the day, and I have been retired too long to know about modern technology, the CVR's on BHL aircraft had four channels one of which read the Rotor RPM, which might have been useful in the pub accident investigation.
Purveyor of Egg Liqueur to Lucifer
As there's no real link between Glasgow and a fuel issue ...
While out on a cobweb busting bike ride, I realised, having recently completed an OPC, that the problem with a double engine failure in a twin is that you only expect it to be a single engine failure and don't immediately lower the collective! I would guess that by the time it takes to realise both engines have gone, the rrpm has dramatically reduced.
However, that doesn't explain why they both might have failed at the same time.
However, that doesn't explain why they both might have failed at the same time.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Uk
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Art of flight,
Post 1502 explains why I think fuel maybe the issue. It was a post by Robin 400 some time ago and a look at the 135 fuel schematic that got me thinking.
The only fuel to come out of the supply tanks into the main tank is via the spill Chanel's at the top of the rear fence ( in normal attitudes of course).
Despite all speculation the facts to date seem to indicate both engines and drive train were serviceable but stopped. Only two possible reasons, both engines have been shut down or no fuel getting to them.
A faulty non return valve would go undetected until a particular set of circumstances came about. Low fuel in main tank, pitch up or down, and one transfer pump off. This scenario would not illuminate a transfer pump warning as it is still pumping fuel It's just not reaching the supply tanks. I accept that the supply tank low level warnings and gong should still be working, but his main tank gauges are showing fuel and his transfer pump is working. (Confusion) My point is a faulty NRV will only reveal itself when fuel is low, one transfer pump is off and the aircraft is pitched forward or aft. What is really crucial here is where did the AIB drain the 95ltrs of fuel from? Main tank or supply tanks?
Post 1502 explains why I think fuel maybe the issue. It was a post by Robin 400 some time ago and a look at the 135 fuel schematic that got me thinking.
The only fuel to come out of the supply tanks into the main tank is via the spill Chanel's at the top of the rear fence ( in normal attitudes of course).
Despite all speculation the facts to date seem to indicate both engines and drive train were serviceable but stopped. Only two possible reasons, both engines have been shut down or no fuel getting to them.
A faulty non return valve would go undetected until a particular set of circumstances came about. Low fuel in main tank, pitch up or down, and one transfer pump off. This scenario would not illuminate a transfer pump warning as it is still pumping fuel It's just not reaching the supply tanks. I accept that the supply tank low level warnings and gong should still be working, but his main tank gauges are showing fuel and his transfer pump is working. (Confusion) My point is a faulty NRV will only reveal itself when fuel is low, one transfer pump is off and the aircraft is pitched forward or aft. What is really crucial here is where did the AIB drain the 95ltrs of fuel from? Main tank or supply tanks?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Uk
Age: 67
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Issued 19 December by Eurocopter :
The second ASB (EC135-28A-019) introduces a revision of the flight manual with regards to the low fuel warning and the fuel pump caution indications. The corresponding airworthiness directive to be issued by EASA will be an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, meaning the revision to the manual must be made immediately. This is not because there is a safety concern. Rather, the emergency directive ensures the revision is made immediately instead of at the next scheduled update of the manual.
Issued 23 December by Eurocopter :
Following the Alert Service Bulletin released on December 19, one-time checks on the fuel tank system of the worldwide EC135 fleet continue. As of today, 264 sensors have been tested. Of these, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterwards, while two failed and needed to be replaced.
Eurocopter continues to monitor the checks closely and will provide updates as more information becomes available.
The second ASB (EC135-28A-019) introduces a revision of the flight manual with regards to the low fuel warning and the fuel pump caution indications. The corresponding airworthiness directive to be issued by EASA will be an Emergency Airworthiness Directive, meaning the revision to the manual must be made immediately. This is not because there is a safety concern. Rather, the emergency directive ensures the revision is made immediately instead of at the next scheduled update of the manual.
Issued 23 December by Eurocopter :
Following the Alert Service Bulletin released on December 19, one-time checks on the fuel tank system of the worldwide EC135 fleet continue. As of today, 264 sensors have been tested. Of these, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterwards, while two failed and needed to be replaced.
Eurocopter continues to monitor the checks closely and will provide updates as more information becomes available.
Unless an aircraft is already wired up with the required sensors and possible instruments it would be quite a task to install a FDR but not impossible. However, a CVR or a Video Camera trained on the Instrument panel would suffice for an interim period. Back in the day, and I have been retired too long to know about modern technology, the CVR's on BHL aircraft had four channels one of which read the Rotor RPM, which might have been useful in the pub accident investigation.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While out on a cobweb busting bike ride, I realised, having recently completed an OPC, that the problem with a double engine failure in a twin is that you only expect it to be a single engine failure and don't immediately lower the collective! I would guess that by the time it takes to realise both engines have gone, the rrpm has dramatically reduced.
AnFI
I don't know if you fly, or what you fly. But of you do fly and you like single engine over and above twins, because you feel that twins are too complex, then carry on as normal. I hope you are not ambitious, because your paycheck will always reflect the size and complexity of the aircraft you fly.
From my experience:
AS350B2 and AS355F2 in Australia - no difference in auto but did not do touchdown in 355F2.
I would need to research the interior of the 355 versus the 350 MGB. The 355 has a CBOX (a horrible thing) which would probably limit the twin SHP take off power. If the MGB has more stress, the certification calculations will have been done and it it will have a lower overhaul life.
Complicated fuel systems - if you can't work a fuel system, you shouldn't be in command of an aircraft. Most systems need little work but at most its moving a switch once in a while to balance fuel.
Confused pilots - can happen in any aircraft, would you want all jets to be single engine as well?
Thanks for the entertainment, but I am getting bored with the discussion now and I won't bother arguing with you anymore.
I don't know if you fly, or what you fly. But of you do fly and you like single engine over and above twins, because you feel that twins are too complex, then carry on as normal. I hope you are not ambitious, because your paycheck will always reflect the size and complexity of the aircraft you fly.
From my experience:
AS350B2 and AS355F2 in Australia - no difference in auto but did not do touchdown in 355F2.
I would need to research the interior of the 355 versus the 350 MGB. The 355 has a CBOX (a horrible thing) which would probably limit the twin SHP take off power. If the MGB has more stress, the certification calculations will have been done and it it will have a lower overhaul life.
Complicated fuel systems - if you can't work a fuel system, you shouldn't be in command of an aircraft. Most systems need little work but at most its moving a switch once in a while to balance fuel.
Confused pilots - can happen in any aircraft, would you want all jets to be single engine as well?
Thanks for the entertainment, but I am getting bored with the discussion now and I won't bother arguing with you anymore.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
Twins are inevitably more complex than singles and that in itself can be regarded as making them inherently more dangerous- only because there is a greater chance of a systems failure or pilot error. For this reason more attention is applied by designers to mitigate the risks and to ensure that the advantage of two engines is not outweighed by the disadvantages. In a single you have no choice if your motor goes, a twin will stay airborne to get you back to base or extend the choice of Landing site beyond a simple cone. If both donkeys go, then you are no worse off than flying a single.
Single engine overflight of built up areas is prohibited for this reason which is why commercial, police, air ambulance all use twins. They don't have a choice- correct? Complexity is addressed by training and type conversion and in itself it isn't a threat.
Single engine overflight of built up areas is prohibited for this reason which is why commercial, police, air ambulance all use twins. They don't have a choice- correct? Complexity is addressed by training and type conversion and in itself it isn't a threat.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemain
So on the 135, are you saying that an engine can fail to the extent that it becomes a net torque drag, without a command input, without a clear cockpit alarm? Strikes me as a bit of an oversight.
From Eurocopter:
What is the testing procedure?
Did the 12 sensors referred to above also initially fail?
If so were they in situ or on the test bench?
Mickjoebill
nk system of the worldwide EC135 fleet continue. As of today, 264 sensors have been tested. Of these, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterwards, while two failed and needed to be replaced.
Did the 12 sensors referred to above also initially fail?
If so were they in situ or on the test bench?
Mickjoebill
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: bora scirocco
Age: 50
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the testing procedure?
JR
Last edited by Jet Ranger; 27th Dec 2013 at 11:39.
...ground run and waiting for LOW FUEL WARNING LIGHT to comes ON...
JR
JR
skadi
From Eurocopter:
Quote:
nk system of the worldwide EC135 fleet continue. As of today, 264 sensors have been tested. Of these, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterwards, while two failed and needed to be replaced.
What is the testing procedure?
Did the 12 sensors referred to above also initially fail?
If so were they in situ or on the test bench?
Mickjoebill
Quote:
nk system of the worldwide EC135 fleet continue. As of today, 264 sensors have been tested. Of these, 12 needed to be cleaned but were fully functional afterwards, while two failed and needed to be replaced.
What is the testing procedure?
Did the 12 sensors referred to above also initially fail?
If so were they in situ or on the test bench?
Mickjoebill
Likewise, by how much did the condition of the cleaned and re-used sensors differ from that of the two that were scrapped?
.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police helicopter crashes onto Glasgow pub
A former army air corps pilot and now colleague was trying to explain rotor droop / mushing to me today. I understand this is effectively a quasi stall where caused by rapid aft cyclic input perhaps while executing a tight turn or pulling out of a dive. I understand this can result in a rapid loss of height with ineffective control. Can anyone enlighten me further as I am not sure if there is any relevance in this case?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Liverpool based Geordie, so calm down, calm down kidda!!
Age: 60
Posts: 2,051
Likes: 0
Received 17 Likes
on
6 Posts
We used to do a demonstration to our students on gazelle, called jackstall on the syllabus. It was a dive to high speed with high power and an aggressive manoeuvre was carried out. The feedback forces then exceeded the control authority and control was 'lost' (sort of). Immediate action was to reduce power and severe control input, hey presto, all was well.
The reason for this was to scare them out of trying to wazz the helicopter and how to get out of it if you overloaded everything. Instead of jackstall, it could have been called 'gross mishandling with a single hydraulic system', not as punchy?
Whilst not impossible to occur on ANY hydraulic control helicopter, it takes a lot of mishandling and neglect to occur on the likes of a 135.
There is also what WE call retreating blade stall caused at high power/high speed, this has nothing to do with hydraulics, however the recovery is the same as above. A police fitted 135 has a lot of draggy bits on the outside and once again it would take a big dive to get the speed. If he was going balls out to get back to base, this could be relevant, but an experienced pilot would just reduce power almost without thinking. Once again, whilst possible, it is unlikely to be relevant
The reason for this was to scare them out of trying to wazz the helicopter and how to get out of it if you overloaded everything. Instead of jackstall, it could have been called 'gross mishandling with a single hydraulic system', not as punchy?
Whilst not impossible to occur on ANY hydraulic control helicopter, it takes a lot of mishandling and neglect to occur on the likes of a 135.
There is also what WE call retreating blade stall caused at high power/high speed, this has nothing to do with hydraulics, however the recovery is the same as above. A police fitted 135 has a lot of draggy bits on the outside and once again it would take a big dive to get the speed. If he was going balls out to get back to base, this could be relevant, but an experienced pilot would just reduce power almost without thinking. Once again, whilst possible, it is unlikely to be relevant