AW139 G-LBAL helicopter crash in Gillingham, Norfolk
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
Bob, it's perhaps time that you gave your preferred answer, rather than the perpetual questions.
It doesn't really matter how Vmini was derived. The fact that it appears in the Limitations section is the relevant thing. It's not optional.
It doesn't really matter how Vmini was derived. The fact that it appears in the Limitations section is the relevant thing. It's not optional.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Level Trimmed Flight it says.
Yet there is a provision to operate at lower than Vmini during approaches using "steep" approach angles. It does require a Waiver/Approval process. (That came from 27).
Does the provision you are quoting pertain to basic hands off stability in trimmed level flight only?
As a point of reference, the Bell SCAS system on Bell 212's was limited to 40 Knots (if my memory is working correctly) and it was only SAS and ATT hold capable.
It did have a "Turn" feature using a Thumb Wheel on the Control Panel.
Each Aircraft Type can have different Vmini's depending upon the AFCS system installed thus it is not just the basic stability of the aircraft that is the issue but the combined effect of the basic and AFCS capability.
Shy digressed to talking about Doppler and such which confuses the issue somewhat.
Airspeed instruments are unreliable until sufficient Airspeed is obtained to provide an effective source of input for them. We know that from our basic VMC training.
We also understand the VSI will provide erroneous indications as Power is pulled to initiate the Take Off.
The Gyro instruments are effective no matter what the airspeed might be.
If we consider the US Army, amongst many Military Flight Operations, conducted IMC operations to include Zero/Zero Instrument Take Offs in unstabilized helicopters for many Decades, then why do we see Vmini speeds given and why are they "Limitations"?
JimL will offer up all the "legal" reasons but my question is all about the "thinking" behind them?
Is it just a matter of Testing to the Certification Regulations or is it an actual Aircraft Performance issue?
We have had lots of discussion about Rules, Regulations, and the like with scant discussion of how we find ourselves having to play the Hand of Cards we have been dealt by the Authority.
In real life the Rules and Regulations sometimes assume far more import than perhaps they should and thus influence our decisions as to how we ply our trade which is "Flying Helicopters".
I submit the "Rules" should be crafted properly to afford as much latitude as is possible commensurate to Safety.
So if an un-Sas'ed, non AFCS, Helicopter can operate "Safely" (as proven by the venerable old Huey in Military service), why then do we have much more stringent Rules for far more capable and extensively equipped modern Helicopters?
Some are going to immediately throw out the Military versus Civilian "Rules" in response to this post. They miss the question and also prove my point.
If the Military can do the exact same operation safely without the Civilian Rules then why do we suffer under those Civilian Rules?
My question is all about the Rules and how we got them.
You cannot tell me that the 139 is not capable of making a "safe" Take Off from the ground in Zero/Zero Instrument conditions. If it cannot and must be at 50 Knots to "Safely" fly in IMC conditions, just exactly what is so unsafe in the performance of the 139 (or any helicopter for that matter) that the Limitation in the form of the Vmini exists?
Yet there is a provision to operate at lower than Vmini during approaches using "steep" approach angles. It does require a Waiver/Approval process. (That came from 27).
Does the provision you are quoting pertain to basic hands off stability in trimmed level flight only?
As a point of reference, the Bell SCAS system on Bell 212's was limited to 40 Knots (if my memory is working correctly) and it was only SAS and ATT hold capable.
It did have a "Turn" feature using a Thumb Wheel on the Control Panel.
Each Aircraft Type can have different Vmini's depending upon the AFCS system installed thus it is not just the basic stability of the aircraft that is the issue but the combined effect of the basic and AFCS capability.
Shy digressed to talking about Doppler and such which confuses the issue somewhat.
Airspeed instruments are unreliable until sufficient Airspeed is obtained to provide an effective source of input for them. We know that from our basic VMC training.
We also understand the VSI will provide erroneous indications as Power is pulled to initiate the Take Off.
The Gyro instruments are effective no matter what the airspeed might be.
If we consider the US Army, amongst many Military Flight Operations, conducted IMC operations to include Zero/Zero Instrument Take Offs in unstabilized helicopters for many Decades, then why do we see Vmini speeds given and why are they "Limitations"?
JimL will offer up all the "legal" reasons but my question is all about the "thinking" behind them?
Is it just a matter of Testing to the Certification Regulations or is it an actual Aircraft Performance issue?
We have had lots of discussion about Rules, Regulations, and the like with scant discussion of how we find ourselves having to play the Hand of Cards we have been dealt by the Authority.
In real life the Rules and Regulations sometimes assume far more import than perhaps they should and thus influence our decisions as to how we ply our trade which is "Flying Helicopters".
I submit the "Rules" should be crafted properly to afford as much latitude as is possible commensurate to Safety.
So if an un-Sas'ed, non AFCS, Helicopter can operate "Safely" (as proven by the venerable old Huey in Military service), why then do we have much more stringent Rules for far more capable and extensively equipped modern Helicopters?
Some are going to immediately throw out the Military versus Civilian "Rules" in response to this post. They miss the question and also prove my point.
If the Military can do the exact same operation safely without the Civilian Rules then why do we suffer under those Civilian Rules?
My question is all about the Rules and how we got them.
You cannot tell me that the 139 is not capable of making a "safe" Take Off from the ground in Zero/Zero Instrument conditions. If it cannot and must be at 50 Knots to "Safely" fly in IMC conditions, just exactly what is so unsafe in the performance of the 139 (or any helicopter for that matter) that the Limitation in the form of the Vmini exists?
BB,
G550 has supplied you with the appropriate text from Appendix B to Part 29 (which you could have found in less time than it took to type your implied insult - that is if you are interested in the answer and not in self-aggrandisement). I recommend reading the whole appendix - it will add to your education.
I would add to G550's post - as far as pilots are concerned, they do not need to know how Vmini is arrived at just that it is there, as a limitation, for good reasons and should not be ignored (just like Vne). It is a feature of the design of the helicopter.
It has no 'direct' relationship with the Autopilot but mainly with the ability of the helicopter to stay within the trim limits when flown on instruments - as stated in the extract.
As for your cigar...
Jim
G550 has supplied you with the appropriate text from Appendix B to Part 29 (which you could have found in less time than it took to type your implied insult - that is if you are interested in the answer and not in self-aggrandisement). I recommend reading the whole appendix - it will add to your education.
I would add to G550's post - as far as pilots are concerned, they do not need to know how Vmini is arrived at just that it is there, as a limitation, for good reasons and should not be ignored (just like Vne). It is a feature of the design of the helicopter.
It has no 'direct' relationship with the Autopilot but mainly with the ability of the helicopter to stay within the trim limits when flown on instruments - as stated in the extract.
As for your cigar...
Jim
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
This does not answer your question because only Agusta can tell you what you want to know.
However, the AW139 RFM 4D (139G0290X002) states clearly in Section 1 Limitations that;
Minimum airspeed for flight under IFR (Vmini) ............. 50 KIAS.
So prior to 50 KIAS one must comply with VFR.
VFR weather minima for Class G airspace (Gillingham) are 'for helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable: Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.'
Limitations... rules. VFR, IFR... rules. Airspace/Weather minima... rules.
Who cares on what the rules are based?
We don't know what the pilots could see that night.
Profiles are a red herring because whatever the plan was the lowest common denominator for the take off was to maintain 'Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface' until 50 KIAS.
The concept of a towering take off using the coupled functions of the autopilot, or not, to gain a visual horizon above a thick blanket of fog would not conform.
I in no way imply that this was the aim on this occasion.
This does not answer your question because only Agusta can tell you what you want to know.
However, the AW139 RFM 4D (139G0290X002) states clearly in Section 1 Limitations that;
Minimum airspeed for flight under IFR (Vmini) ............. 50 KIAS.
So prior to 50 KIAS one must comply with VFR.
VFR weather minima for Class G airspace (Gillingham) are 'for helicopters operating at a speed which, having regard to the visibility, is reasonable: Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.'
Limitations... rules. VFR, IFR... rules. Airspace/Weather minima... rules.
Who cares on what the rules are based?
We don't know what the pilots could see that night.
Profiles are a red herring because whatever the plan was the lowest common denominator for the take off was to maintain 'Clear of cloud and in sight of the surface' until 50 KIAS.
The concept of a towering take off using the coupled functions of the autopilot, or not, to gain a visual horizon above a thick blanket of fog would not conform.
I in no way imply that this was the aim on this occasion.
Last edited by RedWhite&Blue; 13th Apr 2014 at 20:04. Reason: 'm' too close to the 'n' on the keyboard.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JimL,
If we don't need to know all this stuff, why does the CAA have those horrid umpteen dozen written tests that Pilots have to master before obtaining their License?
Seems like a bit of a radical view you hold compared to the CAA's Official Policy.
Fog is a ground based Weather Phenomenon as I recall and thus is not "Cloud".
The only thing that would matter would be the Viz that night which was reported to be in "Tens of Meters". The only criteria (it seems) is if the PIC observed what Viz there was and was satisfied it was 150 Meters or more.
If we don't need to know all this stuff, why does the CAA have those horrid umpteen dozen written tests that Pilots have to master before obtaining their License?
Seems like a bit of a radical view you hold compared to the CAA's Official Policy.
Fog is a ground based Weather Phenomenon as I recall and thus is not "Cloud".
The only thing that would matter would be the Viz that night which was reported to be in "Tens of Meters". The only criteria (it seems) is if the PIC observed what Viz there was and was satisfied it was 150 Meters or more.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
From the evidence now published by the AAIB, it appears to me (other opinions are undoubtedly available) that for as yet unknown reasons the commander/handling pilot did not successfully transfer to instruments. The co-pilot obviously realised that things were going wrong and advised him twice (re: "Attitude" calls), but this was unsuccessful in preventing him from allowing the aircraft to adopt far too much nose down, which turned the climb rate into a high rate of descent.
I think we've already discussed the "150 metres RVR" requirement. Unless this is laid down in more clear terms, I still don't see RVR being a pertinent limit for private flights away from an airfield.
I think we've already discussed the "150 metres RVR" requirement. Unless this is laid down in more clear terms, I still don't see RVR being a pertinent limit for private flights away from an airfield.
BB,
I find your attitude towards the UK in general, and the CAA in particular, vexatious. When you were operating on the 'twins-singles' thread I exchanged PMs with you explaining that the answer to your questions - i.e. the logic behind the rules requiring Category A in a hostile environment, had been explained in the first three pages of the thread. You responded with:
PM quote deleted: PMs are personal, not to be quoted in PPRuNe
SP
I am amazed that you cannot accept that to fly in visibility that does not permit maintenance of control by reference to visual cues (whether than be cloud or fog - both being defined in degrees of reduction of visibility) is poor aviation practice. Flying on instruments outside the confines of the RFM is equally foolhardy.
You might have flown in IMC unaided in the US forces - and I applaud you for that, but that is not something that we should, or need to, aspire to; or subject our passengers to. The rules that you denigrate, are not those of the CAA but of ICAO - no doubt you have an equally low opinion of them.
I do not work, for or speak, for the CAA - if you have any quarrel with any of their policies, you might wish to take it up directly with them. Pointing a sharp stick at the CAA when they cannot reply directly, in my view, equates to a cheap shot and is somewhat distasteful.
Jim
I find your attitude towards the UK in general, and the CAA in particular, vexatious. When you were operating on the 'twins-singles' thread I exchanged PMs with you explaining that the answer to your questions - i.e. the logic behind the rules requiring Category A in a hostile environment, had been explained in the first three pages of the thread. You responded with:
PM quote deleted: PMs are personal, not to be quoted in PPRuNe
SP
I am amazed that you cannot accept that to fly in visibility that does not permit maintenance of control by reference to visual cues (whether than be cloud or fog - both being defined in degrees of reduction of visibility) is poor aviation practice. Flying on instruments outside the confines of the RFM is equally foolhardy.
You might have flown in IMC unaided in the US forces - and I applaud you for that, but that is not something that we should, or need to, aspire to; or subject our passengers to. The rules that you denigrate, are not those of the CAA but of ICAO - no doubt you have an equally low opinion of them.
I do not work, for or speak, for the CAA - if you have any quarrel with any of their policies, you might wish to take it up directly with them. Pointing a sharp stick at the CAA when they cannot reply directly, in my view, equates to a cheap shot and is somewhat distasteful.
Jim
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 13th Apr 2014 at 20:31. Reason: Remove PM quote
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posting a single sentence of a multiple exchange of PM's is a Mortal Sin here at Rotorheads as I recall too.
You care to post the entire exchange we had on the Twin v Single thing and let everyone see all of what was said and not just the one sentence that plainly was taken completely out of context of the multiple message discussion?
i am not the only one that pokes sticks at the CAA, FAA, and the other various authorities.
Show me where I endorsed flying VMC without adequate visual clues.
You do recall I have criticized the FAA for their wording of Part 91 Night Visibility Rules that do not require Private Operations to have adequate surface light reference as they do in Part 135.
I did not denigrate the Rule but asked how we arrived at them.
It would appear you have a problem with folks challenging the Rule Makers to justify their actions.
The North Sea Review is full of criticism of the CAA by Brits. Why no angst with them?
One is supposed to play the Ball here Jim perhaps you might do that.
You care to post the entire exchange we had on the Twin v Single thing and let everyone see all of what was said and not just the one sentence that plainly was taken completely out of context of the multiple message discussion?
i am not the only one that pokes sticks at the CAA, FAA, and the other various authorities.
Show me where I endorsed flying VMC without adequate visual clues.
You do recall I have criticized the FAA for their wording of Part 91 Night Visibility Rules that do not require Private Operations to have adequate surface light reference as they do in Part 135.
I did not denigrate the Rule but asked how we arrived at them.
It would appear you have a problem with folks challenging the Rule Makers to justify their actions.
The North Sea Review is full of criticism of the CAA by Brits. Why no angst with them?
One is supposed to play the Ball here Jim perhaps you might do that.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: UK
Age: 66
Posts: 919
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RW&B
So it would appear the commander may have been so concerned in "conforming" that he lost the plot.
Perhaps it would have been better to not "conform" and do the towering take off using the coupled functions of the autopilot at his discretion instead.
The concept of a towering take off using the coupled functions of the autopilot, or not, to gain a visual horizon above a thick blanket of fog would not conform.
Perhaps it would have been better to not "conform" and do the towering take off using the coupled functions of the autopilot at his discretion instead.
Tightgit
One is supposed to play the Ball here
There is lots of playing of the ball but little chance of a goal. I can't work out whether you are ever going to take a shot, let alone score! I find an number of your questions genuinely interesting, but I'm not quite sure what the point of them is! We can all just keep asking why? but it doesn't take the debate very far.
Why don't you make a proposition just to give me an idea of your motivation. If it is just to keep winding us Brits up, that's fine, sometimes we deserve it.
However, if there is some point you are trying to make (other than there should be less rules), then I haven't got it yet?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handy,
If the Accident had occurred in the USA or OZ, would not the discussion be very similar when I pose the questions?
I have made my position clear enough if you have looked back a bit.
I submit the "Rules", in this case those in the UK played a role in the outcome of the Take Off that night.
I have said "Rules" are fine but it helps to understand their source and motivation.
I also said "Rules", can and oft times do, have Exceptions and Waivers from the very Folks that enforce them, in this case the CAA.
I have said the "Rules" can cause their own set of problems when they combine to limit a Pilot's ability to both safely and legally operate an aircraft in the ever changing physical environment he works within.
I have also said "Rules" are written on paper and not etched in stone as some seem to think.
When we go about our business flying helicopters, we do so with the full knowledge that any variation from the "Rules" carries Risk of all sorts. Thus, if we do elect to trespass upon the sanctity of the "Rules", we should do so very carefully and for very good, sound, valid, explainable reasons that can be articulated should we need to justify what we did.
I took the same position in the Mull Thread, the Twin v Single Thread, and the Glasgow Thread.
As in any public forum discussion, each of us find contributions by others to have relative merits. I certainly do not agree with everything posted here and certainly do not expect my post to be considered any more valuable than anyone else's.
We are seeing folks come forth now and offering examples or making posts that show this "Rules' thing is not all simple Black and White Choices.
If you find some of my questions interesting, perhaps you might respond with your views on the issues I raise.
As i have said before, the UK CAA have no monopoly on "Rules" but does seem to have more than enough that provide some fodder for discussion.
If the Accident had occurred in the USA or OZ, would not the discussion be very similar when I pose the questions?
I have made my position clear enough if you have looked back a bit.
I submit the "Rules", in this case those in the UK played a role in the outcome of the Take Off that night.
I have said "Rules" are fine but it helps to understand their source and motivation.
I also said "Rules", can and oft times do, have Exceptions and Waivers from the very Folks that enforce them, in this case the CAA.
I have said the "Rules" can cause their own set of problems when they combine to limit a Pilot's ability to both safely and legally operate an aircraft in the ever changing physical environment he works within.
I have also said "Rules" are written on paper and not etched in stone as some seem to think.
When we go about our business flying helicopters, we do so with the full knowledge that any variation from the "Rules" carries Risk of all sorts. Thus, if we do elect to trespass upon the sanctity of the "Rules", we should do so very carefully and for very good, sound, valid, explainable reasons that can be articulated should we need to justify what we did.
I took the same position in the Mull Thread, the Twin v Single Thread, and the Glasgow Thread.
As in any public forum discussion, each of us find contributions by others to have relative merits. I certainly do not agree with everything posted here and certainly do not expect my post to be considered any more valuable than anyone else's.
We are seeing folks come forth now and offering examples or making posts that show this "Rules' thing is not all simple Black and White Choices.
If you find some of my questions interesting, perhaps you might respond with your views on the issues I raise.
As i have said before, the UK CAA have no monopoly on "Rules" but does seem to have more than enough that provide some fodder for discussion.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: the top of the flag pole
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob,
Apologies, in my post above I stated that the minima for VFR in class G were;
'for helicopters flying at a speed which, having regard to visibility, is reasonable: clear of cloud and with the surface in sight.'
I was wrong. It was night which I had overlooked. I should have said the VFR minima were;
'for helicopters flying at a speed which, having regard to visibility, is reasonable: clear of cloud and with the surface in sight in a flight visibility of 3 km'.
The 150m RVR is a red herring as Shy suggests, as this is an aerodrome minima.
Chopjock,
No that's not my point. I am suggesting, that to be legal, one would need to comply with VFR and remain VMC until through Vmini.
You can't just climb vertically and loose sight of the surface. The Vmini limitation simply doesn't allow it. And, It doesn't matter how you aim to achieve the climb, coupled or not, the law does not permit it.
I am mindful that; VMC are meteorological conditions equal to or better than those required to operate under VFR and IMC are conditions worse than those required for VFR.
So, in a nutshell, you can't be IMC whilst under VFR, clearly! (if you can't see the surface, or have less than 3k flight vis at night, you are not complying with VFR) Furthermore, you can't be IMC whilst below Vmini. It doesn't work on two levels.
Um... Lifting,
The fact that you can couple the AW139 in various modes below Vmini has nothing to do with the fact that you can't go IMC/IFR below 50KIAS/Vmini.
Apologies, in my post above I stated that the minima for VFR in class G were;
'for helicopters flying at a speed which, having regard to visibility, is reasonable: clear of cloud and with the surface in sight.'
I was wrong. It was night which I had overlooked. I should have said the VFR minima were;
'for helicopters flying at a speed which, having regard to visibility, is reasonable: clear of cloud and with the surface in sight in a flight visibility of 3 km'.
The 150m RVR is a red herring as Shy suggests, as this is an aerodrome minima.
Chopjock,
No that's not my point. I am suggesting, that to be legal, one would need to comply with VFR and remain VMC until through Vmini.
You can't just climb vertically and loose sight of the surface. The Vmini limitation simply doesn't allow it. And, It doesn't matter how you aim to achieve the climb, coupled or not, the law does not permit it.
I am mindful that; VMC are meteorological conditions equal to or better than those required to operate under VFR and IMC are conditions worse than those required for VFR.
So, in a nutshell, you can't be IMC whilst under VFR, clearly! (if you can't see the surface, or have less than 3k flight vis at night, you are not complying with VFR) Furthermore, you can't be IMC whilst below Vmini. It doesn't work on two levels.
Um... Lifting,
The fact that you can couple the AW139 in various modes below Vmini has nothing to do with the fact that you can't go IMC/IFR below 50KIAS/Vmini.
Tightgit
Ok Bob. To keep to the point of this particular thread, what rules do you say contributed to this accident? I ask because from where I am sitting (armchair, tired, after four long but very VFR night shifts), it was more a lack of rules that contributed to this accident (emphasising the contributed to, not caused). There is no regulatory oversight of a private operation like the one in question.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is all getting very confusing and convoluted.
First point; aside from any regulations, who here thinks that performing a vertical climb on instruments in a stabilised helo, though hand flown, is (a) straightforward, though demanding due concentration, for a competent IR pilot, (b) possible, but beyond the capability of most IR pilots, (c) very hazardous even for IR pilots and likely to result in LOC?
First point; aside from any regulations, who here thinks that performing a vertical climb on instruments in a stabilised helo, though hand flown, is (a) straightforward, though demanding due concentration, for a competent IR pilot, (b) possible, but beyond the capability of most IR pilots, (c) very hazardous even for IR pilots and likely to result in LOC?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no regulatory oversight of a private operation like the one in question.
Tightgit
Bob, it isn't a description, it is a statement (of my belief), that the regulator, in this case the CAA, do not provide oversight (in the way they do for a public transport or aerial work organisation). What sort of oversight do the FAA provide to a private helicopter operator in the USA?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Age: 61
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - my tuppence worth.
A towering take-off, in non-military terms, is there to get you out of a confined landing site, with you maintaining visual references until you can climb clear & accelerate to reach Vmini, (if expecting to become IMC). At that point you can couple the aircraft to its Flight Director systems, and climb for an IFR altitude.
This aircraft is extremely capable, but it will not do everything. It has an auto hover function (no Doppler required) that is incredibly accurate. It will hold a hover over where you've decided with a 40kt crosswind! The minimum height to engage that function is 30'. It also has a TU (transition up) function from that auto hover. However these are specialist systems that are demonstrated to pilots training on the machine, but you're not being trained to use them. They're there for the SAR guys.
My new employers Ops manual tells me that I need a minimum of 150m of lit runway to depart. That's there so I can reach 50kts (phase 5 or 7) or 55kts (phase 4) before I can couple the Flight Director. It's not just a guide - the aircraft won't play before that speed and if you're decreasing speed through that range, it will decouple the FD.
This was, in all probability, a preventable accident. Owners & inexperienced pilots believe, that if you have an aircraft that will do everything, that you can do anything. Training & experience help you to say no.
A towering take-off, in non-military terms, is there to get you out of a confined landing site, with you maintaining visual references until you can climb clear & accelerate to reach Vmini, (if expecting to become IMC). At that point you can couple the aircraft to its Flight Director systems, and climb for an IFR altitude.
This aircraft is extremely capable, but it will not do everything. It has an auto hover function (no Doppler required) that is incredibly accurate. It will hold a hover over where you've decided with a 40kt crosswind! The minimum height to engage that function is 30'. It also has a TU (transition up) function from that auto hover. However these are specialist systems that are demonstrated to pilots training on the machine, but you're not being trained to use them. They're there for the SAR guys.
My new employers Ops manual tells me that I need a minimum of 150m of lit runway to depart. That's there so I can reach 50kts (phase 5 or 7) or 55kts (phase 4) before I can couple the Flight Director. It's not just a guide - the aircraft won't play before that speed and if you're decreasing speed through that range, it will decouple the FD.
This was, in all probability, a preventable accident. Owners & inexperienced pilots believe, that if you have an aircraft that will do everything, that you can do anything. Training & experience help you to say no.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 18 Degrees North
Posts: 699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen mention several times of "150m RVR/VIS" being required for this departure.
As far as I know this is from Jar-Ops 3 and is for Performance Class 1 helicopters departing under IFR, which also requires:- Runway edge/FATO lighting, centreline lighting and RVR information, all of which requires an airport.
They were not an an airport, they were at a confined area with "nil" facilities.
As far as I know this is from Jar-Ops 3 and is for Performance Class 1 helicopters departing under IFR, which also requires:- Runway edge/FATO lighting, centreline lighting and RVR information, all of which requires an airport.
They were not an an airport, they were at a confined area with "nil" facilities.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: In Communicado
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
B Bob,
I suspect your earlier referenced to 0/0 takeoffs was in the venerable SFTS (non-visual UH-1 simulator). Been there and got a bunch of T-Shirts!
Now, would you, or have you, done such a take-off for real? In the aircraft in actual 0/0?
I have to suspect not.
That was a simulator training maneuver and nothing more. Good to build up confidence but I strongly suspect you would not get a flight release for it in those actual conditions.
So it is not relevant to your inquiry. Vmini is what is is - a limitation. To go about outside of that limitation takes you to a place where the test pilots either did not venture or did not want to see again. It may not be your intention, but you appear to condone operations outside the RFM limitations.
As to this particular aircraft, unless someone has the exact configuration, we do not know its precise capabilities, many of which would not be relevant to this unfortunate scenario (the availability of SAR functions are not intended for departures from just anywhere).
I suspect your earlier referenced to 0/0 takeoffs was in the venerable SFTS (non-visual UH-1 simulator). Been there and got a bunch of T-Shirts!
Now, would you, or have you, done such a take-off for real? In the aircraft in actual 0/0?
I have to suspect not.
That was a simulator training maneuver and nothing more. Good to build up confidence but I strongly suspect you would not get a flight release for it in those actual conditions.
So it is not relevant to your inquiry. Vmini is what is is - a limitation. To go about outside of that limitation takes you to a place where the test pilots either did not venture or did not want to see again. It may not be your intention, but you appear to condone operations outside the RFM limitations.
As to this particular aircraft, unless someone has the exact configuration, we do not know its precise capabilities, many of which would not be relevant to this unfortunate scenario (the availability of SAR functions are not intended for departures from just anywhere).
