Helijet banned by TC from landing S-76Cs at certain B.C. hospitals
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Helijet banned by TC from landing S-76Cs at certain B.C. hospitals
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cornwall
Age: 75
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not familiar with the S76 C models so not sure if they have a certified Cat A elevated helipad profile but if not then there you have it - you can't operate in a congested area to elevated pads where an engine failure would put the aircraft and it's crew/pax plus those on the ground in danger.
If TC have been sued in the past for inadequate oversight of the regs then you can understand them behaving in this way. Would you want to be the inspector sitting in the dock after you cut the operator a bit of slack because they are doing a worthwhile job?
G.
If TC have been sued in the past for inadequate oversight of the regs then you can understand them behaving in this way. Would you want to be the inspector sitting in the dock after you cut the operator a bit of slack because they are doing a worthwhile job?
G.
The S76 C series do have a "vertical take-off profile" named "CAT A Vertical Operations from Elevated Heliports" in the supplements list of the RFM.
I don't have the informations with me now, but I know it involves some modifications including a door window on pilot's doors and a "detend" on the collective, a precision airspeed indicator and an accurate operational procedure.
Performances are also affected ( penalty on the MTOW )
This "CAT A" garanties either a continued take off after a decision point, or an aborted landing back on the dedicated surface (same principle for landing)
This procedure have been set up in order to cope with an engine failure on elevated heliport take-off and landing over so called "hostile areas" (where an emergency landing cannot be done without life treatening) ....
I don't have the informations with me now, but I know it involves some modifications including a door window on pilot's doors and a "detend" on the collective, a precision airspeed indicator and an accurate operational procedure.
Performances are also affected ( penalty on the MTOW )
This "CAT A" garanties either a continued take off after a decision point, or an aborted landing back on the dedicated surface (same principle for landing)
This procedure have been set up in order to cope with an engine failure on elevated heliport take-off and landing over so called "hostile areas" (where an emergency landing cannot be done without life treatening) ....
I don't have the informations with me now, but I know it involves some modifications including a door window on pilot's doors and a "detend" on the collective, a precision airspeed indicator and an accurate operational procedure.
additional windows on the pilot's side
One had to lower the take off weight on a 332 to do a helipad; about 400 kgs. I shudder to think how much penalty there would be with a 76; most pilots are used to throwing it over the side of elevated helipads.
The only S76C unit that I know who used a low level helipad as part of their route were those that did the Hong Kong/Macau shuttle. IIRC they were limited to four in plush surroundings.
They now use the Agusta 139.
They now use the Agusta 139.
The 76 is a very good aircraft when used in applications it is best suited for....you cannot blame the aircraft for falling short in a few applications while it excels at others.
I think that Shell Management (is that fancy- speak for a hermit crab? Like Branch Manager is a monkey?) is trolling here. Can't beat the S-76B for a smooth VIP ride.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: retirementland
Age: 79
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S76 has regularly featured in accidents, from blades losses in Brazil, Aberdeen and Norwich, deck fatalities, ditchings in Malaysia and Burma and catastrophic flying control failures in Estonia and Nigeria.
Its smoothness has little importance for elevated helipad performance.
Its smoothness has little importance for elevated helipad performance.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: New Zealand
Age: 52
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
139 regularly features in accidents as well. ohh 332/225 feature as well. 206/500/350.... just about every helicopter i can think of regularly feature in accidents, that doesn't specifically make them dreadful aircraft...
I would be surprised if the S76C had the performance required to operate the Cat A elevated heliport profile, except perhaps in cold ambient at markedly reduced AUW. We needed the pilot door extra window and other mods to operate the profile on the C+, it was an RFM requirement. For this sort of work, certainly if it's warmer than about 20 degrees, you need a C++ unless you can accept reduced AUW.
Gullibell, as Fareastdriver says the C model, equipped with this optional has been used in Macau / Honkong city for day and night city shuttles. I've met some of the pilots who had been happy doing it. This appart, for "CAT A elevated helipad" there's always a big cut in MTOW to expect compared to clear area profiles.
There's another profile from elevated helipads described in RFM supplement of C+ and C++ (don't know for the C ) It isn't a pure CAt A but it garanties a fly away after a defined point at 30' over deck surface, as long as a "drop down" below the deck level is available, there's no exposure time and in most cases it could replace the full CAT A. the RFM performance tables integrate the "150' OEI rule" in the MTOW limitation.
Here too the payload penalty is huge and for a given zd, varies with the drop down heigh available.
I think this could be used as a base for elevated heliports operations over "hostile areas" (i.e urban environment)
I would like to add that if we respect the MTOW limitations the take-off and landings are really not a problem at all with C+ and C++ models.
The DECU power limitation logic is simply full of genius (that's another story with A+/ A++)
There's another profile from elevated helipads described in RFM supplement of C+ and C++ (don't know for the C ) It isn't a pure CAt A but it garanties a fly away after a defined point at 30' over deck surface, as long as a "drop down" below the deck level is available, there's no exposure time and in most cases it could replace the full CAT A. the RFM performance tables integrate the "150' OEI rule" in the MTOW limitation.
Here too the payload penalty is huge and for a given zd, varies with the drop down heigh available.
I think this could be used as a base for elevated heliports operations over "hostile areas" (i.e urban environment)
I would like to add that if we respect the MTOW limitations the take-off and landings are really not a problem at all with C+ and C++ models.
The DECU power limitation logic is simply full of genius (that's another story with A+/ A++)